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 CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5. THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BEMBRIDGE SOUTH	Hillway Annexe Hillway Road Bembridge	TCP/01018/E	1	APPROVAL
BRADING AND ST HELENS	Isle of Wight Wax Museum 46-53 High Street Brading	TCPL/22055/D	3	APPROVAL
BRADING AND ST HELENS	Isle of Wight Wax Museum 46-53 High Street Brading	LBC/22055/E	4	APPROVAL
TOTLAND	Island View Chalets Fort Warden Road Totland Bay	TCP/15752/V	2	REFUSAL

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BEMBRIDGE NORTH	site of 23 High Street Bembridge	TCP/25181	12	APPROVAL
BEMBRIDGE NORTH	Avonvale Dennett Road Bembridge	TCP/25199	13	APPROVAL
CENTRAL RURAL	land adjacent Rookley Manor Niton Road Rookley	TCP/25288	14	APPROVAL
EAST COWES NORTH	Red Funnel Services Trinity Road East Cowes	TCP/09338/W	8	APPROVAL
MOUNTJOY	Tollacre Watergate Road Newport	TCP/08956/B	7	APPROVAL
NORTHWOOD	Vectaveg 339 Newport Road Cowes	TCP/24234/A	10	APPROVAL
NORTHWOOD	Vectaveg 339 Newport Road Cowes	TCP/24234/B	11	APPROVAL
RYDE NORTH WEST	land rear of 28 John Street Ryde	TCP/10832/D	9	REFUSAL
SANDOWN SOUTH	Fernbank Hotel 6 Highfield Road Shanklin	TCP/01681/N	5	APPROVAL
SHANKLIN SOUTH	land rear of 2 Hungerberry Close Shanklin	TCP/03513/E	6	APPROVAL

This application was previously reported to the Committee on 14 January 2003 when Members deferred the decision to obtain further information in respect of drainage, land stability, foundations and an existing gas main which may affect the proposal. Additional information has now been received from the relevant consultees and is included in the report which is before Members for determination.

Report requested by local member as he is not prepared to agree the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

This application relates to a detached single storey property situated on the northern side of Hillway Road almost opposite the junction of the lane which leads to Whitecliff Bay Holiday Club.

The area is semi-rural in character with a scattering of dwellings, mostly bungalows and chalet bungalows, along the northern side of Hillway Road with open land to the south. There are fields to the rear of the site and a smaller chalet bungalow to the eastern side with open land to the west and north.

The property itself comprises a single storey flat roofed structure with rendered elevations and a glazed verandah along the front. It is understood that the property was previously used as a dwelling with attached shop/cafe but has recently been in residential use. There are a number of other structures and outbuildings at the rear of the property and a fore court/garden area at the front.

TCP/1018/C - Consent granted in 1965 for conversion of the shop unit to a self contained flat resulting in two separate units of accommodation at the property.

There have been no subsequent planning consents for use of the property but it is understood that it has until recently been occupied as a single unit.

Planning permission requested for the provision of a pitched roof extension above the existing flat roof of the property to provide additional bedroom accommodation and to use the building as two separate residential units as previously agreed.

The submitted details also show alterations to the elevations of the building and provision of vehicular access and car parking at the front.

A number of poor quality outbuildings at the rear of the property would be removed to provide amenity space.

Additional information has been provided by the applicants' agent addressing concerns raised by Members regarding this proposal. It is indicated that prior to purchasing the property trial holes were excavated in several places around the perimeter of the existing structure to expose foundations. The Building Control Officer was invited to attend and has confirmed that in his opinion they are suitable to carry the additional load of the design as proposed. The existing structure shows no sign of any movement and it is understood this is similar to the adjoining property. With regard to the gas main and drainage, both of these have been in place for many years and the footprint of the building is not being extended and in fact would be reduced by demolition of rear extensions and outbuildings.

Site is situated outside the designated development envelope as identified in the Unitary Development Plan. Unitary Development Plan policies D1 and H7 are considered to be applicable to the extensions to the residential property.

The application site is situated outside the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but is close to the boundary which encompasses land to the south of Hill Way. Unitary Development Plan policy C2 indicates that development should not have detrimental impact on the landscape of the AONB.

Highway Engineer requests conditions regarding the visibility access and parking and turning areas if application is approved.

"The application is sited just outside of the boundary of the AONB, but is visible from higher ground in the area.

Scale of the proposed roof the new structure - The roof structure would seem to be a predominate feature of the proposed design being somewhat higher than the neighbouring property.

The applicant has not specified the materials to be used for the new building. It is essential should the Authority be minded to approve the site that these reflect the local character of the area and adjacent properties."

Letter received from local member objecting to development for proposed enlargement of existing property outside development envelope and within AONB. Increasing the size of the building from single to two storeys would be of a height and mass incompatible with the adjoining buildings and would adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining property by virtue of loss of daylight, overlooking and overbearing and unneighbourly building. Only limited attempts have been made to minimise the impact of the roof by cropping the gables and concern is also expressed regarding generation of additional traffic for the proposal. Comment is also made that property is on flight path to Bembridge airport and increasing height may present an additional hazard as a light aircraft crash landed in the garden of a property on the opposite side of Hill Way. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D1, H7 and C2.

The Area Building Control Surveyor comments that the suitability of the existing structure and foundations to carry the additional load are relevant questions which will need to be addressed at the building regulation stage. A site visit has been made in this respect and no insurmountable difficulties are expected in relation to this. The question over land stability may relate to local knowledge that several properties in the vicinity have been under pinned. The land in question is not particularly unstable in itself but can be affected by changes in moisture levels in the subsoil, such changes that can affect buildings are usually caused by the introduction or removal of trees. At present there are no trees of significance near the property and so there is no reason to believe that the ground is unstable.

Southern Water have commented in respect of drainage that any new connection to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water. There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site. No surface water should be discharged to the public foul sewer as this could cause flooding to downstream properties. There are records of blockages at other properties in the area but not at this site. It does not appear that there is a lack of capacity for this development. Southern Water also confirm that a water supply can be provided for the proposed development.

Comment received from Transco indicating that a main gas service line runs through Hillway Road itself. No records are kept of the position of gas services to individual consumers but it should be assumed that a gas service exists to each property from the nearest main. Services should be located by hand dug trial holes prior to commencement of work.

Parish Council recommend application for approval as this would represent an enhancement to the appearance of the building and the street scene.

Five letters received from local residents expressing concerns about the proposal with matters summarised below;

Proposal is not in keeping with adjacent bungalow or others in the vicinity as the roof extension would be too high.

Proposed buildings would be out of character with surrounding properties and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Existing drainage pipes run across rear of adjacent property and have been the subject of endless problems and a real health hazard. The additional number of toilets shown within the property would cause a real problem and it is suggested that a separate connection can be made to Hill Way Road to alleviate the ongoing problem.

Although accommodation is shown as domestic, concern is expressed regarding a possible future uses such as letting or bed sit accommodation.

Proposal is considered to be out of character with the existing area and comments have been made regarding other developments nearby which have also affected the rural character of the area.

Concerns expressed regarding increased number of vehicles and safety of highway.

Building works on adjoining site may affect stability of existing property next door.

One writer comments that no objection is made to the overall effect given the size of the plot and existing building which should be very pleasant when finished.

This application relates to a substantial detached property of unusual design situated on the northern side of Hill Way in Bembridge. It is understood that the property was formerly part commercial and part residential with subsequent conversion to two separate residential units although the accommodation has I understand, recently been occupied as a single unit.

The existing building is of unusual design with rendered elevations and a flat roof with parapet edging. There is a glazed verandah on the front of the property as well as a number of outbuildings and other structures at the rear. The adjoining property to the east is a traditional hipped roof chalet bungalow and there are a scattering of similar properties in the area. There is open land to the side (west) and rear of the site.

The existing property contains a total of six bedroom accommodation with three living rooms, two kitchens and two bathrooms. There is a separating wall through the centre of the property which currently has an opening linking the accommodation.

The proposal now under consideration is for alterations to the existing property together with a new roof extension to provide additional bedroom accommodation at first floor level. The separating wall would be reinstated to provide separate accommodation for each of the two units. Each unit would have two bedroom accommodation at first floor level contained within the roof space together with additional bedrooms and living accommodation within the existing ground floor of the building.

The main roof extension would have a ridge running parallel with the front elevation with cropped gables at either end. As the existing building as an "L" shaped footprint there would be a gabled projection to the rear.

Following negotiations, revised plans have been submitted indicating an overall reduction in the ridge height of approximately 600 mm, together with alterations to the front elevation including small porches to the properties in order to reduce the visual impact of the roof and to reduce the visual scale of the building.

As a result of discussions with the applicants agent following concerns expressed regarding the application, further information has been received to clarify the situation regarding drainage at the property. This indicates that the existing building was previously occupied as two separate units each with a separate drainage connection. One unit connects directly to the sewer within Hill Way Road whilst the other unit connects to a 100 mm diameter pipe passing through the adjoining properties drainage system and then into the road system.

Whilst the concerns of local residents about the drainage system are noted, it does appear that the properties each have a separate connection to the existing system and whilst the additional accommodation may put an extra load on the existing system, this would be a matter for control under the Building Regulations if the development goes ahead.

Matters relating to highway access and parking are also noted and the Highway Engineer has recommended conditions regarding visibility sight lines access and parking and turning areas should the application be approved.

The determining factors are therefore considered to be the size and scale of the proposed roof extension, together with other alterations to the property on the overall amenities of the area and the adjacent property in particular.

The submitted details indicate a street scene showing the relationship between the proposal and the adjacent property which, although smaller, is also a chalet style dwelling. It should also be noted that there is a flat roofed garage situated between the existing property to the east and the development now under consideration such that the proposed roof extension would not be in close proximity to any existing windows on the adjoining property.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the roof extension would be somewhat large due to the existing footprint and width of the building, I do not consider this to be significantly out of character, over dominant or unduly overbearing in respect of the adjoining property. Comments have been received regarding the effect of the proposals on the overall character of the area which is semi-rural in nature. The site itself is in fact outside the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but is close to the designated area which is to the south of Hillway. The proposals have therefore been considered with regard to their effect on the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but are considered to be compatible with other buildings in the locality and would not appear unduly uncharacteristic or over dominant in this regard provided suitable materials are chosen for the roof cladding. This matter could be covered by condition if the application is approved.

