PAPER B

Purpose : For Decision

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 3 APRIL 2001

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

This report sets out the objections received to the Council's Proposed Modifications to the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The Council are required to consider all of the objections and decide whether they require a second Inquiry, whether any further modifications are required, or whether the UDP should be adopted without further modification.

MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO BRING WITH THEM TO THE MEETING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION - AS PREVIOUSLY SUPPLIED:

Deposit Draft UDP, May 1997

Proposed Modifications January 2001

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee resolves to

1. Agree that the objections to the proposed modifications raise no new issues that require a second inquiry.

2. Agree that the objections do not necessitate the need for further modifications to the plan.

3. Agree that the Council be recommended to advertise its intention to adopt the UDP, followed 28 days later by advertisement of the Notice of Adoption.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications for this report, although should the Council decide that a second Inquiry is required, there will be cost implications. The cost of a second inquiry, which would require paying for an Inspector, barrister, programme officer, venue etc is difficult to estimate without knowing the likely length and complexity of the issues raised.

The cost of printing the adopted plan is likely to be �15-20,000. This would include a printed version and could potentially include production of a CD Rom version.

BACKGROUND

The six week statutory consultation stage for the proposed modifications has now finished (closing date 9 March 2001). The Council now has to consider each duly made objection and decide whether it raises issues which would require consideration of a second inquiry. The Council also needs to consider whether to propose any further modifications. If the Council decides that no such issues are raised, and no further modifications are required, then the Council are in a position to advertise their intention to adopt. 28 days after the notice of intention to adopt is first advertised the Council can place a notice of adoption. Subject to legal challenge, the Plan will become the statutory development plan for the Island, replacing the existing structure plan and six local plans inherited from the former County and District Councils.

PPG12 states that the Council should set out a timetable for the key stages in the plan preparation. The likely timetable for the remaining stages is as follows:

• April 2001

- The Planning Committee consider objections made to the Proposed Modifications and makes recommendations to the Council;

- Council endorses the recommendations;

- Council notifies its intention to adopt the Plan;

• May 2001 - Council advertises notice of adoption;
• June 2001 - UDP adopted as a statutory plan;
• June/Jul 2001 - arrangements made for printing and publication of UDP following expiry of period for High Court Challenge which is 6 weeks from the date of publication of the first notice of adoption.

Normally, no further inquiry is needed into matters already considered, including cases of objection to modifications not proposed by the Council. The advice from the Secretary of State to Local Planning Authorities is to hold a second inquiry where objections raise matters which were not an issue in the earlier stage.

It is at the discretion of the Council whether or not a second Inquiry is held. This decision needs to be tempered against holding up the adoption of the plan over what may be considered to be a minor issue. The Council needs to justify any delay on the basis of fairness to participants in the plan process as a whole and applicants seeking planning decisions through the development control process, weighed against any individual objection to the plan.

A second issue that needs to be considered is the fact that the existing development plans are very out-of-date. The end date of the existing structure plan is 1996, and the Island is currently without adopted strategic guidance. Even the last adopted local plan, the Rural Areas Local Plan could be considered to be beyond its 10 year lifespan. The lack of current adopted plan coverage on the Island makes it important for the Island as a whole that at this stage of the process, we progress towards an adopted plan rather than hold up the whole process as a result of minor objections.

Details of Objections to Proposed Modifications

The Council received a total of 24 objections to the advertised proposed modifications, together with 8 statements of support (copies of these are available in the Members room). Subsequently, GOSE have indicated that their eight objections will be withdrawn, leaving sixteen objections for Members to consider.

Proposed Modification No: PM/19

1. Recommendation:

That the proposed modification PM19 should remain in the plan to be adopted.

2. Proposed Modification:

Include the site within the development envelope. (Map 4, Inset K of the UDP)

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

The proposed modification PM19 is to include part of the frontage of Wootton House within the development envelope in accordance with the inspectors recommendation.

Wootton Parish Council object in the interest of the environment, amenity and to protect the rural character of the village; stressing the importance of protecting wooded areas. Attention is drawn to the Wootton Bridge Village Design Statement which was adopted by the Isle of Wight Council as supplementary guidance since the closure of the public inquiry

The Parish Council consider that the wooded areas of Station Road are included by implication within the area to the south of the village where infill and ribbon development and urban sprawl towards Newport is to be resisted. They argue that existing trees and woodland should be retained and cared for and that unrivalled countryside through the Parish boundaries should be conserved.

