PAPER B2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 29 OCTOBER 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

                                                                 WARNING

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.

Background Papers

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.

LIST OF PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 29 OCTOBER 2002

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

http://www.iwight.com/council/committees/Mod-development_control/29-10-02/agenda.htm

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 29 OCTOBER 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 29 OCTOBER 2002

(a)       TCP/2739K(E)                       Gurnard Sailing Club                                     GURNARD

(b)       TCP/17105B                          Tideways Cottage, The Causeway                FRESHWATER

(c)       TCP/24495                             Blessings Lodge, Baring Road                      COWES

(d)       U/135/01                                7 Copse End                                                  SANDOWN

PART II

See joint report on LBC/14420T

Conditions/Reasons:

Application originally due to be considered at 6 August 2002 Committee meeting but deferred at Officer request in order to address Environment Agency concerns.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application raises conflicting policy issues which require consideration by Members.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to three/four storey Grade II Listed building which currently operates as 51 bedroomed hotel complex situated on southern side of The Strand between its junctions with Cornwall Street and Simeon Street. The premises has double road frontage with rear parking area and garage block fronting Simeon Street.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Several consents granted in past for extensions to premises, most recent of which relate to single storey extension to provide private nursery and enclosed steps/access to lower ground floor level approved in June 1993.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent for change of use of eastern part of hotel premises (formerly numbers 34 and 35) from current hotel usage to conversion into eight self-contained flats.

Existing building easily converts to flatted development given, its original residential use and fact that building itself at one time was detached from adjoining buildings but which has been linked by way of later extension to allow operation as hotel complex.

The conversion provides for eight three bedroomed flatted units over four floors and involves minimal internal works.

Other works involve demolition of substantial ground floor rear extension and detached garage fronting Simeon Street.

Premises has benefit of rear parking area with access onto Simeon Street.

Remainder of hotel premises would continue to operate as such offering a reduced operation totalling it is understood some 26 letting rooms.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

As site is located within Conservation Area and relates to a Listed building the following policies are considered relevant:

G1 - Development Envelopes.

G6 - Development in Areas Liable to Flooding.

D1 - Standards of Design.

B1 - Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings.

B3 - Change of Use of Listed Buildings.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

T5 - Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Areas.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Original response from Environment Agency was that as site lay within area identified at risk of tidal flooding, due to lack of formal flood risk assessment they were unable to comment on application and matter was deferred from consideration at the Development Control Committee meeting held on 6 August 2002. Assessment subsequently submitted and following submission of information Agency placed a holding objection on the application.

Tourism Services have been consulted but no formal response received.

Environmental Health Officer raises no comment in respect of this application.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received objecting to the proposal as development affects terrace of listed buildings and is considered plans degrade and destroy special architectural features of such properties. Reference is also made to previous extensions to property. Comment is also made in respect of detrimental impact both on building and conservation area.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Members may recall that these applications were due to be considered at this meeting held on 6 August 2002 however matter was deferred at Officer request to allow opportunity for applicant to submit a formal flood risk assessment. Revised proposal has now been submitted seeking to overcome Environment Agency's objection.

Main planning considerations relate to consideration of relevant development plan policies, fact that buildings themselves are Listed and whether or not such change of use/alterations will protect and/or enhance Conservation Area.

Policy T5 advises that outside defined hotel areas development resulting in loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where there is a change of use to another form of holiday accommodation, existing accommodation is upgraded or improved or proposal involves a change of use of premises of less than ten lettable bedrooms. Text attaching to this policy advises that Ryde is outside defined hotel area but is important tourist resort in its own right and provides good hotel accommodation. Roughly 60% of hotel type accommodation is in smaller establishments (hotel and guest houses) with less than ten bedrooms, but in the main these are bed and breakfast establishments and it is anticipated that these will move in and out of serviced accommodation depending upon market influences.

In support of application applicant company has submitted statement which outlines the current trading difficulties.

Briefly, report advises that mainstay of trade of Teneriffe Hotel is coach tours (over 90%), although such trade within Britain has been declining for some time it has been possible to reverse trend with good service and low prices. However, shrinking coaching market is beginning to become quite severe resulting in coach company cancellations which has been a significant feature of current trading year. Furthermore, increasing accessibility of Europe via both coach and air is compounding problem with alternative competition. Low cost airlines have made a further incursion in to market share. Additional problem is limited discount offered by ferry operator which contributes significantly to problem of filling hotel. Introduction of minimum wage has increased costs together with recruitment and retention of necessary staff. Change of use of part of hotel to residential will enable operator to add positively to community rather than have hotel closure. Conversion would allow investment required for internal structural changes to allow remainder of premises to operate in the tourist sector.

Clearly proposal is contrary to policy T5, however, Members will appreciate there are other material considerations which should be borne in mind in assessing application. Firstly, the building itself is Grade II Listed and policy B3 does allow for change of use of such buildings provided that they do not have detrimental effect on long term structure of building and preserves the building's special architectural features. Secondly, removal of unsightly rear addition and detached garage will improve setting and appearance of Listed Building and is supported by policy B1. Demolition work also accords with policy B6 which seeks to protect and enhance Conservation Areas, with reduced parking area and introduction of landscaped areas.

It should also be noted that application proposes retention of western section of building which will allow for its continued use as hotel premises providing some 26 letting rooms. As previously referred to, building itself lends itself to easy sub-division whilst maintaining main entrance to hotel and associated facilities.

Whilst development is contrary to policy T5 I consider in this instance that there are other equally important policies which apply in respect of proposal. Proposal still leaves significant hotel operating from adjoining building and proposal would offer alternative use for Listed Building which would help ensure its long term maintenance and upkeep thereby maintaining the character of Conservation Area. Indeed demolition works will remove several unsightly buildings and help improve overall appearance and setting of Listed Building and adjoining Listed properties.

Holding objection by Environment Agency has been removed on basis of revised plans which indicate no increase in sleeping accommodation in the basement.

In view of the above comments I consider there are special circumstances which collectively are of greater importance than policy T5 consideration in this particular instance.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that the circumstances surrounding this particular application are sufficient to warrant exception to be made to policy T5 which seeks to retain hotel accommodation. Considerations concerning policies B1, B3 and B6 are considered to outweigh policy objection and in any event, proposal seeks to retain significant part of hotel accommodation. The application is recommended accordingly.

               RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (BOTH APPLICATIONS) (REVISED                                                              PLANS)

Conditions/Reasons:

Application was due to be considered at meeting held on 25 June 2002 but was deferred at agent's request.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to unused area of rectangular land which adjoins GKN Osborne Works and which fronts Whippingham Road.

The application site totals some 0.35 hectares and is accessed via an existing layby and gated entrance point. Site is screened to some extent by row of Leylandii which fronts Whippingham Road. Council's Tree and Landscape Officer has surveyed site and TPO made in respect of those trees fronting Osborne Works road frontage and northern boundary of application site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in respect of application site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent to use area of land as commercial vehicle trailer park with submitted plans indicating parking for some sixteen units.

Proposal seeks to retain existing screen of Leylandii trees together with formation of new two metre high earth bank along south eastern boundary of proposed trailer park.

Access to site will be gained from existing layby and gated entrance with existing gates being moved back some six metres further into site to allow access berth. Trailer park itself will have maximum dimensions of some 72 metres x 40 metres and be covered in Consolidated Type 1 Aggregate with new tarmacadam entrance aprons. Formation of entrance will itself require removal of several trees. Agent has submitted supporting letter with application which advises application seeks to ease congestion problems at the company's main depot at Riverway as well as improving freight movement operational procedures of Vectis Transport/Red Funnel distribution at East Cowes ferry terminal.

Application seeks approval for trailer park on temporary 12 month basis, if approved the intention would be to submit a further application towards the end of 12 month period for continued use on a more permanent basis.

In support of application agent has submitted statement, advising that need for additional trailer parking is due to increasing under capacity at company's main vehicle depot on Riverway. Available area for vehicle/trailer parking at Riverway was extended some 18 months ago but due to increased business more capacity is needed and there is no further scope for extending parking area at that site. As a result of this situation more trailer parking and commercial vehicle operations has been occurring at East Cowes ferry terminal where Vectis Transport undertake major elements of overall operations.

Agent goes on to state that Vectis Transport are seeking to improve operational procedures at East Cowes ferry terminal especially with regard to evening/nighttime use of Phoenix Yard by relocating trailer park. At present empty trailers are parked at ferry terminal and are shuttled onto ferries using detachable tractor cabs mainly during nighttime operations. Proposal would enable coupling/uncoupling of tractor cabs to/from trailers and associated maneuvering to be done on site remote from terminal. Tractor cabs at East Cowes site also pick up fully laden trailers off ferries to distribute directly to Island businesses - this part of operation will be unaffected.

With regard to Highways issue site is served by existing crossover/vehicle access which was originally constructed to provide alternative access to GKN's Osborne works site but which has never been brought into use. Existing access has layby approach from south east a generous ten metre radius kerb and a six metre wide roadway. Visibility from junction to south east (approaching near side traffic) is in excess of 200 metres. This is considered by agent to be most important visibility direction since coupled tractor/trailer will almost exclusively be leaving site in north westerly direction to travel to East Cowes terminal. The only time vehicles will leave site in south easterly direction towards Newport is when unladen tractors will occasionally leave site to return to Vectis Transports Newport depot. Visibility from junction to north west is not as good as to south east but is still well in excess of 100 metres. Whilst visibility displays are normally taken at a point at a junction 2 metres or 2.4 metres back from road edge with regard to particular proposal it is argued that these dimensions are not relevant. This application seeks use of site for articulated trailer parking only and tractor cabs which pull trailers and have no bonnet projections beyond windscreen. From photographs submitted it is suggested that only one metre set back is required which allows visibility of 140 metres to be achieved. Agent concludes that whichever visibility display set back is required adequate visibility is achievable.

With regards to visual impact trailers being parked along side roadside boundary agent opines that site will be well screened and securely fenced with chain link fencing. Most of site will have porous surface ie. crushed limestone scalpings with tarmacadam apron. Existing topsoil which will be scraped from site will be banked to form bund alongside south east boundary of application site. Some form of low level artificial lighting will be required with specification and siting of lighting to be agreed at a later stage.

Whilst original application was recommended for refusal on principally highway grounds, revised scheme has been submitted showing relocation of front boundary fencing behind required visibility splay.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application site forms part of larger area of land allocated for employment use with Unitary Development Plan.

