PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2003

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

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.

Background Papers

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 –

25 NOVEMBER 2003

1.	TCP/03886/S P/01295/03 land adjacent, forming part of Binstead Auto Centre, Binstead Road, Ryde, PO33	Ryde	Refusal
2.	TCP/08015/B P/01733/03 7 Culver Way, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368QG	Sandown	Conditional Approval
3.	TCP/08587/E P/01628/03 land adjacent and rear of Easton Mead & Llyswen, Guyers Road, Freshwater, PO40	Freshwater	Refusal
4.	TCP/18349/S P/01370/03 Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318DQ	Cowes	Conditional Approval
5.	TCP/25761 P/01391/03 24 Place Side, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317BB	Cowes	Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 25 NOVEMBER 2003

(a) TCP/2817N 37 Pyle Street Newport

(b) TCPE/8718A land rear of 15 Dudley Road Ventnor

(c) TCP/9338V Columbine Works, Castle Street East Cowes

(d) TCP(E)12917N IOW Rugby Football Club, Footways Wootton

(e) TCP/13348A rear of Seafields, Blackgang Road Chale

1.

TCP/03886/S P/01295/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Binstead Registration Date: 14/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Binstead Garage Ltd Demolition of garage workshops & stores; construction of 9 houses (comprising a terrace of 4, a terrace of 3 and a pair of semi-detached) parking and access off Binstead Hill, (revised scheme) land adjacent, forming part of Binstead Auto Centre, Binstead Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application was submitted in June 2003 and has been delayed due to volumes of work and negotiations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Irregularly shaped site of approximately 0.22 hectares and comprising mostly a tarmac drive and forecourt with old and partially dilapidated garage buildings situated towards the north west extent. The boundaries are presently densely grown in with undergrowth and some trees. The existing buildings were formerly used for motor repairs and servicing. The site is lower lying than most of the surrounding properties. The area is mostly characterised by long established residential development, especially fronting Binstead Hill, whilst to the north west, more recent residential development fronting Forge Close. To the north east in Pintiles, a large, detached, two storey property set in extensive grounds, the area to the north is very much lower density.

The area is well below the level of Binstead Hill and the two/three storey properties fronting Binstead Hill have commanding views over the site. The site has been disused for some years, the buildings are grown in and in a state of decay. The access serving the site also serves the existing motor sales garage, situated to the east of the site and Pintiles.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Two applications earlier this year relative to the adjoining site, known as Pintiles, were both refused. These sought outline planning permission for two pairs of semi-detached houses, two bungalows and five detached houses and, secondly, for just residential development. Both applications were refused on grounds of inadequate access, increased use of an inadequate access and lack of provision for affordable housing.

In August 2002 planning application for the erection of nine houses in two terraces with parking and access off Binstead Hill was also refused. Grounds being poor design and lack of range of dwelling types, loss of existing vegetation and an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to the occupiers. The subsequent appeal was dismissed by letter dated 22 May 2003, the main issues for determination being the impact on the character and appearance of the area and, secondly, on the living conditions of the potential occupiers of the proposed houses.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within designated development envelope but without specific notation. The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or a Conservation Area, nor is it under any nature conservation notation.

UDP Policies D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development within the Site) and D3 (Landscaping) apply directly and Policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) also applies.

From a Highways point of view, Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) applies directly.

CONSULTEES RESPONSES

Highway Engineer's comments to follow.

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions if approved in order to carry out a site investigation report and a consequent remediation scheme to remove any contaminants found. Furthermore that no construction shall commence until the necessary remediation measures have been carried out fully.

Southern Water advise that the connection to the public sewer will require their formal approval; that there are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity and that no surface water shall be discharged into the public foul sewer as this could cause flooding. Furthermore their records show a number of sewerage incidents in the area but which were all attributable to blockages, mainly on private drainage and that there was not a lack of capacity in the area.

Environment Agency confirm their previous comments, raising no objection but recommending conditions requiring appropriate investigation into contamination of the site and that foul drainage should be via a mains foul sewer.

Six letters of objection from local and neighbouring property owners on grounds of;

Over development - suggesting too many dwellings on such a small site

Increased traffic via an inadequate access

Poor design - monotonous and uninteresting design of a different character from that prevalent in the area.

Cramped form of development both within development itself and cramped to the boundaries with the properties backing on from Old Forge Close

Loss of trees

Inadequate drainage - possibility of overloading the stream running along the north western boundary and consequent erosion of the banks and stream bed

Inadequate parking - exacerbated by numbers of dwellings and bedrooms within them plus visitors

Inaccurate plan

Overlooking and loss of privacy

Loss of habitats and creation of a precedent for further similar proposals

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received but it is not anticipated that there will be any implications.

EVALUATION

It will be seen from the relevant history section above that the previous application was refused planning permission on grounds of development of a repetitious and uninteresting form; adverse effect on the amenities of the area through loss of existing vegetation and unacceptable level of noise disturbance from the adjoining land use, i.e. the garage. The subsequent appeal was determined in the Council's favour in May 2003 and, in his determination, the Inspector felt that the main determining issues were firstly the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and, secondly, on the living conditions of the potential occupiers of the proposed houses.

The Inspector concluded that the layout was poor and in conclusion he felt that the development would be cramped and would not be sympathetic to the surrounding residential area. In addition, he felt that despite the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer's report that only one tree, in the south western corner of the site was worth retaining, other trees which would be removed would also detract from the character of the area. On the second issue he felt that the unduly narrow space between the two terraces previously proposed were unacceptable and would affect the living conditions of the potential occupiers adversely to an unacceptable degree.

This application is a resubmission, again for nine units but the layout of the site has been revised to a terrace of four, a terrace of three and a pair of semi-detached houses arranged around a courtyard thus increasing the face to face distance between dwellings and maintaining a higher degree of privacy. Trees would still be lost. The sycamore situated in the south western corner of the site is shown to be retained but others, along the boundary, will inevitably be lost due to the comparatively close proximity of the dwellings.

As with the previous proposal, it is pointed out that the site is not allocated for any specific purpose in the UDP but it does lie within the development envelope for Ryde in an area which is essentially residentially used and the proposal constitutes a redevelopment of a brownfield site. There is therefore no objection in principle to residential redevelopment subject to a satisfactory layout and form and subject to the successful harmonisation with the development and adjoining premises.

A gross site area, including the access tract, is 0.22 hectares which gives a density of approximately 40 dwellings per hectare. This represents a comparatively dense development but also meets with the current advice regarding the best use of urban land in providing nine dwelling units. Despite the previous refusal, all the dwelling units would be identical providing living room, kitchen/dining room on ground floor; a bathroom, study and two bedrooms on first floor and, in the roof space, the master bedroom with an en-suite, both lit by a single dormer window in each of the front and rear planes of the roof. The Inspector did not dismiss the appeal on lack of a variety of dwelling type.

Determination therefore turns on whether or not the Inspector's criticisms of the proposal have been addressed and the scheme revised adequately.

The new layout will also change their relationship such that the layout provides a more interesting and attractive environment for the occupiers and subsequently the car parking has been relocated and rearranged which now allows a more accessible and practical solution.

The development of this site with anything more than two or three dwellings will inevitably result in the loss of trees and in order to use the land economically to meet with the best use of urban land, the majority of trees on the site will be lost. The Inspector, whilst acknowledging the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer's opinion that only one tree on the site is worth retaining, felt that the remaining trees on the site did contribute to the amenity of the area. On its own, I do not consider the loss of trees to be sufficient reason to withhold permission.

Following examination of the plans, it was apparent that the boundaries were inaccurately plotted and further plans received show the layout has been revised again. The terrace of three properties are parallel to the north east boundary, at a distance of approximately 4 m; the pair of semis parallel to the north west boundary, again at a distance of about 4 m and the staggered terrace of four varying between 5 m to 8 m from the western boundary. The terraces shown to be about 8 m apart at the closest point.

The revised layout does improve on the criticism of the Inspector but not to the extent which makes it acceptable as the face to face distances are not considered great enough to preserve sufficient levels of privacy. In addition, the pair of semi detached properties are now parallel to the north west boundary (no longer oblique) and only 4 m away from the boundary. This would be oppressive to the properties in The Old Forge Close and symptomatic of over development of the site. Accordingly I do not consider the Inspector's criticisms have been sufficiently overcome and the development remains as a cramped arrangement which would not be sympathetic to the surrounding residential area.

Criticisms have also been levelled at the development by third parties including increased traffic and inadequate access. Bearing in mind the previous use of the site as a motor repair workshop, the Highway Engineer considers that development would generate similar levels of traffic entering and leaving the site but points out that the visibility in a westerly direction is less than adequate.

Southern Water have raised no objection to the development in terms of drainage and although objections have been raised on the grounds that storm water drainage will further erode and perhaps flood the stream, attenuation measures can be taken to alleviate any such increase in a run off.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse 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 the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The proposals would represent an over-development of this site at an excessive density, which in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment of prospective occupants of this development as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of the development in the surrounding area and is contrary to Policy S6 (To Be of A High Standard of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2.

TCP/08015/B P/01733/03 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown North Registration Date: 09/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Mr Staines Retention of dormer window on east elevation; raised decking, summerhouse and proposed flag pole 7 Culver Way, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368QG

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Team Leader as this is a finely balanced case that requires Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken eleven weeks to date, this being the earliest Committee date following Team Leader’s visit to site and request.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a detached bungalow which has good sized front and rear gardens in a residential area of fairly low density. The natural ground level falls from north east to south west. There is a mixture of bungalows and two storey houses in the wider locality with bungalows to the rear, two storey house to the south and bungalow to the north.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/8015 – Erection of bungalow and formation of means of vehicular access. Conditional approval May 1961.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for retention of dormer window on east elevation; raised decking, summerhouse and provision of a flag pole.

The dormer window projects 3.9 metres from just below ridge level and is 6 metres in width with two window openings in the rear (east) elevation and one window opening in the side (southern) elevation, finished in plain tile materials. It is understood that the dormer window was constructed some two years ago.