Members will recall requesting a visit to this site before resolving to accept the inspectors recommendation due to similar concerns previously expressed by the Parish Council. At the site visit members noted that the mature trees in the curtilage of Wootton House already lay within the development envelope and that the area of garden which the inspector recommended should be included did not appear to contain any trees of amenity value. Members requested that the Council's Tree Officer inspect the grounds of Wootton House to ascertain if there were any trees of merit within the area to be included within the development envelope and to seek Tree Preservation Orders on these and other trees of merit within the curtilage of Wootton House.

The Council's Tree Officer has visited the site and finds no trees of merit or amenity value within the portion of the curtilage forming the modification site subject of the objection. A number of the trees on the adjoining land closer to Wootton House do merit individual TPOs and a wider Woodland TPO is also appropriate as this area retains the characteristics of ancient woodland.

The Council are in the process of serving TPOs on those trees of merit which will protect the contribution that these make to the character of this part of the Village. However as there are no trees of merit on the modification site and officers are of the view that the Inspector's recommendation PM/19 should remain in the plan.

Proposed Modification No: PM/32

1. Recommendation:

That the Council make no further modifications to the plan in the light of the objection to proposed modification 32.

2. Proposed Modification:

G5 Outside the defined settlements, development may be exceptionally permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is an appropriate scale, and is in one or more of the following categories of development:

a .................. b

c appropriate small scale rural tourism development;.

The above exceptions development will not be acceptable where they would:

1 cause the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural, horticultural or forestry land; or

2 reduce the quality of the environment and landscape; or

3 cause the loss of, or damage to, identified areas or features of conservation or wildlife value; or

4 damage or destroy identified sites or features of historic or archaeological importance or historic parks and gardens or their settings; adversely affect any area, site or feature of archaeological, architectural, ecological, palaeoecological, geological, cultural or historic interest or their settings; or

5 .................................... 6;

7 contribute to the merging of settlements or villages with each other; or

8 harm the setting of a settlement, or village or part of that setting.

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

Objection has been lodged to the proposed modification 32 relating to policy G5 in that the objector considers that criteria 7 and 8 should be deleted. The objectors grounds are that neither criteria were proposed or further changes recommended by the inspector, that they were not included in PC 11 and that the Council are replicating limitations originally in policy G3 which the inspector has recommended, and the Council has agreed be deleted.

The Inspectors report does not refer to the additional clauses when dealing with policy G5 but in consideration of policy G3 the inspector in paragraph 2.60 iii recommends the Council "Give consideration to the need to add to the numbered clauses under policy G5 to indicate that development will not be acceptable where it would result in the merging of settlements or damage the setting of a settlement."

The Inspector clearly recognised that the issues which were debated at the inquiry in the context of policy G3 merited inclusion within Policy G5 of the plan even though he recommended the deletion of policy G3 itself. The Council have accepted the inspectors recommendations relating to policy G3 in their entirety including the deletion of policy G3 and additional criteria to policy G5 with the wording of these criteria 7 & 8, directly reflecting the inspectors recommendation.

Officers are of the view that the objection should not therefore be supported.

Proposed Modification No: PM/121

1. Recommendation:

That the objections received raise no new issues which would warrant a second inquiry and no further modifications to the Plan are required.

2. Proposed Modification:

T6 Planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as defined on the proposals map will only be approved where they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities and the following criteria can be met:

a the adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities;

ab they do not detract from their surroundings;

bc they enhance the environment, or improve the visual appearance of the site;

d they ............ layout;

cd they do not lead to the need for further extensions of operational land;

de new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area.

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

With regard to the objection that T6 is unclear in its intention, it should be pointed out that the Policy was the subject of lengthy debate at the Inquiry and was also subject to pre inquiry and further changes which were properly considered by the Inspector with his recommendation being accepted in full by the Council. This objection therefore raises no new issues that have not already been considered by the Inspector.

The objection to criteria (d) and (e) relate to a typographical error which will be amended in the adopted plan. The proposed modification should have crossed through all references to criteria "d", and the wording which appears as "e" should in fact be "d". It is not considered that such a change would materially affect the contents of the plan, and therefore it is not necessary to advertise a further proposed modification.

Proposed Modification No: PM/138

1. Recommendation:

That the objections received raise no new issues which would warrant a second inquiry and no further modifications to the Plan are required.

2. Proposed Modification:

T5A The continued provision of seasonal sites for touring caravans and tents plays an important role in the overall provision of tourist accommodation in the Island and caters for a particular market sector. Whilst such sites should be served by good quality basic facilities it is not considered appropriate that they should become permanent sites for all year static caravans, nor generally provide permanent hardstanding facilities or tent bases and should be capable of reverting to agricultural use outside the summer tourist season or if the tourist use ceases.

