1. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND
DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE. (In some circumstances,
consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).
3. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED
BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.
4. YOU ARE ADVISED
TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION
ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
5. THE COUNCIL
CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY
ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.
Members are
advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken
place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison
Officer. Any responses received prior
to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.
LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO
COMMITTEE –
24 AUGUST 2004
|
1 |
TCP/11733/C
P/00740/04 Land between 80 and 86, Fairfield Gardens,
Sandown Pair of semi-detached houses with integral
garages; formation of vehicular access |
Lake |
Conditional Approval |
|
2 |
TCP/17929/C
P/00907/04 Land adjoining Journeys End, Westlands, Totland Bay Demolition of garage/utility room & shed;
construction of detached house with integral garage; alterations to vehicular
access, (revised scheme) |
Totland |
Conditional Approval |
|
3 |
TCP/23408/C
P/00271/04 Land adjacent Woodland House, 28, Victoria
Avenue, Shanklin Detached house with garage; formation of
vehicular access (Revised Plans) |
Shanklin |
Conditional Approval |
LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 24 AUGUST 2004
|
(a) TCP/4720/R |
Allegation of untidy land at 33 Orchard Road, Shanklin, IOW |
|
|
Dilapidated Condition of Café situated between Tarvic 2 Hotel and St Moritz Hotel, 13-15 Culver Parade, Sandown |
|
|
1 |
TCP/11733/C P/00740/04 Parish/Name: Lake Ward: Lake North Registration Date: 13/04/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. C. Boulter Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant:
K J McGuire Pair of semi-detached houses with integral
garages; formation of vehicular access land between 80 and 86, Fairfield Gardens,
Sandown, PO36 |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The
report is requested by Local Member, Councillor Gardiner, as she is not
prepared to agree to the application to be dealt with under delegation
procedure due to the numerous concerns of local residents.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This
application if dealt with at this meeting will have taken 11 weeks to process,
the delay principally due to the need to report the matter to the Development
Control Committee.
LOCATION
AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Fairfield
Gardens comprises new residential linear development on either side of highway.
Proposed plot is located on the western side of highway located between
existing development to north and south.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
None,
in respect of this site. Various consents issued in respect of recent
residential development along Fairfield Gardens.
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
Application
seeks consent for construction of pair of semi-detached dwellings on this site
which measures approximately 12.5 x 25m deep. Each property will comprise
lounge, kitchen and integral garage at ground floor level with 3 bedrooms
above.
Siting
of buildings will be staggered to reflect existing building line within street
and given fall of land across site dwellings would be set into ground to
achieve stepped appearance in elevational terms.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Site
lies within designated development envelope for Sandown and therefore there is
no objection in principle to residential development of this site. Main Unitary
Development Plan Policies are considered to be as follows:
G1
– Development Envelopes
D1
– Standards of Design
H5
– Infill Developments
TR7 –
Highway Considerations for New Developments
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway
Engineer recommends conditions if approved.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Lake
Parish Council objects to application on grounds of over development.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Three
letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on the
following grounds:
i
Increased on street parking pressures.
ii
Implications for highway safety.
iii
Loss of trees.
iv Increased
overlooking and loss of privacy.
v
Potential loss of light.
CRIME
AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant
Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been
received. However, it is not anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder
implications generated by this application.
EVALUATION
This
proposal represents last potential infill between existing recent developments
approved along both sides of Fairfield Gardens. Established street scene of
modern dwellings comprising mixed detached and semi-detached units and proposed
semi-detached pair will be of similar appearance to those recently constructed
to north.
Scale
of design, size and materials are considered appropriate for area and
appearance within street scene is considered acceptable. Plot sizes of proposed
dwellings are compatible with density of development in locality.
