REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 30 JANUARY 2004

TCP/14470/Z P/02216/03 Parish/Name: Ryde

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

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

Demolition of east wing (18 Upton Road) of Southfield; outline for residential development of 14 houses with parking & vehicular access, (revised description and address), (readvertised application)

land between Node Close and Rotary Court and north of, Southfield Gardens, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has proved particularly contentious raising a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application, the processing of which has taken ten weeks to date, and therefore a determination of this application at this meeting will comply with the thirteen week target period laid down for dealing with major planning applications.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Generally overgrown irregular shaped site immediately east to the cul-de-sac head of Node Close, west of Rotary Court and north of Southfield Gardens. The Close itself is a cul-de-sac having a curved alignment consisting of a series of bends terminating in a cul-de-sac head and providing some elements of parking areas. There is a mixture of modern and established residential development consisting of eight detached dwellings, five terraced units and three blocks of twelve flats with its own parking area being Rotary Court, accessed off Node Close on its western side. It also serves a large detached established property known as Southfield. The western half of this established property in the form of flatted accommodation (5a, 5b and 7 Node Close) whilst the eastern half (18 Upton Road) is in the form of a single dwelling. Site generally slopes from north to south.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Consent granted in April 1991 for a detached house and garage within the former grounds of Southfield Hall. This consent has been implemented being property 18A Upton Road located adjacent flatted development Rotary Court and east of Southfield House.

Outline consent granted March 1988 for five terraced houses with that consent being subsequently renewed in December 1990. That approval was allowed to lapse, however a subsequent resubmission was approved in May 1994. This consent related to southern area of the current application site where it abuts Southfield Gardens.

In January 1999 detailed consent granted for three pairs of semi-detached houses with parking which involved the extension of the existing road and footpath, again relating to the southern area of the current application site.

March 2000 detailed consent granted for demolition of part of Southfield and further two pairs of semi-detached houses within the area of the current application site consisting of the demolished east wing of Southfield House and land to the south of that area.

Both the above mentioned latter approvals involved the eastward extension of Node Close which included realignment of the existing cul-de-sac head to provide parking bay for two vehicles.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline consent sought for the principle of residential development of this site in the form of a total of fourteen two-storey dwellings consisting of two terraces of three dwellings and eight semi-detached dwellings. Proposal seeks siting and means of access to be considered at the same time.

Application provides for the demolition of the east wing of Southfield House and the construction of a terrace of three between the remaining part of Southfield House (5a, 5b and 7 Node Close) and modern detached property 18A Upton Road. Remaining terrace of three being located to the south being on the northern side of the extended Node Close.

Six of the eight semi-detached properties to be located in the southern half of the site adjacent the existing terrace of five units. These units to have a north south aspect. Remaining pair to have an east west aspect located adjacent the eastern boundary.

Proposal indicates the extension of Node Close with cul-de-sac head serving eleven of the fourteen units. Rumble strip indicated at the point of entry into the site. New extended cul-de-sac has a total of sixteen parking spaces which relates to eleven of the fourteen units. The remaining three units provided with three parking spaces and turning area accessed towards the north, again off Node Close. Proposal provides for an average of 1.3 parking spaces per unit.

Application has been accompanied by some illustrative house type plans which includes a proposal for a three-storey terrace of three houses where that terrace abuts property Southfield. Applicant has included plans and elevations of these house types as illustrative information only to assist in assessing the merits of the application.

Applicant has made reference to the fact that the site already has full planning approval for ten houses, however in line with national advice this proposal has intensified the development to increase density in accordance with those guidelines.

Proposal also provides for 3 number lay-by parking spaces which will effectively replace the existing cul-de-sac hammerhead. One lay-by situated on the southern side of the road with the remaining two being on the northern side.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000. 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 transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping, etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty to fifty units per hectare 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 centres.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

New housing should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to the immediate buildings and the wider locality and should not compromise the quality of the environment.

Relevant local plan/policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

Reference is also made to recent Housing Need Survey. The main conclusions of which denies a need for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two/three bedroom homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

Site is located within parking zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum of 0 - 75% parking provision for this site. Guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Within this zone the site is not subject of transport infrastructure payment.

In terms of affordable housing proposal is less than 15 units and therefore is not subject of the need to provide an element of affordable housing.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has expressed concerns regarding this proposal with particular regard to the level of visibility at the junction between Node Close and Upton Road with the main concern being that the increase in traffic flows which may result from a further four units would be unacceptable and create hazards to highway users.

He offers four possible solutions to the problem as follows:

Applicant carry out traffic speed survey to establish whether speed in Upton Road is sufficiently low to ensure that existing limited visibility onto Upton Road is acceptable and also carry out accurate measurements of the visibility currently available.

Create improved visibility onto Upton Road by including adjoining garden land either side which would obviously involve land outside control of applicant.

