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 PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT (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 Legal Services Manager, 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
FRESHWATER NORTON	land adjacent Prospect Cottage 1 - 4 High Street Freshwater	TCP/24680	4	REFUSAL
GURNARD	Gurnard Pines Holiday Village Cockleton Lane Gurnard	TCP/19380/H	2	APPROVAL
OSBORNE	land south east of Osborne Works Whippingham Road East Cowes	TCP/24782	5	REFUSAL
SHALFLEET AND YARMOUTH	Fort Bouldnor Main Road Bouldnor	TCP/17575/E	1	REFUSAL
SHALFLEET AND YARMOUTH	land adjacent The Vineyard Port La Salle Bouldnor	TCP/23182/E	3	APPROVAL

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	land at Solent Landing off Beach Road Bembridge	TCP/02379/V	6	APPROVAL
BRADING AND ST HELENS	4 New Road Brading	TCP/15846/A	14	APPROVAL
CARISBROOKE EAST	28 Fieldfare Road Carisbrooke	TCP/24742	16	APPROVAL
CARISBROOKE WEST	land adjacent 33 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke	TCP/08556/L	9	APPROVAL
CHALE, NITON AND WHITWELL	Laurel Cottage Town Lane Chale Green	TCP/24763	17	APPROVAL
COWES CASTLE EAST	March House 15 Market Hill Cowes	LBC/10242/A	10	APPROVAL
COWES CASTLE EAST	March House 15 Market Hill Cowes	TCPL/10242/B	11	APPROVAL
FAIRLEE	land adjacent Clevedon House 138 Staplers Road Newport	TCP/03441/K	7	REFUSAL
FAIRLEE	land adjacent Clevedon House 138 Staplers Road Newport	TCP03441/L	8	APPROVAL
LAKE NORTH	16b Sandown Road Lake	TCP/24778	19	APPROVAL
PARKHURST	35 Parkhurst Road Newport	TCP/10442/E	12	APPROVAL
SHANKLIN SOUTH	site of Shanklin Garage Orchardleigh Road Shanklin	TCP/11407/R	13	APPROVAL
SHANKLIN SOUTH	Sibden Works Victoria Avenue Shanklin	TCP/24676	15	APPROVAL
SHANKLIN SOUTH	Daltons 62 High Street Shanklin	TCP/24775	18	APPROVAL

Application relates to long established former coastal defence facility located within Bouldnor Forest approximately 0.6 kilometre to north of the A3054 Yarmouth Road to east of Yarmouth. Facility comprises battery and gun emplacements, several single storey flat roofed buildings and a pillbox.

Only means of vehicular access to site is over relatively narrow concrete roadway off the A3054 Yarmouth Road. Designated public footpath runs along coastline to north of the site. It is also understood that Forestry Commission has policy of encouraging public access to their land for quiet informal recreational purposes.

Site was previously used by Royal Navy as a training facility and central area within site has been fenced off and contains an assault course.

In accordance with the provisions of Circular 18/84: Crown Land and Crown Development, the Crown is not subject to planning legislation and any development carried out in connection with any function it performs would not require submission of a planning application. However, prior to carrying out any development, it would be normal practice for any Crown agency to submit a consultation document to the Local Planning Authority seeking its views on the proposed development. In the case of the application site, a number of such submissions have been made since 1981 relating for most part to provision of toilet/shower facilities and an obstacle course required in connection with the use of the site by the Royal Navy as a training facility. The most recent, considered by the Authority in 1997, involved provision of fencing around the battery and gun emplacements required for safety and security purposes.

Submission was accompanied by information in support of proposal which indicates that applicants commenced use of site, initially alongside the Royal Navy, in 1996 and have continued since this date with the MOD ceasing use of the site in 1998. The applicants are a private body with a commercial interest in the site and do not therefore benefit from the same exemptions under the planning legislation as those enjoyed by the MOD as a Crown agent. The site has been the subject of investigations by the Enforcement Officer in respect of alleged breaches of planning control, including the continued use of the site by the applicant as a residential training facility and the alteration of existing buildings, including the provision of a dwelling, and construction of new buildings. Current application seeks to address two issues, namely the continued use of the site by a private organisation as a training facility and the retention of the dwelling for manager’s accommodation.

Information which accompanied submission indicates that training undertaken at site is aimed generally at development of personal motivation, teamwork/building, communication and leadership skills. It is understood that these training sessions are aimed, in the main, at younger people, including school children, homeless people and the Prince's Trust with a small proportion of training (approximately 20% of annual clients at the centre) involving management development training for what may be described as corporate clients. Information indicates that applicant operates an 11-seater Landrover Defender at all times and a mini bus when courses are taking place. Two additional light vans are operated and staff normally use their own transport. During courses one mini bus trip each day and about ten other vehicle movements would take place and in peak season supply deliveries take place about twice a week. Company's clients generally arrive by ferry as foot passengers and are collected by the Landrover/mini bus. Some weekend courses are run with arrivals late afternoon Friday and departure Sunday afternoon. Out of season, no mini bus is operated and there would be about one to five movements of other vehicles each day.

It is understood that site has capacity for between 16 people, within permanent accommodation block during winter months, and up to 45 people in tented accommodations during the summer. Information submitted with application indicates that current level of courses during peak period (May to September) amounts to 25 day courses and 10 weekend courses with each course attended by 16 clients and during the off peak period (October to April) applicant operates eight 5-day courses and two weekend courses, again each course being attended by 16 clients. The figures for projected course levels indicate that during the peak period they would operate thirty 5-day course with each course attended by 30 clients and twenty weekend courses with 16 clients, and during the off peak period sixteen 5-day courses, each with 16 clients and eight weekend courses, again with 16 clients.

Information submitted indicates that during peak period operation generates employment for one centre manager, up to five training staff, one or two training assistants, two domestic staff and one facilities manager. During the off peak period, employment amounts to one centre manager, up to two training staff, 0.5 domestic staff and one facilities manager. Staff work a monthly hours schedule on rotation with domestic staff working approximately 20 hours per week, training staff and the centre manager working 37.5 hours per week.

Applicants agent has provided details of measures to minimise local disruption. He comments that there is only one immediate neighbour at Bouldnor Bungalow (Forest House) which, at present, appears to be occupied as a weekend or holiday home. He advises that little training activity takes place on weekends and measures are in place to keep noise levels to a minimum in the early morning and in the evenings. Furthermore, clients are kept away from the southern site boundary and the south road gate is kept closed to prevent access near to the property. Up to five staff are on site overnight when courses are run and the centre manager is present at other times.

Application also seeks permission for retention of dwelling to provide manager's accommodation. This accommodation has been provided by carrying out alterations and extensions to one of the original single storey flat roofed buildings, including provision of an enclosed lean-to element on one side and a first floor element, all of which has been clad in timber to give a log cabin effect. Accommodation within the dwelling comprises lounge, kitchen, bathroom, utility room and bedroom at ground floor level with three further bedrooms at first floor level.

Application was accompanied by an assessment of the impact of residential training operations upon the nature conservation value, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast designations of Bouldnor Forest. A copy of this assessment is attached to this report as an appendix.

Planning Policy Guidance note 7 - The Countryside, acknowledges that there are increasing opportunities for people to enjoy the countryside for sport and recreation which provides new uses of land in the countryside and is an important source of income and employment. However, it is also necessary to have regard for impact on designated areas and, in this respect, PPG advises as follows:

"In those parts of the countryside where special statutory designations apply, planning policies and Development Control decisions should take full account of the specific features or qualities which justified designation of the area, and sustain or further the purpose of that designation. In some designated areas additional statutory planning controls or procedures apply, for example, through tighter controls over permitted development. Other designations have statutory implications beyond the planning system, but the factors that led to the designation may also be material to planning decisions."

Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 - Sport and Recreation also provides advice for the needs of residents and visitors while respecting the rural environment.

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be outside any development boundary and to be within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, the Heritage Coast and adjacent a Site of Special Scientific Interest. In addition, coastline is designated as a candidate Special Area of Conservation and the battery and gun emplacements and a pillbox within the site are designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S10 - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.

Shalfleet Parish Council consider, given the past history of the site, that its present use is perfectly acceptable, particularly as it is being used by local schools. It does not appear to harm local flora or fauna and it also provides some local employment. They felt that providing neither the AONB, nor Coastal Heritage or any other environmental agencies raise objections, they were happy to support the continued use and present planned development of the site, on the understanding that any future expansion should first be brought to the attention of the appropriate authority. One area of concern to them was that, with increased usage, adequate provision should be made for proper disposal of sewage. Furthermore, they considered that the main problem related to visibility onto the Bouldnor Road which they considered is limited and that this could cause problems for vehicles accessing the site and would need to be addressed.

Highway Engineer advises that visibility at junction of access road and the main A3054 road is obstructed to west by telegraph pole and a fence/hedge and visibility is also sub-standard to east on road where speed limit is 60 mph with high proportion of traffic travelling close to that speed. He also comments that road is one of the busier highways on the Island, serving the Yarmouth ferry, and that traffic volumes and speeds are much higher today than when the access was used by the Royal Navy (in past 10 years traffic volumes have increased by about 17% and are continuing to rise by 2 - 3% per annum). Whilst he appreciates that, historically, this access has been used by Royal Navy, their usage ceased in 1998 and seems likely to have generated less vehicle movements than the current training centre and although most of the clients are picked up by mini bus/Landrover, staff still commute by private car. He considers that use of this access for the training operation constitutes a danger for highway users and users of the centre. Therefore, he recommends refusal on grounds of generation of traffic and inadequate visibility.

AONB Officer considers that the issue of continued use of the site for this purpose must first be considered. He comments that the use by the Ministry of Defence as a training facility up until 1998 was not required to be subject to the planning system due to Crown Planning exemption under the Town and Country Planning Act. As a result, it could be suggested that the former use of the site is not a material consideration in this application and therefore the application should be viewed as a new operation for a ‘virgin’ site. Having informally discussed this with the Regional Planning Section of the Countryside Agency at Maidstone, he advises that it is their opinion that this is likely to be the case.

AONB Officer suggests that if the Planning Authority is satisfied that the former use of the site is a material consideration then he would wish to make the following comment:

· There should be no new build on the site as this is contrary to policy C4 of the UDP. He believes that the applicant proposes to submit further plans for this purpose should the current application succeed which he would strongly oppose.

· An increase in the use of the site for formalized commercial recreation should be resisted, as it is contrary to policy C4 of the UDP.

· The former Battery site, which is a scheduled monument, must be protected from inappropriate use.

· The use of the surrounding Forestry Commission land external to the main site should be carefully managed. (He accepts that this may not be within the control of the Planning Authority).

In summary, he believes that the application as presented will have a detrimental effect on the purpose of AONB designation including its effect on the Hamstead Heritage Coast.

He advises that, because of the importance of this application with regard to implication for the use of ex Crown Exempt land within the AONB and Heritage Coast, he will be taking this general issue to a future AONB Development Control/Planning Work Group. It is likely that this will result in a recommendation to the AONB Steering Committee to formally state their policy on these matters, which will be forwarded to the Planning Authority for its consideration.

Principal Environmental Health Officer advises that unconditional approval of this application may adversely affect amenity of occupiers, both present and future, of Forest House due to its close proximity and the proposed use which may not be compatible due to noise. He noted that a similar use had taken place on site since 1996, although not defined within the information supplied with the application. I am advised that there are no records of complaints having been received by his department as a consequence of the past usage although there may be a number of reasons for this, one being that occupation of Forest House has been infrequent. Therefore, he points out that his comments are based not only on the historical and present situation but also potential future situations e.g. Forest House being occupied on a permanent basis. He expresses concern regarding implications of the proposed considerable intensification of use and comments that application contains insufficient information to assess properly the implications of the application for him to support a refusal or recommendation, subject to appropriate specific conditions. In order for his department to assess properly the application and make appropriate recommendations, he requested submission of a comprehensive noise assessment.

Council's Ecology Officer acknowledges that site is within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC C13), Bouldnor Copse, and lies within 300 metres of Bouldnor and Hamstead Cliffs SSSI. The part of the SINC within the application site comprises plantation woodland on acid, gravel soils and one of the interest features of this area is the significant red squirrel population, Bouldnor Copse, having supported possibly the largest population of any Island wood. A second interest feature within the application site is the presence of a substantial breeding population of newts within the flooded parts of the battery. He advises that, apparently, great crested newts were recorded here in the 1970's but more recent surveys have only detected Palmate and Smooth Newts. In addition, dormice have been recorded from Bouldnor Copse and he confirms that red squirrels, dormice and great crested newts are all protected species. He comments that the area of SINC surrounding the site is also important for its heath land and flower rich rides attracting many specialist species.

Whilst accepting that the previous use of the site by the MOD caused minimal damage to the nature conservation interest of the area, the Ecology Officer comments that current proposals are for a substantial increase in use and whilst impacts upon the SSSI are likely to be minimal, this is bound to cause disturbance and potential damage to nature conservation interests of the SINC. He considers that impacts from the development would fall into three categories, direct, indirect and knock-on impacts. Knock-on impacts relate generally to adverse effects from requirement to create adequate visibility splays at junction with main road which could result in loss of stretches of species rich hedgerow and woodland. In summary, he considers that the cumulative impacts upon nature conservation interests of the area resulting from the current proposals have not been adequately addressed within the proposals. However, on current information, he concludes that these impacts are unacceptable.

English Nature consider that proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the nature conservation interest of the Bouldnor and Hamstead Cliffs Site of Special Scientific Interest. However, they are concerned that several issues have not been adequately addressed, particularly in relation to protected species. They advise that, as identified in the Environmental Consultants report which accompanied the application, Bouldnor Forest is a stronghold for the nationally rare red squirrel and is also known to support dormice, a European protected species, and provides habitat for nightjars and long eared owls. They consider that increased activity on the application site is likely to cause disturbance to some or all of these species. They comment that, although there is no recent record of great crested newts at this site, there is a possibility that they are present and that these are also a European protected species. They advise that it is important that the impacts on protected species are properly assessed and that adequate mitigation is incorporated and, until more information is available about how these impacts will be addressed, there is no sound foundation on which to base a decision on this planning application. Therefore, they object to the application.

English Heritage advise that the work proposed in the application does not affect the curtilage of the scheduled Ancient Monument and, therefore, scheduled Monument Consent under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act is not required. However, they advise that the Council is required to take into account the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument. They advise that the battery is capable of having setting by virtue of its visibility and that the manager's house being in close proximity to, and within sight of the scheduled remains of the battery, is within the boundary of the setting. They consider that the building, which may have comprised an office or guard room for the battery at the time it was in currency, was clearly functionally inter-dependant with the emplacements and other ancillary buildings and comprised part of a coherent plan form. Therefore, it has significant relationship with the scheduled remains. They comment that residential conversion of the manager's house has a completely different massing and scale to the low, squat military buildings that surround it. Furthermore, they consider that the timber materials used completely changed the character of the building, transforming them from functional, austere, shuttered concrete with flat roofs, to fussy alpine log cabins with pitched roofs. They consider that these alterations have a negative impact and should weigh against the application as the materials used are incongruous compared to those of the historically important military buildings and clearly compete with them, making it difficult to appreciate their plan and form. Having regard to their previous use, they consider that it could be possible to reuse the buildings, providing consideration is given to conserving the plan and scale of the buildings and appropriate materials are used. Therefore, they do not object in principle to the use of the site for its current purpose, or indeed to the conversion of the buildings for residential use. However, they do object to the current proposal on grounds of detrimental impact on the setting of the Schedule Ancient Monument.

Forestry Commission is concerned with the following specific aspects of the present proposal:

Site lies within AONB and Heritage Coastline areas in which new residential building is severely restricted. A case has not been made for the new residential unit and it is suggested that satisfactory accommodation could have been provided within one of the existing buildings without substantial enlargement.

The originally submitted plans indicate that the dwelling is intended to be considerably enlarged and this is considered to be unnecessary.

They are unsure of the relevance of the report prepared by ARC Environmental Consultants Ltd to current application. They point out that this was prepared without direct consultation with the Forestry Commission but makes use of the Commission's Forest Design Plan that was prepared in 1999 and which is a document of public record.

Forestry Commission advise that strategy for the management of its woodlands is multi-purpose forestry and it is considered essential that the public's ability to enjoy Bouldnor for quiet informal recreation must not be put at risk by over intensification or unsympathetic uses. In addition, they question adequacy of access to site from the main Yarmouth to Newport Road.

Total of 23 letters have been received objecting to proposal. These include 13 letters from local residents, one from a mainland resident, who owns property adjacent the site, together with a letter from a planning consultant acting on his behalf, 2 letters from the Ramblers Association and correspondence from Island Watch, Isle of Wight Friends of the Earth, Isle of Wight Industrial Archeology Society, Wight Wildlife, Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Wight Squirrel Project. Grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:

Use is inappropriate in this location contrary to Policy S4 "The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development".

Site preserved by Royal Navy as it stood in 1945 - use by applicant is entirely different to MOD - no connection between MOD and applicant as suggested in submission.

Proposal represents change from MOD use for recreational/training purposes to more intense use of site and surrounding woodland on a commercial basis.

No permanent residence on site during occupation by MOD – MOD looked after battery – applicants have exploited Ancient Monument and built an unauthorised residence on an existing bunker.

Applicants have managed site in unprofessional way and prevented public access to the fort and surrounding area.

Use by applicants has included dramatic expansion including new buildings which have failed Building Regulations.

Use by applicants has resulted in an increase in vehicle movements to and from the site causing hazard on the main road and to other users of the road leading to the site.

Site is within an AONB, Heritage Coast, SSSI and a SINC and should be protected from inappropriate development. If approved, this development will establish precedent for further exploitation of protected areas. Use contrary to Policy S10 – fails to conserve and enhance designated areas.

Contrary to Policy G5 - use is not of benefit to Island and no details for ameliorating impacts have been provided.

Operation does not benefit employment on Island - people working at site are from mainland.

Contrary to Policy G4 - development is inappropriate for area - use does not harmonise with surroundings.

Application provides no details of highway management to deal with increased traffic movements.

Report which accompanied application to assess environmental impact is insufficient as an environmental impact assessment.

Contrary to Policy C8 - activity is not confined to area around buildings but to wider area of forest to detriment of locality.

Development entirely unsympathetic to the character of the natural environment and scheduled Ancient Monument - contrary to Policy G4.

Adverts displayed in connection with use out of keeping with AONB and contrary to Policy D7.

Conflict between activities, amenities of adjacent property and use of forest under open access rules contrary to Policy G10.

No justification for permanent accommodation on site, contrary to policies of UDP.

Dwelling is ugly and poorly designed - not of high standard of design as required by policies of UDP.

Septic tank system is inadequate to serve intensive use - failure of system would have adverse impact on ecology of area designated as SSSI and SINC.

