PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 3 AUGUST 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 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 ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (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 Head of Legal and Democratic Services, 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 PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

03 AUGUST 2004

TCP/02697/C P/00801/04

Change of use from retail to additional living accommodation in connection with existing dwelling. (Revised plan)

41 High Street, Bembridge

Bembridge

Conditional Approval

TCP/10471/E P/00968/04

Retention of windbreak netting providing temporary screening until planting is established

Timber, The Undercliffe Drive,

Ventnor

Refusal

TCP/10558/T P/00713/04

Residential development of 29 houses & a block of 4 flats; formation of vehicular access & parking provision (aorm)

Land on corner of Heathfield Road and, Colwell Road, Freshwater

Freshwater

Conditional Approval

TCP/12107/A P/02542/03

Demolition of dwelling; erection of 3/4 storey block of 10 flats with parking; vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

98 Mill Hill Road, Cowes

Cowes

Conditional Approval

TCP/13545/E P/01094/04

New gates to existing vehicular access

Rondebosch, The Undercliffe Drive,

Ventnor

Refusal

TCP/15489/B P/00992/04

Change of use of part of ground floor from retail to additional living accommodation for existing dwelling to include removal of shop front & alterations to Station Road elevation

3 Station Road, Wroxall, Ventnor

Wroxall

Conditional Approval

TCP/16739/W P/01339/04

Single storey industrial production building (revised plans) (readvertised application)

Osborne Works, Whippingham Road, East Cowes

East Cowes

Conditional Approval

TCP/24393/A P/00525/04

Car port; alterations to vehicular access & provision of hardstanding; formation of new vehicular access & hardstanding; 2 storey extension to provide dental surgery on ground floor with additional living accommodation over (revised plans & addiditional information)

39 Littlestairs Road, Shanklin

Shanklin

Conditional Approval

TCP/25978 P/02236/03

Detached house

Junction of Castle Road and Castle Close, Ventnor

Ventnor

Refusal

TCP/02697/C P/00801/04 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge North

Registration Date: 13/04/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. C. Boulter Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Garnham

Change of use from retail to additional living accommodation in connection with existing dwelling. (Revised plan)

41 High Street, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355SE

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local member, Councillor B Clough given level of opposition from both Bembridge Business Association and concern of Parish Council. Detailed comments relate to conversion of property to dwelling house ongoing problems with highway access and a loss of commercial premises in Bembridge. Detailed comments relate to appropriateness of extension.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application if dealt with at the meeting would have taken 16 weeks to process the delay principally due to the negotiations which have taken place and the need to report the matter to the Development Control Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to two storey detached property situated on southern side of junction of High Street and Foreland Road. Premises currently comprise dwelling unit with small retail unit.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Consent granted for both single and two storey extensions to premises to form conservatory and to provide additional office/retail floor space, living room and utility room in January 1998. The commercial floor space was restricted to either A1 (Retail) or A2 (Office) uses.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent to change use of approved retail floor space to ancillary residential use in connection with main dwelling house. Original scheme also proposed erection of small porch which has now been deleted from revised plans.

Main external change would involve removal of commercial window façade and its replacement with cavity wall which would be rendered in white finish to match main premises. The change of use involves one room which measures approximately 5.75 metres x 3.25 metres thereby totaling approximately 18.6 sq. metres which is shown to be converted to bedroom and en suite shower facilities.

Northern boundary of site is shown to be enclosed with wrought iron railings up to a height of 1.1 metre.

Letter received in support of application from owner. Briefly, letter advises the following:

· Property originally built in C1870 and has previously always been private residence.

· As part of the change to the property a small retail unit was created within the existing structure which suited circumstances of owners thus allowing a close relative opportunity to utilise unit for provision of primarily office based services.

· Shop unit forms less than 10% of property.

· Unit first started trading in June 2000 and therefore less than 4 years trading was undertaken which does not represent established use.

· There is no damage to local community as business has moved two doors down the road to number 4 Forelands Road.

· Move of business has allowed the proprietor to acquire his own premises, double his space and employ a full time member of staff.

· Premises that have been moved into were unoccupied, having at one time being an electrical shop.

· Retail unit at Malberry Cottage comprises room with useable retail space of approximately 4 metres by 3.3 metres.

· There is no separate storage space, toilet, washing facilities or water available, heating is supplied by radiator with supply from main house.

· It is not possible to earn a sustainable income from retail unit of this size.

· Proposed changes to parking in the village will result in no parking available on either side of road outside application site.

Owner also advises that mother has been living with family but without benefit of personal kitchen, many possessions or bathroom having to utilise downstairs cloakroom with no bath or shower facilities. Mother is now unable to climb stairs to use upstairs facilities and approval of this application will allow internal reorganisation to provide facilities at ground floor level. Letter is also accompanied by photographs showing property in residential use prior to introduction of small retail facility.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site lies within development envelope as identified on adopted Unitary Development Plan. Site’s not allocated for any specific purpose and UDP does not identify any defined retail centre or area for Bembridge. Relevant UDP Policies are considered to be:

D1 – Standard of Design

D2 – Standards of Development with the site

B2 – Settings of Listed Buildings

R2 – New Retail Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that guttering/eaves of canopy overhangs back edge of public footway at minimum height of 2.1 metres but in the light of this being an existing obstruction which appears to be in place since at least 1998 the Highway Authority may not be in a position to request the formal removal of this structure.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

The Parish Council comment whilst regretting loss of retail premises that will follow from approval of application they recommend approval as is recognised that premises involved have previously been converted from domestic use to for only a few years. The committee however, raised two concerns firstly that the plan shows two kitchens which might indicate and indication to dived property into two dwellings and secondly intended porch roof fronting Foreland Road oversails public pavement on one corner.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor Kendal objects to application on grounds to being contrary to Policy R1 as proposal involves removal of shop unit within High Street. He comments that village and local shops play vital role in provision of services to local communities particular for less mobile. Bembridge is outside principle transport runs and has one of the highest proportional populations of older people on the island. To remove the shop unit would be contrary to Policy R2. Village shops serve vital function in maintaining villages and viable communities and sustain economic activity in rural areas. Impact of loss of shop needs to be considered in an holistic way as it can be the start of a hemorrhage of community vitality which is contrary to Planning Policy Guidance Note 6. Proposal conflicts with stated objectives in Council’s UDP in respect of retaining the vitality and the viability of existing town centres. Finally, his concern that High Street has recently lost retail units to residential which is further example of worrying trend. He contends that Bembridge needs more, not less shops and whilst housing may be easier to market it does not best meet the needs of the local community.

Bembridge Business Association object to application as extension was built specifically as retail unit and was in retail use from its completion. There is a shortage of retail shops in Bembridge, population of Bembridge rely on a mix of village shops and loss of shopping variety disadvantages elderly and those without available transport. Further correspondence received from that Association quotes extensively from UDP referring particularly to Policies raising to sustainable development, transport strategy, retail strategy whilst also referring to guidance in PPG6.

Further letter of objection received from Local Member who reiterates points raised by Business Association whilst also advising that alterations would be visually intrusive and out of character with area. Reference is also made to loss of public amenity and traffic congestion together with narrowed footpath possibly posing additional road safety hazard for pedestrians.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. However, it is not anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder implication generated by this particular proposal.

EVALUATION

Main consideration with regards to this proposal is application of any relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies which may either support or seek to resist applications seeking loss of small retail unit in village centres.

Reference to national guidance contained within PPG6 is not considered to be relevant in consideration of this application as such guidance relates to town centre development which is defined as generally covering city, town and suburban district centres which provide a broad range of facilities and services and act as a focus for both community and for public transport. It excludes small parades of shops of purely local significance. This guidance note is therefore only applicable in offering policy background in respect of applications involving significant retail development and/or significant and defined shopping centres.

Similar comments apply in respect of draft consultation document (PPS6): "Planning for Town Centres" which covers town centres and principal town uses.

With regards policies contained within adopted Unitary Development Plan this document no longer provides hierarchy of shopping districts serving island and retail policy generally seeks to direct new retail development to town centres sites. Policy R1 is not directly relevant to application site as it relates to defined town centres. Policy R2 advises the proposals for new retail development will be acceptable in principle provide they take place within defined town centre shopping areas. Policy also advises that application involving the loss of local shops and pubs will not be approved where it is shown that this will have a damaging impact on the local community.

Accompanying text, that is Policy (Para.15.26) states that where some settlements are not well connected by public transport, loss of village shop could have disastrous consequences for community as a whole and certain disadvantaged groups in particular. The Council therefore considers it important to resist the loss of local shops particularly to residential uses, where there are no suitable alternatives close by. Text goes on “in dealing with applications involving the loss of local community facilities including shops and pubs the Council will expect evidence to be submitted to show that the business is not able to be commercially viable and that alternative means for its retention have been explored.” This will normally require an assessment of the viability of alternative uses, the continued local support for such a community need, the presence of similar facilities in the locality and their accessibility to local people and the impact on other elements of the local economy i.e. tourism.

Returning to the particular circumstances of this case, retail unit in question was established following the grant of consent in 1998 and has a floor area of less than 20 sq metres selling business/office equipment and which ceased use in April 2004.

Proposal is not therefore considered to be long established part of village centre and retail floor space involved represents less than 1½% of floor space currently in existence within village centre. Furthermore retail usage involved does not identify this retail unit as performing vital local function whose loss would affect the wellbeing of the community sufficiently to contravene Policy R2. The Policy seeks to protect local shops and pubs which provide local community facilities and use of premises does not fall into that particular category.

Given the proposal involves a very small vacant unit which has not been long established in village, type of retail activity involved and fact that such retail use has been relocated to nearby location is considered that whilst appreciating the aims and objectives of Policy R2 application of such policy would be unreasonable in this particular instance and approval of this application would not compromise application of this policy, R2, in dealing with other cases that may arise. Members should also note that as retails unit has been empty since April this year refusal of this application will not necessarily secure retention of premises as retail unit.

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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and attached appropriate weight to the fact as explained in the valuation section above, it is felt that in this particular case loss of very small retail unit will not have any undue adverse implications for viability of village’s commercial centre or impact on community as a whole. I am of the opinion therefore that it would not be reasonable to withhold Planning Consent and therefore application is recommended accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL (Revised Plans).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Before the occupation of the accommodation hereby approved, the external surfaces of the shop front replacement wall shall be rendered and painted to match the external walls of the main house and shall be maintained thereafter in a matching finish and colour unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and in compliance with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D2 (Standards for Development with the site) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan

2. RECOMMENDATION - That a second letter, advising that Planning Consent will be required if there is any intention to create a separate self-contained living unit within the property.

TCP/10471/E P/00968/04 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 05/05/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs. H. Byrne Tel: (01983) 823594

Applicant: Mrs Hall

Retention of windbreak netting providing temporary screening until planting is established

Timber, The Undercliffe Drive, Ventnor, PO381XY

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report has been requested by Head of Planning Services.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 13 weeks to the date of the committee meeting. The application has exceeded the prescribed 8 week period for the determination of planning applications due to the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a detached property on the Ventnor to Niton road. Property is sited within substantial grounds, garden area is on two levels, large area at road level, this then rises steeply and plateaus out. The property is sited on the upper level, cliffs then form the background of the property.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the temporary retention of a section of windbreak netting, approximately 20 metres in length along the eastern boundary of the lower garden area, one section of the net/fence tops a two metre high close boarded fence, at this point the fence is approximately 3.5 metres high, this section is approximately half the total length of the fence, the remaining section of fence starts at ground level and is approximately 3 metres in height.

The fence has been erected in order to protect newly planted trees from wind damage and the applicant wishes to retain the fence for between 3 and 5 years to enable the trees to establish.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside of the development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are as follows:

S6 – All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

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

D1 – Standards of design

C2 – Areas of outstanding natural beauty

G4 – General locational criteria for development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

AONB officer confirms site lies within The Undercliff Landscape Type as described in AONB Management Plan 2004 – 2009.

Although the development is of a minor nature, The AONB Officer is of the view that the quality, design, construction and scale of the fencing is not in keeping with the landscape character of this sensitive area and therefore does not conserve or enhance the AONB. The officer acknowledges the fact that the consent sought is for the temporary retention of the structure but does not believe that this should affect the quality of the resulting development. Officer does not consider that the current fencing is of sufficient quality of design to be given approval within a nationally protected landscape. The structure is incongruous and has a detrimental impact on the AONB, the officer also questions whether a structure of this size and position is needed to provide the necessary windbreak.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council sees no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect of this application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted one letter of objection. The points raised are summarised as follows:

· Contrary to Policies S6, D1, D2 and C2

The development does not respect the visual amenity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area.
The development is not sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting layout and detailing.
The development is not of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses.
The development does not provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspects to the development and adjoining uses.
The development detracts from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.
The development does not retain, maintain, enhance and/create open spaces, views or other features which significantly contribute to the area and causes fragmentation of the AONB.
The construction does not achieve a high standard of design that relates well to adjacent buildings or take account of views into and out of the site.
Questions the function of the fence as a windbreak.
The fence because of the height, materials, scale and siting appears oppressive and restricts daylight and impairs visual amenity, impeding the view of open spaces and spoiling the owner’s enjoyment of their dwelling house.
Considers details with application are misleading and inaccurate.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors are policy considerations, amenities currently enjoyed by adjoining property occupiers and how the development will impact on the character and appearance of the area which is a nationally protected landscape.

With regards to the neighbouring property and concern relating to the loss of light and amenity, it is appreciated that the development does have some impact on general amenity of the neighbouring property, however in view of the fact that the objectors only have one window on this elevation and due to the distance from the boundary, I consider this impact to be minimal and not sufficient reason to refuse the application.