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

The Proposed Modification provides reasoned justification for Policy T5A in line with the Inspectors recommendations. Some of the wording originally suggested relating to brownfield sites was not considered appropriate by the inspector and so has been deleted. The Inspector made no recommendation in respect of deleting references to hard standings or the reversion of sites to agricultural use in his report. It is unclear from his report that he considered the issue in respect of PC71 in detail.

The objector draws attention to paragraphs 7.43.3 and 7.43.5 and the Inspectors reasoning that on 'many' sites the provision of hardstandings themselves would not be unacceptably intrusive and carefully located facilities may cause little visual harm. The objector concludes that hardstandings 'would not' be unacceptably intrusive. The Council agree with the Inspector that in some cases hardstandings will not be visually intrusive but disagrees that this will be in many cases. The Council's view is that generally such hardstandings will be visually intrusive where for example they erode the rural character of the site.

Many sites will not be visually intrusive either in the close or distant view during the summer months when trees, hedges and other foliage provide adequate screening and so will be suitable for use for touring caravans and tented camping. The removal of tents and caravans during the winter when such sites are more visually exposed was considered appropriate by the inspector. For many sites the "footprint" of the summer use is left and visible in the landscape during the autumn when summer foliage dies back until the site has a chance to recover naturally. The use of hardstandings in such cases will result in even those sites empty of tents or caravans, permanently showing up and detracting from the rural character of the landscape.

The Council consider that the text of the reasoned justification should remain as shown in the proposed modification.

Proposed Modification No: PM/139

1. Recommendation:

That the objections received raise no new issues which would warrant a second inquiry and no further modifications to the Plan are required.

2. Proposed Modification:

T5B Development which will result in the loss of touring caravan and tented camping sites, including changes to permanent holiday accommodation, will not be approved if the visual or other impact of permanent development of the site detract from its rural character.

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

The issue of change over from touring pitches to static holidays was discussed in some length at the Inquiry, and the Inspector makes specific reference to this fact in paragraph 7.43.3 - 7.43.4 of his report. The proposed modification does not preclude the change from touring to static site, but emphasises that one of the main considerations, should an application be received, is the visual impact and effect on the rural character of the site.

Proposed Modification 139 is exactly as recommended by the Inspector in his Report and therefore raises no new issues which require a second inquiry, nor the need for further modifications to the plan.

Proposed Modification No: PM/140

1. Recommendation:

That the objections received raise no new issues which would warrant a second inquiry and no further modifications to the Plan are required.

2. Proposed Modification:

T5B - justification

The impact on the landscape of touring caravan and tented camping sites located in countryside is minimised as they only function for a limited period during the summer months when trees shrubs, foliage and other vegetation reduces any visual intrusion. Any proposal to replace touring and tented sites with permanent structures or facilities has the potential to have a significant and detrimental long-term impact on the visual integrity of the open countryside. It is considered important to ensure that the wider countryside is protected from any unacceptable long-term adverse impact of permanent development of such sites whether for holiday accommodation or other uses.

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

As with the previous objections, the issue of change over from touring pitches to static holidays was discussed in some length at the Inquiry, and the Inspector makes specific reference to this fact in paragraph 7.43.3 - 7.43.4 of his report. The proposed modification does not preclude the change from touring to static site, but emphasises that one of the main considerations, should an application be received, is the visual impact and effect on the rural character of the site.

Proposed Modification 139 is exactly as recommended by the Inspector in his Report and therefore raises no new issues which require a second inquiry, nor the need for further modifications to the plan.

Proposed Modification No: PM/283, PM/284, PM/285, PM/286

1. Recommendation:

That the term "commuted payment" as used in the Plan be replaced by the term "transport infrastructure payment".

2. Proposed Modification:

Use of the term "commuted payments"

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

Further discussion with GOSE has identified that their key concern relates to the use of the term "commuted payments", rather than the wider intention of the policy. The concern reflects the fact that in their view, reference to "commuted payments" infers that any payment is in lieu of providing parking provision. This is contrary to the provisions of the new draft PPG13, which states that local authorities should not require minimum parking standards for development. The actual intention of the policy is to require contributions from development to a sustainable transport fund, irrespective of the level of parking provided. GOSE have now indicated that if the term "commuted payments" was replaced by "transport infrastructure payments" this would satisfy their objection. This is a minor change which would not materially affect the content of the Plan and does not need to be published as a further proposed modification.

Proposed Modification No: PM/300

1. Recommendation:

That the objections received raise no new issues which would warrant a second inquiry and no further modifications to the Plan are required.