Activities have resulted in significant pollution of Bouldnor Forest through noise, light and effluent smells.

No proven need for services provided by applicant or requirement to be located within AONB.

Negative impact on tourism through loss of use of forest and adverse impact on coastal path.

Section 54A of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that applications for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - there is no compelling reason to override the policies set out in the UDP.

Inadequate information in respect of ground stability - site is in area of known instability.

Description misleading - should be described as change of use not continued use - use by MOD exempt from planning.

Increase in noise emanating from site since Navy left - PPG24 Planning and Noise states that special considerations are required where noisy development is proposed in or near to SSSI's. Special consideration should also be given to development which would affect quiet enjoyment of AONB's or Heritage Coast.

ARC report which accompanied application not prepared on basis of detailed up to date examination of SSSI and no mention made that site is adjacent. SAC - report is inadequate as an assessment/impacts on conservation value of site.

Site used by applicant since 1998 and significant work undertaken without planning permission.

Use established on basis of training for children - company actually provides corporate training.

Dwelling is unnecessary - need for full-time presence on site has not been established - could be sold on at later date without any stipulation.

A public document was circulated by objectors in respect of application and solicitors acting on behalf of applicants have responded in writing to the points raised. These documents are attached to this report as an appendix.

Two letters were received from local residents in support of application raising following issues:

Suggestions that applicants have prevented access to Bouldnor Forest are untrue and there are no fierce dogs on site as suggested by objectors, only one docile boxer.

Residents living near site could hear noise when MOD used site for training - no noise experienced from use of site by applicants and objections on grounds of disturbance are unfounded. Owner of adjacent bungalow seldom visits property.

Applicants have provided use for buildings which should ensure that they do not fall into disrepair.

Forestry Commission have clear felled large areas of woodland regardless of red squirrels etc. - tremendous upheaval to wildlife.

Large vehicles/plant used in connection with Forestry Commission operations present hazard - limited vehicle movements attracted by applicants do not present a problem.

Red squirrels, birds and butterflies have been seen in area - do not appear to be adversely affected by applicants activities.

Determining factors in considering application are whether operations undertaken by applicant are appropriate within the countryside, and on this site in particular, and whether use would be likely to have adverse impact on ecology and amenities of area and amenities of neighbouring residential property. Furthermore, having regard to designation of structures within site as a scheduled Ancient Monument, it is necessary to consider whether use and/or alterations to buildings have adverse effect on setting of the monument.

View has been expressed in representations received in respect of application that description of development is misleading and should be described as change of use, not continued use on basis that use by Royal Navy was exempt from need for planning permission. However, applicants have been operating from site without planning permission since Royal Navy discontinued use in 1998 and I am satisfied that development is correctly described as continued use.

I consider that application involves use of site for recreational purposes on a commercial basis. In accordance with policies L1 and L2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, acceptability of such a use within the countryside will generally depend on whether the activities are provided on an informal or formal basis. The explanatory text to Policy L1 explains that outdoor recreational activities, normally considered appropriate to the countryside, involve informal recreational and sporting activities such as walking, running, nature trails and study, horse and cycle riding, fishing and certain water-based activities. In general, informal recreation involves activities which can be undertaken without the need for a marked out pitch or court and, whilst the use of the countryside by the public may require some development such as supporting interpretive facilities, small car parks, refreshment or picnic areas, toilets or other buildings directly related to outdoor activities, in general, these will be ancillary to the recreational use and not essential for it to happen. In contrast, formal recreation provision can best be defined as those activities requiring facilities or laid out pitches and grounds such as football, squash, cricket and golf. It is recognized that proposals well beyond the boundaries of existing settlements can have an adverse impact on the countryside and are often difficult to reach, particularly for children.

Whilst a number of the activities undertaken by the applicant, such as orienteering, could take place within the countryside without permanent facilities and may be considered as an informal activity, in this instance, the operations are centered around a site with permanent facilities, including an accommodation block, kitchen/mess room, classrooms and a permanent assault course. It should also be noted that these activities are provided on a commercial basis. Having regard to these factors, I consider that application involves formal recreation provision.

In accordance with Policy L2 of the UDP, formal recreation provision will be acceptable in principle, provided that the site is located within or adjacent existing settlement boundaries and complies with the criteria set out in the policy. In the case of the current application, the site cannot be considered as being adjacent the development boundary of Yarmouth and is clearly within the countryside. In consequence, I consider that such provision, where it necessitates new buildings would clearly be contrary to Policy L2. In this instance, application involves, in part, re-use of existing buildings, which form part of the coastal defence facility, limited use of which may be considered acceptable under Policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan, which is relevant to applications for re-use and adaption of rural buildings for employment, recreational or tourism purposes, subject to other criteria being satisfied. It is understood that applicants long term plans involve provision of additional facilities within new buildings, such as store rooms and classrooms. One such building has already been erected within the site and classroom facilities provided by carrying out quite substantial alterations to an existing structure.

Use of site as a training centre, and in particular, activities associated with this use would clearly generate noise and have potential to cause disturbance in the area in general and to adjoining/nearby residential occupiers in particular. Therefore, applicants agent was provided with copy of comments from the Principal Environmental Health Officer and advised that submission of a noise assessment would be necessary in order for the Authority to assess properly the impact of the activities on the area and adjoining residential occupiers. At time of preparing this report the noise assessment had not been received.

Application site is within a sensitive area, designated for its ecological and landscape value. The site was used by Royal Navy for training purposes during the period from about 1980 to 1998 and whilst I consider that this is relevant in terms of the history of the use of the site, it should be noted that the Ministry of Defence would be exempt from the need to obtain planning permission in this respect. Furthermore, it is understood that site was used by them on a more infrequent basis. I consider that use by applicants represents an intensification of the use of the site in terms of both scale and frequency. This is particularly evident from the need for additional buildings/facilities in connection with the use of the site which have already been erected or are proposed for the future. Following consultations with the Council’s Ecology Officer and English Nature, it is considered that such an intensification would be likely to have an adverse impact on the ecology and wildlife of the immediate environs of the application site and the wider area of the forest. Whilst the application was accompanied by a report on the assessment of the impact of the use on the nature conservation value, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast designations, it is not considered that this adequately addresses the impact of the current or any future intensified use and the responsibility to demonstrate that the use will not have an adverse impact rests with the applicant. Notwithstanding these comments, I would advise Members that use of site for training facilities does not fall within categories of development specified in the Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 and submission of a full Environmental Statement would not be required in connection with this application.

Alterations and extensions have been carried out to one of the single storey flat roofed buildings within the site, including construction of a first floor element, to provide a dwelling to be occupied by a manager. The dwelling currently has four bedrooms and, although not forming part of current submission, application was accompanied by information indicating that future proposals include further two storey extension to building to provide additional accommodation. Applicants agent has submitted information in support of application, in which, he details points for consideration and indicates that the on site resident manager is required for security purposes and liaising with the local community. No further information has been provided in this respect and I am not satisfied that applicants or their agents have adequately demonstrated that there is a need for a dwelling in connection with the use of the site as a training facility. The buildings are of substantial construction, formerly used for defence purposes and could be fitted with alarm systems. Therefore, I do not consider that security alone would provide sufficient justification for a dwelling to provide on site accommodation for a manager or persons working at the site.

The alterations to the building to form a dwelling have changed significantly its appearance and impact on the surrounding area. Whilst not itself designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, structure is one of several ancillary buildings formerly used in connection with the gun emplacements and battery at the site. Alterations and extension of the building must be considered in terms of its impact on the surrounding area, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast, and also on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument. In this respect, English Heritage have expressed view that the resultant building has a completely different massing and scale to the low, squat military buildings that surround it and that the timber cladding have negative impact, incongruous compared with those of the historically important military buildings. In consequence, it is considered that building has a detrimental impact on setting of the scheduled Ancient Monument.

Whilst limited information is available on the use of the site by the Royal Navy, it is considered that use of site by the applicants has resulted in an increase in vehicle movements to and from the site and that, on basis of projected level of activities at site provided in information which accompanied submission, these would increase still further. Visibility at junction of access with the main road is poor and well below standard which would be required by Highway Engineer. Improvements to visibility from access would involve land outside control of applicant and would necessitate removal of large sections of hedgerow and woodland along the roadside. I consider that such work would have significant adverse impact on the visual amenities and character of the locality. Furthermore, I am advised by the Ecology Officer that this hedgerow is species rich and would qualify as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. It is understood that there is no alternative means of vehicular access to the site. Therefore, having regard to these factors, I do not consider that Highway Engineer’s objection to proposal on grounds of traffic generation and inadequate visibility can be overcome.

It is understood that foul sewage from site is disposed of to a private treatment plant/septic tank which also serves the bungalow adjacent the site. No details of the system have been provided, and in particular its capacity, in order to determine adequacy of this facility to cater for existing and projected levels of use of the site. I am concerned that, should this facility be inadequate to deal with foul sewage from the site and it were to fail, this may result in contamination of ground water which could have an adverse impact on the special features of interest within the surrounding SINC and adjacent SSSI.

Having regard to retrospective nature of application, should Members be minded to refuse planning permission, it will be necessary to instigate enforcement proceedings to remedy the breaches in planning control which have occurred at the site. Such remedies would involve cessation of the unauthorised use or its reduction to an acceptable level of intensity, removal of any unauthorised buildings or works and removal of the manager’s dwelling, reinstating the original building to its former state. In coming to this recommendation for 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 to Human Rights. Whilst it is accepted that this recommendation to commence enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant and the users of the property, this has to be balances with the rights and freedoms of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the applicant it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In this case specific consideration has been given to the fact that a part of the application relates to a current residential use. The policy objections cited in respect of the continued use of the property go to the heart of the UDP and it is not considered that the current use can remain even by imposition of conditions. It is also considered that enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 18 – Enforcing Planning Control provides advice on factors which should be taken into account in determining a reasonable period for compliance with the requirements of an Enforcement Notice. In terms of operation at Bouldnor Forest, I consider that any reasonable period for cessation of the use should take into account the commercial nature of the activity. In this respect, information which accompanied application indicates that peak period of operations runs from May to September with off peak period running through to end of November and facility closes during the months of December and January. Therefore, I consider that a reasonable period for cessation of the use would be 6 months, running through to the closed season, with a further period of 3 months for removal of all unauthorised structures or works. In determining an acceptable period for the removal of the dwelling on the site, it is necessary to have regard for the provisions of the Human Rights Act. In this respect, I consider that a period of 9 months to cease occupation of the building and remove any unauthorised works, reinstating the original building to its former condition would be reasonable.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, on balance, the operation of the training facility at its current and projected level at this site is unacceptable by reason of the adverse effect on the amenities and character of the locality which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. Furthermore, I do not consider that applicants have adequately demonstrated that activities would not have adverse impact on ecology of the site which is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and is adjacent a Site of Special Scientific Interest and candidate Special Area of Conservation. Notwithstanding the acceptability or otherwise of the activities on the site, I am not satisfied that applicant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that there is a need for permanent residential accommodation at the site. With regard to the dwelling, I consider that the alterations carried out and the resultant building have an adverse impact on the amenities and character of the locality and on the setting of the adjacent Scheduled Ancient Monument. Finally, access to the site is clearly unacceptable to serve the development by reason of inadequate visibility at junction with main road and any measures to rectify this problem would be likely to have significant adverse effect on character of locality. In general, I consider that proposal conflicts with policies contained in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

2. Recommendation - That enforcement proceedings are authorised requiring the cessation of the use of the land as a training centre and removal of all unauthorised buildings/works with a time for compliance of 6 months for cessation of the use and a further 3 months for removal of unauthorised buildings and works. In addition, authorisation for enforcement proceedings is sought requiring applicant to vacate and remove the unauthorised dwelling, reinstating the original building to its former condition, with a time for compliance of 9 months.

Application relates to Gurnard Pines Holiday Village lying on the west side of Cockleton Lane to the south of Gurnard village. Surrounding area primarily rural with some woodland to south west. The overall site accommodates some 220 brick built chalets with some 77 static caravans, plus tented and touring caravan areas. The most recent development on the site is 40 log cabins sited on the eastern side of the complex adjacent Cockleton Lane. The facilities are supported by central club, ballroom, dining room, office building, outdoor and indoor swimming pools and tennis courts.

Site which is subject of current application is located abutting the northern boundary immediately to the east of a semi woodland area and to north west of the central entertainment area. The site formerly accommodated 24 static caravans of which only one remains. The application boundary extends partially into a semi grassland area with intermittent trees along its western edge with that area being separated from the main development site by a row of conifers and poplar trees running from south to north. Some of the conifer trees have recently been the subject of height reduction. The eastern boundary abuts a road access to log cabins which stand further to the east. Northern boundary abuts a footpath system which provides access to the amenity woodland area further to the west. Beyond the footpath is a treed and hedged boundary forming the northern boundary of the overall complex. Remaining part of the eastern boundary is abutted by the tennis courts with the application site itself being accessed via roads which run through the complex with the main access point being off Cockleton Lane.

In November 1995 consent granted for 30 holiday lodges on part of site abutting northern and eastern boundary. Now implemented.

In April 1997 approval granted for 30 log cabins and new access road, demolition of toilet block and construction of pond, landscape area adjacent Cockleton Lane on part of the site abutting the eastern boundary (Cockleton Lane). Now implemented.

In January 1998 consent was granted for the use of 57 existing chalets for holiday purposes only over a 52 week period per annum with the period of occupation for any one person being limited to 6 weeks per annum.

Also in January 1998 consent granted for the retention of lake and woodland footpath which related to the area of the site which is a woodland and situated on the western area within the valley. Lake to be in the south eastern area of site, classified as a Site of Important Nature Conservation. Now implemented.

In January 1999 approval granted for an additional 10 log cabins and cleaner's store within the eastern area of the site, additional to the consent granted in April 1997.

Most recent decision was an outline consent (siting and access not reserved) granted in July 2000 for 25 holiday chalets including landscape and ecological proposals. That consent was subject to a number of conditions including the occupancy condition mentioned above, with reference also being made to the need to submit landscape and ecological report along with habitat management plan in respect of the land which forms in part the western area of the

application site. Illustrative plans indicated a two storey A-frame building being a mixture of 8 person or 6 person units on a slightly larger site. Access to the 25 units to be from the south via the existing car park which is on the northern side of the entertainment centre. It indicated the closure of the existing access to the static caravans.

There are two elements to this application. One seeks consent for the retention of a detached two storey chalet which has been constructed without detailed consent, and has been located in the north eastern end of the application site adjacent the northern boundary of the overall complex. The chalet is a two storey, providing potential for 8 person accommodation and having its main living accommodation at first floor with a west facing balcony finished in dark brown stained boarding.

The second element of the application seeks consent for 24 single storey semi-detached holiday bungalows to be constructed in facing brick under concrete tiled hipped roofs with each pair being staggered in arrangement. The remaining unit is the same as the previously described and for which retrospective approval is being sought. This detached chalet to be located opposite the existing two storey chalet in the north western corner.

The semi-detached dwellings have been arranged six pairs either side of an access drive, reached via the existing access to the north of the tennis courts with turning being provided at the southern and northern end. In terms of accommodation applicants indicate that proposal comprises 2 no. eight person chalets, one being already constructed, and 24 no. four person chalets.

In landscaping terms proposal shows the removal of the row of poplar and conifer trees as previously described, but indicates retention of the corridor of oaks, hawthorn and other shrubs in part along the eastern boundary of the application site. Proposal also indicates a new dense hedge interspersed with small groups of trees to be planted within the western area of the site to the west of the proposed chalets. Submitted plan also indicates areas within the scrubland which are deemed to be important areas of good regenerating oaks which are to be managed to allow certain oaks to mature and open shrubbery areas retained. Similarly an area of grassland with brambles, sallow and poplars with the brambles and scrub to be cleared with future minimal mowing to provide open grassland habitat. Further mixed woodland with new trees and shrubs are also proposed further to the west. In terms of the southern boundary part of the existing band of poplars, oaks and conifers are to be removed with trees within the informal car park to be retained.

Surface water drainage to discharge to, in part, the ditch which runs along the northern boundary with the remainder being discharged to a ditch further to the west. Foul drainage to discharge to existing foul drainage system.

National policies are covered in PPG1 (General Policy and Principles), PPG7 (The Countryside and the Rural Economy) and PPG21 (Tourism).

PPG1 emphasise the importance of compliance with Section 54A of the Planning Act requiring applications be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

PPG7 refers to tourism which it recognises plays an important role in development and diversification of the rural economy but can also damage the landscape and heritage on which it depends and therefore the proposal needs to be reconciled with full regard to the rural environment.

PPG21 advises that policies should ensure that the tourism industry flourishes in response to the market whilst respecting the environment which attracts visitors. In summary, PPG21 emphasises the following:

Tourism makes a major contribution to national economy and to prosperity of many towns and rural areas.

Growth of tourism generates range of economic activity and new job opportunities.

Tourism often depends on high quality environment and can act as a positive force for environmental protection and enhancement.

Planning system should facilitate, encourage and improve tourist provisions whilst tackling any adverse effects of existing tourist attractions and activities in a constructive and positive manner.

There should be a balance between the need for development to meet tourist needs against policies to protect designated areas.

Appropriate development must respond sensitively to the local environment and demonstrate high standards of design and be appropriate in scale and location so that the environmental impact and associated management problems are minimal.

Under Unitary Development Plan policies Gurnard Pines has been identified as an existing permanent holiday accommodation site and is therefore subject of the following tourism policies:

Policy T10 - The Use of New Tourism Accommodation for Permanent Residential Use.

The existing poplar and conifer tree line forms the western boundary of the permanent holiday accommodation allocation and Members are advised that the proposal before them stays within that allocation.

The application site on which the chalets are to be constructed directly abuts on its western side the eastern edge of a flood plain area as indicated on the 1999 Indicative Flood Plain maps.

1. The proper procedure for applying for permission to develop land was not followed for the retention chalet.

2. The retention chalet will have an adverse visual impact in that it is out of character with the development.

The Environment Agency recommends drainage conditions should application be approved.

Council's Ecology Officer noted the reference to the area of overgrown grassland with brambles being identified in the previous outline approval as an ecologically valuable area of species rich, unimproved natural meadow.

He notes however, that the area has been significantly damaged in the interim period and is becoming invaded by Balm-of-Gilead poplar. However, the plans show that this area will be managed by minimal mowing to provide open grassland habitat. To achieve this object he recommends the following:

Protective fencing shall be erected around this site for the period of construction and maintained during this time. Currently a vehicular track is developing across the site.

A habitat management plan should be submitted to and approved by the Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

Currently damaged areas should be sown with an appropriate wild flower meadow mix to be agreed in advance with the Local Authority.