With regard objectors concern relating to details with application; application has been assessed as constructed with impact on amenity of area taken into consideration.

This is a relatively minor development with the key considerations being the right of the applicant to carry out development; the impact on the neighbouring amenity and designated AONB. The recommendation is finely balanced and needs to take into account PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control given that this is a retrospective application. The AONB Officers comments and impact on the landscape character carries significant weight in the determination of this application.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse 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 properties 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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, the windbreak netting/fencing is considered unacceptable in this location due to its quality, design, construction and scale presenting a detrimental impact on the designated AONB and general amenity of the area.

1. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Z12B

The development fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy S10 (If it Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2	The windbreak netting by reason of design, size and materials results in an intrusive addition presenting an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality. The development is therefore contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION

To issue an enforcement notice requiring that the windbreak netting and supporting posts be dismantled and removed from the site – date for compliance being 2 months from the date the Enforcement Notice comes into effect.

TCP/10558/T P/00713/04 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 05/04/2004 - Reserved Matters

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: W H Brading & Son Ltd

Residential development of 29 houses & a block of 4 flats; formation of vehicular access & parking provision (aorm)

land on corner of Heathfield Road and, Colwell Road, Freshwater, PO40

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application raises a number of complex issues which have proved particularly contentious all of which result in the need for Committee determination in this case.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application the processing of which will have taken 17 weeks to date.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to roughly a rectangular heavily treed area of land having frontages onto Colwell Road and Heathfield Road and located to the south east of the junction of Colwell Road with Heathfield Road. The site slopes down from east to west and accommodates mostly natural growth including woodland, scrub land and undergrowth.

There is a gravel footpath along the Heathfield Road frontage which is separated from that road by a low hedge. That footpath returns part way along Colwell Road terminating at an existing bus stop which is located virtually opposite the junction of Monks Lane with Colwell Road. Adjoining the southern boundary are rear gardens of two properties which front Heathfield Close which is further to the south. Adjoining the eastern boundary is the existing industrial complex known as Golden Hill Works.

On the opposite corner to the west of Heathfield Road is a seasonal camping and caravan site. To the north are the properties of St Barbara's fronting Colwell Road and Monks Lane. Further to the north east on northern side of Colwell Road is cul-de-sac development known as Solent Hill which has in part a number of detached dwellings, the rear gardens of which abut an existing grass verge which in itself abuts the carriage way of Colwell Road.

Within the adjoining industrial complex is a recently completed factory extension.

RELEVANT HISTORY

The only relevant history relates to an outline consent granted in May 2002 in respect of an extension to a factory and outline for residential development. That consent was subject to a number of conditions the most relevant of which are quoted as follows.

5. The factory extension hereby approved shall be completed ready for occupation before the commencement of any residential development authorised by this consent and the reason for that is to ensure that the desirable employment is provided in accordance with Policy E3 and E4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10. Landscaped buffers strip details of which shall be agreed in writing in advance with the Local Planning Authority shall be provided along the eastern boundary of the site within the area approved in outline for residential development prior to the occupation of any dwellings which may be erected pursuant of this consent. The reason for that is to

insure satisfactory environment for occupiers of the proposed dwellings in accordance with Policies S5, D1, E3 and E4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

14. Any development of the residential site hereby approved with 15 dwelling units or more should make provision for affordable housing which shall be made up of not less than 20% of the total number of units on the overall site. Such affordable housing shall be provided before the completion of 50% of the open market housing on the site is brought into use with the agreed number of affordable housing units being constructed and made available through a registered social landlord of 50% of discount of market value and the reason in order to ensure the provision of affordable housing in compliance with Policy H14 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

21. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until the highway/footway has been upgraded in Heathfield Road and extended along Colwell Road to provide a properly surfaced pedestrian route between Heathfield Close and the Golden Hill Industrial Estate in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The reason for that is in the interest of Highway Safety and to comply with Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Other conditions relating to limiting the use of the adjoining industrial development to Class B1 being a use which can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenities of that area. The approval was also subject of a Section 106 Planning Obligation which ensured retention of remainder of applicants site including the new industrial floor space is retained in employment use.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is an approval of reserved matter application following the outline consent and therefore seeks consent for the reserved matters of siting, means of access, external appearance, design and landscaping. Submitted layout indicates a total of 33 units which are scheduled as follows.

12 number 2 storey 3 bed semidetached houses

10 number 3 storey 3 bed terraced houses

7 number 2 storey 4 bed detached houses

4 number 1 bed flats in a 2 storey block

Total: 33

Density:35 dwellings/ha

Dwellings to be constructed in the main in red brick under plain tiled gabled roofs with some units having dormer window features reflecting the fact that upper floor accommodation is within roof spaces.

Layout indicates a single access to be formed off Heathfield Road in the south western area of the site with that access serving two separate cul de sacs. Dwellings are fairly randomly laid out particularly within the central area of the site with those dwellings on the edges of the site following the perimeter boundary. These dwellings have there fronts facing inward with rear gardens abutting the Heathfield Road and Colwell Road boundaries. Layout indicates a new footpath link to the existing bus stop in the northern eastern area of the site. Apart from two of the terraced units, each unit is provided with two on site parking spaces. Cul-de-sacs have been designed as shared surface traffic calmed with rumble strips and footpaths being provided at the entrance area only.

Proposal indicates the new 1.8 metre wide footpath which extends along both the Heathfield and Colwell Road frontage. Provision of this footpath will result in the loss of the existing hedgerow along the Heathfield Road frontage however, Heathfield Road itself will benefit from a widened carriage-way with similar proposal on the Colwell Road frontage.

Proposal inevitably results in loss of major areas of trees however, applicants have indicated I retention of in the main the trees along the perimeters on the Colwell Road and Heathfield Road frontages. Also feature trees within the site have indicated to be retained along with other groups of trees where space allows. Some recessing of the boundary fencing along Colwell Road and a splay of the boundary at junction of Heathfield Road and Colwell Road has been indicated. Finally, in terms of landscaping proposal indicates a landscape buffer strip along the eastern boundary with the adjoining industrial complex. That buffer consists of a close boarded fence to the boundary with hedging on the residential side comprise a mixture of hedge type species. Buffer to be approximately 1 metre wide. The existing sub-station on the site, to be relocated in the north eastern corner of the site. Following negotiation applicant's have indicated where possible retention of the existing southern boundary landscaping which is in the form of hedging and trees. Plan also indicates reinforcement of that hedging.

Following negotiations applicant's have submitted a plan indicating detailed proposals of a 0.75 metre wide rural footpath on the north western side of Colwell Road to run from the eastern side of Solent Hill with Colwell Road over a length of approximately 75 metres in a north easterly direction. Footpath to be constructed on an existing Council owned grass verge adjacent and to south of the rear of properties 19, 20 21 and 22 Solent Hill.

Application has been accompanied by a drainage report prepared by consulting engineers acting on behalf of the applicant. That report confirms that the site is able to be drained with the report being summarised as follows:

Southern Water confirms sewer is currently at maximum capacity however discharge from the site would be acceptable providing it does not exceed existing peak flows which have been calculated as 4.9 litres/second.

Established that flooding problems experienced in respect of existing highway drain immediately adjacent to Heathfield Road frontage and therefore direct connection to this drain will not be permitted. Discharge will be permitted into highway drain in Heathfield Road further south providing the flow rate does not exceed 7 litres/second/hectare.

The drainage scheme has been designed to take account of the above flow rates. General levels of the site will also involve the need for pumping to be introduced.

In terms of general surface water drainage excluding highway drainage a quarter of the area of the site will drain by gravity to the public sewer in Colwell Road. This will incorporate a attenuation tank which will control discharge to the relevant flow rate. That tank will be adopted by Southern Water.

Remainder of the site will be served by private gravity system which will discharge to a private attenuation tank located in south western corner in area fronting plots 32 and 33. That private tank will discharge to a pump which will then discharge via a rising main to the adopted tank as previously described from which the whole surface water drainage will then discharge to the existing combined public sewer in Colwell Road.

Highway Drainage

Highway drainage is separated from the surface and foul drainage and will flow by gravity to the site access at Heathfield Road. In order to achieve the appropriate flow the last two main runs of that pipe will be in the form of oversized pipes to ensure flow attenuation. Connection will be to a drain in Heathfield Road to the south of the site adjacent to Heathfield Close.

Foul Drainage

Ten houses to the north east corner of the site will discharge by gravity directly to the public sewer with the main drainage run to be adopted by Southern Water. Remaining houses will discharge to a private gravity system towards the south west of the site into a private pumping station with the sewage then being pumped via a rising main to an adopted manhole on the proposed gravity system to the north.

In terms of new landscaping proposal indicates extensive additional new tree planting within the site and along the boundaries consisting of native species such as beech, ash and birch.

Applicants confirm that an appropriate study was carried out for badger activity on the site at the time of the outline application which resulted in no evidence that badger sets were present on the site. That report recommend further walk over study to be undertaken prior to commencement of development. Similarly, with regard to presence of squirrels, applicant s accept that an inspection will need to take place prior to the building works commencing to establish level of presence of squirrels on the site itself although applicants point out there is a significant amount of tree and foliage cover in the surrounding area.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

A national policy is covered in PPG3-Housing March 2000 which covers the following general issues.

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

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

Create more sustainable plans of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education and health facilities.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30-50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

Document advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.

More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect government’s emphasis on sustainable residential development.

In terms of the above this document does emphasise a sequential approach to development indicating that brown field sites within development envelopes should be developed before consideration be given residential development of green field sites outside designated areas.

Bearing in mind that this is a reserve matter application the principle of development having already been established relevant local plan policies are as follows:

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

D11 – Crime and Design

H2 – Large Residential Developments should contain a variety of house sizes and types

H14 – Local affordable housing as an element of housing schemes

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR7 – Highway Considerations for new development

D3 – Landscaping

C12 – Development affecting Trees and Woodland

U2 – Ensuring adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for the future population

U11 - Infrastructure & Services Provision

Site is located within parking Zone 4 of the Unitary Development Plan which allows parking standards to be 0-100% of guidelines.

Reference is also made to Housing Needs Survey, the conclusions of which acknowledge the need for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two and three bed room units to meet statutory homeless requirements.

Site forms part of larger employment allocated land known as land north of Golden Hill Fort, Freshwater. Allocation refers to areas of land totaling 3.08 hectares north of Golden Hill Fort is to be developed for B1 Employment Use.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highways department comment as follows:

The outline planning permission granted on 22 May 2002 contained a condition (21) requiring that a properly surfaced footway be constructed on the Golden Hill side of Colwell Road.

At that time the land on which the footway was to be constructed was owned by this Council; unfortunately a short time later the land was sold, so before condition 21 can be implemented the promoter of this development will have to purchase a 2 metres wide strip of land alongside Colwell Road, from its current owner, to enable the footway to be constructed.

An alternative to this would be for the developer to fund the implementation of two Pelican Crossings; this would enable pedestrians to safely cross to the other side of Colwell Road by the bus shelter, and cross back near the Golden Hill access road.

Notwithstanding any of the above, if it is decided to grant planning permission I suggest repeating the following Highway conditions: 15 - 21.

Summary of the Council’s Ecology Officer’s comments are as follows:

Site occupied by mixed broad leaf woodland of recent origin (within last 50 years) and also includes a number of older trees with reference to some large oak trees and poplar.

The removal of a large proportion of trees from site will result in significant reduction in wild life value.

Report to ensure that sufficient trees are protected during development and retained into the future in order to preserve a sylvan character to the site.

Badgers may use the site for foraging, it is unlikely that sets exist on site. However the Ecology Officer advises that surveys should be carried out prior to development to ensure that no badger sets are located within or adjacent to the site.

Area does not hold significant population of red squirrels with any event Golden Hill Country Park and surrounding area providing extensive habitat for the squirrels.

Trees however, should be checked prior to felling for the presence of red squirrel drays with no trees being felled containing active drays. Proposal to retain out of boundary trees should provide a corridor for movement of any squirrels through the site.

No trees or scrub clearance should be carried out between months of April to August inclusive in order to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.

Southern Water have been consulted both before receipt of the engineers drainage report and after receipt of that report. Initial letter stated the following:

There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of this site.

Preferred that no surface water be discharged to the public foul combined sewer as could increase risk of flooding to downstream properties.

No records of flooding from the sewer in the vicinity of this site.

Not obliged to accept any highway water as initially indicated on submitted plans.

Following inspection of the applicant's drainage report and being informed of the concerns of Freshwater Parish Council Southern Water comments as follows:

Noted that the drainage strategy contained within the report is to ensure that there is no net increase in flow to the existing combined sewer.

Exact discharge from the site has been estimated at 4.9 litres/second and development will discharge no more than this amount in the future.

Importantly Southern Water state that the principles of design are acceptable and therefore did not object to the development.

Council’s Contaminated Land Officer recommend appropriate conditions should application been approved.

Environment Agency have been consulted given the concerns expressed by local residents regarding flooding, however at time of preparing report their comments have yet to be received.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council object on the following grounds:

Excessive size and scale overlooking Heathfield Close.

Entrance and exits on a dangerous road.

Council concerned that the demands for this development will place on drainage sewage system and request application be deferred until the OffWAT capital allocation for Freshwater sewage system is known.

Council request that TPO be placed on two largest oak trees on the site.

Further consultation with Parish Council has resulted in the following additional comments:

Council continues to object to development.

Consider site should provide a play area.

Road should be designed to be safely shared between cars and pedestrians particularly elderly, children and disabled as well as cyclists.

Drainage/sewage issues need to be resolved.

Lack of suitable transport link i.e. re-siting of bus stop.

