REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 30 JANUARY 2004

TCP/01813/N P/01877/03 Parish/Name: Totland

Registration Date: 01/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Demolition of building; construction of a 2 storey building and a 2/3 storey building to form 14 flats with associated parking

Clifton Home For The Elderly, Broadway, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390AN

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Councillor John Howe as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application, if determined at this meeting will have taken sixteen weeks to process, the delay being due to negotiations concerning access.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site has an area of approximately 0.15 hectare and is located on the south east side of the B3322, the Broadway, just to the south of its junction with the A3055 (Avenue Road) at Totland. Traffic at this junction is controlled by a mini-roundabout.

The site is presently occupied by a two/three storey home for the elderly, a fairly large building constructed in red brickwork under gabled roofs. The property has a short road frontage to the Broadway with the site opening out into a width of approximately 35 metres and with a similar frontage onto the unmade road at the rear linking Avenue Road with the Mall. To the north of the site is a property known as Driftwood. This is a comparatively modern two storey residential dwelling facing Avenue Road and accessed off the unmade road on its eastern side. Rathrobin is a bungalow located on the south west side of the site whilst to the west, also fronting the Broadway is another two storey residential property. The area is one of mixed development, some large properties, a church but comprising mostly large buildings in fairly generous curtilages.

Clifton is presently served by access from the Broadway in a position in its narrow frontage which is situated about 40 metres from the centre of the roundabout located to the north.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In July of last year a planning application seeking consent for the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with twenty flats in a four storey building was withdrawn, before consideration by the Committee.

Prior to that, planning permissions largely related to the Clifton as a residential home.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site with fourteen flats in two blocks.

The larger block is shown to be located running parallel to the rear boundary of the site with a similar depth of frontage to the unmade road as the adjoining properties. The smaller block is shown to be situated in the western corner with a space between the blocks of about 5 metres. Plans show the larger block to comprise two and three storeys, the centre section being three storeys with some accommodation appearing to be within the roofspace due to the eaves and roof configuration. At each end of the building there is a two storey element and the building virtually fills the width of the site with a space of 1.5 metres on the northern side and approximately 2.2 metres on the southern side. The building is shown to be constructed in brickwork primarily with plain tiled roofs and with gables clad also in plain tiles. The eaves of each of the elements is reduced to window sill level or below but there are gabled features which are of full three storey height. In terms of general massing, the building has been divided into three elements, as previously described, the two, two storey elements at each end and the larger three storey element in the middle. The smaller of the two blocks is also constructed in similar materials and of a similar style, brickwork elevations with a plain tiled gabled roof incorporating dormers and gable features.

Essentially fenestration has a distinct vertical emphasis of what appears to be traditional style windows, the upper parts of which are small paned giving the appearance of sliding sash windows. Some elevations include balconies which have balustrades of an unspecified material. Revised plans received omit balconies in sensitive positions.

Flats vary in size but each has either one, two or three bedrooms, the two and three bedroom flats having one en-suite and each with a living room/kitchen and varying between 55 square metres and 82.5 square metres.

Access is proposed off the Broadway, via the existing but improved entrance leading to a roughly rectangular shaped parking area located abutting the north east boundary where the current parking area is, providing parking for fourteen vehicles (one space per flat). In addition, towards the western extent of the site is shown to be a layout of covered cycle parking and a bin store. Block paving surrounds the east and southern sides of the car park giving access to the main front door of the flats. The revised plans show an improved access arrangement.

Areas of open space exist around proposed buildings and between the two blocks and along the frontage to the unmade road to the east.

There are substantial trees along the eastern boundary and two large trees in close proximity to the south eastern corner of the larger block.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Within designated development envelope but unallocated for any specific purpose on inset A of the Unitary Development Plan. Site is not within a Conservation Area nor an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Site is therefore considered as a windfall site.

Site is not subject to any restrictive policy in respect of the redevelopment of care homes.