Five letters of objection have been received from residents of Cockleton Lane. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Proposal will increase pressures on an inadequate vehicular access off Cockleton Lane to the holiday complex which has poor visibility and is unable to cope with the existing traffic flows, with particular reference to big juggernauts and long trailers and constant delivery vehicles etc.

Concern at the proposed loss of trees and the impact that may have on wildlife habitats.

The proposal will encourage further digging out and destruction of natural woodland and flora and fauna and therefore should be discouraged.

One objector is concerned that the impact of this level of development on the existing geology will adversely affect water tables and have an adverse affect on Gurnard Luck.

A particular concern is expressed regarding conflict of additional traffic and the safety of children going to and leaving Gurnard school, bearing in mind the proximity of that school to the entrance to Gurnard Pines.

Adjoining farm owners make reference to trespassing by holiday makers from Gurnard Pines onto their land and this proposal is likely to exacerbate that situation.

Concern over the general disturbance and chaos which is caused when the country lanes are used by large vehicles transporting the mobile homes to the site.

A number of local residents express concern that the units will in the course of time be used as permanent residential with there being an implication that this is already happening elsewhere within the Gurnard Pines complex with a number of the chalets being occupied for permanent residence.

There are a number of issues to consider in respect of this proposal relating to former use of the site, recent planning history and the environmental impact proposals will have on the area.

Firstly, Members should note this application site is slightly smaller than the area of the complex which contained 34 static caravans. 29 of those 34 caravans formerly stood on the area which forms this current application. Similarly, the current application site is smaller than that for the recent outline consent for 25 chalets with 21 of those 25 chalets being within the current application site. In view of the concerns being expressed by local residents regarding traffic generation I consider it is important to compare occupancy of the current proposal with both the previous static caravan use of the site and the recent outline consent.

In terms of the 29 static caravans on the site, I am advised that these had a range from 4 to 6 berths and therefore an average of 5 berths per van would produce a total of 145 holiday makers.

The outline consent related to 21 two storey log cabins ranging from 6 to 8 berth (average 7) producing a potential total of 147 holiday makers.

Current application effectively seeks consent for 2 no. eight person chalets and 24 no. four person holiday bungalows producing a total of 112 holiday makers.

From the above, and whilst appreciating that the type of more substantial holiday accommodation being provided will attract a wider variety of holidaymaker with particular reference to families, this proposal is unlikely to result in additional traffic and at the very worst, is likely to result in maintaining the existing level of traffic generated by the static caravan use. I therefore do not consider that additional traffic generation from this proposal is a justifiable reason to refuse and this is fully supported by the Highway Engineer who raises no comment on this application.

Second significant issue is that this proposal is contained entirely within the area allocated for permanent holiday accommodation and therefore the scheme complies with the various tourism policies which both promotes and protects existing tourism assets, including the promotion of rural tourism. In particular it complies with Policy T1 (The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season) and particularly Policy T6 which states the following:

"Planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites as defined on the proposals map will be approved where the following criteria can be met:

d) New or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the character of the area."

An assessment of the current proposal on those four caveats represents an important material consideration in assessing the merits of this proposal. In terms of a), the location of the proposal clearly relates to existing built facilities being close to similar holiday chalets, tennis courts and in particular the entertainment centre.

In terms of b), it is important to appreciate that the current proposal in the main involves the construction of single storey holiday accommodation in semi-detached pairs which will have a lesser effect on the surrounding area than would likely to have occurred had the two storey log cabins, which formed the outline consent, been pursued. The two detached two-storey log cabin designed chalets are obviously of an increased mass and scale and will have a greater impact, but they have been located within the northern edge of the site having trees to the north and east and at the moment, to the west. These two units, one already being in position, are unlikely to have a sufficiently significant impact to warrant a refusal. Being of a log cabin design they blend in to the woodland theme in the area, thus reducing the impact even more. I am therefore satisfied that in impact terms this proposal will not detract from the surrounding mainly rural area.

In terms of c), the quality of the proposed chalets is clearly an improvement on the former use of the site with static caravans and follows a general theme within the Gurnard Pines complex of improvements and upgrading of the chalets generally. I therefore consider that they do represent a visual improvement.

Finally, in terms of d), whilst accepting that the major element of this application, i e the single storey semi-detached chalets, are to be constructed in brick under concrete tiled roofs, I consider, providing appropriate landscaping takes place within the vicinity, they will sit comfortably within the site. In terms of the resultant density of the site, I have already carried out a comparison above and by introducing semi-detached pairs I consider these will have similar, if not less, ground coverage than the original outline consent would have had, had that been implemented. In terms of effect on the rural character, again I emphasise that this proposal is within the allocated area, and provided the ecological and landscape proposals are carried out on the adjoining land to the west I am satisfied that the natural break between the holiday accommodation and the adjoining land will be achieved.

Other issues to consider relate to ecology and landscape. Members are advised that the previous outline consent was subject to two conditions relating to habitat management plan and submission of a landscape and ecological report. I consider that similar conditions, if Members are mindful to approve, should be applied. I also concur with the Ecology Officer's comment that the area to the west should be fully fenced off and protected during construction work.

In terms of landscape, it is noted that the proposal does indicate the removal of the existing poplar/conifer trees which forms the western boundary between the allocated land and the land to the west. These trees have been inspected with a view to placing a Tree Preservation Order on them however, they are of poor quality and are certainly not the trees to be the subject of a Preservation Order. I would however, suggest a condition requiring consideration being given to selective removal of these trees with a replanting programme or more appropriate trees. If some of the trees within this line were retained in the short term then an element of screening would be retained whilst the new trees are maturing.

Obviously, if Members are mindful to approve, any consent would be subject to a condition restricting the use to holiday use only. The condition which applied to the outline consent is as follows:

"The occupation of the chalets shall be limited to holiday use only and they shall not be occupied by any person, family or group of persons for a period in total exceeding 6 weeks in any rolling year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority".

Recent appeal decisions relating to holiday use suggest that this condition in its detail does not satisfy the tests of Circular 11/95, or fall within the adopted policies of the UDP. The condition that the Inspector considers to be appropriate which he describes as being effective and enforceable reflecting the advice in Circular 11/95 - National Planning Guidance is as follows:

"The units hereby permitted shall only be used for holiday purposes and shall not be used as permanent or main residences".

Given that this wording reflects a national approach to this type of occupancy I have no option but to suggest that this condition should apply in this case.

The applicants have supplied drainage details which indicate foul drainage discharging to existing system and surface water to discharge into existing ditch systems to the north and west. Apart from the Environmental Agency suggesting drainage conditions they have verbally confirmed that the site's location adjacent to a flood plain area is not of significance and raise no objection.

Whilst I concur with the concerns expressed by Gurnard Parish Council regarding the failure of the applicants to seek consent for the one two storey chalet building on the site, this failure to go through the process is not a reason to refuse the application. It is obviously regrettable that approval was not sought, particularly given the fact that the applicants are well versed in the planning procedure. This apart, the proposal has to be treated entirely on its merits with the applicants running the risk that if the building is unacceptable for sound planning reasons, then a refusal is likely to result with the added imposition of enforcement proceedings to ensure its removal. In this case, an assessment has been made with the building forming an integral part of an overall scheme which is why it has been linked to the scheme under one application so all considerations can be assessed in respect of the proposed and existing unauthorised development.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the relevant policies particularly tourism policies. Whilst accepting that the proposal will have an environmental impact, such impact will be limited and can be satisfactorily controlled by way of condition particularly in respect of ecological and landscaping issues. On the assumption that such conditions are fully complied with then this proposal should result in improving the landscape and ecological environment. I do not consider there is any traffic implications which would warrant a refusal for the reasons given and I am therefore of the view that approval is appropriate subject to conditions.

No development, including site clearance, shall commence on the site until a fence of agreed height and design has been erected along the western boundary of the application site outlined in red such as to enclose all parts of the adjoining land to the west.

Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site during which the period the following restrictions shall apply:

(a) no placement or storage of materials;

(b) no placement or storage of fuels or chemicals;

(d) no lighting of bonfires;

(e) no physical damage to bark or branches of any trees or any other natural landscaping features;

(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 to natural landscape features shall be hand dug, ensuring all major routes are left undamaged.

Reason: To ensure that all landscape and ecological aspects of the land adjoining to the west are adequately protected from damage throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity.

Prior to commencement of work, a full landscaping and ecological report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority which shall include a full maintenance schedule in respect of future management of the land which abuts the western boundary of the site. Any such maintenance schedule shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented within an agreed timetable.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory long-term maintenance and management of the western area of the site in compliance with Policy C1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the development hereby approved commences, a landscaping and tree planting scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall accord with any advice contained within the Landscape and Ecological Report referred to in condition no. 5 above. Such scheme shall also include the sowing of appropriate wildflower meadow mix to identified areas within the land which adjoins to the west. Also the scheme shall specify the positions, species and size of any trees and hedges to be planted, all of which shall be of native species, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for their maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the proposal is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system is designed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and supported by detailed calculations. Such a drainage system for the site must be capable of delivering the estimated 1% probability storm runoff to storage. The system must be capable of storing the runoff from the 1% event restricting the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a green field. The scheme shall include a maintenance program and establish ownership of the storage system for the future.

Reason: To prevent flooding and ensure future maintenance.

This application was due to be considered at the meeting held on 24 July 2001 when the matter was deferred at the request of the applicant’s agent in order that he could discuss in detail with Officers the policy implications of the proposal in an attempt to overcome the grounds on which the application was recommended for refusal. Additions to the original report are identified in bold type

Application relates to area of land located to east of the Vineyard and originally part of grounds to former Eastmore House, now known as Port La Salle. Main body of site is roughly rectangular having area of approximately 0.2 hectares which slopes gently in northerly direction. Eastern and southern (roadside) boundaries of site are defined by natural growth with height in excess of 2 metres whilst northern boundary, with relatively new dwelling, is defined by close boarded fence approximately 1.5 metres high. The site is bounded to western side by existing access road to the Vineyard development with no direct access to main road.

Planning history relating to former Eastmore House is quite extensive with large number of applications relating to conversion of the former school buildings or for residential development within the grounds. Most relevant of these concerns duplicate applications submitted in March 1990 seeking outline approval for residential development of houses and apartments, with dry quay area and slipway. One of these applications became the subject of an appeal against the failure of the former Borough Council to give notice of their decision within the prescribed period. Following consideration of a report on the matter, the former Borough Council Planning Committee resolved that, had they been in a position to determine the application, it would have been refused for reasons of policy, impact in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast and matters relating to highway considerations. The appeal was determined by way of a local inquiry and was allowed, the Inspector's decision letter was dated 21 November 1991.

The "twin track" duplicate application was approved in July 1992. A revised plan submitted to the Local Planning Authority in this respect identified an area adjacent the eastern boundary of the site, close to the foreshore, where no development was to take place, in line with the Inspector's recommendations. The approval was subject to a condition in this respect as follows:

"No development of flats or houses permitted by this approval, or other buildings, shall take place within the area hatched green on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice."

Both the permission granted on appeal and the planning approval granted by the former Borough Council were subject of conditions requiring that the means of access was constructed in accordance with the approved plans prior to any building being occupied.

A subsequent application for approval of reserved matters for 13 houses and four semi-detached bungalows, creation of boat basin, quay and slipway, car parking, access road and landscaping was approved in June 1994. A number of subsequent applications have also been approved for residential development within the grounds of the former Eastmore House, now known as Port La Salle.

Detailed consent is sought for residential development of eight maisonettes, five bungalows, access road and parking area.

Submitted plans show two storey terraced block of eight maisonettes located at southern end of site with car parking and amenity block immediately adjacent southern (roadside) boundary of the site. Each of the maisonettes would provide lounge/dining room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms. The five bungalows would be located to north of and at lower level than block of maisonettes with further car parking adjacent northern boundary of site. Each of the bungalows would provide similar accommodation to the maisonettes. Proposal would also include alterations and improvements to the existing access road off the main estate road to Port La Salle development. Submission indicates that buildings would be constructed of materials to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Application was accompanied by a planning brief which is attached to this report as Appendix A. Information contained in the planning brief includes an outline of the current financial situation regarding the Vineyard development and difficulties presently experienced with the management and upkeep of the site. In addition, the brief provides details of how the proposed development would assist in resolving these difficulties.

The site lies outside development envelope boundary for Yarmouth and is within an area designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent the Heritage Coast. The site forms part of a larger area allocated in Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as a housing development site. The allocation is derived from the previous planning approvals for the area in question. Relevant policies are considered to be:

Shalfleet Parish Council visited the site with residents and, whilst the existing residents are generally in favour of some development of the land, there are certain criteria that both they and the Parish Council feel should be addressed before the go ahead is given. The issues in question are as follows:

Drainage – the existing drainage cannot cope with the properties already on site. It is therefore essential that any proposed work makes adequate provision for both new building and current shortfalls.

Roads – the roadway is in a poor state of repair. In order to allow for new and existing road usage, it is necessary that the road be repaired and resurfaced.

Access – in order to facilitate access of heavy lorries and other equipment to the site, the Council requested that a temporary additional access be instated. The Council did not however consider that a permanent additional entrance would be either safe or practical.

Design – the Council considered that the building should be in keeping with the existing style of houses on the site, that they should not exceed the height of the properties already there and that work should commence from the bottom (seaward) end of the site, working upwards.

In order to minimise the disturbance to existing residents, a timescale, if permissible, would be desirable.

Highway Engineer expressed view that stage has been reached when no further development should be permitted in the Port La Salle area unless or until the access road is brought up to a standard equivalent to that required for adoption. This would require the existing carriageway to be repaired and surfaced, with footways to be provided. He commented that, at present, anybody walking to the site from the Yarmouth direction (or from the east bound bus stop) has to enter the junction bell mouth in a hazardous position where there is limited road width and restricted visibility from vehicles turning the corner. He considered that, whilst there may not be space to construct a continuous roadside footway into the development, it would certainly be possible to upgrade and surface the alternative route, to the east of the junction (alongside the A3054 and then northwards along public footpath S1) to provide safer conditions for pedestrians. Whilst he considered that these issues could be overcome by imposing a “Grampian” condition on any approval for development of the site, he initially recommended refusal on grounds that Bouldnor Road is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable construction and lack of footways. He also indicated that the internal layout is regimented and old fashioned, with shared parking areas out of sight of some of the dwellings, and that this is not in accordance with the principles contained in DB32.

Following discussions/negotiations with the applicants agent and submission of revised plans in respect of the two storey block, further consultations have been carried out with the Highway Engineer. As a result, he is satisfied that the necessary improvements to the access road and provision of footpaths can be achieved by way of Grampian condition, should Members be minded to approve the application.

Planning Assistant (Development Plan) draws attention to allocation of site, as listed in Appendix A of the UDP, as one of those which are “based on existing commitments, may not be considered appropriate for renewal if the developments are not completed under existing approvals”. She advises that this would mean the proposed site is no longer allocated and is subject to policies H4, H9 and H15, and would come forward as an exception site. In this case the application must satisfy the criteria set out in Policy H15.

In his initial comments, the AONB Officer expressed view that application was contrary to Policy C2. He commented that the site is former pasture land (although now disused and scrubby) and is not within a defined development envelope. Furthermore, he commented that proposal is not linked to agriculture, tourism or informal recreation and it is difficult to see what, if any benefit, it will be to a local rural economy. He also considered that the proposed buildings would be highly visible from the Solent due to the slope of the land and it would seem, based on comments by the Inspector from an appeal with regard to a previous application on this site, that this issue was given particular weight. In this respect, it would seem that a desire to preserve a green swathe between Port La Salle and the properties to the east may have been his intention although this was not stated as such. He advised that, should the Planning Authority be mindful to approve this application, the design of the building should reflect that of the neighbouring properties in order to attempt to give the whole area a unified character.

The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer subsequently made further comments in which he advised that, although site is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is in fact classified under the Landscape Character Assessment as settlement and as such is appropriate for this development. He considered that the revised plans for the two storey block addressed his original comment with regard to the need for good design appropriate to the area. He is now satisfied that application does not have a negative impact on the AONB and raises no objection.

Housing Officer advises that examination of the 2002 Housing Needs Survey database shows there are two elderly people in Bouldnor seeking sheltered housing accommodation, six in Yarmouth and 50 in the West Wight area as a whole. He advises that this demand is unlikely to be met from existing sheltered housing resources in the West Wight, nor is it likely that such provision would be of sufficiently high priority for the Council to grant fund the building of any new Housing Association owned units. The only alternative is private sector provision, and so far as he is aware, this application is for an extension of an existing private sector facility, rather than a totally new site. He confirmed that the survey supports the need and raised no objections to the proposal on housing grounds.

Twenty-two letters received from local residents, of which 21 are pro forma letters and one letter from Port La Salle Management Ltd supporting proposal for reasons which can be summarised as follows:

Development would contribute to viability of vineyard as secure environment for over 55's and fulfil government proposal for more dwellings for an increasing elderly population.

Development in keeping with vineyard and would put overgrown site to use which is presently used for tipping.

Proposal does not affect green belt wedge of land below site which is to remain undeveloped.

Rainwater and spring water from site presently flows unchecked through properties recently built below site - proposed development would resolve this problem.

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

Inducement offered to make up estate road, which is joint obligation of existing occupiers of the estate, not sufficient to justify development resulting in area becoming more densely populated, placing additional burden on roads and further eroding green belt.

Site is designated to be retained as part of a buffer zone between sea and road to limit any further development.

Proposal would result in over-crowded development out of keeping with the vineyard.

Letter received from the Vineyard Residents (Leaseholders) Association who, whilst not objecting to proposal express the following concerns:

Application presents inaccurate information regarding current financial situation of the vineyard.

Disposal of properties as social housing could affect contributions towards maintenance costs of the vineyard.

Additional letter received from the Vineyard Residents Association again suggesting that information which accompanied application misrepresented their involvement. They advised that there is no agreement between them and the applicant/agent regarding improvements to roads and drainage and they do not gain in any way, and these issues should have been addressed as part of the adjacent development. They also question information submitted with the application which addresses the sustainability of the existing Vineyard and the proposed development and the need for a warden at the site. They express concern that mention is made of affordable housing in one report and do not consider that this is appropriate on this site.

Letter received from the Port La Salle Management Ltd expressing satisfaction that progress was being made in respect of this application and indicating that it is their desire for this application to be recommended for approval. They indicated that their prime concern is that the estate roads will carry an adequate surface water drainage system and will have a final wearing surface applied. They indicated that this matter was the subject of a legal package and surface water drainage from the proposed vineyard extension would be routed down to the sea via the road. They commented that it is their understanding that the making up of their roads and drainage system, as contained in the legal package, can be made a material consideration in the application when formulating a recommendation. They also suggest that the final scheduling of the road works would have to take into consideration the route to be taken by heavy site traffic and it is hoped that a temporary site entrance directly from the main road could be approved by Highways Department to avoid congestion at the sole entrance to the estate and damage to the road surface at the upper part of Port La Salle Road.