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 properties 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 of freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed alterations and roof extension, together with use of the accommodation as two separate dwellings would be acceptable and would not unduly affect the amenities of the area or nearby residential properties. Evidence indicates that previous consent was granted for the occupation of the property as two separate units and the property was so occupied until recently. Whilst concerns regarding the existing drainage system are noted, these are not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application and would be for agreement for owners of the property and control under the Building Regulations. Overall, the proposed alterations and extension to the roof are considered to be acceptable in accordance with policies D1, H7 and C2 of the Unitary development Plan.

The additional information received from the consultees in respect of the structure of the existing building and the drainage and gas services indicate that there would be no concerns in these respects which would indicate that the proposals would be unsatisfactory. There is no

evidence of overall land instability in the area and the foundations in respect of the existing building appear to be adequate. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable and I recommend accordingly.

The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for (light/heavy) vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use:

(a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm

2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

Application relates to holiday chalet site located on northern side of Fort Warden Road approximately 120 metres to west of its junction with Colwell Common Road. Site is bounded on northern side by properties fronting Colwell Chine Road and to east by properties fronting Colwell Common Road. Western boundary of site is defined by line of poplar trees beyond which is the Beachside Bungalows site (self-contained holiday units).

Existing holiday chalets within application site, constructed for most part of faced concrete blocks under flat roofs, are arranged on terraces as site rises in westerly direction with maximum change in level of approximately 8 metres between eastern boundary and western boundary. Site contains a substantial number of trees, including those on boundaries and individual specimen trees interspersed amongst the chalets. Area to north and east of site is predominantly residential in character, whilst to west is further holiday accommodation and to south is an area of open unimproved grassland.

TCP/15752R/P553/97 - Outline planning permission for residential development of 26 dwellings refused June 1997. Reasons for refusal related to location of site, outside development envelope, contrary to policies of the Structure Plan, West Wight District Plan and the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan. In addition, application was refused on grounds that access was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate width and construction and that the application was accompanied by insufficient information regarding impact on trees. Subsequent appeal was dismissed in May 1998.

Consent is sought for demolition of holiday chalets and outline planning permission for residential development of 39 dwellings and alteration to vehicular access. Siting is not reserved for future approval and letter which accompanies application provides breakdown of proposal as follows:

In the accompanying letter agent advises that the current chalets are becoming structurally unstable and in need of total reconstruction. He indicates that various alternatives have been considered and it has been concluded that reconstruction of self-catering tourist units was found to be uneconomic, particularly without supporting infrastructure facilities that are demanded on such sites today. He goes on to advise that this application provides 'an enablement factor' in promoting tourism and leisure on the Island by reinvesting money from the sale of the land into the development of Rookley Country Park, which is also within the ownership of his client. It is suggested that this influx of money will assist to provide thirty new jobs at the park including the transfer of three jobs from Island View. The cost of this work is estimated at between £1.5m and £1.7m and would be carried out over a period of three to five years. Applicant's agent sought views from Isle of Wight Tourism in this respect and copy of letter from the former Head of Tourism Services is attached to this report as an appendix.

Applicant's agent suggests that use of application site for tourist purposes is no longer viable or sustainable in the medium term. In particular, he suggests that sites like this are not sustainable without the support of facilities such as swimming pools etc which in this case would be totally unviable.

Proposed scheme would incorporate element of affordable housing and applicant's agent advises that this will be carried out in conjunction with the Parchment Housing Group, a registered social landlord, which works to provide two to three bedroom houses and two bedroom flats for equity housing, affordable rent, cost rent and key worker provision.

Applicant's agent has submitted further correspondence providing information in support of proposal, a copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing sets out the Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimizing the amount of green field land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximising the reuse of existing buildings. The Guidance Note indicates that national target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through of conversions of existing buildings.

The Guidance Note advises that in identifying sites to be allocated for housing in Local Plans and UDPs, Local Authorities should follow a search sequence, starting with the reuse of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the Urban Capacity Study, then urban extensions and finally new development around nodes of good public transport. Furthermore, the Guidance Note advises that in identifying sites Local Planning Authorities should assess their potential and suitability for development against criteria which include the availability of previously developed sites, their location and accessibility, capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, ability to build communities and physical and environmental constraints on development of land.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 21 provides guidance and advice on tourism issues. The Guidance Note acknowledges that despite the continuing growth in tourism in Britain, the industry faces strong competition from overseas and especially within the single European market. Guidance Note advises that, in order to realise its potential and to cater for changing patterns of tourism, rising standards and expectations, the industry needs to maintain a continuous programme of investment and reinvestment and constant improvements in the quality and value for money of the services and facilities offered.

Site is shown on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be outside the development boundary and designated as a permanent holiday accommodation site. Area to south of site beyond Fort Warden Road is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brown field) rather than undeveloped (green field) sites.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or previous approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordablility.

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

Highway Engineer comments that the highways aspect of this site were well documented in the previous application for residential development of the site with 26 dwellings and the main issue at that time was the inadequacy of access road which is not under applicant's control. He notes that the Inspector dealing with the subsequent appeal felt that access road issues could be dealt with by imposition of a Grampian condition and did not uphold their recommendation for refusal on this point, nor on concerns over increased traffic. However, current proposal for 39 dwellings is a considerable increase over the previous 26 and Highway Engineer considers that his objection is more likely to be upheld. Therefore, he recommends refusal to application on grounds of generation of traffic and inadequate access.

Following recent discussions with Isle of Wight Tourism, I am advised that they would not wish to add to the comments provided by the former Head of Tourism directly to the applicant's agent.

Principal Planning Officer (Policy) comments that site is outside the development envelope boundary for Freshwater and is therefore 'countryside' for the purposes of the UDP. In addition, site is allocated for tourism use under Policy T6 which allows for the upgrading and expansion of holiday accommodation providing certain criteria are met. He comments that the Council defended this position at the UDP Public Inquiry and was supported by the Inspector. He considers that it is clear from the applicant's letter dated 29 January 2003 that they accept their proposal is contrary to policies contained within the UDP, but feel that other considerations outweigh any policy objection in this particular case. However, in his view, the material considerations put forward do not outweigh the wholesale loss of the tourism facility and he would particularly point to the following comment from the UDP Inspector in support of the Council's approach at Island View:

"I place considerable weight on the need to protect tourism sites from the lure of financial advantage being gained from redevelopment to some more valuable urban form."

Policy Officer also expresses concerns as to the impacts and precedence on adjoining tourism uses and the character of the area, particularly as the Inspector indicated that any change in circumstances at Island View would have to result in a similar change at Beachside Bungalows and the development at the end of Colwell Chine.

Tree and Landscape Officer advises that there are few trees of special landscape merit on the site. The only trees which are considered to be significantly attractive enough to possibly merit protection by a Tree Preservation Order are a Scots pine on the southern boundary with Fort Warden Road, a birch tree near eastern side of site and the hybrid poplars near the western boundary. She considers that it would be necessary to seek revisions to the layout to allow the retention of the birch tree. Generally, she does not consider there to be any trees on site which are so significant that they would in themselves constitute a reason for refusal.

The present development is of such a poor nature that, although it is designated for tourism, is not an asset to the tourism infrastructure of Totland and surrounding area.

Provision of affordable housing within site and the area of Totland can only be beneficial to the residents and the regeneration of the area.

The Council have been informed that there will be no significant increase in the traffic flow as a result of the development.

The Parish Council would prefer to see provision of open space within the development removed, since there will be adequate open space available on the opposite side of the road. An open space of the size suggested can only be a liability to residents, the Parish Council or the Isle of Wight Council in the future.

Councillors are aware that the developer is willing to provide funding for the development of a Heritage Centre in the centre of Totland and welcome this suggestion. This will enhance the tourism facilities within Totland in a manner that the existing development does not at present. The Council understand that the developer is willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement.

Parish Council hopes this matter can be progressed to the benefit of the area both for residents and tourism infrastructure.

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

Application no different in principle to that refused in 1997 and subsequently dismissed on appeal - no change in circumstances, inconsistent to approve current application.

Area designated as holiday accommodation - proposal would have adverse effect on tourism and local economy.

Residential development would completely alter aspect of Colwell to its detriment.

Development served by private road which is substandard and would deteriorate further if development took place.

One letter received from resident of adjacent development raising no objection to proposal and making the following comments:

Residential development preferable to existing use of site which creates unreasonable noise late at night - also presents security risk to neighbouring residents.

Houses adjacent to property would result in overlooking/loss of privacy and would result in loss of light. Bungalows are considered to be more appropriate on this part of the site.

Letter was accompanied by petition containing seven signatures supporting views expressed above.

Architectural Liaison Officer initially sought further information including whether front gardens would be open plan, details of any fencing/lighting, finish and management of open space etc. Information has been submitted addressing a number of the issues raised by him. However, following further discussions with him, it has been acknowledged that application seeks outline planning permission and a large proportion of the information sought could be addressed when considering an application for AORM or detailed consent.

He accepts that the parking area would have good surveillance and it is understood that the open space would be managed by a registered social landlord. He recommends that further discussions should take place with the applicants regarding the crime and disorder implications.

In considering the appeal against the previous refusal of planning permission for 26 residential properties on the site, the Inspector considered the main issues to be suitability of the site to continue to provide holiday accommodation, the effect of the proposal on the character of the area and the adequacy of Fort Warden Road to serve as an access to the proposed development. I consider that these issues remain relevant to the determination of the current application and, additionally, whether there has been any change in circumstances since the previous refusal and dismissal on appeal which would justify a different decision.

In determining the appeal, the debate included issues as to whether site was in the countryside and proposal constituted small-scale scheme. Inspector acknowledged that site was outside the development envelope and therefore excluded from the built-up area of the existing settlement in terms of planning policy. Therefore, he was of the view that, since the site was not allocated for residential development and no persuasive evidence of a local need for housing in the area had been produced, including any essential need for agricultural or allied employment, proposal did not accord with policies of the Development Plan in force at that time. In terms of the three main issues identified by him, his comments in this respect are set out below.

On the first issue, regarding suitability of site to continue to provide holiday accommodation, Inspector noted that the Council placed considerable importance on contribution of short-break self-catering holidays to the Island's tourist industry. This view is supported by advice contained in PPG21: Tourism. It was not disputed that large number of chalets on the site were around thirty years old and reaching end of their useful life. However, it was suggested that prudent repairs could extend the life of the chalets which could be replaced over a period of years with modern equivalents. Whilst applicant acknowledged that it would be sensible to reconstruct all chalets over a period of a few years, they suggested that location of the site and its lack of facilities, together with the type of accommodation offered, would not produce sufficient income to justify redevelopment.