Proposal encroaches on back of properties in Heathfield Close.

Entrance and exit will be a dangerous road.

Finally Council requires details of any education contribution and whether it will be used in a local area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of a total of 6 letters of objection and comments from local residents, 3 being residents of Heathfield Close and 1 each from residents of Heathfield Road, Brambles Farm and Monks Lane. Points raised are summarized as follows:

The proposed location of the access off Heathfield Road considered to be dangerously located likely to exacerbate traffic accident incidents which have already occurred caused by speeding vehicles when approaching from Colwell Road. If access to be located in position indicated then consideration should be given to improved lighting sign posting and traffic calming.

Consideration should be given to access being formed off Colwell Road.

Concern that the use of 3 storey terraces will create overlooking and loss of privacy to properties in Heathfield Close.

General concern that amount of trees to be lost with emphasis being placed on the need to ensure that at least a boundary trees should be retained to assist in providing screening.

Stringent controls should be applied to ensure no unnecessary loss of trees take place prior to site clearance with particular reference to retention of those trees which are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders.

Concern that future occupiers of any of the dwellings are made aware of the need to retain trees within their individual gardens and questioning how tree retention will be managed and monitored.

Reference made to surface water flooding and concern that development of the site will exacerbate this issue. One writer points out that existing culverts and ditches already incapable of managing surface water following prolonged rain.

Imperative that new cul de sac is provided with a perimeter footpath of an appropriate standard.

Concern that a further cul de sac in close proximity to the existing Heathfield Close off Heathfield Road will cause confusion resulting in accidental additional use of Heathfield Close.

Concern that Heathfield Close could be used for all day parking during construction works.

Some suggestion that affordable housing will not be provided on site.

Concern that the loss of a substantial amount of trees will have impact on wildlife habitat with reference to squirrels and badgers.

Concern that construction will take place during unsociable hours.

Concern that any earth movement and loss of boundary hedging and trees may worsen flooding problems in respect of nearby gardens.

One objector questions the principal of development being unacceptable on the site with the outline consent being inconsistent with local and national policies terms of avoiding developments on green field sites.

Density is considered to be excessive with insufficient parking and no garages and therefore inappropriate for the area.

Applicants have provided no evidence of the need for this level of development and concerns are expressed on the impact that it may have on local health and community facilities.

Following the introduction of the rural footpath on the northern side of Colwell Road as previously described consultation exercise with affected residents in Solent Hill has taken place (4). This has resulted in receipt of 3 letters of objection which are summarised as follows:

Proposal would result in people's crossing Colwell Road effectively twice over a relatively short distance.

People intending to work along the road towards Yarmouth should be walking towards the oncoming traffic and will also have to re-cross the road once the footpath ended.

Reference made to relocate the existing bus stop which is currently sited opposite the junction with Golden Hill Fort further to the west and therefore writer does not consider there is a need for such a footpath to go beyond that point.

Residents considered the grass verge would be adversely affected in aesthetic terms by the introduction of a footpath.

Concern that maintenance of the area might be affected by the introduction of such a footpath.

One resident does not consider that a rural footpath is particularly appeal from an aesthetic point of view and would adversely affect the existing pleasant appearance of the grass verge which residents consider should be retained.

Any footpath proposal would be outside the ownership of the applicant.

One local resident considers that any footpath linkage between the site and Golden Hill Fort should be on the southern side of Colwell Road making reference to the fact that the Council owns a broad area of land on the inside of the existing hedgerow on this side of the road which could be used to extend the footpath therefore negating any need to consider a footpath on the opposite side of Colwell Road.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

It is important that Members appreciate that this is reserved matter application following an outline consent and therefore it is only those matters which are before them for determination. The outline consent has established the principal that this site can be developed and the reasons why that decision was made are well documented having been referred to in the relevant history section of this report. The relevant reserve matters are dealt with individually as follows:

Siting

Whilst the original outline consent made no reference to specific density it was accompanied by an illustrative layout of urban form which showed 39 units and appeared to pay little regard to the treed nature of the site. The applicants have clearly recognized the need to take account of all the physical constraints of the site with particular reference to the extensive tree coverage whilst still recognizing the need to provide a mix and range of dwellings at a density which complies with the requirements of PPG3.

The resultant layout has attempted to respect the need to ensure some tree retention particularly around the perimeter of the site thus reducing the general visual impact of the development particularly when viewed from Colwell Road and Heathfield Road.

The resultant density of 33 units per hectare relates to the lower end of the density range and as such is appropriate given the prevailing pattern of development in the immediate area which is well below the minimum 30 dwellings per hectare, a density which would not be appropriate to follow in this instance.

Members will note that not only does the site go beyond the threshold that requires affordable housing under Policy H14 but is also the subject of a condition which the applicant would need to comply with. On the basis the proposal would require a total of not less than 7 affordable units which I suggest if Members are mindful to approve the application this should be covered by a Section 106 Agreement. Members will be aware that the provision of affordable housing is now dealt with under the auspices of a 106 Agreement as opposed to conditions. This process has commenced.

Design and External Appearance

The proposed dwellings are both of a high standard of design and indicate use of good quality materials all of which reflect the prominence of the site and the semi rural location.

Apart from the terraced three storey units remaining units are two storeys. Even these units vary in footprint and therefore there are slight variances in ridge heights.

Most prominent units in terms of Colwell Road and Heathfield Road are plots 1 to 11 all of which have their rear elevations facing these roads. I am satisfied however that the design of the units are of a suitable standard in terms of those rear elevations to reflect this prominent position and in any event distances between the units provide good quality space about.

Applicants have, in achieving this density, included a range of dwellings, which again is a requirement of any development to ensure it caters potentially for all income groups. Within that range terraced units of 3 storeys in height which Members will note is causing concern to local residents. It is important to appreciate that whilst these terraced units do have second floor accommodation it is effectively within the roof space and is restricted to a single bedroom and bathroom. The bedroom is serviced by a dormer window which is to the rear and may have the potential to overlook however, the dormer window itself is relatively small and I believe it would be difficult to justify as a reason for refusal any overlooking from this second floor bedroom dormer window. This issue has been raised with the applicant's who have agreed to the insertion of obscure glazing within the lower half of those second floor bedroom windows which face in a southerly direction with any such obscure glazing being the subject of a condition should Members be mindful to approve the application.

Means of Access

Members will note from the description of development proposal provides for a number of improvements in terms of width of carriage-ways both in Colwell Road and particularly in Heathfield Road. In view of the concerns which have been expressed regarding the location of the access road off Heathfield Road I have requested the Highway Engineer to comment in more detail. Comments have yet to be received however I have discussed in some detail the various issues and he confirms that the position of the access to serve this development could effectively only be located in this position. The outline consent has established residential development is to be accommodated on this site and therefore there is a need to achieve an access position which effectively is the maximum distance that can be achieved from the junction of Heathfield Road with Colwell Road. Suggestions that the access should come off Colwell Road is simply not tenable particularly given the number of junctions in relative close proximity to one another onto Colwell Road. In essence the Highway Engineer is satisfied that the junction details are acceptable in terms of visibility and this coupled with the widening of Heathfield Road providing an improved radius at the junction of Heathfield Road with Colwell Road should result in a safer road. Concerns of local residents relate to fatalities which have occurred at this junction.

The internal cul de sac arrangement has been the subject of significant discussion between the applicants and their Highway Consultant and the Council's Highway Engineers. This has resulted in some revisions however, Highway Engineers are now satisfied that the layout accords with Design Bulletin 32 and Places, Streets and Movements both documents issued by the Department of Environment providing advice on traffic calmed cul de sacs.

Footpath link to Golden Hill Fort

Members will note that the outline consent was the subject of a specific condition requiring both improvements to the existing footpaths which are covered by the application but more importantly the extension along Colwell Road to provide a surface pedestrian route between Heathfield Close and Golden Hill Industrial Estate.

This was a requirement of the Highway Engineer and essentially the condition was grampian in nature as the land immediately to the east of the site was at the time in Council ownership. As implied in the Highway Engineer's comments the land has been sold and therefore the applicant will need to come to some agreement with the new owner in order to form the footpath link on the southern side of Colwell Road.

The suggestions was therefore put forward to pursue the possibility of placing such a footpath on the northern side of Colwell Road on the grass verge land which is owned by the Council. The disadvantages to this is the fact that pedestrians will need to cross the road and dependant on their journey route, may have to cross the road twice, a factor which has been identified by local residents in Solent Hill.

Highway Engineer has therefore suggested the provision of two pelican crossings one by the existing bus shelter and the other at the Golden Hill Industrial Estate junction with Colwell Road. Such a proposal would address the potential road safety issue.

I note the concerns of the residents of Solent Hill regarding the rural footpath however, providing the issue of road safety, i.e. the crossing of Colwell Road can be satisfactorily addressed the physical placing of a footpath on this grass verge in the form indicated would not in my opinion result in adverse impact on the area either in terms of visual or environmental impacts. The grass verge is capable of pedestrian use in any event and the footpath is relatively narrow and could be constructed with minimal impact on neighbouring properties. There is no reason to suggest that maintenance of this area would be affected by the inclusion of a rural footpath and the visual impact of the footpath itself would be compatible with the character of the area.

Members attention is drawn to the existence of a public footpath through Golden Hill Industrial Estate being (PF15) which terminates at the junction with Colwell Road. There is also a public footpath (PF6) which commences on the northern side of Colwell Road and runs along Monks Lane. The proposed rural footpath on the northern side of Colwell Road along with a pelican crossing would provide the linkage between these two public footpaths.

Landscaping

Firstly it is important that Members appreciate that the granting of the outline consent for residential will inevitably have a substantial impact on the character of the area resulting not surprisingly in a major proportion of the trees on site having to be removed. The main question therefore, is whether or not this proposal has achieved the right balance by ensuring mix and arrangement of dwellings as such that a reasonable level of tree retention in the form of groups can practically take place. The submitted plan does indicate retention of road boundary trees along Colwell Road and Heathfield Road, and the design incorporates a central area within which existing trees are to be retained. Also, following negotiations, applicants have indicated retention of trees along the southern boundary which forms the rear boundary to properties in Heathfield Close.

Members will note that as a condition of the outline consent there was a requirement to provide a landscape buffer strip along the eastern boundary and the submitted plan indicates such a strip although does not provide any detail of the planting schedules. Application has been accompanied by a tree survey with that survey identifying 24 significant trees. Obviously if Members are mindful to approve the application the issue of tree retention and the mechanisms which will need to be put in place to identify those trees would be subject of strict conditions requiring that procedure to take place prior to any other works commencing.

Submitted plans also indicate additional planting throughout the site and along the boundaries which obviously in time will provide further screening to the site. Proposal will result in the loss of the existing hedgerow along Heathfield Road.

Ecology

The comments of the Council's Ecology Officer are self explanatory and the applicants themselves have obtained their own advice in terms of badgers, squirrels and door mice and are therefore fully aware of the need to take appropriate steps to mitigate disturbance to these species.

Given the above, I am satisfied that the applicants have recognised that landscaping is a particularly important consideration in respect of this site and the applicants have recognised this fact during the design process and that the scheme has achieved an acceptable balance. All other landscaping issues can be adequately covered by condition should Members be mindful to approve the application.

Drainage

Members will note that the issue of drainage has been thoroughly researched and the resultant drainage scheme produced by Consulting Engineers is fully supported by Southern Water. This is an issue which has been raised by both local residents and the Parish Council but I can do no more than accept the solutions that have been put forward particularly given the applicants have employed the services of Consulting Engineers. The basic principle behind the solution is that run off from the site should be suitably attenuated to ensure that it does not exceed that which would occur from the virgin site and attenuation measures which are indicated have been designed to ensure that this basic principle has been achieved.

Bus Stops

The issue of additional and relocating bus stops has also been addressed by the applicant. In this regard as part of the rural footpath proposal, the submitted plan indicates an additional bus stop to be located on the north eastern corner of the junction of Golden Hill Industrial Estate with Colwell Road. The reasoning behind such a bus stop is that it would provide a convenient drop off and pick up point for passengers wishing to gain access to the Fort and its environs thus avoiding the need to walk along Colwell Road to the nearby bus stop adjacent the application site.

Secondly, applicants have agreed verbally to re-locating the existing bus stop from its existing position on the opposite side of Colwell Road outside the junction to Golden Hill Industrial Estate to a position on the grass verge between the existing footpath and the short service road which fronts Colwell Road on its northern side. It is considered that these alterations and additional bus stop will represent an improvement for bus users and contribute to improved pedestrian routes.

Outline Planning Conditions

I have consulted with my Building Control colleagues who confirm that the factory extension has been completed subject to one minor issue and that the condition requiring completion prior to commencement of any residential development has been satisfactorily adhered to.

The issue of the landscape buffer strip has been addressed and referred to above.

The issue of provision of affordable housing on site will be covered by way of a Section 106 Agreement.

A link footpath has been indicated between Heathfield Close and Golden Hill Industrial Estate although not on the southern side but on the northern side as described.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to material consideration contained in the Evaluation section above, I am of the opinion that approval recommendation to this reserve matter application is appropriate and that the applicant has addressed the numerous detail issues such as fractiously subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the provision of seven on site affordable housing units in line with Council Policy H14, Payment of £9,570 (33 x £290) towards upgrading of local open space and recreational facilities, and an education contribution requirement for which will be dependent upon whether or not there is sufficient capacity in local schools, a highway contribution towards provision of two pelican crossings in Colwell Road in positions to be agreed.

