Development Control Committee Paper B2 Appeals 04-11-03

PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

1. NEW APPEALS LODGED

TCP/25314/A Mr P Hart and Ms L Taylor against refusal for formation of vehicular access and hardstanding to Old School Court, Appuldurcombe Road, Wroxall.

TCP/10563/K Miss A Bishop against refusal for demolition of hotel; construction of five houses and three/four storey block of thirty two flats, at Craven Court Hotel, 5 Highfield Road, Shanklin.

TCP/11822/P Maritime and Leisure Investments Ltd against refusal for change of use of ground floor from workshop/store (B2) to retail (A1), Duver Boatyard, The Duver, St Helens.

E/21249/G Godshill Park Developments against Enforcement Notice relating to breach of condition in respect of carriageway construction at Medham Village, Medham Farm Lane, off Newport Road, Northwood.

TCP/25444 Mrs C Blyth and Mr G Childs against refusal of outline for four dwellings and alterations to vehicular access, land adjacent 13 St Pauls View Road, Newport.

2. APPEALS WITHDRAWN

TCP/24024/B Mr J Hobson against refusal for renewal of two containers at Helens Copse, off Gate Lane, Freshwater.

TCP/3551/D Westridge Estates against refusal for demolition of existing building and the construction of four detached houses and garages at The Crab Shack, Duver Road, Seaview. The inquiry scheduled to take place on 24 and 25 March 2004 has been cancelled.

3. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

No new dates to report.

4. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

(1) TCP/24939 Mr P Norris against refusal for the retention of roadway security fencing at Marine Works, Embankment Road, Bembridge.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 5 September 2002

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 29 September 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

· The effect of the security fencing on the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

· The fence panels are of a utilitarian design and look exactly what they are - functional temporary fencing.

· The overall appearance of the fencing is haphazard, unfinished, random and disorderly.

· The permanent retention of the fencing would be wholly unacceptable.

· The evidence as to a pressing need for security is somewhat unconvincing given there is on-site living accommodation.

· These easy to move fencing panels, which are not directly fixed to the ground, would not improve the security of the site.

· There appears to be no planned or coherent use of the site which justifies temporary fencing.

· The supporting feet of the fencing are on the edge of the carriageway and present a hazard especially to cyclists.

· The fencing significantly detracts from the character and appearance of the area and would fail to accord with policies S1 and D1 of the UDP.

...................................................................................................................................................

(b) TCP/9309/F Mrs E M Rodwell against refusal for demolition of dwelling and construction of detached house with double garage, garden store and wood store with alterations to vehicular and pedestrian access, at 24 Howgate Road, Bembridge.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 13 February 2003

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 6 October 2003

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

· The effect of the proposed development on the character of development in the locality and the residential amenities of neighbouring residents, particularly in terms of outlook and loss of privacy.

· The effect of the proposals on the appearance of the surrounding AONB.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

· The dwellings on this side of Howgate Road are mixed in styles but are generally of modest scale.

· The form, footprint, scale, mass and detail of the proposed dwelling would be seriously out of keeping with the general form of residential development on this side of the road and the area generally.

· There would be some loss of view and the likelihood of increased overlooking and loss of privacy in the garden of no. 22 but this would not be sufficient to justify refusal.

· Despite the boundary screening, the length and scale of the proposed building within one metre of the boundary would be seriously oppressive and dominating to the outlook of the occupants of no. 26.

· The access would create increased activity along the boundary with no. 26 and give rise to increased noise, disturbance and loss of privacy.

· The proposed balcony at the rear of the dwelling would give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy to both neighbouring rear gardens.

· The proposed dwelling would be substantially larger than the existing and neighbouring dwellings in the area and would have a greater visual impact both from the road and to the cliff top walk to the detriment of the visual amenities of the AONB.

· The proposal would be in serious conflict with policies of the UDP.

...................................................................................................................................................