The Inspector considered the financial implications of the re-placing of these chalets and evidence put forward by both the appellant and the Council in this respect. He concluded that complete replacement of the chalets would be difficult to justify as a sound commercial investment. He also considered that, having regard to size of site, some limited provision of facilities could be offered, although he accepted that viability of providing such facilities might be doubtful.

The Inspector concluded that although the site is suitably located for holiday accommodation, the existing chalets have limited life and replacement with similar alternative accommodation does not appear to be economically viable. Therefore, he suggested that site had uncertain future in its existing and allocated use.

In terms of the effect of the proposal on the character of the area, the Inspector acknowledged that there is a significant amount of development west of the development boundary and although some providing holiday accommodation, much of that development has appearance of permanent dwellings. He also noted that the Council had approved other development outside the boundary, including development of the Fort Warden Holiday Camp. He recognised that this was considered acceptable as an exception to the Local Plan on the basis that the camp was closed and the operator intended focusing investment into holiday sites owned on the Island. Other benefits included environmental improvement, provision of community facilities and creation of a new roadway between the site and the public highway. However, he considered there to be few similarities between this proposal and the one before him. In particular, the site was not abandoned and did not include any substantial community and environmental benefits.

The Inspector considered that a substantial hedgerow and screen which defined most of the south eastern boundary of the site form a clear edge to the built-up area and is more physically identifiable than the development envelope as defined in the Local Plan. Whilst there is development beyond these features, the Inspector did not consider the envelope to be illogical or out of date as to justify the appeal site as being suitable for development. Whilst the development proposed involved a reduction in the number of units on the site, the Inspector concluded that permanent development would have a different impact to the holiday accommodation, whilst was accommodated within well treed and maintained grounds and would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Turning to adequacy of Fort Warden Road to serve the development the Inspector understood that the appellant had verbal consent from the owner of the road to upgrade and improve it to serve the development and that land was also available within the appellant's control to increase the width of the road and to provide a footpath. He acknowledged that provision had been made for an alternative route to the Fort Warden site and considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in use of Fort Warden Road. He did not believe that problems over access were insurmountable physical problems and although concerned about appellant's legal ability to carry out improvements, he concluded that this issue could be addressed by means of a 'Grampian' condition.

In summary, the Inspector accepted that the existing use and uncertain future of the site in continuing to provide holiday accommodation indicate that it could be considered as the type of previously developed (brown field) land which the Government has suggested should be favoured for housing development over green field sites. However, he was of the opinion that such a consideration should be part of the Development Plan process rather than in a piecemeal fashion by way of appeal decisions.

The site was the subject of an objection to the UDP which was considered at an Inquiry subsequent to the determination of the appeal against refusal of planning permission. The basis of the objection was that the site should be included within the development envelope. It was contested that the development envelope does not distinguish between the urban area and the countryside and it cannot be said that Island View and its neighbours are part of the countryside. It was again argued that the chalets had reached the end of their economic life and were rapidly deteriorating to the point that they would be no longer lettable for holiday purposes. The Inspector noted the findings of his colleague regarding the economics of upgrading the accommodation and concurred with these views. In this respect, it was argued on behalf of the objector that if the chalets deteriorated to a point where the site becomes abandoned, it should be allowed to be developed for housing.

In considering the merits of changing the development envelope, the Inspector placed considerable weight on the need to protect tourism sites from the lure of financial advantage to be gained from redevelopment of some more valuable form. The Inspector considered that the area to be included within the amended development envelope serves the tourist industry and deserves protection. He concluded that this is a part of Freshwater where the distinction on the ground between that which should certainly be within the urban envelope and that which should be outside is indistinct. He acknowledged that there is ordinary housing development immediately outside but adjoining the development envelope and there is an argument for taking the boundary around this housing. However, he considered that there was a perceptible change in density from one side of the line to the other and considered that it is the policy reasoning behind the delineation which is important, ie to define the general built-up area wherein development will be permitted and that land beyond the boundary over which a restrictive policy will apply.

He concluded that irrespective of the difficulties of the deteriorating chalets on Island View and the economics of the tourism operation, there should be no modification made to the development envelope in this vicinity. He commented that an earlier decision to allow development on the Fort Warden site demonstrates that individual circumstances can be taken into account. He also commented that the Island View Chalet Park is in a much more favourable location immediately adjoining the development envelope than the Fort Warden site which is clearly isolated from the urban area by a strip of open land which is the subject of a protective policy as a wild bird sanctuary, adjoins a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is immediately behind the beach. Having considered that the matter, he recommended that no modifications should be made in response to the objection.

Since dismissal of the previous appeal, the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan has been formally adopted and policies which seek to protect the tourist accommodation in this area remain in force. I do not consider that there have been any significant changes in site conditions other than the further deterioration of a number of the chalets. Whilst reinvestment of funds derived from the development of this site were not a factor in determining the previous application and subsequent appeal, applicant in respect of current proposal has indicated his intention to reinvest funds from the development in the Rookley Country Park, which is also within his ownership. In addition, funds would also be made available to Totland Parish Council for regeneration purposes in connection with tourist and community facilities in the area. Applicant's agent indicates that reinvestment of funds in the Rookley Country Park would facilitate provision of 28 new caravans and hardstanding, for which planning permission has already been granted. This would allow for the creation of 30 new jobs of a permanent and temporary nature and facilities for 14,000 additional holiday visitors per year to the Island, compared with Island View which currently brings 3,000-3,500 visitors per year. The additional facilities will also broaden the period during which visitors would come to the Island between March and November. Applicant's agent also points out that scheme would provide eight affordable housing units within the Totland area for which there is a requirement. Other benefits to the development are detailed in the letter from the applicant's agent which is attached as an appendix to this report.

Whilst noting that applicant intends to reinvest funds from site in the Rookley Country Park and made available funds for regeneration in the Totland area, it is necessary to consider how relevant these factors are to the development proposed. Applicant's agent has indicated that his client would be willing to enter into a legal agreement regarding the reinvestment and provision of funds to Totland Parish Council. However, following consultations with the Legal Services Department, it is understood that delivery of these benefits by way of a Section 106 Agreement would present a number of problems. In order to determine whether these factors could be adequately addressed by a Section 106 Agreement, it is necessary to consider whether what is being offered is needed to enable the development to go ahead, necessary from a planning point of view and directly related to the development. In the case of the current proposal, advice from Legal Services suggests that benefits on offer do not satisfy these criteria. In addition, the view is expressed that Rookley Country Park is too far removed from Totland and in any event, would only be applicable if there was a planning need for this facility which has been generated by the application. This view is supported by case law in the House of Lords in which it was held that:

"An offered planning obligation which had nothing to do with the proposed development, apart from the fact that it was offered by the developer, would plainly not be a material consideration and could be regarded only as an attempt to buy a planning permission".

The case law indicates that obligations should have some direct connection with the development which is not de minimis.

It is suggested that contribution of money for community facilities in Totland would present less of a problem although, again it must be shown that this would help to overcome problems which arise in approving the application.

Existing chalets within the site are single storey flat roofed buildings which, by reason of their low level nature have limited impact in the landscape. The proposal involves introduction of two storey accommodation and it is considered that this will significantly alter the appearance of the site and character of the area. In particular, proposal involves construction of two storey development on one of the highest parts of the site which is presently undeveloped.

The Inspector dealing with the appeal also expressed view that development of site for residential purposes would alter appearance of site and I consider that such a change would be detrimental to the character and amenities of the locality. Furthermore, whilst the Inspector considered that this site could be considered as a brownfield site, it remains outside the development boundary and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that site should be developed in advance of sites within the defined settlement, in accordance with the sequential approach recommended in PPG3.

Whilst noting the views of the Inspector in respect of the appeal against refusal of planning permission, the Highway Engineer expressed his view that proposal would result in an increased number of vehicle movements and that, having regard to the increase in the number of dwellings proposed from 26 to 39, the grounds for objection raised by him are more likely to be upheld.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties has 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.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I do not consider that there has been any change in circumstances since the previous refusal of planning permission and dismissal of appeal which would justify approval of current proposal. In particular, I consider that had the Inspector in determining the objection to the UDP considered the site was suitable for residential development, it would have been within his power to modify the development boundary. Whilst it has been suggested that the proposal represents the development of a brown field site, the land remains outside the development boundary and is designated for tourism purposes. Having regard to these factors, I consider that proposal continues to be contrary to policies of the UDP and I am not satisfied that the reinvestment of funds from the development elsewhere on the Island as suggested are directly relevant to the development proposed or are sufficient to outweigh the policy objections. Whilst the Inspector into the UDP indicated that development of the Fort Warden site demonstrates that individual circumstances can be taken into account, in this instance, I do not consider that sufficient grounds have been established to justify approval.

Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

The Waxworks is located on the south east corner of Brading High Street and Quay Lane. The existing premises include the listed Wax Museum, its outbuildings to the west and south, 5 small cottage properties fronting High Street and the former garage building situated to the east side of the access off Quay Lane. It is an irregularly shaped site and also includes an open car parking area at the rear of the building, the sites' boundaries being marked by the boundaries with residential properties fronting Quay Lane and the footpath leading from The Bugle Public House situated on the southern side of the complex in an easterly direction. The site is central in the Old Town.

The site of this application essentially related to land at the southern end of the complex almost adjoining the rear of The Bugle Inn and to the former garage building fronting Quay Lane.

December 1996 consent granted for a change of use of the ground floor and rear extension of numbers 52-55 High Street for use as craft workshops/retail and new courtyard with pergola over and new retail building and for change of use of 1 Quay Lane to storage, extension of the car park associated with the development. At that time the application site also included the Bugles' car park and land situated to the south east. In June 1998 a previous condition imposed to control access and egress from the whole complex was removed. Effectively in August 2002, the planning permission allowing vehicular ingress and egress from Quay Lane allowed the two parts of the site to be separated (Wax Museum and The Bugle and its car park).

The Wax museum is now effectively separated from The Bugle and its car park and the applicants now wish to develop further by the erection of a new building, 'L' shaped in its plan form. Overall dimensions of 24 metres x 19.5 metres, constructed in masonry with a finish mostly in render, some painted cream, some painted black with brick detailing especially around the arched double doors on the east elevation. Other features include vertical cream boarding and the low pitched roof is shown to be clad in a grey corrugated or ribbed sheet. The building has a distinctive railway character and the main part of the structure is visible from the south and west only.

It is proposed to change the use of the former garage fronting Quay Lane into shop and cafe. The cafe area is shown to approximately 67 square metres with the shop area approximately 135 square metres, a 1 third/2 third split. It is intended to make alterations to the building to include a parapet around the perimeter of the building of a similar section to that which is on the front of the Wax Museum. The cafe is shown to contain approximately 26 covers and a small outside seating area which might contain another 32 seats.

