1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF DEVELOPMENT (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5. THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Legal Services Manager, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BRIGHSTONE AND CALBOURNE	Thorness Bay Holiday Park Thorness Lane Cowes	TCP/20324/R	2	APPROVAL
COWES CASTLE EAST	Yvery and Villa Rosa The Grove Cowes	TCP/11050/D	1	REFUSAL
PARKHURST	Land adjacent St Cross Business Park Dodnor Lane Newport	TCP/24949	3	APPROVAL

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BEMBRIDGE NORTH	Sand Cove Beach Road Bembridge	TCP/14239/B	8	APPROVAL
BEMBRIDGE NORTH	10 Nightingale Close Bembridge	TCP/24917	12	REFUSAL
BRADING AND ST HELENS	Isle Of Wight Wax Museum 46-53 High Street Brading	TCP/22055/C	11	APPROVAL
NEWPORT NORTH	Club Temptation 16 St. James Street Newport	A/02287	5	APPROVAL
NEWPORT SOUTH	Former Builder Center St. Johns Road Newport	TCP/12986/J	7	APPROVAL
NORTHWOOD	52 Venner Avenue Cowes	TCP/09491/J	6	APPROVAL
PARKHURST	Land to the west of H M Prison Parkhurst Clissold Road Newport	TCP/21617/J	10	That whilst no objection be raised to the proposals, the Prison Service be advised that certain issues should be considered before any construction on the proposed new prison site commences
VENTNOR WEST	Ventnor Botanic Garden The Undercliffe Drive Ventnor	TCP/21427/F	9	APPROVAL
WOOTTON	land at and rear of 25 and 27, High Street Wootton Bridge	TCP/00886/J	4	APPROVAL

Rectangular site having a 52 metre frontage onto Castle Road with similar frontage onto The Grove and an average depth of approximately 21.5 metres. Site accommodates two detached dwellings (Yvery and Villa Rosa). Adjoining the western boundary is a semi-detached pair of traditional Georgian style dwellings (Numbers 25 & 27 Castle Road) both of which have pedestrian access off Castle Road with vehicular access off The Grove, whilst abutting to the east is a detached property, Trinity House, which is accessed solely off The Grove.

Castle Road is an adopted highway with narrow footpath along the frontage of the site, and is heavily used for parking where this is allowed. The Grove is an unadopted gravel road which extends between Bars Hill to the east through to Castle Hill to the west. There is a substantial change in levels through the site with The Grove approximately 5 - 5.5 metres lower than the average level in Castle Road. Property Yvery has a vehicular access off The Grove with limited parking provision within the curtilage of that property whereas Villa Rosa has a pedestrian access only off The Grove. There is a preserved Macrocarpa tree in the eastern corner of the site. The Grove serves a number of properties, including parking for Osborne Court, and provides access to Trinity Theatre.

The area is generally characterised by residential development of varying ages and styles of architecture and providing a variance of accommodation. In terms of the street scene, properties east of the site on the same side as Castle Road have predominance of Georgian appearance and being split level in design reflecting the changes of level between The Grove and Castle Road. The most recent development in this direction is a terrace of three Georgian style dwellings located close to the junction of Castle Road with Castle Hill with those dwellings having garage access off The Grove. Adjoining to the south east are a series of detached dwellings all of which relate to and have access off The Grove.

In general the area is characterised by relatively low density development in the form of detached units interspersed with substantial buildings such as Osborne Court and Trinity Theatre. Members’ attention is also drawn to the recent development virtually opposite the junction of Bars Hill with Castle Road consisting of two groups of terraced dwellings with a new Masonic hall to the rear.

This is a detailed application seeking consent for the demolition of the existing dwellings and their replacement with development of a five storey terrace block providing a total of 14 units, as itemised below:

Six number 4 bedroom town houses including roof terrace with conservatory (Type A) five storey accommodation with access off Castle Road and The Grove.

Two number 2 bedroom maisonettes (Type B) two storey accommodation with access off The Grove.

Two number 3 bedroom maisonettes (Type C) three storey accommodation with access off Castle Road.

Two number 2 bedroom maisonettes (Type D) two storey accommodation with access off The Grove.

Two number 3 bedroom maisonettes (Type E) three storey accommodation with access off Castle Road.

The change of levels along with the double fronted nature of the site results in a block having a three storey height to Castle Road and five storey height to The Grove. Building is to be set back from Castle Road by 2.5 metres with walls extending out bridging the well to form porches. In terms of The Grove the block is staggered with three distances off The Grove which vary from 2 metres, 4 metres and 6.6 metres.

Block has an overall basic length of 43.5 metres with a main ridge height to Castle Road of 8.9 metres. A central gabled projecting feature onto Castle Road has height of 9.9 metres with the two end gabled projecting feature having height of 9.3 metres. In terms of The Grove block has an overall height of 14.2 metres.

Building would, in the main, be finished in a buff render under artificial slated roofs. Proposal does indicate a buff brick ground floor plinth on The Grove frontage to types A and B. The top floor when viewed from The Grove is in the form of ten number conservatories five either side of a gabled staircase feature. The framing to the glazed conservatories, doors and windows are to be finished in powder coated aluminium. Proposal indicates chimneys and the window designs are generally of a Georgian sash proportion.

The units themselves provide substantial levels of accommodation with, for example, type A having an overall internal floor area of 228.5 square metres (2445 square feet). Application has been accompanied by a full design statement which is attached to this report. The statement emphasises that the architectural design has been influenced in the main by the Nash houses to the west with particular regard to Castle Road. It also emphasises the role played by the porches and the gable features in breaking up the length of the overall building.

In terms of The Grove, architect emphasises the main feature being the roof terrace and conservatories although he points out that their visual impact is limited to views from the waters edge and the Red Funnel ferry itself. Purpose of the conservatories is to gain a sea view, not dissimilar to other properties within the vicinity, and by designing these features into the scheme it ensures a uniformity of appearance contributing to the overall design concept.

Proposal does not provide any parking facility which is in line with policies given the sites' location within Zone 1 of the parking policy guidelines.

Application has also been accompanied by a preliminary report on the stability of the site, summary of which is quoted as follows:

“The site is situated in a coastal slope complex and is likely to have been effected by past land slipping. It is considered that any problem of general instability can be overcome and that the development can be designed so as not to adversely affect or be affected by ground movement. However the design of the retaining wall will require great care and it is strongly recommended that it be installed within the pavement area of Castle Road if at all possible. Recommendations are made for the bore holes required on this site”.

Proposals for boundary treatment include a vertical wrought iron balustrading to the Castle Road frontage with a 1.5 metre high buff brick boundary wall with stained timber gates along The Grove frontage.

Landscaping proposals indicate the retention of the existing Macrocarpa tree in the south eastern corner with the nearest part of the main building to the canopy edge of that tree being 3 metres. Other landscaping proposals have been indicated along the north western and south eastern boundary.

Finally in terms of distances off adjoining properties, the minimum distance between the proposed block and the existing property, 25 Castle Road, would be 5.9 metres increasing to 7.8 metres in respect of the main block. In terms of the property Trinity House, which adjoins the south eastern boundary, the minimum distance is 4.5 metres which increases to the main block to 6.7 metres.

National policies are covered in PPG1 - General Policies and Principles, PPG3 - Housing March 2000 and PPG13 - Transport.

PPG1 seeks the promotion of sustainable development with the objective of achieving now and in the future economic development securing high living standards protecting and enhancing the environment.

Emphasises the need for a plan led system with reference to section 54a of the Act which requires that applications shall be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Appearance of development and its relationship to its surroundings is a material consideration with particular reference to design of buildings and to urban design.

Urban design is defined as the relationship between different buildings; the relationship between buildings and the streets etc.

Good design can help to promote sustainable development securing continued public acceptance of the necessity for new development.

Local Planning Authority should reject poor design which may include those inappropriate to their context for example those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings.

Weight should be given to the impact of development on existing buildings and on the character of the areas recognised for their value such as Conservation Areas.

Meets housing requirements of whole community including those in need of affordable housing.

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix in size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previous developed land within urban areas to take pressures off green field sites.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs education health facilities etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities within 30 units to 50 units per hectare which could be increased in town centre areas with good public transport.

Seek to reduce car dependence by improving linkages of public transport between housing jobs etc and reducing the level of parking.

Document does not advocate cramped development but seeks to promote good quality urban development.

PPG13. This document links transport to housing with particular reference to the important role the sustainable transport policies play and refers to managing travel demand with particular reference to parking issues.

Reference is also made to the DETR Document ‘By Design - urban design in the planning system towards better practice’, the aim of which is to encourage better design and to act as a companion guide to PPG's. Document refers to:

Scale massing and height of proposed development should be considered in relation to that of adjoining buildings; the topography; the general pattern of heights in the area; and views vistas.

The site is situated within the Cowes Conservation Area. The tree in the south eastern corner is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

Site is situated within Zone 1 of the parking guidelines policy which is described as comprising the town centre core areas of, in this case, Cowes. The guideline policy states the following:

Access to premises generally controlled by individual permits or statutory time restrictions.

Within easy walking distance of good (at least half hourly day time) bus services.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

Height and mass is over dominating from both the road and seaward sides and for neighbouring properties.

Highway Engineer recommends two conditions, one being a requirement for structural design of retaining walls to be submitted and second condition quoted as follows:

“Not withstanding the provision of any town and country planning permitted development order there shall be no direct vehicular access to the development hereby approved from The Grove without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority”.

Environmental Health Officer raises no objection providing appropriate works are carried out to provide effective noise insulation in accordance with relevant Building Regulations.

In general the panel were quite happy with the scale and the articulation of the proposals and were particularly impressed with the elevation to Castle Street which they thought most appropriate.

Nonetheless the panel express concern that this application had no car parking provision which was passed in accordance with the policies of UDP and felt that this would raise considerable congestion in the area.

Application has been the subject of twenty-nine individual letters of objection, fifteen from residents of Castle Road, four from residents of Bath Road, three from residents of The Grove, two from residents of Osborne Court and one each from residents of Granville Road, Egypt Esplanade, The Parade, Queens Road and Trinity Church Lane. Included in this number of objection letters is a letter each from the immediate adjoining property owners. Also letter received from the Isle of Wight Society, Cowes Amateur Operatic and Dramatic Society and the Royal Corinthian Yacht Club. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Proposal represents excessive mass and height leading to an overdevelopment and overdominance out of character with the pattern of low density development in the area. Particular reference is made to adverse visual effect on the Conservation Area and the adjacent "Nash houses" which adjoin the site.

Particular emphasis is placed on the impact of the five storey facade of the block with faces The Grove, particularly when viewed from The Parade and the River Medina.

Overdevelopment also reflected in the density of development with again, reference being made to the character of the area being mainly detached dwellings with the only example of flats being Osborne Court and The Gloster apartments.

Significant concern at the affect on the outlook from properties of another high rise mass block with reference also being made to approaching coastal views.

Second most significant point of objection relates to the failure of the proposal to provide any parking. The various issues raised on this matter are summarised as follows:

Type of development will undoubtedly attract high level of car ownership, regardless of the fact that the proposal does not provide any parking provision on site.

Any such vehicles will inevitably use surrounding road network for parking purposes placing considerable pressures on on-street parking which has already reached saturation point.

Particular reference is made to Castle Road which is regularly used by commuters to Southampton as a place to park their vehicles all day rather than use the Council car parks.

Already a high level of on-street parking by local residents takes place who live in dwellings which do not have parking facilities within their own curtilages.

