1.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND
DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some
circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).
3.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER
INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.
4.
YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
(TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE
YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
5.
THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY
ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.
Members are
advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken
place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison
Officer. Any responses received prior
to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.
LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON
REPORT TO COMMITTEE -
26 OCTOBER 2004
|
1. |
TCP/20953/B P/01762/04 Demolition of dwelling;
construction of 4 storey block of 7 flats, parking & alterations to
vehicular access, (amended siting) Wilmington, Cliff Road, Totland
Bay |
Totland |
Conditional Approval |
|
2. |
TCP/26462 P/01535/04 Bungalow Land adjacent 14, Queens Drive, Brading, Sandown |
Brading |
Conditional Approval |
|
3. |
TCP/26482 P/01573/04 Construction of temporary site compound
from which to drill exploratory borehole to determine presence of
hydrocarbons; alterations to existing access track Land within Bouldnor Copse, off,
Main Road, Bouldnor, Yarmouth |
Shalfleet |
Conditional Approval |
|
4. |
TCP/26494 P/01647/04 Demolition of conservatory;
alterations & single/2 storey extension to provide additional living
accommodation 56 School Crescent, Godshill,
Ventnor |
Godshill |
Refusal |
|
5. |
TCP/26498/A P/01732/04 Retention of single storey side and
rear extension; raised deck area and screening (Revised Plans) 5 Avenue Road, Shanklin |
Shanklin |
Conditional Approval |
|
6. |
TCP/26522 P/01694/04 Alterations & single storey rear
extension to provide additional living accommodation; detached double garage 29 Summers Court, Freshwater |
Totland |
Approval |
LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 26 OCTOBER 2004
|
1. |
TCP/20953/B P/01762/04 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland Registration Date: 27/08/2004 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Stephenson Developments Ltd Demolition of dwelling; construction of 4 storey block of 7 flats,
parking & alterations to vehicular access, (amended siting) Wilmington, Cliff Road, Totland
Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390EN |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Previous application
seeking redevelopment of this site was particularly contentious, attracting a
substantial number of representations, and although current submission seeks
relatively minor revision to scheme, following discussions with the local
member, Councilor Howe, it was agreed that the current application would be
reported to the committee for determination.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application
the processing of which has taken approximately eight and a half weeks and has
gone beyond the prescribed 8-week period for determination of planning
applications due to the need for committee consideration and case officer
workload.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to
corner site on eastern side of Cliff Road immediately adjacent junction with
Eden Road. Site was previously occupied by detached dwelling which has recently
been demolished. Whilst providing element of two-storey accommodation, this
dwelling was predominantly single storey. However, it is understood that the
dwelling was previously quite substantial two storey building with
accommodation in roof space, the upper storeys having been removed many years
ago resulting in the flat roof structure, which until recently, occupied the
site.
Site is relatively level
rising to slightly higher level along southern boundary with existing access in
south western corner of site.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/20953/S/26732- Outline
for dwelling and garage on plot forming part of curtilage to Wilmington refused
in January 1992 on grounds that plot was of inadequate width in comparison with
adjoining development and would lead to cramped appearance in street scene to
detriment of visual amenities and character of area, and also that introduction
of dwelling on site proposed would lead to dwelling incompatible with the
surrounding area.
TCP/20953/A-P/00795/01-
Demolition of dwelling and detailed permission for construction of a four-storey
block of seven flats, parking and alterations to vehicular access conditionally
approved 2 June 2003.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Current submissions seeks
consent for demolition of dwelling and detailed consent for construction of
four-storey block of flats, parking and alterations to vehicular access. In
terms of the access, parking arrangements and appearance of the building, this
scheme is virtually identical to that previously approved. The current
submission is seeking a revision to the approved scheme involving an amended
siting of the building approximately 2.2 meters closer to eastern boundary and
the adjacent property, Eden House.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is shown on Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan to be within development boundary for Totland
and immediately adjacent an area of outstanding natural beauty. Relevant
policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:
S1 - New development will be concentrated within
existing urban areas
S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which
has been previously developed (brown field sites) rather than undeveloped
(greenfield) sites.
S6 - All development will be expected to be of a
high standard of design.
S7 - There is a need to provide
for the development of at least 8,000 units over the plan period, whilst a
large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing
allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough
new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a
range of choice and affordability.
G1- Development Envelopes for towns and villages.
G4 - General locational criteria for development.
G7 - Development on unstable land.
D1- Standards of design
D2 - Standards for development within the site
H4 - Unallocated residential development to be
restricted to defined settlements
TR6 - Cycling and walking
TR7 - Highway considerations for new development
U11 - Infrastructure and
services provision.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
recommends same conditions the same as those imposed on the previous consent,
should the current submission be approved.
The council's Tree
Officer considers that in general, the trees on this site are low grade with one
or two exceptions, neither of which are on the eastern boundary. He considers
that the trees on this boundary are of value for screening if not for visual
amenity, given the proximity of the neighbouring property.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
None at time of preparing
this report.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Application has attracted
11 letters from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be
summarized as follows:
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
Current submission seeks
amendment to the siting of the building to that approved on the previous
application. In all other respects, the development is unchanged and matters
relating to the height, design and general appearance of the building, access
and parking arrangements, ground stability and drainage were all dealt with and
found to be satisfactory when considering the previous submission. Therefore,
the only matter relevant to the consideration of the current application is the
repositioning of the building and whether this significantly increases the
impact of the development on the locality in general and the amenities of
neighbouring properties in particular.