2. Proposed Modification:

R4 - reworded policy

Planning proposals for retail development will be acceptable in principle when they are located within defined town centre shopping areas. Where no suitable town centre sites are available to meet an identified need, sites on the edge of town centres may be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that no other sites with better access to a town centre are available or likely to become available, there is an overriding need for the scheme, the scheme does not ave an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres, and the proposal accords with the council's overall strategy for sustainable development, in particular in respect of the use of means of transport other than the car.

In addition proposals will only be permitted when they:

a will not result in the loss of identified employment land;

b do not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the historic character of the town;

c provide appropriate parking and highway elements which contribute to the effective management of the town in accordance with the Council's overall strategy for sustainable development.

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

Objections received to retail policies and proposals were considered by the Inspector in the light of PPG6. The Proposed Modifications to Policy R4 are exactly as recommended by the Inspector taking into account local circumstances, PPG 6 and other considerations as set out in paras 13.16.1 to 13.16.6 of his report and the objections received do not raise any new issues. GOSE has not suggested that there is any conflict with PPG6 and for these reasons, there is no need to proposed further modifications to the plan.

Proposed Modification No: PM/301

1. Recommendation:

That the objections received raise no new issues which would warrant a second inquiry and no further modifications to the Plan are required.

2. Proposed Modification:

R4 - justification

Many vacant sites ........................ town centre's environment. In line with the need to promote town centres as the focus for retail development and bring brownfield sites back into economic use it is important to ensure that all available site options in town centres are explored when seeking to accommodate new shopping floorspace. In circumstances where sites cannot be identified or due to location, access and impact on the historic core are considered unsuitable for the type of retail development required, edge of centre sites will be the preferred option in line with the sequential approach as set out in PPG 6. This will be particularly important in the smaller Island towns where development opportunities are limited.

Given the contained market and therefore limited capacity for retail growth on the Island it is considered unlikely that an out of centre proposal could be justifiable through the sequential approach during the plan period and out of centre proposals, by their nature, are likely to conflict with the plans sustainable development strategy. The Council will need to be convinced that all other options have been explored including the consideration of all existing Island town centres. In such cases, development will only be appropriate in exceptional circumstances where the proposal can be shown to be of overall benefit to the Island given its location. For the purposes of this plan the following definitions will apply:

Town centre That area of the town within the defined town centre boundary.

Edge of Centre That area of the town outside but adjoining the defined town centre boundary.

Out of Centre That area of the town within the development envelope but removed from the defined town centre boundary.

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

Objections received to retail policies and proposals were considered by the Inspector in the light of PPG6. The Proposed Modifications to Policy R4 and its justification text are exactly as recommended by the Inspector taking into account local circumstances, PPG 6 and other considerations as set out in paras 13.16.1 to 13.16.6 of his report and the objections received do not raise any new issues. GOSE has not suggested that there is any conflict with PPG6 and for these reasons, there is no need to proposed further modifications to the plan.

Proposed Modification No: Omissions from Proposed Modifications

1. Recommendation:

That the Council do not further modify the plan and the objection site not be allocated in whole or part for employment development in the plan to be adopted.

2. Proposed Modification:

N/A

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

The Inspector's report recommended modifying the deposit draft plan to make the land at Oakfield the subject of an objection an employment allocation. The inspector noted that the levels and nature of the land did not "lend the site to full utilisation". He considered that there was an opportunity to provide a better edge to the urban area suggesting the diversion of a bridle way and substantial new planting to supplement existing growth along the brook. It is these together with the railway line which would make the firm edge to the urban area at this point.

An objection has been received to the failure of the Council to propose a modification recommended in the Inspectors Report, that the rejection of the recommendation is not justified and that the inspector examined all of the points raised in the Council's reasons.

The points raised by the objector relate to:-

Absence of Specific Need.

The objector states that if this issue proceeds to a further public inquiry then the objector would examine the issue in detail in respect of Ryde and demonstrate that there is a need for further employment land. However the objector offers no evidence of a specific need for the development of this site but is only seeking a flexible approach and the opportunity to develop this specific site at some time during the long plan period.

Visual Impact and Settlement Edge.

The objector maintains that the site is developed on three sides, lies lower than the adjoining site allocated for employment use and that the levels across the site provides the opportunity to minimise any possible visual impact.

The site is on a valley side and open to distant views from the west and from close views from the bridleway which crosses the site. The site currently has a rural character and the change in levels acknowledged by the objector will largely obscure the view of the proposed employment development to the east from within the site. The inspector's recommendation includes the requirement for re-enforcement of existing growth by substantial new tree planting along the brook to provide a 'better edge to the urban area' which he clearly considered would be required if the site were developed. The recommendation also required the diversion of the existing bridleway along the brook which would relocate the existing viewpoint which would be affected were the site to be developed.