Highway Engineer's department consider alternative would be to realign the junction of Node Close utilising the wide area of footway on the western side of the access road. This will create a wider footway on the eastern side and improve visibility to the east. Although no obvious improvement is immediately available to visibility in a westerly direction, slightly repositioning the "give way lines" as part of the scheme may provide some improvement.

Suggestion that applicant make a financial contribution towards junction improvements as part of a larger scheme already proposed by the Highway Traffic Section in the Haylands area.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of 26 signature petition from 16 households in Node Close with subject matter of petition being summarised as follows:

Proposal represents excessive density incompatible with the surrounding area resulting in a cramped development.

Proposal will detract from the existing environment enjoyed by the neighbourhood and impinges on the existing open character of development in the area.

Area has severe ground stability problems, a fact not recognised by the applicant, there being no engineer's report accompanying the application.

Site is not deemed to be a brownfield site but a pleasant landscape wooded area and therefore inappropriate for this density of development.

Nodes Close already has severe inadequacies in terms of its construction and particularly in lacking footpath provision.

Proposal will generate excessive traffic flows causing hazards to highway users with particular reference to pedestrians and elderly residents of Rotary Court.

Application has also been the subject of 16 individual letters of objection, 15 from residents of Node Close and 1 from adjoining property owner 18A Upton Road.

Following represents points raised additional to those covered in the petition.

There are changes in level across the site which will need some supporting structures.

Particular reference made to the poor quality of construction of Node Close which would be exacerbated by any additional traffic.

Number of objectors consider the suggested proposal for a three-storey terrace would be inappropriate with particular concern from the neighbouring property 18A who would be affected by such a height of building.

Concern that drainage provision has not been addressed adequately with particular reference to inappropriateness of use of soakaways within a clay strata.

Proposal will result in loss of trees affecting wildlife habitat with particular reference to red squirrels.

Proposal will create added noise disturbance with particular reference to elderly residents of Rotary Court.

Demolition of east wing of Southfield House will result in the unnecessary loss of a good quality building.

Proposal provides insufficiency of parking which will result in undue pressures on on-street parking causing dangers to pedestrians and other road users and creating access problems.

Insufficient access for emergency vehicles.

One letter of support received from local resident of St Michael's Avenue with points raised summarised as follows:

Proposal is within requirements of PPG3 making efficient use of urban land providing a mixed community.

If current application is unacceptable in terms of traffic movement site provides an opportunity for a one way system from the top of Node Close and/or Southfield Gardens to St Michael's Avenue.

The development site has been the subject of antisocial behaviour in the recent past, a fact that can be confirmed by the police.

Proposal provides an opportunity to provide safe convenient route to Ryde High School for local children.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Principle

The principle of developing this site is firmly based evidenced by the two extant detail approvals for a total of ten two-storey semi-detached dwellings. These extant consents represent a major material consideration in assessing the merits of this application.

Also the site can be defined as a brownfield site within the development envelope boundary on the urban fringes of Ryde. The area generally is characterised by established and more modern medium density development providing a variety of dwellings ranging from older narrow fronted semi-detached to modern terraces and detached.

It is important to appreciate that this is an outline application with the main planning considerations being whether or not the increase to 14 units is acceptable in terms of density with particular regard to effect on the general character of the locality, impact on nearby residential occupiers and issues relating to generation of traffic with particular regard to adequacy of Node Close and its junction with Upton Road.

Density

In pure density terms this proposal increases the density from 38.5 units per hectare in respect of the ten approved dwellings to 54 units per hectare in respect of the fourteen units now being proposed. This may appear to represent a significant increase, however a direct comparison with the approved layout and the current proposal indicates that two of the four additional units have been achieved by replacing two pairs of semi-detached properties with two terraces of three properties resulting in a relatively modest increase in footprint size. The remaining two additional units are those which have an east west aspect located well within the site and provide a visual stop to the extended cul-de-sac.

The test of any development should not be related to the calculated density but whether or not the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationship between the proposed blocks and in relation to effect on adjoining properties and the visual effect on the area in general. There is a general acceptance that efficient use of urban land will inevitably result in dwellings being on smaller plots than has previously been the case. Not surprisingly this scheme is no exception to that maxim. Finally an approximate calculation of overall density in terms of dwellings which are served off Node Close indicate that the existing development plus the ten approved dwellings would result in an overall density of approximately 27.5 units per hectare with the additional four units increasing that density to approximately 31 units per hectare.

Impact

Impact on the immediate character of Node Close itself represents a good example of mixed development ranging from detached dwellings to flatted development. In detail Node Close serves following:

Detached houses - 8 no.

Terraced houses - 5 no.

Flats - 15 no. (including Rotary Court).

Total - 28 no.