If zero parking is to be pursued then it is essential that no vehicular access can be achieved to the development off The Grove which is incapable of accepting additional traffic in any form, being used to saturation point by existing residents including parking area for Osborne Court and access to Trinity Theatre.

The Grove itself has extremely poor access off Bars Hill to the east and Castle Hill to the west.

In summary, this is a major issue in terms of local residents who are all strongly of the view that development of this density without parking will result in very significant traffic management problems in the area, and as such is totally impractical.

A third element of concern relates to ground stability and the impact that a development of this size may have on the stability of surrounding land, with particular reference to Castle Road.

Particular concern at the impact and disturbance which will be caused by construction works itself with reference being made to the use of the Castle Road footpath from which the main construction of retaining walls etc will take place.

Concern that the construction works themselves will cause general disturbance through noise, traffic disturbance etc.

Important to ensure that no construction vehicles would ever use The Grove to service the site.

Letter received from English Heritage following statutory consultation with that Agency and a copy of that letter is attached to this report. Following receipt of this letter correspondence has taken place between the architect and English Heritage and reference will be made to that correspondence within the Evaluation.

Members will appreciate from the above that this proposal is contentious causing substantial concern to local residents. However, the proposal needs to be considered on the basis of whether or not it complies with policies and the issues involved are listed below:

Appropriateness of the density in relation to the level of development being proposed.

Design issues including height and mass, with particular reference to the site's location within the Cowes Conservation Area.

The implications of zero parking given the characteristics of the proposed development and the quality of the road network in the area.

Members will appreciate site represents an urban brown field site satisfying the description within PPG3 making it suitable for redevelopment at an appropriate density compatible with the need to ensure efficient use of such sites. This type of development will always result in a particularly high density, with this case being well in excess of 50 units per hectare suggested in PPG3, although that does suggest higher densities would be acceptable in town centres. Members will be aware that flatted development inevitably results in high densities when these are judged in terms of numbers of units per hectare.

I am not of the view that fourteen units represents necessarily excessive density. The test of any density is whether it results in cramped development as opposed to good quality urban development. The problem with the current application is the size of the units, particularly the town houses and the level of accommodation within those units which is causing the problem.

Size and density is inevitably linked to mass and height, and indeed architectural treatment. Members are reminded that the six town houses alone each have an internal floor area of 228.50 square metres (2445 square feet) with the other units, albeit being smaller, still providing substantial floor space. This size of units on a relatively small site has inevitably resulted in a mass and height which has attracted a considerable level of concern, not only from local residents and organisations, but significantly from English Heritage.

Because of the importance of this issue this matter needs to be analysed carefully. In this regard I intend to refer both to the design statement of the architect and the contents of the English Heritage letters which are obviously in conflict.

Because of the double fronted nature of this site there are in essence two mass and height issues, one relating to Castle Road and one relating to The Grove. The architect in terms of Castle Road, suggests that the features such as the porch entrances and the gable ends, particularly the central gable feature, "take the eye away from the actual height of the elevation." Reference is also made to the gable ends breaking up the length of the overall building. Finally, the architect states that "although there are no actual physical gaps as with the Nash houses, there are visual breaks between the groups of porches."

Not surprisingly, the architect does not agree with the comments of English Heritage whose principal concerns lay with the overall massing resulting in their opinion in a building that is crammed into the site. Particular reference is made to the oblique views and the bulkiness that results when compared with the prevailing character of Castle Road. Significantly the architect responds that the size of the side elevation is comparable to the Nash Houses and has produced photographs to support that. English Heritage however, continue to emphasis that the Castle Street frontage is essentially three storeys in its massing, a fact determined by the accommodation required. Furthermore, English Heritage considers that streetscape contribution could be achieved with two storeys although he would not rule out three storey elements, perhaps as pavilions.

The design approach in respect of The Grove differs from that in respect of Castle Road with the main feature being the roof terrace and conservatories. Architect suggests that these features give an opportunity to create a unified appearance, hopefully resulting in an attractive and exciting architectural design. Architect does make the point that the conservatories and balconies on the upper floor will not be visible from The Grove with their impact being from The Parade and shore. There is a difference of opinion between English Heritage and the architect on this issue with the architect suggesting that the rooftop conservatories are fairly transparent structures therefore giving the building a perception of less height and mass. English Heritage on the other hand considers the upper level of any building is important and should positively contribute to the roofscape panorama and topography creating an essence of visual stop.

Further issue of conflict appears to be the principle of two differing architectural approaches in terms of Castle Road and The Grove. English Heritage significantly state that in their opinion a more contemporary design approach may be a way forward ensuring that prevailing architectural patterns of both streets are taken into account. This essentially questions the need to copy the Nash building although they understand the contextual merits in doing so. Also they suggest that the development could be dealt with as two elements rather than one block. Although the architect acknowledges that this approach may have some merit he would still like to preserve the idea of a two-faced building that relates to the streetscape of Castle Road but has a different and more modern design opening out towards the Solent.

From the above Members will appreciate the subjective nature of design matters and it is not always straightforward to suggest who is right and who is wrong. It is also important to note that the Architects Panel support the proposal although the comments are brief in nature which may not reflect the level of detailed consideration that has clearly been given to the scheme by English Heritage. This apart however, the support of the Architects Panel does represent a material consideration.

The above has been the subject of negotiation and correspondence within which I have suggested a revisit of the scheme to address the massing and height of the proposal, making particular reference to reductions in the size and therefore accommodation of the units or a reduction in the number of units, both of which would assist in achieving such a mass and height reduction. This has not resulted in a revision with the applicants specifically requiring the application to be considered by Members as submitted.

I can only apply the current scheme against the UDP policies particularly G4 and D1. In the absence of any refinement to the scheme in terms of mass and height I consider that the application fails to comply with G4 in terms of harmonisation with its surrounding. I make particular reference to policy D1 which requires schemes to respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing. The policy makes specific reference to height, mass and density which is compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses. I consider the current proposal, whilst representing an appropriate approach to the development of this site in terms of basic policies relating to efficient use of urban land, its height and mass may result in a cramped and overdominant appearance which is not the aim of PPG3 and therefore fails to comply with both national policies and local plan policies.

In terms of the second issue of parking, I can do no more than confirm that the application, by providing, no parking is entirely in compliance with UDP policies. If anything this site is a classic example of the difficulties which are being experienced both nationally and locally to persuade the public to accept that there is a price to pay in making efficient use of urban sites to take the pressures off green field sites. This essentially can only be achieved either by reducing or, as in this case, omitting parking altogether.

Again I return to the density and in particular to the size of dwellings being proposed. Whilst I have no figures to suggest what the pattern of car ownership is in relation to the size and level of accommodation of dwellings, I have to acknowledge that the size of dwellings being proposed in this case is probably more likely to attract car ownership at a much higher level than would be the case if a lesser development were being considered, resulting in a reduced level of occupancy. The other strategy behind reduced parking or zero parking is that any future occupiers, whatever the level of development on this site, will be aware that there is no parking facility on site and this coupled with the lack of any available on street parking may determine the level of car ownership. Obviously the question has to be asked, would a family with a high level of car ownership be likely to purchase a property within the town centre which provides no parking facility whatever and has no immediate convenient public parking facility in the area.

Because of its general topography and relationship to nearby highways presents difficulties in providing even limited parking provision, even if it wasn't within the Zone 1 area. This situation therefore makes it even more important to achieve a balance between providing good quality urban development and making efficient use of land against providing a development which provides a level of occupancy within individual units which is less likely to result in a level of car ownership, thus increasing pressures on on-street parking provisions which in this case has virtually reached saturation point in any event.

The applicant has discussed with the Highway Engineer the possibility of limited parking off The Grove. However, not surprisingly the Highway Engineer has stated that he is not prepared to accept any increase in the existing usage of The Grove. The only other option would be to provide three or four spaces which would be the level of parking that currently serves Yvery and Villa Rosa. Existing situation on site is that the property Yvery is provided with on-site parking provision which possibly equates to approximately three spaces whereas the property Villa Rosa has no vehicular access off The Grove and presumably uses on-street parking in The Grove. There certainly may be justification for allowing a level of parking to serve any proposed development on the site which would not result in any increase in the use of The Grove and would equate to that which could be reasonably provided for those two existing properties.

I therefore consider that whilst the applicants have complied with policies in this case by not providing car parking, it could be argued that because of the overall size of the units and therefore the likely generation of traffic that may result, this is another pointer towards the proposal being overdevelopment. However, I must emphasise that it would not be sustainable to refuse this application on the grounds of non-provision of parking for it clearly does comply with the specific policies in this respect.

The third point of concern related to ground stability has, to a large extent, been addressed by the submission of a feasibility study. That study has been submitted by a fully qualified structural and geo-technical engineer, being the engineer who has acted as a consulting engineer for the Council. The report recognises the structural problems with regard to supporting Castle Road with the following statement being significant:

"Locally the main problem will be the retaining wall required to support Castle Road. After excavation for the development this retaining wall will be 6 metres or so high, perhaps 7 metres to the base of the excavation for the foundations. It will have to be installed prior to any excavation taking place. Suitable methods for the wall would include large diameter contiguous board piling, diaphragm walling or, if no significant limestone was found, steel sheet piling. Ideally the wall should be installed in the pavement to Castle Road. This would provide a good platform for the installation and ensure the best possible support for the road together with minimum intrusion into the site. It would however, need a road closure in order to carry out the work."

The engineer makes reference to an alternative if the above is not possible, with any such work again being carried out from Castle Road, possibly involving temporary road closure. If undertaken from wholly within the site then great care will have to be taken in the design of the piling platform and temporary works in order to ensure stability of both the road and the site during construction. Again, he considers there is no technical reason why this cannot be achieved.

Given this level of information I am satisfied that sufficient information has been made available to establish that the site can be developed without impacting on the ground stability in the area. Members are reminded that under PPG14 the Council has to carry out its best endeavours to ensure safe development both in terms of the site's capability of supporting the development and any impact on adjoining land, which in this case involves the stability of Castle Road itself. Obviously if Members are mindful to approve the application then I would suggest the submission of a methodology report to cover the construction of the retaining wall.

The existing properties on the site although of reasonable character are not of sufficient merit to support a case for their retention in the interests of the visual amenities of the Conservation Area.

Accepted that any development, particularly a development of this size and nature, will cause some disturbance to local residents. However, that is not a reason to refuse the application. Similarly with regard to the direction of construction traffic although where it is essential to prevent traffic from using particular routes the correct mechanism is in respect of a traffic order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act. It is hoped that when and if development takes place on this site it will be carefully managed to cause least disturbance.

The applicant has provided some verbal assurances relating to drainage. However, no written evidence has been provided regarding what impact this scheme may have on the existing drainage systems. Therefore, in the absence of such information I consider that this could be deemed to be an appropriate reason for refusal.

The distances from the proposed development to the crown edge of the protected tree on the site is considered to be sufficient not to threaten the long term retention of that tree.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider this proposal should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment by reason of excessive mass and height. I accept that the applicants have, through their design statement and subsequent correspondence with English Heritage, promoted the proposal as being appropriate for this brown field site. However, I would in this case concur with English Heritage’s comments reflected in local concern, that mass and height in this case is critical both in terms of Castle Road and views from The Parade and therefore, the proposal does not satisfy the test of preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area. I would however, suggest that the basic approach to the use of this site for more intensive development is the correct one but that the proposal needs to be modified to reduce impact and thereby achieve an appropriate mass and height which takes into account the topography of the site and produces a design which will contribute to the visual amenities of the area.