In addition the application seeks to change the use of the first and second floors of numbers 49 and 50 to two residential units. These properties are presently used as part of the commercial enterprise and the ground floor would remain in that use whilst bringing residential accommodation back into the town centre.

Within development envelope as defined on inset O of UDP. Part of the site including the Wax Museum and the frontage of the properties are included within the designated conservation area. The Wax Museum building on the corner of Quay Lane with High Street is a listed building. Accordingly policies G1, G4, D1, D2, B1, B2 and B6 apply. The development represents a tourism development and therefore policy T2 and policy T8 are relevant.

Town Council raise concern regarding traffic congestion and parking in Quay Lane, suggesting a traffic management scheme needs to be implemented including signage sympathetic to the conservation area to divert prospective patrons to the town car park and the carrying out of landscaping on the site.

Brading Town Trust object to the formation of a cafe on grounds of over provision of outlets in the town. Four letters of objection, one including a petition of 29 signatories, objecting on ground of inadequate car parking, the introduction of yet another cafe, increased traffic in Quay Lane and overdevelopment of the site.

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

These applications seek planning permission and the associated listed building consent for an enlargement of this tourist attraction location within and adjoining the conservation area in Brading Town.

In policy terms the safeguarding of the listed building, the promotion of tourism and the enhancement and protection of the conservation area are the prime considerations, followed closely by management of the traffic situation, especially the possible increased use of Quay Lane. The use of the former garage and introduction of a cafe supplement the proposals that form an important element against which several objections have been received.

Many of the objections relate to the proliferation of cafes etc but these are generally trade matters which cannot be considered as legitimate planning objections.

The museum building will not be visible from the High Street since the building is lower than those buildings which front High Street but the building will be visible from the public house car park and longer distance views to the east. Existing buildings of Quay Lane, at the rear of the High Street buildings and the main wax museum building are comparatively modern and finished in painted render. The museum building proposes finishes in a similar fashion but its design is reminiscent of railway architecture, the building occupying a site which is presently partially hidden but is essentially derelict land in a poor state of maintenance. The addition of this building will enhance the conservation area since the rear elevations of the buildings fronting High Street would no longer be easily visible. In terms of principle and design I consider the revised plans submitted are acceptable.

The reuse of the first and second floors of two of the buildings in High Street as residential accommodation is also considered appropriate and, in the town centre, on a major bus route, the lack of parking for these units is not considered to be an important issue.

The change of use of the garage to a cafe and shop which is in close proximity to both the Wax Museum and the High Street is not felt to be an inappropriate use. The cafe is likely to encourage patrons of the Wax Museum as will the shop but neither use is likely to generate significant traffic on its own. Whilst there are other outlets in the High Street it is not the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority in safeguarding such establishments by refusing proposals for outlets in competition.

Originally there was no connection between The Bugle Inn car park and the Wax Museum car park, and the Wax Museum and the former garage operated with vehicular access only off Quay Lane. The connection between the Wax Museum car park and the public house car park has now been revoked and therefore all traffic accessing and leaving the Wax Museum car park will be via Quay Lane and with limited capacity, traffic will need to be accommodated elsewhere once the car park is full. The situation has altered, as Members will be aware, with the imposition of the 20 mph speed limit through Brading and this reduction in speed will make manoeuvring in and out of Quay Lane a degree safer. However, I do agree with the Town Council that tasteful signage to direct traffic into the town car park when the wax museum car park is full would be a desirable achievement if consent is granted. The Highway Engineers have not ventured so far with such requirements, recommending conditions regarding the turning space, the provision of 51 car parking spaces and the removal of the non return flaps and installation of collapsible posts between the Bugle Inn and Wax Museum car parks prior to the development being brought into use.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights an freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

The development of the site for the erection of a mechanical world exhibition for the conversion of the garage block into a shop and cafe and for the use of the upper floors as two flats and associated parking is considered to be appropriate as it supports the tourism use of the site, provides residential accommodation and improves the appearance of the garage building and the development is therefore considered to be consistent and in support of policies G4, D1 and D2 B2 and B6 and tourism policy T2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

Fernbank Hotel is located on the east side of Highfield Road just before the 90 degree bend before it joins Westhill Road. The hotel is essentially a two storey building set in a substantial site surrounded by residential uses, on the west side of Highfield Road and properties to the east fronting Pomona Road and Florence Road. On the north side of the hotel is another detached building, a bungalow, with a double garage towards the front adjoining the north boundary which comprises a brick wall and a dense hedgerow. A detached bungalow adjoins the site to the north.

The land falls away to the east and to the south. There is a vehicular access with a small parking area in front of the hotel on either side of its frontage with Highfield Road.

In May 1986 consent was granted for a first floor extension to the living unit located on the north side of the hotel to form five en-suite guest rooms. This permission was not implemented. In May 1990 a change of use was granted from manager's accommodation to form additional bedroom accommodation for the hotel. Again, that permission was not implemented.

Originally submitted as a more ambitious scheme the revised application now seeks consent for a first floor addition to the manager's accommodation and a single storey rear extension forming a total of six holiday units, each comprising two bedroom, lounge/kitchen and bathroom. The single storey element at the rear of the building projects into lawned amenity area associated with the hotel and has an overall dimension of 16 metres by 9.3 metres, constructed in masonry under a pitched roof with a cropped gable, walls finished in smooth render, the roof being clad in plain tiles. The first floor extension has overall dimensions of 9.3 metres by 14 metres and the revisions to the scheme include windows only in the front and rear elevations and the southern elevation but only two roof lights serving the bathroom of each of the first floor units although most of the windows in the ground floor of the existing accommodation are already in situ. A revised plan shows the two car parks containing nine spaces in the northern side and six spaces in the southern side. The plan also indicates a notional sub-division of the site between the existing hotel and the holiday units the subject of this application.

The site is within the designated development envelope well outside Shanklin hotel area (Policy T4) and not specifically allocated. Policy T2 supports proposals for tourism etc and, if necessary, related coach and car parking will be approved provided the design, access, parking and landscaping are satisfactory.

Highway Engineer recommends a condition requiring the retention of the existing car parking at its existing level. But in making such recommendation states "On street car parking is problematic in this area; if sufficient car parking is not available at the hotel it may cause problems for local residents.

On the basis that the hotel has eighteen bedrooms at present; plus the seven additional holiday units; twenty-five car parking spaces would be ideal; however, as I cannot insist upon a minimum number of car parking spaces being provided and it is likely that a small percentage of holidaymakers will arrive by public transport or coach, on balance the amount of car parking proposed is just about acceptable".

Letters of objection from adjoining occupier to the north on grounds of loss of privacy, loss of light and overshadowing; inadequate parking and congestion in Highfield Road; creation of noise and disturbance; overdevelopment of the site. Writer comments that, if development is approved, the units should be limited in the time of year they can be occupied, that they should remain together as one property with the hotel rather than being offered for sale as a separate entity.

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

This application seeks consent to add six holiday units to the hotel by making additions to the manager's living unit and converting the accommodation to assist in the resultant number.

Determining factors in this instance are considered to be policy and principle, design, scale and massing of the resultant structure; matters relating to access and parking and effect on the adjoining property through possible overlooking and the dominant effect of the increased mass of the structure.

In terms of policy and principle additional facilities for accommodation in connection with holiday use at this site is consistent with Council's policy. The site is within the development envelope and the accommodation is closely linked with existing holiday accommodation.

The design, massing and scale of the development is in keeping with existing development adjoining and similar in mass to that which was previously approved in 1990. Part of the scheme, situated behind the existing building is at a lower level and not visible from anywhere but the adjoining property and then only the roof plane will be visible due to the screening already in existence.

Access is already in existence to both areas but the level of parking, bearing in mind the amount of accommodation on the site is of comparably small proportion. However, consistent with current policy and in line with the Highway Engineer's observations, it is felt that the level of car parking provided will be appropriate bearing in mind Governmental policy reducing reliance on the private car by omitting higher levels of car parking. Whilst it is accepted that there are restricted on-street facilities for parking, the lack of such a provision on-site will probably put greater pressure on those facilities but much of the area is double-yellow lined thus restricting on-street provision.

Following the initial submission, the proposals have been revised twice. Initially two units were omitted from the rear section of the extension reducing the extension from two to a single storey and, secondly, altering the layout of the flats to provide only two bathroom roof lights to be included on the north side elevation with the adjoining property. The reduction in height and the omission of windows will dramatically reduce the effect on the adjoining property from overlooking and overshadowing to the extent that I do not consider such objections now to be sustainable. The extensions and enlargement of the building will be visible from the adjoining property but bearing in mind the extensions are on the southern side, when the sun is at its highest and the fact that the roof planes slope down to the boundary, the ridges being parallel to the boundary, I do not consider overshadowing to a degree justifying a refusal of planning permission will occur.

The accommodation is proposed to be for holiday purposes and therefore, bearing in mind its relationship with the existing property and interrelationship between units it is felt that it is unsuitable for permanent residential occupation. Accordingly it is suggested that any consent granted should be subject to conditions limiting the occupation to holiday purposes and for a maximum period of six weeks for any individual residing in them. Parking of one space for each unit should be provided and maintained for the use of that unit and all of the flats should be maintained together as one property to assure their use for holiday purposes as opposed to second homes. I do, however, consider it necessary to restrict the occupancy of the units with the hotel which means that the holiday units could not be sold separately from the hotel.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

The proposal represents the enlargement of tourist accommodation in an area of mixed uses attached to an existing hotel. The enlargement at first floor level is similar to the scale and mass of the extension approved in 1990 and although the site abuts the side and adjoining to bungalow, that bungalow is unusual in this part of the street since other properties are of two storeys in height. The ground floor extension, situated at the back and at lower level is unlikely to be sufficiently visible to have any adverse effect and therefore it is felt that the proposals are in line with tourism policies and policies D1 and D2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Although car parking is short, approval of developments with lower ratios of parking is in line with Governmental and UDP policy to reduce reliance on the private car. Approval is felt appropriate and in line with current policy.

Report requested by Team Leader due to recent planning history and nature of representation.

The application site is part of the rear garden at 2 Hungerberry Close, Shanklin which is a chalet bungalow. Within the garden is a summerhouse and flat roof double garage. The plot fronts Victoria Avenue with number 46 Victoria Avenue, neighbouring property to the south east being a two storey dwelling set well back from the road. The area is of residential character with a mix of properties in the vicinity. Victoria Avenue is the main approach road into Shanklin.

TCP/3513/D - Bungalow and formation of vehicular access, land rear of 2, Hungerberry Close, Shanklin, refused August 2002.

