PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 4 NOVEMBER 2003

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 –

4 NOVEMBER 2003

1.	TCP/04537/C P/01658/03 Bowdens Mead Lodge, Westminster Lane, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305DP	Newport	Conditional Approval
2.	TCP/09257/B P/01586/03 Richmond Hotel, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381JX	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
3.	TCP/09338/Y P/01599/03 marshalling area, Ferry Road, East Cowes, PO32	East Cowes	Refusal
4.	TCP/09477/D P/01177/03 land rear of 2-12, Nelson Street, Ryde, PO33	Ryde	Conditional Approval
5.	TCP/11819/F P/01545/03 92 Carisbrooke Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301DB	Newport	Conditional Approval
6.	TCP/12291/J P/01426/03 land rear of Royal Essex Cottage and Syringa, High Street, Godshill, Ventnor, PO38	Godshill	Conditional Approval
7.	TCP/18349/S P/01370/03 Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318DQ	Cowes	Conditional Approval
8.	TCP/21214/P P/01519/03 Haven Holidays, Nodes Point Holiday Park, Nodes Road, St. Helens, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331YA	St. Helens	Conditional Approval
9.	TCP/21907/E P/01220/03 Chale Bay Farm, Military Road, Chale, Ventnor, PO382JF	Chale	Refusal
10.	TCP/24112/B P/01123/03 land on corner of Alexandra Road and, Palmerston Road, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin	Conditional Approval
11.	TCP/25536 P/00701/03 22 Shore Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318LD	Gurnard	Conditional Approval
12.	TCP/25823 P/01679/03 land adjacent 2 Hungerberry Close and fronting, Victoria Avenue, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin	Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 4 NOVEMBER 2003

(a) TCP(E)18550/E 33 Pier Street Ventnor

(b) TCP/20443E and Hawthorn Manor Farm Chale

TCP/9702 and Sheep Lane Farm Chale Green

1.

TCP/04537/C P/01658/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke East Registration Date: 26/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Quality Buildings (IOW) Ltd Demolition of bungalow; residential development of 33 houses with parking & access road off Westminster Lane Bowdens Mead Lodge, Westminster Lane, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305DP

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which raises important planning issues.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application and will have taken ten weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a detached property known as Bowdens Mead Lodge and its substantial curtilage situated between the recent development known as Charnwood Close and that element of Westminster Lane which runs in an east west direction. It is that element of Westminster Lane off which access is to be achieved. The north western boundary immediately abuts Newport C of E primary school.

The south eastern boundary is in the form of a split boundary with part directly abutting Westminster Lane where it runs in a north south direction with the remaining boundary set back forming the rear boundaries of three pairs of recently constructed semi-detached properties which form part of the overall Westminster Lane/Charnwood Close development. The site is generally overgrown although has been the recent subject of some site clearance and tree removal along the Westminster Lane boundary. The site has a general gradient from west to east and contains a number of intermittent boundary hedges. The cul de sac Charnwood Close directly abuts the northern boundary and serves a total of ten dwellings, six terraced and four semi-detached properties, the frontage of which face the application site. Abutting the north western corner of the site is a substantial greenfield site which extends through to Petticoat Lane and the current Persimmon Home development.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in respect of the application site.

The adjoining Charnwood Close/Westminster Lane development forms part of a larger development, most of which was served off Westminster Lane and which was granted consent in November 1998 for two storey blocks of four flats and thirty six houses. This development is now complete and occupied.

The substantial greenfield site which abuts the north western corner is subject of an outline application for residential development with all matters reserved and which was approved in June 2003 subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement (planning obligation) covering great crested newt translocation, provision of affordable housing and provision of open space and its maintenance. At the time of preparing this report that legal agreement has not been entered into and therefore no consent has been issued. The application was also subject of extensive number of suggested conditions.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent sought for a total of 33 two storey dwellings scheduled as follows:-

Terraced two bedroom - 20 no.

Terraced three bedroom - 8 no.

Semi-detached three bedroom - 4 no.

Detached two bedroom - 1 no.

Total 33 units

Terraced dwellings split into two groups of five, two groups of three and one group of four dwellings. Additionally there is an L shaped block consisting of a total of eight terraced dwellings (4 three bed and 4 two bed).