Decking has been erected in the rear garden approximately 0.9m off ground level. The floor area of the decking extends 6.9 metres by 3.6 metres with steps to ground level. A small summerhouse that was previously sited at ground level has been placed on top of the decking in the north east corner. Two fencing panels have been attached to the eastern side of the decking.

In addition, it is proposed to erect a flag pole on the decking to display the Union Jack.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

This site is shown to be outside the development envelope boundary for Sandown with the AONB boundary running through the site. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

D1 – Standards of Design

H7 – Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer makes no comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Sandown Town Council raise no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four individual letters of objection have been received that can be summarised as follows:

a Property no longer conforms to original planning permission in open-plan area; high hedges and fencing panels corrupt open-plan aspect.

b Restriction to privacy intimidating and intrusive. Loss of privacy, amenity.

• Precedence, suggest obscure glazing to dormer would benefit neighbouring privacy.

• Impact on AONB, out of keeping.

• Devaluation of property.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Application has been generated as a result of enforcement investigations.

The main consideration in respect of this application is whether the development adversely impacts on the designated AONB, whether the dormer is of appropriate scale, mass and design to the original property, whether it adversely impacts on the character of the area and whether the decking and summerhouse adversely impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity.

Neighbouring concern relating to obscure glazing of the windows and dormers and the dormer being out of keeping with neighbouring property has been considered. It would not be reasonable to impose planning conditions to obscure glaze the windows as any impact is considered minimal. The fact that adjacent bungalows do not have dormer extensions is not sufficient justification to withhold consent.

The dormer window, although large, is not out of keeping in terms of scale and design to the original bungalow. It is not visually prominent in the wider locality or adversely impacting on the street scene. The insertion of the three window openings does introduce bedroom accommodation and an element of overlooking into neighbouring gardens but due to the distance between these, I am firmly of the view that a refusal would not be sustained.

Turning to the decking, the main issue is whether having this raised decking is adversely impacting on neighbouring privacy and amenity. When stood on the decking, there are far reaching views to the sea and there is some limited overlooking into neighbouring gardens. The high conifer screen to the north and to some degree a further tree screen partly on the eastern boundary and the landscaping of the garden to the south together with some internal fencing does offer some protection of this overlooking. There are also two panels of fencing on the eastern side of the decking that afford some protection.

As the decking is already in place, its impact can be fully assessed. It is a finely balanced decision to assess whether the impact of this overlooking is detrimental to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring property sufficient to justify withholding consent.

It is accepted that there is some limited impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity; however, given the distance between gardens and the screening that exists and the oblique views and distances involved when looking in a south-easterly direction, it is considered the impact does not present an immediate intrusion and invasion of privacy. On this basis the decking is not thought to be unreasonable as its impact is not considered sufficiently serious to warrant refusal particularly given the use of screening panels.

With regard the summerhouse, it is elevated above ground level on top of the decking to enable the applicants to benefit from the long range sea view. Although this elevated position is somewhat unusual, it is not considered from a design point of view that it is adversely impacts on the character of the area or in particular wider landscape. Furthermore, the application site has the benefit of a dense conifer hedge screen along the northern boundary which significantly reduces the structure's potential impact. The flag pole has been included as part of this overall development but would benefit from 'deemed consent' under the Advertisement Regulations. The flag pole is therefore considered acceptable.

In addition to the matters referred to above, during the processing of the application attention has been drawn to two fence panels on the northern boundary alleging they are over the permitted development height of two metres. These have been measured to be two metres high at the highest point of land and therefore would fall within the limitations set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. It has also been brought to the Council's attention that fencing has been erected along the frontage of the site in breach of an open-plan condition imposed on the original planning permission. The fencing is low level, ranch style stained green and has been assessed in terms of its impact on the character and amenity value of the area. Properties on the eastern side of Culver Way have a mix of low boundary treatments and the fencing is considered not to detract from the visual amenity of the area.

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 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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

In summary, the dormer window and flag pole are acceptable in accordance with policy. The summerhouse and decking, because of their elevated position, do present an impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity; the impact on neighbours and level of objection has been carefully considered. The recommendation is finely balanced but on the basis that the intrusion into the immediate privacy is limited and taking into account PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control, it is considered that there is marginal weight in favour of this development.

With regard the matter of fencing panels between the application site and neighbouring property, this has been measured from the highest point of land where the fence is sited and found to be within the two metre limits set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995; there is no breach of planning control.

The fencing and gates erected at the front of the site are in breach of a planning condition imposed on the original consent. The fencing however presents no adverse impact on the amenity and character of the area. It would not be expedient to pursue a retrospective application or action in respect of this and I make my second recommendation accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The fencing panels on the eastern side of the decking hereby approved shall be retained and maintained hereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The existing conifer screen on the northern boundary shall be maintained and retained at a minimum height of three metres. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION

(a) To take no further action in respect of the two fencing panels on the northern boundary which fall within the limitations of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

(b) To accept that the fence and gates erected in breach of the open-plan condition are acceptable in accordance with policy and it would not be expedient to pursue further retrospective application or action in this regard.

3.

TCP/08587/E P/01628/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton Registration Date: 19/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Mr & Mrs C Parker Demolition of 2 garages; construction of 2 chalet bungalows; alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) land adjacent and rear of Easton Mead & Llyswen, Guyers Road, Freshwater, PO40

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a minor submission seeking to overcome reasons for refusal of previous application for similar development proposal and raises a number of issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken fourteen weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to negotiations regarding access and Case Officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land located to rear of, and previously forming part of garden area to properties fronting Guyers Road. Site has gradual fall in a northerly direction and boundaries are defined by well established natural growth. In addition, site contains number of small trees and bushes, although none are considered to be of any particular merit. Site is surrounded on all sides by gardens to adjacent properties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/08587D/P00997/03 - Planning permission for demolition of two garages; construction of two chalet bungalows (one with attached garage, one with detached car port) and alterations to vehicular access was refused in June 2003. Permission was refused on grounds that development of site as proposed would be likely to result in a cramped and poor arrangement of dwellings likely to give rise to overlooking and loss of outlook to detriment of amenities of neighbouring properties, as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area. In addition, reasons for refusal related to unacceptable impact arising from formation and use of the access and that the access was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate visibility.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for demolition of two single detached garages and erection of two detached chalet bungalows with alterations to vehicular access.

Submitted plans show two L-shaped properties, each providing similar accommodation comprising lounge, dining room, kitchen, utility room, study and bedroom with en-suite facility at ground floor level with two bedrooms, both with en-suite toilet, at first floor level. Properties are shown to be arranged either side of and looking onto shared parking and turning area. Site would be served by driveway off Guyers Road running between existing dwellings. Formation of access road would necessitate demolition of two garages which presently serve the existing properties fronting Guyers Road. Parking for one of these properties would be provided in the form of a lay by along the access drive.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 - Infill Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer initially recommended refusal to application on grounds of inadequate visibility. However, following negotiations with applicant's agent and revisions to the access arrangements, Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council object to application on grounds of overdevelopment, involving backland development and that access would be onto a dangerous bend.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters received from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Out of keeping with surrounding properties

Over development

Pressure on on-street parking facilities in area - obstruction to emergency vehicles

Site close to dangerous bend - development would create hazard for road users and pedestrians

Destruction of several trees

No difference to application refused earlier this year

Loss of trees would destroy habitat of birds and permit overlooking

Loss of privacy

One letter received from local resident raising no objection to proposal.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering the current submission are whether proposal represents acceptable form of development and, in particular, whether the revised scheme overcomes the reasons for refusal of the previous application.

The proposal involves the construction of two detached properties in a backland position on area of land which was formerly garden area to the adjacent properties. The size and overall footprint of the proposed dwellings has been reduced, including the omission of a free standing car port and attached garage to one property and single storey utility room elements on both dwellings. The latter removes windows immediately adjacent the boundary which would have resulted in overlooking of neighbouring properties. Whilst current scheme would still involve provision of windows close to the boundary, these generally serve accommodation such as bathrooms and landings and could be obscure glazed, thereby preventing overlooking. However, the development would still involve the loss of open spaces to the rear of properties in a form which would give rise to a poor arrangement of dwellings and would be likely to prejudice the outlook of neighbouring properties. In particular, proposal would result in more intensive development in a form which would not respect the integrity and prevailing pattern of development in the area and would therefore detract from the character and amenities of the locality.

Current proposal would still involve formation of a driveway running between two existing dwellings fronting Guyers Road. I remain of the opinion that formation and use of such an access would cause disturbance to and have an adverse impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of those dwellings. In particular, the property on the north side of the access drive has a number of windows facing out onto the access.

Following negotiations between applicant's agent and Highway Engineer, the objection on grounds of inadequate access has been resolved thereby overcoming this reason for refusal.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse 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 the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse 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 and whilst applicant's agent has overcome Highway Engineer's objection to the proposal on grounds of inadequate access, I remain of the opinion that, notwithstanding the revisions to the scheme, the proposal would still result in a poor arrangement of dwellings in a form which is out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality and that the formation and use of the access would be likely to detract from the amenities of adjoining properties. Therefore, I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The development of this site as proposed would be likely to result in a cramped and poor arrangement of dwellings which in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to a loss of outlook to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring properties as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area, contrary to Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and H5 (Infill Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2

The formation and use of the access to serve the proposed dwellings would be likely to cause unacceptable disturbance to the adjacent properties to the detriment of the amenities thereof and, in consequence, the proposal is contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

4.

TCP/18349/S P/01370/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 18/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Indigo Homes Ltd Demolition of dwelling; construction of a terrace of 4 town houses fronting Cliff Road; 3/6 storey building to provide 10 flats; formation of vehicular access Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318DQ

Members will recall that this application was deferred at the last meeting held on 4 November 2003 with the deferral being on the basis that Committee required some comfort that the proposals are acceptable from a stability point of view. In this regard they considered the views and the possible attendance at the next meeting of the Council's Coastal Manager, Robin McInnes, would assist in providing such comfort. Members are advised that all relevant information has been passed on to Robin McInnes for his consideration and therefore it is anticipated that his own views on this matter will be available or he will attend the meeting to advise Members accordingly. Members are reminded, however, that the application in terms of ground stability and foundation details have been the subject of extensive consultation with the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer with all the issues being covered within the Evaluation section of the report under the sub-heading "Slope Stability".