Conditions/Reasons:

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

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

2	Details of roads, etc, design and construction - J01

3	Timing of occupation - J11

The development shall not be occupied until sight lines have been provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown X = 4.5 metres by Y = 60 metres on the approved plan drawing number 20331/P1/B. Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within that visibility splay.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Visibility splay of X = 4.5 metres by Y = 90 metres dimension in an easterly direction from Heathfield Road on to the A3054 Colwell Road shall be constructed prior to commencement of development hereby approved and shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highways Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

There shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access formed from any of the individual dwellings onto Heathfield Road or the A3054 Colwell Road without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highways Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development except as required by this condition shall take place until Heathfield Road has been widened on its eastern side from Colwell Road to Heathfield Close in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highways Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

None of the dwellings shall be occupied until the rural footpath has been laid on the northern side of Colwell Road within the existing grass verge as indicated on approved drawing number 20331/P4. Such a footpath shall be designed and constructed to ensure finished footpath levels relate to existing adjoining levels.

Reason: In the interests of providing pedestrian links in compliance with Policy TR17 (Public Rights of Way) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved a new bus stop shall be provided in the north eastern corner of the junction of Golden Hill industrial estate with Colwell Road (as indicated on drawing number 20331/P4) and relocated bus stop on the northern side of Colwell Road to be located on the grass verge between the existing footpath and the short service road which fronts Colwell Road. Such a bus stop shall be constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To improve public transport facilities in compliance with Policy TR9 (To Encourage the Provision of Improved Transport Facilities) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Initial tree removal shall be limited to those areas of the site which are required to enable pegging out of the roads and the dwellings hereby approved. The remaining trees shall be subject of an inspection by an appropriate competent person in conjunction with the Local Planning Authority following which a plan and particulars should be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating those trees, group of trees and hedgerows to be retained. Such particulars shall include the following:

a) Plan should show location of and allocating reference numbers to each existing tree or group of trees to be retained and details of any proposed topping or lopping.

b) A plan showing existing ground levels and details of any proposed alterations thereto and of any proposed excavations.

c) A plan showing the location, spread, height, species and state of health or all existing hedgerows and details of those hedgerows to be cut back or removed wholly or partially.

d) Details of the specification, position and programme of implementation of any measures to be taken before the commencement of development for the protection from damage of all those trees, group of trees or hedgerows which are to be retained.

e)The erection of such protection fencing referred to above shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavations be made or fire be lit without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars and details approved pursuant to this condition.

Reason: To allow proper consideration of the impact of proposed development on the amenity value of the existing site and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved in accordance with an agreed phasing programme. These details shall include planting plans, schedule of trees and shrubs to be planted noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities and an implementation programme. Hard landscaping details shall include car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulations areas, hard surfacing materials and an implementation programme. Any such hard and soft landscaping work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details prior to completion of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The landscape buffer strip along the eastern boundary shown cross hatched green on the plan hereby approved (drawing number 20331/P1/B) shall be landscaped in accordance with the planting schedule indicated on the plan and such planting shall be carried prior to the occupation of plots 12 to 15 inclusive and plots 21 to 25 inclusive. Such planting shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In order to ensure a landscape screen between the adjoining employment land and the residential site in accordance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. Such details shall include the treatment of the boundary which abuts Heathfield Road and Colwell Road and the southern boundary between the site and rear of properties in Heathfield Close. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

14	Contaminated land - need for scheme - T01

The schemed required by condition 14 above shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the [public/buildings/environment] when the site is developed.

Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and to comply with policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

16	Contamination land - scheme to be carried out - T03

17	Submission of samples/details - S03

All surface water and foul drainage shall be carried out in accordance with the drainage report dated June 2004 by Messrs Mayer Brown and no dwelling shall be occupied until such drainage details have been fully implemented. There shall be no amendment to those details without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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

All south facing second floor bedroom windows within terraced dwellings plots 26, 27, 28 and 31, 32, 33 shall have the lower half fixed glazed with obscure glazing which shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/12107/A P/02542/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Central

Registration Date: 18/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: Mr M Goodall & Mr P Tyson

Demolition of dwelling; erection of 3/4 storey block of 10 flats with parking; vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

98 Mill Hill Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317EH

Members will recall that this application was considered and deferred at the recent Development Control Committee held on 22 June 2004 with that deferral being in order to enable renegotiation on parking options with a view to encouraging more parking on site.

Upon being advised of the outcome as mentioned above and prior to a formal letter being sent to them outlining the various option formally requested that the application be determined immediately. Following receipt of that request applicants were however given options which they may wish to reconsider with these being as follows:

· Allow the application to be held in abeyance pending the production f an interim planning guidance document on parking.

· Make a further approach to the Highway Engineers possibly with a view to increasing the number of parking spaces and reducing the number of units.

Applicants have been given 7 days to reply otherwise the application would be returned to Committee for determination in accordance with the applicants request in their letter.

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has proved particularly contentious in respect of design and particularly parking issues, which has resulted in the re advertisement of the application, all of which result in the need for Committee determination in this case.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is major application, the processing of which will have taken 27 weeks and has gone beyond the prescribed 13 week period for determination of applications owing to protracted negotiations with particular reference to issues relating to parking provision.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a large detached property and its cartilage situated on the south eastern side of Mill Hill Road diagonally opposite the junction of Mill Hill Road with Grove Road. Site stands within a row of mainly traditional, long established dwellings with there being a pair of semi-detached properties abutting the south western boundary (Nos. 100 & 102 Mill Hill Road) whilst abutting to the north east is a terrace of 4 dwellings which appear as a single block, being Nos. 90, 92, 94 & 96 Mill Road. Site has a reasonably gentle slope from south west to north east and currently accommodates a large dwelling with integral garage. Site has an average depth of approximately 33 metres by a frontage width of 17 metres.

Mill Hill Road is a main thoroughfare into Cowes town centre and forms a bus route. Site itself contains no specific landscape features, although there is roadside tree situated on part of the frontage. Existing dwelling has the benefit of two vehicular accesses which serve the garage and the parking space forward of the garage.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is a detailed application seeking consent for a three/four storey block of 10 flats providing a total of 6 two bedroom units and 4 one bedroom units.

In detail each floor provides 2 two bedroom flats and 1 one bedroom flat all served off a common staircase, with the third floor flat being in the form of a single bedroom flat located within the roof space.

In its revised form, the main element of the blocks stands between adjoining properties 96 and 100 Mill Hill Road, with the four storey section abutting No. 96 and standing approximately 1.5 metres forward of that property. The block itself has a maximum depth of approximately 31 metres by a maximum width of 31 metres. In height terms, maximum ground level to ridge is approximately 11.8 metres in respect of the four storey element, reducing to 9.5 metres in respect of the three storey element. Street scene plan indicates that the four storey element will be approximately 0.9 metres higher than the ridge level of the adjoining property No. 96 Mill Hill Road.

Revised plan indicates 2 parking spaces to be provided within the frontage area, making use of the existing vehicular access with the north eastern access being widened to 3.6 metres. Accesses to function as ingress and egress. Proposal indicates the creation of a new low brick wall 1 metre in height along the frontage boundary. Finally drying area and common patio area have been indicated to the rear, with additional landscape planting. Block to be constructed in facing brick with projecting bay elements finished with tile hanging under hipped slated roof. Both third floor and second floor accommodation to be serviced by circular headed dormer windows.

DEVELOPMENT PLANS/POLICY

Site stands within development envelope for Cowes as defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

National Policies covered in PPG3 – Housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows.

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

· Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

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

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities, with 30-50 units per hectare being quoted as being appropriate levels of density, with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility, such as town centre sites.

· Emphasis on high density development not being at the expense of cramped development, and that such development should be of good quality design.

· Document advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Relevant Strategic Policies as follows.

S2, S2, S6, S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant Local Plan Policies are as follows.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards for Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be restricted to Defined Settlements

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

Site is located within Parking Zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum parking provision of 0-50% of parking guidelines, with those guidelines requiring a parking space per bedroom.

Reference is also made to a Housing Needs Survey, the conclusion of which acknowledges the need for single person accommodation, though there continues to be an ongoing demand for two and three bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Initial proposal which indicated a total of 7 car parking spaces, 6 to the rear and 1 to the front, along with a newly formed access, was recommended for refusal by the Highway Engineer on grounds of increased use of existing access onto a classified road and inadequate visibility.

Revised readvertised application retains the status quo, on which no Highway comments have been received.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council supported initial proposal which indicated a total of 7 car parking spaces, however in terms of the revised proposal reducing the number of spaces to 2, the Town Council objects on the grounds that there is an inadequate parking provision for the number of units.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Initial proposal attracted a total of 11 letters of objection, 8 from residents of Mill Hill Road, 2 from residents from Grove Road and 1 from the local Councillor. Following the readvertisement 5 letters and e-mails of objection received from residents of Mill Hill Road. A summary of points raised is as follows.

Main element of concern is the issue of parking, with reference being made to the level of intensive on-street parking which already takes place in Mill Hill Road and other adjoining roads. Objectors generally considered that the 7 parking spaces indicated on the initial proposal were inadequate, and obviously are avidly opposed to a proposal which only provides 2 parking spaces for the 10 flats.

Concern at the general mass and height of the proposal both in terms of its effect on the general character of the area and in particular the effect on the immediately adjoining dwellings. There is a general concern that the proposal will have an over-dominant effect.

One objector considers applicants should consider restoration and conversion of the existing building as opposed to new build.

Some concern expressed regarding the architectural approach and whether or not it would sit satisfactorily within a mainly Victorian street scene.

Coupled with the concerns relating to parking are concerns relating to increased traffic which local residents consider will be inevitable in respect of the density of development being proposed.

In general these issues are supported by the local Councillor.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Council’s Crime Prevention Officer raises following issues.

Development self-contained so can achieve reasonable level of security.

Car parking spaces in isolated position with little or no surveillance. (This comment related to the initial proposal.)

Need for appropriate lighting to take away the fear of crime.

Any passageways should be well lit to stop black hole appearance, and again address fear of crime.

EVALUATION

Material considerations in respect of this proposal are considered to be density, mass and height, architectural design and parking provision.

Density

Whilst acknowledging the concerns of local residents, the issue is not that this proposal indicates a total of 10 flats to replace one dwelling but whether or not the overall cartilage is capable of accommodating this level of development without appearing cramped. There is no doubt that the general character of the area is one of medium to high density development, with there being a number of examples of flat conversions in older properties.

I therefore consider the principle of flatted development of this site is acceptable, and in this case the applicants have chosen to provide this by way of new build as opposed to conversion of the existing building.

The number and type of units being proposed reflect those for which there is a recognised need identified in the housing needs surveys, with Cowes being one of those areas where there is particular need.

Mass and Height

Again whilst acknowledging concerns of local residents and local Councillor, this proposal is a development of mixed height with the four storey element being inserted to create a feature, with the main mass being three storeys in height. It is also important to appreciate that in the case of the second floor accommodation in the three storey element and third floor accommodation in the four storey element, these are within roof spaces which assist in reducing impact. Whilst accepting that the four storey element is slightly higher than the adjoining properties, in the main eaves, and particularly ridge heights, relate reasonably comfortably with the adjoining properties and the street scene in general. It is important to emphasise that the area is characterized by a mixture of dwellings of differing heights and mass, and this type of articulation within a street scene assists in creating a more interesting overall visual effect.

I do acknowledge that the proposal does represent the maximum that could be considered to be acceptable and that concerns being expressed regarding this issue do have some validity but are of insufficient weight to warrant a refusal of the application.

Architectural Design

There is a strong vertical emphasis to the design approach, particularly in terms of the window proportions and bay features. I consider this reflects a general theme in the area, with particular reference to sash windows designs. Also the use of hipped roof finishes again reflects the general theme, with particular reference to the adjoining properties. The footprint of the building assists in introducing steps and staggers, with the four storey element projecting approximately 4 metres in front of the three storey element. The circular headed dormer windows will also contribute visually to the street scene and provide an appropriate visual stop, assisting in breaking up the general roofscape.

I therefore cannot agree with local concern that this is an inappropriate architectural design and should sit comfortably within the general street scene, providing of course good quality materials are used.

Parking

This by far is the main issue of concern and Members will be aware of the difficulty of promoting the policies of sustainability where provision of parking is concerned.

Members will note that the application started off providing a total of 7 parking spaces, however in view of the Highway Engineer’s understandable objection to that level of traffic movement, with particular reference to poor visibility, applicants have been forced to reconsider the situation and have decided to move the car parking entirely to the front of the proposed property and provide no more than 2 parking spaces, which equates to the existing situation. This alteration did involve the reduction in size of flats and allowed the whole of the building to be moved back into the site, reducing the impact of the structure on the street scenes, thus resulting in 2 less two bedroom units and 2 more one bedroom units.

The level of accommodation being provided within the flats is a material consideration for, whilst there are no guarantees, the lesser the level of accommodation the lesser the likelihood of car ownership. In any event the issue will always be that any purchasers or lessees would be aware that the proposal provides limited larking provision and would therefore make their choice as to whether they occupied or not on that basis.

Members concerns regarding the general implication of the parking policies and the difficulty in promoting their practical application are noted, however they form part of statutory policies within the Unitary Development Plan and therefore the applicants are entitled to expect those policies to be applied.

This is a centrally located site close to the town centre and has immediate access to a main distributor road and bus service facilities. Indeed there is a bus stop in a relatively short walking distance from the site. Therefore this description makes it an ideal candidate for a reduced parking scheme and is in compliance with the parking policies.

It is appreciated that this is a difficult issue and the concerns of local residents are entirely understandable. The fact remains the site is within easy walking distance of the town centre and bus routes, and there are realistic alternatives to reliance on the private car for occupiers of this development. I also consider that there is a realistic prospect that these relatively small units (6 two bedroom and 4 one bedroom) would be more likely to attract non-car owning households, and the Zone 2 allocation recognizes that a reduced parking provision is appropriate.