Given the size of this
site and the scale of the approved building, I consider that its repositioning
approximately 2.2 metres further to east represents a relatively minor change
to the approved scheme and that this will have minimal impact on the amenities
of the area. Amendment will bring the building closer to a number of trees
along the eastern boundary of the site although, following discussions with the
Councils Tree Officer, it is understood that the previously approved scheme
would be likely to have an impact on these trees. Furthermore, applicant’s
agent has submitted to the authority a report on the trees within the site,
prepared by a qualified tree surgeon, who is considered to be a competent
person. In terms of the condition of the trees and the recommendations, this
report contains the following comments:
“Good but growing less
than 3 metres from the adjoining property. This tree is obviously one of
several survivors from an old boundary hedge that has got out of hand. It is
not an especially attractive specimen and if left to grow it is likely to reach
over 30 metres high with a trunk diameter of up to 2 metres. This is a most
inappropriate tree to be growing in such close proximity to a building. Fell”.
Although these trees do
provide a degree of screening to the adjacent property, they are of little merit
and given their proximity to this building, I consider that there removal now
or at some point in the future is inevitable regardless of the proposals to
develop the site of Wilmington.
While the proposed block
of flats is to be repositioned approximately 2.2 metres to the east, the plans,
which accompany the current submission, indicate that a distance of
approximately 4 metres will be maintained between the building and the boundary
of the site and a minimum of 5.5 metres between the proposed building and
single storey extensions on the neighbouring property. Although there are a
number of windows in the western elevation of the neighbouring property, I do
not consider that the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property will
be significantly greater than the scheme previously approved.
Concern has been
expressed that application seeks demolition of Wilmington and yet this work has
already been carried out. In this respect, I would advise members that the
previous planning permission, which also authorized the demolition of the
dwelling, remains valid and, therefore, no breach of planning has occurred.
Indeed, should members be minded to approve the current submission, the
developer would still have the option to carry out the development in accordance
with the previously approved scheme.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the
rights set out in article 8 (Rights to Privacy) and article 1 of the first
Protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the
owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some
interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the
rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as
there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary
for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also
considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the
Councils Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this
report, it is considered that the relocation of the building further to east as
proposed will not have significant impact on the amenities of the area or
neighbouring occupiers.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Submission of samples/details -
S03 |
|
3 |
No development shall
commence on the site until all trees/shrubs and/or other natural features, not
previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have
been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed
in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 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. (c)No placement or
storage of excavated soil. (d)No lighting of
bonfires. (e)No physical damage
to bark or branches. (f)No changes to
natural ground drainage in the area. (g)No changes in ground
levels. (h)No digging of
trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i)Any trenches
required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are
left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees,
shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected
from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in
the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting
Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
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 5 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. |
|
5 |
Landscape works
implementation - M30 |
|
6 |
All material excavated as
a result of general ground works including site leveling, installation of
services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the
area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed
from the site prior to occupation of any of the flats within the development
hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of
the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in
particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
No development shall
take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of
boundary treatment to be erected. The
boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the
amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
No development shall
take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity
studies, have been submitted to and a agreed with the Local Planning Authority
indicating the means of foul water and surface water disposal. Any such
agreed foul water and 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 to the existing system. None of the flats within the
development hereby approved 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 and to
comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Prior to commencement of
the development hereby approved and notwithstanding the provisions of any
Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, the level of
the land hatched yellow on the approved drawing shall be lowered so that the
land and any things on it shall not be more than 0.6 metres above the level
of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be subsequently
kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (HIghway Considerations) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
Any gates to be
provided shall be set back a distance of 6 metres from the edge of the
carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply
with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
No flat within the
development hereby approved shall be occupied until space has been laid out within
the site in accordance with the plan attached for ten cars to be parked and
for vehicles to turn so that that they may enter and leave the site in
forward gear and such provision shall be retained. Reason: To ensure
adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety and to comply
with Policy TR7 ( Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
No flat within the
development hereby approved shall be occupied until provision has been made within
the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of 7 bicycles.
Such provision shall be made in accordance with the details shown on the
approved plans, 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. |
|
13 |
Prior to any of the flats
within the boundary development hereby approved being occupied, screens shall
be erected on the eastern perimeter of the balconies to the rear of and
eastern side of the building in accordance with details to be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the screens shall
be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of
the amenities of the neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2. |
TCP/26462 P/01535/04 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens Registration Date: 19/07/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. P. Smith Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Mr P Hannan Bungalow land adjacent 14, Queens Drive,
Brading, Sandown, PO36 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Report requested by local
member Councillor Joyce, due to the level of opposition expressed by local
residents and the parish council, and raises concerns that the proposal is out
of keeping with the surrounding environment.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which will have taken 14 weeks to the date of
the committee meeting. The application has beyond the prescribed 8 week period
for the determination of planning applications due to an outstanding
consultation and the need for committee consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Proposal is set within a
cul-de-sac comprising 1960s style detached and semi detached bungalows. The
site is located at the western end of Queens Drive, and occupies the side and
part-rear amenity space of a detached bungalow, No.14. A 1.5metre+ wooden larch
lap fence marks the rear North West boundary with No.4 Kyngs Close. A tall
mixed vegetation hedge runs the length of the South Western boundary, screening
the site from Doctors Lane and the adjoining agricultural land.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought for the
construction of a detached bungalow. The design incorporates a parking area and
shared access with number 14. The main front elevation is set back
approximately 1.8 metres from the front elevation of number 14, and
approximately 1.8 metres beyond the rear elevation of number 14. There is
approximately 1.2 metres between the two properties. The proposed building is
shown to be constructed of artificial stone walls under a concrete interlocking
tiled roof.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is located
within the development envelope for Brading as defined within the unitary development plan. Relevant policies
of the plan are considered as follows:
S1- New development concentrated
within existing areas
S6- High standard of
design
S7- Provision of housing
units on the Isle of Wight
G1- Development envelope
for towns and villages
G4- General locational
criteria for development
D1- Standards of design
D2- Standard for development
within the site
H4- Unallocated
residential development to be restricted to defined settlement
TR7- Highway
considerations for new development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway engineer
recommends conditions should applications be approved.