Determining factors in considering application are whether development is acceptable in principle and whether scale and design of development is in keeping with its surroundings.

Following deferral of the application, a number of meetings were held with applicants agent and consultations were carried out with the Policy Section (Development Plan), the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer and Housing Officer. Comments received as a result of these consultations are included in the Representations section of this report. Discussions with applicants agent focused on five main areas:

Comments of the Planning Inspector in determining the earlier appeal against refusal of planning permission on a larger area which included the application site.

The area of land on the eastern side of the Port La Salle development which was to remain undeveloped.

Following this meeting, a letter was received from Solicitors acting on behalf of the applicants, addressing in more detail the issues raised at the meeting.

I consider that, in determining whether the proposal is acceptable in principle, it is necessary to have regard for the complex planning history of the site and, in particular, the policies contained in the current development plan. The most relevant planning history in respect of this site was considered to be the application for outline planning permission granted on appeal in November 1991. Applicants agent disputed this point and considered that the Outline Planning Permission granted on 31 July 1992 was the relevant planning history. The view was subsequently expressed by the authority, in a letter to Solicitors acting on behalf of the applicants, that both consents are material considerations in determining the current planning application, although they carry different weight. In determining the appeal in 1991, the Inspector considered the main issue in the case to be the likely effect the proposals would have on the character and appearance of the area having regard to the aims of the Council's planning policies and the planning history of the site. The Inspector acknowledged that the site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, an Heritage Coastline and was shown on the Rural Areas Local Plan to be within the countryside for the purposes of interpreting the Local Plan and Replacement Structure Plan. In determining the appeal, he carried out an inspection of the area, including observing the site and its surroundings from the sea.

The Inspector acknowledged that the western part of the appeal site would be largely screened by a knoll and trees. However, he was of the opinion that this would not reduce the densely built appearance of the proposed development when viewed from the sea. In this respect, he concluded as follows:

"Therefore, due to the prominence of the eastern part of the site, I believe that the development which is proposed would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area.

Whereas some of the houses on the eastern part of the site would occupy land which could be used for a car park, I consider that the permanent buildings would be far more intrusive than the occasional cars which would be parked there, despite the degree of assimilation of the houses into the hillside which is intended. Therefore, although I recognise that there are planning permissions on the site which would enable development to be carried out, I do not accept that this outweighs the harm which I consider would be caused by building the flats and the houses east of the quay. In addition, not only would the construction of the flats and the houses be contrary to the aim of development plan policies to limit new housing to land within village envelopes or as otherwise provided for in the structure or Local Plans but, because of the visual effects of the eastern part of the scheme, I believe it would be incompatible with the AONB policy to avoid significantly prejudicing the landscape."

Whilst the Inspector allowed the appeal, he gave clear indications that development east of the quay was unacceptable by reason of its visual impact and the harm that would result to the character of the area. This is clear from the comments contained in his summing up in which he stated:

"..... I do not intend to grant permission for the construction of the residential development east of the quay."

He acknowledged that the application was in outline and that the submitted plan was for illustrative purposes only. However, he noted that the amended application included a reduction in the number and the location of residential units as shown on the plan and, therefore, considered the plan to be a material consideration to the decision.

The impact of the development was also taken into account when considering the conditions suggested by the Authority which included one seeking to limit the height of the buildings to not more than two storeys. Whilst he agreed that it was desirable to limit the height of the buildings, he considered that this could be addressed under the design and external appearance aspect of the reserved matters.

Subsequent to the determination of the appeal, a revised plan was submitted in respect of the "twin tracked" application showing an area of land hatched green, adjacent the eastern boundary of the site and close to the foreshore. This area equates to that part of the site where built development was proposed and the Inspector indicated that this would be unacceptable by reason of its visual impact and the adverse effect on the character of the area which would be likely to arise. This hatched area did not include the area of land, the subject of the current application, although it is worth noting that this was shown on the plan submitted in respect of the original outline application to be a landscaped area containing no built development. However, whilst it was a condition of the application, approved by the former Borough Council, that no development should take place in the hatched area, I do not consider that development outside this area should therefore by definition be considered as being acceptable.

Land on the eastern side of the Port La Salle development falls gently between Bouldnor Road and the foreshore to the north. Consequently, the application site is at, and rises to a higher level than the area adjacent the foreshore and to the east of the quay referred to by the Inspector. Therefore, development on the application site would clearly be as visible if not more prominent than the area adjacent the foreshore, particularly when viewed from the sea. This is evident from photographic evidence submitted in respect of the appeal from which the two storey block within the Vineyard, immediately west of the application site, is clearly visible on the high ground adjacent Bouldnor Road. However, in view of the comments of the AONB Officer, I do not consider that refusal of the application on grounds of the physical impact of the development in the landscape would be sustainable.

Whilst the site is allocated as a housing development site in the UDP, it is clearly outside the development envelope for Yarmouth where further development would conflict with the aims of the plan, other than those exceptions specified in other policies. In this instance, it is clear that the site has been allocated solely on the basis of the planning history of the area and existing commitments. In terms of the previous permission granted for the site, and particularly the original outline, the current application site formed part of a more comprehensive scheme and I do not consider that the allocation is, by itself, sufficient to justify approval of the current application. Of particular relevance, the site appears in Appendix A "Housing Land Availability" of the UDP along with other sites under an explanatory note which states as follows:

"It is considered that the following allocations, which are based on existing commitments, may not be considered appropriate for renewal if the developments are not completed under existing approvals."

Furthermore, it should be noted that the outline application, whilst accompanied by plans which were illustrative purposes only, did not propose development within the area of land immediately to the east of the vineyard.

I consider that the advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 "Housing" is relevant to the current proposal. In particular, with regard to sites allocated for housing, the PPG offers the following guidance:

"Where the planning application relates to development of a green field site allocated for housing in an adopted Local Plan or UDP, it should be assessed, and a decision made on the application, in the light of the policies set out in this guidance."

In accordance with the guidance in the PPG, development of sites for housing purposes should follow a sequential approach starting with the reuse of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by an urban housing capacity study, then urban extensions and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors. In doing so, it is necessary to identify sufficient land to meet the housing requirements as a result of the Regional Planning Guidance and strategic planning processes and the Authority will need to consider all land in its area. On the basis of the sequential approach, it is necessary to ensure that previously developed sites or buildings for reuse or conversion are developed before green field sites.

On the question of policy, the site is clearly outside the settlement of Yarmouth as defined by the development envelope on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I remain of the opinion that development of the site for residential purposes, without any justification, would be contrary to the policies of the Plan which seek to resist further development in the countryside. Whilst site forms part of larger area which is shown on Unitary Development Plan to be allocated as a housing development site, as previously mentioned in this report, the allocation was based on an existing commitment which may not be considered appropriate for renewal if the development is not completed under existing approvals. Therefore, I do not consider that this allocation by itself provides sufficient justification to allow development of the site. However, applicants agent has indicated that development would form an extension to the existing sheltered housing site known as the Vineyard. In addition, he draws attention to the comments contained in the Housing Strategy and Needs report and expresses the opinion that this clearly encourages the provision of developments for the care of the elderly within the community. He comments that there has been no sheltered housing development on the Isle of Wight during the 1990’s and that there is an identifiable need reported as being 120 in the private sector by 2006.

Housing Officer has confirmed that there is an identified need for this type of accommodation within the West Wight area as a whole, supporting the views expressed by the applicants agent. The original submission was accompanied by information in support of proposal outlined in the current financial situation with regard to the Vineyard development. The information highlighted the maintenance work required and the cost of these works together with the level of potential debt which cannot be met by the current residents. It was suggested that the proposed development would enable these costs to be met and would make the overall development more sustainable. It was also suggested that the development will provide the necessary funding for the existing estate roads to be finished to an acceptable standard. Whilst it could be argued that the provision of sheltered housing could be met on another site, possibly within the defined settlement, information submitted with application clearly indicates that proposal is directly linked with and forms extension to the existing Vineyard development.

In terms of the design of the development, original submission indicated that buildings would be of height, scale and mass similar to the existing vineyard development. The most significant difference in the character of the buildings was the appearance and design of the two storey elements. Whilst the proposed two storey building did not reflect the appearance and character of the original vineyard development, it was not considered that, having regard to the differing styles of properties within the general locality, the design of the proposed development would be out of keeping with the area in general. However, having regard to location of site within an area designated as an AONB, and location of two storey element on highest and most prominent part of site, the design of the building was considered to be somewhat bland. Following negotiations with applicants agent, revised plans were submitted showing a building of superior design with interesting features to fenestration of building and which would make positive contribution to the area.

With regard to concerns raised in representations submitted in respect of application concerning the adequacy of the drainage system and condition of the existing estate roads, I would advise Members that possible inadequacies in drainage system and need to upgrade this have been acknowledged in submission and subsequent correspondence from applicants agent. Furthermore, it is understood that this development will facilitate improvements to the estate roads.

Having regard to comments of the Highway Engineer, I consider that there is sufficient justification to require developer to carry out improvements to the estate road between its junction with the main road and the access road to the development. However, there would be no justification to require improvements to the remainder of the estate roads beyond this point. I am satisfied that any necessary upgrading of the drainage system and improvements to the road can be required by conditions of any planning permission, should Members be minded to approve the application.

Whilst Parish Council and residents have suggested that development site should be served by a temporary access directly from the main road, I consider that this would be unreasonable and unnecessary having regard to the size of the proposed development. Furthermore, Highways Engineer has indicated that this would be unacceptable in highway safety terms.

Whilst in his initial comments, Highway Engineer indicated that the layout was regimented and old fashioned with shared parking areas, this reflects the pattern of development on the existing Vineyard development and is considered to be appropriate in this instance. It should be noted that the parking areas would be overlooked by the dwellings and does not therefore present a security problem.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, whilst outside the defined development boundary, the development would meet an identified housing need which would justify approval of the application. Therefore, on balance, I recommend accordingly.

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 building(s) is/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.

No development shall take place on site, including site clearance, until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Only such agreed and foul surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Variation of condition no. 2 on TCP/7444X to reduce the number of affordable houses from 4 to 3 land adjacent Prospect Cottage, Plots 1-4, High Street, Freshwater, PO40

Applications relate to a former nursery site of approximately 0.565 hectares situated on the east side of the High Street, Freshwater with the site having a 38 metre frontage onto the High Street. Application, which involves condition variation, relates to the frontage area of the site onto the High Street.

May 1999 outline consent was granted for residential development with all matters reserved apart from means of access. That consent was subject of a number of conditions including retention and protection of hedgerows, conditions relating to access roads and more significantly, the following condition in respect of affordable housing:

"20% of the residential units developed on this site shall be allocated as affordable housing and handed over to a registered social landlord at a discounted price (50% market value) through a method agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority concurrent with the submission of the reserved matters. This agreement shall also include mechanisms to be put in place to ensure that such provision remains in affordable use in the long term.

May 2000, detailed consent was granted for two pairs of semi-detached houses on that part of the site which directly fronts the High Street with these houses being offered as affordable housing units in respect of the overall development. At that time the exact number of affordable housing units which could be expected to be achieved from the overall development of the site was unknown as a reserved matter application relating to siting had not been received and therefore density was unknown. In view of this situation the only calculation which could be applied was on the basis of the minimum 30 units per hectare density figure referred to in PPG3 with the four units being offered satisfying the 20% level required in the condition attached to the outline. Given this situation, this detailed application was subject of the following condition:

"No more than 50% of the total number of dwellings shall be completed for general market housing on the adjoining land to the east outlined in blue before the four affordable housing units hereby approved have been completed ready for occupation for the purposes of providing housing accommodation for rent, to be handed over to a registered social landlord at a discounted price of 50% of the market value."

March 2001, a reserved matter approval was granted for the siting of ten dwellings on the remaining area of the site to the east. The end result of that consent being a total of 14 units on the overall site (total density 24.7 units per hectare). That consent was subject of a further reserved matter condition requiring the submission of details of design, external appearance and landscaping before development commences.

Consent is sought to vary condition no. 2 on the consent for two pairs of semi-detached houses and parking spaces (TCP/7444X) to allow reduction of affordable houses provided from four to three.

Applicant has indicated that the three affordable housing units being offered will be three of the four semi-detached properties which front the High Street. The reason for the applications to reduce the number of affordable housing units is that 20% of 14 units is 2.8 thus justifying the reduction by one unit.

The main policy to consider is Policy H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes. As follows:

"On those sites allocated for residential development shown on the proposals map and those which become available but are not currently available the Council will seek to negotiate an element of affordable housing as part of the scheme.

The scale and type of provision will be considered in relation to local needs, however, the Council is seeking to achieve 20% of housing on appropriate sites to be developed and handed over to a registered social landlord at a discounted price (50% market value). Mechanisms will need to be put in place to ensure such provision remains in affordable use in the long term.

On suitable sites where the Council considers it preferable to provide affordable housing it may be prepared to accept a) an appropriate contribution of service land which may also include built affordable housing units and b) a financial contribution sufficient to enable Housing Association to provide the agreed number of units, either by new buildings or the purchase of existing stock."

The text which accompanies the above policy places Freshwater within an area where the appropriate threshold is 15 units or more or 0.5 hectares, irrespective of the number of dwellings. Members attention is also drawn to the recent Housing Needs Survey which identified the extent, distribution and type of housing needed over and above homelessness. The summary of that report suggests the following:

The survey identified that of the 4,500 households required some 4,000 needed to be affordable (90%) in that they would require assistance to meet their housing needs in the context of the local market. Of that 4,000 around 30% were looking at public provision i.e. Housing Association, to meet their needs.

In addition the survey recognised that Newport, Ryde, Shanklin/Lake/Sandown followed by Cowes were identified as areas of most need. Also the survey recognised the continuing need for 2/3 bedroomed homes to meet the statutory homeless requirement. Current application refers to three bedroom semi-detached houses.

Finally, with regard to the above policy, the text supporting the policy is summarised as follows:

Precise proportion is a matter of negotiation with the Council seeking to ensure that not less than 20% of the units are for affordable housing.

c) The scheme is in line with PPG13 (Good access to range of facilities on foot or by public transport.

Members attention is also drawn to PPG3 - Housing March 2000. This document emphasises that it is essential for Local Planning Authorities to assess needs by the process of carrying out a needs survey. Importantly the document recognises the inclusion of affordable housing in appropriate schemes is a material planning consideration. Importantly the document states the following:

"Decisions about the amount and types of affordable housing to be provided in individual proposals should reflect local housing need and individual site suitability and be a matter for agreement between the parties....... The objectives should be to ensure that the affordable housing secured will contribute to satisfying local housing need as demonstrated by a rigorous assessment."

Freshwater Parish Council comments as follows: Objection on the grounds that there is a need for affordable houses so this should remain as four as previously agreed. The Council were also concerned about the lack of information as to why the developer wished to reduce the number of affordable houses which made it difficult to consider the matter.

Council's Principal Planning Officer (Development Plan) comments on the application of the policies in this case and he is of the view that the applicant has failed to provide justification to vary the conditions. His reasons for such a view are summarised as follows:

Policy H14 has already been applied in respect of this site through the Council's approval of May 2000 in respect of the four affordable units offered by the applicant.

He suggests that the Council may not have approved a subsequent overall density scheme under 30 units per hectare had they not had the comfort that four affordable units of accommodation had already been secured by the previous consent of May 2000.

The text to the policy clearly indicates that affordable housing provision shall be not less than 20%. Just because four affordable units exceeds the 20% of the overall density is no reason to accede to this proposal to reduce it to three units.

Council's Housing Officer acknowledges that it may be difficult to resist the reduction from four to three units however, he clearly would prefer the four units that have been approved. In terms of housing need he states the following:

"I acknowledge there are higher demands elsewhere on the Island but I know of no prospective social housing site in the area so the West Wight is totally dependant on PPG3 - The Provision of New Rented Social Housing. I would recommend that on site provision be enforced."

He also points out the following: ".... about 20 - 25 West Wight families become homeless every year and 95 families in housing need are currently on the Council's housing register for Freshwater alone."

Members are advised that the applicant, subsequent to the submission of this application, has submitted a letter pursuing the possibility of making a cash payment to obtain release of this condition. The significant statement within the letter is quoted as follows:

"Having considered all the financial aspects relating to 2.8 units we would offer to the Council the sum of £150,000 for the release of condition 2 relating to the four units. The Council would then be free to allocate those funds wherever they deemed the need to be greatest."

The comments of both the Housing Officer and the Principal Planning Officer (Development Plan) have been sought on this particular offer as follows:

Questionable that the contribution will be sufficient to meet the criteria of Policy H14B and enable Housing Association either to build or purchase on the open market for a number of three bedroom houses.

Policy is quite clear that the Council is only prepared to accept a financial contribution instead of affordable housing when there is a fully justifiable case for not providing such housing on site.

"I also agree with you that replacing the housing provision with a financial contribution should be resisted at all cost. The whole principle of PPG3 is to provide affordable social housing on site in areas where there is a clear demand but little or no prospect of finding sites for social housing through the usual means".

The issue of provision of affordable housing on any scheme tends to be a complex issue with the circumstances of this site being particularly difficult given the sequence of events and the application of the previous condition.

It is important to appreciate that the consent of May 2000 in respect of two pairs of semi detached houses was accepted as the affordable housing provision for the overall site bearing in mind that the applicants offered these houses for social housing use. As no specific density on the overall site was known at the time the calculation was based on the minimum density contained within PPG3 i.e. 30 units per hectare which would have produced a total density of 17 units. (20% of 17 units equals 3.4 units rounded up to 4 units).

The applicants however, chose as a sequence to follow the approval for four units with the reserved matter siting application in respect of the remainder of the site indicating only ten units on that site. (Total 14). It was partly because of the realisation that that resulted in a density under 30 units per hectare that your Officers recommended refusal to the application on the grounds of inefficient use of urban land, however, Members determined to approve the application in that form.

Having now noted that the total of 14 units has been approved on this site the owners have seen this as a justification to reduce the number of affordable housing units on the site based on the 20% figure. Members are assured that this site, whatever the density, would require an element of affordable housing as it exceeds the second threshold figure of 0.5 hectares.

Therefore, the material consideration in this case is whether this provides sufficient justification to reduce the number of affordable housing units on the site. Firstly, I consider the approach by the developers to be disappointing for it was they who offered the four units for social housing and the two pairs of semi detached houses to the front of the site are ideally located given the site's easy access to the town centre and the facilities which are afforded by that location. Also the design of the two pairs sit comfortably within the street scene which consists mainly of traditional established dwellings.