Whilst accepting the concerns of local residents regarding the parking issue, I do not consider that this is a sustainable reason for refusal given the prescriptive nature of the policy. This is particularly the case with regard to this site where, even if the policy allowed parking, achieving that either off Castle Road or particularly The Grove would be difficult. This to a certain extent is linked to the overdevelopment of the site for, it may be argued although difficult to prove, that smaller units will be likely to attract a lower car ownership and therefore reduce the potential pressures that may be placed upon on street parking.

With regard to ground stability, I consider the information provided by a competent engineer is sufficient to indicate that the site is capable of supporting the proposed development provided the appropriate precautions are taken in the construction work.

A substantial tourist site offering static caravans, chalets and support facilities adjoining the northwestern coastal slope, immediately north of South Thorness Farm. Site is divided into two distinct sections, the large static and chalet area to the east with a smaller area of concrete chalets and swimming pool building in the western part of the site, separated from the main area by a touring camping field. Site has established trees on northwestern (coastal) boundary and to the northeast and east, whilst there is open farmland to the south.

Approval granted in 1991 for 223 new and replacement static caravans, 24 semi-detached chalets to be constructed to the east of the perimeter access road running between the existing chalets and swimming pool and the tented and touring camping area and extensions to car park. This was subject to conditions and agreement regarding road improvements and infrastructure provision, triggered by the construction / location of new, rather than replacement units.

Originally submitted for the provision of 67 static caravans, 45 of which were to be located between perimeter the western boundary of the site and the perimeter roadway, and the remaining 22 on the western part of the tented camping field, in the area approved in 1991 for 24 semi-detached chalets.

Following discussions with officers, including the AONB officer, a revised plan has been submitted showing a reduction in the number of chalets to the west of the perimeter road to 42. The units would be grouped around four culs-de-sac off the western side of the road in the areas where the chalets and swimming pool building (all of which would be demolished) are presently located.

Significant new planting is proposed both to the east of the 22 chalets in the tented camping area and on the western boundary and to separate the groups of units around each cul-de-sac in the western section.

A comprehensive landscape plan has been submitted which shows new planting to comprise deciduous trees of selected standard (10-12 cm girth) and semi-mature (20-25 cm girth), mixes of semi-ornamental tall and low growing shrubs and native woodland shrubs trees and trees with shrub under storey, in various locations through the site.

National policies are contained within PPG 7 (Countryside and the Rural Economy), PPG 21 (Tourism) and PPG 23 (Coastal Development).

The site is identified in the UDP as a site for permanent holiday accommodation and as such, under policy T6, planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites will be approved where they adjoin or are directly related to existing built facilities, do not detract from their surroundings, enhance the environment or improve the visual appearance of the site and that new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area.

Site is within the AONB and heritage coast and therefore policies C2 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and C4 (Heritage Coast) will apply. Site is near SSSI, SPA, SAC and RAMSAR sites and ancient woodland and therefore policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9, C10 and C11 (Sites of International, National and Local Importance for Nature Conservation) respectively, need to be taken into account. Site was formerly ancient woodland and under policy C12, development which would result in loss or damage to trees, forest or woodland of individual importance or which contribute to the character or amenity of the area will not be approved unless the Council is satisfied there is an overriding need for the development and appropriate replanting is undertaken.

TR7 (Highway Considerations in New Development) indicates new development will be approved where it takes full account of highway safety matters. U11 (infrastructure and Service Provision) requires adequate services to be provided.

Calbourne Parish Council object on grounds of potential traffic increase, road upgrading needed, visual impact from land and sea and strain on sewerage and water provision. English Nature request additional information. Forestry Commission point out site formerly ancient woodland and semi-natural woodland no tree felling or land disturbance in area covered by tree canopy should be permitted. Discussions with applicants have led to AONB officer expressing concerns at density of site and degree of formality, proposed landscaping and suitable colour of vans is welcomed, and naturalised scheme rather than ornamental planting would be more appropriate and concern is expressed regarding light pollution and that low level lighting would be more appropriate. It is essential that both siting and design are sympathetic to AONB and further mitigation could be sought including a link to the coastal path.

Highways engineer does not anticipate a significant increase in traffic from the proposal.

Right of Way Officer indicates no direct impact but planning gain could be obtained from creation of possibility of link to coastal path.

Principal Planning Policy Officer suggests that replacement in principal is acceptable under tourism policy T3 but that design and impact on AONB assessed against policies D1 and C2 will be critical.

Isle of Wight Tourism originally supported proposal but expressed concern regarding loss of capacity if vans are to be privately owned rather than generally available to the tourism market. Further correspondence and discussion had led to the Head of Tourism suggesting that a conditional approval, requiring an equivalent number of caravans to the existing chalets on site to be kept available for general tourism letting, with a six week occupancy condition. Accommodation over this number should be restricted to holiday use only. This should encourage investment in the holiday park, at the same time protecting the total number of holiday bed spaces available on the Island.

Tree and landscape Officer is satisfied that proposed development and associated planting would be acceptable in landscape terms and would actually enhance the landscape and therefore recommends approval.

One letter received from resident of Harpenden (Herts) who owns adjoining land who has no objection in principle but anticipates problems with increased numbers through the amount of vehicles attracted to the site, problems at junction of Thorness Road and suggests additional screening will be required.

Principle issues in determination of this application are policy, landscape, ecology and access.

With regard to policy, the site is identified as a permanent holiday accommodation site in the UDP and therefore its development will be acceptable under policy T3, on a basis that it will be associated with an existing permanent accommodation site and that the Council is satisfied the development will be retained for holiday use. In this context, the applicants have indicated that whilst they would retain the freehold of the site and, in return for a service charge, undertake necessary maintenance and provision of services and facilities, the individual static vans themselves would be offered for sale to individual owners. This immediately raises concern that such vans might more easily be treated as "second homes" and not made available for general letting to the tourist industry.

The applicants agents have submitted considerable detailed financial and statistical information supporting their view that even privately owned static vans make a significant contribution to the tourist economy of an area. In this particular case, they suggest that the management of the site will undertake to advertise and let such vans for general holiday purposes should the owners wish and that many owners see this as a means of obtaining return on the original outlay for the van itself. Having said that, such vans are clearly principally available to the owner and the owners family, as and when they wish to use them.

There is clearly an area of conflict here and this is why considerable discussions have been undertaken between the Head of Tourism, Planning Officers and the applicants agent. It is agreed that the condition of this part of the site is poor and needs upgrading. The implementation of the 1991 consent was producing permanent buildings, but would not provide level of accommodation which todays holiday maker demands. Therefore, the upgrading of the site by the replacement of existing and proposed chalets by suitable located and coloured static vans is accepted, providing their use for holiday purposes can be assured.

PPG 21 (Tourism) suggests that the imposition of a condition on such accommodation that it should be used for holiday purposes only is an adequate means of control and can be enforced. However, such a condition would not prevent use of vans as second homes as the occupier would always contend that he is holiday. The Head of Tourism has therefore suggested a compromise, by which the 44 static vans which are proposed as replacements for existing or proposed chalets should be retained in the ownership of the applicant, whilst the remaining 22 could be sold to private individuals with a conditional restriction to holiday use. He considers that such a proposal will allow sufficient investment to upgrade the facilities on offer at the site, to the overall benefit of the Islands' tourism economy.

Turning to landscape issues, as indicated above, considerable discussions have been undertaken between the AONB Officer and the applicants Landscape Consultants, and the scheme has been assessed in detail by the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer.

The landscape scheme now submitted involves significant planting which is undertaken with specific purposes in mind. It is proposed that a dense native buffer screen, varying between 15 and 25 metres in width, would be planted to screen views of the proposed static caravans from the east. This would also provide a significant barrier between the static vans proposed for the western part of the touring camping field and the camping field itself.

The western boundary vegetation would be reinforced with native trees and shrubs and shrub planting undertaken to provide visual benefits to the internal arrangement of the park within a relatively short timescale. Tall semi-ornamental shrubs are proposed along the western side of the central access road to provide year round visual interest and screening with an avenue of native trees along the eastern side of that road. Ornamental planting, bollards, lighting and surface treatment will emphasise the entrances to the culs-de-sac which would be separated by significant planting of native woodland shrubs, together with individual oak and ash specimens.

A pedestrian link is proposed from west to east across the site with an adventure playground with appropriate screen planting, in the south western corner.

Whilst the AONB Officer is disappointed with the formality of the proposed layout and the degree of ornamental planting proposed, the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer considers that the planting proposed would not only be acceptable in landscape terms but would actually enhance the landscape. The perimeter planting will be of native species and the proposed density of planting will protect young trees from the effects of salt laden winds. The species reflect the local woodland and will mitigate the appearance of the caravans. The ornamental planting proposed is within these screened areas and relates to the locations of the caravans themselves where ornamental planting may be considered more appropriate.

The applicants have also indicated that they would accept a restriction of the colours of vans proposed to those specified in BS6770 (Exterior Colours for Park Homes(Mobile Homes) Holiday Caravans and Transportable Accommodation Units).These colours are generally blues, greens and browns and would I believe be appropriate for the area. The AONB Officer welcomes the use of such British standard colour restriction.

Overall, I believe that with the landscaping proposed and the colour restriction indicated, the proposals are acceptable within the AONB and that policy C2 and C3 of the UDP will be complied with in that the proposal involves the upgrading of an existing development, without detrimental impact on the landscape or coastline.

English Nature has indicated concerns which arise through the potential for increase in activity at the site. It is clear that the proposal concerns only the western part of the overall site and that, significantly, taking into account the loss of touring camping pitches through the substantial screen planting belt through the centre of the touring field, a significant increase in the number of people visiting the site is not anticipated, although I understand that the site will be open all year round. I do not consider that the proposed development is likely to result in an increased need for coastal defences in the area.

The Forestry Commission points out that the site was, at one time, ancient and semi-natural woodland but the development is proposed in areas either currently developed, or with consent for development. No loss of trees or development within the area covered by tree canopies of the formal woodland area is anticipated.

Overall, although the site is close to site of local, national and international nature conservation interest, bearing in mind its history and the landscaping proposed, which would lead effectively to the created of new habitat, I do not believe there would be any adverse impact on the designated sites. It will I think be necessary to ensure that any lighting within the site is properly controlled; this can be achieved by condition, if consent is granted.

The Parish Council and an adjoining land owner have commented that the access arrangements are inadequate. Members will be aware that improvements have been undertaken at the junction of Thorness Road and Little Whitehouse Road since the application was submitted and there can be no sustainable reason for refusal based on the inadequacy of this junction, particularly bearing in mind that no significant increase in the amount of traffic attracted to the site is anticipated.

Clearly then, this principle will apply also to the condition of the access road itself. Where this is within the overall Thorness Bay Holiday Park, it will be a matter for the site owners to resolve, but I do not believe that there would be additional problems in Thorness Road itself. As the size of the touring camping site has been reduced, it appears to me likely that the number of caravans or trailers attracted to the site will be reduced thus reducing the potential for concern that such vehicles generate.

The views of the Highways Engineer are that the development is acceptable and therefore I see no reason to refuse the application on Highway grounds.

Taking into account and putting appropriate weight on the issues raised in the evaluation section above, and taking into account approved development at the site, I do not anticipate a significant increase in the number of people likely to visit the site. It will result in the upgrading of a permanent holiday accommodation site identified in the UDP, and providing that the landscape measures submitted are carried out and that the caravans are suitably coloured, impact on the character of the countryside which is designated AONB and Heritage Coast, will be minimised. There should be no greater disturbance to the nearby site of Nature Conservation Importance and there are no sustainable reasons for refusal on Highways or access grounds. Approval is therefore recommended.