Text to document advises that employment site in total covers some 3.2 hectares and is allocated for high quality business B1, general industry Be and storage and distribution services Be development. Made up of land previously used as private allotment gardens this site which is owned by Westland Aerospace has been identified by them for development as part of redevelopment of adjoining Osborne Works to north west.

Site lies outside development envelope as shown on UDP.

Policy T3 of UDP seeks to resist development of allocated employment land for other uses.

Policy G5 does allow for specific development outside defined settlements including small scale development ancillary to industrial/commercial development providing such development does not reduce quality of environment and landscape or harm setting of settlement or village or part of that setting.

Policy TR11 supports appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes will help address traffic and marshalling problems associated with cross-Solent ferry terminals.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The following comments were received in respect of the original submission which was due to be considered by Members at the meeting held on 25 June 2002. Highway Engineer comments that whilst he is aware of marshalling problem at East Cowes terminal and whilst he is keen to assist in finding a satisfactory solution he is unable to support application in is present form.

The partly constructed 'new' access for Osborne works was granted consent several years ago and was subject to two essential conditions neither of which have been met (but as it has never been brought into use, no enforcement issue has arisen) namely (1) the existing sub-standard entrance to the works to be closed up (2) visibility displays of X equals 2.4 and Y equals 150 metres to be provided in both directions from the new access.

To achieve the required visibility in a northerly direction would require much of GKN's security fence to be set back. In fact an X distance of 4.5 would be the normal requirement but as that would require several prominent trees to be removed a slightly reduced X distance is probably acceptable in the circumstances. As the road is now subject to a 40 MPH speed limit a reduced Y distance of 120 metres would be acceptable but this is a minimum which is regarded as non-negotiable.

Original application included neither of these features and Highway Engineer had no alternative but to recommend refusal on road safety grounds as to approve it would result in two sub-standards accesses in close proximity onto busy principle road.

Traffic flows on Whippingham Road are now at or very near level of 13,000 vehicles per day where under TD42/95, any junction should road widening, ghost island markings and a right turn lane. Original consent for the access was granted on the basis that whilst it did not meet full junction design standards it still achieved a worthwhile improvement over the existing situation.

It would not be economic to undertake major junction works for a temporary consent but equally it would be difficult to justify making an exception. Given future allocation of this site for employment use if a relaxation in Highways standards was accepted now it could prejudice Council's position in the event of an application for industrial use eventually coming forward.

The most crucial factor here is the limited visibility to the north (the sight line to the south is adequate although the cuprous trees overhanging the highway need cutting back which may incidentally reduce their screening value). There is no justification in any recognised technical standards for a X distance of only 1 metre as suggested by the agent. Whilst the number of vehicle movements arising from this particular proposal may be fairly low traffic movements would incorporate large vehicle which once committed to a manoeuvre require adequate space and time to complete the turn and reach the speed of the main traffic stream. They need to be seen by approaching vehicles as well as seeing them. Existing restricted sight line makes no allowance for overtaking vehicles or driver error and is simply not acceptable.

Unless the application could be amended to include visibility splay across Osborne Works frontage with security fence moved back and removal of any trees within the visibility splay he recommended refusal on grounds of inadequate access by reason of unacceptable visibility. Application was deferred by agent to allow further negotiations.

Following negotiations revised scheme has been submitted which seeks to achieve visibility splay required by removing and relocating existing concrete post and wire fence which fronts adjacent Osborne Works site. Proposal involves felling of one sycamore tree and applicants have secured agreement of adjoining landowners to carry out these works. Further comments of Highway Engineer not available at the time of preparing report.

Environmental Health Officer initially commented that the department was adversely concerned that approval of this application may cause disamenity to neighbouring land uses specifically residential properties in the vicinity namely Barton Lodge cottages and Whippingham Heights Estate which are distance of approximately 100 and 200 metres from the proposed site respectively.

In order to safeguard amenity of these residential premises and to comment fully on impact of proposed trailer park on immediate area department required additional information other than that supplied in the application. They therefore suggested the submission of a comprehensive noise assessment carried out by a competent person. Survey should concern anticipated noise omissions from the operation.

Following submission of Noise Consultants Report and further negotiation Environmental Health Officer advises that permitted noise levels would not be exceeded by site operations up to the hour of 23:00. Therefore, in order to safeguard occupants of residential properties from disturbance it is suggested that a time restriction is placed on use of trailer park to allow operations only between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours unless a scheme for the attenuation of noise to prevent emissions from trailer park affecting residential properties in the vicinity is submitted to and subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority. The provisions of this scheme shall include physical controls, operational restrictions and administrative controls where appropriate. Other condition suggested restrict number of movements per hour and prohibits operational refrigerated trailers being parked on site.

Environment Agency has been consulted and any reply received reported at meeting.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

39 individual letters of objection have been received and objections can be summarised as follows:

-           Increase in hazard to highway uses both car born and pedestrian.

-           Proposal will compromise road safety.

-           Adverse environmental impact to proposed development.

-           Proposed site too near to existing housing which will be adversely                          affected.

-           Residential occupiers adversely affected by increased noise from traffic                 movement and potential hours of operation.

-           Increased disturbance from associated traffic movement.

-           Reference being made to further expansion and questioning temporary                  nature of current application.

-           Inappropriate visual intrusion in open area.

-           Proposal will conflict with operation of nearby primary school and                           compromise safety of parents and children walking to and from site.

-           Potential nuisance from light pollution.

-           Development contrary to transport policy of Council.

Head teacher of nearby primary school questions reference to remoteness of development by agent points out that school is less than quarter of a mile from site and opposite housing estates. Traffic along main road is constant with parents having to spill out onto Beatrice avenue and Heights at busy times. Road is particularly heavily used as Red Funnel's arrive/depart. As school is on stand alone site quite a few parents walk along main road which will necessitate crossing in front of application site. Whippingham locality should remain rural and not an industrial car park overspill area representing further commercial incursion into countryside.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of site in land use terms and UDP policy planning benefits of relocated trailer park and potential impacts on surrounding residential occupiers together with highway considerations.

In terms of policy, G5 does allow for specific development outside defined settlements including small scale development ancillary to industrial/commercial development providing such development does not reduce quality of environment and landscape or harm settlement or village. Furthermore the site is allocated for employment use within the UDP and whilst policy T3 seeks to resist development of such allocated employment land for other uses it is important to note that application seek temporary consent and any such approval on this basis would not prejudice future employment use of this site.

Notwithstanding policy situation, use of site would allow more efficient use of applicants Riverway premises whilst relieving pressure on Phoenix Yard parking area in East Cowes itself which as explained by agent involves parking of trailers and shuttling onto ferries using detachable tractor cabs mainly during nighttime operations. Members will note that policy TR11 supports appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes which would help address traffic and marshalling problems associated with Islands cross Solent ferry terminals provided any such scheme is in keeping with its surroundings, is appropriate in scale and operation for location proposed and would not have unacceptable detrimental or adverse environmental impact on wider area in general.

Members will appreciate that important consideration in respect of this application is planning gain offered in respect of effect on operation of existing depot sites.

Turning to more detailed matters given sites employment use allocation in UDP and existing tree screen, together with applicant’s intention to construct bund I do not consider any reasonable objection can be raised in respect of visual intrusion adjacent existing industrial premises.

Comments of Highway Engineer are appreciated and it is important to note that existing access whilst granted consent several years ago does not meet to visibility splays imposed at time of consent. Furthermore as Highway Engineer notes traffic flows have increased since that time and proposal of this nature would normally now expect road widening and other highway improvements incorporating right turn lane, however, revised proposal incorporates required visibility splay by relocation of boundary fence.

In addition Environmental Health Officer is concerned over potential disamenity that could be caused to neighbouring land uses specifically residential properties in the vicinity and wished to assess application on basis of submission of comprehensive noise assessment survey including an assessment of existing background noise levels in the locality. Issue of potential impact on residential amenities was considered sufficiently important to warrant such survey information and report has been commissioned and considered by Environmental Health Officer. He now supports conditional approval.

Provided appropriate safeguarding conditions are attached to any consent I consider proposal is acceptable and will allow facility to be relocated in a location that will not unduly impact on locality or surrounding residential occupiers whilst satisfying requirements of Highway Engineer.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Impact this development may have on owners/occupiers of neighbouring property has been carefully considered and whilst there may be some interference with rights of these people balance has to be achieved with rights of applicants to develop land in manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicants. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above it is considered that whilst proposal offers planning gain in respect of operation of other sites there are serious planning objections to application as currently submitted particularly with regards to highway matters and accordingly application is recommended for refusal.

       RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The recommendation is contrary to or in conflict with policies contained in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to hotel premises located on northern side of Marine Parade approximately 30 metres west of its junction with and having secondary frontage onto Esplanade Road.

Building is constructed of natural stone with brick quoins and dressing under a slate roof. Accommodation within the building is arranged on three floors with basement area located at lower ground floor level. Property is accessed at ground floor level from Marine Parade with rear access from Esplanade Road which, due to topography of area, is at second floor level.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for conversion of hotel to form a maisonette on ground and first floors and two self-contained flats on second floor. Accommodation within the maisonette would comprise reception rooms and kitchen on ground floor with three bedrooms, study/workroom, laundry, bathroom and w.c. on first floor. Two flats on second floor would each provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, two bedrooms and bathroom/w.c. Flats on second floor would have separate access from Esplanade Road. All alterations would be internal with exception of insertion of an additional door and a window in the rear elevation at second floor level.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the plan period.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

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

T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season.

T5 - Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Areas.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer and IW Tourism have been consulted and any views received will be reported at the meeting.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

No comments had been received from the Town Council at the time of preparing this report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None at time of preparing this report.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether conversion of the premises to residential accommodation as proposed is acceptable in principle and whether there are any factors which would outweigh the policy objection to the loss of the premises as an hotel.

Having regard to location of property within the defined settlement and development boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to the conversion of the building to provide three self-contained residential units. In particular, Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing, acknowledges that conversions of housing, buildings formerly in other uses and the upper floor space over shops, can provide an important source of additional housing, particularly in town centres.

Policy T5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan is relevant to proposals involving hotels outside the defined hotel areas. In accordance with the policy, development resulting in the loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in the policy, including where a proposal involves a change of use of premises of less than ten lettable bedrooms.

Supporting information and plans which accompanied the current submission indicate that premises was operated with eight letting bedrooms plus owners accommodation. Submitted plans indicate that, in addition to the eight letting bedrooms, two rooms, arranged as a bedsit, were occupied by a tenant and that total of five rooms on second floor were set aside as owners accommodation, two for the proprietors, two for their daughter and son-in-law and one for their grandson.