The most important consideration is the importance of this site being an urban brown field site within very close proximity to the town centre being in excess of 0.5 hectares and therefore it is a site which the Planning Authority would expect to achieve the best possible provision of affordable housing in compliance with local and national policies. Therefore, despite the subsequent consent for a total number of 14 units at a density less than 30 units per hectare the original calculation in my opinion is of greater importance and that the four units originally offered by the applicant should still apply.

Obviously this is a matter of judgement as to how the calculations contained within the policies are applied.

The important comment in this case is that of the Housing Officer with particular reference to the lack of suitable sites within Freshwater and that West Wight is totally dependant on PPG3 for the provision of new rented social housing. Also the Housing Officer's comments regarding need are self-explanatory. In this regard Members are reminded that the development to the rear of Freshwater library is providing six affordable housing units for rent.

Applicants have indicated that the three affordable housing units would be provided in the form of a pair of semi-detached and one-semi detached unit with the second semi-detached being open market housing. Council's Housing Officer has suggested that whilst this is not ideal in terms of management the Housing Association would accept the situation if this was all that was on offer.

Although not the subject of this application I have no hesitation in concurring with the advice given in respect of the applicant's offer of £150,000 towards provision of affordable housing off site and the applicant will be advised accordingly.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I consider that the site's location in relation to the town centre makes this a particularly suitable site for the provision of the maximum number of affordable housing that can be achieved. Therefore, having successfully achieved the provision of four such units by the consent granted in May 2000, which incidentally were offered for that purpose by the applicant, then the Local Planning Authority should resist any proposal to reduce that number. Therefore, I do not consider the applicants have provided sufficient justification to reduce the number and therefore I recommend refusal to this application.

Application relates to unused area of rectangular land which adjoins GKN Osborne Works and which fronts Whippingham Road.

The application site totals some 0.35 hectares and is accessed via an existing layby and gated entrance point.

Application seeks consent to use area of land as commercial vehicle trailer park with submitted plans indicating parking for some 16 units.

Proposal seeks to retain existing screen of Leylandii trees together with formation of new 2 metre high earth bank along south eastern boundary of proposed trailer park.

Access to site will be gained from existing layby and gated entrance with existing gates being moved back some 6 metres further into site to allow access berth. Trailer park itself will have maximum dimensions of some 72 metres x 40 metres and be covered in Consolidated Type 1 Aggregate with new tarmacadam entrance aprons. Formation of entrance will itself require removal of several trees. Agent has submitted supporting letter with application which advises application seeks to ease congestion problems at the company's main depot at Riverway as well as improving freight movement operational procedures of Vectis Transport/Red Funnel distribution at East Cowes ferry terminal.

Application seeks approval for trailer park on temporary 12 month basis, if approved the intention would be to submit a further application towards the end of 12 month period for continued use on a more permanent basis.

In support of application agent has submitted statement, advising that need for additional trailer parking is due to increasing under capacity at company's main vehicle depot on Riverway. Available area for vehicle/trailer parking at Riverway was extended some 18 months ago but due to increased business more capacity is needed and there is no further scope for extending parking area at that site. As a result of this situation more trailer parking and commercial vehicle operations has been occurring at East Cowes ferry terminal where Vectis Transport undertake major elements of overall operations.

Agent goes on to state that Vectis Transport are seeking to improve operational procedures at East Cowes ferry terminal especially with regard to evening/nighttime use of Phoenix Yard by relocating trailer park. At present empty trailers are parked at ferry terminal and are shuttled onto ferries using detachable tractor cabs mainly during nighttime operations. Proposal would enable coupling/uncoupling of tractor cabs to/from trailers and associated maneuvering to be done on site remote from terminal. Tractor cabs at East Cowes site also pick up fully laden trailers off ferries to distribute directly to Island businesses - this part of operation will be unaffected.

With regard to Highways issue site is served by existing crossover/vehicle access which was originally constructed to provide alternative access to GKN's Osborne works site but which has never been brought into use. Existing access has layby approach from south east a generous 10 metre radius kerb and a 6 metre wide roadway. Visibility from junction to south east (approaching near side traffic) is in excess of 200 metres. This is considered by agent to be most important visibility direction since coupled tractor/trailer will almost exclusively be leaving site in north westerly direction to travel to East Cowes terminal. The only time vehicles will leave site in south easterly direction towards Newport is when unladen tractors will occasionally leave site to return to Vectis Transports Newport depot. Visibility from junction to north west is not as good as to south east but is still well in excess of 100 metres. Whilst visibility displays are normally taken at a point at a junction 2 metres or 2.4 metres back from road edge with regard to particular proposal it is argued that these dimensions are not relevant. This application seeks use of site for articulated trailer parking only and tractor cabs which pull trailers and have no bonnet projections beyond windscreen. From photographs submitted it is suggested that only 1 metre set back is required which allows visibility of 140 metres to be achieved. Agent concludes that whichever visibility display set back is required adequate visibility is achievable.

With regards to visual impact trailers being parked along side roadside boundary agent opines that site will be well screened and securely fenced with chain link fencing. Most of site will have porous surface i.e. crushed limestone scalpings with tarmacadam apron. Existing topsoil which will be scraped from site will be banked to form bund alongside south east boundary of application site. Some form of low level artificial lighting will be required with specification and siting of lighting to be agreed at a later stage.

Application site forms part of larger area of land allocated for employment use with Unitary Development Plan.

Text to document advises that employment site in total covers some 3.2 hectares and is allocated for high quality business B1, general industry B2 and storage and distribution services B8 development. Made up of land previously used as private allotment gardens this site which is owned by Westland Aerospace has been identified by them for development as part of redevelopment of adjoining Osborne Works to north west.

Policy T3 of UDP seeks to resist development of allocated employment land for other uses.

Policy G5 does allow for specific development outside defined settlements including small scale development ancillary to industrial/commercial development providing such development does not reduce quality of environment and landscape or harm setting of settlement or village or part of that setting.

Policy TR11 supports appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes will help address traffic and marshalling problems associated with cross-Solent ferry terminals.

Highway Engineer comments that whilst he is aware of marshalling problem at East Cowes terminal and whilst he is keen to assist in finding a satisfactory solution he is unable to support application in is present form.

The partly constructed 'new' access for Osborne works was granted consent several years ago and was subject to two essential conditions neither of which have been met (but as it has never been brought into use, no enforcement issue has arisen) namely (1) the existing sub-standard entrance to the works to be closed up (2) visibility displays of X equals 2.4 and Y equals 150 metres to be provided in both directions from the new access.

To achieve the required visibility in a northerly direction would require much of GKN's security fence to be set back. In fact an X distance of 4.5 would be the normal requirement but as that would require several prominent trees to be removed a slightly reduced X distance is probably acceptable in the circumstances. As the road is now subject to a 40 MPH speed limit a reduced Y distance of 120 metres would be acceptable but this is a minimum which is regarded as non-negotiable.

Current application includes neither of these features and Highway Engineer has no alternative but to recommend refusal on road safety grounds as to approve it would result in two sub-standards accesses in close proximity onto busy principle road.

Traffic flows on Whippingham Road are now at or very near level of 13,000 vehicles per day where under TD42/95, any junction should road widening, ghost island markings and a right turn lane. Original consent for the access was granted on the basis that whilst it did not meet full junction design standards it still achieved a worthwhile improvement over the existing situation.

It would not be economic to undertake major junction works for a temporary consent but equally it would be difficult to justify making an exception. Given future allocation of this site for employment use if a relaxation in Highways standards was accepted now it could prejudice Council's position in the event of an application for industrial use eventually coming forward.

The most crucial factor here is the limited visibility to the north (the sight line to the south is adequate although the cuprous trees overhanging the highway need cutting back which may incidentally reduce their screening value). There is no justification in any recognised technical standards for a X distance of only 1 metre as suggested by the agent. Whilst the number of vehicle movements arising from this particular proposal may be fairly low traffic movements would incorporate large vehicle which once committed to a manoeuvre require adequate space and time to complete the turn and reach the speed of the main traffic stream. They need to be seen by approaching vehicles as well as seeing them. Existing restricted sight line makes no allowance for overtaking vehicles or driver error and is simply not acceptable.

Unless the application can be amended to include visibility splay across Osborne Works frontage with security fence moved back and removal of any trees within the visibility splay he recommends refusal on grounds of inadequate access by reason of unacceptable visibility.

Environmental Health Officer has commented that the department is adversely concerned that approval of this application may cause this amenity to neighbouring land uses specifically residential properties in the vicinity namely Barton Lodge cottages and Whippingham Heights Estate which are distance of approximately 100 and 200 metres from the proposed site respectively.

In order to safeguard amenity of these residential premises and to comment fully on impact of proposed trailer park on immediate area department requires additional information other than that supplied in the application. They therefore suggest the submission of a comprehensive noise assessment carried out by a competent person. Survey should concern anticipated noise omissions from the operation.

39 individual letters of objection have been received and objections can be summarised as follows:

- Residential occupiers adversely affected by increased noise from traffic movement and potential hours of operation.

- Reference being made to further expansion and questioning temporary nature of current application.

- Proposal will conflict with operation of nearby primary school and compromise safety of parents and children walking to and from site.

Head teacher of nearby primary school questions reference to remoteness of development by agent points out that school is less than quarter of a mile from site and opposite housing estates. Traffic along main road is constant with parents having to spill out onto Beatrice avenue and Heights at busy times. Road is particularly heavily used as Red Funnel's arrive/depart. As school is on stand alone site quite a few parents walk along main road which will necessitate crossing in front of application site. Whippingham locality should remain rural and not an industrial car park overspill area representing further commercial incursion into countryside.

Main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of site in land use terms and UDP policy planning benefits of relocated trailer park and potential impacts on surrounding residential occupiers together with highway considerations.

In terms of policy G5 does allow for specific development outside defined settlements including small scale development ancillary to industrial/commercial development providing such development does not reduce quality of environment and landscape or harm settlement or village. Furthermore the site is allocated for employment use within the UDP and whilst policy T3 seeks to resist development of such allocated employment land for other uses it is important to note that application seek temporary consent and any such approval on this basis would not prejudice future employment use of this site.

Notwithstanding policy situation use of site would allow more efficient use of applicants Riverway premises whilst relieving pressure on Phoenix Yard parking area in East Cowes itself which as explained by agent involves parking of trailers and shuttling onto ferries using detachable tractor cabs mainly during nighttime operations. Members will note that policy TR11 supports appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes which would help address traffic and marshalling problems associated with Islands cross Solent ferry terminals provided any such scheme is in keeping with its surroundings, is appropriate in scale and operation for location proposed and would not have unacceptable detrimental or adverse environmental impact on wider area in general.

Members will appreciate that important consideration in respect of this application is planning gain offered in respect of effect on operation of existing depot sites.

Turning to more detailed matters given sites employment use allocation in UDP and existing tree screen, together with applicants intention to construct bund I do not consider any reasonable objection can be raised in respect of visual intrusion adjacent existing industrial premises.

Comments of Highway Engineer are appreciated and it is important to note that existing access whilst granted consent several years ago does not meet to visibility splays imposed at time of consent. Furthermore as Highway Engineer notes traffic flows have increased since that time and proposal of this nature would normally now expect road widening and other highway improvements incorporating right turn lane. In view of type of traffic movements involved its considered to be of fundamental importance and therefore inadequacy of access represents serious planning objection to current proposal.

In addition Environmental Health Officer is concerned over potential disamenity that could be caused to neighbouring land uses specifically residential properties in the vicinity. Whilst distances involved are relatively significant i.e. 100 and 200 metres from proposed site and may be considered adequate, Environmental Health Officer wishes to assess application on basis of submission of comprehensive noise assessment survey including an assessment of existing background noise levels in the locality. Issue of potential impact on residential amenities is considered sufficiently important to warrant such survey information and in the absence of detail, application as submitted cannot be supported.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above it is considered that whilst proposal offers planning gain in respect of operation of other sites there are serious planning objections to application as currently submitted particularly with regards to highway matters and accordingly application is recommended for refusal.

Bembridge Parish Council recommend refusal on grounds of unresolved footpath issue and unresolved status regarding a village green application.

Rights of Way Office identify existing footpath PB4 running around north side of existing development and proposed modifications to include further footpath routes.

English Nature has no objection, confirms that the site lies adjacent to but outside of the designated boundary of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar Site and that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of those designated sites for wintering and migratory birds either alone or in combination and therefore does not require any assessment in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc). Regulations 1994. Also confirms that the wider nature conservation interests of the SSSI are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposal. In making such observations, English Nature urges the Council to note that coastal erosion is an important issue in this location. The area is at risk from coastal flooding which is likely to increase with sea level rise of at least 6mm per year over the next fifty years. The Coast Defence Policy for this location is to hold the existing defence line which is currently under review with the possibility that The Duver may not be defended in the long-term. Also recommends that the Landscaping and Management Plan for this area as detailed in the application should be adhered to.

Local Member objects to the development on grounds that the public have had the access to his land since before the First World War; that the land was returned to the Parish Council who leased it from the Harbour Company; that the overall effect of the enclosure and landscaping will be detrimental to the area; enclosure and landscaping would result in a loss of visual amenity and visual intrusion with the loss of open views due to banks and perimeter fencing and that evergreen hedge will effectively block off long distance views, creating an unnatural barrier; the loss of public amenity as the public have been able to use the land for various activities over many years and that the development will result in a significant change in the character of the area. Further comments that the landscaping plan will adversely affect the natural appearance of the area which is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and that the development would affect the national and international designations with resultant adverse effects on recreation and tourism.

Legal Services Manager points out that the land has been the subject of an application for village green status.

Fourteen letters of objection from local residents on grounds of loss of public access and amenity, objecting to enclosure and landscaping, resultant change in character especially adjacent to SSSI.

Essentially this application seeks consent to change the use of the piece of land associated with the harbour to a landscaped amenity area for use in connection with the continuing development known as Solent Landing containing 27 residential units.

The site has an area of 0.43 hectares and is located to the north west of the new block and to west of those properties which front the west side of Beach Road. It is an irregularly shaped site with overall dimensions of 110 metres by 65 metres maximum reaching almost to high water mark at its northern extent.

The landscaping comprises five zones of differing treatment ranging from the beach edge up to the access road serving the development.

Zone 1 is a beach edge with shingle ridge grading to shingle and sand off site. This area is essentially untouched.

Zone 2 between the beach edge and approximately halfway towards the building would comprise patchy vegetation and sand and shingle, mostly sand with graded ground cover creating undulations with damp hollows to increase habitat, diversity with planting of sea holly and sea bindweed. Left to regenerate naturally with little management apart from removal of dead material in Autumn involving management reviewed each year.

Zone 5 is a long narrow zone separating the site almost in half, comprising a buffer zone with different management regimes. A thick layer of shingle with larger cobbles and boulders to form a natural boundary which could involve 'organic' sculpture using weathered timber and seating.

Zone 3 which is the zone immediately adjoining the eastern boundary and closest to the car parking area to be vegetated sand and shingle with the aim of creating a rich turf of fine grasses including flora. Zone to be of low density fescue/bent mix using the seed bank already existing in the soil. No fertilisers or herbicides with the cuttings removed from regular mowing. Temporarily fenced with chestnut paling around seeded zones.

Zone 4 separated from Zone 3 from a brick pathway of approximately 1-2 metres in width shown as a formal terraced lawn. This area would be used more frequently than other areas for amenity and recreation with imported soil material and turfed with ornamental planting in separate beds or planters.

Zone 6 is a small zone almost centrally sited described as an ornamental/formal communal area with paving and decking. Area for ornamental rocks, seating, bamboo, palms and more tender species. Plants either in the ground or in adjacent shingle or planters which could be stored in the courtyard during the winter.

Area A which is located on the north westernmost part of the site which fronts onto the remainder of the point is shown as a outer band of vegetation filtering/reducing wind effects and together with earth mounding, eventually to provide some visual screening of the gravel works and the public car park is to consistent of sycamore, gorse, blackthorn and with a small percentage of buckthorn and tamarisk. Marram and lyme grass, sea holly and sea bindweed may also be planted.

Area B located on the eastern boundary and backing onto the existing properties fronting Beach Road is shown as popular, sycamore, hawthorn with a small percentage of elaeagnus and oleraria species.

Areas marking C located along the northern side of the access abutting the southern boundary to the properties fronting Beach Road and a small area to the west of the building is proposed to be planted with ornamental, robust species near the properties, tolerant of seaside conditions and lower growing than the areas detailed in A and B.

Area D shown on the plan to run along the south western boundary to the west of the new building is proposed as a hedgerow comprising escalonia and elaeagnus abutting an extension of the existing stone wall located to the south west of the new building.

A section through the site shows the mounding close to the north western boundary to be of a low gradient, but reaching a maximum height of 2 metres above normal ground level.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle and detailing of the proposed physical changes to the area.

The matter of the application for establishment as a village green and the matter of the establishment of further rights of way across the land are largely irrelevant issues in determination of this application. Neither the question of village green status nor the establishment of public rights of way or public rights to the land are matters which should delay or influence the determination of this proposal since they are both legal issues which, if successful would not form the basis of a reason for withholding planning permission.

The application seeks consent to enclose and landscape the land for recreational purposes in connection with the new building, Solent Landing. In planning terms the use of the land for recreational purposes would be similar in use whether it were to be used by the occupants of the Solent Landing apartments or by the general public, which forms the basis of the claim for village green status.

The erection of fencing on the land in other circumstances would not require planning permission, but it is suggested that the type of fencing proposed, one metre high stained picket fencing, with the exception of the sections closest to the shore, would be comparatively unobtrusive.

The closure of the site with the implicit exclusion of the public with the erection of fencing remains a largely civil issue.

Turning to the landscaping scheme itself which is an implicit part of the change of use of the land, it will be noted that English Nature do not wish to object to the application as the proposals are not considered to have significant effect on the interest features of the SPA/Ramsar Site, but in stating that they have no objection, they point out that coastal erosion is an important issue, that the area is at increasing risk from coastal flooding and that in the long-term the existing policy to hold the existing defence line may be changed after review. In addition, the recommendations for landscaping and management should be adhered to.

In summary, it is acknowledged that there is much public disquiet and objection to the proposals, but essentially the proposals will not change the use of the land which it is claimed has been used for many years for recreational purposes and it is proposed again to be used for recreational purposes. Landscaping should be judged on the basis of its content only.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the landscaping of the site in connection with the amenity use of the land is considered acceptable and consistent with UDP Policy.

Isle of Wight Joint Registration and Inspection Unit express disappointment at loss of a further care home, thus reducing range of choices available. However, acknowledges owner's right to make business decision and confirms that he has been advised of his duties under the Registered Homes Act 1984 regarding the procedures to put in place in respect of closure.