The level of increase in on-street parking in the surrounding area which may be caused by this development is difficult to assess, but it is doubtful that it would add materially to congestion to a degree that would warrant refusing the application given that, in parking terms, it accords with the zonal parking policies within Appendix D of the UDP and policy TR16.

Members will note that the applicants are not prepared to take on board the options suggested and therefore the application is returned to Members for determination. In their letter, the applicants consider that their proposal should be considered on the basis of Government Policies and more particularly Local Plan Policies within the UDP. They state that the parking cannot be improved due to the highway restriction and therefore considered that any discussion with the Highways Department would be non-productive.

In conclusion apart from formally requesting the application be considered as submitted they state the following:

· "As developers who have to use the current Government Policies as their guide in order to work with the Planning Authority to ensure that the policies and requirements for low cost properties and maximum use of available land are maximised.

· How can we carry out our line of work if these policies are going to be ignored by the Councillors at the meetings when we have done everything in order to comply with them?"

Members would have received an explanatory letter in respect of the car parking from Chris Hougham, Development Control Manager, dated 6 July 2004. That letter lays out the various issues involved including a detailed assessment of the National Policies contained in PPG13 (Transport) the local transport plan and policies and guidelines in the Unitary Development Plan. I believe this letter represents a thorough assessment of the policy issues and their interpretation and in order to assist I attach a copy of that letter.

Whilst I fully appreciate the difficulties that both Members and the public have in respect of the application of these policies, I have no reason to change the tenure of my report in terms of this issue and therefore continue to recommend approval.

It is clear from the tone of the applicants letter that they will be lodging an appeal on the assumption that Members will refuse the application and indeed that they are aware of their option to lodge an appeal on the basis that the application has not been determined within the required period.

Apart from the information contained on the attached letter I can do no more than to continue to recommend approval to the application although I recognise the difficulties in interpreting this policy and the general concerns that both Members and local residents have regarding developments which either provide zero parking or severely reduced parking as in this case.

In deference to Members concern, if Members are mindful to refuse the application, I suggest the following may represent a suitable reason although obviously it may not, in my opinion, be sustainable on appeal.

Notwithstanding the zonal location of the application site due regard has to be given to the limited parking facilities in the immediate locality and it is considered that the proposed development does not make adequate provision for parking of vehicles on site. This would place increased pressures on 'on-street' parking further exacerbating difficulties in relation to manoeuvring, access and congestion due to the inadequacy of the local road network, thus interrupting the free flow of traffic and thereby adding to hazards to road users. In consequence the proposal is contrary to policy TR7 (Highways Considerations for new development), TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines), Policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report I consider that this represents an ideal site for this level of density, that the mass and height is acceptable in the form indicated, the architectural approach will sit comfortably within the existing traditional character and, more significantly, whilst recognizing the issues of concern regarding provision of parking, the proposal accords with the parking requirements in the Unitary Development Plan.

1 RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans) (Subject to a Section 106 agreement or 111 agreement covering the following.)

Transport Infrastructure Payment 10 x £750 = £7500

Open Space & Recreational Contribution 10 x £290 = £2900

Education Contribution, the requirement for which will be dependent upon whether or not there is sufficient capacity in local schools.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until the existing access has been widened as indicated on the plan hereby approved and such widened access shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3	The proposed low brick wall along the frontage boundary shall not exceed 1 metre in height above existing road level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Construction of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

Before the development commences a hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify position of species and size of shrubs and trees to be planted and shall indicate colour and texture of surface treatments. The scheme shall also indicate the phasing and timing of such works and shall include provision for their maintenance during the first 5 years from the date of landscaping.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

A soft and hard landscape management plan including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all the hard and soft landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the flats hereby approved. The hard and soft landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure long term maintenance for the landscaping of the development in compliance with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the design, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected. Such boundary treatment plan shall include an indication of those boundary walls to be retained. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied and the development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) (with or without modification) no windows shall be constructed within either the south west facing or north east facing elevations of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2 RECOMMENDATION - That the applicants be advised that they will need to address the Party Wall Act of 1996.

TCP/13545/E P/01094/04 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 20/05/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs. H. Byrne Tel: (01983) 823594

Applicant: Mr P J Wright

New gates to existing vehicular access

Rondebosch, The Undercliffe Drive, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381XY

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report has been requested by Head of Planning Services.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 11 weeks to the date of the committee meeting. The application has exceeded the prescribed 8 week period for the determination of planning applications due to the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a detached property on the Ventnor to Niton road. Property is sited within large garden area, most of garden is at the rear, smaller garden at the front of the property, there are two existing vehicular accesses, one of which still has the original wrought iron double gates at the entrance, The other access has no gates, however there is evidence to suggest there were also gates at this entrance in the past. There is a mixture of boundary treatments in the locality.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP 13545/B – Permission granted for conservatory to Rondebosch, 13 February 1997

TCP 13545/D – Permission granted for open ended lean-to extension to form wood store, 16 December 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for new wooden gates to be installed at the entrance to the existing eastern side vehicular access, the gates will be 1.9 metres in height and therefore require consent, being over 1 metre in height adjacent a highway.

There is an existing gatepost at the entrance and one of the original wrought iron gates is still in position, although it is unusable as it is extremely overgrown with ivy and natural growth. The applicants have confirmed that the gate has not been used for approximately 20 years, the other gate and gatepost were removed in 1986.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside of the development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are as follows:

D1 – Standards of design

D4 – External building works

TR7 – Highway considerations for new development

C2 – Areas of outstanding natural beauty

G4 – General locational criteria for development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

AONB Officer – No comment

Council’s Highways Department have recommended refusal of the application as the gates have insufficient ‘set-back’, this is likely to result in standing vehicles which would interrupt the free flow of traffic on this ‘A’ classified road and therefore add to the hazards of the road users at this point. Highways also considered the fact that previously gates had been in place carried no weight due to the time that had lapsed

A comment has been sought from the Council’s Tree Officer with regards the potential impact on the TPO tree in the front garden of the property.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council sees no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect of this application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted one letter of objection. The points raised are summarised as follows:

· Possible damage to the TPO tree in the front garden of Rondebosch.

· Design of the gates not being in keeping with the surrounding properties.

· Possible highway safety implications from the introduction of double gates, vehicles should be able to pull off the road prior to opening gates, may cause obstruction and visibility is limited when exiting the site.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors are policy considerations, highway safety and how the development will impact on the character and appearance of the area which is a nationally protected landscape.

The design and materials of the gates are in keeping with the property and the wider locality and AONB.

Any potential impact on the protected tree will be updated to members at the meeting

With regards to road safety, the Council’s Highway Department confirm that new gates at a vehicular access point should be set back 5 metres from the edge of the highway, both to prevent the gates swinging out onto the highway and to avoid the need for vehicles to stop in the road whilst opening the gates, thereby adding to the hazards of road users.

It has been noted that gates previously existed in this position. The fact that at least one of the gates was removed, along with the gate post, some considerable time ago, the other gate being completely overgrown and unusable results in no weight being afforded to this.

In view of the fact that the proposal will involve the erection of new gate posts, along with totally different gates, the proposal is deemed as replacement, requiring planning permission and not repair. The application should therefore be judged on current standards.

The matter has been discussed with Highways, who have confirmed that there appears to be no negotiable solution at this stage and therefore reiterate their recommendation for refusal.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard to and appropriate weight to all materials considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposed vehicular access gates represent an unacceptable form of development and that the proposal will have serious highway safety implications.

I. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposed gates would be likely to attract standing vehicles on the highway which would interrupt the free flow of traffic and thereby add to the hazards of road users at this point and therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development ) D1 (d) (Standard of Design) and G4 (c) (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/15489/B P/00992/04 Parish/Name: Wroxall Ward: Wroxall & Godshill

Registration Date: 19/05/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr C Goodacre

Change of use of part of ground floor from retail to additional living accommodation for existing dwelling to include removal of shop front & alterations to Station Road elevation

3 Station Road, Wroxall, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383BJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report is requested by local member, Councillor Yates, as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under delegated procedure for reasons that the shop is well placed and an asset to the community, this community facility provides a range of choice and the shop is next to a car park making it easily accessible.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken 12 weeks to date of the committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of the Planning Application due to the need to report this matter to the Development Control Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This is a two storey building with a single storey flat roof element to the North comprising of a shop on ground floor with living accommodation over. Proposal occupies a very prominent position at junction of High Street with Station Road. In the late 1970's, the County Council implemented road improvements at the junction and this necessitated demolition of substantial two storey element of building fronting the High Street. This has resulted in exposure of large flank brick wall to High Street containing two buttresses piers and no fenestration. Application site measures approximately 13.5 metres in width and 20.5 metres in length and a fish and chip shop is located to the East.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP 15489/A - an application was approved 10 July 1984 for alterations and single storey extension to living accommodation.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to change use of part of ground floor from retail to additional living accommodation which will include removal of the shop front. This elevation which fronts Station Road will be bricked in and will incorporate two simple design windows, eastern elevation will be bricked to match the Station Road elevation and no external alterations to the side and rear elevation. Internal arrangements will remain as existing apart from the former shop being converted into a lounge and the store room into a utility room.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Sl - New development will be concentrated within existing areas

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the planned period. While of large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently on identified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

G1 - Development envelope for towns and villages

G4 - General locational criteria for development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for development within the site

TR7-Highway considerations for new developments

R2 - New retail development

G10 - Potential conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wroxall Parish Council stresses the need for the retention of the newsagents which has operated as viable commercial concern for many years.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted a petition, stating the need for the retention of the newsagent, consisting of 168 signatures, some involving 2 signatures at the same address. Also, there is 1 letter of objection stating that the shop/Post Office is part of Wroxall's amenities.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder envisaged.

EVALUATION

Factors in considering this application is whether loss of a retail facility contravenes adopted planning policy and accessing whether this will have an unacceptable impact on the local community.

Text to Policy R2 advises “that applications involving the loss of local shops and pubs will not be approved where it is shown that this will have a damaging impact on the local community”.

Accompanying text, that is Policy (Para.15.26) states that ”where some settlements are not well connected by public transport, loss of village shop could have disastrous consequences for community as a whole and certain disadvantaged groups in particular. The Council therefore considers it important to resist the loss of local shops particularly to residential uses, where there are no suitable alterative close by”.

Wroxall Newsagents retail area measures approximately 38.73 sq meters, which used to sell general everyday groceries and goods associated with a news agency. Located within the parish of Wroxall, sited some 70m south, is Wroxall Stores which is an existing convenience store and currently provides the vital local function in place of Wroxall Newsagents i.e., selling of newspapers, groceries, stamps, post box etc. I am therefore of the opinion that closure of the Newsagents would not harm the local need and consequently complies with Policy.

Text within (Para.15.26) then goes on to say “in dealing with applications involving the loss of local community facility including shops and pubs the Council will expect evidence to be submitted to show that the business is not able to be commercial viable and that alterative means for its retention have been explored”. This will normally require an assessment of the viability of alterative uses, the continued local support for such a community need the presence of similar facilities in the locality and their accessibility to local people and the impact on other elements of the local economy i.e. tourism.

Agent has confirmed that this facility was closed prior to Christmas, as it was commercially unviable. The submitted ‘Trading Profit and Loss Accounts’ for Wroxall Newsagents year ending 11 August 2002 and the following year ending 11 August 2003 shows a net profit of less than £10,000 per annum. In my opinion these figures do not provide sustainable living costs and has resulted in the demise of this local facility and refusal of this application will not necessarily secure the retention of premises as a retail unit. Whilst I acknowledge village shops play a vital economic and social role, I am of the opinion that the closure of this shop would not detrimentally affect the vitality of Wroxall community, given a similar outlet in the village which it is arguable may have a greater chance of long term viability in the light of potential transference of trade.

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 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material consideration referred to in this report I am satisfied that the resultant loss of a village shop will not have a damaging impact on the local community and therefore development proposed can be considered compliant with the relevant policies, S1, S6, S7, G1, G4, D1, D2, TR7, R2, G10

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/16739/W P/01339/04 Parish/Name: East Cowes

Registration Date: 21/06/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Single storey industrial production building (revised plans) (readvertised application)

Osborne Works, Whippingham Road, East Cowes, PO32

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

At the request of the Head of Planning Services. The proposal, if approved, will make a significant contribution to the implementation of Cowes Waterfront, and proposed developments on the adjoining parcel of land have proved controversial.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application if determined at this meeting will have taken a little over 6 weeks, well within the 13 week processing time.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The area of land is relatively flat, within the central position of Osborne Works. It is cordoned by buildings which lie on the boundaries and is relatively well screened because of these buildings. There is established landscaping to the north eastern boundary (established trees) and on the south eastern boundary. The area functions as an industrial estate although all buildings are under one ownership and control.

The site lies to the west of the main East Cowes to Newport road. Further to the east of this road are two residential properties at the access to Barton Manor. To the south and north of the site are open fields and to the west of the site is an area of recreational land currently used as a cricket pitch.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various planning permissions relating to industrial development on site.

TCP/16739/B Application for Retention of Industrial Building. At the time of the preparation of this report a further amended plan is required showing the access arrangements into the site. This includes a right turning lane which is shown as part of the application subject of this report. The agents have been asked to copy plans of the application before Members so that it can be included within their submission. The building in question is a one storey building and has been completed. It is anticipated that when the highway details come forward then the application can be approved subject to normal consultation processes under the delegated procedure.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

GKN Aerospace has been awarded a contract to design, develop and supply complex carbon wing spars for the Airbus A400M future military air lifter programme. The contract is highly valuable and has been gained in the face of intense international competition. The contract represents the first application of carbon composite technology for primary structures on a large transport aeroplane wing.