 A recent internal inspection of the building revealed that the rooms are numbered 1 - 18 (no number 13). However, a large proportion of these rooms have been created by sub-dividing larger rooms providing only small letting bedrooms with no en-suite facilities. In addition, two of the rooms created by these sub-divisions have no external windows and it would appear that these rooms were used for storage purposes.

Realistically, I consider that upgrading of the accommodation to current day standards, including provision of en-suite facilities to all rooms, would involve removal of partition walls and, in some cases, use of a room between other bedrooms to provide the en-suite facilities to those rooms, resulting in a building having less than ten lettable bedrooms. Therefore, whilst proposal would appear to conflict with policy T5 of the UDP, I consider that the condition and standard of accommodation presently offered by the premises, and the likely number of rooms to be provided following upgrading, is a material consideration in the determination of the application which, in my opinion, outweighs the apparent conflict with policy.

Proposal involves only minor external alterations to the building which will not have any significant or unacceptable impact on the character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that conversion of property to three self-contained units of accommodation as proposed is acceptable in principle and that the accommodation provided as an hotel is substandard and that refusal of application on basis of loss of hotel accommodation would not be sustainable in this instance.

               RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (subject to the views of IW Tourism,                Highways Engineer no adverse comments raising any new issues being                         received by 1 November 2002)

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure due to the level of local concern.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located on the south west side of Foreland Fields Road approximately 85 metres from the junction where Foreland Fields Road meets Howgate Road.

Site is of rural character where the access is proposed but residential in nature the opposite side of the road.

The character of the site is grazing land with existing hedge on the roadside frontage being somewhat overgrown with brambles and weeds. The site is within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

RELEVANT HISTORY

No recent relevant history.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for vehicular access to allow field and hedge maintenance with letters of support accompanying application indicating the existence of an original gate which has been unused for some years. Present access to this parcel of land has been via a right of way over neighbouring land sited further to the south east of Foreland Fields Road.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but outside the Site of Special Scientific Interest and outside the development envelope for Bembridge.

Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) are considered relevant.

In particular, policy G5 permits development connected with agriculture, policy C1 expects development to maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from land or sea and be for the benefit of the rural economy and people who live there, policy C2 permits development that does not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and specifically where it involves the maintenance or development of agriculture and be for the benefit of the local rural economy and the people who live there, and policy TR7 permits development that takes account of highway safety.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications but recommends condition.

Environmental Health Department has no adverse comments with respect to application.

AONB Officer has given detailed background history to the site regarding restoration of hedgerow which was historic feature and subject to Landscape Improvement Grant Scheme. Initially commented that clear evidence of former gated access should be provided. Further concern regarding impact on boundary, increase in traffic, potential for use other than grazing, detrimental to AONB.

Further clarification has been sought from the AONB Officer who has consulted with colleagues in the Countryside section, Archeology and the County Archivist and comments that the hedge line is an important historic boundary feature, but the evidence for this is largely documentary with little ecological, visual impact or archeological importance reflected in today's hedge line. He therefore considers that on this occasion "it would be difficult to substantiate an argument against this application based on the historic evidence alone." Remains concerned over the future use of the site and requests that PD rights, for example, car boot sales are removed and the planning authority do all within its power to secure an agricultural use only.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Ten letters of objection relate to loss of hedge, already access to site, never been access in position of proposed site. Detrimental effect on AONB, SSSI, increased vehicle movements/danger, effect on rural lane/rural charm, potential for development of site.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

In balancing issues, main consideration is nature of application which is for access to agricultural land, impact on designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and highway safety.

Concern relating to the previous loss of hedge prior to the submission of this application are noted as is concern that there has never been an access in this position before. Application as presented should be assessed on its merits and the loss of hedge, reference to previous access and concern regarding future use of the site should carry minimum weight in the determination of this application.

AONB Officer has confirmed it would be difficult to substantiate argument against application based on the historic evidence alone although the hedge line was an important historic boundary feature.

Any future development of the site, unless related to agriculture, is likely to require the submission of a planning application and it would not be reasonable in my view to remove the rights authorised under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Part IV, Class B, Temporary Buildings and Uses. The level of use is limited by restrictions in the Order.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I am of the view that the proposal represents acceptable development in the countryside with minimum impact on the existing hedge line and no adverse impact on the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

               RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposed site of telecommunications installation is located in south eastern corner of coach park to Needles Pleasure Park. Ground rises in southerly direction from pleasure park attractions and administration building with land beyond site continuing to rise relatively steeply to ridge of Tennyson Down which runs in an east west direction. Area is generally rural in character and built development in locality comprises the buildings and ancillary structures of the pleasure park with several residential properties. Telecommunications installation would be located adjacent existing vegetation on southern boundary of car park and part of eastern boundary with height of up to approximately 6 metres.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/19498/P - P/1550/99 - Planning application for telecommunications pole with one OMNI the antenna (overall height 11.5 metres) and one microwave dish and associated cabinet refused on grounds that installation would be unduly prominent to detriment of visual amenities and character of area which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast and also on grounds that application was accompanied by insufficient information to demonstrate whether there was any practical alternative location for the installation.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for telecommunications installation comprising a 10 metre high mock telegraph pole supporting one dual polar OMNI antenna with associated equipment cabinet at base.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal in which applicant’s agent advises that the proposed post would be disguised as a telegraph pole and expresses view that this would be substantially less bulky and two thirds of the height of the originally proposed 15 metre post. In response to suggestions that antenna could be located on existing buildings within the park complex, agent advises that the site providers are not prepared to allow an installation on any of the structures within the park. Application was also accompanied by a declaration that the installation would be compliant with the International Commission on Non-Ionising and Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields and computer predictions of the signal coverage provided by existing installations in the locality and that which would be achieved from the proposed installation. These indicate that existing installations do not provide signal coverage of sufficient strength over the target area.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Guidance on telecommunications development is provided in planning policy guidance note 8 - Telecommunications which sets out the Government's general policies in this respect. In general, Government's policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunication systems whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. In particular, the Government places great emphasis on its well established national policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas, in particular the National Parks (including the Broads and the New Forest), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, the green belts, the Heritage Coast and areas and buildings of architectural or historic importance. Local Planning Authorities are encouraged to respond positively to telecommunications development proposals and should take into account the advice on the protection of urban and rural areas in other planning policy guidance notes.

Site is shown on Unitary Development Plan to be within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. Adjacent down land is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S10 - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

G4 - General locational criteria for development.

D1 - Standards of design.

C1 - Protection of landscape character.

C2 - Areas of outstanding natural beauty.

C4 - Heritage coast.

U17 - Telecommunications facilities.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

There are considered to be no highway implications associated will this proposal.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer notes that application involves erection of telecommunications installation with a mock telegraph pole design with height of 10 metres and small associated equipment cabinet to be located at the rear of the coach parking area adjacent several storage tanks. He also notes that there is an existing telegraph pole at the western edge of this parking area. He advises that the installation of telecommunication masts within a specially protected area such as the AONB requires careful consideration and comment on a case by case basis. He considers that, in this instance, the applicant has attempted to address the visually intrusive nature of telecommunications technology by the use of a mock telegraph pole design. Furthermore, he advises that, due to the nature of surrounding area and proximity of other utility equipment on site, he is of opinion that this particular application has no adverse effect on the AONB and is preferable to a more exposed position. Therefore, he raises no objection.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Totland Parish Council object to application on following grounds:

Contrary to policies C2 and U17 of the UDP in that it has not been shown that all alternative sites have been investigated.

Site is within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

No compelling technical justification - Parish Council suggests that local residents do not have any difficulties using their phones.

There are practical alternatives to the site including existing radio mast on top of Downs near the Needles.

Site chosen misinterpreted by application papers in that plans do not show the residences that are within 20 metres of the proposed mast.

Parish Council consider it significant that the site providers are not prepared to allow an installation on any of their buildings within the park because, whilst not concerned themselves, they do not want to invite adverse comments from non-users of mobile phones who may have concerns over the health effects of base stations. Similar concerns by local residents not taken into account.

Whilst it is said that there is no evidence to prove there is a harmful effect from these masts, it must similarly be said there is no evidence that there is not a harmful health effect.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received from local residents objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Identical application submitted 2 years ago was rejected as being unsuitable intrusion in area - no change in circumstances.

Intrusion into and infringement of Heritage Coast and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Proposed site is close to residential properties - concern is expressed regarding possible health implications.

Not for the benefit of local community - limited inhabitants in immediate locality.

Mobile phones work perfectly in area - therefore installation must be required to benefit mainland residents across the Solent.

Heritage Coastline already blighted by collection of industrial warehouse style buildings.

One letter was accompanied by petition containing total of 85 signatures including 21 Island residents, 60 mainland residents, 1 resident from France and 3 from Australia.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether installation would be visually intrusive to detriment of amenities and character of the locality, particularly having regard to designation of landscape as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast.

Previous proposal involved the erection of a telecommunications pole, with appearance similar to that of a lamppost supporting one OMNI antenna and a microwave dish. The installation shown on the original submission had overall height of approximately 15 metres and revised plans were submitted reducing overall height to 11.5 metres. Notwithstanding this alteration to the scheme, it was considered that an installation of the style proposed would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the amenities and character of the locality.

Applicants have sought to address reasons for refusal of previous application by proposing to disguise the telecommunications installation as a mock telegraph pole. In addition, height of installation has been reduced to 10 metres, a reduction of 5 metres to that which was originally proposed and 1.5 metres from the revised scheme previously refused. Whilst site is located within an area designated as an AONB, there are a number of existing man made features with vertical emphasis, including a telegraph pole with a height of approximately 7 metres to the western boundary of the coach park. Existing natural growth adjacent application site would provide a degree of screening and, together with down land to the south, a back drop against which the installation would be seen when viewed from the area to the north and, particularly, the higher ground to the opposite side of the valley within which the pleasure park sits.

In the information which accompanied the current submission, the applicant's agent indicates that the operators of the Needles Pleasure Park have received complaints from their customers about the inability to use mobile phones whilst in the park and it is principally this demand which the applicant is seeking to satisfy through the current proposal. It is understood that the proposed base station would be a low powered installation providing relatively localised signal coverage. Therefore, there is a need for the installation to be within or immediately adjacent the environs of the pleasure park. It is understood that, subsequent to the refusal of the previous application, applicant's agent has again sought to agree with owners of the park installation of the antennae on the existing buildings at the park. However, owners of the park would not agree to this option.