Whilst
conifers along road frontage will be removed this will not compromise street
scene which is suburban in character. In terms of impact on adjoining residents
distance to dwelling at rear is substantial and no loss of amenity will result
from this relationship. Whilst new dwelling projects some 2.5 metres behind
rear wall of pair of houses to north and there will be some marginal loss of
light to immediate neighbour this type of arrangement is repeated frequently in
adjoining developments because of the alignment of access road and is not a
sustainable reason for refusal.
Highway
Engineer considers the proposal satisfactory from highways point of view
providing the appropriate conditions are imposed. Proposal provides its own off
street parking provision and therefore in the light of similar adjoining
approvals, again I do not consider any sustainable reasons to refuse on highway
grounds.
In conclusion,
proposal make best use of development land, proposal is considered appropriate
in terms of design and relationship with neighbours and raises no significant
highway issues and is therefore recommended for approval.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In
coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has
been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1
of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on
the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the
rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant
to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference
with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the
rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional
to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the
public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having
given due regard and attached appropriate weight to the factors explained in
the evaluation section above, I am of the opinion that the construction of a
pair of dwellings on this site is acceptable in terms of principle scale mass
and design complying with relevant UDP policies.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full - A10 |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to
be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Before
the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of the width,
construction and gradient of the vehicular access hereby approved shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed
development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
No
dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out
within the site for a maximum of 4 cars/bicycles to be parked and for
vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear.
The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that
approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers -
R03 |
|
2 |
TCP/17929/C P/00907/04 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland Registration Date: 01/06/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568 Applicant:
Mr J A Blamire Demolition of garage/utility room &
shed; construction of detached house
with integral garage; alterations to
vehicular access, (revised scheme) land adjoining Journeys End, Westlands, Totland
Bay, PO39 |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local
Member, Councillor John Howe, is unable to deal with this application under
delegated procedure as he has an association with the applicants.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is
a minor application, the processing of which has taken 17 weeks to date. The
processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for
determination of planning application due to requests from local Members for
Committee consideration and Case Officer work load.
LOCATION
AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to a building plot, sited north of Journeys End situated on the eastern
side of Westlands approximately 60 metres north of its junction with The
Avenue, Freshwater. Westlands is a part made up roadway, but appears to be
un-adopted. Site is presently occupied by a detached shed, which is painted
render under a profiled sheet roof and a garage/utility room which is attached
to Journeys End. Journeys End, which is sited to the south of the application
site, is a two storey semi detached property with gable features and to the
north is Green Close which is a detached bungalow with a conservatory on the
southern elevation, A 1.8 larch lap fence to divides the two properties.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
TCP/17929/C
– Consent sought to demolish existing garage/utility room and shed;
construction of detached house with integral garage; alterations to vehicular
access – refused March 2004 under delegated procedure. Reasons for refusal was,
proposed dwelling by reason of its size and position, would represent an over
development of the site which in turn create conditions likely to give rise to
overlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment of the amenities of
neighbouring properties and prospective occupants as well as being out of
character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area
and proposal providing insufficient parking provision.
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
Following
a previous refusal on 25 March 2004 a revised application has been received which
has now reduced the width by 500 mm which in turn has provided a distance of
900mm from the boundary on the southern side of the site and notwithstanding
previous refusal Highways are no longer objecting to this proposal. Consent is
sought for a detached two storey modern design property under a hipped roof
with an integral garage. Proposal will comprise of a bedroom and en suite and
two further bedrooms, a bathroom, study and on the lower floor diner/kitchen,
lounge, utility as well as the garage. Proposal incorporates a two storey gable
feature which is of similar design to that of 1 and 2 Westlands.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
The
site is located within development boundary of the Unitary Development Plan.
Relevant
policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:
S1 New
development will be concentrated within existing area.
S6 All development will be expected to be of
a high standard of design
S7 There is a need to provide the
development of at least 8,000 housing units over the planned period. While a
large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing
allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough
new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a
range of choice and affordability.
