(b)       TCP/24539                     Mr A C & Mrs V L Sutton against refusal for formation of vehicular access and hardstanding for parking at 25 Priory Road, Carisbrooke.

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 15 March 2002.

           Appeal Decisions:                    Dismissed - 22 January 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          It would not be possible to turn a car on site.

           •          The suggestion of manoeuvring a car to park on site parallel to the road would still be unacceptably hazardous.

           •          The site is located close to and on the outside of a bend and visibility to the east is particularly limited.

           •          Drivers travelling westwards would have little time to react on rounding the bend and encountering a car manoeuvring into or out of the proposed parking space.

           •          The degree of hazard would be accentuated by the lack of a footway and the narrow road and an emerging vehicle would move directly into the path of approaching traffic.

           •          Visibility to the west is also restricted.

           •          Planning permission granted 4 - 5 years ago for a frontage parking space at the neighbouring property to the west has greater visibility and manoeuvring space and the decision predates the UDP which emphasises the important of highway safety.

           •          The development would represent an unacceptable hazard to highway safety and would conflict with TR7 and G4.

.....................................................................................................................................................

           (c)       TCP/7131/B                    Mr G E Dillon against condition imposed on planning permission for a single storey conservatory requiring windows in eastern elevation to be permanently obscure glazed and permanently fixed (non-opening) at 3 Baring Drive, Cowes.

           Officer Recommendation:       Approval subject to condition.

           Committee Decision:                Approval subject to condition (Part 1) - 10 June 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Allowed - 28 January 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The effect of clear glazed windows on the privacy of the neighbouring occupants.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          The condition was imposed to prevent direct overlooking of the living room window of the neighbouring dwelling from the eastern windows of the conservatory.

           •          The existing beech hedge between th two properties cannot be relied upon as the sole means of providing privacy.

           •          The reasonable use of enjoyment of the neighbouring property would not be achieved other than by the insertion of obscure glazed windows which are fixed shut.

           •          The Council’s condition is overly restrictive in allowing only 2 months for the compliance and a period of 3 months would be more reasonable to allow adequate time for a specialist glazier to be employed.

           •          New condition imposed requiring windows in the eastern elevation of the conservatory to be obscure glazed and permanently fixed (non-opening) within 3 months of the date of the appeal decision.

                       .....................................................................................................................................................

           (d)       TCP/7402/B                    Mr G Thompson against refusal of outline for bungalow with vehicular access off Eddington Road, land adjacent Longlands, Eddington Road, Nettlestone.

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 29 May 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 28 January 2003.

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

           •          The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance and privacy.

           •          The effect of the proposal on highway convenience and safety.

           •          The effect of the proposal on the conservation of local habitats of protected species.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          The proposal would result in an acceptable intrusion into land which should be kept open.

           •          A new dwelling and its associated domestic curtilage would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

           •          The occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings would suffer disturbance from the additional movements to a new dwelling arising from service vehicles and visitors cars.

           •          There would be conflict with pedestrians using the public footpath and the proposed access to the dwelling which would materially increase danger and inconvenience to both vehicles and pedestrians and conflict with TR7 and G4.

           •          The proposed development would not require any specific removal of trees and shrubs on the south side of the access track and there would be no material harm to the habitats of protected species in the adjacent Longlands Copse.

....................................................................................................................................................

           (e)       TCP/24775                     Mr M Malin against refusal for change of use of gift shop to an amusement arcade at Daltons, 62 High Street, Shanklin.

           Officer Recommendation:       Approval.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal - 5July 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Allowed - 29 January 2003.

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The effect in terms of noise and disturbance on the living conditions of nearby residents.

           •          Whether the proposal complies with policy R13 (amusement centres) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          Safeguarding of the living conditions of residential occupants is an important consideration.

           •          The expectation of levels of peace and quiet in residential accommodation in a town centre location would not be as high as in an exclusively residential area.

           •          Government advice in PPG6 Town Centres and Retail Development is that amusement centres are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping areas or areas of mixed commercial development.