No development shall take place until full details of materials to be used for all hard surfaced areas, including access roads, raised pedestrian crossings and rumble strips, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such areas shall be provided in accordance with the agreed specification prior to the occupation of any static caravan hereby approved and no change to such surfaced areas shall be undertaken unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory long term maintenance of the landscaping of the site / development and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

External lighting required in connection with the development hereby approved shall be sited and aligned so as to ensure minimal disturbance to the character of the area. Details of location, height and luminance of any external lighting to be provided shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and such lighting shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details. No alterations shall subsequently undertaken unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained.

Reason: To minimise light pollution in the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The marine transfer facility (barge mooring jetty) operated by NEG Micon Rotors on the west side of the Medina Estuary, to the north of Ship and Launch House.

Maritime Transfer Facility (MTF) constructed following grant of planning permission in August 1999, at which time permission was also granted for NEG Micon's manufacturing facility at St Cross Business Park. This facility produces wind turbine blades, which are transferred to a barge via the MTF for transshipment to Southampton and export.

The MTF consent was subject to a number of conditions controlling the operation of the facility in the interests of protection of the ecology of the area, particularly the Special Protection Area for Birds, designated under the Habitats Regulations.

Consent is sought firstly to vary conditions 6 and 12 of the relevant planning permission and secondly, for approval of some minor amendments to the approved plans and operating procedures. The conditions to which variation is sought are as follows:

"6. The MTF hereby approved shall only be used for a period of 3.50 hours either side of published high water. The barge shall be moored for no longer than seven hours during a single low tide cycle or no more than twelve occasions during the period 1 October to 31 March annually.

Reason: To avoid a direct impact from the barge on feeding birds during the sensitive winter months.

12. Between the first day of October and the last day of March annually the barge used to service the MTF shall make on average no more than two round trips up and down the estuary per week.

Reason: To avoid a direct impact of the barge on feeding birds during the sensitive winter months."

The applicants agent suggests that these two conditions are replaced with the following:

" 6. The MTF hereby approved shall only be used for a period of 3.50 hours either side of published high water. The barge shall be moored for no longer than seven hours during a single tide cycle except in emergency situations during the period 1 October to 31 March annually."

"Between the first day of October and the last day of March annually the barge used to service the MTF shall make on average no more than five round trips up and down the River Medina per week."

The physical changes proposed to the MTF are designed to enable a second, larger barge to use the facility. These would involve withdrawing the two fender piles at the head of the MTF and relocating one as a single fender pile seven metres closer to the shoreline and adjusting the position of the crossover bridge to suit. In addition, an additional fender/guide pile to assist the barge in entering and departing the MTF is proposed to be located in the river estuary, 22 metres north east of the end of the northern arm of the MTF.

It is also suggested that the security fencing between the manufacturing plant and the MTF should be painted in a dark colour (preferably dark green) and that brackets should be placed on the top of the fence fitted with a combination of plain and barbed wire, in order to minimise trespass problems to the owner of land between the cycle path and the MTF.

National policies relative to nature conservation (PPG9) will need to be considered whilst the wider implications of PPG13, which encourage the use of alternatives to road transport, are also relevant.

The UDP contains the following relevant strategic policies: S5 (Proposals on balance for the benefit of the economic, social or environmental position of the Island will be approved, provided adverse impacts can be ameliorated), S10 (Development only permitted in designated areas of scientific, nature conservation or landscape value if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas), whilst of the more specific policies, G9 seeks to minimise adverse effect on neighbouring properties , C3 protects the coast outside development envelopes, whilst policies C7, C10, C12 and C13 all seek to protect estuaries, ecologically sensitive areas, trees, hedges etc. In its text, the UDP recognises the importance of protecting sites of nature conservation value from development where such development would adversely impact upon the reasons for its designation.

Of the Transport policies, TR15 indicates approval of planning applications for developments which will improve facilities for bulk freight handling and reduce road haulage mileage, providing highway, amenity and visual elements are acceptable. TR17 seeks to maintain and improve the network of public footpaths and cycle ways. Applications for jetties, pontoons and slip ways are referred to in policy L8 and will be accepted within the developed coast providing there is no unacceptable impact on other water users, ecological on other values of the site, views and access, adjoining land or hydrology of river flow.

Environment Agency has been consulted, but at the time of writing, no comments have been received.

English Nature advise that the proposed changes to operating procedures will not require appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations, and will have no significant effect on the features of the Special Protection Area / RAMSAR site and SSSI. Therefore there are no objections to the application being approved.

Highways (Rights of Way Section) advises no objection; increased frequency of operation will not lead to significant disruption to cycleway users.

A Cycle Wight Committee member agrees with transport of blades by sea, but strongly urges the Committee to impose the construction of a diversionary route as a condition if granting any further consents.

Isle of Wight Friends of the Earth have no intrinsic objection to the expansion of the site's activities but point out that those activities periodically interfere with use of the cycle path which has become an important commuting route. They suggest a condition that a bypass round the site be provided so there is an alternative to waiting for the path to reopen. The Council has ambitious plans to increase the level of cycling on the Island and undue obstruction of the single most important cycle path has the potential instead to reduce it.

The background to this application is the success which NEG Micon Rotors has achieved in its production facility at St Cross. A significant constraint on the business at present is the ability to move blades from the manufacturing area away from the site and onwards for export. The required turnaround cannot be achieved with the capacity of the present single barge, and the company wishes to order a second, larger barge, which will be able to transport the larger blades which are being designed and developed for export. It would also provide cover when one or other barge needs to be taken out of operation for service/repair. The new barge would be of a different design from the present "Bladerunner 1" in that it would be longer and would have a narrower bow, to enable it to enter the MTF with minimal alteration.

At present, two piles prevent Bladerunner 1 from entering too far into the MTF and affecting the crossover walkway between the two arms of the jetty. The proposal would be to remove these piles and replace them with a single pile, seven metres closer to the shore. The crossover walkway would also be repositioned between five and six metres closer to the shore. The bow of the new barge would then penetrate five metres closer to the shore, but the additional length would mean that the stern would project a further 20 metres (approximately) north eastwards into the estuary; its position governed by the repositioned fender pile 22 metres from the end of the northern arm of the MTF. The location of this pile has been the subject of discussion and agreement between the applicant's agent and the Newport Harbour Master. In physical and appearance terms, in my opinion these alterations have no significance.

However, the major issue in the determination of this application is impact on the European designated sites and the SSSI both through physical alteration and increased frequency of use requested in the variation to the conditions.

Whilst the views of the Environment Agency are still awaited, the view of English Nature and the Council's Ecology Officer is that the physical alterations to the MTF will have little impact on the habitat and movement patterns of birds in the area.

Under further conditions imposed on the consent, a monitoring exercise has been carried out by the Company, in conjunction with English Nature and the Council's Ecology Officer. As a result, high tide impacts have been demonstrated to be negligible. This is important because the proposal is to increase movements at high tide with barge movements at low tide avoided except in an emergency. Continued monitoring (required for five years from the date of the MTF consent) will occur, with the requirement that working practises will be changed if the monitoring exercise identifies specific disturbance to the bird interests of the Estuary. As an additional benefit, the wording of the replacement condition no. 6 will "hand back" the twelve permitted occasions that the barge can be held at the MTF during a single low tide cycle in the period 1 October to 31 March annually, because, operationally, this requirement will no longer be necessary.

It is my understanding that the monitoring exercises carried out have revealed negligible impact on bird habitat and movement in the vicinity of the MTF and, subject to the views of English Nature, Environment Agency and Environment Agency I believe that the increased operations from the MTF can be accommodated in accordance with the revised conditions proposed, without adverse effect on the reasons why the Special Protection Area for Birds and the SSSI were designated.

With regard to increased number of crossings of cycleway and footpath, Rights of Way, raises no objection. Friends of the Earth and the Cycle Wight Member's suggestion that a 'by pass' for the cycleway / footpath crossing be created was considered when the Technology Centre was approved, but land ownership issues, and the fact that delay to users of the cycleway / footpath are only 2-3 minutes at a time, meant that this was not seen as a major difficulty. Experience of operation and the views of Rights of Way Section confirm that delays to users are not a significant issue.

In respect of the other items raised by the applicants agents in their submission, I suggest that the applicants be advised that the galvanised security fencing between the boundary of the technology centre and the MTF can be painted dark green and that the provision of cranked brackets on the top of the fence to support additional strands of wire can be undertaken without further reference to the Local Planning Authority, as the total height of the fence would not appear to exceed two metres.

Having due regard to and applying appropriate weight to those matters raised in the Evaluation section of this report, I consider that the proposed amendments to the conditions originally imposed by the LPA on the MTF will not have significant adverse effect on the bird interests of the estuary and will not have significant visual impact. It will allow greater efficiency in the transport of bulky freight items by means other than road and overall, I consider the proposal in accordance with both national policy and the aims of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation - That the applicants be informed that the Local Planning Authority has no objection to the painting of the fencing between the production facility and the MTF dark green and that there is no objection to the provision of cranked brackets and wire at the top of the fence in order to provide additional security, as the total height of the fence will not exceed two metres.

In respect of the originally submitted application the following comments were received.

Parish Council object to application on grounds that proposal represented over development of site, proposal overlooks next door garden and use of existing veternary surgery car park could result in loss of successful village business. Furthermore vehicle users visiting vets would put more strain on existing lay bys in High Street which would lead to highway hazards for road users and pedestrians.

Veternary practice which operates from 27 High Street (within application site) considered development is inappropriate for site. They advise that they have long lease on property and require full usage of proposed development site as car park for customers.

2. Insufficient details submitted with application particularly in respect of size and details of proposed properties.

4. Detrimental impacts and over dominance given difference in site levels with adjoining property.

5. Total loss of customer parking space for vet practice which will cause more congestion in High Street layby parking with dangerous implication for pedestrians and traffic alike on extremely busy main road.

Revised scheme incorporating pair of bungalows in lieu of pair of dwelling has been readvertised and original objectors re consulted.

One further letter has been received from local resident raising concern over possible loss of hedges and screening to site and potential loss of privacy.

One writer advises that previous objections still stand in respect of revised scheme.

Parish Council objections remain in respect of loss of parking spaces, whilst Members note that their concerns regarding overdevelopment and overlooking have been addressed.

Application relates to detached property and its associated rear parking area situated on southern side of High Street almost directly opposite junction with Red Road.

Application site comprises detached building currently used as veternary surgery with residential accommodation above. Site is served by gravelled access road which leads off existing layby area to rear gravel parking area which is used in connection with customer parking for veternary practice.

Originally submitted application sought consent for two storey side extension to existing vet practice to provide one bedroom flat over arched way car park entrance and further single storey extension rear of existing commercial premises together with construction of pair of semi-detached houses.

Following negotiation with this office application has been revised to incorporate pair of bungalows to rear of existing premises with proposal incorporating seven off street parking spaces between existing and proposed development. Illustrative plans indicate three spaces will be available for residential accommodation above and to side of existing vet practice with four spaces available for customer parking. Other proposed extensions remain part of application.

This is outline application with siting and access to be considered at this stage. Revised plans show two two-bedroomed semi-detached bungalows sited to rear of existing development fronting High Street.

Bungalows will be located minimum distance of approximately two metres from east and west boundaries of site with distance to rear boundary averaging some 6 metres.