G1 Development envelopes for towns and
villages
G4 General
locational criteria for development
D1 Standards
of Design
D2 Standards for Development within the site
H5 Infill
Development
TR7 Highway
considerations for new developments
TR16 Parking Policies and Guidelines
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highways
Engineer has advised that Westlands is as un-adopted un-surfaced road which is
in a poor state of repair and although they would resist any large scale
development one further dwelling would have negligible effect upon the road
surface. They advise that parking provision falls within the Unitary
Development Policy Parking Guidelines and therefore raise no objection as two
additional vehicles can be parked in front of garage (or one if parking in lay
by style).
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Totland
Parish Council believes that the small reduction in the size of the proposed
property does not alter the reasons given for the previous refusal of the
planning permission. They oppose this proposal as they consider it over
development and likely to cause overlooking.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Three
letters were received objecting to the application on the grounds that the
proposal is:
·
over development
·
will create overlook and lack of privacy
·
an established badger run would be blocked or
destroyed
·
as it is a private road with limited access another
dwelling would make it almost impossible to park.
CRIME
& DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No
comments have been received however, no crime and disorder implications are
anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining
factors in considering this application are whether development of the site for
residential purposes is acceptable in principal and whether the site is of
adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surrounding area
without loss of amenity to neighbouring property and highway considerations.
Site is
located within the development boundary and the proposal is therefore
considered acceptable in principal. I am satisfied that the size of the site is
of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surrounding
without detracting from the amenities of the area or of neighbouring
properties. As Westlands exhibits a sufficient mixture of properties situated
within plots of varying sizes I am of the opinion that the proposal would not
be out of keeping with the general pattern of the development in the area.
With
regard to impact on neighbouring privacy, the first floor accommodation will
have some impact on neighbour amenity but due to the distance involved, and
taking into account the property to the south already has an opening first
floor window, I am of the opinion that this is not sufficiently serious to
sustain a refusal.
Rear
elevation displays French doors to bedroom and after discussions with the
applicant it is confirmed that guard railings are intended to be introduced.
Concerning
parking issues, consultations with the Highways Department have resulted in a
recommendation for approval as two additional vehicles could be parked in front
of the garage, although they would protrude out into the road. Alternatively,
one vehicle could park lay-by style in front of the garage. Site lies within
Zone 3 of the Parking Guidelines and I am therefore of the view that approval of
this development, even if it had no parking, would accord with zonal parking
policy of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
Issues
relating to the established badger run at the rear of the site have been
investigated and after liaising with Ecology Officer he advises that badger
runs are not protected and that there is a good distance from the proposed
dwelling in relation to the rear of the site.
I am
therefore of the opinion that proposal has overcome the reasons for refusal of
the previous application.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In
coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has
been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1
of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on
the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the
rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant
to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference
with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the
rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan
and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred
to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal to develop this site with a
detached house would make efficient use of land without having excessive or
unacceptable impact on the environment or neighouring property, and would not
detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the
above proposal is considered to satisfy policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full - A10 |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to
be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No
development shall take place until details have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design,
materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed
before the building hereby permitted is occupied. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the
amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order,
with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those
expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and
amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted
Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site
frontage, nor any hedge planted to make the boundary alongside any such
boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1
metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays
shall be kept free of obstruction. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations for new developments) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
3 |
TCP/23408/C P/00271/04 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South Registration Date: 16/02/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant:
Mr & Mrs G Davis Detached house with garage; formation of
vehicular access (Revised Plans) land adjacent Woodland House, 28, Victoria
Avenue, Shanklin, PO37 |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local
Member was not prepared for matter to be dealt with under delegated procedure
as application had proved particularly contentious and had attracted a number
of planning based representations. Applicant has subsequently exercised right
of appeal in respect of non-determination and application is now before Members
to allow opportunity to consider case and indicate their likely decision.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
The
application has taken 27 weeks if it is determined at this Committee.