The proposal is for a detached dwelling, garage and vehicular access off Victoria Avenue 30 metres east of the junction of Hungerberry Close/Victoria Avenue. The plot measures approximately 16.5 metres by 14.25 metres with access shown to be over existing open verge area outside the applicant’s ownership and turning shown within the site.

The proposed footprint measures 7 by 9.5 metres with garage measuring 2.9 by 5 metres; external finishes to be agreed. Accommodation to be provided is living room/dining area, kitchen, utility, cloakroom at ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom at 1st floor.

Details of garage elevations have not been provided but this could be conditioned to be agreed if application approved.

The application site is within the development envelope for Shanklin and policies H5 (Infill Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) apply. Determining factors are matters of site size, visual effect of development, space around building, adequacy of car parking and access and effect on adjoining properties. The proposal is generally acceptable if it does not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring property and the surrounding area.

Following receipt of revised parking/turning arrangements, Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval.

Tree and Landscape Officer has inspected site and comments that there are 4 trees on the adjoining site which would be affected by the proposal: 3 ash and a horse chestnut. However, none of these is worth protecting - the ash nearest Victoria Avenue leans substantially to the west/north west so is not well-shaped; the other two ash and horse chestnut have been topped at some time in the last 2 - 10 years, leaving them with no amenity value. No objection therefore to development on tree grounds.

Shanklin Town Council object on the basis that not satisfied with the proposed access arrangements.

Nine letters of objection received on grounds of overdevelopment of small plot of land; inappropriate; adverse effect on appearance of area, unattractive and out of character in area where properties are older style and well spaced; lack of garden space.

Dangerous access, loss of existing pleasant open land, proximity to bus stop and double yellow lines; inadequate turning, inadequate visibility, potential hazardous parking on main road and unsightly parking on verge; noise generation by parking manouvres; garages too close together.

Adverse affect on views; loss of privacy and light; effect on trees on adjoining boundary, trees important for preservation of red squirrels, increase in water retention in an already damp area, loss of public land, larger property than the one previously refused; disposal of public land without referendum, devaluation of property, proposal contrary to Policy D1 and TR7 as was the original application.

The character of this part of Victoria Avenue is of a mix of properties on the main route to Shanklin. The site is within the development envelope boundary and there is no principle objection to residential development. Utilisation of sites such as these, a more economical use of land by the subdivision of existing curtilages, is in line with Governmental advice, so long as the resulting development maintains adequate standard and character of development, consistent with its location.

In terms of access, Highway Engineer is satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions.

The Property Services section have been consulted on application. It would be necessary for developer to apply to acquire land outside application site if scheme to be implemented.

With regard effect on adjoining properties, the main aspect windows, two at ground floor and two dormers front Victoria Avenue. There is one dormer window on the rear elevation with a patio door and window at ground floor, no windows on the eastern elevation and two small ones at ground floor on the western elevation. Any potential overlooking from rear dormer window is considered minimum as this serves a bathroom.

With regard size of plot and appearance within street scene, main consideration is how it relates to property to immediate west as the house sited to the south east is well set back from the road, whether proposal will represent overdevelopment of site and whether it is of adequate standard and character consistent with location.

It is considered that although a limited sized plot, this site can accommodation a dwelling of proposed size with minimum impact on surrounding area given characteristics and neighbouring property.

The Tree and Landscape Officer’s comments that trees on the eastern boundary are of limited amenity value and therefore a refusal on these grounds would be unsustainable.

With regard the previous refusal for a dwelling, the reasons for refusal were additional access onto Victoria Avenue creating hazards, unsatisfactory access by reason of inadequate visibility, inadequate and deficient details in respect of pedestrian and vehicular access to fully consider effects of proposal. In addition, proposal by reason of position, size and external appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development and have an adverse effect on neighbouring amenities.

Because of Highway Engineer comments on previous application, I have sought clarification on conflicting comments. Confirmation has been received that subject to satisfactory turning and visibility, application is acceptable. Revised plan meets with Highway Engineer's approval. It is considered that a refusal on highway grounds would not be sustained if an appeal were to be lodged.

In terms of design, size and siting compared with the previous scheme, this proposal does have larger footprint and higher ridge. The current scheme is considered to be more in keeping in its relationship with the neighbouring property to the west and area in general. I am of view proposal is of appropriate scale, design and that previous reasons for refusal have been overcome.

I consider that the use of this piece of land for an additional dwelling will be acceptable subject to conditions regarding materials, access and parking, boundary treatment and the prevention of insertion of further windows.

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.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with policies D1 and H5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use:

(a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm

2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The car parking/turning/loading/unloading shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The recommendation is in conflict with policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan.

The application site is situated at the southern end of Watergate Lane, opposite its junction with Marvel Lane and Nunnery Lane. The site consists of a detached chalet bungalow and detached garaging set within a large garden area. The site is surrounded on its north west (road side) boundary by a 2.4 metre wall and an area of vegetation with a lower 1.5 metres wall on the north eastern boundary. To the south, land slopes down to a stream before rising to the southern boundary of the site, with fields beyond.

TCP8956/A – erection of a semi-bungalow, land opposite Newclose, Watergate, Newport, IW, approved August 1963.

The application involves a two storey extension to the north east elevation providing around 180 square metres of accommodation containing bedrooms and living areas and additional dormer windows to the south east elevation of the existing property. The following client’s brief accompanied the application:

"The owners of Tollacre need a large extension to their home to cater for their son who has Downs Syndrome. The space is required in the short term to provide accommodation for respite care visitors. These are people who stay short periods of time to relive the parents of the round the clock attention that their son demands. In the longer term the space will be converted into an annexe where their son can enjoy a measure of independence within the safety and comfort of the home.

In addition to the bedroom and living accommodation for the visitor, space is required for an activity room. This is an area where their son can ‘play’, in an education sense, so that his senses are stimulated and developed. The fourth bedroom in the main house will be used as an office. This space is required to keep track of the correspondence and records needed for their son".

The application site is outside the development envelope for Newport and adjacent to the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) states that extensions and alterations to existing residential properties will be permitted: where they are of appropriate size and design to the property or where an additional dwelling is not created; or where the impact on neighbouring properties is not excessive. Policy D1 (Standards of Design) also applies and seeks to ensure that development enhances the quality and character of the built environment.

AONB Officer has the following comment; ‘the site is adjacent to the Isle of Wight Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation. The site is currently well screened by a wall and mature trees and therefore is not visible when approaching from either of the roads, which border the AONB designation. Therefore this proposal makes no significant impact on the AONB. However, I do believe that the design should be improved in reference to supplementary planning guidance ‘Countryside Design Summary’. I suggest this is brought to the attention of the agent, particularly as the desire to alter the form of the building to a rural ‘farmhouse’ more fitting to its location has been expressed in supporting information submitted with the application.’

The property forms part of a small group of buildings at the junction with Watergate Road, Marvel Lane and Nunnery Lane. The property is surrounded by boundary walls and trees and while glimpses of the north east and north west elevations can be seen from the public highway, the building is generally well screened. The proposed extension sits comfortably within the plot and although a mature bay tree is to be removed from within the site, the area is to be replanted.

The extension follows the general style of the existing building being of one and a half storey with dormer windows within the roof, the overall design is intended to create a ‘cottage’ feel to the property. However, in order to maximise the use of the roof space the ridgeline will be around 300mm higher than the existing property. Overall, the extension will become the more dominant element with the existing property taking a more subservient role. For this reason, the proposal would not conform with Policy H7 in that the additional space created by the extension is disproportionate to the existing floor area of the property. The additional accommodation does meet the needs of the applicants in providing the day to day living space required for their son and to provide accommodation which is flexible enough for use by respite carers and for their son as he grows older. For this reason, it is considered that in this instance the personal circumstances of the applicants are sufficient to recommend that the planning application is granted.

In coming to a recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others, it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and that the personal circumstances relating to the need for additional space at the property outweighs the constraints of policy H7.

Application raises significant issues in relation to highway matters which require consideration by Members.

Members will be familiar with ferry terminal at East Cowes which is served by two main car parking areas i.e. Trinity and Phoenix car parks.

Main terminal building is single storey and is located alongside existing industrial premises. Area in front of building is used for short term parking which adjoins loading and unloading linkspan.

TCP/9338R - planning consent granted in November 1996 for alterations and extension to ferry terminal building together with alterations to pedestrian access.

Application seeks consent for construction of additional access ramp comprising fixed section and linkspan section to be located between existing enclosed pedestrian walkway which routes from existing terminal building and existing vehicle linkspan, which currently provides car access to ferry.

Fixed section of ramp which is to be constructed on land runs over a distance of some 51 metres with remaining linkspan section supported on piled marine concrete support structure is approximately some 24 metres in total length. Linkspan will have sufficient movement capacity to allow + 0.5m above and below mean high/low water sea level. Ramp will be approximately 6 metres above ground level.

Ramped access is required to meet Red Funnel's intention to enlarge existing car ferries making them approximately 10 metres longer and 3 metres taller which allows installation of new upper car deck between existing car deck arrangements and passenger deck area. The car deck ramp and linkspan allows cars to enter/leave the ferry from newly created upper car deck area. Ramp provides access for passenger cars only to upper deck throughout tidal range and has a minimum width of some 3.5 metres between parapets. Maximum gradient is 10% and structure will be formed using steel form work connected to tops of tubular steel piles.

Applicants advise that in line with general increase in tourism, retail, commercial and traffic requirements facility operates at full capacity during certain peak periods of year. Proposed increase in ferry size from the as built 142 car equivalent units (CEUs) capacity to around 200 CEUs would alleviate demand for capacity during peak periods and facilitate more efficient and timely exchange of freight and car traffic. Peak days occur on Fridays, Saturdays and Mondays, mainly during summer holiday periods and may involve up to ten or eleven crossings. Traffic is marshalled in East Cowes across the Trinity and Phoenix yards and the combined capacity of these yards is around 200 CEUs. This can be increased to 220 CEUs with slight modifications to layout. On those peak days and actual peak crossings with new larger ferries Trinity and Phoenix combined CEU capacity would be used to stack only the next imminent peak crossing with all other traffic discouraged from entering East Cowes or turned away should they do so. In practical terms once ferry is alongside and loading late incoming traffic or traffic for next ferry will be allowed 20 yards to be marshalled as space is created. It is proposed that with more efficient traffic evacuation that will be possible with larger ferries current ferry shuttle service on peak days will revert to hourly timetable service.

Application is supported by Method Statement outlining procedures for traffic management during discharge and load operations and Noise Assessment Report also accompanies application.

