PAPER C1

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.        NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

           TCP/14672/E                              Mr & Mrs McMenamin, against condition number 4 imposed on planning permission for pair of proposed semi-detached houses. Disputed condition requires no car parking on the site at 24, Bank gardens, Ryde.

 

           TCP/24624                                 Mr S Peters against refusal of outline for detached house land adjacent 7 Station Road, Sandown

 

           TCP/13571/C                             Mr A B Scovell against refusal of outline for five detached houses, land to rear of 6-10 Landguard Manor Road. Shanklin

 

           TCP/24820                                 Mr Chandler & Miss Stewart against refusal for two storey extension to form lounge and bedroom at 85 Mary Rose Avenue, Wootton

 

           TCP/24793                                 Mr J R Smith against refusal for alterations to vehicular access and formation of driveway at 197 Mill Hill Road, Cowes

 

           TCP/19919/C                             Miss Godfrey against refusal to remove planning condition which restricts any vehicular access or hardstanding on site at 124 Gunville Road, Newport

 



 

2.        HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

No new dates to report.



 

3.        REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

           (a)       TCP/6956/E                    Mr Cox against refusal of outline for bungalow on garage site adjacent Fennys, Blackbridge Road, Freshwater

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 16 November 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 30 July 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The nature of the development and its impact upon the character and appearance of its rural surroundings.

 

           •          The impact upon traffic and pedestrian safety and convenience.     

           •          The effect upon and outlook of nearby properties.

 

           •          Whether the proposed development would increase the risk of harm due to flooding.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The proposal would be consistent with 2 UDP policies but contravene 2 others.

 

           ∙          The site already has the appearance of a domestic garden.

 

           ∙          The proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the surroundings.

 

           ∙          The proposed development would not unacceptably affect traffic or pedestrian safety or convenience.

 

           ∙          There are substantial hedges and fences between the appeal site and adjoining houses which would prevent serious loss of privacy.

 

           ∙          The site is within the fluvial flood plain of the western Yar River with a 1% or greater risk of flooding in any one year.

 

           •          No flood risk assessment was submitted with the application.

 

           •          In the absence of a favourable FAR there is justification of a refusal of planning permission.

            ..............................................................................................................................................           

           (b)       E/16040/G                      Mr W V Dempsey against refusal for the retention of a

stream culvert and Enforcement Notice requiring the stream culvert to be removed and the water course and its banks to be restored to their original profile and contours at land between 16 and 20 Church Road, Shanklin.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal and Enforcement Action.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal of planning permission and authorisation to serve Enforcement Notice - 16 October 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 31 July 2002.

 

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

 

           ∙          Whether the retention of this development would unacceptably increase the risk of harm due to flooding in the area.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The site is in a wooded valley where there is always the possibility that branches and other debris may result in blockages within a culvert.

 

           ∙          Blockages in a culvert of this length might remain undetected until flooding occurred.

 

           ∙          PPG 25 makes particular reference to the importance the Government attaches to acting on a precautionary basis when considering matters of flood risk.

 

           ∙          The development would unacceptably increase the risk of harm due to flooding in the area.

 

           •          The development would be contrary to local planning policies relating to such matters.

 

           ∙          Reducing the length of the culvert might reduce the possibility of flooding but would not eliminate it.

 

           ∙          The requirements of the Enforcement Notice do not exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach of control that has occurred.

           ........................................................................................................................................................

 

           (c)       A/2269/P                         George Gale & Co. Ltd. Against refusal of advertisement consent for a high level signboard with external illumination at Union Inn, Watchhouse Lane, Cowes

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 3 December 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           ∙          Whether the size and siting of the sign represents the scale and balance of the building.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The appeal premises are within the Cowes Conservation Area.

 

           ∙          It is necessary to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area.

 

           ∙          

The siting of the sign virtually up to ridge level on the chimney stack spoils the appearance of the building.

 

           ∙          The sign is awkward in relation to the design and balance of the facade and appears obtrusive and insensitive.

 

           ∙          The size and height is excessive and spoils the appearance of the building and its attractive setting.


.....................................................................................................................................................

 

           (d)       A/2244/A                         Arun Estate Agencies limited against refusal of fascia sign with external illumination, at Pittis, 15 High Street, Bembridge

 

           Officer Recommendation:      Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 15 February 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 2 August 2002.


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           ∙          Whether the sign is in keeping with the appearance of the shop front.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The size of characters used in the sign and their built up form creates an unnecessarily bulky sign.

 

           ∙          The sign pays no regard to the architectural design of the shop front.

 

           •           The proposed illumination would draw particular attention to the three dimensional characteristics of the sign and its disrespect for the design of the shop front.

 

           ∙          The sign would be harmful to the appearance of the building and this attractive village centre.


.....................................................................................................................................................


Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.