LOCATION
& SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to irregularly shaped plot of land which forms part of larger wooded
area situated on southern side of Victoria Avenue to rear of residential
properties fronting both Victoria Avenue and Highfield Road.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
None.
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
Application
seeks full detailed consent for construction of dwelling with vehicular access
from Victoria Avenue together with extension of culvert.
Due to
fall across site detailed plans show split level 2/3 storey dwelling comprising
garage, bedroom and laundry room at ground floor, lounge dining area and
kitchen above with three bedrooms on top floor. Building will be finished in
red bricks with some render and timber features underneath tiled roof.
Access
to site will be gained via construction of internal access way and access onto
Victoria Avenue.
In
terms of the culvert works it is proposed to carry out repairs and concrete
into position a new pre-cast chamber ring and construct new retaining wall
which will extend from top of ring along stream for a distance of 5 metres. In
terms of drainage it is intended to lay a land drain along access road on off
stream side, this drain picking up incoming land drains around site avoiding
multiple drain accesses to stream.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
S1 –
New development to be concentrates within existing urban areas
G1 –
Development envelopes
G4 –
General locational criteria
D1 –
Standards of design
D2 –
Standards for development within the site
H5 –
Infill development
C12 –
Development affecting trees and woodland
C8 –
Nature conservation as a material consideration
G6 –
Areas liable to flooding
TR7 –
Highway considerations for new development
TR16 –
Parking policies and guidelines.
PPG14 – Development on unstable
land.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Following
submission of revised plans Highway Engineer has withdrawn previous objections
and recommends conditions should consent be granted.
Environment
Agency originally lodged a holding objection but in light of additional
information received regarding proposed culvert has no objection and suggests
new planting is restricted to boundary adjacent access road.
National
Air Traffic Services has no safeguarding objections.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Shanklin
Town Council raised no comments in respect of this application.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Eight
individual letters have been received from local residents objecting to
proposed development on following grounds:
·
Setting a precedent for possible future development
on adjoining land
·
Loss of trees
·
Potential instability of land
·
Proposed design of house out of character with
locality
·
Adverse impacts on wildlife
·
Loss of privacy and increased overlooking
·
Increased noise particularly from use of new access
way
·
Loss of woodland
·
Potential for increased flooding.
Petition
also received with 13 signatories raising similar objections to those
summarised above.
Local
Town Councillor has expressed interest in this application.
Letters
have also been received from the residents of Woodlands House and copy
correspondence received from the Victoria Avenue, Highfield Road and Westhill
Manor residents association. The latter group objecting on grounds identified
in earlier section of this report.
CRIME
& DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
None at
time of writing report, the relevant officer has been given the opportunity to
comment.
EVALUATION
Main
planning considerations are firstly development plan policy, secondly how
development may affect character and appearance of area and neighbouring
properties in particular, highway, nature conservation, potential flooding and
land stability considerations.
Application
site lies within development envelope and therefore there is no objection in
principle to redevelopment of this site subject to more detailed issues.
In
terms of amenity impacts dwelling proposed at rear of properties fronting
Victoria Avenue, particularly flats in Woodlands House have windows and
balconies looking northwards towards site. Proposed dwelling would have windows
and glass enclosed balcony facing south at a minimum distance of 21 metres from
flats. These windows would serve garage at ground floor level and will be
behind glass enclosed balconies serving kitchen and dining area at first floor
and bedroom and bathroom on second floor. Access road is at its nearest some 12
metres from side wall of Woodlands House flats and it is considered that
distances involved are sufficient to maintain reasonable levels of privacy to
both properties and that relationship with neighbours is acceptable and
compliant with policies.
Building
is of unusual design with red brick to lower floor rendered panels and
significant areas of glass to upper two floors. Site reads on its own in an
area of woodland and design is considered acceptable given unique
characteristics of this site.
