PAPER B2
SCHEDULE OF APPEALS
1. NEW APPEALS LODGED
E/25477 Mr
R Coombes against Enforcement Notice relating to change of use to mixed
residential and business use by means of the operation of a taxi service business
at 34 Mayfield Drive, Newport.
TCP/17850/B Mr and
Mrs D Harman against refusal of formation of vehicular access at Brookside,
Main Road, Chillerton.
TCP/7831/C Mr and Mrs E Humphrys against refusal
for demolition of extensions and new three storey extension to form three flats
at 36 Nelson Street, Ryde.
TCP/25193/A Mrs
L Poole against refusal for car port at 197 Fairlee Road, Newport.
TCP/14386/T Mr and
Mrs A J Milbank against refusal for mobile home for agricultural worker at
Mattingley Farm, Main Road, Wellow.
TCP/19690/E Mr and
Mrs A Walker against refusal of outline for four dwellings with access off West
Street, land adjacent Gembrook, Grove Road, Wroxall.
TCP/25634 Mr
and Mrs W J McClintock against refusal for extension at first floor level to
form a bedroom at 8 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth.
TCP/25522/A Mr and
Mrs M Smith against refusal for extension at first floor level to form a
bedroom at 9 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth.
TCP/25640 Mr
and Mrs M Lynskey against refusal for extension at first floor level to form a
bedroom at 10 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth.
TCP/25757 Mr
and Mrs P Peplow against refusal for extension at first floor level to form a
bedroom at 11 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth.
2. APPEALS WITHDRAWN
TCP/25320 Mr A Howlett
against refusal for demolition of semi-detached dwelling and outline for two
bungalows and alterations to
vehicular
access at Wedgewood, Rosemary Lane, Ryde.
3. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES
No new dates to report.
4. REPORT ON APPEAL
DECISIONS
(1)
TCP/25120 Mr
G Skinner against refusal for two storey rear extension at 16 Downsview Road,
St. Helens.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 22 October
2002
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 21 October
2003
Main issues of the case
as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of
the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.
·
The effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the
occupiers of the neighbouring properties in terms of outlook, the availability
of sunlight and overlooking.
Conclusions of the
Inspector:
·
The extension would be prominent from the rear gardens of other houses in
the terrace and from the rear garden of the neighbouring detached house.
·
The scale of the dwelling itself is modest and the bulky addition would
dominate it.
·
The rear elevation of the house would be completely changed leaving it
out of keeping with the other dwellings in the terrace.
·
The extension would not harmonise with the existing property and would
be obtrusive in its surroundings and conflict with policies G4, D1 and H7.
·
Despite the screening provided by existing fence, the extension would be
overbearing particularly at first floor level and would have a seriously
detrimental effect on the outlook from no. 14 and its garden.
·
The orientation of the appeal property would mean the extension would
overshadow the rear windows of no. 14 including the lounge and part of the rear
garden.
·
The scheme would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the
occupiers of no. 14 and would conflict with policies D1 and H7.
...................................................................................................................................................
(b) TCP/12948/B Mr E Luter against refusal of outline for a
bungalow land adjacent Liz-beth, 16 St. Faiths Road, Cowes.
Officer
Recommendation: Refusal
Committee
Decision: Refusal
(Part 1) - 20 January 2003
Appeal
Decision: Dismissed
- 21 October 2003
Main
issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed bungalow on the character
and appearance of the area.
·
The effect of the proposed bungalows on the living
conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring bungalow Liz-beth in terms of
privacy and the level of activity.
Conclusions
of the Inspector:
·
The site is a long thin strip of land and the
proposed bungalow would fill the width of the plot.
·
In its immediate context the proposed bungalow would
look incongruous beside the adjacent detached bungalow and other similar
bungalows on the same side of the street.
·
The appearance would be of cramped development, tightly
fitted into the road frontage and would be harmful to the appearance of the
surroundings, contrary to policies G4, D1 and H5.
·
The access path to the proposed bungalow would pass
very closely to the windows and front door of the neighbouring property.
·
The comings and goings associated with the only
access to the new dwelling would cause serious disturbance and loss of privacy
to the neighbouring occupier.
·
A fence may mitigate the situation but would be an
intrusive feature.
·
There would be significant detriment to the living
conditions of the occupier of no. 16 as a result of disturbance and loss of
privacy and the proposal would not comply with policies D1 and H5.
·
The quality of the environment would be compromised
by the proposal which outweighs the contribution which would be made to the
provision of housing and the tidiness of the site.
...................................................................................................................................................
(c)
TCP/25115 Mr
and Mrs L Hodgson against refusal of outline for detached house and vehicular
access at land adjacent 32 Mayfield Drive, Newport
Officer Recommendation: Refusal
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 29 January 2003
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 22 October
2003
Main issues of the case
as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance
of the area.
·
The implications for the Eucalyptus tree on the appeal site.
·
The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the
occupiers of no. 34 in terms of outlook and sunlight.
Conclusions of the
Inspector:
·
The plot currently forms the pleasant small break in the built-up frontage
of the road.
·
Because of the shape of the site the building would virtually fill the
space between the two existing dwellings leading to a cramped appearance and
loss of the impression of space between.
·
The proposal would not harmonise with its surroundings and would be
harmful to the appearance of the street and contrary to policies G4, H5 and D1.
·
The Eucalyptus tree is an attractive feature in the street frontage and
its proximity to the proposed new dwelling would make it likely to be either damaged
or removed.