Southern Water has
confirmed they have no knowledge of problems with the public sewers in this
area.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
The Parish Council
registers its objections to this application on the following grounds:
·
The proposed development is out of scale, size and design with adjacent
properties and will lead to a cramped appearance which will be detrimental to
the visual amenity of the Kyngs Town Estate.
·
The proposed development will generate an increase in vehicular movement
in a small cul-de-sac which is inappropriate and a hazard to other vehicles and
pedestrians.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
The application has
attracted 13 letters of objection. The points raised are summarized as follows:
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
Relevant officer has been
given opportunity to comment however no crime and disorder implications are
anticipated.
EVALUATION
Observations have been
received.
Determining factors in
considering this application are whether development on this site is acceptable
in relation to the surrounding area, taking into account the impact upon the
neighbouring property and impact upon the aesthetics of the surrounding area.
Site is located within
the development boundary, and therefore is considered acceptable in principle.
With regards to suggestions that the proposal represents over development of
the site, I am satisfied that adequate space around both the proposed and
existing is provided. Whilst the plot is narrow, there is no development
immediately to the west of the site, and private amenity space can be
accommodated on this side of the building. There is a facing window on the western
elevation of No. 14 serving as a secondary window to the living/lounge area.
With this in mind no concerns are raised with regards to adverse impact upon
the light levels serving the existing room. There are no proposed windows in
the eastern elevation of the proposed bungalow so no overlooking created
towards the existing. Due to the single storey design of the proposed and the
amount or rear amenity space provided, I am satisfied there will be no adverse
implications for the residents of No.4 Kyngs Close.
In considering the impact
of the proposal upon the general amenity of the area it is concluded that
whilst it presents a smaller plot width and building in comparison to
surrounding properties is noted, reference should be made to the positioning of
the proposed, both at the far end of the road and the fact that it will be
partially obscured by the existing property. To this effect therefore, I am
satisfied that the proposal does not occupy a visually prominent site and
therefore a variation in design will not significantly impact upon the street
scene and the general amenity of the cul-de-sac.
Issues relating to
parking are overcome by the provision of off street parking.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the
rights set out in article 8 (Rights to Privacy) and article 1 of the 1st
Protocol (Rights to peoples enjoyment of possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers
of other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully
considered.
Whilst there may be some
interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the
rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as
there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary
for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also
considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the councils
unitary development plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this
report, I am satisfied that the proposal to develop a detached bungalow would
make an efficient use of the site without having excessive or unacceptable
impact on the environment or neighbouring properties and would not detract from
the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above I am
satisfied that the proposal does not conflict with policies of the IW Unitary
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
No development shall take
place until details of the materials and finishes, 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 policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No development shall take
place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of
boundary treatment to be erected. The
boundary treatment shall be completed before the building hereby permitted
(is) occupied. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the
amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Hedgerow Protection -
M50 |
|
5 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-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 privacy of the
adjoining property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification),
no development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order
shall be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this
permission]. Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by
the future occupants and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The car parking and
turning area shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice
shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to
development hereby approved. Reason: In the interest
of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3. |
TCP/26482 P/01573/04 Parish/Name: Shalfleet Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth Registration Date: 05/08/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Northern Petroleum (GB) Ltd Construction of temporary site
compound from which to drill exploratory borehole to determine presence of
hydrocarbons; alterations to existing access track land within Bouldnor Copse, off,
Main Road, Bouldnor, Yarmouth, PO41 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Report requested by Local
Member, Councillor Terry Butchers, during the processing of the application.
The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant
issues to be resolved.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
The application has taken
11 weeks to process. This is within the 13 week period.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The site is located
within Bouldnor Copse which is situated on the northern side of the A3054 just
to the west of Cranmore. The site is accessed via a long and narrow access road
leading from the A3054 a few metres east of Wing Cottage with the access
traveling first northwards then eastwards, a total distance of about 1.1
kilometre from the access point. The site itself is located within an area of
very dense woodland owned by the Forestry Commission and presently densely
planted with Scots Pine and Corsican Pine the tract of land comprises
approximately two hectares. All of the surrounding land is in woodland or open
woodland within the ownership of the Forestry Commission.
None in relation to this
site but the former Battery has been subject to applications and an Enforcement
Notice regarding unauthorised use The Battery is not connected to the current
application site.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Temporary planning
permission is sought for the establishment of a compound to carry out the
exploratory borehole to a depth of approximately 1600 metres in order to carry
out tests necessary to establish to commercial viability of the retrieval of
hydrocarbon deposits.
Access to the site is
from the A3054 via an existing entrance presently used by the Forestry
Commission and others who have right of way over the access track, no new road construction
is involved but improvement of the surface for heavy vehicles will be
necessary. Lockable gates to be installed at the drilling site and, along the
length of the access track, vehicle passing places need to be formed or
enlarged to ensure that vehicles accessing and exiting from the site are
accommodated. Following consultation with the Forestry Commission revised plans
have been produced showing amended positions of the passing bays to enable best
use whilst maintaining existing tree growth and other features.
The proposed enclosure is
to be approximately 1.6 hectares and the drilling platform within it
approximately 1.4 hectares, within the enclosure comprising bunds and troughs
and hard surfaces which will house the drilling rig, ancillary equipment and
temporary technical and office accommodation.
Preparation of the site
would entail removal of top soil and sub soil to form a level base with the
soils stored on site for restoration. Platform area about 70 x 55 metres of
crushed stone laid over an impermeable Geo-textile membrane. Rain water and any
contaminated water to be run off and collected in a preformed ditch for
disposal at an appropriate location.