The proposed development includes both a production facility and a Composite Research Centre. The latter will be the world showcase of GKN Aerospace for its composites technology. It represents a £5.5m investment by the company with support from the DTI and SEEDA.

The new facility is anticipated to create from 70 to 120 highly skilled jobs for a product that has orders up to the year 2021. Additionally there will also be approximately 20 staff within the research centre.

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey industrial building and associated parking and landscaping. Highway improvements are proposed at the access to include a right turning lane. The proposed building is a production building of some 6,400 sq metres with 42 car parking spaces to the immediate front. The building has a large span rising to 10 metres in height. Articulation to the front includes an entrance and has a wing (as an art feature) for its entrance and is described as an aerofoil canopy. The cladding to the front as a whole has a horizontal emphasis and in turn is broken by fenestration. The remainder of the building reads as a metal profile outer skin of a light dove grey and smooth factory finish. The roof is to be profile composite cladding and to be deep slate grey in colour. Corporate colours will be used for the facia board and barge boards.

Elsewhere on the site there will be a new service yard to the south and a more formalised approach to car parking in the west and north east. The existing building (subject of a current planning application) will be linked to the proposal by a pedestrian path only. There will be a general tidying up of the site with skips being used and compounds being fenced in.

A design statement was submitted on 9 July 2004.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

The application site is not within the development envelope, however, land to the immediate south is specified/allocated as E5 (12) Industrial Land.

Policy E5 states;

Proposals for employment development will be considered in principle on employment sites allocated on the proposals map as set out in Appendix B.

More relevant to this proposal is Policy E6 (Expansion of Existing Industry and Offices) this reads:

Planning applications for expansion of existing industry and offices will be approved", particularly where this will lead to additional job opportunities. Exceptions to this policy will be where:

a) the proposal involves intensification or extension of a non-confirming use, which does have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area.

b) if the use is inappropriate in its existing location and if it is not possible to overcome identified problems.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Officer recommends conditions regarding right turn lane, visibility and sight lines, turning space, parking, loading and unloading, cycle parking, accesses, closure of access, estate roads and green travel plan.

Contaminated Land Office recommends conditions.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

East Cowes Town Council recommend approval.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter of objection stating:

"We wholeheartedly object to Part 2 number 7 of the applications which involves reinstatement of the use for parking 'north west' corner of the property. As per the revised site plan, the area in question is actually the north east corner of the property which runs the length of our house/garden divided by the road. GKN have proposed to move their fence line close to the road w/vehicular access and construction of the new parking space to the extent of 66 places. Plans also show the service yard including the designated skip (rubbish) space directly across from our house, this causes concern on a few points.

The potential 122 vehicular movements per day of the type that would take place near our property would be a substantial infringement on our basic human rights. The acoustic levels are compounded by the fact that the noise of starting engines, squeaky brakes, screeching belts, human noise, car alarms and slamming doors are amplified off the existing metal building which borders the area.

We are already finding ourselves having to compromise our style of living to ccommodate the growth that has taken place thus far and have had to take action on issues such as trash, noise and lighting with both the Environmental Health Department and GKN. The placing of car parking and service yard to run the length of two Grade II listed properties beggars belief.

I enclose pictures of the views that I have of the property highlighting an offending trash issue that has not been entirely resolved.

From the Planning Application we conclude that there has been no adequate provisions put into place as of yet to protect our property from the issues stated above. As well we remind the Planning Officer that the conditions of previous planning approvals are such that the property is not afforded two vehicular accesses onto Whippingham Road"

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

None at the time of writing the report. The relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment.

EVALUATION

This application has been speedily processed and brought forward to Members within a seven week period. However, this has not been at the expense of giving the application a full consideration to this major proposal.

The starting point for any application of this nature is to assess whether it falls within the Plan Led Development System as advocated in PPG1 General Policy and Principles which was issued in February 1997. This site de facto is an existing site and accordingly through Policy E6 (Expansion of Existing Industry and Offices) is acceptable in principle. In addition, there is an area of land to the south east that has been allocated in preparation of an industrial use setting up or expanding in this area.

It is anticipated that any use of this site would fall in with the use classed as B1 (Businesses), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and Distribution). The proposed use sits more comfortably with a B2 use.

The proposal seeks to create 50 new jobs. This will give a total of 150 jobs on the site as a whole.

The main issues on this site are as follows:

1. Design

The design of this building follows its function and is dictated by its use and size. This building's area has to be large and efficient as there will be large wings manoeuvred on a production line. This gives the requirement of a building with a large span and a low pitch. The building is designed to fit in the space available. The principal elevation will be on the north east which faces onto the existing building to the north east which in turn fronts onto Whippingham Road. Although shielded by this building there are gaps that allow glimpses from the two residential properties on the North East of Whippingham Road.

This main elevation is the entrance to the scheme and accordingly the design attention has been paid here. The design as described in the details of the application is modern having sharp lines and a cleanliness look to it. It will be articulated by the corporate colours and has adopted some artwork in its entrance as a canopy.

The design approach to the other three elevations remain functional. The main penetrations are the large doors adjacent to the service area in the South East.

The building does sit on the edge of the Medina Valley and accordingly its roof scape will be visible from the western side of the Medina. It is important that not too much attention is drawn to the roof and it is suggested that a dark grey or non reflective material will subdue its long view impact. This will also reduce any solar reflection.

2. Highways including car park

The principal consideration regarding Highways relates to the access into the site and the necessity to have a right turning lane. The Highways officers are satisfied that this can be achieved. The vision splays will require the removal of three TPO trees and two other trees on the boundary between the site and the proposed road widening. The access to the north is to be used for emergency only and can be covered by a condition.

The control building (which the lorries report to) is set far enough into the site to allow articulated lorries to be fully accommodated off the carriageway. It remains important that it is clear where pedestrians can cross this road and additional amended plans are being sought to show this detail.

Circulation of vehicles within the site is appropriate and speeds will be very low. The site is within Zone 4 of the Council's car parking standards.

The car park requirement is one space per 25 sq metres and one lorry space per 1,000 sq metres. This gives a requirement of parking space for 6.5 lorries and 182 car parking spaces for maximum provision. Specifically for this development there are 77 car parking spaces and 22 formal spaces for cycle parking. This meets the highway parking requirements of 0-100% car parking (42%).

The letter of objection raises concern regarding the use of the car parking area to the north east and principally the use of this access. It is envisaged that the existing unused car park will be brought back into use providing 66 car parking spaces. However, it is not proposed that the car park will access onto the highway via the shown gates. This is emergency access only and the cars would have to exit by the new proposed junction further to the south. There may of course be a control exit for cyclists and pedestrians using a key or combination lock. This will assist in allowing other forms of transport (other than the car) to be used.

The Highway Officer has suggested the requirement for a green travel plan. Certain elements are already there such as, reduced car parking provision, on a main bus route and the provision of bicycle storage. However, improvement and alternatives remain to be explored and accordingly a Green Travel Plan (seeking to meet the objectives of the Local Transport Plan and the UDP) is suggested as a condition.

3. Landscaping

On the site there is very little demand for further landscaping due to the flat topography and the existing landscaping around the boundaries.

However, the main issue is the loss of protected trees to the front of the site. Although their loss would be regrettable, I believe the landscaping is robust enough to continue to function to screen the buildings. It would continue to give a high level of amenity.

4. Drainage

There are no problems envisaged with this development and can be covered by condition. Soakaways are to be used for the surface water.

5. Environmental Health

There may be some contamination on the land associated with the works on site. I am informed that some investigation works have taken place and the results awaited. This can be adequately covered by conditions. Details of any extractions/alterations required (if any) can be adequately covered by conditions.

6. Other Issues

Concern through the letter of objection has been raised regarding the storage of skips close to the closed north junction. At present this area of land is very untidy and the skips would help this area to be positively managed. However, it does remain appropriate that this land is screened and accordingly a condition is proposed to safeguard the visual amenity.

This form of development will put a demand on local open space provision, especially during lunch and tea breaks. This site enjoys an adjoining sports field and pavilion buildings which is somewhat "detached" from the main site. It would therefore be quite simple by way of linking this into the main site by a path and realignment of the fences to provide 'open space' for the workers. The applicant has agreed to this and an amended plan is being sought.

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 (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and the 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. In so far as there has been an interference with the rights of other, it was considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportionate to the legitimate aim of public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

The development of this site for industrial purposes is appropriate and accords with Policy E6 (Expansion of Existing Industry and Offices) of the Unitary Development Plan. The design is appropriate to a site within existing industrial buildings and accords with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Unitary Development Plan. Details such as highway considerations, cycling, drainage, landscaping and environmental health are covered by conditions. Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations for new Development), TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines), TR6 (Cycling and Walking), T3 (Landscaping), D14 (Light Spillage), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise), U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the Unitary Development Plan are complied with and where necessary can be covered by conditions.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until samples of materials of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the development was first brought into use, a clear pathway should be shown linking the production building with the amenity area to the north west of the site. In addition the area around the pavilion building should be shown and be provided as an amenity area in line with the scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate open space and facilities are provided for the employees of the site and to comply with D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the use commences, a scheme showing details of the facilities to be provided for the treatment and extraction of fumes and smells from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works forming part of the approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the use commences (and shall be effectively maintained thereafter)

Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers in adjoining properties and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The premises shall not be used for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within Class B1, B2 or B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy E9 (Employment Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan

No equipment, raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials, derelict vehicles, vehicle bodies or waste materials shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the buildings or storage areas identified for those purposes on the approved plans.

Reason: In the interest of the visual appearance of the site and the visual amenities of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, access and car parking area, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The use hereby permitted shall not commence until space has been laid out within the site and in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for 20 bicycles to be parked. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10	No machinery shall be operated that is audible from outside the site, no industrial process (as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times: i. 06.00 to 22.00 hours Monday to Friday ii. 07.00 to 18.00 hours Saturdays iii. and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the areas in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy C5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development shall take place until a scheme for the drainage and disposal of surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be completed before any unit hereby permitted is first occupied. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off is satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	The unit shall not be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of sewage disposal is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the development hereby approved, is first brought into use, a Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such an agreed plan shall be implemented and facilitated for the life of the development.

Reason: To ensure that adequate attention is given to facilitating forms of transport other than the motor car and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway consideration for new developments) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking are, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage there from have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The access shown to the north east of the site shall not be used for vehicular access other than in emergencies and for access by cyclists and pedestrians.

Reason:To ensure that the access complies with the requirements of Policy TR7 (Highway Requirement) of the IW Unitary Development Plan but also to encourage the use of alternative forms of transport other than the motor vehicle.

The improvements to the highway, including the right turn lane, shall be constructed and completed before the industrial unit hereby approved is first brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of Highway Consideration and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Visibility splays of x = 4.5 and y = 120m shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained and remain free of obstructions.

Reason: In the interests of Highway Considerations and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/24393/A P/00525/04 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin North

Registration Date: 29/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571

Applicant: Dr B Clarke

39 Littlestairs Road, Shanklin, Isle Of Wight, PO376HS

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The application was registered on 12 March 2004 the correct fee did not accompany the application, this was subsequently received on 29 March 2004. The application has taken 20 weeks if it is determined at this Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a detached art deco style property finished with white painted render and under a parapet style roof. Littlestairs Road is a cul de sac off the main Sandown Road. It is within a primarily residential area, there are three/four hotels and a school all in close proximity. The application site backs onto the Cliff Path. There are double yellow lines on the eastern side of Littlestairs with limited on street parking on the western side.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None to report.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application can be divided into four elements. Firstly the demolition of the existing garage on the southern elevation of the property and its replacement with a two storey extension. Secondly the use of this extension as a dentist’s surgery and additional living accommodation. Thirdly the formation of a car port and new vehicular access on the northern elevation of the site. Finally the formation of a hardstanding to provide additional car parking to the front of the dwelling.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

G1 - Development Envelope for Towns & Villages

G4 - General Location criteria for Development

G10 - Potential Conflict between Proposed Development & Existing Surrounding Uses

D1 - Standards of Design

H7 - Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties

PPG4 - Industrial and Commercial Development in Small Firms

TR7 - Highway Considerations for new development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U1 - The Location of Health, Social, Community, Religious & Education Services

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval. He states that applicant is proposing to increase the level of residential accommodation, alter the existing and provide additional vehicular access/on site parking and provide an extension to accommodate a dental surgery with two surgery rooms.

"Information provided states that the dental practitioner currently provides a service for approximately 2000 patients and predicts that this will generate 15-20 visits to the site a day (30-40 trips)...

Typically a residential unit generates 7-10 trips per day. Littlestairs Road serves 44 units of which 4 are hotels, in addition an existing access road between numbers 34 and 32 serves the rear of 116-142 Sandown Road, Shanklin giving rise to a further 14 vehicle accesses, resulting in a total of 58 units served by Littlestairs Road.

Using this information 406-580 trips per day (not allowing for additional trips to the 4 hotels and users of the cliff path and visitors to the general area) could be attributed to the existing residential use of Littlestairs Road. Therefore the above development will not generate a significant increase in vehicle movements to justify a refusal."

In addition the proposed development provides the minimum required level of parking for such a development in line with the IW Unitary Development Plan (1 space per surgery = 2).

· Littlestairs Road is adjacent to Sandown Road, Shanklin Public Car Park readily available for public use (pay & display between the months of 1st May - 30 September).