With
regards to impact on trees Council’s Tree Officer has not identified any issues
with removal of trees and removals undertaken so far have not breached TPO
regulations. Furthermore there are no anticipated adverse effects on nearby
trees and therefore proposal is considered compliant with Policy C12.
Council’s
Ecology Officer has identified important wildlife habitats in area and suggests
a woodland management plan may be appropriate. However the area which would
benefit from such management lies outside the application site and the area
identified in the application as within the applicant’s control. Therefore such
a plan would not be justifiable and he suggests any new planting should be of a
native species. No direct objection has been raised on nature conservation
grounds and therefore proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy
C8.
The
Council's Land Drainage Technical Engineer has inspected the site and assessed
the additional culverting works and following discussions between the applicant
and the Environment Agency and submission of revised plans Agency has removed
its original holding objection and likewise with highway issues revised plans
illustrating improved access have been received and have allowed Council’s
Highway Engineer to withdraw his original objections.
Regarding
ground stability, PPG14 confirms that final responsibility for safe development
lies with developer but Local Planning Authority should assure itself as far as
possible that development could take place without affecting nearby land and
buildings or site itself. In this case question has been raised regarding
potential affect on stability of dwellings on higher ground to north if
development goes ahead. Applicant has provided letter from Civil Engineer
indicating that providing appropriate foundations are used no adverse loading
regime will be imposed on adjoining property. Foundation design is controlled
by Building Regulations and I am therefore satisfied that Local Authority’s
responsibilities under PPG14 have been addressed and that the proposal is
compliant with Policy G7.
Regarding
precedent, application must be determined on its own merits within context of
policies of Unitary Development Plan. Any future applications in area will be
determined on the same principle and subject to same policy considerations.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In
coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has
been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1
of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on
the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties
have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the
rights of these people this has to be balanced with the right of the applicant
to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference
with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the
rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred
to in this report I am satisfied the proposal represents an acceptable form of
development with technical objections being overcome by negotiation and
submission of revised plans. I am satisfied that the proposal will not detract
from character of locality or amenities of neighbouring properties and
accordingly the application is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION - If
the Development Control Committee were in a
position
to determine the application, the
recommendation
would be APPROVAL subject to
the
following conditions:
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full - A10 |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes, to
be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Details of soft landscaping -
M11 |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with
or without modification), no gates shall be erected without the prior written
consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
Before
the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the width,
construction and gradient of the access hereby approved shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The
gradient of the access shall be a maximum of 1:20 over the first 5 metres
measured from the edge of carriageway, with the balance not to exceed 1:8 in
accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The
existing watercourse running across the north western part of the site shall
be culverted in accordance with the details attached to and forming part of
this decision notice, prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby
approved. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 24 AUGUST 2004
|
(a) TCP/4720/R |
Allegation of untidy land at 33 Orchard Road, Shanklin, IOW |
|
|
Officer: Mr S Cornwell |
Tel: 01983 823592 |
|
Summary
To consider whether the condition of land at the
above address justifies the service of a Notice under Section 215 of the Town
and Country Planning Act requiring clearance of weeds, brambles and trees from
the land, repairs to garden wall and replacement of broken windows because of
their adverse effect on the amenities of the area.
Members may recall this site which has been the
subject of previous attention by Officers and Members and on that basis it
would be appropriate to briefly reappraise the history relating to this site.
In August 2001 a complaint was received alleging
that land at the above address was overgrown with weeds, brambles and trees. An
enforcement officer visited the site and noted that the property is a detached
bungalow situated in a quiet residential road. The surrounding properties have
been well maintained and cared for. The garden area, in particular the front
garden, was completely overgrown and access to the front door of the property
(which was vacant) was difficult and there was also evidence to suggest that
the vegetation had caught fire at some stage.
At the 27 November 2001 Development Control
Committee Meeting, Members considered a report and it was resolved to serve a
notice under Section 215 requiring the condition of the garden area to be
remedied within two months.