Bore hole includes a 2.5
metre deep circular well of 3 metre diameter pre cast concrete rings which
would house the control and safety valves below ground level. Tanks to be
installed to contain drilling mud and cuttings arising from the drilling prior
to their disposal at an approved waste disposal site. Water is to be brought by
tanker, electricity to be generated on site; portable lavatory and ablution
facilities located on site and serviced by tanker. The bore hole itself is only
a few centimetres in diameter and as previously stated, will be to a depth of
1600m.
Drilling rig to be in place
for approximately three weeks, approximately 39 metres high, drilling would be
a continuous 24 hour operation and various stages of the operation involve,
site construction approximately 3 weeks; rig mobilization approximately 3 days;
drilling about 3 weeks; rig removal 3 days and initial testing approximately 3
weeks; extended testing approximately 16 weeks and site restoration
approximately 3 weeks.
Existing access onto the
A3054 includes no adjoining land and the intention is to install temporary traffic
control to allow vehicles exiting the site to emerge whilst approaching traffic
on the A3054 is held.
In support of the
application is an assessment in environmental noise emissions which concludes
that noise limitations of 55 DBLAEQ, 1 hour during the daytime and 45 DBLAEQ, 5
min at night are entirely appropriate for this development in view of the
intermittent and short term nature of operations thus concluding that the
drilling project will not be a source of noise nuisance to local residents.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is located way
outside and designated development envelope; within an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty; within a site of interest to Nature Conservation and within the
designated Heritage Coast. Bouldnor Copse abuts a site of special scientific
interest namely the coast line stretching from Yarmouth to Newtown.
Policy C1 relates to the
protection of landscape character; Policy C2 relates to Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and Policy C4 relates to the Heritage Coast. Policy C9, 10 and
11 relate to sites of Interest to Nature Conservation and Policy M7 to Oil and
Gas Exploration. Policy TR7 relates to Highway Considerations for new
development. The following UDP Policies are considered to be relevant in this
instance:
S4 - Countryside will be
protected from inappropriate development
C1 – Protection of
Landscape Character
C2 – Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
C4 – Heritage Coast
C10 and 11 – Sites of
National/Local Importance for Nature Conservation
M7 – Oil and Gas Exploration
M8 – Restoration and
Aftercare
P1 – Pollution and
Development
P2 – Minimize
contamination from development
P5 – Reducing Impact of
Noise
TR7 – Highway
considerations for New Development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineers recognize
the inadequacy of the existing access but acknowledge that the comparatively
short term and temporary nature of the proposals but support the applicants
suggestions that a traffic control and marshalling system be incorporated into
the development at the junction of the access lane with the A3054 for the
duration of the operations on site.
AONB unit acknowledge the
site’s existence within the designation AONB, point out that, in the event of
economically recoverable reserves being found that EIA should be submitted
along with a new application for the winning of hydrocarbons but recognize that
the current application is exploratory and of a temporary nature which will not
have a significant impact on the AONB or Heritage Coast subject to conditions
regarding lighting, restoration, fencing and precautions to prevent pollution.
Environment Agency confirms no objection subject to conditions.
Environmental Health
Officer recognizes the potential to cause disamenity to residential property
through generation of noise but recommends conditions are imposed.
County Ecologist argues
that the supporting documentation does not recognise the importance for nature
conservation, that the conifer plantation has become important for red
squirrels but concludes that the proposals need not have an adverse impact,
even slightly beneficial impact but with reservations. He summarizes by
pointing out that Bouldnor Copse is in sinc and has substantive nature
conservation interest; that all the ecological impacts of the proposal can be
minimized by slight modifications and some mitigations. These have been
observed in the revised plans or by conditions.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Shalfleet Parish Council
did not object but expressed some concerns, namely to protect indigenous
wildlife; cause as little damage as possible to the forested are; that
restoration should occur following conclusion and raise concerns over the
dangerous nature of the access.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection
from nearby resident (property adjoins the track)on grounds of:
·
Development contrary to both strategic and detailed policies: S4, S5,
S6, S10, G1, G4, C1, C2, C8, C10, C11, G10, P1, P2, D14 and T2.
·
Adverse impact on AONB, Heritage Coast, SSS1 and SINC
·
Development outside development envelope
·
Hazards to public right of way
·
Traffic hazards due to increase traffic
·
Adverse effect on a Schedule Monument
·
Adverse effect on tourism
·
Inadequate mitigation details
·
Conflict with other users of the forest
·
Inappropriate design of site buildings
·
Pollution from noise, light and odours.
·
No proven need for development
CRIME & DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
Relevant officer have
been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It
is not, however, anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder
implications.
EVALUATION
This application is
similar in principle to that consider by the Planning Committee on 14 September
submitted by the same applicant and, in the event that planning permission is
granted, the operation will be co-coordinated with that scheme by utilizing the
same drilling rig consecutively for economic and operational reasons.
In essence the intention
is to bore an exploratory well approximately 1600 metres in depth to assess the
economic and practical viability of oil reserves found in the strata to that
depth. In the event that economically viable reserves are found, a further
application to exploit those reserves would be submitted but it is not yet
known which site, if either, will be the subject of a subsequent application.
In summary the timing of
the various operations are similar. From commencement date site preparation
should take 3 weeks, rig mobilization should take 3 days, drilling
approximately 3 weeks, rig removal approximately 3 days, initial testing
approximately 3 weeks with possible extended testing to 16 weeks and site
restoration 3 weeks. As there are two exploratory sites, commencement date and
completion of the operations on site remains, at this time, uncertain as the
two operations would be co-coordinated and the various stages of operation may
not be immediately concurrent, therefore a degree of flexibility needs to be
applied with the emphasis on restoration and an end date to all operations.