Council's Local Transport Plan advises that East Cowes Mini Transport Plan has already raised issues of pedestrian safety and highlighted that improvements are essential if more people are to be encouraged to walk. The conflict between pedestrians and late arrivals for the ferry is a concern for many residents. The strategy therefore has allowed for general pedestrian facility improvements to be installed. These include new sections of footway, widened footways and crossing facilities.

Strategic Policy S5 states that proposals for development which on balance will be for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

Applicant has been in detailed discussions with Highways Section of this Authority seeking to ensure that opportunity is taken to improve both transport interchange facilities, instigate appropriate traffic management measures at times of loading and unloading and seeking to minimise potential conflict between all highway users particularly at peak times of activity. Method Statement submitted by applicant is referred to in Evaluation section of this report. At time of report preparation formal comments of Highway Engineer were not available.

English Nature advise that proposal is not likely to have significant effect on SPA/cSAC either alone or in combination with other plans. Furthermore, they are of an opinion that proposed development will not result in significant damage to Medina Estuary SSSI and they therefore raise no objection.

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle but request condition to ensure that any piling operations are carried out between specific time of year.

Comments received from Trinity House Lighthouse Service relate principally to matters of ownership and potential damage to property and maintenance of access, issues which Members will be aware of are not planning considerations. Applicant company is in contact with Lighthouse Service seeking to overcome these particular concerns.

Environmental Health Officer comments that following assessment of Acoustic Impact Report which forms part of application no objection is raised to application.

Southern Vectis advise that they consider additional marshalling manoeuvres when loading and unloading ferries using proposed new ramp will add to problems which already exist on public highway at these times. They are particularly concerned that the proposal will make it more difficult for foot passengers to use bus services. These currently serve a stop in Dover Road on opposite side of road to passenger terminal. Pedestrians are already in conflict with vehicles in this area as there is no designated walkways or crossing facilities so additional vehicle movements in this area are likely to increase potential for conflict.

Main planning considerations relate to relevant Unitary Development Plan policy and more detailed matters relating to visual impact of proposed structure, affect on locality particularly residential amenity and implications for highway safety.

On first issue, generally UDP policy supports initiatives which improve cross-Solent ferry links and appropriate proposals and traffic management schemes which help address traffic marshalling problems associated with ferry terminals, subject to proviso that such a proposal will not adversely impact on local environment, is appropriate in terms of scale and operation and does not have unacceptable detrimental or adverse environmental impact.

In terms of environmental impact on locality and surrounding residential occupiers it is considered that in visual terms construction of ramp located between existing similar facilities will be successfully assimilated within existing terminal facility and is an appropriate structure for such an area in terms of scale and external appearance.

Application has been accompanied by Acoustic Assessment which has been vetted by Environmental Health Officer who raises no objection on this particular issue.

As referred to in Representations section upon initial receipt of application Highway Section of Authority raised concern concerning current activities in both Dover Road and an area immediately outside main terminal and linkspan as current arrangements necessitate vehicles boarding ferry requiring to cross public highway between Trinity Yard and linkspan. Vehicles leaving ferry likewise cross same section of highway and these activities combined with large number of pedestrian movements, buses turning, HGV movements, taxis and vehicles dropping off and collecting foot passengers and delivery vehicles all provide significant risk to motoring public and in particular more vulnerable road users. Furthermore, proposals did not address potential for improvements to bus/public transport infrastructure and pedestrian access to site.

Considerable negotiation has taken place between applicant company and Highways seeking to address these issues which has resulted in submission of Method Statements for loading and discharge operations which is with Highway Engineer for final consideration. Following further meeting Method Statement has been reviewed and briefly following measures are now to be implemented by operator.

Firstly, they intend to install traffic light controls at exit from each linkspan, this will assist in control and reinforce need to maintain a single flow of traffic from terminal apron towards Dover Street. Secondly, the demarcation of a walkway to encourage pedestrians to follow a line between Trinity pavement and the ticket office by the most expeditious route. Appropriate safety signs will be sited at the walkway at both ends. Thirdly, bus stop will remain as is and a turning circle will be marked out for bus to provide consistency and direction for drivers in executing a single turn. Fourthly, suitable remote controlled variable message sign to be agreed with Highways in terms of message and location will be erected and a suitable build out to be agreed with Highways for the Phoenix entrance including signage improvements. Finally, it is intended to remove existing marshalling cabin in Phoenix Yard which does not contribute to traffic control and which will allow increased parking capacity.

On the assumption that the revised traffic management measures meet the requirements of the Highway Engineer then all material considerations have been assessed in respect of this proposal and accordingly approval is recommended.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aims and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations it is considered that the proposed development accords with policies of the UDP and will not significantly affect the amenities of the locality and represents an opportunity to improve efficiency and safety of transport interchange facility.

Application relates to rear curtilage of No. 28 John Street which is in flats. This is located within the Ryde Conservation Area, predominantly residential in immediate vicinity and neighbouring veterinary surgeon. Lulworth Lodge to the east is a building that was listed in May 2002.

TCP/10832/C Outline application for detached house, land rear of 28 John Street, Ryde - refused June 2002.

Application relates to rear curtilage of no. 28 John Street which is currently used as garden area in connection with flats. Submitted plan shows plot size depth of approximately 17 metres by 10.2 metres width. Plans show building having dimensions of 8 metres depth by 5.2 metres width being sited on the western boundary.

Accommodation comprises lounge, kitchen/diner at ground floor with three bedrooms and bathroom above. The front elevation (east) shows ground and first floor windows, the rear (west) elevation as no windows. There is one window in the north elevation at ground floor and at ground floor on the south elevation 1 window and door. Overall height of building is 6.4 metres above ground level to ridge. Externally building would be finished with smooth render, brick soldier course, timber windows, natural slate roof with terracotta hips and ridges.

The following policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development are considered particularly relevant: G1 - Development Envelopes, G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development, D1 - Standards of Design, D2 Standards for Development within the site, B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings, B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, H4 - Unallocated Residential Development, H5 - Infill Development, TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Relevant advice is also contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 “Planning and the Historic Environment”. Members will also be aware of the requirements of Section 72 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 in requiring Local Authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Sections 16 and 66 of this Act also require Authorities in considering applications for planning permission which affect a listed building to have special regard to matters including the desirability of preserving the setting of such buildings.

Highway Engineer advises original plan unacceptable from a highways perspective. Further comment on revised scheme; no highway implications.

Seven letters have been received objecting to application on following grounds: adverse effect on character and setting of listed building; detrimental effect upon social and environmental fabric of area, out of character with existing buildings in area in terms of siting, scale, design, materials and density. Adverse affect on conservation area, undesirable precedent of piecemeal development with conservation area. Detrimental affect on neighbouring privacy, light, view and general amenity. Inadequate access for emergency vehicles and limited parking within and outside site, traffic congestion. Over development, inappropriate.

Further letter from objector expressing concern of continual process of applications and revisions increasing local worry.

Three letters in support of the application on grounds of design and location sympathetic to surrounding area, development of inner town spaces is preferable to gradual erosion of green land, good use of disused garden.

In respect of revised plan three further letters reiterating original concerns have been received from nearby residents in addition to concern no vehicle access and no separate pedestrian access.

Main planning consideration in respect of development is the appropriateness of development in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the implications for the setting of the listed building, impact on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers together with highway issues.

The Council’s conservation officer has considered the scheme and comments that the revised scheme has been submitted following discussion between the applicant and conservation officer. He comments that:

“I am of the opinion that this proposal does not reflect the character of the surrounding properties. It exhibits to John Street, the main elevation, a bland unarticulated box to no architectural merit, and will I suggest have a considerable detrimental effect on the conservation area, and to a lesser degree the listed building to which it relates to the east. The existing buildings, particularly no 28 John Street is of later Georgian villa style, with much emphasis on the vertical elements of the windows and pilasters, and this is reflected throughout the whole street; the proposal has no affinity with these buildings and is out of scale.

My inspection raised the question as to overlooking of the balcony on No. 13 Newport Street, some 13 metres away, and the rear windows of No. 28 John Street.

I am of the opinion that despite some marginal improvements, this application is still unacceptable and should be refused.”

Lulworth Lodge to the east was listed in May 2002 as a good example of a small late Georgian or early Victoria villa; the building was listed during the processing of the earlier refused application.

Notwithstanding the above planning objections with regard to the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and setting of listed building, concern is also raised in respect of potential impact of proposed development on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers.

The building would be adjoining the west boundary and given height and size of proposal is considered to adversely impact on residential amenity of surrounding residential occupiers.

Letters of support for application do not outweigh considerations detailed above.

With regard parking arrangements, no vehicular access is proposed for the dwelling. Site is within parking zone 2.

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.

For reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposal does not meet requirements of either Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act or Unitary Development policy in seeking to protect or enhance conservations areas and related issue of maintaining appropriate setting for listed building. Furthermore, it is considered design of proposal is not of sufficient standard given site’s location and also adversely impacts on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers.

The proposed kilns used for smoking the fish shall be fitted with an extract ventilation system which shall comprise; suitably sealed and fireproof exhaust ducting installed from the point of extraction, to an extractor fan and thence to a suitable point of discharge to atmosphere. The discharge point must be at a sufficient site to achieve adequate dispersal of fumes and odour, in this case at a height of not less than 1.5 metres above the ridge level of the premises. The extractor fan shall be appropriately sized and precautions shall be taken to minimise the potential of disamenity from noise or vibration such as including where appropriate acoustic housing, silencing and system design. The system shall be maintained and effectively operated during the use of the premises.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance from odour emissions from the premises and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the applications being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

The application site involves the former Vectaveg building, which is sited adjacent to the northern boundary of Northwood Garage, Northwood, is rectangular in shape and bounded on two sides by Newport Road and Nodes Road. Access to the site is from Newport Road. The building is set within a large compound with a parking area to the front of the existing building and an access drive to the rear of the site, with a grassed area beyond. Boundaries consist of a hedge to the western and southern boundaries. There are conifers along the northern boundary of the site. A two metre high chain link fence bounds Newport Road.

TCP/24234 – Renewal: Continued siting of temporary office accommodation, Vectaveg, 339 Newport Road, Cowes – temporary permission until Sept 2004

The existing premises consist of a timber building with an inverted pitched roof made from asbestos and to its rear, a painted brick building with a flat roof. A portakabin and refrigeration unit are sited at the rear of these buildings. Application TCP/24234/A is for the change of use of the existing buildings for the processing and sale of fish and shellfish for trade and general public. Application TCP/24234/B is as above but with an extension to the western elevation of the existing buildings and the replacement of an existing flat roof with a new flat roof.