Given that site lies within development envelope for Wootton as shown on adopted Unitary Development Plan main planning considerations relate to more detailed matters of impact on locality and surrounding residential property in particular and highway matters together with potential loss of some off street parking.

Whilst land level of application site is slightly higher than adjoining residential curtilage to rear and side site is relatively well screened and revision of scheme to bungalows will substantially reduce potential for loss of privacy by reason of overlooking. Furthermore distances to boundary and height of the proposed structures will be unlikely to have overdominant effect on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers.

The construction of the two storey side extension and further addition rear of the existing premises are considered appropriate and unlikely to impact on locality or adjoining residential occupiers.

With regard to highway safety access to the site is gained via wide gravelled access track which due to construction of arched extension will be reduced in width and central parking area will allow off street parking for both residential units and four parking spaces allocated for the commercial premises use. Whilst proposal results in reduction of potential parking veternary practice parking provision is considered reasonable given type of operation and its location within village centre where proportion of customers will inevitably arrive on foot. Use of existing vehicular access to site is considered appropriate and has the support of the Highway Engineer.

Members should appreciate that whilst planning was refused in July 1990 on this site for terrace of three houses and dismissed on appeal current proposal involves lesser density and provision of single storey accommodation removing the potential for overlooking which was judged by Inspector to be of serious concern on previous proposals.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the evaluation section above it is felt that on balance proposal represents appropriate opportunity to provide additional residential units within existing settlements in accordance with aim of PPG 3 'Housing' and will be consistent with policies G1, D1 and H4 of the Unitary development Plan.

Eleven letters have been received objecting to the proposal with relevant matters being the size and design of the sign which is considered visually intrusive and inappropriate to the building and Conservation Area.

Members may be aware that a number of other comments have been received relating to the content and symbolism of the sign which are not material considerations in respect of this application.

This application relates to a projecting sign above the main entrance doors at Club Temptation which occupies the former Methodist church situated on the eastern side of St James Street approximately midway between the High Street and Lugley Street.

The building is within a Conservation Area, and although of distinctive design, the building is not listed as being of architectural historic merit. Consent was granted for conversion of the former church premises to a club in connection with the adjacent premises and the alterations to the building and use have now commenced.

The sign in question is of unusual design representing a serpent and an apple and is of three dimensional form projecting above the main entrance doors in the central part of the facade. The sign has the club's name "Temptation" in raised lettering, below the head of the snake resting on an apple feature situated above the doors. The main part of the sign is a grey buff colour similar to the stonework of the main building with raised gold lettering and the serpent is coloured blue and green with the apple itself being red.

Although the sign is of unusual and distinctive design, and although larger than the majority of signs in the area, I am of the opinion that it is not unduly visually intrusive or out of character, given the dominant nature of the building which, being a former church, contains no traditional fascia or display windows.

Under the Control of Advertisement Regulations, members can consider only amenity and public safety in the determination of the application.

Matters relating to the symbolism and content of the sign cannot be considered as part of this application and the sign is not considered to be visually detrimental to the character and amenities of the existing building or the Conservation Area and does not represent any hazard or highway safety issue.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the sign which has been erected, although unusual in design, is visually acceptable and would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is only illuminated by external spot lights which is a method considered acceptable within the published Design Guidelines for High Street Facades. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D6 and B6 and is therefore recommended for approval.

Highways Engineer recommends condition in respect of minimum of 1 metre high boundary wall adjacent 3 park spaces abutting the existing access.

Southern Water has made reference to previous letters in respect of previous application which they consider still apply however in specific letter of comment in respect of current application made the following statement:

"We have been in consultation with the developer and the discharge figure for the development have been agreed with our sales to give a 1 in 30 year protection against flooding."

Application has been subject to three letters of comment from residents of Wyatts Lane with points raised being summarised as follows.

Consideration be given to retention of existing trees and hedgerows with particular reference to a hawthorn tree on the western boundary.

Particular concern by neighbouring property regarding an existing greenhouse within her property which may be vulnerable to damage by location of the proposed garages.

Fire Safety Officer notes that the access road exceeds 20 metres in length and does not provide sufficient turning facilities for emergency vehicles.

Number 52 Venner Avenue and its curtilage located on the northern side of Venner Avenue having a vehicular access off Venner Avenue across an existing wedge of open space. That access situated virtually opposite the junction of Horseshoe Close with Venner Avenue. Number 52 is an established dwelling two storeys in height. Site also contains a small natural pond adjacent to its western boundary. Wroxall Close to the east and Horseshoe Close are characterised by high density development whilst Wyatts Lane is in the main of lower density development.

In October 2001 an outline application for 12 houses were submitted and were subject of an extensive level of representation and was finally withdrawn.

A second application for the retention of the house and pond and outline for 9 houses with access of Venner Avenue which included the wedge of open space as previously described was refused in May 2002. Reasons for refusal related to poorly conceived layout resulting in erosion of important green area and minimisation of adequate space of appropriate landscaping and planting. It was also refused for insufficient details relating to foul and surface water drainage.

Proposal seeks outline consent with all matters reserved apart from siting, means of access and landscaping. Submitted plans indicate the retention of the existing property along with the addition of three detached units to the north two having a north south aspect and one having an east west aspect. Detached units indicated are 'L shaped' and face onto and are served off an informal shaped access road served off the existing road crossing. That access road serves three parking spaces located in the south western corner of the site and two semi-detached garages and an attached garage to one of the units. Finally the proposal indicates the retention of the existing pond along with its environs. Finally the proposal indicates new and retention of existing trees along with additional hedge planting along the eastern boundary where it abutts the serviced access to property which front Wroxall Close further to the east.

Application has been accompanied by drainage flow calculations which I understand have been subject of discussion with Southern Water. These calculations established that foul flow rates are well within quoted figures by Southern Water whilst surface water drainage can be dealt with to ensure maximum discharge rate of 4 litres per second. This can be achieved either by pipes of sufficient size to provide storage with flow control being by way of hydro brake to ensure the appropriate flow rate. An alternative is a small underground storage tank which could similarly be designed to ensure 4 litres per second flow rate.

Members will note proposal represents a considerable decrease in density for that which was refused in May 2002 with result that the density has reduced from approximately 36 units per hectare as indicated on the refused application to 23 units per hectare as indicated on the current application. In the context of policies with reference to PPG 3 this is under the minimum 30 units as advised in that document however it does relate more readily to the pattern of development in Wyatts Lane which Members may consider to be more important than achieving the minimum density suggested in PPG 3.

Applicant has addressed drainage issue by the submission of a full drainage flow report and the comments of Southern Water are self explanatory. Again if Members are mindful to approve I suggest appropriate condition making reference to that report would be appropriate.

In terms of the pond applicant has indicated its retention along with a substantial area around the pond which will form an attractive amenity area for this modest development. The pond itself was the subject of a report in respect of the previous application which confirmed that there are no protected species within the pond. However I would suggest an appropriate condition regarding the ponds management etc.

Parking provision is set at two spaces per unit with the existing property having its own parking within its reduced curtilage. I therefore consider that the proposal should not result in additional on-street parking.

With regard to the Fire Safety Officers comments I have confirmed that another method of addressing access by a fire appliance would be to ensure that the properties comply with the maximum hose distance (approximately 45 metres) rather than revisit the access arrangements to ensure that it accommodates a fire appliance. Applicants have carried out adjustments to two of the units to ensure the distances between the front entrance doors and Venner Avenue are acceptable in terms of hose lengths.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider this proposal for a reduced density is acceptable in this case given the suburban nature of the site and the theme of established development in Wyatts Lane to which this site relates. Applicants submission of drainage flow calculations has adequately addressed the concerns relating to drainage which attached to the previous refusal. I therefore recommend accordingly.

Prior to commencement of work a detailed ecological management plan including long term objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for the pond and its surrounding area (# on plan hereby approved) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Any such management plan shall include for the planting of native species appropriate to a pond environment with any such planting being retained and maintained thereafter. Any species removed, dying being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years shall be replaced by a species of similar size as those originally required to be planted. The agreed management plan thereafter shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure long term maintenance to the pond and its surrounding area as an amenity and potential wildlife habitat in compliance with Policy D3 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Several sewerage incidents recorded in the area of this development with there being blockages which are not necessarily an indication of lack of capacity.

No surface water should be discharged to the public foul sewer in order to avoid potential flooding.

There is small surface water sewer in lane adjacent but unsure of capacity as it discharges into a highway drainage system. Existing roof and other surface water currently connected to combined sewer if this was removed would benefit and give capacity for the proposed development.

Council's Contaminated Land Officer suggests appropriate conditions should application be approved.

Environmental Health Officer suggests a condition requiring a detailed noise emission report to be prepared prior to construction work commencing in respect of the adjoining builders merchant and timber yard business in Trafalgar Road. Any works required to be carried out to ameliorate noise emissions should be completed before occupation.

Application is subject of two letters of comment and objection. One being from an adjoining property owner to the north and one on behalf of the local Scout Group. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Adjoining property owner concerned that he will experience loss of privacy due to proposed dwellings standing much higher than his property and garden.

Concern that overlooking windows may be inserted within the end elevation of plot 5.

Main comment relates to the need for a comprehensive scheme for the whole area which is served off the existing access with the Scout Group forming an integral part of such a scheme.

In view of the above, the Scout Group consider proposal represents piecemeal development.

Overall area subject of social problems, vandalism with Police involvement and is also used as a dumping ground. With all these problems being better solved by a comprehensive scheme which could be achieved by the bringing together of all adjoining owners to agree an overall strategy.

Detailed concerns relating to capacity of existing drainage systems to accept additional discharge.

Concern relating to traffic issues with it being pointed out that virtually all parents of the nearby Nine Acre Primary School use this access and parking area for dropping off and collecting their children.

Concern that construction works will cause some disruption to the use of the access by both parents taking their children to school and also the Scout Group.

Concern that there may be a potential for complaints regarding Scouting activities in relation to noise nuisance etc in relation to any new residential development nearby.

Application relates to vacant premises formerly builders merchant located to rear of residential properties on western side of St John's Road, Newport. Premises is served by narrow access road off St John's Road with that access road also serving similar commercial building to the south as Scout premises and a rough gravelled area which appears to be used for casual parking. Abutting the car parking area on its western side is a public footpath FP152 which runs in a north south direction between Elm Grove and Southview. Beyond the footpath further to the west is Nine Acres Recreation Ground.

This is the first application in respect of proposed residential development on the site. Proposal before Members seeks outline consent with all matters reserved for the principle of residential development on the site with application including the access onto St John's Road.

Proposal is accompanied by illustrative plan indicating a layout of thirteen terraced houses in group of five and group of eight. Group of five has a west east aspect whilst the group of eight has a north south aspect. Illustrative plan also indicates a new ramped access road which takes account of the change of levels between the main central access road and the site, with that new access road serving the new development and running parallel with the existing access road. Proposal obviously includes the demolition of the existing buildings on the site.

Applicant believes discussions relating to residential development on the site to the south (former Newey and Eyre building) and that an application is imminent.

Details of access road have not been shown as these could be dealt with as a reserved matter. Confirmation that applicant does not control land either side of the access therefore cannot be improved in width. Applicant understands that Highway Engineers welcome reduction in traffic volume and size using the access.