· The site is within walking distance of public transport facilities in the form of the Bus service from Sandown Road, Shanklin.

Highway Engineer has been further consulted in light of use of secondary surgery shown on submitted plans. Initially raised concern regarding control of traffic generation and predictable levels if there were two surgeries at the premises. Has since confirmed, based on Highway policy considerations and proximity of bus routes, refusal on Highway grounds not sustainable.

Environmental Health has no adverse comment in respect of the application, however appropriate sound insulation should be installed, this however is covered under the Building Regulations legislation.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shanklin Town Council object and are concerned about traffic flow in the cul de sac-, however in a further e-mail regarding the revised plans they make no comment.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

49 letters of objection have been received. Some households have sent in more than one letter in response to the original scheme and the revised plans. The points of objection are as follows:

The proposal will lead to a significant increase in the number of vehicles entering and leaving Sandown Road. There are two surgeries detailed on the submitted plans and residents feel that this could lead to an increase of up to 6,000 cars using Littlestairs Road a year.

There is no turning available in Littlestairs Road, therefore leading to highway hazards, furthermore Littlestairs Road is a residential area and not suitable for businesses.

Pedestrian safety.

The increased level of use of Littlestairs Road could lead to emergency service vehicles not being able to get past parked vehicles together with cars parked blocking entrances to houses.

The detailed parking to be provided within the site will not be sufficient.

Approval of the proposal could set a precedent for future commercial business at home. Inappropriate location.

If approval was given the use of the dentist’s surgery could significantly increase and the Local Planning Authority would not have any control over that and the possibility of a second dentist using the practice, as there are two surgeries shown on the plan.

The applicant should utilise the existing space within the dwelling rather than extend.

The extension is not in keeping with the property and will spoil the appearance of a character property and will detract from the cliff walk and the large style alterations are inappropriate.

Overlooking from windows into adjoining property. Loss of light, loss of privacy. Proximity of proposal to neighbouring kitchen/conflict.

It is not considered that the forecasted figures of people attending the surgery are accurate.

The disposal and storage of clinical waste could cause environmental problems.

It is noted that there is a lack of dentists on the Isle of Wight and this should not be a reason to approve the new surgery.

Applicant's information in accompanying letters is inaccurate.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Crime and Disorder officer comments: issue of parking and extra vehicle traffic appears to have been addressed. Suggests security of the site could be enhanced with fencing. Also asks whether practice holds drugs and what security is in place.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations are firstly Development Plan policy, secondly how the development will affect the character and appearance of the area and neighbouring properties in particular and finally highway considerations.

PPG4 (Industrial & Commercial Development in small firms) advises that, planning authorities should bear in mind that intensification of use may become unacceptably intrusive. It would be necessary to have some control over the level of use which could be achieved by conditioning floor space use.

Main policy considerations relate to highway safety, impact on neighbouring amenity and general amenity of the area in terms of impact of extensions and intensification of the use of the site by introduction of business in a predominantly residential area.

Regarding the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the main concern relates to the size and design of the proposed extension. At its widest the extension is some 7 metres and has an overall length of 10.05 metres, with a height to the top of the parapet of 6.5 metres. The extension is shown to be set back slightly from the front main wall at a slightly reduced height. It is detailed to be finished in a white render to be in keeping with that of the main house. A reception/waiting room, two surgeries, a disabled WC and a sterilisation room are shown on the ground floor, with a bathroom and additional living accommodation at the first floor level.

Although a sizeable addition, I am satisfied that the proposed extension is of a size and scale that is in keeping with the existing house, and due to the arrangement of the neighbouring properties and the arrangement of the windows it is unlikely to have any adverse impacts in terms of overlooking or overshadowing. There is a mixture of property sizes and design within the road.

The main crux of the objections seems to relate to highway issues. In letters accompanying the application the applicant has indicated that there will only be one dentist working at the proposed surgery, and he will have approximately 2,000 patients on his books, and he expects 15-20 patients to attend the surgery a day as most appointments last about half an hour.

I note that concern relates to the possibility of future expansion of this practice as there is a second surgery and also living accommodation shown above. Further clarification has been sought with regard the second surgery. Applicant has advised there will be a secondary need for a hygienist and has detailed likely traffic generation and overall staffing numbers. In the light of current parking policy, proposal in providing two surgeries and potentially four spaces is in compliance with zonal parking requirements and has support of Highway Engineer.

Points raised by the Crime & Disorder Officer relating to fencing, security and drugs have been considered. It would not be reasonable to control these matters by planning condition.

In view of the above comments I do not consider there to be any reasonable objection to the proposed extension and alterations to the use of the property and conditional approval is recommended.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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 and the alterations as proposed will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring properties, or adversely affect upon that of the current level of highway safety with proposal complying with zonal parking requirements.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The dental practice, hereby approved, shall comprise no more than two surgery practice rooms.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design), G10 (Potential Conflict Between Existing and Surrounding Uses) and TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IOW UDP.

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed using only the materials details of which are shown on the plans attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The external finish shown on the plans attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be completed prior to the extension being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5	Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans the northern access to serve the proposed development shall be a maximum width of 3.0 metres. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected or existing on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1.05 metres above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/25978 P/02236/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 12/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Clutterbuck-Edwards Chartered Architect & Surveyor

Detached house

junction of Castle Road and, Castle Close, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Cllr Bartlett, spoke with officers, having been approached by the applicant, and has requested that this matter is considered by the Development Control Committee as he considers that the proposal represents acceptable development of a site within the development boundary.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application raising a number of issues relating to the impact of the development on the amenities and character of the area and is located in an area of known or potential ground instability therefore requiring careful consideration to ensure that the requirements of PPG14 – Development on Unstable Land, are addressed. The applicant’s architect was keen to overcome objections to the proposal highlighted by Officers and entered into discussions with a view to resolving these issues. Consequently, the processing of this application has taken 38 weeks, and has gone beyond the eight week period for determination of planning applications. The lengthy period for processing the application and the discussions with the applicant’s agent can also be attributed in part to the workload presently being handled by Development Control.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application relates to a prominent triangular site located at south western end of Castle Road. Site is bounded to south east by Castle Road and rises steeply to north western boundary which abuts Castle Close. Site has in the past been covered with dense natural growth, although much of this was cleared prior to submission of this application.

Site has maximum depth of 17 metres at western end of site tapering to a point at its eastern end, with frontage to Castle Road of approximately 75 metres and return frontage to Castle Close of 70 metres. Maximum change in level between Castle Close and Castle Road is in the order of 10 metres (measured in pavement on each frontage) and occurs at south western end of site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/5522R/V/5462 – Full consent for dwelling refused October 1972 on grounds that site is inadequate due to size and levels and erection of dwelling would be injurious to the amenities of the area.

TCP/7393C/S/27922 – Outline planning permission for shop with flat and car parking refused December 1993. Application was refused on grounds that site is incapable of accommodating development without significantly affecting the character and amenities of the area and that without submission of further technical information, the Local Planning Authority was not satisfied that site was sufficiently stable to accommodate development without adversely affecting both the site and adjoining land. Other reasons for refusal related to highway issues, including creation of access adding to hazards of highway users and likelihood of the development attracting standing vehicles which would interrupt the free flow of traffic.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for a detached house. Submitted plans show a split level dwelling located at south western end of the site. Building would be built on pads with vertical support pillars of varying length due to changes in level through the site. Eaves of dwelling would be roughly level with Castle Close, at its highest point adjacent the dwelling, with ground floor level approximately 5.3 to 5.5 metres above the level of pavement across the Castle Road frontage.

Pedestrian only access would be provided to the dwelling by flight of steps to Castle Close and ramped access to Castle Road. No off road parking would be provided within the site and this would be difficult to achieve due to the changes in level through the site. The dwelling would provide, in the main, two storey accommodation with open plan kitchen and living room/dining area with bedroom and shower room on upper floor and two bedrooms, both with en-suite facilities, and utility room and wc at lower level. Flight of stairs would lead down from this lower level to what is effectively a porch/entrance hall leading out onto ramp to Castle Road.

The building is of modern design with shallow pitched roof and large areas of glazing on south eastern elevation, particularly to the main reception rooms. Submission indicates that the building would be clad in wide format wavy edge larch or cedar boarding under a grey Spanish slate roof. The submission was accompanied by a design statement, a copy of which is attached as an appendix.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is shown on maps which accompany the Ventnor Landslip Potential Assessment to be entirely within an area which may or may not be suitable for development where investigation and monitoring may be required prior to local planning proposals being made. In terms of consideration of planning applications, the document recommends that areas will need to be investigated and monitored to determine stability conditions and that development in these areas should be avoided unless adequate evidence of stability is presented.

In accordance with advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 14 (PPG14), Development on Unstable Land, where there are reasons for suspecting instability, a developer will be required to determine, by appropriate site investigations and geotechnical appraisal, whether:

The land is capable of supporting the loads to be imposed;
The development will be threatened by unstable slopes on or adjacent to the site;
The development will initiate slope instability which may threaten its neighbours;
The site could be affected by ground movements due to natural cavities; and
The site could be affected by ground movements due to past, present or foreseeable mining activities.

If such investigations and appraisal indicates that ground is unstable or may become unstable due to the development proposed or for any other reason, the developer and/or his consultants should then assess the suitability and sufficiency of the proposed precautions to overcome the actual or potential instability. Consideration must be given as to whether such instability can be addressed in an environmentally acceptable manner. The guidance note advises that if an application clearly fails to meet other planning criteria, then the applicant should not be put to the unnecessary expense of a specialist investigation if other considerations would result in refusal of permission. However, in refusing such applications, the applicant should be advised that, should he succeed in overcoming other planning objections, he would still need to satisfy the authority on the question of ground stability.

Site is located within the development envelope as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and immediately abuts a designated Conservation Area. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S6 – All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development.

G7 – Development on Unstable Land

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer indicates that he would prefer to see some off-street parking provided for a dwelling of the size proposed, particularly as the site is within Zone 3 of the Parking Guidelines. However, having regard to the availability of on-street parking in the immediate locality and location of site within walking distance of the town centre, he has not made a recommendation for refusal in this instance.

Highway Engineer draws attention to the presence of a well or other drainage related structure in the retaining wall along the frontage of the site and suggests that a survey needs to be carried out to discover where the water comes from and drains to and to ascertain how the movement of water may be affected by the proposed dwelling. He suggests that this matter could be addressed by a condition of any planning permission.

The Conservation Officer confirms that site abuts the designated Conservation Area, which includes the buildings to the south and east. He advises that the character of this part of the Conservation Area comprises late Victorian villa style buildings, with trees and landscape setting, viewed against a backdrop of well landscaped properties to the north on rising ground. He considers that whilst these buildings are of varying designs and are outside the Conservation Area, they are not prominent and provide a neutral setting for this part of the designated area. The Victorian buildings are large and well detailed with typical features such as sash windows, projecting bays, gabled roofs with decorative bargeboards and dominant chimneys, which, whilst of individual design, show a consistency of scale and character with trees and garden settings.

The Conservation Officer notes the design statement, which acknowledges the adjacent Conservation Area indicating that this could be enhanced by a building of contemporary design. However, the Conservation Officer advises that this statement contains no analysis of the area or indication of how the proposal would enhance the area. He considers that the site forms part of the landscape setting for the Victorian buildings and although it has been partially cleared, is still important as an open backdrop to the Conservation Area and provides a visual barrier between the Victorian character of the designated area and the later development nearby. He expresses concern that any development on this site would be visually prominent due to the levels and shape of the site.

The Conservation Officer notes the design concept of the proposed dwelling and, although he would not necessarily advocate a pastiche of the older buildings, is concerned that the proposed building would be unduly prominent and this would be emphasised by the design and use of materials, which includes large areas of glazing and shallow pitched roofs with timber wall cladding, elements which would not reflect any characteristics of the area and would draw attention to the new building. The building would also be supported above the site having the appearance of three storeys when viewed from the south. Furthermore, he comments that the restricted nature of the site would not allow much space for landscaping and the level changes necessitate areas of hard surfacing, decking and access ramps/steps which all add to the intrusive impact of the development.

Archaeology Assistant advises that proposal involves the development of a Site of Archaeological interest and recommends condition, should Members be minded to approve the application, to ensure that access is available at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological and Historic Environment Service to observe groundwork and record items and features of archaeological significance.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council raise no objection to this proposal.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted one letter from a local resident expressing concern that proposal does not include provision of off-road parking and dwelling with three bedrooms could result in at least two more cars being parked on the narrow road from the corner of Castle Road causing congestion and obstructing the entrance to their driveway.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering the application are whether development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, whether design of dwelling proposed would detract from the character of the area and adjacent Conservation Area and whether the submission adequately addresses matters relating to ground stability.

Development envelopes are drawn around settlements with the purpose of defining the limits of development. Policies contained in they UDP seek to restrict the majority of development to defined settlements, protecting the countryside from inappropriate development and only proposals, which require a rural location or are specified in other policies of the plan will exceptionally be permitted outside the development envelopes. Whilst the current submission relates to a site located within the development envelope for Ventnor, the explanatory text to Policy G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) makes it quite clear that proposals will be expected to comply with other policies of the plan. Such policies, which are relevant to the current proposal are those which require development to harmonise with its surroundings, respect the distinctiveness of the area and generally safeguards the amenities and character of the locality. Members attention is drawn specifically to Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the UDP. Having regard to these factors, it follows that even though a site may be within the defined settlement, not every proposal for development will be considered to be acceptable in principle if it can be demonstrated that it does not comply with other policies of the plan.