Whilst I appreciate the concerns being expressed by Node Close residents I suggest the introduction of eight semi-detached and six terraced units would not represent development out of character with the area but would simply contribute to the mix of development in the area.

Whilst application has been accompanied by house type plans and elevations these are for illustrative purposes only and are not before Members for detailed consideration. They do, however, suggest general height and scale of dwellings and how they are likely to sit into the general topography of the site. In this regard the applicant appears to have used the levels appropriately. The only major issue with regard to type of dwellings is the introduction of a terrace of three three-storey dwellings as a replacement for the demolished east wing of the existing Southfield property. Unfortunately the illustrative plans do not relate the proposed three-storey terraced block with the height, mass and scale of the existing Southfield property, however principle of an appropriately designed block directly adjacent to Southfield of this type of height and scale would, in my opinion, compliment that existing property which in itself is a property of some character containing a number of architectural features and of a mass and height typical of Victorian dwellings of this style.

Whilst it is regrettable that part of the existing Southfield property is to be demolished the east wing is to some extent the poor relation to the main Southfield property and in any event the property is unlisted and no reasonable objection can be raised to this aspect of the development. In any event one of the extant consents has already accepted the loss of the east wing.

In general whilst the illustrative plans have been useful in assessing the general theme of development I consider that in design and architectural appearance terms they are below the standard that would be expected in respect of this site and if Members are mindful to approve the application a letter to this effect should be sent to the applicant.

The arrangement of dwellings in relation to immediate neighbouring properties are considered to be acceptable with there being a reasonable space and distance from those existing properties. Concerns of neighbouring property owner regarding the proposed three-storey terraced block are noted but again I consider the distance is sufficient to overcome any immediate visual or environmental impact and in any event this is an outline application and care would need to be taken at the detail stage on issues of loss of privacy etc with careful consideration to the internal arrangement and mass and scale of that block.

Highway Considerations

The concerns raised by the Highway Engineer have some considerable significance and will need to be weighed against the general requirement to make efficient use of urban land to take pressures off greenfield sites and therefore create higher densities, however not at the expense of cramped development. Given that the general layout and arrangement of dwellings are considered to be acceptable and rather than recommend refusal to this application on the only ground that the access of Node Close onto Upton Road is inadequate in visibility terms, I have requested the Highway Engineer to give serious consideration to the final two options suggested in his comments.

It will be noted that the fourteen units being proposed does not generate provision of affordable housing and the site's location within zone 3 of the parking zone policy does not generate any contribution towards transport infrastructure funds.

I therefore consider that these concerns of the Highway Engineer provides an opportunity for this development to generate a financial contribution which will assist in the funding of a larger road improvement scheme in the area of Haylands. I would therefore suggest that this would be a reasonable approach satisfying the test which would be applied to such a request. The tests relate to necessity, relevance to planning, relevance to the development to be permitted, enforceability and being reasonable in all other respects. The actual amount of the payment is not known at this stage but will be available at the time of the meeting.

Secondly, I would suggest the imposition of a Grampian condition requiring the suggested realignment of the junction of Node Close with Upton Road prior to any other work commencing. (For information a Grampian condition is a condition which may be applied to a planning permission restricting implementation until certain works are undertaken on land which is not within the immediate control of the applicant such as off site highway improvements.)

It should be noted that the Highway Engineer is not raising any concerns regarding any additional traffic use for Node Close itself with the junction of Node Close to Upton Road being his only concern.

With regard to the concerns being expressed by Node Close resident, only three of the four additional units will need to make use of the entire length of Node Close with the remaining unit being accessed off a very short length of Node Close to its junction with Upton Road. I certainly do not consider that any increase in traffic would be such as to represent sufficient reason to refuse the application.

In terms of parking spaces proposal indicates approximately 50% of guidelines well within the maximum 75% required in zone 3. Indeed the number of parking spaces being indicated is approximately the same as that being indicated for the 10 units. Obviously likely level of car ownership in relation to size of property cannot be predicted, however a dictating factor will always be the level of parking available. Government policy is to reduce parking provision hence their policy of 1.5 spaces per unit. Members will appreciate that this is a difficult policy to promote, however it is the statutory policy within the Unitary Development Plan and the applicant in this case is complying with that policy.

It is accepted that the parking layout as submitted is not the most inspired or efficient and could be revisited to both achieve more parking and a better contribution to the hard and soft landscaping of this development. I suggest that this would be a matter that could be dealt with at the detail stage and be flagged up as a condition. One other factor which needs to be considered is the relatively short walking distance to Upton Road, being one of the main thoroughfares into Ryde and therefore providing easy access to a bus route.

The existing alignment of Node Close creates its own traffic calming. A relatively minor development at the end of Node Close being proposed would be designed in the form of a shared surface with the applicant indicating a rumble strip as a traffic calming feature in itself.