In accordance with policy U17 (Telecommunications facilities) of the Unitary Development Plan, the Council will require that, where no practical alternative location is available and a new structure is necessary, the site chosen and design should be visually and technically the least harmful that can be achieved. In this instance, having regard to the operators requirements, ie. coverage of the Needles Pleasure Park, I consider that there would be few if any, alternative locations where the installation could be situated. Clearly, use of an existing structure would be the preferred option but the applicants have been unable to achieve this. However, I consider that the installation has clearly been designed so as to minimise its impact in the landscape and reflect the appearance of existing features in the locality. Therefore, I do not consider that the installation would be an incongruous feature in the landscape or detract from the amenities and character of the locality. Bearing in mind the views of the AONB Officer, I do not consider that refusal of the application on grounds of the visual impact of the proposal would be sustainable.

Proposals of this nature invariably attract concerns regarding radiation safety and this matter has been, and continues to be, the subject of extensive research. In particular, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is responsible for advising the Government on the possible adverse health effects of radiation, including the non-ionising electromagnetic radiation associated with telecommunications facilities. Following extensive research, the NRPB has produced guidelines on exposure levels to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation associated with telecommunications apparatus which are designed to prevent the known acute health effects (heating of the body) which can occur when exposed to such radiation. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have previously been approached for comments on mobile phone base stations and have advised that they would not wish to be consulted on each installation neither would they respond unless, in their opinion, there was a need. The HSE would only expect to become involved if there was evidence to suggest that the owners/installers of the mast were disregarding health and safety guidelines.

In response to research carried out by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) the operators are now required to comply with the guidelines for exposure to electromagnetic radiation produced by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and, in accordance with guidance issued in PPG8 (as amended) all submissions to Local Planning Authorities should be accompanied by an ICNIRP compliance certificate. The ICNIRP guidelines provide a higher factor of safety for exposure to emissions from the telecommunications apparatus. In this respect, the PPG advises as follows:

"It remains Central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

All new mobile phone base stations are expected to meet ICNIRP guidelines. However, all applicants should include with their applications, a statement that self certifies to the effect that the mobile phone base station when operational will meet the guidelines."

Whilst it is accepted that the perceived health risk associated with this type of development would be a material consideration when determining any planning submission, in view of Government guidance, the advice from the NRPB, HSE and other associated bodies, and the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that mobile phones and base stations pose a long term public health hazard, it is one which I consider should be given appropriate weight and which would not presently provide a sustainable reason for refusal. Furthermore, having regard to the advice contained in PPG8, I consider that the authority would be acting unreasonably if it were to refuse permission on grounds relating to public health.

In response to suggestions from third parties that there is adequate network coverage in this location, issue has been raised with the applicant’s agent. I am advised by him that, whilst there may be enough coverage to hold a telephone conversation at present, this will not necessarily be adequate in the future when capacity is stretched by more users on the network and an increased range of services provided. I am advised that verbal conversations are able to suffer a degree of interference but data transmission requires a quality signal in order not to become undecipherable. In addition, whilst it may be possible to hold a conversation on the network in the car park, it is also Orange's intention to improve coverage in buildings and other areas of the car park that may currently suffer shadowing and a weak signal. It is understood that this is in line with the operators obligation under their license issued by the Government to ensure that all reasonable demands for the service can be met.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission, consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties has been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicants to develop their network through the provision of installations in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicants. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the design of the installation and information which accompanied the submission overcome the reason for refusal of the previous application. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the proposed installation will not be incongruous or detract from the amenities and character of the locality. With regard to issue of health considerations, I consider that inclusion within the submission of an ICNIRP compliance certificate satisfies the requirements of PPG8.

       RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is being reported as the request of the applicant following discussions with the Development Control Manager.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a narrow terraced property situated on the southern side of Wood Street close to the junction with Monkton Street. The property comprises a two storey dwelling of small proportions and is attached to a group of two storey properties to the east which are at the corner of Monkton Street. There is a shared rear access and yard serving all of the properties which were probably part of a single dwelling in the past. There is a larger dwelling to the west fronting Wood Street with garage and storage building abutting the boundary with the application property. The area is characterised by traditional Victorian style residential development comprising a mixture of detached and semi-detached houses, most of which have good sized gardens and are set back from the road frontages.

The site itself is long and narrow in proportion with a small enclosed front garden area giving access to the property itself and a shared yard area at the rear. The existing property has limited accommodation with an unusual layout having a lounge at the front with a bedroom above served by a spiral staircase and a separate element at the rear with a kitchen and bathroom above and a small area off the kitchen presently used as a child's bedroom. The first floor accommodation is such that there is no link between the first floor bedroom at the front and the bathroom at the rear which is only accessed via the ground floor kitchen area and a secondary staircase. The property immediately abuts residential properties to either side and there are ground floor and first floor windows in the adjacent property to the east (8 Wood Street) which directly abut a small void and linked roof area to the application property and these windows are the only source of light and ventilation to the kitchen area and first floor bedroom of the adjoining property.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/20499 Application for alterations and first floor extension to provide bedroom and bathroom at rear of property was refused in 1990 and subsequently dismissed on appeal for the reasons that the first floor element would give rise to over dominance in respect of neighbouring properties resulting in loss of light and amenity provided by shared courtyard.

TCP/20499A Application for alterations and extension at first floor level to form bedroom refused under the delegated system on 2 July 2002 for the reason that the proposed first floor extension by reason of its position and design would be an intrusive development and would have a serious and adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring property and would therefore be contrary to Policy D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Members are advised that the application details were the same as those now under consideration which have been re submitted for determination by the Development Control Committee.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The submitted plans show construction of a small first floor flat roofed extension which would be situated immediately behind the first floor bedroom area and would provide an internal link at first floor level between the existing bedroom and the first floor element at the rear which is currently used as a bathroom but would be converted to form a second bedroom. The extension would be situated above the existing single storey flat roofed element and would be set back approximately 500 mm from the side wall of the adjoining property which contains the existing windows serving the ground floor kitchen and first floor bedroom accommodation. The flat roof line would link with the existing flat roofed structure at the rear of the property and in filled walls would be built up to match the existing structure with slate hanging finish to the small internal void next to the adjacent property.

A covering letter has been submitted by the applicants to support the proposals and outlining their personal circumstances with particular reference to their young son who has medical difficulties and currently occupies the small enclosed area to the rear of the kitchen/dining room which is considered unsatisfactory. A copy of the letter is appended to this report for Members information.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

This application relates to an extension to a traditional domestic property and Unitary Development Plan Policies D1 and H7 are therefore considered applicable.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Environmental Health Officer makes no comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None received.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters have been received from owners/occupiers of adjacent properties objecting to the proposals with matters raised summarised below;

The application is an exact copy of the previous one which was refused less than three months ago and no alterations or changes have been offered. Previous objections still apply on all points listed as nothing has changed since.

The submitted plans are misrepresentative of the existing properties and fail to show the full details with regard to the existing western elevation existing ground and first floor plans and the section. They do not take into account the structure of number 8 Wood Street adjoining and have been economical with the detail. These elements have been marked on details submitted with the letter.

The proposal would completely block the western elevation including the total obliteration of the first floor window of the property and adjoining of the two structures would give rise to an over dominance in respect of number 8 Wood Street resulting in loss of light, amenity, privacy, adequate ventilation and means of escape.

The fumes from the gas fire situated on the first floor bedroom will exhaust into a considerably reduced area. Carbon Monoxide gases would provide potentially life threatening effects due to greater tendency to reenter the building via the window and roof void ventilation as a result of blocking in the space.

Both the means of escape via the ground floor kitchen window and first floor bedroom window would be removed. The blocking in of the areas will give two rooms out of seven in the property without benefit from light and amenity which is approximately 30% of the living quarters of the property.

It is understood that Wood Street is in a Conservation Area and numbers 8 and 9 along with numbers 94 and 95 Monkton Street formed part of a period property built in 1834. The building was divided up into separate lease holds and significant space was enjoyed between the buildings. The gap has previously been bridged upon poor quality and inappropriate structures, the integrity of which needs to be checked if it is to support any form of development on top. Previously the outbuilding of Ivy Cottage has been built on with a low grade flat roof structure with incongruous cladding and the proposal to block the western elevation in the same inappropriate manner would degrade and detract from the period property. (Members are advised that whilst the western end of Wood Street is within the designated Conservation Area the application site and adjacent properties are in fact not contained within the designated Conservation Area.)

A previous decision to refuse planning application and subsequent dismissal on appeal for a slightly different scheme on grounds of over dominance of the development of a small area which would unacceptably detract from the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling still apply.

The proposed extension would be visible from Wood Street and would be unsightly and out of keeping with the original property.

Mechanical ventilation to the proposed shower/w.c would extract into the courtyard and if the fan makes a noise within the confined space this would also be a nuisance to anyone sleeping at the back of number 95 Monkton Street and to other users of the courtyard.

Number 9 Wood Street was originally a one up one down property with outside toilet and coal house. It has been extended over the years by previous owners in most unsuitable and unneighbourly ways and the accommodation is only considered suitable for one person or a couple.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

This application relates to a small first floor extension located behind the main first floor element of the existing property. Whilst the proposed extension would be visible at the side of the property when viewed across the adjacent property from the street I do not consider that it would in itself be significantly out of character with the area, or visually intrusive as the proposed flat roofed element will line through with the existing roof of the property and would be of small scale and not in a prominent location.

The proposed extension would allow an internal link between the two first floor elements of the existing property allowing the layout of the property to be improved and rationalized giving a more acceptable layout internally and improving the accommodation for the applicants.

My main concern however relates to the effect of the proposals on the amenities of the adjoining property which has two windows on the shared boundary which currently rely on the open space adjacent for all light and ventilation. The ground floor window serves a kitchen area and currently vents into a small void adjacent to the single storey link section on the application property. I understand that this window may also serve as a means of escape and there is an external ladder within the void area giving access to the flat roof in case of emergencies. There is also a first floor bedroom window looking into this area which currently obtains light and ventilation from the void area across the single storey flat roofed linked structure. I also understand that a gas fire vents into this area which would be significantly enclosed as a result of the proposed development.

The proposed first floor extension would effectively infill the area outside the adjacent windows and would be only 500 mm away from the face of the windows and enclosed to either side. Internal inspection of the adjacent property has revealed that these windows are the only ones which serve the rooms concerned and I am therefore of the opinion that the proposals would have a significant and adverse effect on the amenities of the kitchen and bedroom accommodation in the adjoining property.