PPG3 applies, referring to redevelopment of brownfield sites and the best use of urban land.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommended refusal to original submission in terms of inadequate visibility. Following negotiations and suggestions by the Highway Engineer revised plans have been received in line with the Highway Engineer's suggestions but he further comments that he would prefer to see the site accessed from the unmade road at the rear, raising concern over the access to the development being in comparatively close proximity with the roundabout. He continues by saying that road distances (90 metres) can be reduced if the actual traffic speeds are less than 30 mph. Highway Engineer has been in consultation with the agent and in terms of the revised plans comments further:

"Following my previous concerns regarding the proposed parking/access arrangements and substandard visibility on this site, the applicant has now:-

· Revised the vehicular access,

· Commissioned a traffic speed/volume survey carried out using automatic traffic counters,

· Submitted a supporting statement undertaken by a reputable traffic engineering consultancy.

No figures have been supplied assessing the previous level of usage for the vehicular access, it is likely that this proposal will result in increased vehicle movements (around 70 vehicles per day in total).

Visibility from the access is problematic in both directions; to the left the high brick pier (which is not within the applicant's control), limits the visibility splay to 2.4 by 90m, which is (just) acceptable. However, in practice this visibility splay would often be obstructed by on-street parking; new parking restrictions could be implemented (at the developer's expense) if this proves necessary.

Visibility towards the right is borderline; our design guide permits a shorter visibility splay if traffic speeds are actually less than the speed limit; for speeds of 25mph, a 45m distance is acceptable, for 20mph, 33m is acceptable.

Vehicle speeds are around 25-26mph as they pass Clifton Court's access, and around 20mph as they exit the roundabout.

Summing up the above; 33 metres is the minimum visibility required for the vehicle speeds approaching Clifton's access from the roundabout; 30 metres is the amount of available visibility.

The revised (wider) access with a central demarcation should lessen the chances of conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the site.

The proposed cycle store is not satisfactory, Sheffield stands need to be utilised, and more space made available; the proposed building is too congested.

However, notwithstanding any of the above, the fact remains that utilising Uplands Road (unadopted and unmade) at the rear of the property would be a preferable access point. I understand that there are legal issues to be resolved before Uplands Road could be used, but if those issues could be settled and the carriageway from Clifton Home to The Avenue made up, then in my view this arrangement would be safer than the access onto The Broadway."

He then suggests conditions which should be applied to any consent issued.

Acting Head of Adult Services offers no comment.

National Care Standards Commission point out that Clifton ceased to be a registered home some months ago and offer no comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Totland Parish Council oppose the application on grounds of inadequate vehicular access for the number of vehicles involved; the position of the access remains too close to the roundabout, allowing vehicles into a fast moving traffic flow; inadequate parking for residents and on grounds that the number of dwellings and the resultant size of building is excessive.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Seven letters of objection from local residents stating that:

· Development too close to existing properties and possible source of structural instability.

· Visual impact of increased mass of building and consequent change of character.

· Loss of trees.

· Increased use of access which would be dangerous especially due to the proximity of the access to the roundabout.

· Inadequate drainage.

· Loss of home for the elderly.

· Overdominant building.

· Inadequate car parking.

· Loss of light.

· Possible flooding due to increased surface water runoff.

· One writer draws attention to the continuing addition of development in the area thus adding to the traffic utilising this junction.

One of the letters suggests that Uplands Road should be used for access utilising the existing access to Broadway for pedestrians only.

One of the seven letters suggests that the building would be better converted rather than demolished and the site redeveloped.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant Officer has been consulted and comments in the following terms:

Points out that the proposed development has solved most of the external problems with blocks of flats by providing gardens to the ground floor units that with appropriate boundary fencing this should aid security with the exception of gates provided in the eastern boundary of the site and questions the type of gates to be provided, what security will be fitted and what would stop residents just leaving them unlocked. Questions the type of lighting which will be provided on the site, especially around the main entrance and the cycle park, and if there is room at the entrance to the site to provide a pedestrian protected walkway to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The Architectural Liaison Officer also makes positive suggestions regarding positions of fences

and signage to ensure parking is used by visitors and residents only and applauds the use of low level planting to provide good entrance and exit visibility. Also suggests that the applicant and agent consider trying to achieve "Secure by Design" certification.