The concerns of local residents are noted, however this type of road layout where traffic speeds are severely restricted through road alignment and other traffic calming features is commonly used and evidence suggests that these represent a safe environment particularly for pedestrians. Studies have been carried out which concluded that shared surface roads were accident free and the majority of residents who live within such shared surface roads appreciate the visual character of their surroundings and did not see safety of pedestrians as a problem.

There is some limited casual parking within the vicinity of the head of Node Close which I assume is used in the main by residents in the immediate vicinity mainly those who live in the block of 5 terraced houses. This existing parking situation is in the form of a lay-by opposite 12 Node Close which is probably capable of accommodating two vehicles and further space in the triangular area part of which is concreted and immediately abuts the hammerhead. Applicants have attempted to compensated for the loss of casual parking by indicating lay-by parking on both the south side and north side of the proposed extended Node Close opposite properties 20 and 22 Node Close which will provide a total of 3 spaces in addition to the existing lay-by as previously described.

It is important to appreciate that these additional 3 lay-by spaces cannot be specifically allocated however given their position slightly divorced from the proposed development to the east it is unlikely that they will be used by occupiers of the new development and therefore are more likely to be available for existing residents. Finally Members are advised that each of the five terraced units numbers 14 - 22 inclusive have the benefit of a double garage which faces onto and is served from Southfield Gardens on the southern side of those units.

Effectively this proposal should continue to provide an element of on-street parking in lay-by form and Members attention is drawn to suggested condition 8 which provides for these lay-by parking spaces to be provided prior to occupation of any of the plots which abut to the east. The reason for that condition is to ensure replacement of casual parking provision and to discourage direct on-street parking.

Ground Stability/Drainage

Whilst ground stability is a material consideration in respect of planning, in this case it would only be critical if it could be proved that the land was likely to be incapable of supporting any development. Again I refer to the extant consents at which time this issue was not raised and given that there are a number of modern developments in the area this suggests that ground conditions whilst possibly being difficult do not make it impossible for development to take place.

In any event ground conditions and foundations are matters which would be dealt with at the Building Regulations stage and appropriate steps would be taken to counteract the clay soil conditions.

With regard to drainage, the criticism in respect of use of soakaways are noted with particular reference again to the clay strata. It is important to appreciate that this is an outline application and I suggest that the issue of drainage both foul and storm water can be covered by an appropriate condition requiring drainage schemes to be submitted prior to any other work commencing with such schemes providing evidence that there is sufficient capacity within existing drainage systems in the area to accept any additional flows and that full consultation with relevant agencies have taken place.

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 the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that given that this is an outline application establishing principle of residential development in the form of fourteen units is acceptable and all numerous issues have been addressed with the proposal complying with all relevant statutory policies represents efficient use of urban land without being cramped in appearance. The highway concerns both raised by local residents and the Highway Engineer have been adequately addressed both within the Evaluation and the imposition of appropriate conditions.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Subject to a Section 106 Planning Obligation requiring a financial contribution of an amount to be agreed towards junction improvements as part of a larger highway improvement scheme for the Haylands area.)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

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

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

4	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01

5	Timing of occupation - J11

6	Traffic calming - J03

Fourteen dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with detailed plans submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority for a maximum of 21 cars to be parked and for vehicles to be loaded and unloaded to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear. Space shall not thereafter be used for any purposes other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to occupation of any of the plots 1 to 11 inclusive, the 3 no. lay-by parking spaces opposite 20 and 22 Node Close, as indicated on the plan hereby approved, shall be completed and ready for use and such parking spaces shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure replacement of a casual parking provision similar to the existing parking provision within Node Close and to discourage on-street parking in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

A parking area and open space management plan, including management responsibilities and maintenance schedules, in respect of the communal parking area in respect of plots 1 to 11 inclusive and the open space area between plots 8 and 9 indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any part of the development. The parking area and open space area management plan shall be carried out as approved.

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

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, (or any order revoking an reenacting that order with or without modification) no development of any kind shall be carried out within three metres of Southfield Gardens without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To allow for future road improvements and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Plots 12, 13 and 14 shall not be occupied until a means of vehicular access serving these dwellings has been constructed in accordance with plans to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

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

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

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

Development shall not begin until a detailed scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority indicating the realignment of the junction of Node Close with Upton Road. Such scheme shall utilise the wide area of the footway on the western side of the access road creating a wider footway on the eastern side and shall provide for the repositioning of the "give way" lines. No other development shall commence until the scheme has been fully implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to achieve visibility improvements to the east of the junction of Node Close with Upton Road to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed.

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

2. RECOMMENDATION - Letter be sent to applicants advising that the design and appearance as indicated on the illustrative plans and elevations of the various house types submitted with the application are not considered of an appropriate standard with particular reference to the design and appearance of the terrace of three units adjacent the property Southfields.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services