REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 27 SEPTEMBER 2002

1.	TCP/24841/A P/01283/02 Parish/Name: Newport Registration Date: 24/07/2002 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Outline for house & garage; access off Forest Close land adjacent 1, Forest Close, Newport, PO30

Representations

Highway Engineer previously recommend conditions relating to provision of access and parking in respect of previous refused application for a pair of dwellings but is now raising no comment.

Six individual letters of objection from residents of Forest Close with the points raised being summarised as follows:

Plot has been subject of recent refusal. Current proposal does not differ sufficiently to warrant a change in that decision.

Proposal will provide no benefit to the local area and would represent an intrusion into a settled residential area.

Forest Close has a unique character evident by its mature landscape and relationship to forest land and any additional development would adversely affect that character.

Development of the site would be likely to result in a cramped appearance resulting in overdevelopment.

Development of the site would increase pressures on existing infra-structure, all of which is unadopted.

Size of plot would be out of character in an area where plot sizes are particularly large.

All houses in Argyle Road and off Forest Close have a unique character and therefore any new property would be likely to look out of keeping.

Reference is made to on-street parking problem, particularly in Argyle Road overflowing into Forest Close and any additional dwelling would be likely to exacerbate that situation.

Any additional dwellings likely to contribute to highway hazards with particular reference to children who use the large common green area for play.

The position of the access would be in close proximity to a 90 degree bend in Forest Close and therefore would be dangerously located.

Proposed property would overlook the existing property in Argyle Road.

Additional pressures on sewerage system.

Proposal has been the subject of a twenty five signature petition, eighteen of which relate to occupiers of sixteen of the twenty properties in Forest Close and the remaining seven being from property occupiers in Argyle Road. Subject matter of petition is as follows:

A new development would be out of character with existing houses and have a rather cramped appearance.

Proposed property would overlook adjacent properties resulting in a loss of outlook and privacy for his neighbours.

A further household would increase the density of housing and lead to further pressures on roadside parking in an already congested area.

Result of additional traffic resulting from the development and occupation of a new house would be dangerous to the children who play in this area.

Development would have a negative effect on the estate that is working through a residents association with the Council and Home Office over an integrated plan for development.

Evaluation

Site forms part of the rear garden area of property no. 3 Argyle Road located on the north western corner of the junction of Argyle Road with Forest Close. The plot has a width of 13.7 metres by a depth of 25.9 metres. Both the applicant's property no. 3 Argyle Road and the adjoining property to the north west no. 1 Forest Close represent typical substantial detached properties of similar design and appearance within substantial plots situated within the southern half of Forest Close, extending through to the northern side of Argyle Road. Also, Forest Close has a substantial central green area with a circulatory road around it serving a total of twenty units, six of which are detached, with the remainder of semi-detached properties with those units at the northern end being more modern in appearance. There is conifer hedge along western boundary of site adjacent 1 Forest Close.

An outline application for a pair of semi-detached houses was refused in July 2002 under the delegated powers procedures with the reason for refusal being as follows:

The proposal for a pair of semi-detached houses would represent an overdevelopment of this land at an excessive density which in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to a loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature, being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area.

Proposal seeks outline consent for a detached house with all matters reserved. Application has been accompanied by a plan indicating a rectangular footprint dwelling which reflects the surrounding properties. The plan also indicates access off the short length of Forest Close directly off Argyle Road. Because of the relationship with no. 1 Forest Close, the proposed dwelling is set approximately 9.5 metres forward of that property. In terms of its relationship to no. 3 Argyle Road (applicant's property), the distance is 9 metres off the rear of that property.

Relevant policies are as follows:

G4 - General Locational Criteria.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards of Development Within the Site.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

U11 - Infra-Structure and Services Provision.

Members' attention is also drawn to PPG3 - Housing which essentially seeks efficient use of urban land to take pressures off releasing green field sites for development. Such a policy is not at the expense of cramped development, however, and is seeking good quality urban development which takes into account a contextual view of the surrounding area.

Main material consideration therefore is whether or not this proposal for a detached unit of similar shape to adjoining properties represents compatible development given the characteristics of the area and can be considered acceptable infill development.

The policies mentioned above are the only criteria on which this proposal should be judged. Applicants have noted the previous refusal which sought consent for a pair, and are now seeking consent for one dwelling. The test has to be whether or not the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate such a dwelling, particularly one which could be designed to be compatible with the style of architecture of the adjoining properties. Although in garden depth terms this plot will be less than those in the vicinity I do not consider that would be to such a degree that would warrant refusal. I also consider that the location of the dwelling shown in the indicative plan suggests that a dwelling of a similar width, and therefore compatible design potential, is able to be located on the site.