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which raises important planning issues.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application and will have taken eleven weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to an almost rectangular site situated between Cliff Road and Baring Road being on the southern side of Cliff Road and northern side of Baring Road. Site slopes steeply from south to north and has a 26 metres wide frontage onto Baring Road where site currently accommodates a split level detached dwelling known as Essex House which stands between two detached split level dwellings, one being The Spinney which is a single storey/two storey split level dwelling to the west of the application site and the other being Oak Bank which is a more substantial detached dwelling being approximately two storey fronting Baring Road but three and a half storey fronting Cliff Road. The Cliff Road frontage itself adjoins the rear garden areas of properties which front Baring Road, whilst to the west is a partially developed building site on which a pair of semi-detached dwellings has been constructed and another pair had been commenced, however, following a substantial ground movement work has ceased on that section of the site.

For Members' information the general character of the area is residential and made up of older traditional Victorian dwellings with a number of newer dwellings. The site itself has no landscape features apart from a number of boundary trees.

Opposite the site on the Cliff Road frontage are a number of substantial Victorian split level multi-occupier type dwellings with the split level character reflecting the continuation of the sloping nature of the land in the area. Members' attention is also drawn to a further substantial hotel premises known as Villa Rothsay which stands further to the east adjacent to the property Oak Bank and immediately abuts the zigzag footpath which links Cliff Road with Baring Road. The Cliff Road frontage of that property has in the recent past been the subject of a further land slippage which has been rectified by the construction of an engineer designed retaining wall and the creation of additional parking linked to a retaining wall for the hotel premises served off Cliff Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In August 2002 planning consent issued for the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and development of two houses, garages and a flat with vehicular access off Cliff Road and two houses and garages with vehicular access off Baring Road. Although the decision was issued on this date the application itself was considered in November 2000 at which time it was resolved by the Committee that the design, density and mass height arrangement and impact on neighbours was acceptable but that no decision should be issued until outstanding geotechnical issues had been resolved. Those issues were not finally resolved until the date of issue. The consent itself was the subject of a number of conditions, one of which is quoted as follows:

"Prior to commencement of work an adequate site investigation stability assessment shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any such investigation and assessment shall show that the development shall not be adversely affected by any site slope instability nor will it adversely affect land stability beyond the boundaries of the site".

In terms of other planning history in respect of adjoining sites these are itemised as follows:

The adjoining site to the west on the Cliff Road frontage subject to an approval granted in April 1995, two pairs of semi-detached houses and integral garages. One pair has been constructed and is occupied with the remaining pair which immediately adjoins the application site commenced but with work having ceased following land slippage to the north. That approval was the subject of a number of conditions, one of which required the submission of a structural engineer's assessment of ground conditions along with suggested foundation design. Detailed information was provided following an exchange of correspondence after consultation took place with the Building Control Department and the Council's Coastal Manager. Compliance with the condition itself was agreed in November 1998 following which work commenced. Following the land slippage incident no further works have been carried out on site apart from remedial works providing stabilization to the slope.

In July 2001 consent granted for construction of slope stabilization works and formation of eight parking spaces off Cliff Road to rear of Villa Rothsay. This consent has been fully implemented having been the subject of substantial detailed information provided by a geotechnical engineer which included bore hole analysis and which was subject of consultation with the Council's own consulting geotechnical engineer.

In November 2002 consent granted for retention of slope stabilization works in respect of the property The Spinney, with those works being required following the land slippage incident on the site which abuts the application site to the west. Again, those works have been carried out having been the subject of extensive slope stability reports, again including bore holes, all prepared by appropriate competent geotechnical engineers.

In terms of the adjoining site to the east, rear of Oak Bank, and in particular to that element of the curtilage which fronts Cliff Road, this was subject of an approval for a detached house over basement, garage and new vehicular access onto Cliff Road. That consent was granted in April 1995 and has now expired.

Renewal of the abovementioned approval was received in April 2000 and has since been finally disposed of.

Finally, a detailed consent was granted in April 1995 for a three storey split level dwelling with integral garage accessed off Cliff Road in respect of land at the rear of the hotel premises Villa Rothsay fronting Cliff Road further to the east.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks detailed consent for the following residential development which is in two parts.

Baring Road Frontage

Proposal indicates a building which has a split level design with two and a half storeys facing onto Baring Road and five and a half storeys facing towards the Solent (northward). Block provides a total of ten units itemised as follows:

Three two bedroom units

Six three bedroom units

One four bedroom units

The block is indicated to stand at its minimum five metres off the edge of carriageway to Baring Road to maximum of six metres. The block itself measures approximately 5.8 metres in depth by 24.6 metres in width and stands on a site which has an overall width of approximately 25.5 metres. The building has a height above the carriageway of Baring Road of 8.8 metres. At this height the proposed block will be level with the ridge height of the adjoining property Oak Bank but will be approximately four metres above the ridge height of the adjoining property to the west, The Spinney.

Block provides basement car parking indicating a total of thirteen parking spaces set at a level approximately seven metres below the carriageway level of Baring Road and serviced off Cliff Road to the north by a sloping access drive.

The accommodation within the two lower ground floors which face Cliff Road are stepped forward four metres from the main block finished with a flat roof which functions as a terrace decking. The rear ground level and height of block where it faces Cliff Road equates with adjoining dwelling to east known as Oak Bank. Rear elevation also contains balconies on upper floors with the western and eastern end having side screens to those balconies.

Block to be finished in banded rendering on the lower three floors with the upper floors being constructed in brick with a central vertical feature also finished in banded render. Block to be roofed in concrete roofing tiles with the two side elevations having a slightly projecting feature at roof level finished in vertical tile hanging. Proposal provides for a parking lay-by three metres deep running parallel with Baring Road virtually over the whole frontage onto that road. The parking lay-by will provide maximum parking for four vehicles.

Cliff Road Frontage

Consent sought for a block of four split level terraced houses being four storeys in height where it faces Cliff Road and three storeys in respect of its south facing elevation.

Each house provides substantial accommodation including a garage/car port set directly off back of footpath along with games room and utility room on the lower ground floor. The first floor and second floor accommodation provide bedroom and kitchen/study accommodation whilst the third floor consists entirely of a living room with terrace on the north facing elevation. Block to be constructed in a mixture of smooth render and facing brick with glazed third floor.

Directly abutting the rear (south facing) wall of the block at lower ground level is a series of underground water tanks housed within a storage space and having a top access off the terrace which serves the four terraced units. Block to be finished in a low pitch profile metal roof covering.

Central Landscaped Area

Area between the two blocks to be partially paved but mainly set to lawn with shrubs and includes retention of existing trees on the eastern boundary. Application has been accompanied by a Landscape Statement which is summarised as follows:

Proposal will result in loss of a small number of existing trees compensated by the planting of seven new specimen trees within the site.

Any new specimen trees will be planted as large transplants and will reflect those grown locally and will be indigenous trees.

All trees to be retained will be fenced off in accordance with standard procedures.

Future management of the amenity space will allow for major watering of trees during periods of drought.

Area will provide an informal recreational space as well as offering space for seating and barbecue/patio area.

Banked areas will be planted in shrubs with the level area seeded in grass.

Boundary Treatment

Eastern boundary indicated to be mainly in the form of close boarded timber fencing with post and rail fencing at its southern end and this boundary also includes retention of hedgerows and further shrub planting.

In terms of the western boundary where it abuts the proposed access to the car parking area, this is to be in the form of hedge planting with close boarded fencing and includes a crib lock retaining wall. Where this boundary directly abuts the Baring Road block fencing will be in the form of post and rail.

Access

Application indicates a proposed access in the north eastern corner with that access being 4.5 metres wide and providing a passing bay where it directly abuts Cliff Road. Security gates are provided approximately eight metres off the back edge of carriageway to Cliff Road beyond which the access narrows to three metres in width with 0.4 metre margins either side.

Ground and Slope Stability

Application has been accompanied by a detailed geotechnical-technical report prepared by consulting geotechnical engineer, with that report including extensive borehole information. The resultant conclusions and recommendations are quoted as follows:

"1. The visual evidence from the site itself and from the Works to adjacent properties, together with our analytical assessment calculations, demonstrates that the slope is prone to shallow seated translational or circular slip movements.

2. Relatively shallow excavations associated with construction activities in February 2000 on the adjacent site below 'The Spinney' triggered movement, which suggests that the factor of safety on the present slope is close to unity. This is substantiated by the slope stability analyses. The extremely wet winter of 2000/2001 triggered movement at Villa Rothsay, which demonstrates the sensitivity of the area generally to a high ground water table.

3. The slope monitoring programme confirms shallow land slip movements as anticipated from surface observations. There is evidence from the inclinometer data to suggest that movement may be occurring at much deeper levels.

4. Site investigations and laboratory testing have been carried out followed by a detailed geotechnical appraisal. As a result of this, we are satisfied that the site can be developed within the requirements set out in PPG14.

5. The proposed piled wall extends the degree of slope stability protection already provided to adjacent properties. The combined effect will be to enhance the general stability of the area especially in relation to potential shallow and medium depth slip planes.

6. As a result of the Architectural Geometrical Design and the Geotechnical Proposals the loading on any potential deep seated slip plane will be reduced.

7. The planning application includes the following specific proposals for the construction of the development, in particular:

7.1 The scheme includes a substantial bored pile wall behind the proposed townhouses on Cliff Road with the toe of the piles taken down to -1.2 m ODN. The apartments at the Baring Road level include a further semi-contiguous bored pile wall with the toe of piles at + 10.0M ODN. These piled walls are designed to protect the site from the known shallow failure planes, and from potential medium seated failure planes, with a factor of safety on calculation of at least 1.35 within the site itself.

7.2 The buildings are constructed off piled raft foundations, which provide a stiff foundation to distribute the building loads below the levels associated with shallow seated slips. This structural form is tolerant of minor movements.