There are a number of significant policies both national and local which can apply to this proposal. In terms of national policies reference is made to PPG3 - Housing March 2000 which in relation to the current proposal emphasises the following:

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of green field sites. Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities of 30 - 50 units per hectare, quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

More than 1.50 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Document also emphasises the need for Local Authorities to be more proactive in the approach to facilitating site assembly. Whilst this is more in conjunction with their use of compulsory purchase powers the strategy behind the policy is to encourage liaison with landowners in order that suitable sites are brought forward for development and to secure a coherent approach to urban renewal.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

Reference is made to the recent Housing Needs Survey with a summary of the main conclusions being as follows:

Although there is a need in most Island settlements the areas with the most need are Newport, Ryde, Shanklin, Lake, Sandown, followed by Cowes.

A large proportion is for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two/three bedroom homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

Access and road layout implications and likely impact upon and from adjoining uses.

Members will note that this is a vacant site containing vacant buildings reflecting the relocation of the former builders merchants use on the site to Dodnor Industrial Estate. There is obviously no direct loss of employment given this relocation with the Dodnor Industrial Estate representing a preferred site for a builders merchants to the application site.

Whilst accepting that the builders merchants use on this site was well established, it was located in an area mainly characterised by residential development and used access off St John's Road which was less than adequate, particularly in terms of insufficient visibility.

The main issue therefore is whether this change of use from employment site to residential is acceptable within the policies and in this regard I refer to Policy E3(D) which covers the following:

The development involves the relocation of a non-conforming use from an unsuitable existing site.

I consider the replacement of employment use with residential is appropriate given the circumstances and therefore the principle of residential development as an alternative use is acceptable.

In turning to the wider issue of a comprehensive approach Members are advised that the building to the south of this application site, although still in use, formerly housed a similar use which has also relocated. Members are also advised that discussions have taken place with regard to the potential residential development of this adjoining site with the applicant likely to be a registered social landlord. By implication such an application is likely to be in respect of affordable housing both for rent and in the form of shared ownership.

The ideal situation would be for a comprehensive scheme being submitted covering both sites showing one single access road with dwellings being arranged to relate to one another in a planned form. The current situation in terms of the proposed access road to serve the actual site does not address the comprehensive approach for it indicates an access road exclusive to this site running parallel with the central existing gravel road.

Such an approach does not make efficient use of urban land and would not be in the interests of the future planning of the area. However, given that the application is in outline form only with all matters reserved, the Planning Authority have no option but to consider the proposal as submitted for there are no guarantees that the site to the south will come forward within a programme period. Given the type of application I consider it is appropriate to approve the principle of residential development.

Turning to the access, Members will note that either site has to gain access via the existing situation off St John's Road between nos. 1 and 3, Woodbine Villas and 34a St John's Road. This access is recognised as being less than adequate in terms of visibility however, it has functioned in this form of servicing two major retail warehouses (B8 Uses) plus limited vehicular access beyond (Scout hut). I am confident that if a comparison were to be made between the former levels of commercial traffic against the potential domestic traffic that would result from residential development it is likely to be very similar if not less. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of visibility this will lead me to the view that the access would be deemed to be acceptable to service residential development, particularly the residential proposal as submitted in isolation from the land to the south.

In terms of impact from and on adjacent uses, the levels of the application site relative to residential properties to the north will result in a development which will stand higher than the adjoining properties. The concerns being expressed by the adjoining property owner are acknowledged but can be adequately addressed at the detail stage with reference to controlling height and mass and potential overlooking windows.

The concerns being expressed by the Environmental Health Officer relating to noise disturbance from the adjoining timber merchants to the south are noted. I suggest that this can be adequately covered by condition and again, ameliorated through detailed design, particularly of boundary treatments etc.

The thirteen units indicated on the illustrative plan results in a density (48 units per hectare) which is acceptable in terms of advice contained in PPG3. I would not consider however, that the illustrative layout represents the best possible solution in terms of good quality urban development and would therefore suggest that if Members are mindful to approve, a letter to this effect should accompany that decision.

Members will note the comments of Southern Water which, although raising a number of issues, does not indicate that the site cannot be drained. Therefore, given that this is an outline application I suggest a specific condition requiring drainage investigation and calculation be submitted is sufficient in this case. If anything, surface water drainage should reduce in terms of impermeable areas and the more critical issue could well be in respect of foul drainage which may increase as a result of residential development. Either way there is likely to be an appropriate solution and it will be for the applicant to provide that solution.

The other issue relating to potential conflict between the use of the Scout hut in relation to residential is not one that has been raised by the Environmental Health Officer and I would not expect this to result in any major problem. Indeed there are many examples of similar facilities being located within predominantly residential areas and as such they provide a valuable community facility for local residents.

Finally, in returning to the issue of a comprehensive approach, reference is made within PPG3 to Councils using compulsory purchase powers for land assembly. Whilst I would not suggest that such powers need to be used in this case necessarily, it does suggest that:

"Wherever possible Local Authorities should work with landowners in order that suitable sites are brought forward for development and to secure a coherent approach to urban renewal."

Whilst this statement is made in relation to use of compulsory purchase powers it does indicate national policy emphasis on a coherent approach. This issue is raised for, apart from the Scout hut, the application site and the site to the south, there is a further area of land to the west which is gravel surfaced and used for car parking in part with the remainder being generally overgrown. It is across this land that access is achieved to the definitive footpath 152. The end result is a convenient footpath route to Nine Acres School from that part of the catchment area to the east. This would deem to be a desire line which should be recognised by any development and included therefore in any scheme.

Apart from this issue, it is the potential that this car parking area may have for further development and the resultant increase in traffic which could have serious implications with regard to the use of the existing access off St John's Road. Members are also advised that all the sites referred to in this report have been identified under the Urban Capacity Study as having potential for residential development.

The above apart, the current application is merely seeking the principle of residential development on the site with all matters reserved and therefore, it may be unreasonable to take the view that the proposal is premature and will adversely affect the future planning of the area. Therefore, I recommend approval to the application but suggest an advisory letter be sent accompanying the consent recommending that any future detailed layout of the site should have a road layout which serves both the application site and the site opposite to the south in the form of one single access road, with that road being designed in such a way as

not to prejudice the future development of any adjoining land. Also the advisory letter should refer to the proposals indicated on the illustrative plans being of an inappropriate standard, not reflecting the local and national policies requiring a greater mix and range of dwelling types and laid out to provide a sense of place and sense of community.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that as this proposal merely seeks a consent for the principle of residential development with all matters reserved, approval is the appropriate recommendation subject to appropriate conditions with any such approval not prejudicing the future planning for the area which is also likely to be for residential purposes.

No development hereby permitted shall commence until a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings and their gardens from noise from the operational activities of the Moreys merchanting timber yard, 43 - 54 Trafalgar Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those dwellings shall not be occupied until the implementation of all works forming part of such approved noise protection scheme has been completed in full accordance with all detailed components of such scheme.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of those dwellings and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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. Any such agreed scheme shall be carried out prior to occupation of any of the dwellings approved on the site.

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

2. Recommendation - A letter be sent to applicant providing planning guidance on the following:

Extent of degree of attenuation considered appropriate in terms of the noise protection scheme referred to in Condition no. 9 (see memorandum dated 25 June 2002 from the Environmental Health Department).

General arrangement and mix of development indicated on the illustrative layout not considered to be of a sufficient standard to comply with relevant policies in respect of good quality urban design.

Any detailed layout in respect of the development of the application site should be designed to be capable of inter-relating to development of the site which adjoins to the south.

This report was initially prepared for the meeting on the 12 March 2002 but was deferred following concerns expressed by the Technical Engineer regarding the location of existing drains in the area. Further investigations have now been carried out and it appears that the extension would be unlikely to affect this drain and the applicant has confirmed that no claim would be made in the event of any damage being caused to the extension.

Parish Council recommend refusal and comment that although the proposed extension is slightly smaller than that which was previously refused the same reasons still apply as the proposed extension would be intrusive, out of scale and character with this and neighbouring dwellings and have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality, and the proposed extension by reason of it's height and prominent location would be incongruous within the street scene, and contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Letter received from local Member objecting to application on grounds of visual intrusion and commenting that although the proposed extension has been somewhat reduced, it does not differ greatly from the previously refused plans and because of it's size and appearance the extension would be visually intrusive seen from the beach and the road. Sand Cove is one part of a pair of cottages and the buildings in the immediate vicinity are older properties with some historical significance in Bembridge. The modern extension could appear incongruous to the detriment of the character of the area.

Letter received from occupier of adjoining property referring to revised plans showing the size of the extension to be reduced and moved further away from the joint boundary fence, and commenting that they are satisfied with these plans.

Two further letters received from local residents supporting the application and indicating that the size, scale and design of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the cottage style of the property.

One local resident questions the ownership of the land which claims to be private property.

This application relates to one of a pair of semi-detached cottages situated on the western side of Beach Lane which is a narrow unmade track leading on to the shore at Bembridge Point, some 100 metres north of the junction of Beach Lane with Pump Lane, Kings Road and the Embankment Road.

The application property is the northern most house of a pair of semi-detached chalet style buildings constructed of red brick, and has a substantial garden area to the northern side abutting the beach.

The existing building has a single storey extension on the eastern frontage which is a low profiled structure under a shallow pitched roof and although this is in poor condition, it is relatively inconspicuous in the street scene.

The proposed extension involves the demolition of the existing single storey structure and construction of a two storey extension in a similar location. The extension would comprise dining room accommodation together with an entrance porch and shower room/utility area at ground floor level, with a bedroom and en-suite bathroom at first floor level which would be contained within the sloping roof. The proposals also include construction of a projecting bay window with a balcony above on the northern elevation of the new extension, together with a similar balcony above the existing bay window on the main property.

Members are advised that a previous application for a larger two storey extension in a similar location was refused planning permission in June 2001 as the proposed extension by reason of it's position, size and appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character with this and neighbouring dwellings, as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality, and the height and prominent location of the extension would be incongruous within the street scene and, therefore, contrary to Policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The refused plans were the subject of an appeal which was dismissed in November 2001 and the Appeal Inspector commented that the form of the proposed extension and link to the existing dwelling achieves the objective of avoiding the bulk of a large gable or hipped roof extending out at right angles from the existing ridge. However, because of it's size it fails to respect the scale and character of the existing dwelling and the proposed gable end facing the beach would be almost as wide and the ridge height almost as high as the original building. The Inspector therefore considered the extension would fail to be subservient to the existing house and would change the character of the building from a modest seaside house to a much more substantial dwelling. When seen from the beach the house would appear to have virtually doubled in size, and it's relationship with the landscape setting would be altered for the worse.

The plans now under consideration have been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous reasons for refusal of the former application. The overall size of the extension has been reduced and the design simplified to reduce it's dominant effect.

The revised plans now under consideration show an extension with overall dimensions of 6.5 metres by 6 metres with an additional projecting bay window on the northern elevation. The first floor element has been reduced and would be contained within a hipped shaped roof thereby completely omitting the gables on the previously refused extension. The extension would now be approximately 2.5 metres away from the shared boundary with the property to the south and would have an overall height of approximately 5.2 metres, which is some 1.4 metres below the main ridge of the property. In addition, the simplified design avoids the visual conflict of the second gable and results in an extension which is visually subservient to the main dwelling.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would still be relatively prominent in the locality as it is situated between the main dwelling and Beach Lane, it has been set back from the northern frontage to the beach and would replace the former extension which is in very poor condition.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, and acknowledging the concerns expressed by the Parish Council and local Member, I am of the opinion that the revised plans now under consideration show a significant reduction in the overall scale, mass and height of the proposed extension and a simplified design with the first floor accommodation contained within a hipped tiled roof which has substantially overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application, and would result in an extension which is visually subservient to the main dwelling and not unduly intrusive within the landscape context which were concerns identified by the Appeal Inspector. The revised plans are therefore considered to be acceptable in accordance with UDP policies D1 and H7 and I recommend accordingly.