HUMAN RIGHTS

The application has to be considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the applicants and occupiers of the adjacent property have a procedural right to a fair hearing. Members attention is drawn to the comments made by the applicant relating to the existing accommodation provided by the property although Members will be aware that individual applicants family circumstances are not a matter for planning consideration. Attention is also drawn to the effect of the proposals on the amenities of the adjoining property as outlined earlier in this report.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all matters raised in this report, and whilst sympathising with the problems encountered by the applicant relating to the layout of the existing property, I am of the opinion that the submitted details for a first floor extension in the location shown would have a serious and adverse effect on the amenities of the adjoining property with particular reference to the existing kitchen and bedroom windows of that property and therefore have no alternative but to recommend that the application is refused for the same reasons as the previous refusal which was issued in July 2002 for the same scheme.

       RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application has attracted representations from the local community forum.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a traditional semi-detached cottage situated on the north western side of Millers Lane in Carisbrooke. The existing cottage is 'L shaped' in form with part two storey and part single storey accommodation. The property immediately abuts the edge of Millers Lane and is attached to the adjoining property to the south west. The cottage has part rendered and part stone elevations with brick dressings and there is a substantial garden area which slopes down from the lane with some screening and mature tree planting. There is a detached timber garage situated to the north east of the cottage which would be relocated closer to the north eastern boundary of the property.

The area is rural in character and Millers Lane is a narrow mostly single track road with substantial tree and hedge screening and a scattering of traditional dwellings. Levels rise steeply to the south and the area is overlooked by the Castle and grounds.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/20588 - Planning permission granted for a two storey extension in July 1990. The approved details were similar in scale and mass to those now proposed although the extension was not built and that approval is now out of time.

TCP/20588/A - Application submitted for reconstruction of detached garage to include living accommodation over was submitted in October 2001 but has been held in abeyance pending further negotiations. Although the application has not been determined the previous details would be superseded by the application now under consideration.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The submitted details show the proposed construction of a two storey extension abutting the north eastern end of the existing cottage and projecting at right angles to Millers Lane. The proposed extension would contain a new entrance hall and staircase with living room and cloak room at ground floor level and an additional bedroom and bathroom at first floor level. The extension would be constructed of natural stone with brick dressings and part render to match the existing building with the rear gable element and return wall clad with black finished timber boarding to the upper floors. The main element of the extension would be set at a lower level than at the existing cottage and would be stepped back from the Millers road frontage to reduce the size and visual impact of the building from Millers Lane. The proposal also includes relocation of the existing timber detached garage to a location closer to the northern boundary of the property together with formation of a new vehicular access and turning area in order to improve the vehicular access to the property. A substantial tree which is close to the existing garage would be retained.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is situated in a rural area outside the designated development envelope and is within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Carisbrooke Conservation Area.

Although the building is of traditional character it is not listed and Unitary Development Plan policies D1 (Design), H7 (Extensions) and B6 (Protection of Conservation Areas) are considered relevant to the application.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has requested further details in respect of the new access and turning area and requests conditions if application is approved.

County Archeologist requests conditions regarding access to observe ground works if application is approved.

Environment Agency confirms no objection to the proposal but advises that applicant is informed that site is within an estimated flood plain and there may be a risk to the property.

Objection received from Carisbrooke West Community Forum objecting to application for alterations and two storey extension. The building has a unique nature falling within the Carisbrooke Conservation Area and also sits within the curtilage of Carisbrooke Castle. Previous applications for this property and others in Millers Lane have failed to receive approval - even on appeal - due to restrictions of road width in Millers Lane.

Any further development on this site would cause the neighbour difficulties due to the shared waste and cesspit facilities.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None received at time of preparing report.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

This application relates to a two storey extension to provide additional living accommodation for an existing cottage situated in Millers Lane. This comprises two storey accommodation with a single storey element at the rear, providing two bedroom accommodation. The proposed extension would add a third bedroom at first floor level together with additional living space at ground floor level. The proposals also include the removal of a substandard timber framed conservatory at the rear of the property together with relocation of the existing timber garage and formation of a new vehicular access.

As the existing cottage is situated within an environmentally sensitive area within the AONB and Conservation Area, the determining factors are considered to be the size, scale and design of the proposed extension, together with the effect of the proposals on highway safety and the amenities of nearby residents.

With regard to the first issue, although the proposed extension would be readily visible in the locality, it has been designed to match the existing materials and characteristics of the existing building and would be set back from the frontage with a lower roof line and would therefore be subservient to the existing cottage. The existing building already comprises a variety of different elements and the adjacent attached cottage also has a differing roof line and is higher than the application property. The area as a whole comprises a mixture of modern and traditional cottages constructed of traditional materials. The design and location of the proposed extension would therefore blend with the characteristics of the existing development and, would not be considered out of character with the designated Conservation Area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, with particular reference to distant views of the property from Carisbrooke Castle.

Matters relating to vehicular access have been considered by the Highways Engineer with particular reference to the narrow access lane. This is considered satisfactory by the Highway Engineer subject to conditions relating to the access and turning area itself.

With regard to comments received relating to the existing drainage system, it should be noted that the proposal now under consideration is for an extension to the existing dwelling and would not involve a formation of additional units of accommodation. Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would include an additional cloakroom and bathroom, the additional load as a result of domestic extensions on an existing septic tank system is not normally considered to be a problem. The applicants agent has been made aware of the comments received and the capacity of the existing system to take the additional load would be a matter for control under the Building Regulations.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all matters outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the size, scale and design of the proposed extension would be compatible with the existing building and would not appear over dominant or out of character with the existing development in the locality and would not therefore have an adverse effect on the character or amenities of the designated Conservation Area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. the proposed extension and other works are located in such a way that they would not directly impact on the amenities of other property occupiers and any matters relating to the existing drainage system would be controlled under other legislation.

Matters raised relating to the limited access to the property have also been carefully considered and Members will note that the Highway Engineer has note raised any objection to the principle of the development. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies D1, H7 and B6.

       RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to golf facility located on southern side of Westridge Centre and in particular relates to main building and associated golf driving range.

Building complex involves shop/office accommodation together with driving range bays and driving range.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21105A - floodlights, approved subject to restrictive conditions (1992).

TCP/22221A - single storey extension to form teaching bay and two additional practice bays, approved (2001).

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent to site four halogen floodlights at eaves level on recently approved and constructed extension which is located between main building and original practice bays. Each floodlight unit would be 500 watt halogen unit facing eastwards across existing driving range.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site lies in open countryside outside recognised settlement boundary for Ryde.

Relevant policies of UDP are considered to be as follows:

L2 (Formal Recreation Provision)

L7 (Golf Course Development)

D14 (Light Spillage)

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Environmental Health Officer makes no comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

Adverse impact of existing floodlighting in terms of brightness and dazzling effect.

Adverse impact on surrounding countryside, particularly across valley towards Nettlestone and Seaview.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations relate to UDP policy which encourages upgrading of formal recreation facilities and golf course development. However, such development should not unacceptably impact on amenities of residents and occupiers.

It is important to note that floodlights have already been approved at this facility in 1992 restricted to maximum illumination levels and operation until 21:00 hours. Current proposal seeks provision of four small lighting units at eaves level above recently approved extension which forms teaching bay and two additional practice bays. It should be noted that existing facility faces north east with main residential property affected some 1.5 kilometres away at Nettlestone. It should also be pointed out that facility may be seen against backdrop of brightly lit commercial establishments fronting Brading Road which would be in direct line of site when viewed from residential property in Nettlestone. Comments of third parties may to some extent be influenced by general commercial lighting outside application site which could contribute to some extent level of light pollution experienced in locality.

On balance it is felt that provision of four small additional floodlight units are unlikely to significantly impact or worsen condition currently experienced by nearest residential property. The illumination level of both the existing and proposed floodlight units can be controlled by way of condition as can hours of operation. Given development plan policy which supports such works in principle and fact that site represents established facility I do not consider it unreasonable to allow further illumination of recently approved extension provided such illumination ceases at 21:00 hours. This, it is considered, represents acceptable compromise in terms of operation of facility whilst seeking to minimise impact on locality.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Impact this development may have on owners/occupiers of neighbouring property has been carefully considered and whilst there may be some interference with rights of these people balance has to be achieved with rights of applicant to develop land in manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

       JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development supporting formal sports facility whilst not unduly adversely affecting amenities of residential property in locality.

               RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Site has been subject of previous applications for residential development which have been refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal. Therefore, it was considered inappropriate to deal with this matter under the delegated procedure. In particular, this report will address whether there has been any change in circumstances which would justify a different decision.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to rectangular site presently forming part of garden area to residential property located on cul-de-sac development accessed off Cliff Road. Existing residential property is located roughly centrally within curtilage with garden to either side and limited amenity space to rear. Application site is relatively level and, for most part, laid to lawn.

Development of Greenways comprises a mix of bungalows and houses in reasonably good sized plots. Dwellings are, for most part, set back from cul-de-sac road with landscape gardens to front giving spacious appearance.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/19201C/S/27868 - Bungalow with detached garage, refused July 1993 on grounds that proposal would result in density of development out of character with surrounding area and would be detrimental to privacy and amenities of adjoining residential properties. Similar to current submission, application involved area of land which formed part of garden to adjacent property with narrower frontage (approximately 15.6 metres).

TCP/19201D/S/27868 - Bungalow and detached garage on land opposite application site, refused July 1993 on same grounds as above application with additional reason relating to undesirable arrangement of dwellings in tandem likely to prejudice amenities and privacy of neighbouring residential sites and that proposal would create a precedent.

Both of these applications were subject of subsequent appeals which were dismissed in March 1994. Appointed Inspector considered that most important issue was effect of proposals on character and appearance of area and effects upon privacy and amenities of neighbouring residents. On first issue, he considered that having regard to spacious layout approved for rest of site, proposed bungalow, forward of adjacent property would appear incongruous and unduly prominent resulting in a cramped appearance. He also considered that proposal would deprive existing property of large part of its garden, detracting from amenities of this property. Inspector also took into account the cumulative effect of these proposals.

TCP/19201E/S/28782 - Bungalow with detached garage, refused August 1994 on same grounds as previous application (ref TCP/19201C). This application also involved area of garden to 6 Greenways although plot had slightly wider frontage than previous proposal, measuring approximately 17 metres. Subsequent appeal was dismissed in July 1995. Inspector considered main issue to be whether proposal would harm environment of the area. He concluded that, whilst proposal took into account comments of Inspector on previous appeal, the plot size and dwelling would not be seen as compatible with the much larger dwellings and plots nearby, particularly those on the development. Therefore, he considered that proposal would be out of character with area and would harm setting of the existing dwellings and environment of the locality.