7.3 The design for the superstructure elements of the proposed development will be detailed to provide flexibility to absorb the effects of slight movements should these occur in the future.

7.4 The proposed scheme will include cut off drains, to intercept ground water within the permeable strata. Furthermore, the significantly increased impermeable surfaces on the site combined with the related surface water collection system will reduce the amount of water permeating into the subsoil. These two factors alone should provide a marked improvement to the stability of the existing slope."

In summary, the main engineering works cover the following:

The provision of piling to stabilise surrounding land to take account of reduced levels within application site.

Excavation and removal from site of large earth quantities to reduce loading.

Provision of surface water drainage system with attenuation tanks to reduce amount of water entering subsoil.

Report has been the subject of a vetting procedure by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows:

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressure off development of greenfield sites.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty units to fifty units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility such as town centres etc.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

PPG14 - Development on Unstable Land, Landslides and Planning, Annex 1, March 1996. Relevant points as follows:

In relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of landslides on development by controlling or restricting development where appropriate.

Policies should outline the considerations which will be given to landsliding including the criteria and information requirements which should be used in determining planning applications.

Where appropriate planning applications should be accompanied by a Slope Stability Report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so and will not be affected by or trigger landsliding beyond the boundaries of the site.

Local Plan Policies

The site is not allocated but is within the development envelope boundary for Cowes as indicated in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

D3 - Landscaping

H6 - High Density Residential Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

The site is located within Parking Zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum 0 - 50% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Also under Appendix G which covers this policy the site's zonal location means that any development on this site in excess of ten units will be subject of a Transport Infrastructure Payment at the rate of £750 per unit as a contribution to a sustainable transport fund and therefore would make the application subject of a legal agreement covering this issue. The aim of the fund is to finance off-site transport initiatives to help address travel demands generated by any proposal in Zones 1 and 2.

Members will be aware of the publication of the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study commissioned by the Council. The study area extends from Market Hill in Cowes through to Gurnard Marsh and inland as far as Baring Road and Solent View Road. The main objectives of the study were to review the stability of the coastal slopes and provide guidance for future planned development. In terms of the current application the site is within an area defined as normally requiring submission of a full stability report prepared by a competent person which the document advises should be a geotechnical engineer.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval with conditions relating to visibility and sight lines, access and provision of parking for loading and unloading. In this regard, Highway Engineer has recommended a widening of the parking lay-by on Baring Road to three metres and revised plans have been received accordingly.

Fire Safety Officer considers proposal to be satisfactory.

Southern Water confirm the availability of a combined sewer in Cliff Road and that they would prefer that surface water was disposed of in an alternative way than into that sewer. However, they accept that this sometimes is not practical and therefore it is the rate of flow which is more important than the total volume of flow. Attenuation of flow therefore is the important issue to ensure that the maximum rate of flow of both and foul and surface water from the new development is less than that from existing property, then connection to the sewer is likely to be accepted.

Application has been considered by the Architects Panel and their comments are summarised as follows:

Roof scape considered to be dominant and uninteresting with reference to height and massing of the roof and the crop gable and dormer windows were not considered to be characteristic of the area.

Concern relating to the visual effect of the roof shape on the side elevations with some criticism of the plans themselves providing a false impression.

Whilst Panel noted that height of block equated to the adjoining property Oak Bank they considered that the dormer windows and roof features increased the visual emphasis of the roof.

Panel considered that there was a need to subdivide the rear elevation which appeared massive by introducing some form of horizontal division which may lighten the effect of the building.

Particular reference made to the vertical division within the centre of the rear elevation (facing Cliff Road) which was not considered appropriate.

Some concern expressed relating to the massing of the building when seen from Cliff Road with suggestions that ground levels should be banked up based on level of accommodation omitted to reduce the impact of the rear elevation. Some reference made to the prospective drawings differing from the details indicated on the submitted elevations.

Panel considered design appeared to include a mixture of unresolved design elements.

Block Fronting Cliff Road

Panel considered more overhand or emphasis to the flat roof design would improve the appearance of the building.

Roof treatment was considered to be more appropriate than that shown for the larger block.

Panel noted that proposed proposal included a number of balconies at higher level and question whether this would cause a problem with overlooking of adjacent properties.

Panel commented that the overall quality and design of the finished building would depend on the detailing.

Finally, Panel question the need for essential parapet feature at roof level.

The ground and slope stability report submitted with the application has been carefully vetted by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer and I am in receipt of a fairly extensive report. The most significant part of that report however, is the summary which is quoted as follows:

"To summarise, I believe that the proposals, as presented, do indicate that the proposed development can be built without causing instability to the surrounding area and without itself being significantly adversely affected by instability. However, there are a number of important details to be addressed, particularly with regard to the design of the retaining walls and their propping structure and also the effects of the proposed walls and drainage on the surrounding buildings before the scheme can be recommended for approval."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council object on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, that the proposed development would be over dominant and incompatible with the neighbouring properties, because of the ground instability in the area and the possible effects on adjoining properties and on the grounds of loss of amenity due to insufficient provision of car parking spaces and inadequate vehicular access.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application is subject of fourteen letters of objection from residents of Cliff Road, three letters of objection from residents of Baring Road and one letter from the Isle of Wight Society. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Proposal represents an over development of this site due to excessive scale and massing inappropriate to the characteristics of the area.

Proposal will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using Cliff Road with the proposal providing insufficient parking likely to intensify on-street parking in Cliff Road.

The parking arrangement for the Cliff Road block in terms of its closeness to the back of footpath of that road would be likely to result in encroachment across the footpath by parked vehicles.

Reference made to the poor construction quality of Cliff Road and the fact that this development will exacerbate that situation.

Concern at the closeness of the Cliff Road block to the back of footpath which would be out of character with the area.

High level of concern in respect of the effect on slope stability that may occur as a result of this development with local residents pointing out that general ground conditions are very poor, making reference to the fact that even in this dry summer running water continues to discharge from the site. Also reference made to subsidence problems in the area, particularly to the north.

The block on the Baring Road frontage encroaches forward of a recognised building line along that road.

Construction works will cause inevitable disturbance and disruption, particularly given the inadequacies of Cliff Road both in terms of width and standard of construction.

Cliff Road is regularly being used for visitors parking in order to avoid car parking charges on the Esplanade which have recently been introduced.

Concern that any stabilization ground works on the site will simply transfer problems to adjoining land.

Suggestion that Members should inspect the site prior to determining the application.

Neighbouring property owner is concerned that any stabilization ground works should not be carried out during the winter months.

General concern that the mass of the development will cause a loss of sunlight and loss of privacy to properties on the north side of Cliff Road, with particular concern from the adjoining property owner to the east who expresses great concern that this proposal will result in loss of sunlight to his garden and conservatory.

Concern from the neighbouring property owner that the proposal encroaches beyond land owned by the applicant.

Proposal could set a precedent for similar extensive development.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections to proposed development but has raised a number of detail issues which need to be considered and in this regard would be happy to discuss them with the architects. Essentially he considers that this scheme could easily be made very self-contained by introducing electronic access control systems and appropriate fencing etc.

EVALUATION

There are a number of issues involved in assessing the merits of this application as follows.

Planning History

Members will note that there is an extant consent on this site relating to a lesser density and lesser mass and height of development. The comparison therefore is whether or not the general increase in size of development when compared with that extant consent will represent excessive development, out of scale and out of character with the area. In terms of the Baring Road block the extant consent indicated a four storey building when viewed from Cliff Road and a two storey building when viewed from Baring Road with a traditional roof and stood 1.6 metres lower than the adjoining property known Oak Bank. The extant consent was in the form of two separate blocks essentially linked by a lesser height structure, and was of lesser mass and height. The proposed block is both wider and taller representing a width increase of 2.3 metres and a height increase of 1.7 metres placing the roof height level with the adjoining property Oak Bank. Also the block is continuous across the whole of the site, however, design does indicate a central vertical feature on both front and rear elevations which creates a sense of separation.

The second difference in terms of mass is that the extant consent showed balcony projections to the rear facing Cliff Road whereas the current proposal indicates a more substantial stepped feature as described.

Obviously in type of accommodation terms the current proposal indicates ten units within the block whereas the extant consent indicated just two houses albeit with substantial accommodation. I suggest that the number of units contained within a block is not necessarily a major issue, it is the size, scale and mass of the block and how it sits into the site's topography and character of the area which is the determining factor.

With regard to the Cliff Road frontage the block which is subject of the extant consent is in the form of two split level houses with a central link providing two garages with a covered access to a flat at first floor. These dwellings would have a two and a half storey appearance from Cliff Road and the second floor accommodation being partially within the roof and the rear elevation will have an appearance of 1.5 storeys. The two houses and linked block will have the appearance of a terrace of three stepped to reflect the angle of the road. This compares with the current application which indicates a rectangular block of four terraced houses being four storey in height facing Cliff Road and three storey in height facing to the south. Each unit is relatively narrow frontaged and stands towards the eastern half of the site, thus accommodating the access to the basement car park within the block on Baring Road. This compares with the extant consent which indicates the block virtually across the whole of the frontage onto Cliff Road. Comparison in height terms suggests that this proposed scheme has an overall height to top of the flat roof of 20.4 metres which is exactly the same as the maximum height of the extant consent. It is important to appreciate that the extant consent has a traditional pitched roof.

I understand that the problem with the extant consent is its viability. This then leads on to the second and critical issue of slope stability.

Slope Stability

Members will appreciate from the planning history the precarious nature of the ground conditions and slope stability between Baring Road and Cliff Road. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is shallow, medium and more importantly deep seated slippage and therefore development on this site, not surprisingly, has been the subject of extensive site investigation including the laying down of deep bore holes and significantly the Council's consulting engineer has commented as follows in respect of the deep slippage issue:

"It is recognised that a deeper slip exists than has been catered for in the design of the work. However, it is demonstrated that the factor of safety on this slip has been increased albeit slightly and that the likely movement over the lifetime of the building will not lead to significant adverse effects on the building."