Four letters of objection concerning the appearance of the sculpture, its location on a prominent headland in the AONB and the suitability of the sculpture's presence within a botanic garden. Additionally, it is cited as a danger to the public from sharp rusty edges and forms a retrospective planning application on IW Council land. Additional comment relating to the use of the land for coastguard helicopter emergency landing.

Two letters of support for the sculpture as it has created visitor interest and supports the use of the garden for conservation, public art and other public activities.

AONB Officer has been consulted and any views will be reported to members at the meeting.

Retrospective planning permission is sought for a six metre high metal sculpture with a base measuring four square metres. The sculpture is situated in the south west corner of the Botanic Garden close to the cliff edge and occupies a grassy clearing surrounded by trees and shrubs. The sculpture has been made from metal that for the most part has rusted down to a matt orange colour; the area around the nose and forehead retains a more shiny appearance.

While the sculpture is well screened from within the Botanic Gardens itself, its siting ensures that it is visible from vantage points around the Ventnor area, particularly from the coastal path south west of the Garden, Steep Hill Cove Bay and Bandstand on Ventnor Esplanade and from points above the Garden, such as from Whitwell Road. However, the sculpture has dulled down considerably to a matt organic colour and when viewed against a backdrop of vegetation the impact is not obtrusive.

The Botanic Garden is owned by the Isle of Wight Council and is held in perpetuity as public open space. As well as the sculpture, there are other examples of public art within the grounds of the garden providing a blend of plants and art and enhancing one of the purposes of the garden as a place of recreation. The sculpture has been likened to the imposing statues found on Easter Island and as such benefits from its coastal setting.

The Botanic Garden lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast designations. Policy C2 ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ seeks to approve planning applications where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and in this instance ‘ involves the low-key improvement of an area used for informal leisure and recreation’. Policy C4 ‘Heritage Coast’ states that the development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coast, however approval will be granted for development which facilitates improved public access and enjoyment of the Heritage Coast for informal open air recreation.

UDP policy D9 expects major developments to include in the scheme works of art, artefacts and other architectural features, which would be approved provided they make a positive contribution to the surrounding area. Although not provided in connection with a major development, I believe the sculpture does make a positive contribution to the area and therefore follows the spirit of policy D9 (Works of Art, Artefacts and Architectural Features).

With regard to the point raised in representations, I have been advised by the local representative of HM Coastguard that the Botanic Gardens is not a specific location identified for helicopter landing. Aircraft are more likely to winch people up rather land; there is space next door at the cricket pitch to land/winch. Most landings take place at St. Boniface Down.

The sculpture is of an unusual nature and as a piece of public art will always attract both appreciation and criticism. Although visible from outside the Botanic Garden, the sculpture in my view makes a positive contribution to the enjoyment of the area for recreation and given the dull organic colour of the structure, it is considered that it does not currently have an unduly adverse impact on the local landscape. Despite this it is considered that a temporary permission should be given to ensure that if the condition of the sculpture should deteriorate, its retention can be reviewed.

Having given due regard and considerations outlined in this report, it is considered that the sculpture is acceptable in this location on a temporary basis and the impact on the character of the area will be neutral.

This application has been submitted under circular 18/84 and is before this Committee for comment.

Highways Engineer considers application acceptable provided new access road and junction are constructed. This would involve land outside the application site at present.

Contaminated Land Officer has no adverse comments to make regarding contamination issues. Does point out that burial ground shown on part of site, but this appears to have been disused since at least 1909.

A resident of Cowes suggests that another prison is completely unnecessary use of valuable limited land, destroying Garden Isle scenery and wildlife. Additional residential accommodation will be required for employees etc who are likely to come from mainland. Island is rapidly being estate/high rise covered like rest of UK trying to keep up with local needs, without developing need for more. More people will mean more traffic onto the Island's limited road quality and capacity with additional pollution. Island is becoming overdeveloped no different from any built-up mainland town, to detriment of vital tourist industry.

Rectangular site some 400 metres by 100 metres, to west of Parkhurst Prison and north east of Camphill Prison. Adjoined to north by Parkhurst Prison farm and to south by Clissold Road. Site slopes downwards to south and is surrounded by a substantial fence; southern part occupied by car park and open countryside to west.

Application also proposes realignment of Clissold Road to form new junction with Parkhurst Road, some 80 metres south of Lonsdale Avenue.

Majority of site was subject of a Circular 18/84 approach in 1997, for a new prison to accommodate up to 416 inmates in eight living units, supported by community centre and chapel, workshops and entry building with two sports pitches at northern end of complex. The Isle of Wight Council raised no objection to that proposal providing that landscaping be provided, the external walls of the buildings be finished in dark brown, there should be additional solid perimeter fencing, particularly to the south and west, and that care be taken in respect of position of any floodlights.

Current proposal seeks to accommodate up to 500 inmates, and also includes an on-site kitchen together with workshops, gym, multifaith building, education, medical and reception facilities, separate visitors centre and work department and two five-a-side all-weather pitches. The secure perimeter fence would consist of double 5.2 metre high fence, clad to 2.4 metres. The two five-a-side pitches are proposed in the northern part of the site; the eight L-shaped accommodation buildings, in four groups of two, each creating a central courtyard would adjoin to the south and with walls and roofing material to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Drawings show the two-storey buildings to be some 50 metres long by 10 metres wide with pitched roof and single storey "return" element to create courtyard. To the south are shown a single storey workshop building (50 metres by 30 metres) and the main facilities building, including kitchen, education, fitness, multifaith etc. facilities enclosed within the secure compound, which is to measure some 290 metres by 170 metres. This building again would be no more than two storeys, the finish materials to be agreed. All buildings would have typical prison appearance, with small windows and a strong element of symmetry.

Visitors and staff car parking are proposed between the southern perimeter fence and Clissold Road with landscaping and a visitors centre and works department/compound if required.

The new road arrangements are the same as those put forward in connection with the development of parts of the overall prison estate.

In supporting information, the Prison Service points out that the prison population in England and Wales has risen significantly over recent months and on 14 June was 71,013. It is expected that this will continue to rise. In order to accommodate demand for extra places, new prisons are being constructed but the quickest way is to provide additional accommodation on land already owned by the Prison Service. The site under consideration already has clearance for an establishment holding 416 prisoners but the revised scheme increases places to 500 and includes an on-site kitchen, rather than feeding prisoners from Parkhurst kitchens which was originally proposed.

Site is within the development envelope for Newport defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and as such the proposal is acceptable in policy terms, subject to the detailed policies of the Plan. There will be employment opportunities and the proposal accords with the strategic policies of the UDP, particularly S1 (New Development Within Existing Urban Areas), S3 (New Large Scale Development in or Adjacent to Defined Development Envelope of (interalia) Newport), S5 (Development on Balance for Overall Benefit of the Island). Other relevant policies will be D1 (Standards of Design), D14 (Light Spillage), E1 (Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses), and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development).

Bearing in mind this proposal seeks comments from, rather than determination by, the Local Planning Authority, the main issues to consider are in my view, appearance (including perimeter fencing), infra-structure (roads and drainage), lighting and road improvements.

The submitted drawings indicate that external materials will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and it should be made clear that such agreement must be before any work commences. In general, the scale and nature of buildings will not be out of keeping in the area and although likely to be visible from Noke Common, would not in my opinion appear out of place. However landscaping will be necessary in the areas between the site boundaries and the perimeter fence, and in the car park and facilities buildings in the south of the site.

Roads and drainage have been an issue in the area for some time. The Prison Service has included in the application the improvements previously suggested to the junction of Clissold Road with Parkhurst Road which were agreed to be provided in conjunction with the residential development of parts of the prison estate. Given the urgency of provision of the prisoner spaces now proposed, and the Prison Service's willingness to bring forward these road improvements, necessary to serve the 500 space prison and its staff, I consider this is an opportunity to bring these improvements forward more quickly than might otherwise have been the case. It should therefore be made clear in the Council's comments to the Prison Service, that the road layout shown on the submitted drawings for the new roads proposed to create a safe junction onto Parkhurst Road must be carried out prior to the prison being brought into use.

Similarly, as far as drainage is concerned, the comments previously made regarding additional facilities at Albany Prison, should be put forward once again to the Prison Service. This will help to ensure that the infra-structure facilities required for the new prison are in place before it is brought into use.

The lower 2.4 metres of the perimeter fence are proposed to be of solid construction, although no details are submitted. The Council should be given the opportunity to comment on the colour and nature of the solid perimeter fencing, prior to it being installed on site.

Finally, there would clearly be an implication for lighting at the site and the Council should ask the Prison Service to ensure that any floodlights are positioned and aligned so as to minimise any additional light pollution which may arise from the facility.

Paying due regard to the material considerations included in the Evaluation section of this report, it is considered that no objection should be raised to the proposal, but that the Prison Service be advised that the Local Planning Authority will wish for matters such as external materials, road access and drainage improvements, materials for security fence and minimising light pollution will need to be discussed and agreed with the Local Planning Authority before any construction is undertaken.

Recommendation - That whilst no objection be raised to the proposals, the Prison Service be advised that the following issues should be considered and resolved before any construction on the proposed new prison commences.

1. Prior to the prison being brought into operational use, extensive landscaping be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with such landscaping as may be provided being suitably maintained during the first five years from the date of planting.

2. That the external materials of the proposed new buildings shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to any construction work commencing.

3. That full details of the nature and colour of the solid security fencing proposed shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to construction commencing on site.

4. That the proposed new road access, including realignment and construction of new road lengths to divert traffic from Clissold Road to the proposed new access junction onto Parkhurst Road shall be constructed in accordance with details to be agreed with the Isle of Wight Council and completed and available for use before the proposed new prison is brought into use.

5. The Prison Service be advised that the issue of foul drainage be investigated with a view to establishing available capacity to service the proposal and that consultations with the Environment Agency and Southern water be carried out.

6. That any external lighting required in connection with the facility shall be sited and aligned so as to ensure minimal disturbance to the character of the area.

7. That records show the existence of a burial ground on part of the site identified in the accompanying plan, but that this appears to have been disused since at least 1909.

Brading Town Council strongly oppose on grounds of the narrowness of Quay Lane which is suitable only for single file traffic; poor visibility especially when leaving Quay Lane pointing out that ingress and egress to and from Quay Lane already presents traffic problems even though the road is used mostly by residents and any increased use would increase hazards to both highway users and pedestrians.

Letter from one local resident objecting on grounds of inadequate access, increased traffic congestion and traffic danger, possible damage to listed buildings, increased congestion and pollution.

Letter from warden of the St. Marys' Church raising concern over any alterations which might lead to damage or proposals to make physical changes.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved and in an explanatory memorandum points out that his recommendation is made in the knowledge that the introduction of the 20 mile an hour speed limit through Brading High Street means that visibility can now be provided in accordance with design guidance. Signs at the entrance to Quay Lane indicate that the road is not suitable for coaches and that alternative coach parking is available close by points out that the two way movement of private cars and minibuses is now acceptable from the Wax Museum car park and the non-return flaps and associated signage can be removed so long as a barrier is erected between the wax museum car park and the public house car park in order to prevent a through route but such barriers should be positioned so as not to affect the public footpath.

