NEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16 JANUARY AND 7 FEBRUARY 2003

SCHEDULE OF SITES GIVING BRIEF APPRAISAL OF MEMBERS’ VIEWS ON EACH INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

WEST WIGHT TOUR 16 JANUARY 2003

·    Site One - House and garage land adjacent 9 Princes Esplanade, Cowes.

Members appreciated that the development maybe described as a “modern innovative design” but were unconvinced about the success of this infill scheme. The design of the house was disappointing and, quite importantly, lacking any interest or focal points and this was exacerbated by the unsympathetic positioning of the garage at the front of the plot. Members also have reservations about the use of materials in terms of the smooth face finish and problems that were likely to result in terms of future maintenance, particularly in a coastal location.

·    Site Two - 23 houses, 7 bungalows; alterations to vehicular access and access road, land rear of Freshwater Library, School Green Road, Freshwater.

Members recall that this was a particularly contentious “backland” site at the time of the application in terms of density, access and drainage. Although incomplete Members considered that the development was relatively successful providing affordable housing close to the village centre. The quality of the building work and the various finishes, such as paviours, was found to be of a good standard and, importantly high density need not equate with sub-standard development.

·    Site Three – Eight detached houses with detached garages, formation of access road, Brighstone Tea Gardens, Main Road, Brighstone.

Similar to Site Two this was a contentious application at the time it was under consideration but Members were of the view that the resulting development was of a high quality, not only protecting but enhancing the character and the amenities of the Conservation Area at the heart of the village. However, Members recognised that a low density development comprising eight substantial detached houses was very unlikely to be providing affordable homes for local people and consequently not a good example of what modern development control practice is striving to achieve.

·    Site Four – Two/three storey development of ten houses and block of six flats between Pyle Street and Scarrotts Lane, Newport.

It was recognised that this was a high density Housing Association development on the very edge of the town centre which had taken place on a site that had been in semi-derelict condition for a number of years. In terms of design there was a perception that the frontage onto Pyle Street had been a success with the exception of the larger unit which took the form of six flats. Members also thought that the smaller scale aspect of the development on the frontage onto Scarrotts Lane was in character with the nature of the development in the immediate vicinity. On a point of detail, Members had quite noticeable reservations about the proportion, size and design of the individual UPVC windows which, in their view, formed an incongruous feature and detracted from the overall appearance of the development.

EAST WIGHT TOUR 7 FEBRUARY 2003

·    Site One – Accommodation, learning and support facilities for 45 young adults known as the “Foyer” scheme, 91 George Street, Ryde.

Members tended to accept, as opposed to praise, what is a modern development within a designated Conservation Area and noted that the overall significantly high site coverage in terms of the footprint of the building had not had the detrimental effect on neighbouring and nearby properties which had been feared at the time of the application. A view was expressed about the use of a smooth render finish with concerns about future maintenance.

·    Site Two – Outline for business park and residential development of 56 dwellings, land at Westridge Cross, Brading Road, Ryde.

Members appreciated and understood that this was part of an enabling development which enabled a B1 user to relocate from an inadequate site nearby and where there is already a detailed planning permission for another B1 user to relocate from a site at Binstead. The quality of the finished part of the development was considered to be of a very high standard and Members noted that with the careful use of modern layout techniques there is no need for unnecessary concern about the potential for pedestrian/vehicular conflict. While the quality of development was high it was considered that the social housing should be integrated throughout the development rather than separated out and divorced from other properties in private ownership.

·    Site Three – 4 to 9 storey block of 59 apartments with car parking at ground floor level, site of former Blue Lagoon, Esplanade, Sandown.

Members were aware that there was an extant permission on this site for a more substantial scheme than the one currently nearing completion and the site had been an eyesore for a number of years. There was divided opinion about the success or otherwise of the façade onto the Esplanade but there was agreement that the new development was preferable to the semi-derelict sites immediately to the north. Notwithstanding the reservations about the height at the southern end of the site (nine storey) the disbenefits of a high density were not readily evident from an inspection of the site from the Esplanade, but became apparent at the rear of the site where the impression was gained that it was cramped and finished to a poor standard or not finished. Once again there was concern about the use of painted smooth render and future maintenance problems.

·    Site Four – Demolition of house, proposed terrace of four houses, 8 St Johns Road, Shanklin.

This was a case of making the best possible use of urban land. Members had visited the site before making a decision. It was considered that a high density development such as this, despite the very minimal amenity space at the rear of the individual properties for future occupants, allowed for the provision of affordable homes a very short distance from the town centre. The workmanship was found to be of a reasonable standard and the consensus view was that the resulting development did not have the disbenefits feared at the time of the application by the Shanklin Town Council and local residents.

C S Hougham

Development Control Manager