The estimated total
working time is stated to be between 13 and 30 weeks. The 30 week figure is due
to a possible period of extra testing of up to 16 weeks when traffic levels
would be low as in these extra weeks HGV visits/day would be on average a
single vehicle.
Determination of this
proposal turns on matters of policy and principle, physical impact of the
preparations and operations on site, matters relating to traffic and finally
and no less importantly, impacts on adjoining properties from all of the
associated operations connected with this exploration.
In terms of policy in
principle, policies M7 and M8 of the UDP relate to Oil and Gas Exploration and
restoration and aftercare respectively. The presumption is in favour of
approval so long as significant adverse affects are not realized on the Areas
of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Nature Conservation or other sensitive issues
in the surrounding area, including adjoining properties, agriculture, water
abstraction.
The application does not
seek to exploit such reserves and it produce oil, at this stage it seeks a
temporary permission to explore and test for a temporary period only and
extensive steps are proposed to prevent pollution and safeguard other
environmental impacts. Members should be aware that much of the practice for
oil exploration is governed by strict legislation by the issue of licences
controlling the manner in which the operations are carried out.
The physical impact of
this proposal includes the formation of passing laybys in the access road but
utilisation of the existing rides with (access ways) within the woodland.
Following original
submission negotiations have taken place on site with the Forestry Commission
and the applicants and a revised plan has been submitted showing a slightly
different location for the clearing which would result in the clear felling of
the area as described above and the formation of the level platform surrounded
by ditches and bunds. During the operational period the working area would not
be visible from outside of the limits of the woodland with the exception of the
brief period 3 weeks when the drilling rig was in place and which would be
visible above the top of the woodland canopy. At 39 metres in height, it would
project above the canopy and would be visible from a distance.
Restoration of the site
by the removal of all buildings and equipment and the removal of all hard
surfacing and the restoration of natural contours would ensue but, at this
time, whether the site would be replanted or remain as open grassland, a
clearing within the woodland, has not yet been settled. In my view whether the
land is replanted or reformed as a clearing within the woodland is not
important in planning terms and as the land is within the control of the
Forestry Commission whose objectives are to preserve and enhance habitat as
well as providing for timber production and is a matter I think can be settled
following consultations at a later date.
Other physical impacts
involve the ecology of the area but I think that adequate mitigation and
restoration measures, meeting with the County Ecologists objectives, can be
achieved.
The issue of traffic has
been raised and it is acknowledge that the quality of the access to the A3054
is poor. Since this proposal could be for a limited period of approximately a
year, the acquisition or agreement to included extensive visibility splays to
both east and west of the access point and the clearance of all growth and
structures within those areas is likely to result in long term visual impact
for what is a short term requirement. However, there are significant volumes of
traffic on a daily basis during the various phases, especially during the
construction and restoration stages and accordingly, with the support of the
Highways Engineers, the traffic (lights) control and marshalling system will be
incorporated to ensure levels of safety are maintained. In terms of disturbance
to adjoining properties is concerned, again I would point out that the use of
the site is temporary and that the disturbance will be short lived within that
temporary period. However, noise disturbance is a material consideration and
the application was accompanied by a specialist noise assessment study which
concludes that, bearing in mind the distances involved to residential property
which, in the main, are located peripherally to Bouldnor Copse, the noise
emissions from the activities would be below the guidelines recommended in
MPG11. The submitted acoustic report was consider by the Environmental Health
Officer and despite some reservations on information contained or is not
contained within the report has recommended conditions which are appended at
the end of this report.
Turning to the letter of
objection, Members will see that the objector's dwelling is situated adjoining
the access track about 500m from the junction with the A3054. Despite the
objectors opinion that development is contrary to many of the UDP policies, I consider
the main thrust of his objection is the perceived adverse effect on his
property. This would be from vehicles accessing the site during the
construction, operational and restoration stages; and from the operations
continuing on site.
In my opinion there is
likely to be disruption from vehicles, especially heavy vehicles bringing
materials and equipment to and from the site. The dwelling is approximately 7m
from the track and traffic during the construction and restoration phases would
be significant and the agents own figures suggests 12 HGV movements/day during
the 3 dayrig mobilisation phase, 4 movements/day during the 3 week drilling
phase, 5 movements/day during the 3 day rig removal phase. During testing 3
movements/day are expected and during the restoration phase a similar volume to
the construction phase. There would be a number of light vehicle movements/day
during the whole operation.
The other objection
raised on adverse impact on the AONB, Heritage Coast, SSS1 and Sinc involve
matters which the relevant bodies have considered and have raised no
objections. The adjacent Scheduled Monument is considered by the County
Archaeologist to be inaffected. Objection on the grounds of development outside
a development envelope is untenable and there are no public rights of way
through the forest. Criticism over site buildings carries little weight since
the development is for a temporary period and the compound within which they
are to be sited will not be visible.
Pollution from noise and
light are considered valid grounds of concern. However, the Environmental
Health Officer has commented on the projected noise levels and has suggested
appropriate conditions. The temporary works are exploratory and therefore the
need is felt to be justifiable and is as relevant on this site as any other in
the vicinity.
So far as traffic is
concerned, although the drilling rig will be used 24 hours a day for that
period, the main traffic flows will be at the site construction and restoration
stage and conditions can be opposed in order to restrict hours of vehicle
movements.
Other possible impacts
are identified by the Environment Agency where there is a possibility of
pollution of the soils and ground and conditions are also proposed by the
Environment Agency to cover those eventualities.