EVALUATION

Essentially this is an application which seeks to redevelop a site which would otherwise be called a brownfield site, being a site which has already been developed, although it is acknowledged that the site is not derelict although not now in use. However, located within the development envelope and in the absence of policies which might resist the loss of elderly persons accommodation, the reuse of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. The determining factors would therefore seem to be the detailed aspects of the proposed development including scale and mass of which height is an important factor, the density of development, the design of the proposals; effect on adjoining properties; matters relating to traffic and access and effect on trees on the site.

On the first issue, that of scale and mass, the building is of greater proportions than that which it proposes to replace in terms of site coverage and general bulk. It is, however, of compatible and comparable size to the church on the opposite side of Uplands Road. The site coverage, the building's mass and scale are all factors of the need to increase densities so as to affect the concept of best use of urban land as advised by Central Government in trying to meet the requirements of housing provision but at the same time preserving the countryside. The increase in density is consistent with this practice and its appropriateness should be judged on the basis of the resultant development and whether or not the development "works". The density represents some ninety dwellings per hectare.

In design terms, linked with the massing of the building the scheme incorporates lower scaled elements of the building where they abut the lower scale adjoining properties. These are in fact two storey which is compatible with the adjoining development and the design scheme incorporates gables, tile hanging features, vertical emphasis fenestration, features which appear in the more established parts of Totland. The design and style are consistent with the character of the area and from an architectural viewpoint I consider the design to be appropriate.

Turning to effect on adjoining properties, there are three dwellings which abut the site and which would be considered to be those which might be affected the most. The introduction of a redevelopment scheme in any developed area is likely to result in some effects of overshadowing, dominance and loss of privacy to adjoining properties. The current scheme seeks to minimise these effects by incorporating few windows in the elevations which face adjoining properties. In the case of the north eastern elevation, facing the property known as Driftwood, the elevation incorporates six windows, three on each of first and ground floors. The plans show that the ground floor windows will be effectively screened by the addition of boundary fencing, windows which are shown to serve two bedrooms and the living room on ground floor. The first floor windows in that elevation are shown to serve an en-suite bathroom, a bedroom and a secondary window to a kitchen area, and all three are shown to be in obscured glazing.

The south western elevation of the main block incorporates no windows which directly face adjoining property on ground floor, but two narrow windows which are located in a single storey element of the building which projects and the windows are included in the flank walls and therefore at right angles to the adjoining boundary. The first floor element includes two windows, both secondary windows to the living room/kitchens and again are shown to be obscure glazed. These will light rooms but will not allow overlooking to occur. The primary windows in those units are in the east and west elevations of the building.

The smaller block abuts the rear boundary of a property which fronts the Broadway. The western elevation of that element of the development incorporates three windows on ground floor, one lights the stairwell servicing the first floor flat, one a bathroom and third is a secondary window to the living area. The first floor windows are shown to serve the stairwell and a secondary window to the living room and, again, these windows are shown to be obscure glazed. On that basis I do not consider the first floor windows will create an overlooking problem due to their obscurity and that ground floor windows will be adequately screened by boundary treatments.

However, the original scheme incorporated a balcony at the rear of the first floor unit on the smaller block and balconies in other positions on the main block and at least two of these are likely to result in an overlooking impact if not adequately screened. These balconies are likely to overlook two of those three properties adjoining and accordingly should be omitted from the scheme and, indeed the revised plans have omitted these.