I cannot emphasise enough the complexity of this issue evident by the amount of time spent following Committee's decision to approve the previous proposal with that time spent in obtaining and discussing in some depth additional information and whether or not it was sufficient to enable a consent to be granted. Eventually agreement was reached to enable the decision to be issued although it was made subject of a condition requiring more site investigation stability assessments. That consent was also issued with an accompanying explanatory letter which drew attention to a general advice document prepared by the Council's consulting engineer covering all the issues relating to land which has the potential for instability within the remit of PPG14.

Members will also note that within the quoted summary of the consulting engineer (see Consultee Responses) there remains some details to be addressed, however, I am satisfied that these matters can be covered under the auspices of the Building Regulation application and therefore should not delay the issuing of a decision on this site.

From all of the above it is not surprising that this element of any development on this site represents a high cost factor and to a great extent is dictating the density of development in order to achieve viability. Whilst recognising the importance of the slope stability issue the Planning Authority need to be satisfied that other important factors have been satisfactorily considered and should not be accepting a scheme which can be deemed to be contrary to basic policies on the grounds that it is the only scheme that would be viable given the slope stability problems and costs. It is important however to state that given the general history of slippage in this area then the stability of this slope has to be questioned and therefore providing the development on the site is carried out appropriately in terms of geotechnical engineering then that development will have a stabilising effect on the slope.

Design, Density, Mass and Height

Members will note that the application has been before an Architects Panel whose criticisms of the scheme were more related to detail and have been presented to the applicants for their attention. This has resulted in design adjustments which have addressed some of the points and in other cases they have commented on why they consider the scheme should remain in its present form. I summarise these issues as follows:

The artist's impression has been corrected to more accurately reflect the proposed scheme.

In terms of roof scape to the Baring Road block applicants emphasise that dormer windows have been utilised to break up the roofline as well as providing appropriate scale. The introduction of sloping roofs at either end reduces the visual length of the roof. Without these features the applicants' architects consider that the building would appear visually larger. This apart, however, the applicants have reduced the size of the roofs over the dormers.

In terms of the introduction of hipped roofs and cropped gables applicants' architects consider that these are features found on existing surrounding buildings and therefore contend that they are in character. Applicants would not object to these elements being removed if required by the Planning Authority.

Applicants have noted the comments with regard to the side elevations but state that they have deliberately kept this treatment simple to reflect adjoining properties. This apart, however, they have provided additional features to reduce the visual massing.

In terms of the elevation of the Baring Road block which faces Cliff Road, applicants confirm that this has been the subject of detailed consideration to ensure that it visually interacts with the immediate existing neighbours and its wider context in the new townhouses proposed at Cliff Road.

Applicants have purposely introduced a variety of materials carefully used to reduce mass and scale.

Height of building has been restricted to that of its neighbour Oak Bank and unlike the neighbouring properties Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay the facade has been stepped, which reduces visual impact to those buildings adjacent. Also, reference is made to the central feature having been recessed.

Horizontal elements are incorporated within the design to counter the vertical main emphasis.

Whilst noting the Architects Panel's reference to additional earth mounding at the rear, applicants point out that this would add loadings to the slope which would be counter to the geotechnical design principles established from the outset.

With regard to the Cliff Road townhouses roof design has been amended to deepen the overhang as suggested by the Panel.

The parking provision design has been amended.

Emphasis that the inclusion of a central parapet feature provides a focal point to Cliff Road and provides a visual link to the Baring Road apartments, however, if required these features can be omitted.

Members will note from the above that the Panel's comments have either been taken on board or have been answered and therefore I consider design issues have been fully addressed.

In density terms this proposal obviously represents a considerable increase over the extant consent which replaced one unit with five units, whereas this proposal is replacing one unit with fourteen units. The density itself is 140 units per hectare which reflects the mainly flatted accommodation. Members are reminded of the policy in PPG3 which encourage efficient use of urban land to take pressures off greenfield sites. This policy is not at the expense of poor quality development or cramped development. The test will be whether or not the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationship between the proposed blocks and in relation to effect on adjoining properties and visual effect on the area in general. It will be noted that even at this high density the scheme does not trigger the need for affordable housing with the threshold being fifteen units or more.

Probably the most important issue is that relating to mass and height. Members will note that this is one of the main issues causing concern to local residents. The applicants have used as a parameter the height of the existing prominent buildings Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay to the east. In this regard they have designed the Baring Road block to continue the same height as those two buildings and whilst the width of the block reflects the width of the site the general massing is again similar to these two adjoining properties. It is important to also appreciate that the two storey stepped feature at the base of the Baring Road block will help soften the very strong vertical visual effect prevalent with those two adjacent buildings to the east. This, coupled with the use of materials, with particular reference to the horizontal banded render features, should assist in again reducing visual impact.

Obviously I accept that the Baring Road block will stand higher than the property The Spinney which was indeed the case on the extant consent. It should be remembered however that the role The Spinney plays in respect of the Baring Road street scene is that it stands at the end of a row of property and therefore acts as a transition stepping down. The development beyond The Spinney to the west is that known as Nubia Close which are flat roofed properties which tend to stand separately from the more traditional properties to the east and are in any event set back.

With regard to the mass and height of the Cliff Road terraced units this block would tend to stand on its own with the nearest properties to the west being the pair of properties which form part of the site adjacent to Alfresco. The modern design approach is therefore not considered to be inappropriate, a view largely supported by the Architects Panel. The terrace block itself has features which assist in articulating the building with the top floor being set back to help break up the visual impact. In this form I consider the proposal will provide a visual contribution to this side of Cliff Road and act as a contrast to the more traditional Victorian development on the northern side of Cliff Road which is a mixture of properties of substantial height ranging from four storey to two storey.

Arrangement of Dwellings/Environmental Impact

The slope of the site and the stability problems caused by that slope has to a large extent dictated the position and type of development. From the description the block on the southern boundary (Baring Road) will stand taller than those on the Cliff Road frontage although the Cliff Road frontage block will screen to some extent the block fronting Baring Road. This apart however, there will be an element of dominance, particularly in terms of the five storey appearance of the rear elevation on the Baring Road block but this would be no different to the dominance of Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay. The only difference with the current application is the stepped two storey projecting element which not only assists in providing greater stability but will also help to break up the dominant effect.

The principle of developing on the south side of Cliff Road has not only been established by the extant consent on this site but also past outline consent in respect of land to the north of Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay. I accept that neither of these consents have been taken up, however, they have established a principle. Obviously in terms of Villa Rothsay the stabilisation works which have recently been carried out would suggest that there is unlikely to be any intention to construct a dwelling to the north of Villa Rothsay, however, in terms of Oak Bank, obviously has the potential for a development subject to other factors being acceptable.

In terms of impact on adjoining properties, again a development of this mass and scale will always have an impact. Generally speaking the high density developments in urban areas results in a closer relationship both within the proposed development and in terms of impact on adjoining properties.

Whilst I accept the Baring Road block projects forward of and to the rear of the adjoining property Oak Bank, but these projections are marginal being two metres to the front and 1.5 metres to the rear. I do not consider that this level of projection would adversely affect that property. Similarly with regard to the adjoining property The Spinney to the west with the block essentially standing between rather than forward of these adjoining properties. Applicants have recognised the potential for overlooking in terms of the balconies and in both cases, i.e. Oak Bank and The Spinney, the end balconies have been provided with obscure glazed side screens 1.8 metres in height designed to avoid direct overlooking of those adjoining properties. Finally, the windows that have been indicated in the side elevations of this block are in the form of glass block windows and therefore of a fixed obscure type.

Highway and Parking Issues

This is another issue of great concern to local residents with their concerns being understandable. In view of these concerns the applicants have been requested to consider construction traffic management and a statement as to how the works will be carried out given the amount of piling that is necessary. It is important to appreciate however that the avoidance of disturbance would be impossible in respect of the level of building works involved in respect of this scheme. This apart, however, applicants have submitted a construction traffic methodology statement which is summarised as follows:

Contractor will be required to submit proposals to manage construction traffic to limit disruption to other users of the highway. This would be required as a pre-tender Health and Safety Plan being essential under the Construction Design Management Regulations. Such a plan will include local impact, working hours and requirement for the contractor to liaise on the on-going basis with local residents, committees and the Council for the duration of the works.

Vehicular access to the site is available from Baring Road and Cliff Road, both being public highways. Limited on-site parking off Cliff Road may be available but not for the full duration of the works and other arrangements for site operatives transport will have to be made. The site operatives will not be allowed to park on Cliff Road.

A tower crane will be erected as soon as possible to service the site. Majority of building materials will be delivered via Baring Road and handled directly onto site by this crane. Construction work will be carried out in stages as follows:

Stages 1 - 5 inclusive cover the groundworks anticipated as lasting approximately three to four months. Stage 6 covers the building construction anticipated as lasting a further twelve months.

In terms of the foundation works the five stages are described as follows:

Stage 1 - lower piling platform off Cliff Road at this stage will only require small scale earth moving equipment with limited transport of materials.

Stage 2 - Cliff Road bored pile wall. Piling equipment will be similar to that recently used on the neighbouring stabilisation works together with associated concrete and reinforced steel deliveries. Construction deliveries likely to require vehicles reversing up Cliff Road. During this operation restriction on car parking may need to be negotiated to avoid possible damage to third party vehicles. Where works take place outside the main tourist season subject to negotiations with the Council the car park at the east end of Cliff Road may be available for temporary parking of vehicles or site compound.

Stage 3 - Installation of bored piles to north of Baring Road. Baring Road proposed access route. Piling platform will extend the lay-by to sufficient width to accommodate construction equipment, deliveries of concrete, steel deliveries and small craneage operations.

Stage 4 - Bulk excavation. Both Baring Road and Cliff Road used for this stage with substantial volumes of spoil involved. Excavations will form a level area about thirteen metres wide behind back of verge to be used as temporary construction compound. Steel frame temporary loading platform will be provided behind the kerb line of Baring Road to avoid parking of vehicles on public highway during loading operations.