The proposed extension measures 9.5 by 6 metres and will house the main fish processing areas and office accommodation. This will result in the removal of the portakabin and refrigeration unit. Externally the building will be of steel frame construction with dark green cladding and the front of the existing building is to be reclad in the same dark green cladding. An additional parking area for staff is to be provided at the rear of the extension.

The applicant currently operates from premises also in Newport Road, Cowes and will be transferring his business to the application site. The business will employ seven full time staff and five seasonal part time staff.

The application site is abuts the development envelope for Cowes. Policies relevant to the applications are D1 (Standards of Design) and P1 (Pollution and Development). Policy D1 seeks to ensure that development enhances the quality and character of the built environment while Policy P1 requires that where development has the potential for causing pollution, the proposed operation together with any protection measures, will avoid effects on the use of the land and the environment.

The site is bounded by Newport Road and Nodes Road on its east and west boundaries, by Northwood Garage to the south and fields to the north. There are residential properties on the west side of Nodes Road, the closest of which are approximately 35 metres from the proposed extension to the premises and 55 metres to the existing buildings. Existing boundaries to the site will remain unaltered.

The proposed extension to the existing building has a shallow pitched roof and will be four metres in height. The hedgerow on the western boundary is of a sufficient height to ensure that the extension will not be dominant when viewed from Nodes Road, and it will be partially screened by buildings at the rear of Northwood Garage. Additionally, it is considered that the extension and work to the existing buildings and the removal of the portakabin and container will improve the overall appearance of the site.

A noise assessment has been submitted by the applicant, which concludes that there will be minimal concern with noise and odour from the storage of waste. Additional information has been supplied during the course of the applications to address the possibility of odour emissions and the Environmental Health Officer has now suggested a number of conditions, restricting hours of use, requiring a ventilation system from the kiln, and providing refuse storage to ensure that emissions are regulated.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with policies D1 and P1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance from odour emissions from the premises and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Irregularly shaped site located on the southeast side of High Street at Bembridge with access onto High Street approximately midway between Sherbourne Street and Foreland Road. The site is relatively open and comprises a large concrete car park but with its southern corner occupied by an industrial type building of steel frame and clad finish. It abuts an access track on its southern side but does not have access from it. The frontage of the site is narrow, merely the access drive and is abutted on its western side by a chemist's shop and its eastern side by residential properties. The site area is just under 0.1 hectare.

Boundaries of the site are marked by fences/hedges and trees and the nearest properties to the northeast front Meadow Drive at about 30 metres and Foreland Road at about 6 metres. The north western boundary is marked by the rear boundary fences of the adjoining properties fronting High Street.

None in relation to this site, however, it is apparent that the last authorised use of this site was as a garage and workshops and that, since no alternative use has been authorised, the former use could be resumed.

Outline consent sought for a terrace of five properties with siting and means of access to be considered at this time.

The submitted plan shows a staggered terrace of five properties situated at the south eastern extent of the site, approximately 40 metres back from the High Street frontage with accommodation comprising kitchen and living room on ground floor, two units with three bedrooms and three units with two bedrooms on first floor. Pedestrian only access to the individual dwellings but with a communal parking area in front, effectively at the rear of numbers 19 and 21 High Street. The area, which is already concreted, forms adequate space for seven vehicles and a turning area. It is proposed to separate the parking and turning area from the residential part of the site by an entry gate in a wall with railings over.

Within development envelope but unannotated on Bembridge inset of Unitary Development Plan. Policies G1, G2, D1 and D2 and H5 and H6 of the UDP apply.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved, also stating that the access is not ideal since visibility is restricted but recognising that the authorised use of the premises could be resumed and that a refusal of the proposed use would be difficult to justify.

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval but raise concern in respect of pedestrian safety at the access point.

Eight letters of objection from local residents on grounds of inadequate access in terms of width, visibility and steps taken for pedestrian safety; adverse effect on the adjoining property adjacent to the access due to noise and inadequate construction causing structural problems; overdevelopment of the site; inadequate parking and creation of congestion both in the site and at the access point with High Street and inappropriate form of development especially maintaining the store in the centre of the site and providing for its drainage.

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

This is a site within the development envelope, formerly used as a car repair and maintenance garage, a use which, whilst ceased, has not been abandoned and could resume without planning permission.

The use of the site for residential purposes within the centre of Bembridge village is considered appropriate and as this is a comparatively dense development (five units on less than .1 of a hectare which equates to approximately 50 dwellings per hectare), forms an appropriate form of development at an appropriate density. A mix of two and three bedroomed units with sufficient space for parking of one vehicle per unit plus two additional spaces for visitors plus turning facilities.

The application represents development of land within the development envelope, providing housing at a comparably high density with limited parking facilities plus utilising land economically within the development envelope in line with both local and Governmental policies. It appears possible to develop the site with little adverse effect on adjoining properties through overlooking, loss of privacy and bearing in mind the existing use rights for the premises, is likely to result in development which will limit vehicular flow as opposed to the alternative use of the premises.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle and those details of site layout and access submitted.

In principle residential development of this site is an appropriate development since the site is within the development envelope and the development, if implemented would remove a comparatively non-conforming use within a fairly dense developed area. The siting of the properties are shown to be furthest from any other residential property and therefore will reduce possible problems of overlooking and loss of privacy.

Access to the site is as existing and as previously said could, without planning permission, be required to serve the authorised use of the site as a car repair garage thus generating significantly high levels of vehicular traffic to and from the site. It is therefore felt that the access for residential purposes is acceptable.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Development of this site for residential development of five properties is considered to be consistent with policies D1, D2 and H5 as well as G1 and G2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan since it utilises land for housing within the development envelope and reduces reliance on the private vehicle.

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The car parking and turning area as shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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

Application relates to semi-detached red brick property approximately 95 metres away from the junction of Dennett Road and Bembridge High Street. The site is shown on plan to have an extended domestic curtilage into the garden of Middleton House that fronts Foreland Road. Dennett Road is narrow, mainly consisting of semi-detached dwellings.

Application seeks consent for the construction of a detached double garage workshop and dinghy store. The proposal will facilitate the demolition of an existing timber framed extension to the rear of the dwelling.

The proposal itself is of brick construction, submitted dimensions are shown to be 11 metres x 5.4 metres with a height to ridge of 3.75 metres, located alongside the eastern boundary of the site and screened by a 1.8 metre close boarded fence.

Vehicular access currently exists to the site from Dennett Road. The land at the present time is divided from Avonvale and forms part of the domestic curtilage of Middleton House that is under the same ownership.

Application also details the construction of a porch on the front elevation; dimensions being 2.5m x 2.0m with a maximum height of 3.0 metres.

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

Environmental Health Officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

Bembridge Parish Council recommend refusal, objections relate to the increased flow of traffic (additional dinghy trailers) along Dennett Road that would exacerbate the current traffic problems. The proposed use of the garage/dinghy store being for Middleton House was also questioned.

9 letters of representation have been received, points are summarised as follows:

Increased use of Dennett Road which is already congested and would encourage further on street parking

The land at the moment is shown to be divided from Avonvale and is used as the garden area for Middleton House and the proposal would be used for Middleton House

Determining factors in considering application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle and whether the proposed garage/workshop/dinghy store and alterations to the front elevation are of appropriate size, scale and design. Highway considerations and whether the proposals would detract from the character of the locality and amenities of the neighbouring residential properties.

Currently the site is shown to form the domestic curtilage of Middleton House, but it is understood from discussions with the applicant that the boundaries are to be relocated to accommodate the proposal. I am satisfied that the site is of adequate size to accommodate the proposed garage building and that there is not any objection to be raised in principle to the development.

Main concern from local residents relates to highway implications of the proposal and the highway engineer has made the following comments:

"Whilst I appreciate that Dennett Road is narrow and that the residents are concerned about the on street parking situation I do not feel that this proposal would make the situation worse than it is now; it is not going to increase the number of vehicles parked in the road.

The main issue here is the difficulty in getting in and out of the access due to the narrowness of Dennett Road and the congested on street parking situation. It is not a good spot to be manoeuvring a trailer into a narrow access. However this is not a highway safety issue, which is why I have not raised any objection to the proposal."

Whilst it is appreciated that the garage/dinghy store and workshop building is of substantial size given its' location, good screening and availability of land that exists proposal is considered acceptable. If there were not the question of the land concerning two properties this structure could be in this instance be constructed under permitted development rights.

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission, consideration has been given articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties has 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. As there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal represents acceptable form of development and that the construction of the garage building and alterations to the front elevation will not detract from the character of the locality and amenities of neighbouring properties.

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

Site of approximately 0.07 hectares forming part of the garden area to Rookley Manor which in turn is situated on the west side of Niton Road approximately 150 metres from its junction with the main Newport to Shanklin road. Site has a frontage of approximately 15 metres and a depth of about 46 metres and slopes gently down from the west to the frontage. Presently Rookley Manor has two vehicular accesses one in each end of its frontage. The northern boundary is marked by hedgerow and fencing whilst the southern boundary is unmarked. The site is occupied by several mature trees.

Rookley Manor is a two storey stone and slate building which is not listed, a character property fronted by a boundary wall with iron railings over. To the north is a two storey modern, detached property whilst to the south, on the southern side of Rookley Manor are several other residential properties. The northern vehicular access of Rookley Manor opens up across the whole frontage of the application site and the masonry wall and railings have been set back along the southern boundary of the site with an access shared with the site.

The northern extent of the Rookley Manor curtilage is proposed to provide a plot for a pair of semi-detached houses, designed in such a way that looks like a single but substantial dwelling. The plan shows a two storey building with rooms within the roof space, constructed in facing bricks with a slate roof dwellings comprising kitchen, dining room, living room and study on ground floor two en-suite bedrooms on first floor with a further two bedrooms and bathroom within the roof space.

The building is shown to be sited approximately 14 metres back form the highway in a position comparable with both the adjoining property to the north and the existing Rookley Manor. A shared access point for both properties and the secondary access to Rookley Manor opens the whole frontage. Each of the dwellings has its own parking area in front. Two trees are proposed to be felled, a sycamore and small hornbeam but all other trees on the site are to be retained including those two yew trees at the front. Leylandii trees are proposed to be removed on the northern boundary, but the remaining trees are the subject of a Tree Protection Order.