The next issue is whether a dwelling on this land will appear cramped. Again, I consider the indicative plan indicates that such a dwelling will not appear cramped and this is mainly due to the fact that the dwelling is set well forward of the adjoining property in Forest Close and will therefore achieve its own setting whilst not affecting the setting of that adjoining property in Forest Close.

The site is quite clearly capable of accommodating the level of parking which should not affect on-street parking in the area.

It is accepted that the plot will result in loss of garden area to the property no. 3 Argyle Road, however, that property still has more than sufficient land to service a dwelling of that size, and again, I would not suggest that this presents a reason for refusal.

In terms of other issues, Members will be aware of the recent consents granted to the Prison Service in respect of areas of land on the three prison estates, with those consents ranging from one single plot to substantial areas on which relatively high density development could take place. Strategy behind those approvals is to accrue monies from the sale of the sites to contribute to the improvements to the existing roads and sewers and street lighting to bring them up to an adoptable standard. Any approval to this plot will not have any impact on that procedure with Planning Authority having no option but to consider on its merits with the sole consideration being whether or not it represents a suitable infill plot.

Throughout the prison estate there are similar situations which exist in respect of relationships of properties and no doubt other applications for infill plots will be received. Any such applications have to be considered on their merits. In this case, I am of the opinion that a detached dwelling can be accommodated on this plot, however, I would suggest that some of the conditions which applied to the Prison Service approvals can be adapted for this individual plot. I would also suggest an additional condition requiring any dwelling on the site to be appropriately designed in terms of height, mass, pitch of roof and overall architectural approach, similar to the adjoining properties. I do not consider such a condition would be unreasonable given the context of the area.

Many of the concerns of the objectors can be covered either by way of condition or during consideration of any detailed or reserved matter applications. Particular concern will need to be given to boundary treatment, both in respect of the northern and southern boundary. In terms of drainage, this proposal is no different from the Prison Service applications which also sought outline consent with all matters reserved apart from means of access. At that time drainage was dealt with following extensive consultation with Southern Water and the Environment Agency, with the attachment of conditions requiring relevant details to be submitted. It would be inconsistent if a different approach was given to this proposal which is only for one plot.

Finally, Members will appreciate that Forest Close has been designed in terms of its layout in a symmetrical form and a dwelling on this plot could be deemed to impact adversely on that symmetry. Members are advised, however, that the application has been accompanied by a letter from the owners of property 5 Argyle Road being opposite the application site, with that letter

suggesting that similar application may be submitted if current proposal is approved, with any such application being identical (a mirror image) retaining the symmetrical aspect of the estate and Forest Close.

The portion of 1 Forest Close in relation to any dwelling on this site has the potential for overlooking. However the existence and maintenance of the conifer hedge provided screening, the distance of 10 metres between the front of 1 Forest Close and the rear of the proposed dwelling is considered sufficient, and the detail design of any dwelling should be able to address any problem by internal room arrangements and reinforcement of the screening.

Some reference has been made to the capability of the drainage system in the area to accept this additional dwelling. Drainage in respect of an individual plot is unlikely to present a problem but Members will be aware of the difficulties with drainage systems on the prison estate, particularly with regard to complete knowledge as to their location and size. However, in order to be consistent in respect of dealing with single plot applications on the prison estate, I suggest this matter can be dealt with through condition and in this regard I make reference to suggested condition no. 8 which requires capacity studies to be carried out and that any connection points on the system shall be where adequate capacity exists, and any dwelling should not be occupied until such agreed scheme has been completed. I am satisfied that such a condition is adequate given that this is an outline application establishing a principle and this will put the onus on any potential developer to research the drainage situation in order to comply with that condition.

Representation letters also refer to covenants which effectively could prevent development on this site. Members are advised that restrictive covenants constitute matters dealt with by other legislation and are not taken into account by the Planning Authority when determining planning applications.

I appreciate that there is a strength of view against this proposal, however, it is important that Members consider this application on its merits with, essentially, the determining factors being whether or not a dwelling can be accommodated of a suitable design without adversely impacting on the amenities of the area.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I am of the opinion that the application site represents a suitable infill plot and is therefore in compliance with the relevant policy for the detailed reasons stated, and therefore I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2	Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the development, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The access and crossing of the highway verge and footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification:

For light vehicles: Before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use;

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150 mm.

2. Construct the vehicular crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150 mm properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development in accordance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

5	Space shall be provided within the site, as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and such provision shall be retained. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR16 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The architectural design, mass and height of a new proposed dwelling on this site shall be compatible with the architectural appearance, mass, height and shape, including similar materials of the existing dwellings in the immediate surrounding area.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general in compliance with policies G4, D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwelling is occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

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

No development shall take place until a scheme including capacity studies has been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed scheme shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists. The dwelling shall not be occupied until any such agreed scheme has been completed.

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