·
The tree is not protected and could be removed at any
time but removal would be accelerated if permission were to be granted.
·
The removal of the tree would lead to a loss to the
appearance of the area.
·
In the absence of an overriding need for the
development the removal or damage to the tree would be contrary to Policy C12.
·
The proposed development would be sited close to the
boundary with no. 34 and would have a detrimental effect on the outlook from the
kitchen window of no. 34.
·
The orientation of no. 34 in relation to the proposed
house would reduce the availability of sunlight into the kitchen of no. 34 and
its back garden.
·
There would be harm to the living conditions of the
occupiers of no. 34 and the proposal would be contrary to Policy D1.
...................................................................................................................................................
(d) TCP/25258 Mr G Lovegrove
against refusal for detached bungalow and garage and vehicular access on land
adjacent 45 Whitecross Avenue, Shanklin
Officer
Recommendation: Refusal
Committee
Decision: Refusal
(Part 1) - 11 February 2003
Appeal
Decision: Dismissed
- 23 October 2003
Main
issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the area.
Conclusions
of the Inspector:
·
The site is situated within a large residential
estate in surroundings characterised by fairly intensive frontage development
relieved by occasional small open areas of such as the land that comprises the
appeal site.
·
The proposed development would occupy a substantial
portion of the site and would significantly change the present open character.
·
This change will be harmful as the present open
appearance makes a significant contribution to the local environment by
providing space and visual relief.
·
The uncharacteristic forward siting of the proposal would
appear cramped and obtrusive in the street scene.
·
The development would seriously compromise the
quality of the local environment and would be contrary to policies D1, G4 and
H5.
...................................................................................................................................................
(e) TCP/9637/C Mr and Mrs P Wershat
against refusal of outline for bungalow, land adjacent Sea Tang, Maythorne Way,
Luccombe, Shanklin.
Officer
Recommendation: Refusal
Committee
Decision: Refusal
(Part 1) - 28 February 2003
Appeal
Decision: Dismissed
- 24 October 2003
Main
issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed development on the character
and appearance of the locality having regard to Development Plan’s settlement
policies and the location within an AONB.
·
The acceptability of the proposed development in
terms of land stability considerations.
Conclusions
of the Inspector:
·
The development would lead to consolidation of this
area of scattered development in the countryside and would conflict with the
aims of the UDP.
·
The site does not meet the criteria of an infill
plot.
·
Residential development of this site would conflict
with AONB objectives.
·
The site is in an area where there is known and
possible land instability and in the absence of any investigations undertaken
by the appellants it has not been adequately demonstrated that the site can be
developed and used safely without adding to the instability of the site or
adjoining land.
·
The development would conflict with Policy G7.
...................................................................................................................................................
(f) TCP/25055/A Mr and Mrs A Nicholson
against refusal of demolition of dwelling and outline for a pair of
semi-detached houses land at Hideaway, Bullen Road, Ryde.
Officer
Recommendation: Refusal
Committee
Decision: Refusal
(Part 1) - 21 May 2003
Appeal
Decision: Allowed
- 27 October 2003
Main
issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the area.
·
The effect of the proposed development on the living
conditions of the occupants of the adjacent properties in terms of outlook and
privacy.
Conclusions
of the Inspector:
·
The proposed siting is acceptable taking into account
the typical scale and spacing of the buildings in the area.
·
The dwellings could be designed to fit in with the
character and appearance of the area without being cramped.
·
The location is within a built-up frontage amongst a
substantial group of houses and an increase in building height and mass would
be acceptable infilling.
·
The visual impact of the proposed parking and turning
area in front of the dwellings would not appear out of context.
·
There would be no overbearing impact on the occupants
of the neighbouring Bullen Lodge as the siting relationship would be
sympathetic.
·
An appropriate design solution would avoid any
unacceptable overbearing impact upon the occupants of neighbouring Beech House.
·
The development would not unacceptable harm the living
conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties.
·
The imposition of conditions relating to parking and
turning within the site would ensure the proposed development does not
prejudice the safety of road users.
...................................................................................................................................................
(g) TCP/15268/A Mr and Mrs K Chessell
against refusal of outline for a dwelling with access off Church Road, land
rear of 136 High Street, Wootton.
Officer
Recommendation: Refusal
Committee
Decision: Refusal
(Part 1) - 16 January 2003
Appeal
Decision: Dismissed
- 28 October 2003
Main
issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the area.
·
The effect of the proposed development on the safety
of road users.
Conclusions
of the Inspector:
·
This is a backland location and the proposal would
represent an isolated development uncharacteristically located in a position
without proper road frontage.
·
The proposal would be out of keeping with its
surroundings and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
·
The benefit of providing additional housing in this
location is firmly outweighed by the harm caused to the quality of the
environment.
·
If the appeal were to be allowed the Council would
have difficulty in resisting similar proposals which might come forward in the
future on adjoining land.
·
Such proposals would cause cumulative harm to the
character and appearance of the area and inhibit a more efficient and
comprehensive development that would make a positive contribution to the local
environment.
·
The proposal represents an incongruous, piecemeal
development, harmful to the character and appearance of the area and in
conflict with policies G4, D1, H5 and PPG3.
·
The proposed dwelling would generate a significant
additional amount of traffic using the track which would prejudice the safety
of road users by increasing conflict in the vicinity of the access and footway
to the adjacent primary school.
·
The proposed development would conflict with Policy
TR7.
...................................................................................................................................................
Copies
of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in
the Members Room. Further copies may be
obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment
Services