In conclusion, the
temporary use of this land for carrying out the exploratory bore hole to
determine the possibility of economically viable hydrocarbons is considered
appropriate in terms of principle and, following negotiations with the
applicants minor modifications have been made which will help mitigate many
possible effects. The restoration of the site may thereafter be carried out in
accordance with the scheme submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority following further consultations with the Forestry Commission.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the
rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that
such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan and in the public interest.
.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having due regard to all
the determining factors as described in the evaluation section above, the
proposal to investigate the economic viability of winning hydrocarbon resources
at this site is consistent with Policies as detailed in the Policy Section
above and consistent with governmental advice as contained in MPG11.
RECOMMENDATION - Approval
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
This permission shall
authorise the use of the land to drill and evaluate an exploratory bore hole for
a limited period expiring on 30 September 2005 unless the prior written
consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a
further period. Reason: To minimise the
potential impact of the drilling and evaluation of the exploratory bore hole
in the interest of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply
with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards
of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IOW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
2 |
Prior to the expiration
of this consent a scheme for the restoration of the site upon cessation of
the authorized shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall include the sealing of the bore hole, removal
of all imported material and for the decontamination of the site where
necessary including any remedial works to the access as deemed necessary. The
restoration scheme shall be completed within 3 months of the exploration of
this consent, unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority or
further consent has been granted to establish a facility at the site to
extract the hydrocarbon from this location. Reason: In the interest of the amenities
and character of the locality and to comply with Policies G4 (General
Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), C1
(Protection of Landscape Character) and M8 (Restoration and After care) of
the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Prior to work
commencing on site, a contingency plan dealing with pollution control in the
event of a spillage or other such emergency shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any preparatory measures, such as the
construction of the bund forming part of the contingency plan shall be
implemented prior to drilling commencing on site. Reason: To minimise the risk of
pollution/contamination, in the interests of nature conservation and to
comply with Policies P1 (Pollution and Development), P2 (Minimise
Contamination from Development), C8 (Nature Conservation as a material
consideration) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Prior to work commencing
on site, details of all lighting required in connection with the drilling and
evaluation process shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. Thereafter only such approved lighting shall be erected/installed
unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area in general and to comply with Policies G4 (General
Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), D14 (Light
Spillage) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IOW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5 |
This permission shall
not authorise the use of the land edged red on the submitted plans for
development and production of hydrocarbons. Reason: To enable the Local Planning
Authority to consider the potential impact of development and the production
of hydrocarbons from the site in the interests of the amenities of the area
in general and nearby residential properties in particular and to comply with
Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of
Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IOW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The top soil removed in
connection with the formation of the facility hereby approved shall either be
used in the formation of the bund surrounding the working area or shall be
stored in a position to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority for
re-use in the restoration of the site. Reason: In the interest of the
amenities and the character of the locality and to comply with Policies G4
(General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), C1
(Protection of Landscape Character) of the IOW Unitary development Plan. |
|
7 |
All heavy goods vehicle
movements to and from the site associated with the construction of the site,
drilling of the bore hole, testing of samples and restoration of the site
shall be restricted to period between 07.00 hrs. and 19.00 hrs Mondays to
Fridays and 08.00 hrs to 14.00 hrs on Saturdays and there shall be no vehicle
movements by heavy goods vehicles to and from the site at anytime on Sundays
or recognised Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority except for such movements where vehicles are necessary in
the event of an emergency as part of the contingency plan required pursuant
to Condition 3. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and nearby residential properties in particular and to comply with Policies
G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design)
and P5 (Reducing the impact of noise) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
The drilling rig shall only
be erected/installed immediately before the process of drilling the bore hole
commences, upon completion of the drilling operation, the rig shall be
dismantled and removed from the site. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational
Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and C1 (Protection of
Landscape Character) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
The maximum sound level
attributable to all activities on site as measured at the positions marked on
the plan shall not exceed:- 55DBLAEQ, 1H during the period 07.00 hrs to 19.00 hrs. 42 DBLAEQ, 5 min during the period 19.00 hrs to 07.00 hrs the following morning In addition no
individual noise event as measured at the specified positions shall exceed 60
DBLA max. In each case these values shall be reduced by 5 DBA where in any
measurement period, any two adjacent one third octa band frequency
measurements differ by more than 5 db. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of occupants of noise sensitive properties within the locality and
to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact
of Noise) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
A traffic control
system shall be installed at the junction of the access road with the A3054
and shall remain operational through the period of operations at the site in
accordance with the scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and in accordance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for
New Development) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
[The use hereby permitted
shall not commence until space has been laid out within the site and in
accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority for cars/lorries to be parked, vehicles to be
loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn on site so that they may enter
and leave the site in forward gear.
The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that
approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
12 |
Access - junction details -
J36 |
|
13 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without
modification), no gates shall be erected other than those expressly
authorised by this permission/other than gates that are set back a minimum
distance of 18 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining
highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
14 |
Highway safety -
L18 |
|
4. |
TCP/26494 P/01647/04 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill Registration Date: 03/08/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. L. Frood Tel: (01983) 823595 Applicant: Mr D Holbrook Demolition of conservatory;
alterations & single/2 storey extension to provide additional living
accommodation 56 School Crescent, Godshill,
Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383JL |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
The Local member, Councilor
David Yates has requested the application go to the Development Control
Committee, for the following reason:
‘The decision to
recommend this application (the only one of many others that is supported by
the Parish Council) for refusal is inconsistent with previous decisions and
justifies a more in depth examination’.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which has taken 12 weeks to date. The application has exceeded the
prescribed 8 week period due to the need for committee consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to a
semi detached property in a built up area, located within the development
envelope of Godshill. On the eastern side of School Crescent, number 56 is one
of a group of properties in a circular formation whose amenity areas back on to
each other. The property is sited within a long narrow plot with 1.7m (approx)
panel fencing on each boundary.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None
DETAILS OF THE
APPLICATION
Consent is sought to
demolish the existing conservatory on the rear elevation to be replaced with
alterations, single/ two storey extension with a projection in total of 6.3m
off the existing rear elevation. The two storey element of this extension
proposes a 3.4m depth. and 5.8m width setting the east and west elevations in
close proximity to the site boundaries. The single storey element projects at
2.9m, with an inset off the western elevation reducing width to 5.2m.