A Notice was served in April 2002 and an appeal was
lodged in the Magistrates Court in June 2002. At that time, it was indicated
that the matter could be resolved and on that basis the Magistrates deferred
the case for three weeks. The matter returned back to Court on 28 June when it
was reported that no resolution had been made but it was indicated that work
could be done within six weeks and on that basis the Magistrates set a date for
a formal Hearing of 15 August 2002.
The Appeal against the Notice was withdrawn by
letter on 10 July 2002 at which time it was indicated that the necessary works
would be carried out within a matters of weeks. Some work was undertaken to the
condition of the garden in the autumn of 2002 and further works in the spring
of 2003. In June 2003 a further assessment of the site was undertaken by
officers. Whilst it was not felt that the full requirements of the Notice had
been complied with it was not considered on balance that the Local Planning
Authority could move forward to a prosecution with a degree of certainty that
this would be successful. On that basis no further action was proposed at that
time.
Members may also recall visiting this site at the
request of a Member of the Development Control Committee on Friday 9 January
2004 as part of the Development Control Committee Site Inspections Meeting.
Based on that visit, Officers were not instructed to initiate further action
although there was a request to monitor the site.
On 5 August 2004 a further visit was undertaken at
which time it was noted that the vegetation has continued to grow without being
cut back in anyway. Furthermore, sections of the front garden wall, which also
acts as a retaining wall, have fallen away and it was also noted that two of
the windows in the front of the property had been broken.
Section 215 of the 1990 Act empowers the Local
Planning Authority to serve a Notice on the owner and occupier of land if it
appears to the Authority that the amenities of an area are “adversely affected
by the condition of land in their area.”
Financial Implications
Whilst there are no financial implications
regarding the action of serving the notice under Section 215, based on
experience gained from the last action, the Council may consider it more
appropriate to initiate direct action should there be a failure to comply with
the requirements of the notice rather than expend resources in the Magistrates
Court. The sum involved would not be significant. Members should note that this
decision will not preclude dealing with the Court, should the recipient
exercise his right to appeal.
Options
1.
To take no action regarding the overgrown nature of
the garden, the failure of the garden wall and the broken windows.
2.
To serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town
& Country Planning Act 1990, requiring:
a.
The removal of the weeds, brambles and self seeded
trees.
b.
The repair of the front garden retaining wall
c.
The repair of the broken windows
Time period for
compliance two months after the Notice takes effect.
Conclusion
The previous action taken by the Local Planning
Authority with regard to the condition of this property was drawn out through
no fault of the Local Planning Authority and only resulted in partial
compliance. Whilst the measures undertaken were not all that the Authority had
wished to see, it was considered that the remaining condition of the garden was
not so poor that the Authority could proceed with confidence towards further
action in the Courts.
No further work has been undertaken on the garden
area and indeed the rest of the property has deteriorated with the partial
collapse of the front garden wall and the broken windows. Under these
circumstances I consider that further action based on Section 215 would be
appropriate.
Based on previous experience I should advise
Members that it would not be my intention to initiate a prosecution in the
event that the notice is not complied with, but to expend any resources on
direct action with a subsequent charge then imposed on the property. Members
should note however, that the right of appeal against the notice is through the
Magistrates Court.
Human Rights
In coming to this conclusion, consideration has
been given to the rights as set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article
1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the
European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is accepted that the
recommendation to take action under Section 215 of the Town & Country
Planning Act 1990, may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the landowner,
this has to be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others. Insofar as
there is an interference with the rights of the landowner, the proposed action
is considered necessary and proportionate for the protection of rights and
freedoms of the wider community.
Recommendation
Option 2
To serve a Notice
under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring:
a) The removal of
the weeds, brambles and self seeded trees.
b) The repair of
the front garden retaining wall.
c) The repair of
the broken windows.
Time period for
compliance, 2 months after the Notice takes effect.
OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 24 AUGUST 2004
|
(b) E/2714/J |
Dilapidated Condition of Café situated between Tarvic 2 Hotel and St Moritz Hotel, 13-15 Culver Parade, Sandown |
|
|
Officer: Mr L Harper |
Tel: 01983 823569 |
|
Summary
To consider the service of a Notice under
Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the Owner of
the café to remedy the condition of the building by repainting the external
wooden surfaces and to clear the forecourt.
Background
In March 2004 a report was received by the
Enforcement Section concerning the dilapidated condition of the café owned by
Tarvic 2 Hotel 13–15 Culver Parade, Sandown. The Area Enforcement Officer
visited the site and photographed the forecourt and front of the café. The café
has been closed for a number of years and the building has not been maintained.
The property owner was informed by letter that the condition of the front
elevation of the café and the forecourt adversely impacted on the amenity of
the area and to avoid the service of a Section 215 Notice he should repaint the
front elevation and tidy up the forecourt.
The owner responded by telephone and a further
letter was forwarded to him detailing the steps required for remedying the
condition of the café and forecourt within a timeframe of twenty-eight days.
The owner was further informed that failure to remedy the condition of the café
and forecourt within the requested timeframe would result in a report to the
Development Control Committee where Members would be asked to authorise the
service of a formal notice to achieve the desired outcome.
The owner informed the Enforcement Officer
verbally that there were a number of planning consents to redevelop the main
hotel Tarvic 2 Hotel and that he will undertake upgrading the frontage of the
café at the same time as the works on the main building. The owner has however
failed to provide a timeframe for implementing the planning consents. A further
site visit was undertaken and it was observed that the condition remained
unchanged. The owner was informed that the matter would be reported to
the Development Control Committee without further communication. The owner
responded disputing the steps required to undertake the remedial works and he
was informed that the matter would be reported to the Development Control
Committee.
Financial Implications
There are no financial implications unless the
Local Planning Authority proposes to remedy the condition of the property by
undertaking direct action.
Options
a)
Prior to repainting, clean and prepare all
external timber services inclusive of walls, windows frames,
entrance door and signage on the front elevation, removing in the process any
flaking paint and replacing any rotten timbers to ensure that all external
wooden surfaces are in an appropriate condition for repainting.
b)
Repaint all external wooden surfaces. Wall in
the finished colour of magnolia external paint. Window frames, doors and
signage in a neutral external primer, undercoat and finished colour to be white
gloss.
Time period for
compliance – 28 days
Conclusion
The café is located on Culver Way, on the sea
front in tourist area of Sandown. The dilapidated condition and appearance of
the café and the untidy forecourt has an adverse impact on the amenity and
detracts from the general appearance of the immediate area. The steps
necessary to ameliorate the adverse condition and appearance of the café and
forecourt conforms to the requirements of Section 215 of the Town and Country
Planning Act that empowers the Local Planning Authority to take the necessary
steps to tidy lands that adversely affects the condition of land within the
general area.
The owner has indicated that the building will
be painted within the next few weeks. Members will be updated on the latest
position at the meeting.
Human Rights
In coming to this conclusion, consideration has
been given to the rights and set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and
Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Processions) of
the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is accepted that the
recommendation to take action under Section 215 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the landowner,
this has to be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others. Insofar as
there is an interference with the rights of the landowner the proposed action
is considered necessary and proportionate for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of the wider community.
Recommendation
Option 1
(a). Prior to
repainting, clean and prepare all external timber services inclusive of
walls, windows frames, entrance door and signage on the front elevation,
removing in the process any flaking paint and replacing any rotten timbers to
ensure that all external wooden surfaces are in an appropriate condition for
repainting.
(b). repaint all
external wooden surfaces. Wall in the finished colour of magnolia external
paint. Window frames, doors and signage in a neutral external primer, undercoat
and finished colour to be white gloss.
Time period for
compliance – 28 days
ANDREW ASHCROFT
Head of Planning Services