PAPER B

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 27 AUGUST 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

Representations

Newchurch Parish Council raise no objection but comments that "This Council fully supports the principles of the policy on which the grounds given for refusal of the original application at Hill Cottage, Hill Top are based, but comments that the application of the principles in that instance does not appear to be consistent with the application of the same policy and principles to another, earlier development within this Parish which was permitted."

Three letters in support of the application commenting the said property is dwarfed by other properties and extension will balance things out, property is largely hidden by trees, proposal will enhance the property in general appearance in the area, nearby Alverstone Garden Village are of a much larger scale and mass, visual amenity not a problem and would only be visible by walkers using the footpath, no adjacent properties within vicinity that proposed extension could impact upon, not over development or obtrusive.

Letter from agent, disputes both reasons for refusal, states that extensions relate comfortably to both building and setting. Design enhances the development and will have no adverse effect on the appearance of the AONB.

Letter from applicants disputing propriety of reasons for refusal, officer's description of access track and AONB Officer's comment relating to dramatic increase in footprint. Extension only adds 9 feet to a building which is currently 30 feet wide and therefore cannot be classed as overdominance. Site occupies large plot in isolated location and extension presents no impact on neighbouring properties. Extension designed sympathetically using same materials and addition of conservatory although not essential will have positive impact on property and visual amenity of area. Strong opinion suggests proposal respects special quality of the landscape without having detrimental impact on surrounding area. In summary, proposal fully complies with policies D1 H7 and C2, no objections were received only letters giving support.

AONB Officer considers the site is already quite visually intrusive and any extensions of the proposed size and nature would dramatically increase the footprint of the building and have an unduly adverse impact on the AONB. Whilst appreciating the points made in the applicants letter, this should not out-weigh the consideration that must be given to the proposals impact on the AONB.

Evaluation

Application relates to detached two storey dwelling sited within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Planning permission is sought for a two storey extension and conservatory. The two storey extension measures 2.7 metres deep x 5 metres wide and is shown to have a pitched roof. The conservatory measures 3 metres deep x 6.2 metres wide. The access track to the property is also a public footpath which runs on along the southern boundary and there is a public footpath to the east of the site. Letter from applicant accompanying application states applicant very keen to remain at Hill Cottage and that due to the current restriction on space, an additional member to family would make it virtually impossible for them to remain there. In light of previous refusal, double garage has been deleted from application. Applicant points out that any extension to the property would have no impact on neighbours and does not consider the proposal would be over dominant when you relate it to the plot size and adjacent land around it. Applicant considers that the addition of a conservatory whilst increasing the overall extension size would actually enhance the overall visual impact of the building. Willing to delete conservatory if chances of gaining consent enhanced.

Relevant history is application for partial demolition and two storey extension to unused dwelling refused consent in March 1996. Partial demolition, alterations and two storey extension, single storey extension, approved September 1996 at that stage surviving part of the original building was 45 square metres and the extension was 63.6 square metres. More recently planning permission was refused in January 2002 for a two storey extension and detached double garage on grounds of over dominant, inappropriate extension by reason of scale and mass being out of keeping with scale and size of the existing dwelling in this rural setting and therefore having a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area.

Determining factors in considering application are whether extensions are of appropriate size, scale and design to original property, whether they would have a significant impact to the detriment of character of the locality and amenities of adjoining properties and whether proposal has detrimental impact on designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Within the AONB planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

Relevant policies are policy D1 - Standards of design, H7 - Extensions and alterations to existing residential properties, C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In considering whether proposal complies with policy, it is relevant that the property is in a relatively isolated location. However, overriding issue is whether proposal is of an appropriate size, scale and design compared to original dwelling and whether its siting has an adverse impact on the AONB. Given that the property has already substantially increased in size, I am of the view that the proposal does not enhance the character of the built environment. In addition, development within the AONB is expected to maintain, protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape whether viewed from land or sea, meeting the highest standards of design and reflect local character and distinctiveness and the AONB Officers comments confirm the proposal being contrary to the AONB policy.

With regard to Parish Council comment referring to another proposal within the Newchurch Parish and consistency, it is relevant that a substantial extension in one way location may be acceptable subject to design and siting, but in this instance the site is in an isolated countryside location within the AONB.

I have considered personal circumstances of applicant and letters of support but consider overriding issue is primacy of policy. Personal circumstances of the applicant are not relevant to planning considerations. The main issue is the relative proportions of the original dwelling, the approved extension and the current proposal and whether this complies with policy. Records show that in 1996 the surviving part of original building was 45 square metres and the extension approved in September 1996 was 63.6 square metres; this represents a 141% increase on the original building. The current proposal is for an additional 45.6 square metres which is a cumulative increase of 242% of the original building. This represents a dwelling approximately three and a half times larger than the original.

The reasons for refusal recognises the cumulative effect of incremental development and the resultant mass of the building following further enlargement.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material consideration referred to in this report, I consider the proposal will totally change character of original property and presents an over dominant inappropriate extension by reason of scale and mass out of keeping with original and existing dwelling. Furthermore the proposals fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape. In consequence, proposal conflicts with policies D1, H7 and C2 of Isle of Wight Unitary development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

           Recommendation                 -          Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services