Both applications have been the subject of a total of five letters of objection all from residents of Staplers Road with the comments relating in the main to both applications being summarised as follows:

Over development, both in terms of the conversion and in particularly in terms of the proposed three additional houses resulting in an overall density incompatible with the adjoining character of development.

Proposal will result in an unacceptable level of traffic generation resulting in hazards to road users with particular reference to the junction onto Staplers Road.

Additional traffic movement using the access way will result in unacceptable environmental impact on immediate neighbouring properties by way of noise, fumes etc.

The increased traffic use will increase pressures on ground conditions, possibly resulting in ground movements on adjoining land.

Proposals for both conversion and three additional units will increase pressures on existing drainage systems.

Letters also contain particular reference to the application relating to additional housing with these being summarised as follows:

The introduction of three houses in the form proposed is out of character with the general theme of development in the area and will result in a cramped appearance out of character with that theme.

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited, although application was subject of pre-submission discussions with the Highway Authority.

Application relates to substantial building and its curtilage currently in use as a residential home for the elderly located on the southern side of Staplers Road approximately 100 metres west of the junction with Landscape Lane. The property and the main area of the curtilage are set back from the road and is surrounded by residential development fronting both Staplers Road, Landscape Lane and Long Lane.

Site has one major landscape feature, a beech tree subject of a Tree Preservation Order abutting the western boundary. Properties which abut either side of the access drive are no. 140 Staplers Road to the east and detached property no. 163b Staplers Road to the west. The site also contained a number of hedged and fenced boundaries.

Seeks outline consent (siting and means of access not reserved) for a group of 3 three bedroom terraced houses to be located directly to the west of Clevedon House, and having a north/south aspect. Properties have been set to the south of the preserved beech tree and each would have a single parking space located to the front of the proposed houses and served off the existing access off Staplers Road to the north.

This application seeks consent for the conversion of the existing residential care home to form eight flats, four on the ground floor and four on the first floor. Three of the flats (flats D, B and C) are provided with small private garden areas within the eastern and south eastern area of the site. Internal layout of the individual flats, particularly at first floor, have their lounges facing south, east or west, but not in a northerly direction. In terms of accommodation, proposal provides six two bedroom flats and two one bedroom flats.

Proposal indicates a total of ten parking spaces for the flats, six in the vicinity of the building and the other four in the access drive area. Proposal involves the removal of the existing brick gate piers which effectively widens the overall access to 9 metres within which is a 5 metre wide passing bay some 12 metres in length with the access being reduced to 4 metres in width beyond the 12 metre mark.

Existing beech tree to be retained; the area within the canopy to be laid with a porous surface treatment.

Applicants have submitted an Arboricultural Report on the beech tree, giving the following conclusions:

"This tree is in a state of decline due to its age and the damage it has sustained in the past for building and pruning work. It is not yet in insufficiently poor condition to warrant its removal, but its replacement should be considered within the next five to ten years.

Die back in the canopy is consistent with damage to the root system and the lowering of the soil level in the adjoining garden is clearly the most likely cause of this.

Although no-one area of damage or decay is of great significance, the cumulative effect of all the faults in the tree is placing a heavy challenge on the tree's defences and these defences have been weakened by the root damage. The decay in the canopy and at the pollard points will increase over time and this will weaken the tree structurally.

The criteria for placing a Tree Preservation Order on the tree require it to have ten good years of life in it and I doubt if this tree has. In this case I recommend that planning of the planting of a new beech tree elsewhere on the site and when this new tree has established, ask the Local Planning Authority to consider transferring the Preservation Order from the old tree to the new tree.

Construction of the closest parking bay will need to make allowance for the tree's roots by placing a permeable layer on the existing soil level and avoiding the excavation of any soil within the line of the tree."

In terms of policy, the site is within the development envelope as defined on the UDP with the eastern boundary forming the edge of that envelope boundary. Policies which apply in this case are listed as follows:

The comments of the Isle of Wight Joint Registration and Inspection Unit are self-explanatory and whilst the loss of the care home is clearly regrettable, there is no statutory policy which can be applied to resist this change of use. Therefore, the main criteria are the suitability of the conversion in terms of accommodation and more importantly the impact that this residential use will have on adjoining properties with additional reference to parking and access provision.

The internal room layouts lend themselves to flat conversion with the flats providing a high level of accommodation. This is important, as Members will appreciate that the result of the recent housing needs survey did indicate that the greatest need in terms of affordable housing is flats hopefully being within the reach of lower income groups.

The applicants have purposely sited lounges so as not to overlook the nearest properties with those lounges having a reasonable distance between them and the adjoining boundaries to overcome overlooking problems in other directions. Also the proposal results in no external alteration to the building with the first floor flats being accessed via a communal staircase internally and only one of the flats having its own first floor entrance via an existing fire escape staircase.

Applicants have carried out a foul drainage comparison which compares the proposed foul drainage from the conversion with the foul drainage currently generated by the existing use with the figures being broadly equal and therefore in terms of foul drainage generated from this proposal, there should be no major change.

Whilst I have still to receive the comments of the Highway Engineer, the application was the subject of pre-application negotiations with the Highway Engineer which resulted in the removal of the existing gate piers and the relocation of the driveway access to the western edge. This enabled provision for the 12 metre deep by 5 metre wide passing area. In terms of parking, proposal is considered acceptable providing one space per flat with two additional casual parking spaces. Turning areas have been indicated which again are considered to be acceptable.

In terms of the retention and effect on the existing preserved beech tree, whilst I note the comments contained in the arboricultural report, the tree continues to provide valuable amenity and therefore should be retained and I am satisfied that the layout and construction method being promoted around the crown spread of the tree should ensure its retention and protection. I suggest appropriate conditions should Members be minded to approve.

Given the above assessment, I consider that the proposal to convert existing premises to eight flats is acceptable and recommend accordingly.

Assessment of this proposal differs radically from the above, as it involves new build dwellings and therefore the material consideration must be whether or not the additional built development is appropriate for this site.

The area generally is characterised by low density residential development and can be deemed to be suburban in character as opposed to urban. It is appreciated that policies encourage the efficient use of urban land. However, this should not be at the expense of inappropriate and potentially cramped development. PPG3 recognises that in considering design and layout, the wider context of the area needs to be taken into account and in this case the general character of the area is an important consideration. In my view, this proposal adversely affects the openness of the setting of Cleveland House and would lead to an unacceptable relationship between the existing building and the proposed dwelling reflected in the close proximity of the terrace of three to Cleveland House, with particular reference to the very close proximity to the single storey lounge to Flat A. The result of this siting is a cramped appearance, with very little space about resulting in development more associated with an urban site and out of character therefore with the general theme of development in the area.

My second concern is the closeness that these properties will be to the preserved tree which will obviously create a threat to the long-term future in terms of the retention of that tree. Experience suggests that occupiers of dwellings close to large mature trees do feel threatened, if not in the short-term, certainly in the longer term and the Planning authority may find it difficult to resist a request to remove the tree should such a request be received.

I would not however consider it inappropriate to develop this area of the site, but with a more appropriate form of residential development, possibly one or two units of modest size to ensure space about, minimal impact on the existing tree resulting in a development that is compatible with the character of the area. However in the form submitted, I consider that the proposal does represent over development out of character and therefore I recommend refusal on this basis.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the view that the conversion of Clevedon House into a flat represents appropriate development providing radical type of accommodation and in a form which does not impact unduly on neighbouring properties. In terms of the proposed three houses, I consider that this represents cramped development out of character and inappropriate for the area likely to have an adverse impact on the retention of the existing preserved tree.

Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until the existing beech tree adjacent the western boundary has been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier. 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 the beech tree is adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity.

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 development shall not be brought into use until a minimum of ten parking spaces has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes.

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

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of seven bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of 'Sheffield' hoops, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The existing access to Staplers Road shall be relocated to the western edge of the site and widened to 5m. This width should be continued into the site for a minimum of 12m to create a passing bay.

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

Local Member declined to deal with the application under the delegation scheme, and requested that it came before the Committee for a decision.

Carisbrooke West Community Forum object on the grounds that site is within a Conservation Area, exacerbation of traffic problems and the proximity to ancient remains, and Carisbrooke Castle.

Application relates to a plot of land situated on the south eastern side of Clatterford Road approximately 80 metres south west of Waverley Crossroads. Approved plot has a frontage of approximately 12 metres, with an overall length of approximately 60 metres and is rectangular in shape. Plot at present appears to provide parking and additional garden area for 33 Clatterford Road.

Originally improved in 1975 and renewed regularly until 1992 new approval was granted in 1996 and renewed in 1999.

As the application is to renew permission, the determining factor in this instance is whether circumstances have changed since the previous renewal in July 1999. In terms of policy, the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan identifies the site to be within the development envelope of Newport. I therefore consider policies G1 and H4 will still apply.

With regard to the traffic and parking issues raised in Representations, Highway Engineer once again requests conditions.

County Archeologist has had the opportunity to comment on the proposal on a number of occasions in the past but has not done so.

Rear garden boundary of site adjoins the Conservation Area, but site itself is outside. Proposal will not affect character of Conservation Area, this part of which was designated in 1989. Apart from St Mary's Vicarage (close to the Waverley cross-roads) Clatterford Lodge is the only other Listed Building in Clatterford Road, and that is on the opposite side set behind the frontage development.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all of the material considerations outlined in this report, I consider there to be no change in circumstances since the previous consent was granted and see no reason why this renewal application should not be approved.

Recommendation - Approval (subject to the views of the County Archaeological Officer)

2	This consent does not allow the demolition of any part of the building except that shown on the approved plans. The remaining structure shall be retained in conjunction with the new building works permitted by this consent. Reason: The part of the building to remain is particularly worthy of preservation and also to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	No demolition pursuant to this consent shall be commenced until such time as a scheme for the retention, safe keeping and or salvage of window and fireplace from the site has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to retain important features or materials which may be of benefit in maintaining the historic fabric of the building or character of the area and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The doors and door/window frames of the extension/ building shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies B1, B2 and D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The Town Council objects on the grounds that the proposal is unsympathetic within the Conservation Area and is too dominant a structure. The Town Council was further concerned that the plans misrepresent the actual position of neighbouring properties.

An objection has been received from the neighbouring properties and is summarised as follows:

The submitted plans have insufficient detail to adequately show the co-relationship of the proposed works to the adjoining property no. 16 Market Hill and to properly assess the effect on the Listed Buildings.

The proposed development is believed to be in contravention of Policy B1, as the alteration and extension affecting the Listed Building and its curtilage will not be in accordance with the period, style, plan, scale, detail and material of the existing building. Nor does it retain and repair the original fabric and features or replace features that are missing.

The proposal is believed to be in contravention of Policy B2 of the IW UDP in that the proposal will adversely affect the appearance, setting and all the curtilage of a Listed Building.

The proposal is believed to be in contravention of Policy H7 of the IW UDP as the proposal is not of an appropriate size, scale and design to the property and will also have a substantial impact on neighbouring properties. There are concerns regarding the effect on no. 16 Market Hill, particularly in respect of light and overshadowing of the dwelling and the garden.

In respect of the latest revised scheme the objectors give comment that there have been some minor reductions in the width of the proposed dining room and the removal of the proposed trespass on the boundary wall, but the revised plans make no significant difference to the design or mass of the proposed development. Therefore, the points raised above still stand and they wish to reiterate their objection to the proposed development. The Town Council are still of the opinion that it is too dominant a structure and would recommend that the Planning Committee visit the site prior to any decision.

Islandwatch objects, suggesting that whilst the existing extension may have to go, the proposed replacement is completely inappropriate, being a cheap, off-the-peg unit.

This application relates to a substantial terraced building, situated in Market Hill, Cowes. The building comprises of two storeys and attics, resulting in four floors. The property has been extended on the rear elevation, as have many others along this street. The resultant building is the main building, reducing to a two storey structure at the rear and then the single storey element.

The building is Grade II Listed, for its historic and architectural merit, and is situated within the Cowes Conservation Area.

The current proposal involves the alteration of the existing two storey timber stud rear extension, consisting of the partial reconstruction of the side elevation and an increase in the height of the ground floor ceiling. The proposal also involves the demolition of the single storey extension and the construction of a new single storey extension and conservatory at the rear and side respectively, of the existing two storey extension. Other alterations to the existing building consist of the insertion of french doors and a new window.

The objections received relate to the proposal being considered contrary to policies B1, B2 and H7 of the Isle of Wight UDP. These policies, including Policy D1, are considered to be relevant to this application, and they are summarised as follows:

Policy B1 - Alterations and extensions affecting Listed Buildings and their curtilages will be approved provided the scheme is in accordance with the period, style, plan, scale, detail and material of the existing building;

Retains and repairs the original fabric and features, or replaces features that are missing;

Does not harm the fabric or stability of the building or adjoining buildings and structures;

Policy B2 - Proposals which adversely affect the appearance, setting and/or the curtilage of a Listed Building will not be permitted.

Policy H7 - Planning applications for extensions or alterations to existing residential properties will be permitted:

Policy D1 - Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible, enhances the quality and character of the built environment.

In addressing the objections raised, and in view of the aforementioned policy, I consider the proposal is of an appropriate size and scale, given that the main building steps down from a four storey structure, to a two storey and then the new single storey structure. The ridge line of the proposed extension is lower in height than the existing kitchen extension, and although the plan form has increased, the footprint of the proposal extends only slightly beyond the furthest point of the existing single storey extension.

The design, must be considered in the light of the period, detail and material of the host building. The proposal is considered to reflect the host building in respect of the choice of materials and details such as the size and proportion of the glazing bars which are considered to be sympathetic to the existing windows. The extension, incorporating a glazed end elevation is considered to reflect the host building in its proportion of glazing detail and it could be argued as being clearly identifiable as an "honest" later addition to this Listed Building.

In addressing concerns regarding loss of light and overshadowing over no. 16 Market Hill, the scheme has been revised and the eaves of the proposal have been moved away from the party wall, the pitch of the clay tile roof has been reduced as far as technically possible to 22.5 degrees. In addition to this, the eaves level of the proposal is only approximately 0.2 metres higher than the existing party wall.

With reference to the impact on the Conservation Area, Policy B6 of the IW UDP indicates that proposals which preserve or enhance the Conservation Area will be approved. The proposal is to the rear of the property and will not adversely impact on the reasons why the area was designated as of Conservation Area status. I conclude that the proposal will at least protect the character of the Conservation Area.

In respect of repairing and retaining the original fabric, the single storey and two storey extensions to the rear of the building appear to be historical alterations and are likely to have taken place many years prior to its inclusion in the statutory list. Despite this, the existing single storey kitchen and utility room both appear to be single skin structures and are roofed in both slate and asbestos. In my view the replacement of such structures by the proposed extension which incorporates clay tiles to match the existing building, and white painted timber double glazing on the end elevation, will be advantageous to the character of the building.

The existing conservatory is again, clearly a later addition with modern materials and is considered to have no historic or architectural merit. The proposed conservatory incorporates a glazed roof running the length of the existing yard area. The proposed french doors into the conservatory would involve the alteration of an existing window, removing the fabric directly beneath, thereby incurring no alteration to the width of the current opening. The removed window could then be incorporated into the timber clad two storey structure at first floor level, in an attempt to retain as many original features as possible.

The two storey extension is considered to have historic merit with original timber stud work, but structural problems identified in a survey undertaken by a structural engineer and qualified by a Local Authority Building Inspector indicate the elevation adjacent no. 16 Market Hill requires rebuilding to prevent any further movement and deterioration. In view of this, the proposal to rebuild this element may be considered an opportunity to incorporate the proposed opening at ground floor level and an increase in ceiling height, which is currently very low.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the issues raised in the Evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that the proposal does not adversely affect the character, appearance or setting of this or the neighbouring Listed Building, and although there may be some loss of light and possibly overshadowing, these are considered minimal and not sufficient enough to warrant a refusal. The application is considered to accord to all the relevant policies mentioned in the Evaluation section of the report and therefore is recommended for approval.

2	This permission does not allow the demolition of any part of the building except that shown on the approved plans. The remaining structure shall be retained in conjunction with the new building works permitted by this permission. Reason: The part of the building to remain is particularly worthy of preservation and also to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	No demolition pursuant to this permission shall be commenced until such time as a scheme for the retention, safe keeping and or salvage of window and fireplace from the site has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to retain important features or materials which may be of benefit in maintaining the historic fabric of the building or character of the area and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The doors and door/window frames of the extension/ building shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies B1, B2 and D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

"The existing access that serves the parking area in front of the existing dwelling is very dangerously located at the busy junction of Whitesmith Road and Parkhurst Road; pedestrian flows are high too; I would not want to see its usage intensified. The plans supplied seem to indicate that no further parking is proposed fronting onto Parkhurst Road; I feel that some obstruction like bollards needs to be put in at the southern end of the existing parking bay and at the back of the footway to physically prevent vehicles reaching this area. I have no problem with the new vehicle access and parking area further up Whitesmith Road."

Engineer recommends appropriate conditions covering the construction of the access and crossing and the placing of bollards as described above.

Although application has not been the subject of any letters of representation, e-mail has been received indicating concerns being expressed to the local Councillor with the subject matter of the concerns being as follows:

"I am very concerned about the plan to build three houses on what is effectively the garden of an old shop on the corner of Whitesmith Road. The parking in the road has become a nightmare of late with some people who live as far away as Hunnyhill leaving cars parked for days on end. It is a nightmare for residents of the road and the building of these new houses will take away a further two to three spaces."

"I am very concerned about the plan to build three houses on what is effectively the garden of the old shop on the corner of Whitesmith Road (35 - 37 Parkhurst Road). The parking in Whitesmith Road has become a problem of late with some people who live as far away as Hunnyhill leaving cars parked for days on end. It is a nightmare for residents of the road and often if you return home from work after 5.30 parking is non-existent and you are left driving the streets looking for parking spaces. The building of these new houses will take away a further 2/3 spaces within Whitesmith Road. I am also concerned re. the driveway of the planned buildings as this will be very close to what is already a dangerous corner."

Local Councillor has expressed concerns relating to possible over development and also where an extra access close to the corner will be a problem from the highways point of view bearing in mind the heavy traffic experienced at school times. He has therefore asked that the application is not dealt with under the delegation scheme, but is brought before Committee for determination.

Local Councillor has reinforced his concerns pointing out that formerly the curtilage of 35 - 37 Parkhurst Road was larger than the current curtilage extending to the west. This part of the former curtilage was developed in the early 90's as I understand it with a pair of semi-detached houses. Local Councillor therefore considers that a further four units on the remaining curtilage would "strike me to be a little too dense and out of character with the area. I would also question the provision of vehicular access onto Whitesmith Road so close to the corner".

Finally, the Councillor expresses concern that work appears to have commenced on site. In this regard Members attention is drawn to consent granted in December 2001 for the demolition of garage and workshop and flat roofed extension, change of use from retail to residential including single storey extension to form porch and bay window. The works being carried out on site relate to this consent.