Alignment of Bridleway.

The objector refers to the Inspector's conclusion that the bridleway could be diverted. The Inspector does not however say how this could be achieved and what the impact would be on the enjoyment of the bridleway, which is the issue of concern to the Council. The objector offers no suggested route or solution to the problems of diverting the existing bridle way and still achieving reasonable access for pedestrians, horses or cyclists.

Sustainability.

Only a very small part of the site has been subject of tipping but this in itself does not automatically render that area as brownfield, or this part, or whole site, suitable for development. The objector offers no detail as to what has been tipped in the past and whether this is suitable for building on. The majority of the site has never been developed and falls within the definition of greenfield land.

The inspector clearly identifies that because of levels and the nature of the land that not all the site is usable for development but does not identify which parts he considers are suitable. The objector offers no opinions on this aspect of the report. The objection site includes the main river of Monktonmead Brook and its defined flood plain, a steep side of the brook's valley and the small area previously levelled by tipping and the areas where the inspector considers substantial new tree planting would be required if there were to be any development. It would not be appropriate to allocate the whole of the site for development if parts are clearly not suitable to be developed.

It is agreed that the site adjoins existing housing development and proposed development for employment use, on part of one side, and recreation ground and changing rooms on another and is easily accessible on foot. However the access for commercial vehicles would be through a residential area and narrow roads. The objector notes the change in levels between the objection site and the proposed adjoining employment land which would render access from this site difficult. I would remind members that the Inspector was under the erroneous impression that the site had previously been allocated for employment use.

Flooding.

Whilst this issue was discussed by members as part of the background to the site, it was not identified as a specific reason for rejecting the Inspector's recommendation. The problem would seem to be (on current advice and disregarding draft PPG25) that flood risk could potentially be addressed at the development control stage, although doing so could add to the difficulties of developing the site. The objector recognises that attenuation measures can be used to ensure that increased run off from development does not make flood risk in the catchment worse and can indeed improve the existing situation. The Council are mindful of this and consult with the Environment Agency over such matters.

Since flooding does not affect the question of whether the site should be allocated, the issue does not justify a second inquiry. In these circumstances the Council can fairly take the view that because flooding is not a relevant factor it is not a "new issue" in terms of the Secretary of State's advice. Even if it is, it would not justify a further Inquiry, having regard to the limited benefit exploration of this issue would add to the decision making process (it is in reality a development control issue), the delay to the adoption of the Plan (which could be about 8 months), the importance of achieving the Island's first Islandwide development plan, and the overall fairness to Plan participants. These factors more than outweigh any unfairness to the objector if the issue is not explored at a further Inquiry.

The Council's conclusion is that there remain sufficient uncertainties as to how the site could be developed, which parts of the site are suitable for development and which are not, and how the requirements clearly identified by the inspector could be achieved to justify not allocating any part of this site for employment development and that the objector has offered no information to allay the Council's proper concerns having examined the site in detail and having revisited the site seeking to understand how the Inspectors recommendations could be implemented in practice. The objector states that no new issues of substance are raised by the Council. Nor are any raised by the objector. There is therefore no requirement for a second Inquiry in respect of this site.

Proposed Modification No: Omissions from Proposed Modifications

1. Recommendation:

No action is necessary as GOSE have indicated that these objections will be withdrawn.

2. Proposed Modification:

N/A

3. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

The GOSE objections raise new issues in terms of the extent to which the Plan complies with the new version of PPG3. Which was produced after the close of the Inquiry. It is accepted that the Plan should take account of all Planning Policy Guidance, but the issue is whether that should be done as part of the present plan, or should await a review of the Plan. It can be argued that there is no unfairness to GOSE because it has statutory powers to intervene under either Section 17(1), or Section 18(10 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Officers have now written to GOSE pointing out that the Council have resolved to undertake an immediate review of the Plan following its adoption (Council Minute 112, 17 January 2001), and that the Council will continue to give proper consideration to PPG3 issues through the development control process. As a result GOSE have indicated that they will be withdrawing their objections.

Proposed Modification No: PM/249, PM/250, PM/260, PM/261, PM/262, PM/264, PM/265

1. Recommendation:

That the indications of support be noted.

2. Summary of Representations:

4. Local Planning Authority's Response:

The comments of support from Fuller Peiser and the Environment Agency are noted.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Deposit Draft UDP, 1997

Inspectors Report, August 2000

Proposed Modifications, January 2001

Contact Point : Paul Airey,   3556 (1DES)

D W JAGGAR
Director of Environment Services