Stage 5 - Foundation construction. Access from both Baring Road and Cliff Road will be as for above stage which includes installation of a tower crane at Baring Road for subsequent construction operations.

In terms of the main building work for both town houses and flats primary construction access will be from Baring Road using tower crane to handle materials directly from delivery vehicles on the site. A secondary access will be required from Cliff Road but restricted to smaller items and vehicles.

In terms of parking provision, Members will note the site's location within Zone 2 of the Council's Parking Guideline Policy which requires a 0-50% provision of parking. In this case applicants have indicated a total of thirteen spaces within the lower ground car parking provision which makes allowance for parking for the disabled. That provision allows for a parking space per unit plus three visitor spaces. Such level of provision is within the maximum guidelines for Zone 1.

The single parking space per unit to the Cliff Road terraced units again is within the parking guideline of 0-50%. The arrangement itself is unusual, however, I am satisfied that the space provided is sufficient to encourage its use for parking although there are no guarantees as to how individual occupiers may use the space. Parking in Cliff Road is restricted with Cliff Road having a limited carriageway width. Therefore, I am satisfied that this space will be used for the purposes of parking a vehicle for alternative parking provision would be by necessity some distance away.

I accept that fourteen units will attract additional traffic using Cliff Road, however, the Highway Engineer has not commented on this issue and is recommending approval. I certainly would not consider that the level of traffic generated by this development would be sufficient to warrant a refusal.

Members are reminded that advice contained within Circular 11/95 (The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions) states that planning conditions are not an appropriate means of controlling the right of passage over public highways. This is on the grounds that such conditions are likely to be very difficult to enforce effectively. The circular recognises the possibility of encouraging drivers to follow preferred routes by posting site notices to that effect or by requiring them to use a particular entrance. Where there is a particular reason for controlling routes for traffic then the correct mechanism is an Order under either Section 1 or Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Applicants have revised the proposal to show a cycle parking space per flat accommodated under cover within the basement parking area.

Finally, with regard to the location of the site within Zone 2 this does trigger the need for Transport Infrastructure Payments of being in excess of ten units. Applicants acknowledge this and draft 106 Agreements are being prepared parallel with this application.

General

With regard to the suggestion that site encroaches on adjoining land, applicant has confirmed in writing that he is satisfied that he both owns and controls all the land which is the subject of the application. The Planning Authority can go no further than this for it is not the Planning Authority's function to involve itself in any land ownership disputes.

Drainage

Again, this has been the subject of a detailed report by a drainage engineer and the comments of Southern Water are self explanatory. Members will note that there are four surface water attenuation tanks to be provided located to the rear of the four town houses with these tanks attenuating surface water run-off to equate to the natural surface water run-off from the undeveloped site. Therefore, additional drainage entering the sewer will be adequately attenuated to ensure that discharge will satisfy the requirements of Southern Water. The calculations are obviously based on a worst scenario basis which dictates the size of the attenuation tanks. Maintenance of the tanks would be covered by condition with the likelihood being that the total development would be subject of a management plan administered by a management company.

Whilst I appreciate the level and extent of concerns being expressed both by local residents and the Town Council I am of the view that because of the particular ground condition problems of this site a scheme of this type in terms of density, mass, scale etc is inevitable to ensure viability, and whilst I accept this is not necessarily a planning consideration from a practical point of view it has to be taken into account. I consider the applicants in this case have kept within reasonable parameters resulting in a scheme which will have an impact on the area but not to a degree which would warrant a refusal of the 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 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 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 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 proposals for this difficult site are satisfactory for the reasons indicated in the Evaluation section and therefore recommend accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised plans)(Subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the payment of £10,500 in respect of Transport Infrastructure Payments (14 x £750).)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	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 mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1.05 metres 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) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Any gates to be provided shall be set back a distance of five metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The access and crossing of the footway shall be constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby approved is occupied. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Space shall be provided for the loading/unloading and parking for vehicles in accordance with the parking provision indicated on the plans hereby approved and thereafter all those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate maximum off-street parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of ten bicycles. Such provision shall be as indicated on the plans hereby approved, and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Submission of samples - S03
9	The banded and smooth render surfaces indicated on the development hereby approved shall be finished in a colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the elevations of the buildings hereby permitted shall not be painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all existing trees to be retained as indicated on the plans shall have been protected by fencing along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a)No placement or storage of material; (b)No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c)No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d)No lighting of bonfires. (e)No physical damage to bark or branches. (f)No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g)No changes in ground levels. (h)No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i)Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with policies C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the details indicated on the landscape statement which accompanied the application. The agreed landscaping details shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	A management plan including long term design objectives, manager's responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscaping areas, communal parking areas, and maintenance of storage attenuation tanks shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development whichever is the sooner. Any such management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure long term maintenance of the hard and soft landscaping, parking and attenuation tanks in compliance with policies D3 (Landscaping) and U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until the 1.8 metre high obscure glazed side screens to the balconies indicated on the plans hereby approved have been erected and such screens shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	No occupation of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until the boundary treatment indicated on the plan hereby approved have been erected. Such boundary treatments shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and the adjoining residential properties in particular in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	The fixed glass block windows within the east and west facing elevations of the flat block facing Baring Road shall be retained and shall not be replaced without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to applicants advising them of the need to adhere to the Construction Traffic Methodology Statement which accompanied the application ensuring site works are carefully managed to cause least disturbance and the need to ensure that those outstanding issues raised by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer are adequately addressed within the submission of the Building Regulation application.

5.

TCP/25761 P/01391/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle West Registration Date: 24/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. D. Cooper Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Mr N Lilley Single storey extension to form porch and dining room; single storey extension to enlarge garage (revised plans) 24 Place Side, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317BB

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

When consulted under the delegated procedure, the local Member, Councillor J Effemey, requested that the application be considered by the Committee for the following reasons:

1. The Cowes Town Council do not agree with the development.

2. Several residents of Place Side are against – one reason being that the original

purpose of the development was for starter homes.

3. He has requested that a site visit be held.

4. To have a democratic decision, the above issues must be taken into account.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application for which the processing of it has taken fifteen weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits due to negotiations regarding the size of the garage and its proximity to the boundary of the site with the adjacent highway, Case Officer work load and extended consultation under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

24 Place Side is an end of terrace residential property, the side of which adjoins the pavement and public highway. To the west is the main highway Place Road, to the north and south elevations are similar types of housing development. The property already has an existing garage located between the dwelling and the boundary of the site with Place Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal involves construction of single storey extension to front of dwelling to form porch and dining room and single storey extension to enlarge garage with pitched roof over, replacing flat roof to the existing garage.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within the development envelope for Cowes. Policy D1 (Standards of Design), H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) and G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Transco has been consulted and has no objection to the proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council objected to the proposal on the grounds of over-development and that the proposed extension would be out of character with the surrounding properties.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Eight letters of objection from local residents on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

• Loss of amenity and privacy to adjoining householders. Porch in close proximity to adjoining property, also dining room extension is considered to intrude on privacy of adjoining property.

• Unsympathetic and over dominant aspect of development leading to over-development.

• Not in keeping with the overall character of the area.

• Issue of application meeting fire and safety regulations/ problems with drainage issues.

• Problem with building materials being delivered/building works creating limiting access to driveway.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether additions are in keeping with this and neighbouring properties or would detract from amenities of area in general and adjoining occupiers.

24 Place Side is an end of terrace residential property, the side of which is adjoining the pavement and public highway. Place Side consists of modern dwellings of relatively uniform appearance constructed of brick with some weather boarding to elevations under concrete tiled roofs. The row of houses which encompasses application property runs at right angles to adjacent highway.

The single storey extension to provide dining room to part of the property would not project beyond front of garage which sits forward of the dwelling and is considered not to have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. There is adequate screening to highway on the east boundary in the form of a 2m larch lap fence.

The porch extension will come close to the boundary of the neighbouring property, no. 26 Place Side. However it is considered the proposal will not have excessive or adverse effect on the neighbouring property. In particular, it is considered that proposal will not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties.

It is considered that proposal will not be an overdominant or intrusive addition in the street scene. In particular, following negotiations with applicant's agent, garage has been reduced in width, increasing distance between side wall of extension and boundary of property with Place Road. The proposal is considered to be sympathetic in scale, materials and mass, and generally compatible with surrounding buildings. Consequently, I do not consider that proposal would detract from character of the area.

Issue of application meeting fire and safety regulations/ problems with drainage issues will be dealt with at building regulation stage.

Problems arising from delivery of building materials must be resolved by applicant and are not relevant to consideration of the 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 impact 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 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 outlined in this report I do not consider that proposal will detract from amenities of area and neighbouring properties and does not conflict with Policy D1, H7 and G4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 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	Construction of the building hereby permitted including the materials and finishes to be used shall be in accordance with the approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a)TCP/2817N/P1953/01	Three storey building providing a retail unit and a restaurant on ground floor with a total of twelve flats on first and second floors at 37 Pyle Street, Newport, Isle of Wight
Officer: Mr S Cornwell	Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond to the failure of the developer to build the scheme in accordance with the approved

plans.

Background

At the 18 December 2001 Development Control Committee meeting Members considered a report on the above scheme and resolved to approve the application subject to conditions and a legal agreement. This Agreement would relate to a contribution towards the sustainable transport fund under Policy TR16. The Agreement was duly signed and the formal decision notice was issued on 22 April 2002.

Development commenced on site and at the present time the commercial units on the ground floor remain unoccupied whilst tenants have yet to move into the flats above. The commercial fascias have yet to be agreed and installed so openings are just boarded up.

The approved plans showed the external appearance of the building with the ground floor and part of the first floor to be rendered with a detailed finish and a feature strip. It was noted during the development that the render detailing and the feature strip had not been provided and the developer was reminded of this in a letter dated 1 July 2003. In a reply dated 7 August 2003 it was suggested that the builders employed lacked the experience in external cement and sand render to undertake this work to a satisfactory degree. A further letter was sent to the developer indicating that this response was unsatisfactory, giving a further deadline for a response. Despite a follow up letter on 7 October 2003, no response has been received.