Application relates to former retail premises and its curtilage situated on the south western corner of the junction of Whitesmith Road with Parkhurst Road. Abutting south eastern boundary is semi-detached property no. 33 Parkhurst Road whilst abutting south western boundary is a further semi-detached property fronting Whitesmith Road.

This is a detailed application seeking consent for the retention of the existing building and its change of use to a three bedroomed house with a proposed two storey extension to the north west within which a group of three terraced dwellings, one providing one bedroom accommodation and the other two, two bedroom accommodation. The second element of the application provides for a narrow detached two storey two bedroomed house to the south east of 35 Parkhurst Road, abutting 33 Parkhurst Road. Apart from the one bedroomed house which is situated directly on the corner of Whitesmith Road with Parkhurst Road the remaining properties have been provided with an element of private amenity land, albeit relatively small.

Proposal provides for new access off Whitesmith Road to serve two parking spaces with that access being positioned approximately 24 metres south west of the junction of Whitesmith Road with Parkhurst Road. Application also includes for the retention of an existing parking space off Whitesmith Road located approximately at the junction of Whitesmith Road with Parkhurst Road and this parking space will serve the single bedroomed house. The result of these parking arrangements is that three of the five units will be provided with parking.

In terms of materials the detached house is to be constructed in facing brick under slated roof with the extension to the existing property providing three additional units being constructed in mainly facing brick with elements of render, again under a slated pitched roof.

This is a brown field site in a prominent corner location close to a bus route and this high density proposal, which includes a range of smaller dwellings, represents suitable development in compliance with the relevant policies. Design and arrangement of dwellings along with provision of private amenity areas (albeit limited) respect the site's location and do not impact unduly on adjoining dwellings.

Members will note the range of dwellings is varied, ranging from one three bedroomed unit, three two bedroomed units and unusually a one bedroomed house. This type and level of accommodation complies with the greatest need identified in the recent Housing Needs Survey. I therefore consider this proposal acceptable from this point of view.

In terms of parking Members will note that this proposal provides three parking spaces for a total of five units. Site is within Zone 2 in respect of the Parking Guidelines Policy which seeks to achieve a 0 - 50% provision of parking in accordance with guidelines. I appreciate the concerns relating to possible under provision in respect of the development itself and the possible impact that this may have on on-street parking in Whitesmith Road because of the provision of the new crossover.

There is no doubt that Whitesmith Road is heavily used for on-street parking, I understand by local residents and others either working or living in the general area. Also the creation of a new access to the parking spaces will result in some loss of on-street parking.

I do not however, consider that this is a reason to refuse the application. Formation of an access off Whitesmith Road to serve parking spaces would on its own not require planning consent. It has only been indicated as part of this application because it serves a development that does require planning consent. Also the Highway Engineer has raised no comment on this issue and has indeed carefully considered the need to ensure no unofficial parking takes place off Parkhurst Road recognising the level of traffic which uses that road and the hazards that may cause. I have already referred to the location of this site in relation to a local bus route and the town centre and therefore in terms of parking policies I consider this proposal is acceptable. The view has to be that future purchasers or occupiers of these properties will be aware that there is an under provision of parking and this will have an influence in terms of car ownership.

Members attention is drawn to a small area of what was formerly part of the original Parkhurst Road alignment and which now forms a small tarmac surfaced area and is used for casual parking purposes by local residents. The level of use of this area varies but obviously does provide an alternative parking area closely located to the application site.

In summary I consider this proposal represents an ideal use of a brown field site for the reasons given above and therefore I recommend accordingly.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that this proposal represents appropriate development of a brown field site in compliance with relevant policies and therefore is considered to be acceptable.

Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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 treatments to be erected in respect of the individual private amenity area. Any such boundary details shall provide for the erection of a brick wall of agreed height along the back of footpath to Whitesmith Road and along the frontage to Parkhurst Road, with any such boundary treatments and boundary walls being erected prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. All such boundary treatment shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenities of the area and future occupiers of the dwellings.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no south facing first floor windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed within the detached two bedroom unit adjacent the southern boundary forming part of this approval.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW 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.

(b) Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm

2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material

3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, 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.

This application was due to be determined under the delegation system but the Local Member has requested its consideration by the Development Control Committee.

Environmental Health Officer - no adverse comment and the Contaminated Land Officer recommends conditions if approved.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no implications on the latest scheme since there is only pedestrian access.

Four petitions have been submitted but from the same source, each at the various stages when the application has been revised and readvertised, one each of 20, 26, 46 and in connection with the latest submission 46 signatories objecting to the proposal on grounds of inappropriate development incorporating a three storey element; increased use of Orchardleigh Road which is presently heavily trafficked, excessive density and increase in dwellings in the vicinity and also detailing inadequate access, noise, street parking and additional use of Orchardleigh Road.

Nine letters of objection from local residents, some of which have been superceded by later letters on grounds of increased traffic, excessive density and creation of congestion, overlooking and loss of privacy, three storey being of excessive height.

One Solicitor's letter on behalf of local resident on grounds of building is one storey too high and that one part of the structure is a storey higher than the other part in Orchardleigh Road. As there is no parking provided on site, the objector considers that it will encourage parking in the service road and that there should be at least one space for loading and unloading at the site and points out there is no legal access down the side road located on the east side of the site.

Originally submitted in November 1999, the application has been revised several times culminating in the present scheme which seeks full consent for eleven dwelling units in one, two and three storeys.

The site has an area of approximately 0.06 hectare and is located on the north side of Orchardleigh Road opposite the car park and adjoining the unmade service track which services those properties at the rear of the terraced properties fronting Orchardleigh Road. It is an irregularly shaped site with considerably wider dimensions at the rear and an overall depth of approximately 39 metres. It is proposed to erect three building blocks, a single storey block at the northern extent of the site containing two units, a two storey unit almost centrally in the site comprising four units and a two/three storey block at the front of the site containing five units. One element of the front block is three storeys in height whereas the other element is two storeys and of a scale and proportions similar to the existing properties on the eastern side of the adjoining access road. A pedestrian path beneath the two and three storey element serves the whole of the site with pedestrian only access, an element which is different in design and materials since it contains a parapet gabled roof and is constructed in brickwork, whereas the other elements of the scheme are hip roofed and are finished primarily in render and painted.

Each of the units comprises kitchen/lounge, bathroom and bedroom and blocks are separated from each other by primarily hard landscaped areas but with some turfed landscaped surfacing. Pedestrian access via the front of the site beneath the forward most block reaches to the northern extent of the site serving the single storey units which are located approximately 1.3 metres from the northern boundary. This single storey block contains three windows in its northern elevation, two kitchen and bathroom windows and none in the western elevation. The scheme includes 1 metre high railings around each of the blocks giving accessible amenity areas to those ground floor units adjoining.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, design, overall heights, access and parking provision and effect on adjoining properties.

In terms of policy and principle the residential redevelopment of this brown field site, close to the town centre warrants support for comparatively high density residential use and Members may be aware that planning permission was previously granted for 14 dwellings on the site in a two and three storey block with car parking. It appears that there is no vehicular right of way over the adjoining access road and, in this application, no vehicular access or pedestrian access is proposed via the adjoining access road. The development now seeks consent for a lower height of development hitherto approved and, indeed, a lesser number of units. There is therefore no objection in terms of principle and density to the development proposed.

In design terms, the front elevation echoes design elements of both the adjoining residential properties to the east and the commercial properties to the west. The use of painted render and facing brickwork recognises the differing use of materials at the vicinity and the scheme also incorporates a design of similar proportions to the existing in the vicinity.

Although some objections have been raised to the inclusion of a three storey element in the scheme, the particular element of the building is comparatively minor and, in this frontage there are many variations in heights of building, I consider that this third storey element improves the street scene rather than detracts from it. In essence I consider the omission of the third storey on the site's frontage would result in a lesser scheme and a less attractive street frontage. The remainder of the development steps down towards the northern extent where single storey units only will be built.

Pedestrian only access is proposed to the building via a single access point in the centre of the street's frontage. Bearing in mind the site's location in relation to the High Street and the centre of the town, it is not felt that on site parking is necessary although ample provision is made for cycle parking within the buildings.

The redevelopment of such sites within town centres will be a more frequently occurring phenomena. National Planning advice seeks to utilise the land especially within town centres, more economically, increasing densities and the inevitable result will be increases in heights and decreases in distances between dwellings. Overlooking within town centres is therefore to a degree inevitable and, indeed, assists with natural surveillance and crime prevention. The three storey element of this development, on the frontage of the site incorporates only bedroom windows and a small balcony in the rear elevation and the two storey elements contain first floor balconies in positions which are some considerable distance from other residential property, approximately 50 metres in the case of the central block. Although some overlooking is inevitable, the careful positioning of windows and inclusion of only bathroom windows in sensitive elevations should minimise overlooking and subject to appropriate conditions the current proposal is considered acceptable.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above the redevelopment of this town centre brown field site is considered appropriate and consistent with UDP policy concerning housing and access and design policies D1 and D2.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until:

a) a methodology for investigations and assessments has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to site investigations and assessments having been carried out by appropriately qualified personnel. The investigations and assessments shall be in accordance with British Standard 10175:2001 "Investigation of potentially contaminated sites-Code of practice". The laboratories used for analysis of samples shall be registered to the ISO 17025:2000 quality standard. The investigations and assessments shall be in accordance with current Government and Environment Agency guidance and shall identify the types, nature and extent of contamination present, risks to human and groundwater receptors and potential for migration within and beyond the site boundary;

b) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminants identified has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation.

The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard.

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse following the commencement of use of the buildings hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the implementation of such provision for refuse has been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

This proposal seeks consent for a change of use from residential to (Class A2) financial and professional services for a property sited within the Brading Conservation Area, 30 metres east of the junction where New Road meets The Mall. The site lies immediately to the east of existing accountants office within the same ownership. The proposal is to provide two offices and a staff room/kitchen at ground floor with two offices and staff toilet at first floor. It also involves the removal of trees, a small section of wall and fencing allowing improved visibility to the existing forecourt to the adjacent accountants premises. Proposal will provide an additional 64 square metres of office floor space resulting in an additional five members of staff being employed, but will involve the loss of a two bedroomed residence.

The site is within the development envelope boundary and Conservation Area for Brading. The following policies are considered relevant in respect of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan; G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages, D1 - Standards of Design, G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses, B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, H8 - Loss of Dwellings and E6 - Expansion of Existing Industry and Offices.

The site is located in close proximity to residential properties in an area with mixed uses, predominantly commercial to the north, residential to the east. In balancing the loss of residential accommodation and the expansion of the existing office, it is relevant that this is a mixed area and the proposal is unlikely to present an adverse impact on the amenities of the area given the proposed office use. The loss of trees, small changes to the boundary wall and fence of the property do not, in my view, adversely affect the appearance of the Conservation Area and the proposal will support the expansion of an existing business.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I am of the view that the proposal is for an appropriate use and appropriately sited and recommend accordingly.

This application was considered by the Committee at the last meeting when it was deferred in order to seek clarification of the rights of access by adjoining property owners.

Highway Engineer points out that access is extremely restricted, approximately 2 metres but requires details of how demolition/construction works will be carried out.

Contaminated Land Officer suspects possible contamination of site and recommends conditions if approved.

Two letters of comment from local neighbours pointing out that some windows in the proposed development open over the access road questioning road safety; questions how emergency services might access the site if necessary, questioning how buildings will be removed and how construction may ensue, both bearing in mind the restrictive access; questioning adequacy of sewerage and questioning the provision of parking and turning on the site and possible obstruction to the rear of properties adjoining.

This is an irregularly shaped site located behind properties fronting the western side of High Street and behind the library fronting Victoria Avenue. A former printing works, the buildings are a mix of red brick with corrugated steel sheeting and only one of the buildings is of good order in terms of its appearance. Access to the site is off Victoria Avenue, a narrow access lane of a minimum of 2 metres in width but metalled joining Victoria Avenue about 20 metres from the junction of Victoria Avenue with High Street. Many of the buildings adjoin the eastern boundary of the site, those properties fronting High Street are tall and abut the eastern boundary of the site and there are two or three small yard areas with access off the application site. The buildings on the application site are no longer in use.

To the east, the library site there is also a rear access yard with vehicular access off Victoria Avenue. The rear of the existing buildings on the application site abut the common boundary.

The proposal is to clear the site and redevelop it with two storey cottage buildings, seven in number comprising kitchen/dining area and lounge on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom over, constructed in masonry, finished in facing bricks with some parts of the first floor clad in tiles. The site layout shows the buildings to be laid out in a slightly different form from those they replace covering a slightly reduced area, each dwelling having a private but compact yard area and each looking onto the landscaped and communal courtyard area.

Whilst abutting the western boundary, the buildings do contain some windows serving the kitchen, two bathrooms and a bedroom in two of the units but these windows face into the yard abutting the library rather than any other residential property.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, effect on adjoining properties and matters relating to access and parking.

In terms of policy and principle, this development comprises the redevelopment of a "brown field" site close to the town centre for much needed residential units.

In design terms this is a stand alone development and therefore need not relate directly to adjoining properties but its appearance is quite acceptable, resulting in a compact and intimate residential atmosphere.

In terms of effect on adjoining properties, much of the adjoining is not in residential use and the proposed buildings replace existing although the northern most dwellings are higher than those which they replace. However, the nearest building which might be affected would be the comparatively recently constructed hostel off Victoria Avenue which might be affected by one bedroom window and the possible dominating effect of a two storey building within a distance of approximately 4 metres. This is not considered sufficient to affect the building sufficiently to warrant rejection.

Turning to access, this is narrow and in a position where any increased use could cause a serious traffic hazard, being located at or adjoining the traffic lights in Victoria Avenue. It is anticipated by the developers that access to the dwellings will be via foot only and that there will be no parking provision in this centrally located site. Access presently exists to the rear of some of those properties fronting High Street and therefore it would not be possible to eliminate vehicular access altogether but hard and soft landscaping within the courtyard area could be used to preclude parking allowing only essential access. Adjoining properties have rights of access over the site and therefore the access lane cannot be permanently closed off. It can, however be restricted, by, for example, lockable bollards to enable those with rights of access to gain occasional access to the rear of their properties and for emergencies.

In summary the re-use of this site for residential purposes is considered appropriate and, subject to appropriate conditions, is recommended for approval.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the re-use of this brown field site for residential purposes within the town centre is considered appropriate in terms of density and inter-relationship with adjoining buildings consistent with UDP policies regarding housing and the re-use and economic use of land within development envelopes.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes (A, B, C, D, E, F and G) of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03

No (dwelling/building) shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site (in accordance with the plan attached) for 7 bicycles to be parked and such provision shall be retained.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a) a desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 & 3 and BS10175: 2001; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175:2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice"; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

c) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation.

include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and motoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Nine letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal with matters raised summarised below;

The size and design of the proposed extension would be out of character with the existing building.

The extension would infill the open space between the buildings and would be out of character with the other properties on this part of Carisbrooke estate.

The design of the building is considered to be totally different to any other property in the area.

Proximity of extension to adjacent property would result in loss of light and amenity.

Changes in ground level may result in instability and would require construction of a retaining wall.

Area is already congested with traffic and pinch points and traffic calming have been installed in the locality.

Additional windows would result in increased overlooking and loss of privacy to other properties.

Concern expressed regarding safety of residents and particularly children whilst extension is constructed in close proximity to boundary.

Members are advised that comments have been received regarding problems as a result of construction traffic, storage of materials and possible access to the rear of the property and the need to obtain access over other people's land in order to construct the extension and whilst these concerns are noted, they are not considered to be matters which can properly be assessed as part of the planning application and would be for agreement between owners of properties in the area.

This application relates to a detached two storey dwelling situated on the northern side of Fieldfare Road which, is one of the through roads on the Carisbrooke Park estate which consist of relatively modern residential development, with a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties some of which front on to Fieldfare Road whilst some have access from spur roads and culs-de-sac.

The application property is a detached two storey dwelling with buff brick elevations under a gabled tiled roof. The front elevation also has a small gable porch with additional projecting gables over the first floor windows in the main roof. There is a detached double garage at the front of the property which is shared between the application property and the adjoining dwelling. The rear boundary backs on to residential properties fronting The Finches and there is vehicular and pedestrian access to the rear of those properties which abuts the rear boundary of the site.

The application details show construction of a two storey extension at the eastern end of the building which would be partially screened from the road frontage by the existing detached garage. The extension would measure approximately 2.7 metres in width by 5.6 metres in depth and would provide a dining room extension at ground floor level with an additional bedroom at first floor. The eastern side boundary is splayed such that the rear corner of the extension would almost touch the existing boundary whereas there would be a gap of approximately 1.4 metres at the front corner.

Following negotiations, revised plans have been submitted which have shown the front elevation of the extension stepped back from the front of the main house by approximately 500 mm which has also resulted in a consequent step in the front roofline and a reduction in the ridge level of the extension. This would also allow a gap between the proposed extension and the existing garage sufficient to allow access for repairs and maintenance around the property. The design of the proposed extension has been simplified and would be visually subservient to the main dwelling when viewed from the front elevation.

The determining factors are considered to be whether the location, size and design of the proposed extension are considered to be acceptable in relation to the appearance of the existing building and the character of the estate as a whole, together with the effect of the proposed extension on the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties, with particular reference to the proximity of the immediately adjoining property to the east.

As indicated above, the revised plans show the extension reduced in height and stepped back from the front elevation of the property together with a simplification of the roof design which would now be visually subservient to the main dwelling and is considered acceptable in principle and similar to other two storey extensions which have been approved previously in the area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would be close to the side boundary and would partially infill the open space between the application property and the existing dwelling to the east, the overall spacing between the properties would not be dissimilar to others within the estate and would not therefore be considered unduly visually intrusive or out of character in the locality.

Whilst the extension would be relatively close to the adjoining property, there are no windows in the side elevation of the adjoining property which would be directly affected by loss of daylight or sunlight and the new windows in the proposed extension would not overlook adjoining properties to a significantly greater extent than that which already exists from first floor windows within the property and others nearby.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details showing the proposed extension reduced in size and simplified in design would be visually acceptable in this location and would not have undue adverse effect on the amenities of the residents of nearby properties to an extent which would warrant refusal of the application. On balance the revised plans are considered acceptable in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies D1 and H7 and I therefore recommend accordingly.

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the extension hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in accordance with the requirements of Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Boundary details - M33

This application was due to be considered at the meeting held on 5 June 2002, but was deferred at officer’s request to allow opportunity to readvertise the scheme following the receipt of revised plans.

Chale Parish Council commented as follows; "the Parish Council were unable to recommend approval of this application on the grounds that there is no provision for vehicular access."