Two of the three properties mentioned are located on the southern side of the development and the third is located at a distance of approximately twelve metres to the north and therefore I do not consider the development will result in a significant loss of light to those properties as their orientation is such that the sun will not be blocked out or there is sufficient gap between the properties to allow adequate levels of light to be maintained.

Turning to the matter of traffic generation and the adequacy of the proposed access, discussions have taken place with the Highways Engineers in order to address the question of the access. Initially the Engineers felt the access as proposed had inadequate visibility splays to ensure safety bearing in mind the capacity of the development envisaged. Alterations to the scheme have culminated in the submission of revised plans showing a widened access, and by moving the access further to the north east, a marginally greater visibility splay has been achieved in a south westerly direction. These alterations have also culminated in the location of the cycle parking provision to an area which is more enclosed, further from the access and therefore more easily surveyed from within the building. Bearing in mind the site is already used as an elderly persons home with a vehicular access off the Broadway at this location, the improvement to the access, the capacity of the car parking area, it is felt that the increase in use is such that can be accepted.

In terms of parking provision, bearing in mind the site's location on a main bus route and its location within an area of residential development, the parking ratio of one space per flat is considered appropriate.

Turning to the aspect of trees, it is clear that there is a line of mature and tall trees along the eastern boundary of the site with Uplands Road. These are approximately 7 - 9 metres from the proposed building but there are two further specimens which are close on its southern side, within two metres. I do not consider it practical to keep these trees despite the fact that the plans show they are to be retained. One further tree is shown to be removed but I think, in practical terms, all three will have to be removed. It has been suggested that access could be made for some of the units of Uplands Road. Some of the trees are situated on a bank and to facilitate access for vehicles substantial excavation would need to be carried out in order to form an adequate gradient and surface for vehicles to enter. Bearing in mind the size, age and spacing of these trees, I do not consider such accesses could be formed without the trees being seriously damaged by severance of the roots. It is important to maintain these trees if at all possible as they are mature and have a significant screening effect if maintained so I am reluctant to suggest that access should be gained from Uplands Road to serve even part of the development.

Various objections have been raised by local residents, some of which are discussed above. There have been concerns raised over the structural implications of development in close proximity to dwellings but these are largely civil and engineering problems which are the liability of the developer. Drainage inadequacy has been alleged and this again is largely a Building Regulation matter. Adequate drainage would need to be installed as part of the development

process and I am not aware of any allegation that local drainage services are inadequate to cope with any additional load put on by the proposals. Drainage within the site as part of the overall development would need to be installed and, again, would be the subject of Building Regulations approval.

In summary, the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes raises no principle objection since there is no policy which seeks to resist the loss of elderly persons accommodation; residential redevelopment within a development envelope is acceptable and the density increase is the inevitable result of the need to utilise land more economically so as to preserve the countryside. The increased height of the building by one storey is also a factor in the drive to make best use of such land and therefore, as designed I consider the second floor element does not significantly affect the character of the area.

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

The redevelopment of this site for residential purposes does not conflict with any policy within the Unitary Development Plan regarding the loss of elderly persons accommodation and within the development envelope, the principle of residential development is accepted. Although the building covers more of the site and results in an increased mass, these are factors of the need to utilise land economically. Accordingly, having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above the development of the site for residential purposes is considered to be consistent with policies D1, D2, H5 and TR7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Submission of samples - S03

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 buildings 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.

The first floor windows to be constructed in the north east elevation of flat no. 8, the south west elevation of flats 11 and 12 and the north west elevation of flat 7 shall be glazed and shall thereafter be maintained in obscured glass. The bottom half of those windows shall be non-opening and shall be so retained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5	Details of hard and soft landscaping - M10

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre.

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

7	Vehicular access - J30

The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for heavy vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use:

Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm

2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material

3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The car parking and turning area (forecourt) shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The dwellings hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of nine bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of ‘Sheffield’ hoops, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until parking restrictions in The Broadway have been carried out in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services