Accommodation to be provided is family/dining room, and extended bedroom with
ensuite. The proposal is designed with matching materials and a lower ridge
than the existing dwelling.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is located
within the Development Envelope of Godshill
Relevant policies of the Unitary
Development Plan are:
S6 All
development expected to be of a high standard of design
G4 General
Locational Criteria for Development
D1 Standards of Design
H7 Extension and Alteration of Existing
Properties
Supplementary Planning Guidance- Isle of Wight Council -
Extending Your Home
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
National Air Traffic
Services raise no safeguarding objection to the proposal
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Godshill Parish Council
recommends approval of this proposal as it is felt the proposals are not detrimental to the surrounding
area.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
There are seven letters
of objection and comment that can be summarized as follows;
·
Extension not in keeping with properties in the surrounding area.
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The main considerations for
the proposal are the design and scale of the extension in relation to the
existing dwelling, the impact on the adjoining semi and general amenity of the
area.
The proposal presents a
substantial addition to the existing dwelling, nearly doubling the footprint.
It is acknowledged that half the increased footprint would only be at single
storey, however in consideration of the overall additions the proposal is
viewed to be out of scale with the existing dwelling, and the surrounding
dwellings in the area.
The projection of the two
storey extension presents an overbearing and unacceptable mass in close
proximity to the shared boundary creating a loss of outlook to the adjoining
semi, along with a loss of light due to the orientation of the property.
The overall scale in such
close proximity to the boundaries is considered excessive presenting an
overbearing and detrimental impact to the amenity of the adjoining properties.
With regard party concern
relating to land ownership, Certificate of ownership has been submitted with
the application.
Negotiations to overcome
the above concerns were entered into with the applicant and agent with the
option to submit revised plans for consideration. The applicant has requested
that the application be determined in its current form.
In summary, there have
been seven letters of objection on this application with one of support form
the Parish Council considered. The letter of support does not outweigh the
policy considerations referred to above.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to
the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the
owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the
rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I consider the proposal
would be an intrusive and unneighbourly addition, out of scale in relation to
the existing and surrounding dwellings and presents a detrimental impact on the
adjoining semi detached property and general amenities of the area. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Policy.
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The proposed rear
extension, by reason of overall scale, mass and position close to the boundaries,
would be intrusive and an unneighbourly addition, out of scale and character
with this and surrounding dwellings, as well as having a serious and adverse
effect on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of the neighbouring properties
causing loss of outlook, having an overbearing impact and would be contrary
to Policies S6 (Be of A High Standard of Design), G4 (General Locational
Criteria for Development) D1 (Standards of Design), and Policy H7 (Extension
and alteration of Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5. |
TCP/26498/A P/01732/04 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin Central Registration Date: 13/08/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Packman Tel: (01983) 823571 Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Matthews Retention of single storey side
and rear extension; raised deck area and screening (Revised Plans) 5 Avenue Road, Shanklin, Isle Of
Wight, PO377BG |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
The report has been
requested by local member, Cllr J Fleming as he is not prepared for the
application to be dealt with under the delegated procedure. There are two
reasons for this request;
It is a retrospective
planning permission that exceeds the cubic allowance for permitted development.
A complaint has been
received about the raised decking regarding the loss of residential amenity.
The raised decking has the potential to negatively impact on the neighbouring
property. Cllr J Fleming considers this to be an issue that should be
discussed.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which will have taken 10 and a half weeks to the
date of the committee meeting. The
application has exceeded the prescribed 8 week period for the determination of
planning applications due to the need for committee consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to a
semi-detached property within a residential area. The property is located in a
reasonable sized plot that that slopes away in a southerly direction away from
house. The existing arrangement already
affords a certain degree of overlooking from property to property looking east.
To the western boundary adjoining Milford road there is a 1.2 metre wall, and
on the eastern boundary there is 1.6 metre fence. The street scene is mixed
with a number of different detached and semi detached properties of different
styles, but generally of the same period. The dwelling to which this
application relates is built in a red brick style.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
The application has been
generated as a result of enforcement investigation.
Retrospective consent is
sought for the retention of a rear extension and raised decking built without the
knowledge that planning consent was needed.
The extension has been
constructed of red brick and has a slate roof. The dimensions are 5.0m x 5.0
metres square with a shallow pitched roof that has a maximum ridge height of
3.0 metres. To the west there are three Velux windows in the roof, a circular
window and a pair of narrow French Doors. The south facing rear section of the
extension is glazed with 2.0 metre high windows. The extension is generally in
keeping with the style of the dwelling and the street scene and is set some
300mm from the east boundary fence.
The raised decking
replaces an existing section of decking and is sited in an ‘L’ shape around the
south and west elevations, with a 1.0 metre handrail and steps. On site the
applicant has indicated that the new decking is situated approximately 200mm
higher than the level of the old decking. The application has been revised to
include a 1.80 metre privacy screen to the eastern side. The screen would span
the gap between the extension and the handrail and would be situated on top of
the raised decking. The screen is to be constructed of a white painted softwood
frame containing four translucent opal plastic sheets. The proposal will allow
light through to the neighbouring garden but would not allow people to see
through.
The site is located
inside the Sandown and Shanklin development envelope.