TCP/24445/P1896/01 - Demolition of garage; two storey extension to form double garage with en-suite bedroom over; ground and first floor extension and construction of pitched roof over existing single storey extensions to form additional accommodation - conditionally approved January 2002. Proposals would result in building of quite substantial proportions.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline planning permission is sought for erection of bungalow and garage with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Application site has frontage to Greenways of approximately 21 metres with maximum depth of some 28.2 metres.

Whilst seeking outline planning permission only, submission was accompanied by illustrative plans which indicate that garage to the existing property would be demolished and relocated to opposite side of dwelling thereby facilitating an increase in width of plot. Submission also accompanied by letter from applicant providing information in support of proposal in which he indicates that the decision to relocate the garage has been made in attempt to address reasons for refusal of previous applications. Furthermore, he has confirmed that no trees would need to be removed and, in fact, proposal would enable large hawthorn tree to be retained which would have been removed to accommodate the approved extensions to the dwelling.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing sets out Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimising the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximising the reuse of existing buildings. The Guidance Note indicates that national target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings. Annexe C to the PPG provides definition of previously developed land which includes the curtilage of the development. Paragraph 54 of the Guidance Notice advises as follows:

"Good design and layout of new development can help to achieve the Government's objectives in making the best use of previously developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas. In seeking to achieve these objectives, Local Planning Authorities and developers should think imaginatively about designs and layouts which make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment."

Policy S7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan identifies a need for at least 8,000 housing units over the plan period which, in addition to previously identified sites and new land allocated in the plan, the demand will also be satisfied by developing currently unidentified sites. Such sites are referred to in PPG3 as windfall sites.

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be within development boundary. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the plan period.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

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

H5 - Infill Development.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends condition should application be approved.

Environmental Health Officer makes no adverse comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council express concern that this is on the same plot of land as a previous application for extension to the existing house. Although they objected to this previous application permission was granted and they are now concerned that if this application is granted as well it will be overdevelopment of the site. The Parish Council raise no objection to this application so long as it is instead of the previous application and not as well as.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Eight letters have been received from local residents objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Plot too small - would result in development out of character with area.

Proposal would result in overdevelopment and cramped appearance.

Adverse impact on amenities of adjacent property.

Proposal would not preclude extension to existing dwelling causing adverse impact on adjacent properties - in event bungalow approved, previous consent should be rescinded.

Sufficient building has already taken place in area.

Traffic generation - development served by private drive.

Other larger sites in area suitable for development.

Loss of privacy.

Proposal would result in pressure for mature trees to be removed.

Permission previously refused - what has changed?

Inadequate garden for proposed dwelling.

Land drainage in area causes landslips.

Additional load on already overloaded drainage system.

Increased rainwater soaking into ground.

No demand for more properties.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether the development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether site is of adequate size to permit development compatible with its surroundings without detriment to the character of the locality and amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.

Having regard to location of site within built up area and development boundary as defined on Unitary Development Plan, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to development of site for residential purposes.

Most recent of the previous applications seeking residential development on site involved a plot having frontage to Greenways of approximately 17 metres. Plans which accompanied current submission indicate that the existing garage to no. 6 Greenways would be demolished and relocated on the opposite side of the dwelling, thereby facilitating an increase in the width of the plot to approximately 21 metres. Whilst this would still be smaller than other plots within the development, I am satisfied that site could accommodate a modest sized bungalow while maintaining a reasonable amount of space about the dwelling. In this respect, submitted plans, whilst illustrative only, show distance of approximately 7.6 metres between the existing property and the proposed bungalow. Furthermore, plans indicate that building would not project further forward than the existing property, as was the case in one of the previous proposals. Development of site as proposed would still leave the existing property with a reasonable sized garden to side and front, with small area to rear. Having regard to these factors, I consider that current proposal, involving an increase in the size of the site to the previous applications, would not result in a cramped appearance or detract from the character of the locality. In particular, I do not consider that development of site as suggested on illustrative plans would intrude into any vista or detract from the open character of the Greenways development.

Members will note from the relevant history section of this report that permission has previously been granted for extensions to the existing dwelling. These extensions would result in a building of quite significant proportions. Therefore, in order to maintain the space between buildings in the interest of the character of the area, I consider that, should Members be minded to approve current application, consent should be subject to revocation of the previous planning permission. Furthermore, in order to minimise impact of development on neighbouring properties, I consider that any permission granted should be subject to conditions restricting dwelling to single storey only and limiting the floor area.

Applicant also owns small parcel of land opposite application site which has similarly been subject to previous application for residential development which was refused and dismissed on appeal. Whilst I consider that current proposal is acceptable, I remain of the opinion that development of the land opposite the site would be unacceptable due to the positioning of any dwelling on that site, forward of the dwelling which occupies the adjacent plot to the east. However, I do not consider that approval of current application would prejudice the Authorities position in this respect or that it would set a precedent for further development in the area.

Site would be accessed over roadway off Cliff Road which serves the existing development. It is considered that one additional dwelling would not generate significantly greater vehicle movements and that this road way, in terms of width, construction and visibility onto Cliff Road, is adequate to serve the proposed development.

Current application seeks outline permission for a bungalow and, therefore, all windows would be limited to ground floor accommodation. Having regard to this factor, I do not consider that proposal would result in overlooking or loss of privacy of adjacent properties or would have an over dominant effect. Therefore, it is unlikely that proposal would detract from the amenities currently enjoyed by adjoining occupiers.

With regard to drainage issue, I am advised by Southern Water that the contribution of a single house to the load on the foul sewer is small and would not have significant effect on the flow in the public sewer. Records held by them indicate that there are no sewer incidents shown for Greenways and whilst there have been some in Cliff Road, most are blockages on private drains. I am advised that this is not an indication of lack of capacity in the sewer. Furthermore, I am advised that separate surface water sewer is not shown on their plans and discharge point is unknown. However, it has been established that storm water system in Cliff Road is a highway drainage system which comprises a 225 mm pipe in Cliff Road which feeds into a 675 mm pipe in Madeira Road before discharging into sea adjacent the pier.

Whilst noting concerns of residents regarding ground stability issues, following consultations with the Principal Building Control Surveyor and the Area Building Control Surveyor, it is understood that property is not within area of known instability. Property further to south on opposite side of Cliff Road, close to junction with Eden Road, was demolished some years ago as this building suffered structural damage due to cliff erosion. However, area of turf walk, opposite the Greenways development, is protected by a sea wall and Principal Coastal Engineer has expressed view that application site is sufficient distance from cliff top, with intervening properties, that it is not under immediate threat from cliff erosion.

Members will be familiar with advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing, the amended document of which was published in March 2000, since the previous refusal, which places greater emphasis on creating more sustainable patterns of development and making more efficient use of land. Therefore, I consider that this advice, together with the increase in the size of the plot when compared with the previous proposals, provide sufficient justification to warrant a different decision to that previously made.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission, consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact of this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and third parties has been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances since the previous refusal, namely the increase in the size of the plot and publication of the advice in PPG3 emphasising the need to make better use of land within the built up areas, which justifies approval of the current application. Furthermore, I am satisfied that development of site with an appropriately designed property will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

               RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (subject to voluntary revocation without                 compensation of planning permission for extensions and alterations to 6                         Greenways - reference TCP/24445/P1896/01)

Conditions/Reasons:

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 29 OCTOBER 2002

PART IV REPORTS – ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP(E)2739K                  Construction of a three tier boat rack without planning permission, Gurnard Sailing Club, Gurnard, Isle of Wight.

Officer: Mr P Barker             Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider whether the installation of the boat rack is development and how the Local Planning Authority should respond to its continued presence in the absence of any formal application to the Local Planning Authority.

Background

In July 2002, two letters of complaint were received in the Planning Department regarding the construction of a metal, three tier, boat rack in the north west corner of Gurnard Sailing Club. Quite apart from the appearance, it is alleged that noise and disturbance is caused as a metal ramp has to be used to stack and unload the boats from the upper tiers of the boat rack.

An Enforcement Officer visited the sailing club and found that the boat rack is fixed to the ground with twenty four metal bolts and will store up to fifteen boats. The boat rack is some 2.6 metres wide by 4.8 metres long and 1.6 metres high. It is located at the western end of the site adjacent to 1.5 metre wire mesh fence beyond which is a footpath which provides pedestrian access to a number of residential properties and a walk along the sea wall. Each tier can accommodate five boats on their trailers with the boats approximately 3.5 metres long. It would appear that the units on the top tier are installed using some form of temporary ramp facility. The height of the top tier boats above ground level is some 2.5 metres. They are de-masted for storage purposes.

The Enforcement Officer wrote to the sailing club informing them that the boat rack required the benefit of planning permission and sent them application forms, without prejudice. The secretary of the club responded to the effect that due to the increase in the number of boats at the club they had to consider ways of storing them more efficiently. They therefore reconstructed a temporary rack in the north west corner where for many years a similar rack had been located. They said that the rack was affixed to the ground for safety purposes but could stand rigid based on its own weight.

The club states that it is their intention to dismantle the rack at the end of the sailing season in December and that depending on the demand for boat sites next year they may or may not need to re-erect the rack either in the same location or elsewhere on the site. They stated that in their view the activity did not amount to development that would require planning permission and asked the Enforcement Officer for confirmation of this, or alternatively justification for thinking differently. The Enforcement Officer had already stated in his letter that the boat rack did require planning permission and a letter has subsequently been sent to the club confirming a telephone conversation between the Enforcement Officer and one of the members that this matter would be placed before the Development Control Committee seeking their directions regarding the service of an Enforcement Notice.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1.  To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring that the boat rack be dismantled and not reassembled or re-sited without the permission of the Local Planning Authority. Time for compliance one month from when the notice takes effect.

2.  To take no further action in respect of the boat storage rack at the present time and review the situation again in January 2003.

3.  To write to Gurnard Sailing Club reaffirming that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the installation of the boat rack requires the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority for its retention.

4.  In recognition of the club’s indication that the rack will be removed at the end of the sailing season in December to indicate that the Local Planning Authority does not intend to consider taking any formal action at the present time providing the top tier within the boat rack remains empty.

5.  That the sailing club should be advised that if they wish to re-erect the racking facility for use next year that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority should be obtained in advance.

Conclusion

The view has been expressed to Gurnard Sailing Club that the installation of the boat rack is development. Support for this interpretation is provided by the fact that it is attached to the ground and that by their own admission the sailing club acknowledge that even if it were not bolted to the concrete base it could stand under its own weight. This latter point is one indicator that the installation is operational development.