Highways Engineer comments recommend refusal of the original scheme due to lack of information relating to the realignment of the boundary wall, the possibility of the area being used for parking and the lack of visibility splays.

The Conservation Officer has visited the site and suggests that Laurel Cottage is early Victorian and of no real historic or architectural value to recommend listing. The building is modest in size and virtually invisible from the road. It is generally in a poor state of repair, however he is of the view that it would not be appropriate to demolish a sound building to build an estate type of house in a rural village and recommends a full assessment of the existing building in order to clarify this point. In terms of the architectural merit of the proposed building, the Conservation Officer considers that the proposal makes no architectural reference to nearby properties, the proposed siting would have a greater impact on the amenities of the adjoining properties and would dominate the site.

The AONB Officer has commented that although the plot is in an elevated position the present dwelling sits comfortably on the site. His major concern relates to the proposed realignment of the boundary wall shown in the original scheme. He is of the opinion that the wall is a strong and historic feature in the area as it sweeps around the corner of Town Lane and Chale green and the proposal would be to the detriment of this structure and to the aesthetic of the overall street scene.

Four letters of objection received from residents of Town Lane raising the following concerns:

Unnecessary demolition of 'early Victorian Cottage', which contributes to a group of historic buildings within Town Lane.

Proposed new dwelling is too large, out of character with neighbouring properties, one of which is a Listed Building and would result in overlooking.

The excavation of the boundary wall to create a parking area is dangerous to pedestrians and motorists and would detract from the character of Town Lane.

Following the receipt of the revised plans, the following further comment was received:

Previous comments remain the same, and feel that the existing house should not be demolished. The proposed siting of the dwelling would result in more overlooking into adjacent properties.

The site lies in an elevated position adjacent to Town Lane with the boundary to Town Lane comprised of a stone wall some three metres high and topped with a hedge. Pedestrian access to the property is from Town Lane via a set of steps and there is no vehicular access. Development on the southern side of Town Lane consists of a mix of detached and terraced properties of a variety of styles and ages, the northern side of Town Lane opposite the application site, looks across agricultural land.

The existing dwelling consists of a modest one and a half storey cottage of painted brick with a roof of slate and several single storey extensions. Fenestration faces entirely eastwards, with two upstairs windows overlooking part of the garden of Lostland. Boundaries to the site, comprise a hedge to the east and a low corrugated iron fence to the west. The garden to the rear of the site is somewhat overgrown and contains a number of mature trees. Currently there are views from the site westwards into the adjacent property known as "Long Thatch" and which is a grade 2 Listed Building.

The site lies outside the development envelope as defined in the adopted Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies are C2, D1 and H9. Policy H9 allows the replacement of a residential property provided the replacement is of a similar scale and mass to the existing, while D1 requires new development to enhance the quality and character of the built environment, wherever possible. Policy C2 seeks to ensure development within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

The application has been submitted as an outline with only siting to be considered. The revised drawings show the proposed dwelling to be of an identical footprint to the existing dwelling but resited six metres behind the front (north east elevation) of the existing property. Additionally, the revised plans show the stone boundary wall to remain in the same position as at the present, while the pedestrian entrance steps are to be slightly realigned.

It is considered that the revised scheme would accord with Policy H9 in that the replacement is clearly of a similar size and mass to the existing. While, the siting of the new development is further back into the site and may increase the potential for overlooking into the two adjacent properties, Lostland and Long Thatch, this aspect will need to be considered as part of a detailed application, which will include elevational plans.

The boundary wall forms part of a longer stretch, which runs along the boundary of Lostland and makes a significant contribution to the character of Town Lane. Its overall retention, despite alterations to it to provide the pedestrian access to the property, is an important element of the scheme and conforms with Policy D1 by maintaining the quality and character of the built environment.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, it is considered that the replacement of the existing property by a new dwelling of the footprint and position shown would be acceptable in principle.

Recommendation - Approval (revised scheme)(subject to the views of the Tree and landscape Officer)

Shanklin Town Council are opposed to application on the grounds of the loss of retail use in a prime location.

Environmental Health recommend hours of operation condition to protect amenity of neighbouring properties.

Four letters of representation have been received which can be summarised as follows:

Trade objection on grounds of loss of trade to existing Esplanade arcade and potential subsequent loss of employment/income.

This is an application for change of use from gift shop to amusement arcade. The premise is located close to the junction of High Street/Victoria Avenue. There are no proposed external alterations to the property and the internal layout will consist of slot machines at the front of the premises suitable for any age with a designated area to the rear for over 18 year olds and a stock room and w.c. in between. Four staff will be employed as a result of the proposal. The site is within the Shanklin town centre but outside of any retail only frontage.

The following policies are considered relevant in respect of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan:

D1 - Standards of Design; G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses; R13 - Amusement Centres.

Policy R13 states that planning applications for amusement centres will only be approved where they are located in a defined town centre outside the retail only frontage and any Conservation Area and there is no loss of amenity to adjoining areas and properties. Main planning consideration therefore relates to impact on the amenities of locality in respect of noise, disturbance, vehicular and pedestrian movements and visual appearance. Moral issues concerning such uses will be considered by the licencing authority independently from the planning considerations.

With regard concerns relating to loss of retail, the site is outside any retail only frontage and therefore a refusal on these grounds would be unsustainable. In assessing the concerns relating to impact on residential flats above and amenities of area in general, it is relevant that this is a busy town centre location with existing mix of uses and government advice seeks to promote the viability and vitality of town centres. Environmental Health recommend restriction on hours of operation to prevent annoyance and disturbance from noise emissions from the premise. Loss of trade objection is not a material planning consideration.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I am of the view that the proposal is for an appropriate use and appropriately sited, accords with policy and recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval (subject to no adverse comment by 26.06.2002 that would warrant reconsideration

The application relates to a mid-terraced property situated on the main Sandown Road in a mixed commercial/residential area.

Permission is sought for change of use from dwelling to office accommodation to enable the adjoining accountants/tax consultants to expand business. Proposal will create an additional 86.39 square metres of floor space enabling the business to expand by natural growth hopefully employing an additional five staff. There are currently five parking spaces available and it is expected the proposal will generate six cars arriving and departing each working day. The layout shows office, store and kitchen at ground floor, 2 offices and toilet at first floor.

The adjoining property to the south is currently a chip shop at ground floor with residential above and the neighbouring property to the north of the existing business is residential.

Relevant policies are considered to be D1 - Standards of Design, G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses, H8 - Loss of Dwelling, E6 - Expansion of Existing Industry and Offices.

Main planning considerations relate to impact on amenities of locality in general and surrounding residential occupiers, loss of existing dwelling, expansion of existing office creating additional job opportunities. The site is located within the main shopping/mixed use area of Lake. Lake has no defined retail area and therefore no policy reason to prevent the loss of shops to residential accommodation. Housing Policy resists the loss of residential accommodation particularly affordable housing. Employment policy encourages expansion of existing offices particularly where this will lead to additional job opportunities. It is my view that the rejuvenation of this mixed use area and expansion of an existing business should be encouraged and that the proposal does not present an adverse impact on the amenities of the surrounding area.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I am of the view that the proposal is for an appropriate use, appropriately sited and accords with Policy and recommend accordingly.

To consider an amendment to the previous Committee resolution of building four units on site and selling this onto a registered landlord at half price.

On 21 September 2001 a report was included on the agenda for Members consideration to a proposed amendment to the previously proposed Section 106 Agreement. Members did not accept the proposals suggesting further negotiation, the results of which have been reported back to the Development Control Committee for consideration.

To remind Members, in March 2000, outline planning permission was granted for 19 dwellings on land off Windsor Drive at Shanklin. This conditional permission was also subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of four affordable dwelling units on a suitable site and locality or an equivalent financial consideration.

A draft planning obligation was progressed on the basis that a financial contribution of £135,800 would be made to the Council as housing authority towards the cost of the provision of affordable units in the locality. The original sale of the site fell through and subsequently a letter was received from Solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant requesting an amendment to the agreement to provide payment by instalments rather than repayment of the full amount in advance of the development. It was suggested by the Solicitors that a 20% first instalment made 6 months after the date of the agreement was to be followed by a further 10% as each of the first eight units were occupied. The Solicitors also asked what arrangements would be acceptable if their suggestion was not accepted.

The Development Control Committee did not accept the proposal by the Solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant but instructed me to explore further revisions as may be thought appropriate. Members were not satisfied with the proposals due to the omission of an inflationary clause which was felt necessary due to the passage of time since the original resolution and the present.

Committee’s resolution was relayed to the agents and Members reconsidered the matter on 29 January 2002 when it was resolved to issue the decision requiring the provision of four locally affordable housing units to be provided on site; that is, built and sold at half price. Before the decision notice was despatched, a further request from the agents was received suggesting another alternative. Due to the nature of this suggestion, further information was requested of the agents and the matter is again reported to Members for further consideration.

The current proposal is to offer the site for six of seven units situated at Green Lane (Halfway Service Station), a site which has detailed planning permission located in a much more central position, closer to main traffic routes and comprises of two bedroom accommodation in terrace form which is more suited to the requirements of the Housing Association.

This matter has been referred back to the Development Control Committee to let Members decide in principle if the affordable housing requirement is an acceptable provision ‘off site’ as opposed to the provision ‘on site’ or the payment of a commuted sum as previously agreed.

Members may appreciate that the Windsor Drive site has a valid outline permission with an approval of reserved matters for five of the 19 dwellings; that the development is one of comparably low density of properties of four and five bedroomed accommodation on the outskirts of Shanklin. The applicant is the owner of both sites.

No approach has been made to a Housing Association yet, as the applicant wishes to be satisfied that the principle of the provision of six units of accommodation ‘off site’ as opposed to four units of accommodation ‘on site’, as policy would normally required is acceptable to Members before comprehensive negotiation takes place.

1.To indicate, without prejudice to the final decision that the principle of the construction and selling off at half price to a registered landlord of the six affordable units at the former Halfway Service Station site would be acceptable in lieu of the provision of four units on site built and sold to a registered landlord. To resolve that the provision of four units on site or six units off site built and sold half price to a registered landlord is acceptable and to enter into a Section 106 Agreement accordingly.

2.That the applicant be advised that the four units of affordable accommodation must be built on site and sold half price to a registered landlord.

The Green lane site has several advantages; six units instead of four; the size of the units approved on the site; the location is better suited, being closer to bus routes and proximity to public open space.

To indicate, without prejudice to the final decision that the principle of the construction and selling off at half price to a registered landlord of the six affordable units at the former Halfway Service Station site would be acceptable in lieu of the provision of four units on site built and sold to a registered landlord. To resolve that the provision of four units on site or six units off site built and sold half price to a registered landlord is acceptable and to enter into a Section 106 Agreement accordingly.

(b) TCP/16974F Unauthorised engineering operations at Pitts Farm, Main Road, Ningwood

To determine the course of action to adopt in respect of land levels which have been artificially raised at Pitts Farm.

Members may recall that at the Development Control Meeting on 23 April 2002 authority was granted for service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of a large amount of imported topsoil which artificially raised the level of the land by up to about 2 metres in the centre of the plot. The Notice is still in the course of preparation.

On 30 April 2002 an Enforcement Officer and a Planning Officer met the landowner and his planning agent at Pitts Farm. It was pointed out that more of the topsoil had been removed and the site levelled down so there was about 0.3 metre of topsoil over the clay subsoil which was previously exposed on this land.

The owner’s agent pointed out that the large amount of topsoil had been removed and that the remaining topsoil was there to enhance the quality of the land to support the crop of potatoes which had been planted. The agent argued that the situation existing at that time was acceptable and that no further action should be taken. He felt that this would have been the likely decision if that situation had existed at the time of the report to the Committee. He stated that he was loathe to waste everyone’s time and money on the submission of a planning application merely to regularise the present situation, and said that he felt sure that if enforcement action were to be taken over the current level of topsoil it would be difficult to substantiate any reason for requiring removal.

1. To resolve to take no further action regarding the Enforcement Notice authorised on 23 April and to accept that the condition and use of the site are now acceptable.

2. To proceed with the Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the remaining topsoil from the land.

The situation on site has changed considerably since April with the removal of material and the reshaping of the remaining material. Whilst I am still of the view that the quantity of imported material is sufficient to justify the requirement for a planning application I note the landowner’s reluctance to make one. It would be difficult to justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the remaining topsoil merely to regularise the situation, particularly as the land is now being used for agricultural purposes and with the concerns that triggered the earlier enforcement action (effect on the character and amenities of the area) now having been diminished.

To resolve to take no further action regarding the Enforcement Notice authorised on 23 April and to accept that the condition and use of the site are now acceptable.

(c) TCP/23144J/P2067/01 Conversion of living quarters and remaining school rooms into ten (formerly 6) self-contained flats, alterations and extensions to improve facilities to theatre (reduced site area readvertised application), 22 Church Road and The Margaret Pasmore Theatre, Priory Road, Shanklin

To determine whether the offer of £97,000 of investment and a Covenant not to demolish the theatre for a period of 21 years satisfies the Committee’s resolution taken on 2 April 2002 viz:

1.Enter into a Section 106 agreement securing the use of the theatre by an appropriate contribution and mechanism for delivery.

2.Investigate the unlawful use of the remaining building which appears to be used for residential purposes.

3.To voluntarily revoke the consent for the Travel Lodge and demolish the theatre without compensation.

The above application has recently been readvertised to include ten units of accommodation as opposed to the six previously agreed in the Resolution of 2 April 2002.

In essence, this Resolution was made on the basis that the application was contrary to the primacy of the Unitary Development Plan and in particular Policy T7(b) which states:

“Planning applications for tourism uses in the area specified below and found on the proposals map will be approved:

This stance has been consistently taken regarding other applications which have been consistently refused for residential development on the site. The policy has the benefit of encouraging and allowing holiday accommodation to be built on the site.

However, Members followed the recommendation and gave more weight to the other material considerations outweighing the primacy of the Unitary Development Plan. That is, if there was some bona fide community benefit from the residential scheme, then Members would be prepared in this instance to follow and support that community benefit.

It was my understanding that the profits or part of the profits from the residential development would go forward to safeguard as practically possible the continued use of the theatre. It was muted that the theatre should be up and running for ten years. An agreed figure of the number of years was not forthcoming, it was felt that if the correct mechanisms were put in place, then the life of the theatre would be much longer.

It was with this in mind that negotiations have been taking place with the applicant with a view to fulfilling the Committee resolution.

An impasse has now been reached in which the developer’s final offer is to show receipts for the £97,000 spent to date and enter into a Covenant stating that the theatre would not be demolished for 21 years.

It is my opinion that this does not encourage nor guarantee that the theatre will be used and we could find ourselves in the situation where the residential units have been built out and we have a theatre that is empty for 21 years. I still believe it is imperative that a mechanism is established to ensure:

a) That further funds go into a controlling body, say a trust and then that trust releases the money on a yearly basis to safeguard the future maintenance and use of the Theatre. That is, the trust may effectively provide gap funding to ensure that the Theatre continues to operate; and

b) That not only is the Theatre retained (i.e. not demolished) but is used throughout the period of say, 21 years as a Theatre. It may be appropriate also to involve a trust in this aspect.

This advice has been discussed and the approach agreed with the Retained Solicitor who has been acting on the Council’s behalf in this matter.

1. To accept the applicant’s spending to date of £97,000 and enter into a Covenant stating that the theatre should not be demolished for 21 years and issue a planning permission for ten residential units providing there are no further adverse comments within the public consultation period that will require the application to be brought back to Committee for determination.

2. Reject the applicant’s offer and reaffirm the Resolution of 2 April 2002; that is to enter into a Section 106 Agreement securing the use of the theatre by an appropriate contribution and mechanism for delivery. Issue the permission for ten residential units providing no adverse comments are made in the public consultation period that would warrant reconsideration by the Planning Committee. Allow the applicant fourteen days to reconsider his position and if no satisfactory progress is made, bring the matter back to Committee with a likely recommendation for refusal.

3. Bring the matter back to the Planning Committee for determination in line with the final offer made by the applicant.

The unlawful use of the remaining building is currently being investigated in line with the Committee Resolution and the voluntary revocation for the consent of the Travel Lodge is not causing problems and can be progressed to a satisfactory conclusion. However, the Committee Resolution made it quite clear the an appropriate contribution and mechanism for delivery needs to be undertaken to secure the use of the theatre. That offered by the applicant falls far short, remembering that the permission goes with the land and not the characters involved. That is, although the intentions of the applicant may be sound, the mechanisms must be legally sound.

Reject the applicant’s offer and reaffirm the Resolution of 2 April 2002; that is to enter into a Section 106 Agreement securing the use of the theatre by an appropriate contribution and mechanism for delivery. Issue the permission for ten residential units providing no adverse comments are made in the public consultation period that would warrant reconsideration by the Planning Committee. Allow the applicant fourteen days to reconsider his position and if no satisfactory progress is made, bring the matter back to Committee with a likely recommendation for refusal.

(d) E/23401/D Unauthorised construction of a boundary fence over 2 metres in height adjacent a highway at 3 Daish Way, Dodnor Industrial Estate, Newport

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the fence.

During January 2002 a report was received alleging the following breach of planning control

An enforcement officer visited the site and noted that a green wire mesh fence had been erected along the boundary of the site. The fence is approximately 2.40 metres in height and runs along two sides of the site boundary. On one side the fence abuts the highway, on the other side the fence is approximately 2.70 metres away from the highway. Whilst a fence can be constructed on the boundary of a site under permitted development rights up to 2 metres in height or 1 metre adjacent a highway, this specific structure does not meet the qualifying criteria and accordingly the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is required.

The situation was explained to the owner who indicated that he would be submitting and application. Despite further correspondence from the Enforcement Officer, an application for the retention of the fence has not been forthcoming.

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered to apply in the circumstance.

Policy S6 requires all development to be undertaken to a high standard of design.

Policy G4 requires all development to harmonise with their surroundings creating an interesting and attractive environment

Number 3 is positioned with the shortest side of the site adjacent Daish Way and the longer side running alongside a small road servicing several other industrial units. The fence is erected along both of these frontages. Having assessed the characteristics of the estate and surrounding properties and the materials used in the construction of the fence I consider that the fence does not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area and that due to its wire mesh construction it does not have the appearance of a solid fence.

I do not consider there to be any highway safety implications due to the height of the fence.

The fence is of a height where the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is required.

The owner has been given the opportunity to submit a retrospective planning application but has declined to do so. Were an application to be submitted, in my opinion permission would be granted for the retention of the fence.

1	The site lies within the countryside, outside the designated development boundary and the development, which comprises an undesirable intensification in the use of the site as a formal training facility is considered to be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to policies S4, G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2	The proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is therefore contrary to Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02