Relevant Unitary
Development Plan policies are as follows:
S6 – All development will
be expected to be of a high standard of design
D1 – Standards of design
H7 – Extension and
Alteration of Existing Properties
G4 - General locational
criteria for development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
None received.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
None received.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
The application has
attracted one letter of objection.
The resident of the
neighbouring property objects to the raised decking on grounds off loss of
privacy.
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors are
policy considerations, how the development will impact on the character and
appearance of the area and how the proposal will impact on the amenity of
neighbouring properties.
The extension, decking
and the associated privacy screen do not significantly impact upon the
character of the dwelling or the street scene. They are of an appropriate
design and scale and the materials match the existing dwelling.
The extension does not have
any windows on the east elevation and therefore does not present any loss of
privacy; it has minimum impact on neighbouring amenity.
Both the extension and
the raised decking are contained within the same application. The objection
relates specifically to the raised decking so attention should be focused on
whether the raised decking specifically contributes to a loss of privacy.
A certain level of
overlooking already exists on the site, this is exacerbated by a relatively low
fence on the eastern boundary. However a higher fence on this boundary could
result in the perception of the neighbouring property being too enclosed.
The main issue concerns
the degree of visual intrusion and potential noise activity on the decking and
whether this adversely impacts on the amenities currently enjoyed by the
neighbouring property. Without any screening there would be overlooking back
into the neighbouring window and an adverse impact on amenity.
The provision of an opaque
screen of acceptable materials would minimise the impact in terms of loss of
privacy of the immediate private area and impact on general amenity of
neighbouring property.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the
rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy and Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that
such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I am satisfied that the
retention of the rear extension, the raised decking and the proposed privacy
screen subject to conditions represents an acceptable form of development.
The scale and design are
in keeping with the existing and surrounding dwellings and with the addition of
the privacy screen the impact on the neighbouring property will be minimal.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reason:
The balcony screen on the
East elevation shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans
within twenty-eight days of the date of this decision and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area, neighbouring privacy and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The balcony screen on the
east elevation shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans (as
revised) within twenty eight days of the date of this decision and retained
thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area, neighbouring privacy and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6. |
TCP/26522 P/01694/04 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland Registration Date: 09/08/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. H. Byrne Tel: (01983) 823594 Applicant: Mr D C Keefe Alterations & single storey
rear extension to provide additional living accommodation; detached double garage 29 Summers Court, Freshwater, Isle
Of Wight, PO409PJ |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Report has been requested
by local member, Cllr J Howe as he is not prepared for the application to be
dealt with under the delegated procedure.
Reasons for this request are;
He considers the proposal
to be intrusive, overcrowding and doesn’t fit in with the original context of
the site.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which will have taken 11 weeks to the date of
the committee meeting. The application
has exceeded the prescribed 8 week period for the determination of planning
applications due to the need for committee consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to a
detached bungalow sited within a close of similar properties in Middleton which
is outside of the development envelope.
Property is sited within a large level plot that is well screened on
east boundary by dense natural growth, 1.8 metre larch lap fence on the west
boundary, bottom of garden is again screened by dense natural growth. The close forms part of a small group of
properties surrounded by open fields, however, the area is reasonably well
screened from all angles as it lies within a small dip.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought for the
demolition of the existing garage at the side of the property to facilitate the
erection of a rear extension and new detached double garage to be built within
the rear garden incorporating an extended driveway. The extension will have a footprint of 5.9 metres by 8.7 metres
and is to be positioned so that it will be 6.5 metres away from the adjoining
boundary and is to be constructed with a hipped roof, the ridge of which is
slightly lower than the ridge of the host building.
The proposed garage will
have an external footprint of 5.7 metres by 5.9 metres.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is located outside
of the development envelope. Relevant
Unitary Development Plan policies are as follows:
S6 – All development will
be expected to be of a high standard of design
C1 – Protection of
landscape character
D1 – Standards of design
H7 - Extension and
alteration of existing properties
G4 - General locational
criteria for development
TR7 – All development
will be expected to be of a high standard of design
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highways Engineer does
not wish to comment on the application as there are no highway implications.
PARISH /TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Totland Parish Council
consider the size of the extension to be overdevelopment of the site and the garage
likely to cause loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
The application has
attracted one letter of objection. The
points raised are summarised as follows:
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors are
policy considerations, size and design in relation to the existing property, impact
on the character of the area and whether adversely impacting on the amenities
currently enjoyed by neighbouring property.
The proposed extension is
of an appropriate scale and mass to the original bungalow and has been
sympathetically designed to reflect the existing dwelling in line with the
recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, the proposed extension is
well away from the side boundaries and the ridge has been dropped down so that
the extension appears subservient to the host building.
The proposed detached
double garage in the rear garden, to replace the demolished side garage is to
be sited near to the boundary. It has
been designed with a hipped roof on all elevations to minimise the impact on
the neighbouring property, the height of the garage will only be 2.5 metres to
eaves level and apart from the garage door there will be one other opening in
the form of a door that will face away from the neighbouring property, causing
no overlooking. In view of the
positioning and size of the garage, the resulting impact will be minimal.
The provision of a hard
surface within a domestic curtilage for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment
of the dwelling house is permitted development.
The garage will be for
domestic purposes only and will therefore present minimal impact insofar as
fumes and petrol smell are concerned.
The rear extension and
double garage will be barely visible when viewed from outside the site and
therefore has minimal impact on the street scene or wider locality
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I am satisfied that the
erection of the extension along with the proposed detached double garage
presents an acceptable form of development, having minimal impact on the
neighbouring property, street scene and wider locality.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The development hereby
permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of
this permission. Reason: To comply with Section
91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
The materials to be used
in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension and garage
hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
ANDREW ASHCROFT
Head of Planning Services