On the basis that the club are reluctant to make an application the Local Planning Authority has to consider whether the retention of the rack is acceptable. The complainants have cited the visual impact and the noise associated with the use of the facility as the reasons why the rack should be removed. I believe the relevant Unitary Development Plan policies to consider are D1 (Standards of Design), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses).

The site of the rack is within the clearly identified curtilage of the sailing club and indeed there are other boats with masts attached stored on other parts of the site adjoining the rack. Given the degree of activity that one would normally expect at the sailing club and the fact that the club have indicated that the racking facility is likely to be removed at the end of the sailing season in December, I am inclined to seek the Planning Committee’s support to put the proposal to the sailing club that as an immediate solution to the situation the Local Planning Authority would take no further action on this matter if they remove the boats stored on the top layer. I will propose to do this by letter in the first instance rather than under enforcement as I am conscious that the time period involved in the service of any notice would result in the compliance period occurring at or after the club have dismantled the boat rack and the matter would have resolved itself. I also believe that the club should then be encouraged to resolve the outstanding matter if they propose to seek a similar facility for next year by the submission of a formal planning application over the winter period so that the situation is resolved by next Spring.

In coming to this recommendation not to take enforcement action, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact that the continued use of the boat rack would have on the site and the surrounding area have been carefully considered. This includes the recognition of the relevant UDP policies applicable to this area and the nature of the development concerned. On balance, I believe that the proposal to take no formal action at this stage is a proportionate response and does not undermine the public interest as exhibited through the planning policies.

Recommendation

1.  To write to Gurnard Sailing Club reaffirming that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the installation of the boat rack requires the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority for its retention.

2.  In recognition of the club’s indication that the rack will be removed at the end of the sailing season in December to indicate that the Local Planning Authority does not intend to consider taking any formal action at the present time providing the top tier within the boat rack remains empty.

3.  That the sailing club should be advised that if they wish to re-erect the racking facility for use next year that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority should be obtained in advance.

(b) TCP/17105B                   Tideways Cottage, The Causeway, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.

Officer: Mr S Cornwell         Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

The purpose of this report is to make Members aware of an allegation regarding further works resulting in an extension of the lawn into the reed bed area and to consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond.

Background

Tideways Cottage is the former railway level crossing keeper’s property which is located on the northern side of The Causeway. On the northern and western sides, it abuts the former railway line which is now used as a cycle track. Although the cottage abuts the highway its grounds run in a north easterly direction alongside the cycle track, extending some 0.38 hectares in area. To the south east beyond a dog-legged boundary is Afton Thatch, a residential property.

Members will recall considering a report in response to a number of alleged breaches of planning control which resulting in a site visit on 3 May 2002. At that time, Members considered seven alleged breaches of planning control, one of which was the enlargement of the domestic garden into the reed bed. Having considered the evidence and having viewed the situation on site, with regards to the allegation of the infilling of the reed bed area, Members resolved to accept the works within the grounds of Tideways Cottage which had been carried out within its domestic curtilage and that the limited infill undertaken did not constitute development sufficient to require the submission of a formal planning application. It was recorded that Members expressed a desire that, in their opinion, the degree of infilling which had taken place on the edge of the reed bed was considered the maximum permissible without the need for the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority to be obtained.

At the beginning of September an allegation was made that further encroachment into the reed bed area was taking place. The site has been visited and discussions with the owners taken place. On site, there is an area of bare ground adjacent the jetty which has been formed at the edge of the lawn jutting out into the reed bed. The area of bare ground consists of two elements. Firstly, a strip some one metre deep by three metres long immediately adjacent the jetty with a further area some three metres square adjoining this. A series of wooden piles have been driven in of which the last half dozen or so appear to be running out into the water.

Based on the visual assessment of the photographic evidence taken in July 2002 and the ground conditions today the property owner was advised that, in the opinion of the Officer, they had crossed the threshold set out in the letter of 7 May 2002 and accordingly they were invited to make a planning application for the works undertaken.

A meeting was held with the property owner on 23 September 2002, at which time it was indicated that the works concerned had simply been to fill in a depression which follows the line of a soakaway trend which services the property. Insofar as the direction of the pile line, a willingness was expressed to remove the last six piles and to run them abutting the existing edge of the earth. Reference was made to the erosion of this edge by the waxing and waning of the tide which is linked to this reed bed area from the adjoining estuary by a pipe. The householder expressed reluctance to submit a planning application with the necessary fee (£110) simply to remedy what he believed was a relatively small matter.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1.  To advise the property owner that, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, taken cumulatively, the infilling works undertaken since the beginning of the year constitute development and accordingly they require the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any such application to be submitted within 28 days.

2.  To note the additional infilling that has been undertaken which is believed to be acceptable when considered against general planning criteria and on that basis, not to press the householder for the submission of a formal planning application as this would serve no wider public interest.

Conclusion

Tideways Cottage is adjacent the estuary which is a designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest and also is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In considering whether the works are acceptable the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan are relevant:

Strategic Policies

S4

S10

Detailed Policies

G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements)

C1 (Protection of Landscape Character)

C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration)

When considering the earlier works undertaken at this property in May, Members expressed a view that the householder had reached the threshold beyond which additional infilling works would require the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority. Clearly, Members would not wish their earlier views to be seen as having been totally disregarded by the householder. Nevertheless, I am conscious of the guidance outlined in PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control, which clearly indicates that it is not an offence to carry out development without first obtaining any formal planning permission required, and that whilst not condoning any breaches of planning control, enforcement action should not be used solely to “regularise” development which is acceptable on its planning merits but for which permission has not been sought.

I have discussed the current situation with both the Council’s Ecology Officer and the AONB Officer. Neither views the work as damaging to the ecological or landscape designations.

There are no nature conservation implications with regards to this development and on balance, I agree with the AONB Officer that any changes to the visual character of the area are minimal. Under these circumstances, I believe it likely that if an application was made it would be supported. Accordingly, I do not consider that it would be in the wider public interest to take any enforcement action against the household, and I recommend that Option 2 be adopted.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation not to take enforcement action consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact the works have on the site and the surrounding area have been carefully considered. This includes the recognition of the relevant UDP policies applicable to this area and the nature of the development concerned. It is considered that the proposal to take no further action is a proportionate response and does not undermine the public interest as exhibited through the planning policies.

Recommendation

To note the additional infilling that has been undertaken which is believed to be acceptable when considered against general planning criteria and on that basis, not to press the householder for the submission of a formal planning application as this would serve no wider public interest.

(c) TCP/24495                      Unauthorised child minding business operating from Blessings Lodge, Baring Road, Cowes.

Officer: Mr P Barker             Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring cessation of a child minding business at Blessings Lodge, Baring Road, Cowes.

Background

In October 2001, a complaint was received that a child minding business was being run from Blessings Lodge, Baring Road, Cowes without the benefit of planning permission. An Enforcement Officer visited the premises on 19 October 2001 and discussed the business with the proprietor. The Enforcement Officer asked the proprietor to provide him with written details of the operation, including the number of staff, and children.

The Enforcement Officer received written details on 23 October 2001 and briefly, the proprietor stated that the day nursery was open from 8:00 am until 5:30 pm daily Monday to Friday. She stated that she employed two full time staff and five part time staff. She said that the parents arrive intermittently throughout the day and pull onto the drive at Blessings Lodge to drop the children off. The proprietor states that the number of children at any one time, not including her own children, varies between eight and twelve plus staff. The Social Services Registration, allows a maximum of twelve children at any one time. Children are allowed to play in the garden and the area in front of the house at various times throughout the day.

The proprietor was informed that the child minding business required the benefit of planning permission, and an application was received on 29 November 2001. There were three letters of objection to the application all of which told of the damage which had been caused to the amenities of the area by the noise and traffic which this business had inflicted upon them.

On 21 March 2002 the Planning Officer dealing with the application received a letter from the proprietor of Blessings Lodge asking to withdraw the planning application as she had had an offer to buy the property and hoped to complete the contracts within the next six weeks.

In July 2002, further complaints were received that the child minding business was still being operated from Blessings Lodge. On 24 July 2002, an Enforcement Officer visited the address and spoke with the manager who informed him that the owner now lived abroad and that the sale of Blessings Lodge had fallen through. The manager stated that the business was being operated as before with eighteen children in two shifts, being supervised by six staff. She was informed that this business required the benefit of planning permission. In August 2002, a planning application was received for retention of the child minding business at Blessings Lodge but it was invalidated through lack of plans and failure to complete some of the questions on the application. At the end of August 2002, the Planning Registration Officer received a telephone call from the proprietor of Blessings Lodge stating that a further offer had been received on the house and she expected to move on 15 September 2002. A letter was received from the proprietor of Blessings Lodge on 9 September 2002 withdrawing the application for planning permission.

On 16 September 2002 and again on 19 September 2002 complaints were received by the Enforcement Officer to the effect that the business was still being operated at Blessings Lodge. As a result of these further complaints a letter was sent by the Enforcement Officer to the proprietor of Blessings Lodge informing her that the matter would be reported to the Development Control Committee.

A letter has been received from the proprietor of Blessings Lodge indicating that they are proposing to vacate the operation to new premises by 25 October 2002. Accordingly as of that date they will cease trading from this address. They request that the Council give them the few weeks grace necessary.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1.  To serve an Enforcement Notice on the proprietor of Blessings Lodge, Baring Road, Cowes, requiring the cessation of the child minding business at this address. Time for compliance 3 months.

2.  To take no further action, and wait for the premises to be sold.

Conclusion

Present situation at the time of writing this report is that Blessings Lodge has been run as a child minding operation from the latter part of 2001. First attempt to remedy breach of planning control by the submission of a planning application in November 2001 came to nothing as that application was subsequently withdrawn in March 2002 at which time it was suggested property would be sold within some 6 weeks. Use continued whilst second application submitted in August 2002 was invalidated. This second invalid application has been formerly withdrawn and the Local Planning Authority is now advised that the business will cease no later than 25 October 2002. Given the planning history, I believe that the Local Planning Authority should consider a potential course of action in the event that this latest deadline is not kept.

On the basis that the Local Planning Authority is unable to obtain a valid planning application from the operators an assessment must be made of whether or not the unauthorised development is acceptable. Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 gives some indication of the level of activity that can be undertaken from a residential property before the threshold is crossed when the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is required. It is suggested that the indicators as to when a material change of use has taken place can include traffic generation, noise or fumes over or above what would normally be expected if the property were in use as a single dwelling. I believe that the nature of the present use is sufficient that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority would be required.