In the case of the current proposal and notwithstanding the general character of Ventnor which, due to the topography of the town comprises development on terraces rising from the coast, it is considered that development of the application site, particularly in the form proposed, would result in a building which would be unduly prominent and would detract from the character of the area and, in particular, from the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area. The applicant’s architect has submitted further comments in support of the proposal, seeking to address these concerns and expressing the view that, given the site’s location within the development envelope where there should be a presumption in favour of development, the Local Authority should be encouraging innovative solutions to developing difficult sites. Whilst acknowledging the comments of the Conservation Officer, he is of the opinion that there is sufficient “breathing space” or “open green backdrop” between the proposed dwelling and the western end of the nearby Conservation Area for the two to be mutually compatible and that new can exist harmoniously with old.

Whilst it is accepted that a dwelling on this site would be reasonably well screened from the west by trees on or adjacent the boundary of the site and some additional planting could be carried out at the eastern end of the site, it is considered that, given the limited depth of this piece of land, it would not be possible to provide effective screening along the Castle Road frontage. Consequently, the dwelling would be highly visible when viewed from the adjacent Conservation Area and would represent an intrusive form of development, detracting from the setting of the designated area. Although the site is not within the designated area, it is considered that proposal would have a significant impact on this area and the harm that would result is sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

The submission was accompanied by a Site Stability Report produced by a Chartered Civil and Water Engineer. The introduction to the report clearly states that the report is based on a walk-over survey of the plot and the immediate surrounding area only, and reference to geological information held by the Isle of Wight Council. In addition, the author of the report states that a topographical survey of the site has been carried out by a surveyor. However, there is no indication within the report to a sub-surface investigation or monitoring of the site and to my knowledge no such exercise has been carried out.

The application and the Site Stability Report which accompanied the submission have been the subject of consultations with the Council’s consulting Civil, Structural and Geotechnical Engineer. It is accepted that the slope is the result of the railway rather than a landslide feature. However, he has expressed the view that, as with anywhere on the Undercliff, ground strains due to further movement cannot be ruled out. Therefore, any foundation structure should be capable of coping with some tensile strain or provision should be made for this in the superstructure. Consequently, he would support the use of a timber frame building. However, he comments that whilst the present bank may be stable, he cannot support the contention that it is likely to remain so without further evidence in the form of a site investigation which examines the properties of the fill material which makes up the bank, the depth and profile of the original surface and the origin/course of the water leading to the spring within the site.

The Council’s consulting engineer also suggests that it should be borne in mind that failure of this bank may affect the highway in both Castle Close and Castle Road. He advises that the proposed system of carrying a building on isolated piers on pad footings is particularly susceptible to differential settlement, which is a possibility in this instance, or strains from continued movement of the underlying landslip. Therefore, he recommends that, unless it can be demonstrated that such movement and/or strains will not occur, the foundation type chosen should take into account this possibility. The consulting engineer concludes that the requirements of PPG14, with respect to ensuring that development of the site will not affect or be affected by ground movement or can safely support the loads from the development, have not been proven and are unlikely to be so without the benefit of a site investigation.

PPG14 clearly advises that where a proposal fails to meet other planning criteria, an applicant should not be put to unnecessary/additional expense which may be incurred in producing a ground stability report or additional information, such as the site investigation which would be required in this instance, where other considerations would result in refusal of the application. This advice has been conveyed to the applicant’s architect in writing and he has also been advised that even if information was submitted which adequately addressed the ground stability issue, the application was nevertheless likely to be recommended for refusal. The applicant’s agent sought his clients advice and, as a result, formally requested that the application was considered by the Committee, although he accepts that any recommendation to refuse on ground stability issues is likely to be endorsed by Members.

In this instance, I consider there to be a number of options available to Members and the applicant. I remain of the opinion that development of the site as proposed would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities and character of the area, particularly the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area. However, should Members consider that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development, I would strongly advise against granting planning permission in the absence of further information adequately addressing the issue of ground stability, which will necessitate the applicant commissioning a detailed site investigation. Therefore, Members may resolve to refuse the application and in doing so, they may wish to indicate to the applicant that development of the site for residential purposes is considered to be acceptable and that the size, scale, design and general appearance of the dwelling are appropriate in this locality. Similarly, I would remind Members that the applicant would have a right of appeal against the refusal of planning permission and although, in the absence of information adequately addressing the issue of ground stability, I would expect the appeal to be dismissed, it is highly likely that the Inspector would comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of development of the site and the design approach adopted.

Whilst noting concerns of the local resident in respect of off-road parking, I consider that, given the changes in level through the site, it would be difficult to make provision for such facilities on site. Furthermore, site is located within Zone 3 of the parking guidelines where a provision between 0 to 75% of the non-operational requirement for parking would apply. This would effectively equate to the provision of a maximum of 2 parking spaces. However, the site is located within an area where on-street parking is available on nearby roads, including Park Avenue and Castle Road and there is not considered to be a problem with traffic congestion. In addition, the site is located within walking distance of the town and other facilities. Having regard to these factors, and in absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer, I do not consider that a reason for refusal on grounds relating to a lack of on-site parking would be justified.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse 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 the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, notwithstanding the location of the site within the defined settlement, development of this site as proposed would be inappropriate. In particular, given limited depth and relatively significant changes in level through the site, a building constructed on it would be unduly prominent and would be intrusive when viewed from, and consequently detract from the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area. Furthermore, it is considered that information accompanying the submission does not adequately address the requirements of PPG14 regarding unstable ground.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposed dwelling by reason of its position on a steeply sloping and prominent site, its size, design and general appearance would be an intrusive development out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the immediate locality and would have an adverse effect on the amenities and character of the area in general and the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area in particular. In consequence, the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policies S6 (High standard of design) and S10 (Designated and defined areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan

The site is located within an area, identified on maps which accompany the Coastal Landslip Potential Assessment where development should be avoided unless adequate evidence of stability is presented and information which accompanied the submission is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of a site investigation and monitoring so the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of ground instability on the development and the potential for the development to cause further instability within the site and to adjacent land. In consequence, the proposal is contrary to advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land and Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a)

TCP/E26249

Use of private dwelling for the operation of a taxi service at 28 Arthur Moody Drive, Newport, IOW

Officer: Mr S Cornwell

Tel: 01983 823592

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of a taxi operating centre at 28 Arthur Moody Drive, Newport, IOW.

Background

Arthur Moody Drive is a narrow, winding residential cul de sac off Gunville Road, Newport, with a very tight turning circle at the end. Number 28 Arthur Moody Drive is situated close to a narrow vehicular access which runs from the turning circle to a general parking area.

In March 2004 a report was received in the Planning Department to the effect that for the past 4-5 weeks a taxi service had been operating from number 28 Arthur Moody Drive and up to five taxis had been parking in the road, where parking is very limited. It was quoted that a day or two prior to the report one individual taxi driver had driven up and down the road seven times in one and a half hours. The caller stated that at the time of calling, there were four taxis parked in the road.

The Enforcement Officer made three visits to Arthur Moody Drive over the next two weeks but did not see any evidence of taxis parking in the road. On the fourth visit the Enforcement Officer found one taxi parked at the top of the cul de sac and two days later on a further visit found a different taxi parked there. The Enforcement Officer wrote to the owner of the taxi company between these two latter visits pointing out that he had received a complaint that up to five taxis were parking in Arthur Moody Drive at any one time, thereby causing obstruction. The Enforcement Officer pointed out that perhaps one taxi operating from a private address may not be considered as a material change of use, (depending on the specific circumstances), but up to five would have to be considered to be a Change of Use which could result in Enforcement Action.

Shortly after this the Enforcement Officer received a second complaint from a different complainant stating that four to five taxis were operating from the address and that employees picked the taxis up from there and left their own vehicles behind.

A week later the Enforcement Officer again visited Arthur Moody Drive and found two taxis parked close to the turning circle and noted that there were numerous other unmarked vehicles parked further down the hill. Three days later on a Sunday, the Enforcement Officer drove along Arthur Moody Drive and found two taxis in the road and a third parked outside number 28.

Shortly after this the proprietor of the taxi company telephoned and said that he only had two vehicles in Newport apart from on a Sunday when there were three at a time. He denied that drivers left their vehicles in Arthur Moody Drive when they were out working. I pointed out that it was in his interest not to intensify this use and to avoid causing obstruction. Two weeks later the Enforcement Officer made another call on a Sunday, and found one taxi in the road and one in front of number 28. Two further calls shortly after, revealed one taxi on the first occasion and two taxis on the second.

The Enforcement Officer then received a third caller who stated that they had arrived home from shopping and could not get parked because there were seven ‘Q’ Car taxis parked there for about an hour. The caller said that the owner of the company had about eight or nine taxis. Following that telephone call the Enforcement Officer spoke with the owner of the taxi company who said that he didn’t realise how bad the problem was. He said that he had dealt with a noisy driver who was dropping cars off at 3 am with no consideration for neighbours and he was going to stop drivers from parking between numbers 45 to 55 Arthur Moody Drive where the road is narrow, with a bend. He added that he would write to neighbours with copies to me giving them an undertaking; a copy of this letter if sent was never received in the Planning Department. Two further visits by the Enforcement Officer shortly afterwards revealed one taxi on one occasion and no taxis on the second occasion.

In July 2004 the Enforcement Officer spoke with an occupant of Arthur Moody Drive on another matter after which they stated that the parking of taxis in Arthur Moody Drive was causing problems. This complaint was quickly followed by one from a fifth complainant who stated that they were fed up with being woken up between 2.30 am and 4.15 am on Friday night/Saturday morning by drivers dropping off their taxis and picking up their private motor vehicles. That individual said that it was invariably three drivers involved. They stated that taxis were continuing to park in a narrow part of Arthur Moody Drive close to the bend and in particular they identified a blue Peugeot taxi which recently had a large black Euro taxi parked directly behind it which caused problems in getting parked on their property.

The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are considered to be relevant:

Policy G4 - General Locational Criteria

Policy G10 - Potential Conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses

Policy D1 - Standards of Design

Policy TR7 - Highways Considerations for new developments

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the business as a whole being operated from the premises. Time for compliance, 3 months after Notice takes effect.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the dwelling house in connection with the operation of a taxi business, but to accept that the radio/telephone operation can remain providing it involves no staff travelling to the property. Time for compliance, 3 months after the Notice takes effect.

To take no further action in respect of the taxi business.

Conclusion

Number 28 Arthur Moody Drive is situated within a high density residential area where the narrow roads make on street parking potentially hazardous. Not withstanding that the majority of the houses have off road parking. There have been a number of complainants in this case and although at least one complainant mentioned being awakened in the early hours of the morning by the taxis, most of the concern centres around highway safety with obstruction caused by the taxis, and the private vehicles owned by the drivers.

I consider that a breach of planning control has occurred involving a change of use to a mixed residential and business use by means of the operation of a taxi service business from the land.

As stated, residents are concerned about the effect that this business is having on their amenities. Policies G10 and D1 advise that when considering a planning application the Council should take into account the potential for conflict between existing, adjoining or surrounding development and activities. Proposals may be refused permission if they are considered incompatible with existing, adjoining or nearby activities. Policy TR7 refers to consideration being given to the safety of both vehicular traffic and pedestrians when considering an application, or indeed enforcement action.

The taxi operator should seek an alternative site for the overnight storage of his vehicles and for parking when not carrying fares together with the facilities necessary for the employees to leave their own cars and pick up a taxi. The proprietor gave a verbal undertaking to the Enforcement Officer that he would cease parking the vehicles to the detriment of adjoining householders but it is clear from ongoing complaints that the nuisance has continued.

I believe that the service of an Enforcement Notice will be required to bring about the cessation of use of this unacceptable level of activity within a reasonable timescale.

Provided that the radio/telephone operation from 28 Arthur Moody Drive does not require staff travelling to and from the property, I believe that this activity would not be development and would unlikely to cause nuisance to the adjoining properties. Accordingly, this should be reflected in any notice.

Human Rights

In coming to the recommendation 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, in respect of both the operator and third parties affected by this unauthorised activity. Whilst it is recognised that there may be some interference with the rights of the operator it is considered that the recommendation of taking enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aims of the Planning Legislation, and the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. In so far as there is an interference with the rights of the operator, the proposed action is considered necessary for the protection of rights and freedom of others.

Recommendation

Option 2

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the dwelling house in connection with the operation of a taxi business, but to accept that the radio/telephone operation can remain providing it involves no staff travelling to the property.

Time for compliance, 3 months after the Notice takes effect.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 3 AUGUST 2004

(a) E/26249

28 Arthur Moody Drive, Newport, Isle of Wight

Newport

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a)

TCP/E26249

Use of private dwelling for the operation of a taxi service at 28 Arthur Moody Drive, Newport, IOW

Officer: Mr S Cornwell

Tel: 01983 823592

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of a taxi operating centre at 28 Arthur Moody Drive, Newport, IOW.

Background

The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are considered to be relevant:

Policy G4 - General Locational Criteria

Policy G10 - Potential Conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses

Policy D1 - Standards of Design

Policy TR7 - Highways Considerations for new developments

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the business as a whole being operated from the premises. Time for compliance, 3 months after Notice takes effect.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the dwelling house in connection with the operation of a taxi business, but to accept that the radio/telephone operation can remain providing it involves no staff travelling to the property. Time for compliance, 3 months after the Notice takes effect.

To take no further action in respect of the taxi business.

Conclusion

I consider that a breach of planning control has occurred involving a change of use to a mixed residential and business use by means of the operation of a taxi service business from the land.

I believe that the service of an Enforcement Notice will be required to bring about the cessation of use of this unacceptable level of activity within a reasonable timescale.

Human Rights

Recommendation

Option 2

Time for compliance, 3 months after the Notice takes effect.