In December 1996 planning consent was granted for the change of use of numbers 52-55 High Street for use as craft workshops and for a new retail building following the linking of the Wax Museum and the Bugle Public House. This was approved subject to conditions which were varied by a later application in June 1998 limiting the use of the existing access in to Quay Lane as a secondary access only and preventing vehicles exiting through that entrance into Quay Lane. Signage and non-return flaps were to be installed to facilitate these restrictions.

It appears that the two business premises, the Wax Museum and the Bugle Public House are being separated and a return to the former regime is requested. Whilst this may be regarded as a retrograde step, allowing vehicles to enter and leave the Wax Museum car park via Quay Lane, the Highway Engineer has shown that, due to the imposition of the 20 mile an hour speed limit through Brading High Street visibility will be acceptable and that had the reduced speed limit not been imposed, refusal would have been recommended.

Under the circumstances it would appear that as the two business concerns are being separated, the reversion to the previous regime will probably be an improvement since traffic speeds are now lower and therefore hazards are reduced. Approval is recommended.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the determining factors in the evaluation section above it is considered that the variation of the conditions as proposed would be acceptable and in line with policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval subject to a 106 Agreement to prevent sale of the annexed accommodation as a separate property.

Two letters of support from general practitioner and occupational therapist which details applicants medical condition and requests sympathetic and due consideration be given as proposal will improve quality of life considerably and enable sufficient room for maneuverability.

Application relates to detached dwelling in cul-de-sac location at Nightingale Close, Bembridge. The permission is sought for single storey extension to form annexed accommodation at the rear of the property measuring 7.8 metres wide projecting 9 metres off the back wall with a pitched roof of maximum height of 4 metres. Materials are shown to match the existing dwelling. Internal arrangement of accommodation is to incorporate bedroom and en-suite, sitting room and utility room sharing dining and kitchen facilities with the main house. Applicant is registered disabled person and application is to provide improved and accessible accommodation. There is a mix of properties in the locality and the application site itself benefits from a large rear garden.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposed annexe is of appropriate size, scale and design to original property and whether it would have a significant impact to the detriment of the character of the locality and amenities of adjoining residential properties. Annexed accommodation should be easily incorporated into the main house when no longer required and not capable of being sold off separately. The following policies are considered relevant;

Strategic Policy S6. G1 - Development envelopes; D1 - Standards of design; H7 - Extensions and alterations.

Due to size of proposal, case officer has endeavoured to seek reduction in depth of proposal 2.5 metres. Applicant has requested application be processed as submitted as size submitted is necessary to allow easy maneuverability and wheelchair access. It is relevant that the neighbouring property to the east is set further back than the application site property and therefore the proposed extension will not project any further back than this property. Furthermore, the property sited to the west of the application site has a detached garage close to the boundary. In terms of street scene, proposal presents no adverse impact and given distance from boundaries, siting of neighbouring properties, size of plot, I am satisfied that the proposal presents minimal impact on amenities of area. However it remains important to establish that any extension should relate to the original dwelling whether it is being used as an annexe or not. The extension is 9 metres deep and 7.8 metres wide which effectively doubles the habitable floor area shown on the submitted plans. A reduction of 2.5 metres was requested but not taken on board.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered proposal does not accord with policies S6, D1 and H7.

To consider what action should be taken, if any, in respect of an unauthorised addition to Essex Cottage, above thatched ridge level, taking the form of a thatched kangaroo.

This matter was due to be considered as an item of Urgent Business at the meeting held on Tuesday 6 August 2002. At the request of the Local Member, following consultations with both the Chairman of this Committee and the Leader of the Council, it was decided that the matter should be deferred until this meeting.

Members will be familiar with Essex Cottage which is a commercial premises, as well as a Grade II listed building, situated within the designated Conservation Area for Godshill.

In April 2001, planning permission and Listed Building Consent was granted for the replacement of the former slate roof with a thatched roof.

Upon completion of the thatched roof, it was brought to our attention that a feature thatched kangaroo, approximately 1.0m in height, had been affixed to the new ridge line, clearly visible from a number of vantage points in the village. Several weeks ago the Parish Council wrote to the Conservation Officer in the following terms:-

“......the Parish Councillors received numerous complaints about the very large kangaroo that has recently appeared on the thatched roof of Essex Cottage. It is strongly felt that is not at all in keeping with an English country village, even though the owners of the property may be Australian.

We are not sure whether planning permission is required or if it falls under your auspices, but we would be most grateful if you could investigate and take what action you deemed fit”.

We have established that the placement of the thatched kangaroo on the ridge line of this premises requires the benefit of retrospective listed building consent and planning permission if it is to be retained.

The owners of the property have been advised accordingly and invited to submit retrospective applications. They have indicated that in their view this should not be necessary because they believe that the thatched kangaroo is not unauthorised and is covered by the listed building consent and the planning permission granted for the new thatched roof in April 2001. As I understand the situation, they have declined to make retrospective applications.

Details of the thatched kangaroo were not submitted with the applications last year, and while it may be customary for thatchers to leave their “signature” on their work, invariably in the style of a small rodent or bird, it is my view that the scale and position of these works materially affect the character of the property as a building of special architectural or historic interest, requiring the benefit of listed building consent.

It has to be said that this view is in conflict with the opinion of the Guild of Straw Craftsmen who consider that “straw ornaments are a great part of British tradition and have been recorded as far back as the 17^th century”. On the question as to whether the feature or ornament requires the benefit of Listed Building consent and/or planning permission they say that: “Whilst planning approval is understandably necessary when replacing the thatch roof of a Listed Building, the choice of roof ornamentation is surely that of the owner.” The author of the letter who is the Historian and Archivist for the Guild seems to be under the impression that the owners of the property have been asked to remove the ornamentation as it was erected without formal consent. This is not correct but if Members decided to take action to enforce its removal they should be aware of the following additional observations:

“…. it cannot be regarded as an ugly piece of modern art – it is an example of a very traditional form of craftsmanship which is part of our heritage. Surely it would be problematic to justify an enforcement order for its removal, since it is difficult to conceive of any actual harm it is causing in this picturesque and popular village.”

1. That the Committee formally request the owners of the property to submit retrospective applications for listed building and planning permission for the retention of the thatched feature.

2.That the Committee formally request the owners of the property make arrangements for the removal of the thatched feature within seven days. Failure to comply would result in the prompt service of a listed building enforcement notice and an enforcement notice.

3. That the Committee give immediate authorisation for the service of a listed building enforcement notice and an enforcement notice, requiring the removal of the thatched feature with a compliance period of one month.

4. That the Committee decide that, in their view, there is no sustainable objection to the retention of the thatched feature and while not condoning its unauthorised placement on the roof of the building, they resolve to take no further action, advising the owners of the property accordingly.

Members will be aware that this particular matter has been the subject of local, and indeed national, publicity. Consequently it is my view and the view of the Chairman of the Development Control Committee that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, should give an early and firm indication as to what action will be taken in respect of this unauthorised thatched feature.

In the policy context, Members should be aware of the advice and guidance contained in PPG15 (Planning & the Historic Environment) which make a number of pertinent references to Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 16 and 66 of the Act require Authorities considering applications for planning permission or listed building consent for works which affect a listed building to have special regard to certain matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building. In terms of the general criteria, paragraph 3.5(iv) refers to the extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community, in particular by contributing to the economic regeneration of the area or the enhancement of its environment. Section 72 of the Act requires that special attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The national guidance is reflected in local planning policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan, specifically:

Section 8 (3) of the Act allows listed building consent to be sought even though the works have already been completed. Applications for consent to retain such work should follow the same procedures as other listed building consent applications and should contain sufficient information. The Local Planning Authority should not grant consent merely to recognise a “fait accompli”; they should consider whether they would have granted consent for the works had it been sought before they were carried out, while having regard to any subsequent matters which may be relevant. If the work is carried out without consent, a Local Planning Authority can issue a Listed Building Enforcement Notice. Members are reminded that it is a criminal offence to execute without first obtaining listed building consent, any works of alteration or extension which would affect a building’s special interest.

I am sure that Members may agree that this a relatively minor matter which might become a major issue if the Council fails to take prompt and decisive action in terms as to whether the thatched kangaroo should be retained, with or without retrospective consent/permission, or removed, either by the owners agreeing to a formal request from the Council or, if necessary, by formal enforcement action.

Members will need to decide whether the feature adversely affects the setting of the listed building and/or adversely affects the character and appearance of the designated conservation area. While maintaining much of its unique character, it has to be recognised that the village is a commercialised tourist centre and that over a period of years various alterations and additions within the curtilage of individual properties have been carried out which may not necessarily be appropriate in a conservation area, but nevertheless add to the commercial viability, and, to some extent, the attractiveness of Godshill for tourists. Members will be familiar with the various architectural features within the curtilage of the nearby Willow Tree Tea Gardens having visited the property relatively recently.

Members may also wish to take into account the nature of addition in terms of the material used and the exposed position on the ridge of the roof, which inevitably means that it can only be “in situ” for a temporary period of time; it is not likely to be a permanent feature.

It is my view that as an architectural feature or ornament it requires the benefit of listed building consent, and had the owner of the property been prepared to make such a submission, the Council would have had to make a decision as to whether it protects or enhances the building and the designated conservation area. In my opinion, on balance, while it could be argued that it does not physically detract from the appearance of the area, it does not protect and enhance the built environment although it probably makes some kind of contribution to the vitality of this important tourist centre. In the belief that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, should be seen to act positively it is recommended that the owners should be asked to remove the feature and advise that if they do not do so, then the Council will serve Listed Building Enforcement Notice and an Enforcement Notice.

2. That the Committee formally request the owners of the property make arrangements for the removal of the thatched feature within seven days. Failure to comply would result in the prompt service of a Listed Building Enforcement Notice and an Enforcement Notice.

(b) E/25005 Unauthorised construction of a vehicular access at 55 Adelaide Grove, East Cowes

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring a permanent barrier to be reinstated.

During October 2001 a report was received alleging the following breach of planning control

1. That a front boundary wall had been demolished allowing vehicles to be parked within the curtilage of the dwelling.

An Enforcement Officer visited the site and noted that the front boundary wall of the dwelling had been demolished and that a hard standing had been created within the curtilage of the dwelling, double gates have been inserted which open outwards onto the pavement, no dropped kerb has been inserted. Adelaide Grove is a classified road and whilst a hard standing can be constructed under permitted development rights, the additional feature of an access allowing vehicles to drive onto the hard standing over the pavement is unauthorised without the appropriate consent.

The situation was explained to the owner who indicated that they would not submit an application.

The advice of the Highways department has been sought with regards to the safety aspect of the access, they have concluded that due to the lack of available space within the curtilage of the dwelling, should an application have been made they would not have supported it.

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

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

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

On the basis that the use is unacceptable the Enforcement Officer advised the owner that they should close the access with a permanent barrier (wall or fence) of no greater than 1 metre in height. The Enforcement Officer wrote to the owner in February, again asking him to close the access, the owner has never responded to the letter and vehicles have since been parked on the hard standing on numerous occasions.

Members may recall that the council has recently dealt with a number of similar proposals in the same road, several of which have been dealt with under the appeals process. Some have been allowed, some dismissed, the strong trend throughout is that each case should be considered on its own merits.

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the access to be permanently closed up

The householders have been given the opportunity to submit a retrospective planning application but have declined to do so. Were an application to be submitted than it would be unlikely to gain officer support due to the highway safety aspect of the application. Under these circumstances I believe that enforcement action is a proportionate response to the situation.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the permanent closure of the access by means of a permanent barrier (wall or fence) of no more than one metre in height.