Turning to the question of whether or not the level of activity is acceptable I believe that this would have to be considered in the context of the policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan specifically D1 (Standards of Design) which seeks to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties and TR7 (Highways Considerations for New Development).

Regarding the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties it appears that the children use the rear garden area and one of the latest complainants tells of the children being outside for much of the day often shouting and screaming at the top of their voices. It is alleged to start at about 8.30 am through to 4 or 5 pm. I have taken the opportunity of consulting the Environmental Protection section who have indicated that they have no records of any complaints regarding this property over the previous 3 years. In the absence of any complaints and based on experience of similar establishments it is suggested by the Environmental Health Officer that whilst it is possible that the activities could potentially cause disamenity to the neighbouring properties there may not be sufficient evidence to object to the proposal. Notwithstanding this comment from the letters submitted when the first application was being considered I believe that there is a loss of amenities to the neighbouring property as a result of the operation.

I have also spoken to the Highway Engineers who has indicated that he does not consider that this is a suitable location for such a business although there is space in the frontage to drop off and pick up small people.

Blessings Lodge is a large property fronting a classified road located within a residential area. Having considered all the factors outlined above I am concerned that the nature of the activity could not be adequately controlled so as to protect the amenities of the nearby residential properties as it would be unrealistic to expect the nursery to keep the children locked indoors particularly during fine weather. I also consider that the traffic associated with the use is unacceptable and this is supported by the Highway Engineer. I note the proprietors indication that the use of the property will cease but as Members will be aware from the planning history such an indication has been given in the past but failed to materialise. Accordingly, I believe it prudent to propose that enforcement action be taken and will update Members at the committee of any change in circumstances.

In coming to this recommendation to seek enforcement action consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact of the unauthorised development on the occupiers of adjoining properties and on the area in general have been carefully considered. Whilst this action may interfere with the rights of the owners of Blessings Lodge, it is considered that the recommendation to take enforcement action is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice on the proprietor of Blessings Lodge, Baring Road, Cowes, requiring the cessation of the child minding business at this address. Time for compliance 3 months.

(d) U/135/01                   Investigation into alleged motor vehicle sales from 7 Copse End, Sandown, Isle of Wight

Officer: Mr S Cornwell        Tel: (01983) 823592

Forward

Members will recall that this paper was considered at the 17 September 2002 Development Control Committee meeting at which time Members resolved to defer consideration of this issue with the request that Officers reconsider the situation and report back to a future meeting. The basic circumstances with regards to the evidence and interpretation remain unchanged. However, where fresh information has been added to the report outlined below this is set out in bold type to assist Members.

Summary

To consider whether the evidence currently available to the Local Planning Authority is sufficient to substantiate that a material change of use has taken place involving the use of a residential property in connection with motor vehicle sales which also involves the use of parking areas on the estate for the storage of vehicles for sale and, if so, what action should be taken to address the situation.

Background

In April 2001 a complaint was received alleging vehicle sales and repairs from a residential property at Copse End in Sandown. Correspondence has been received suggesting that car trading is taking place and including evidence to support this contention. The evidence involved records vehicles parked at the property itself and also elsewhere on the estate, matching these to advertisements which have appeared in editions of a local advertiser which is published weekly. At one time, it was suggested that six cars for sale were parked within the parking areas on the estate.

It has also been alleged that the occupant of the property undertakes work to the vehicles within his front garden. Evidence has been submitted to support the contention that what appears to be minor bodywork is undertaken.

I have visited the locality on a number of occasions in an attempt to identify whether there is any evidence of a commercial motor trading business taking place. During those visits I have not observed any vehicles displaying for sale signs although I can confirm that vehicles parked have appeared in the local advertiser.

The matter has been discussed in some detail with the owner of the property most recently, at a meeting that was attended by the Enforcement Team Leader and the Development Control Manager. That meeting took place at his unit on Senator Trading Estate at College Close, Sandown. These are the premises from which the proprietor of Sandown Autos does his business. During the discussions the following points came to light.

·    The proprietor stated he does not run the business from home but he does use the home telephone number.

·    The garage at Senator Trading Estate has been owned for four years and prior to that he traded from premises at Fort Mews.

·    The proprietor stated he does not trade from home indicating that selling cars was of secondary concern to him with his main income being from property.

·    The proprietor acknowledged he uses a weekly local advertiser but says all people come to the Senator Unit to view cars and not his home.

·    The proprietor showed us the trade plates which contain the unit’s address and other business paperwork which also contains the industrial unit address.

·    The proprietor acknowledged that there was a recent spate of vandalism and stolen cars from around the Industrial Unit and that if he had a decent car he did park it at Copse End but did not display any for sale signs.

·    The proprietor did acknowledge that occasional body repair work is done at home but that all the main valeting and repairs are done by one of the adjoining body repair shops at the Industrial Estate.

·    The proprietor stated his entire car stock at any one time was somewhere in the region of five or six cars and at the present time these were parked at the Industrial Unit.

·    The proprietor did suggest that in the event of him running a business from home he would have expected the Local Planning Authority to have received more complaints.

Officers have, since the 17 September 2002 Development Control Committee meeting, monitored the vehicles utilising the lay-bys on the estate. On 9 October 2002 one vehicle was observed on the driveway of no. 7 Copse End and one vehicle in a lay-by. A return visit on 11 October 2002 revealed that the vehicle on the driveway was the same but that no vehicles were parked in any of the lay-bys on the estate.

Complainant who was presented with a copy of the Development Control Committee report on 22 September 2002 has subsequently written in taking issue with a number of points made in the report. These can be summarised as follows:

·    There is a temporary suspension of major repairs and activity coinciding with any Council investigation.

·    Consider we have supplied you with more than sufficient evidence of activity.

·    Seen up to nine and ten cars parked around the estate, six cars are the norm.

·    Complainant takes issue over what is termed to be minor bodywork repairs.

·    Disputes that proprietor of Sandown Autos runs business from single lockup, that he does trade from home and has been seen on many occasions showing cars to potential buyers and passes paperwork over in street.

·    Copse End used as postal address with all paperwork and office work done and kept in the portakabin and converted garage at 7 Copse End, with everything moved to Senator Trading Estate when Council visiting.

·    Believe vehicle stock is a minimum of ten cars or vans of which five to seven advertised each week.

·    Complaint made on behalf of residents of Morton Brook.

·    Continue to dispute that reference in report that a number of other alleged breaches of planning control are permitted development.

Options

1.  To indicate to the proprietor of Sandown Autos that, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, based on the evidence available at the present time, no material change of use has taken place at this time and consequently there should be no further action and all interested parties advised accordingly.

2.  To advise the proprietor of Sandown Autos that for the avoidance of any doubt in the future he should avoid using the communal parking bays within the residential estate for the parking of any of the business vehicles other than the vehicle expressly used for his own or a member of his family’s personal use.

3.  To advise the proprietor of Sandown Autos that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the use of number 7 Copse End together with the communal parking spaces within the Copse End Estate constitutes a material change of use in connection with auto sales which is a use that would be unacceptable within a residential estate.

4.  Enforcement Action be authorised requiring the cessation of the use with a time period for compliance of one month.

Conclusion

The main issue to consider in this particular case is whether or not the vehicle trading business is being run from the domestic property taking advantage of car parking in the vicinity. To prove such an allegation it would be necessary for a material change of use to have taken place, that is, there would have to be clear consistent evidence beyond occasional use or that normally associated with a domestic property. Members should also make the assessment in terms of whether to take any action based on the situation “today”.

For clarity I propose to divide the allegation into the two constituent parts which are the use of the residential property and secondly the use of the lay-bys on the estate.

Concerning the residential property Members will appreciate that the simple use of a domestic telephone number to receive calls is not indicative of a material change of use. PPG4-Industrial and Commercial Development in Small Firms paragraph 32 working from home indicates that planning permission is not normally required where the use of part of a dwellinghouse for business purposes would “not change the overall character of the property’s use as a single dwelling”. The example given is the use of a single room as an office. When providing guidance as to the point where a business ceases to become ancillary but grows to a level where a material change of use is likely to have taken place the guidance suggests that such indicators as non-residential visitor numbers, traffic noise or fumes are appropriate. By his own admission, the proprietor of the business has acknowledged that on occasions vehicles have been worked on at his domestic premises.

In reaching any judgement whether vehicles are being repaired at 7 Copse End to any degree that constitutes a material change of use, Members must consider what level of work to a vehicle a normal domestic householder could undertake, both in terms of the level of the work and the times when the work is undertaken. On balance, whilst noting the complainant’s information, including the more recent correspondence I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a material change of use has taken place at no. 7 Copse End at this time.

Regarding the use of parking spaces around the residential estate for the parking of trade cars it is acknowledged that this has occurred but the question to consider is whether the number of vehicles associated with this use is sufficient to have triggered the need for planning permission. Further monitoring of the use of the residential parking lay-bys has been undertaken since the 17th September 2002 Development Control Committee meeting. None of the additional evidence obtained does anything other than reaffirm the position taken by Officers in the earlier report.

On balance, I do not believe that the point has been reached where a material use has taken place. Members should be conscious that Officers are not indicating that no business use whatsoever has taken place at the property or that the occasional use of any of the parking areas on the estate have been used in connection with the business. However, from the information provided and assessing the situation “today” it is my opinion that the threshold has not been passed whereby a material change of use has taken place.

Members should be aware that a number of other alleged breaches of planning control have been investigated at this property over the last year including unauthorised building in garden and extension to domestic garden. The building was “permitted development” and concerning the other allegation, whilst the owner of no. 7 had acquired a section of ground next to his property, it had not been formally incorporated into his garden and consequently no change of use had taken place. Complainant is disputing this interpretation of the situation but offers no substantial evidence why in the context of the legislative planning background these issues should be reviewed again.

In coming to this recommendation not to take enforcement action, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact of the alleged breaches of planning control might have on the complainant, occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some level of interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the individual against whom the complaints are being made in the context of the planning legislative background. The decision not to take any formal enforcement action is considered proportionate to the legitimate aims and to the public interest as expressed through the Unitary Development Plan policies.

Recommendation

1.  To indicate to the proprietor of Sandown Autos that, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, based on the evidence available at the present time, no material change of use has taken place at this time, and consequently there should be no further action and all interested parties advised accordingly.

2.  To advise the proprietor of Sandown Autos that for the avoidance of any doubt in the future he should avoid using the communal parking bays within the residential estate for the parking of any of the business vehicles other than the vehicle expressly used for his own or a member of his family’s personal use.

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services