Design of the property shows fenestration and detailing to be similar in style to the Manor with decorative barge boards and other detailing. The northern elevation of the building contains the front door to unit 2 with a study window, whilst on first floor there are two en-suite windows and within the roof plain, a dormer window to the second floor bathroom. The plan shows a distance of minimum of 9 metres from the dwelling on plot 1 to the conservatory on the northern side of Rookley Manor and a gap of approximately 11 metres from the adjoining property to the north to the nearest point of the dwelling on plot 2 the overall height of the building is similar to that of the adjoining property to the north and of Rookley Manor itself.

Within designated development envelope on Rookley inset of UDP. Site is shown as being within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty policies G1 and G2, D1 and D2 and policy H5 of the UDP apply.

Tree and Landscape Officer considers that the development could proceed without the loss of the two yews so long as great care was taken during construction.

AONB Officer agrees with Tree and Landscape Officer in respect of the trees but questions the design of the property and the density, suggesting that dwellings proposed do not meet the local need as they are too large. Also questions some detailing including new PVC windows.

Council's Ecology Officer acknowledges existence of a number of mature trees which have significant landscape value, acknowledges that red squirrels have been reported to use the yew trees but points out that it would be difficult to argue the trees form an important wildlife corridor and that the trees at the rear of the site which are intended to be retained are likely to have a greater wildlife value. Confirms that there is no squirrel dray in either the sycamore or the young hornbeam which are proposed to be lost but points out that any approved works to trees should be carried out during the winter months to avoid disturbance of nesting birds or roosting bats if they are present.

CPRE object on grounds that the site is within the area of outstanding natural beauty and therefore should not be developed; that the site contains preserved trees and that steps have already be taken to destroy trees; that remaining trees are too close thus bringing pressure for further removal; that the site contains variety of wildlife including badgers, red squirrels and bird life the habitats of which will be lost and inappropriate design.

Letter from Wight Squirrel Project urging care to be taken to ensure that trees are checked for drays that no trees which may form a corridor are felled.

Rookley Parish Council recommend refusal on grounds of overdevelopment, possible loss of significant trees the subject of the TPO; inappropriate design and loss of habitats for red squirrels and bats.

Forty five letters of objection from local residents and neighbours on grounds of loss of trees, inadequate drainage, loss of habitats for squirrels and other wildlife, traffic hazards including vehicles reversing out onto the road due to a poor access arrangement; loss of privacy; visual intrusion due to an inappropriate design, out of character with its surroundings; overdevelopment of the site and a cramped appearance, all resulting in a creation of a precedent for further similar proposals.

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

Rookley Manor is not Listed but it is an attractive building standing in its own, extensive grounds, located on the west side of Niton Road at Rookley. The side garden is a substantial gap between the building and its adjoining neighbour to the north, a large, two storey modern dwelling and the site does contain some mature and attractive trees. The proposal seeks to develop the site with a pair of semi-detached dwellings giving the appearance of a single dwelling due to its design and proportions incorporating one front door in the side elevation of the house.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, the site size, dwelling size and mass and the space around it, the design of the building, the effect on trees, access considerations, the effect on adjoining properties and habitats.

In terms of policy and principle the site is located within the designated development envelope even though it is also designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is no presumption against development, even in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty if the site is located within development envelope but being an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty design and visual impact of developments should enhance and protect the character of the area.

Properties to the north are fairly close together, a frontage ribbon of development onto Niton Road. This site is a large gap of about 37 metres and the siting of these two dwellings in the form of one building would still leave substantial gaps, greater than those in existence between the properties to the north and the proposed siting is sympathetic to the depth of frontage of Rookley Manor and the adjoining property to the north.

In design terms and in terms of visual impact, the street scene elevation shows a building of fairly substantial mass but one which is certainly in scale with existing development, bearing in mind the spaces between the existing and proposed properties, it does not give the appearance of cramped development in my opinion. In design terms the building incorporates features which echo certain features within the Rookley Manor and is more traditional in appearance to the modern property adjoining to the north. However, I am not totally satisfied with proposed materials as I believe that although a slated roof would be appropriate in this position a buff stock facing brick with white UPVC windows and white UPVC barge boards would give a confused mix of materials which I believe should be more traditional. Rookley Manor is largely stone with ashlar quoins and accordingly I do not feel that buff brick is appropriate.

It is the case that two trees will be lost to facilitate the development, the sycamore and the small hornbeam which are either within or close to the footprint of the proposed dwellings. The remaining trees will be retained, these include the two yew trees at the front of the site, a large horse chestnut, a beech and a lime situated towards the rear of the site. The hornbeam is not the subject of the Preservation Order and therefore only the sycamore which is to be lost is the subject of the Preservation Order. The Tree and Landscape Officer is satisfied that the two yew trees and the horse chestnut which are the three trees closest to the proposed building can be retained and can be protected adequately during the construction works.

Access to the site is as existing, of a shared access with the Manor. This access has been altered recently in advance of permission but works have not been concluded. The alteration included the removal of a short section of boundary wall and railing and its resiting back into the site thus enabling a wider access to be formed. Subject to conditions the Highway Engineer is satisfied with access arrangements. Two car parking spaces on each site would be possible and subject to permeable surfaces the parking areas and areas around the trees should not adversely affect their retention.

Turning to the effect on the adjoining property there are several windows included in the elevation of the property to the north, fronting the site and whilst some of these windows are secondary, it is unlikely that levels of light would be affected due to the distances involved and the fact that the proposed dwellings are situated a little further back from the front boundary and the adjoining property. Overlooking of the adjoining property is unlikely to occur. The north elevation of plot 2 includes the front door and a study window at ground floor level and on first and second floors, windows serving bathrooms. Normal screening will reduce overlooking at ground floor.

In terms of habitats, development will inevitably disrupt wildlife usage of the site but the Council's Ecologist feels that although two trees will be removed, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the proposed development will have a profound effect on those habitats, recommending that any works to the trees should take place within the appropriate season.

In summary, whilst I consider there are factors which must be taken into account regarding this development, those factors do not outweigh the presumption in favour of the utilisation of the economic use of land within the development envelope and it is felt that the development is quite appropriate to this location subject to conditions to control those aspects.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aims and in the public interest.

This application represents the economic use of a gap within the development envelope with a development which is appropriate in terms of its scale, mass and design elements. The development provides adequate access and retains all but one of the preserved trees and results in a development which is therefore consistent with policies G1, G2, D1 and D2 and H5 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

(a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm

2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of (1 year) from (the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use).

(a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work);

(b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees/shrubs and other natural features, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier in accordance with the plan hereby approved such as to enclose all parts of the land. 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.

(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 Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

(a) U/345/01 Land adjacent Pilot House, Embankment Road, Bembridge, Isle of Wight

To consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond further to a breach of planning control at the above site.

In April 2002 a planning application was submitted consisting of three elements. Firstly, a security fence, secondly a flood retaining wall and thirdly for the remoulding of the land levels in the boat yard. This application was invalidated because of a lack of information and following a letter dated 21 June 2002 the owner indicated he only wished the application to proceed insofar as it related to the roadside security fence.

At the 6 August 2002 Development Control Committee Meeting Members considered a report on this site regarding the issue of importing material to raise ground levels of a section of land used for open boat storage. The report noted that this investigation was longstanding and that the site had been visited jointly with an officer from English Nature. As a consequence of that visit an approach was made to the land owner to make a retrospective application. The implication of this approach was that a possible resolution through an application might be obtained.

The application with regards to the fence was refused on 4 September 2002. The landowner has indicated an appeal will be made, but nothing has been submitted to date. Regarding the land levels, the situation has been further complicated by a change in the view of English Nature from the position of seeking to resolve the matter through an application to indicating that they do not believe a satisfactory resolution is possible. As a consequence, the landowner has been invited to indicate what course of action he proposes to adopt, but no reply has been received.

1. The 2 metre heras panel security fence is still in position alongside the highway with further sections elsewhere on site. On the basis that the section of fence abutting the highway is more than 2 metres in height and has been refused planning permission consideration has to be given whether enforcement action should be taken.

2. Despite indications that the landowner has been seeking to get the trailer and portakabin removed from the site it still remains.

3. Although the site is fenced off, there is evidence of further tipping taking place.

6. On the section of the former railway line lies adjacent the lagoon and is behind the boat storage area and out of view from the road an active motor repair operation is underway.

S15 – Important natural resources, including water and the best agricultural land will be safeguarded.

The landowner has been contacted and made aware of English Nature’s change of opinion. A deadline was set for the end of January 2003 for an indication of how they intend to proceed. Members will be aware that notwithstanding the indication that an application would raise objections the landowner has the right to make such an application if he desires. No response has been received to that letter.

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the imported material and the reinstatement of the site back to its original ground levels with a time period for compliance of 4 months.

2. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the site for the parking of the trailer and its removal from the site. Time period for compliance 1 month.

3. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the 2 metre high sections of fencing where this adjoins the public highway with a time period for compliance of 3 months.

4. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the site in connection with motor storage and repairs and the clearance of all motor vehicles, caravans, the bus, other structures, car parts, tools and equipment, together with the removal of the two portable units. Time period for compliance of 4 months.

5. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the site for the storage of wood and tree cuttings, builders materials and equipment and their removal from the land. Time period for compliance of 4 months.

This site has been under investigation for some time and although an application was made in April 2002 that scheme was reduced eliminating the retrospective application for the changes to the ground levels. In any event, the remaining element with regards to the security fencing was refused. The Local Planning Authority adopted what at the time seemed a realistic position in view of the comments from English Nature and has encouraged the landowner to submit a retrospective planning application to cover the ground levels. This was reflected in the previous recommendation which Members adopted in August 2002. English Nature’s position appears to have hardened to the extent that I am now advised that in their view the development is raising concerns over its impact on the adjoining national and internationally designated nature conservation site. As a consequence, I believe that the continued flexible position of the Local Planning Authority has been misplaced whilst the further intensification with regards to the use of the site is I believe a strong indicator that the landowner is not responding in a positive way to the overtures of the Council.

As a consequence, I believe that the authority should proceed with Enforcement actions with regards to all outstanding matter on this site as I do not consider any of the present uses acceptable.

In coming to this recommendation to take Enforcement Action, 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 of the various activities being undertaken on this site in breach of planning control have been carefully considered and weighted against the wider public interests as expressed through the legitimate aim of the Unitary Development Plan policies. On balance, it is considered that the service of the necessary Enforcement Notices is a proportionate response to the unauthorised development.

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the imported material and the reinstatement of the site back to its original ground levels with a time period for compliance of 4 months.

2. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the site for the parking of the trailer and its removal from the site. Time period for compliance 1 month.

3. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the 2 metre high sections of fencing where this adjoins the public highway with a time period for compliance of 3 months.