           •          A reasonable restriction on the hours of operation would limit material harm to living conditions of residents and commercial occupants.

           •          The proposal satisfies the criteria of R13 and does not conflict with other relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

....................................................................................................................................................

           (f)        TCP/24561                     Mr & Mrs R Cooper against refusal for detached house with detached garage and formation of vehicular access, land adjacent Tanglewood, Ningwood Hill, Cranmore, Yarmouth.

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part1) - 23 July 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 3 February 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality and on highway safety.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          The site cannot reasonably be regarded as an infill plot.

           •          The proposed development would consolidate existing dispersed ribbon development.

           •          The scale and size of the proposed dwelling would be intrusive and seriously erode the local landscape.

           •          The site cannot provide adequate visibility splays and vehicles using the site would be likely to cause danger and inconvenience to other road users.

....................................................................................................................................................

           (g)       A/2287                            Woodward Leisure Limited against refusal of advertisement consent for the retention of an illuminated projecting serpent sign at Club Temptation, 16 St. James Street, Newport.

           Officer Recommendation:       Approval.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal - 27 August 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 4 February 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The effect of the sign on the amenity of the area.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          The sign is of an imaginative design which reflects the name and current interior use of the premises.

           •          The building still retains its original outward appearance and the sign does not complement this.

           •          The sign is an intrusive advertising feature in the street scene and compromises the quality of this part of the conservation area.

           •          The external illumination will serve to accentuate the inappropriate presence of the sign at night.

....................................................................................................................................................

           (h)       TCP/24112/A                  Mr & Mrs D Floyd against refusal for terrace of two houses and two maisonettes and formation of vehicular access onto Palmerston Road at land on corner of Alexandra Road and Palmerston Road, Shanklin

           Officer Recommendation:       Approval.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal - 29 January 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 4 February 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The relevance and application of policy T4 and the effect of the proposal on the overall character of the area and on the health of the tourist industry.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          It is not unreasonable to regard the curtilage of the Marlborough Hotel as a linked tourist facility and the site is part and parcel of that facility.

           •          There is little significance to the fact that the appeal site is now separated from the hotel by a wall.

           •          Separating land in this way could be construed by developers as a way of circumventing the intentions of policy T4.

           •          The proposal would result in the loss of a form of tourist facility by a use unrelated to tourism.

           •          The proposal would erode the overall hotel related character of the area by introducing another residential use and prejudice the site’s potential for some form of hotel related development.

           •          The proposal would be detrimental to the future health of the tourist industry.

           •          The general fear of precedent and the cumulative effect of eroding the hotel related character of designated areas adds some weight against the appeal.

           •          The proposal would undermine the objectives of adopted policy T4.            

           Application by Mr and Mrs Floyd for an Award of Costs against Isle of Wight Council

           •          The Council has behaved unreasonably in refusing planning permission and has not produced evidence to show it had reasonable grounds for taking a decision contrary to officer advice.

           •          The Council had not been able to define the meaning of the term ‘tourist facility’ and as the site had not been used since 1995 there was no loss of any facility.

           •          The appeal proposal accorded with development plan policies aimed at making more efficient use of existing urban land.

           Council’s Defence

           •          Unreasonable behaviour had to be demonstrated.

           •          Clear evidence had been submitted to justify the decision.

           •          The importance of the tourist trade to the Island had been emphasised.

           Inspectors’ Decision

           •          There was sufficient scope for the Planning Committee to not adopt the planning officer’s advice on reasonable planning grounds, particularly with regard to what comprised a tourist facility related to the Marlborough Hotel.

           •          The Council subsequently gave sufficient argument and evidence to support its position.

           •          Whilst the proposal accords with other development plan policies, policy T4 applies specifically to designated hotel areas and this is sufficient to outweigh the other considerations.

           •          The Council did not act unreasonably and the application for an award of costs against the Isle of Wight Council was refused.

....................................................................................................................................................

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 Corporate and Environment Services.