The more recent letter of 7 October also raised with the developers two further matters regarding this development. Firstly, that on the Town Lane frontage a low wall has been built one metre out from the main façade of the building which masks a drop in the pavement level from one side to the other of 30 centimetres. Secondly, that the openings created to accommodate the shop fronts do not appear to align up with the windows above in accordance with the positions as shown on the approved plans. The vertical deviation has been identified as ranging from 0.1m to 0.4m. An explanation on both these points was requested but nothing has been received.

The site lies within the Newport Conservation Area and the relevant policies are considered to be:

D1 (Standards of Design)

D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site)

B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area)

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice on the developer for failing to construct the building in accordance with the approved plans relating to the render detail and feature strip and to require them to remedy this breach. Time period for compliance three months.

2. To note the situation but to accept the finish of the lower rendered part of the building without the detailing and feature strip.

3. To serve and Enforcement Notice on the developer for failing to construct the building in accordance with the approved plans relating to the alignment of the openings and to require this to be remedied. Time period for compliance six months.

4. To note the situation with regard to the alignment of the openings for the ground floor commercial units and to require the submission of a new application.

5. To note the situation with regard to the failure to align the shop front openings up with the windows above but to resolve to take no further action on this matter.

6. To serve an Enforcement Notice on the developer for failing to construct the building in accordance with the approved scheme relating to the relative levels between the pavement and the floor level within unit 1 and to require that the pavement run through from the kerb through to the face of the building at the same level including the removal of the unauthorised brick wall. Time period for compliance six months.

7. To note the circumstances with regard to the levels on the Town Lane frontage and the construction of the brick wall but to take no further action.

Conclusion

Three variations from the approved scheme have been identified and should, I believe, be considered separately.

With regard to the failure to detail the lower rendering band on the ground and partly on the first floor and create the feature strip, I would remind

Members that this is a prominent building located within the Newport Conservation Area. On that basis considerable effort was made to ensure

that the finish of the building was appropriate. Accordingly, the dressed rendered finish with projecting feature strip was considered to be an

extremely important feature on the building and was specifically shown on the approved plans. Under these circumstances the response of the

developer to the absence of these features is considered inadequate and I see no alternative other than to serve an Enforcement Notice.

Concerning the second issue relating to the alignment of the ground floor shop units with regard to the windows above, the critical question is

whether or not the symmetry of the building has been disrupted to such a degree that the proposal is now unacceptable. This matter has been

discussed with colleagues in the Conservation Team. On the basis that the feature strip is installed then it is the view that there will be a “break”

between the ground floor openings and the windows above. On balance, I do not believe that the situation justifies enforcement action and

accordingly other than requesting the submission of an amended plan that truly reflects how the building has been constructed, I will propose to

take no further action.

Concerning the final issue relating to the pavement levels, the approved plans show the pavement level and the ground floor level within unit one

being equal. It is my interpretation that the developer failed to acknowledge that the road and pavement in Town Lane rises up from Pyle Street

and as a consequence the furthest point of commercial unit number one from Pyle Street is 0.3 of a metre below the adjoining pavement level. A

low brick wall has been introduced to mask this change. The submitted plans show the whole of this frontage where the pavement level has been

disrupted to be within a single unit and on that basis providing there is no entrance from Town Lane into the commercial space behind other than

at the corner of the building then the change in level need not cause a serious disruption. However, there is no guarantee of this and I am

concerned over the introduction of the brick wall within the street scene and do not consider that the retention of the wall is appropriate within the

Conservation Area.

In coming to the recommendations to take enforcement action on the one hand and accept the current situation in another, consideration has

been given to the right 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. It is recognised that the enforcement action would be an interference with the owners human rights but

this is felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the community as expressed through the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in

particular those policies relating to the protection of the Conservation Area. Equally, the decision to accept the current situation relating to the

position of the windows is considered to be a proportionate response in the context of the assessment of the building and the maintenance of the

Council’s policies as expressed through the Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice on the developer for failing to construct the building in accordance with the approved plans relating to the render detail and feature strip and to require them to remedy this breach. Time period for compliance three months.

5. To note the situation with regard to the failure to align the shop front openings up with the windows above but to resolve to take no further action on this matter.

6. To serve an Enforcement Notice on the developer for failing to construct the building in accordance with the approved scheme relating to the relative levels between the pavement and the floor level within unit 1 and to require that the pavement run through from the kerb through to the face of the building at the same level including the removal of the unauthorised brick wall. Time period for compliance six months.

(b)

TCPE/8718A

Unauthorised car port erected on land to the rear of 15 Dudley Road, Ventnor

Officer: Mr P Barker Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of an unauthorised car port which has been erected on land adjoining and

in close proximity to 15 Dudley Road, Ventnor, Isle of Wight.

Background

In June 2003 a complaint was received regarding the construction of the car port. A site visit revealed that to the side of 15 Dudley Road, there is

a small concrete yard area on which stands a garage with a newly erected car port which extends from the garage to within inches of the wall of

15 Dudley Road. There is a dispute regarding the exact boundary and property ownership of part of the land at the side of 15 Dudley Road over

which the car port extends.

Although adjoining no. 15 the land is not within its ownership. Enquiries were made to determine the name and exact address of the owner of the

land, garage and car port. Later in June 2003 a letter was sent to the landowner at an address in Ventnor and at the end of June a response was

received from an address in France where the owner obviously spends some time. He stated that the car port was merely replacing an existing

structure and that evidence of the original structure minus its original roof was still evident. Enquiries revealed that certainly four years ago there

was no structure standing between the side of 15 Dudley Road and the garage, and this situation remained until the new car port was erected. A

further letter was sent to the landowner in July pointing out that this site does not benefit from any permitted development right and even if this car

port was a replacement for a structure which was there in the past, it still required the benefit of planning permission because of the time that had

lapsed (in excess of four years) since the original structure was removed.

In the middle of August 2003, a further letter was received from the landowner stating that he had taken professional advice and that he had

merely renovated an existing structure which had always been attached to the garage and therefore planning consent was not required. The

Enforcement Officer made a further visit to the site and examined and photographed the car port which is quite clearly a completely new structure

which does require the benefit of planning permission. In September 2003 a further letter was sent to the landowner pointing out that the car port

was not a renovation and therefore planning permission was required. It was pointed out to him at that time that in the absence of a planning

application a report would be submitted to the Development Control Committee seeking their directions regarding the possible service of an

Enforcement Notice. The landowner has ignored the last letter which was sent to him and therefore this matter has been referred to the

Development Control Committee.

The relevant policy within the Unitary Development Plan is D1 (Standards of Design).

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring that the car port be dismantled and removed from the site. Time period for compliance twenty eight days from when the Notice takes effect.

2. To invite the submission (without prejudice) of a planning application to seek the retention of the car port and if no such application is received within two months to authorise the service of an Enforcement Notice as per Option 1 above.

3. To note this report and to take no action in respect of the unauthorised car port.

Conclusion

A car port has been constructed attached to an existing garage on land to the side of 15 Dudley Road but which is not in the same ownership as

that property. Although of simple construction with a plastic sheet roof supported by three posts the structure lies in very close proximity to no. 15.

In my view the car port does interfere with the amenities of the residents of that property to an unacceptable degree. Policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible, enhances the quality and character of the built environment. This Policy also states that new builds should conform with a number of criteria including the provision of adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspects to the development and adjoining uses, do not constitute over development leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness but include appropriate space in between properties, and do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings. In this case the adjoining building is a dwelling house and in addition to cutting down on light, it is very oppressive to the adjoining property when vehicles are parked under the car port due to the extremely close proximity.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to serve an Enforcement Notice 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; it is recognized

that the enforcement action will be an interference with the owner’s human rights but this has to be balanced against the human rights of others

and in particular the right of the neighbour to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. The action is felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims

of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring that the car port be dismantled and removed from the site. Time period for compliance twenty eight days from when the Notice takes effect.

(c) TCP/9338V Use of slipway for the parking of trailer units, Columbine Works, Castle Street, East Cowes

Officer: Mr S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond to the unauthorised use of the slipway for the parking of trailers in connection with

the Red Funnel ferry operations.

Background

From previous reports to the Development Control Committee Members will be aware of the general circumstances relating to the Red Funnel operation in East Cowes. Members will be aware that the use of the Phoenix Yard as a parking facility for articulated trailers has been under investigation since the early part of this year, and at the last Development Control Committee meeting on 4 November 2003 a planning application seeking to use this facility for the parking of trailers was withdrawn.

As a result of concerns raised with regards to the use of the Phoenix Yard, particularly relating to the evening and night disturbance to nearby local residents Red Funnel have for some months sought to solve this problem by utilising the GKN slipway for the parking of trailers. Members will recall that this is the slipway in front of the doors which carry the Union Jack. The slipway is accessed through the gates between the Red Funnel terminal building and the White Hart public house. Whilst this has relieved the situation with regards to the Phoenix Yard the Local Planning Authority has since April been receiving complaints regarding the use of the slipway. These complaints express concerns with regards to the visual impact of the parked trailers from the ferry as it approaches the East Cowes berth and also from the noise as they are shunted about in the evening and at night. To date, the complaints have originated from one household who lives approximately 250 metres away from the site.

Red Funnel have been advised that their present use of the slipway is unauthorised.

Further letters of complaint have been received from the same individual dated 29 May and 18 October 2003 requesting that the Planning Department enforce against this use.

The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies to be considered as part of this report are:

G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development)

G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses)

D1 (Standards of Design)

E7 (Employment Sites With Deep Water Frontage)

P5 (Reducing the Impacts of Noise)

TR11 (Traffic Management Schemes for Ferry Terminals)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 18 sets the basic framework on how the Local Planning Authority should respond to a breach of planning control. Of particular relevance to this case are the following points:

• LPAs have a general discretion to take enforcement action when they regard it as expedient.

• It may be held to be maladministration if the Authority fail to take effective enforcement action which was plainly necessary.

• The decisive issue for the LPA should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity where the existing use of land and buildings merit protection in the public interest.