(1) TCP23405/B Mrs J Pomroy against refusal of outline for bungalow, access and hardstanding at Dyers Lane Nursery, Dyers Lane, Newchurch

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 2 May 2003

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 6 October 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

· The effect of the proposed development on the character of the area.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

· The site is on the outskirts of Newchurch and is outside the development envelope.

· The site is operating as a nursery with greenhouses and polytunnels.

· Access is from a narrow, unmade country lane.

· There is no recognisable built-up frontage to the lane and the proposal cannot properly be considered to be infilling.

· The proposal does not fall to be considered under any category of housing listed in Policy H9 and is therefore contrary to that policy.

· The proposed dwelling would consolidate existing development along the lane and be harmful to the rural character of the area and contrary to Policy G2.

...................................................................................................................................................

(d) A/2315 Hovertravel Ltd against refusal of advertisement consent for illuminated tower logo and two illuminated box signs at Hovertravel terminal, Esplanade, Ryde

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 11 June 2003

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 8 October 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

· The impact of the signs on the premises and within the surrounding area.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

· The premises, although within the Conservation Area, are of modern design and appearance.

· The buildings and general character of the northern side of the Esplanade is visually distinct from that on the other side where there are older buildings.

· The high level sign fits neatly onto the tower and is a suitably complimentary feature and the external illumination is a discreet form of soft lighting.

· Although somewhat bulky, the box signs are set below the deep overhang on the roof line.

· When viewed in association with the modern style glazed corner entrance the box signs appear as suitably complimentary features on the building.

· In their respective locations on the building and seen in a mainly commercial setting, the appeal signs do not appear unduly assertive or intrusive.

· Since there are residential properties along the other side of the Esplanade, a condition is attached to ensure the signs are only illuminated during the opening hours of the Hovercraft terminal building.

...................................................................................................................................................

(e) TCP/25319 Miss S Sweetlove against refusal for vehicular access and hardstanding at 53 Shide Road, Newport.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 27 February 2003

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 13 October 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

· The effect of the proposed access on highway safety.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

· The site is unable to provide turning space.

· The use of the site would involve either reversing from the road or into the road.

· Reversing into the road would be made difficult by the restricted visibility caused by the narrow pavement and the adjacent property which is set forward.

· There would be hazards to users of the pavement.

· The angle of the site would involve an awkward turn for the driver entering the site.

· The combination of the turning and reversing manoeuvres would cause an interruption to traffic flows.

· There are no on-street parking restrictions outside the property and the likelihood of parked cars would increase the difficulties and risks associated with using the site.

· The proposal would present an unacceptable hazard to pedestrians and create unsafe conditions for drivers and would be contrary to Policy TR7.

...................................................................................................................................................

(f) TCP/6137/X Mr K Mole against the imposition of an hours of operation condition imposed on planning permission for storage of boats and dinghies all year round at Kevin Mole Outboards, Ashengrove, Swainston, Calbourne

Officer Recommendation: Imposition of condition

Committee Decision: Imposition of condition - 10 December 2002

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 17 October 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

· Whether the condition is reasonable and necessary to protect the visual amenity of the area and the residential amenities of neighbouring residents in terms of noise and disturbance.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

· Planning permission was granted in 1991 for the continued use of the former agricultural buildings for storage of boats and dinghies out of season.

· Planning permission was granted in June 2002 to allow storage of boats all year round but subject to a condition preventing delivery or removal of boats outside the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays and at any time on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays.

· Despite the rural location the Council have accepted the use of the appeal premises for the storage of boats.

· Furthermore, the Council has recognised the nature of business has changed and boats are now being stored, removed and returned to storage throughout the year.

· Vehicular movements between the building complex and the road and the associated activity does adversely affect the visual amenity and tranquillity of the area.

· There would be noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents at the Coach House which would be harmful to the occupants’ residential amenity.

· Disturbance would be particularly severe on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays when a degree of peace and quiet could otherwise be expected.