PAPER C1
Purpose : For Decision
Committee : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Title : WHITECROFT HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
SUMMARY
To consider and update the policy background to the Whitecroft Hospital site development guidelines, incorporated into the UDP in Appendix H(3).
At a recent meeting Members expressed concern at the age of the planning brief for the Whitecroft Hospital site. The following report examines the original policy basis for the brief and whether the current UDP policies continue to provide a sound context and basis for the brief.
The original brief, or development guidelines, for Whitecroft were prepared for and approved by Medina Borough Council and South Wight Borough Councils in 1988. The planning policy basis at that time was the Replacement Structure Plan (SP) dated June 1988. The guidelines for the site were considered during the preparation of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and included in Appendix H. There were no objections to this during the preparation of the UDP nor any suggestions that this site should be promoted by the plan for residential development. The UDP was adopted as the statutory development plan for the Isle of Wight in May 2001.
The planning policies quoted in the original guidelines have now been superceded by UDP policies as set out below but the policy basis for the original guidelines is considered to have been maintained or strengthened.
The site was within a defined Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). This was a local designation originally defined by the Isle of Wight County Council before the identification of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The AGLV designation has not been carried forward into the UDP which instead recognises the importance of maintaining the landscape character of all areas of countryside under UDP policy C1. Policy G1 is that, other than some specific exceptions, development should be located within settlements defined by development envelopes. The Whitecroft site lies outside defined development envelopes of main settlements as defined in UDP policy G1 and so lies in the countryside.
The exceptions of development considered appropriate in the countryside are set out in UDP policy G5. Specifically listed in G5 are categories of use which relate to uses identified in the original guidelines (listed in parentheses) such as recreation and sports activities appropriate to the countryside (sports and leisure facilities, country park), appropriate rural tourism (holiday complex eg hotel, apartments including timeshare, exhibition centre, museum, conference facilities), a major employment use (Business park, including offices (Class B1), college, hospital training centre, prison). The fact that the site has been previously developed will classify it as “brownfield land”. The Glossary in the UDP refers to previously developed land outside settlements as only being appropriate for countryside related development as set out in UDP policy G5.
In terms of the re-use of redundant buildings for either tourism under the old SP policy T1 or industrial or commercial development under the old SP policy IW2 these have been incorporated into the UDP policy C17. This policy relates specifically to the re-use of rural buildings for employment, recreational or tourism purposes subject to meeting particular criteria. Policy C17 only relates to the re-use and adaption of buildings without major or complete reconstruction. This policy also allows, subject to further criteria the re-use and adaption of rural buildings for residential purposes and in this respect goes beyond the original guidelines in accepting an element of residential development on the site subject to it relating to the re-use of the existing buildings. Item 5 of the guidelines encourages serious consideration in the first instance to the extent to which the existing permanent buildings can be reused.
UDP policy H1 expects that the majority of new residential development will be located within the defined main settlements of Cowes, East Cowes, Newport, Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin. UDP policy H9 sets out the criteria for residential development outside development boundaries which is limited to replacement dwellings, those essential for a proven agricultural or forestry or tourism operation, the conversion of a rural building (see reference to policy C17 above) a specific locally affordable housing scheme or acceptable infilling.
The guideline also refers to the fact that the Whitecroft site lies separated from other settlements as a reason for it not being suitable for residential development. The Governments Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) on Housing seeks a systematic approach to the identification of the development potential of sites and buildings for housing development. The sequential search should start with the re-use of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas, then urban extensions and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors. The search should only extend to providing sufficient capacity to meet agreed housing requirements. The UDP identified sufficient land for housing requirements within existing settlements or through urban extension allocations.
Whitecroft lies outside the main settlements, outside other defined settlements, not on a node on a good public transport corridor so the guideline presumption that housing development is not appropriate continues to be supported by both National planning guidance and local development plan policies.
In respect of the old SP policy S5 relating to retail uses this is superceded by UDP policy R2 which directs new retail development to existing defined town centre shopping areas unless they serve a local need only or are located within existing village settlements or are ancillary to a tourism or farming operation or existing service station. The policy basis for the guidelines finding retail development unacceptable remain.
The guidelines identified two poor quality temporary buildings which it was considered should be demolished. These buildings have now been demolished. The guidelines states that the clocktower must be retained which is re-enforced by the clocktower being made a Grade II Listed Building in October 1988. The relationship of any new development to the clocktower will be important and the suggested height limit of three storeys for any buildings is considered to remain valid. The guidelines also recommended that the Rhodes/Tennyson block, the main entrance block, the administration building and Thompson House were suitable and desirable for re-use. Thompson House is now in separate use as a teachers centre. The other specified buildings remain on site but unused. The laundry is still in operation on the site. Peripheral staff housing units and their discrete curtilages are now in separate private residential occupation. The former sports grounds and facilities are believed to be in separate ownership.
Many of the trees on the site were subject of detailed survey and are now subject of Tree Preservation Orders. The framework landscaping is still considered important to maintaining the sites character as is limiting the area of built development to the areas shown.
Access only from the western end of the site and Cox’s Corner remains sound as there have been no substantial improvements to Sandy Lane.
There are no financial implications.
1. To accept that the policy principles behind the development guidelines remain sound and in accordance with current UDP and Government policy.
2. Not to accept the policy background to the brief and require further examination and clarification of the issues involved.
Whilst the current guidelines have been in place for a number of years and the Development plan for the Island has been replaced, the principles are considered to remain sound and in accordance with current UDP and Government Policy.
RECOMMENDATION To accept that the policy principles behind the development guidelines remain sound and in accordance with current UDP and Government policy. |
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services