• Enforcement action should always be commensurate with the breach of planning control to which it relates.

• Negotiations should not be allowed to hamper or delay whatever formal enforcement action may be required to make a development acceptable.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To note the information contained in the report but to resolve to take no further action at this time but to review the situation in four months time.

2. To note the information in the report and to authorise the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the slipway and yard area for the parking of trailers. Time period for compliance four months.

3. To invite, without prejudice to the final decision, a planning application seeking to formalise the use of the slipway and yard area for the parking of trailers with a request that any application be submitted within eight weeks.

Conclusion

The effective operation of the ferry terminal is an essential part of the maintenance of the Island’s economy. The ferry operators have acknowledged that a problem exists with regards to the temporary parking of trailers close to the ferry and have sought to create a facility at Whippingham but this has been delayed pending a final determination on whether or not the land should be classified as a Village Green. More recently a proposal for a more extensive facility in the vicinity of the Racecourse ground has been submitted. That application, because of its scale and the issues involved, means that any decision is still some months away. The use of the slipway at the Columbine Works is, I believe, in part a response to the pressures that the Local Authority have put on the company regarding their use of the Phoenix Yard.

Balanced against the above is the concern that the facility creates an unattractive approach to East Cowes and is also causing noise disturbance within the locality. Concerning the first point on visual impact I have assessed this from the ferry and do not consider that against the backdrop of the industrial buildings this is so great that an objection on these grounds could be sustained.

Concerning the matters relating to noise disturbance, the Local Planning Authority has not received any complaints from the significant number of residents who live closer to the site than the complainant. I have also enquired with colleagues in the Environmental Health Section who have indicated they have no record of any complaints about noise from the Columbine Yard but confirm they had been receiving complaints with regards to the use of the Phoenix Yard.

The Local Planning Authority has the discretion whether or not to take enforcement action. If it exercises such a discretion then it must be clear that this course of action is reasonable taking all other factors into consideration. Given all the circumstances as outlined above I do not consider that it would be an appropriate response to the current situation to take enforcement action against the use of the slipway for the storage of trailers.

I do, however, believe it would be appropriate to review this situation in four months time.

In coming to this recommendation not to take any enforcement action but simply to note the current situation 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. It is recognised that the decision not to take any immediate enforcement action would have some interference with the complainant’s human rights but this has to be balanced against the wider interests of the community. At the present time, I am not convinced that the individual’s concerns are so acute that they should hold precedence over the wider community interests.

Recommendation

To note the information contained in the report but to resolve to take no further action at this time but to review the situation in four months time.

(d) TCP(E)12917N Erection of floodlights and associated poles, approved under planning permission reference TCP 12917H, but in breach of condition, IOW Rugby Football Club, Footways, Wootton

Officer: Mrs H Byrne Tel: 01983 823569

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice relating to the failure to comply with planning conditions on height of two floodlight clusters and poles and on failure to remove the clusters and poles from site during 1 March and 30 September in each year.

Background

Conditional planning permission was granted in November 1991 for two 6 metre high floodlights to be erected on the north and south elevations of the existing clubhouse; which is located close to the western boundary of the recreation ground at Wootton. Beyond this boundary are residential properties fronting Palmers Road.

The permission was limited only allowing the use of the lights to a Thursday night and between the hours of 7 pm to 8.30 pm October to February inclusive.

Since this consent was granted there have been on-going breaches of the conditions attached to this planning permission. Two conditions in particular have regularly been breached.

Condition number 1: The floodlight poles, hereby approved, shall be a maximum height of 6 metres above ground level and the height of the poles shall not be varied in any way without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Condition number 6: The floodlight poles shall be removed between 1 March and 30 September in any one year.

Upon studying the historical file with reference to these floodlights, there have been numerous letters sent and Breach of Condition Notices issued which have resolved the breaches temporarily, only for the problem to reappear the following season/year.

An Enforcement Officer recently visited the site following an allegation that the poles and lights have once again been erected in breach of the condition. The height of the lights were measured and found to be 8 metres above ground level, the planning condition requires the lights to be no higher than 6 metres above ground level without the prior written approval of the LPA, and no such authorisation has been sought.

The President of the Club has been advised of the current breach. The conditions limiting the nature and scope of the permission were imposed to protect the amenities of the area.

The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are considered to apply:

G10 - Existing surrounding uses

D1 – Standards of design

D14 - Light Spillage

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications

Options

1. To issue an enforcement notice for failing to comply with condition 1 which limits the height of the floodlight cluster to 6 metres from ground level. Time period for compliance one week.

2. On the basis that the developer is now within the agreed operating period not to issue an enforcement notice for failing to comply with condition 6 which requires the removal of the floodlight clusters between 1 March and 30 September in any one year.

3. To invite (without prejudice) a planning application to vary condition No.1 (height of light clusters) and condition No. 6 removal of light between 1 March and 30 September

4. To take no further action in respect of the floodlight poles / clusters.

Conclusion

Consent was granted for the erection of two floodlight poles and clusters in November, 1991. Since this date conditions have been breached regarding the height of the floodlight poles and the removal of the lights virtually every year. Breach of Condition Notices have been issued on several previous occasions and the breach is then rectified only for it to re occur the following season, and therefore the process starts all over again. This does not resolve the core problem and is an unnecessary drain on staff resources. One way of providing a more effective remedy would be to serve an Enforcement Notice. As Members will be aware any notice remains “live” even after compliance and it can therefore be re-activated if a breach begins again. An Enforcement Notice would therefore rectify this problem permanently as any future breach could result in prosecution which would obviously be a far greater deterrent.

I must, however, draw a distinction between the two matters under investigation. Regarding the height of the light cluster there is a current breach. However, concerning the problems relating to the failure to remove the lights we are now within the period when they can be present on site and it would not be appropriate to take immediate action regarding this matter. If the action relating to the height of the light cluster does not persuade the club to act more diligently to comply with all the planning conditions then it would be a simple matter to obtain an enforcement authorisation at the appropriate time in the future.

Human Rights

The impact that the erection of the floodlight clusters might have on several properties adjoining the playing field that the club house is situated, on and any other third party, have been carefully considered. In coming to the recommendation to take enforcement action, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private, home and family life) and Article 1 of the first protocol (Right to preservation and protection of property) of the European Convention of Human Rights. I feel that the

impact that the breached conditions are having on the neighbouring properties is adequate to justify the service of an enforcement notice and that the service of an enforcement notice is a proportionate response.

Recommendation

1. To issue an enforcement notice for failing to comply with condition 1 which

limits the height of the floodlight cluster to 6 metres from ground level. Time

period for compliance one week.

2. On the basis that the developer is now within the agreed operating period not to issue an enforcement notice for failing to comply with condition 6 which requires the removal of the floodlight clusters between 1 March and 30 September in any one year.

(e)

TCP/13348A

The siting of two mobile homes in a paddock to the rear of Seafields, Blackgang Road, Chale, Isle of Wight

Officer: Mr P Barker Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of two mobile homes from the paddock situated at the rear of Seafields, Blackgang Road, Chale, Isle of Wight.

Background

On Friday 24 October 2003 a complaint was received in the Planning Department to the effect that a mobile home had been placed on land to the rear of Seafields, Blackgang Road, Chale, and that an extension was being erected without the benefit of planning permission.

The area Enforcement Officer went out the same day to investigate the complaint and found that a large mobile home had been placed in a small paddock at the rear of a residential property known as Seafields, and that an extension was under construction at the side of the property. Seafield is one of a limited number of properties served off the remaining section of the old road. The owner of the property stated that the extension under construction was to provide a bedroom and lounge for his father who was at present in hospital with serious heart problems. The owner has been advised that any further work is at his own risk and he has been informed that it is his right to make a planning application.

When the owner of the land was questioned about the mobile home in the paddock, he admitted that it was to provide residential accommodation and he stated that he intended to put a similar mobile home on the land on the opposite side of Seafields. He was informed that this was an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a proposed site of Special Scientific Interest, and in view of this there would be absolutely no chance of any application to install mobile homes for residential purposes, being supported by officers. The owner was advised not to commence residential use and to remove the mobile home. He said that he would remove the mobile home, but said that a second mobile home was due to be delivered but he would place it alongside the existing one until such time as he could remove them.

The second mobile home was subsequently delivered and the Enforcement Officer wrote to the landowner giving him twenty eight days to remove the two mobile homes from the land.

In view of the sensitive nature of the area, and the declared intent to use the mobile homes for residential purposes, I feel it would be prudent to put authority in place for the service of an Enforcement Notice as soon as possible. In this way, if the mobile homes are not removed within twenty eight days as directed, an Enforcement Notice can be served without delay.

The following policies of the Unitary Development Plan are relevant:

S1 - New Development will be Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas

S4 -The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development

G1 – Development Envelopes

G4 – General Locational Criteria

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 – Standards of Design

H9 – Outside Development Boundaries

H12 – Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans

C1 – Section of Landscape Character

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

C10 – Site of National Importance for Nature Conservation

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To authorise the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the two mobile homes from the land with twenty eight days to comply.

2. To take no action in respect of the two mobile homes.

Conclusion

The site lies outside any development envelope and within an area considered to be open countryside. In addition it carries both landscape and nature conservation designations. All these factors suggest that planning permission for the retention of the caravans would not be supported.

In view of the foregoing it is felt that the service of an Enforcement Notice is the correct option to adopt and that twenty eight days is a reasonable time to require the removal of the mobile homes from the land from the date the Notice takes effect as the landowner was directed to remove them from the land prior to them becoming occupied.

Human Rights

The Enforcement Officer directed the landowner to remove the mobile homes from the land prior to them becoming occupied and therefore the Human Rights implications are reduced but nevertheless, 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. Whilst it is accepted that the recommendation to take enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the land owner, 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 for the protection of rights and freedoms of others. The policy objections stated in respect of the continued use of the property are those encompassed in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and it is not considered that the proposed use could be allowed to commence even with the imposition of conditions. It is also considered that enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

RECOMMENDATION

1. To authorise the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the two mobile homes from the land with twenty eight days to comply.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services