Group of four terraced dwellings sited on the north south Westminster Lane frontage between Charnwood Close and No. 46 Westminster Lane being one of the three pairs of modern residential dwellings constructed as part of the overall Westminster Lane development. The single detached two bedroomed unit to be sited between Westminster Lane and No. 56 being again one of the recently constructed pair of houses fronting Westminster Lane. Remaining units to be in the form of a courtyard scheme with a courtyard/cul de sac being serviced off Westminster Lane. In terms of properties which directly abut the rear boundary of the existing three pair of houses which front Westminster Lane these are in the form of two groups of five terraced houses and one group of three terraced houses.

Vehicular access is off Westminster Lane (south western boundary) with the access point being virtually opposite Westminster House. Internal road layout in form of cul de sac/courtyard. Hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted indicating the cul de sac to be laid out in tarmac finish with surrounding path and parking areas being laid out in the form of block paving with intermittent raised landscape beds strategically placed. A total of 37 parking spaces have been indicated dispersed throughout the site all relating to and surveyed from the dwellings to which they serve. The proposal also indicates metal railings set approximately 2 metres to the front of the dwellings providing protectable space in front of the dwelling.

Landscaping scheme also indicates a landscape strip along the west east Westminster Lane boundary.

In terms of landscaping proposal will result in the loss of some trees along the boundaries of the site although landscaping scheme does indicate retention of prominent trees on the junction of the two Westminster Lanes. Arrangement and position of dwellings in the south western corner of the site have been dictated by the position of two existing public sewers which cross the site in this area and the need to retain a minimum easement distance from those sewers.

Finally the proposal does indicate the provision of 2 metre high close boarded fencing with trellis on the western, northern and southern boundaries.

Application has been accompanied by a general planning statement itemising the general difficulties in respect of this site with the relevant paragraphs being quoted as follows:

"The provision of off site highway works for improvements to Westminster Lane and the road junction will be in excess of £25,000; the cost of the easement across Westminster Lane to the site is in the order of £39,000; the cost of additional piling adjoining the foul sewer is about £21,000 (if the houses are set further away from the sewer it will severely limit the number of houses that can be build); the likely transport infrastructure costs of about £750 per dwelling; and the sale of affordable housing units to a registered social landlord at 50% discounted value.

The applicant is therefore requesting that these figures be taken into account in reaching a figure for affordable housing units and it is prepared to offer 5 units (15%) instead of the full 20% (6.6 units) in the Unitary Development Plan. My clients are already in negotiation with a Housing Association for the provision of the five affordable units.

If permission could be given with only five affordable units, it is my clients' intention to make an immediate start on the development. If agreement cannot be reached then the economics of the scheme are in jeopardy and it is likely it will not proceed."

Dwellings to be constructed in fair faced brickwork with decorative brick features under mainly concrete tiled roofs mainly in the form of gabled roofs.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000 with relevant issues as follows:

Meeting housing requirements for the whole community including those in need of affordable housing.

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

Give priority to re-using 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 30 units to 50 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 etc.

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

Delivery of affordable housing and major material consideration in respect of housing development. Objective should be to ensure that affordable housing secured will contribute to satisfying local housing need as demonstrated by a vigorous assessment.

Reference is also made to PPG13 - transport, the objectives of which are to:

Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight.

Promote accessibility to job, shopping, leisure facilities, services by public transport, walking and cycling.

Reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

Reference is also made to PPG9 - nature conservation which provides comprehensive advice on the relationship between planning control and nature conservation.

Local Plan/Policies

Site forms part of an overall residential allocation within the Unitary Development Plan with relevant policy statement being quoted as follows:

A number of sites totalling 7.28 hectares, some with buildings nearing the end of their economic life were allocated for residential development. The employment uses on parts of the area are either constrained by their sites or may not prove to be good neighbours to recently introduced and proposed residential and educational uses in the locality and could be beneficially located to allocated employment sites. The access shall be from the road linking Sylvan Drive and Mountbatten Drive and shall allow for further access to the east with a potential link to Hunnyhill. Vehicular access shall not be from Westminster Lane and a link to Drill Hall Road should be established.

Relevant local plan/policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate. Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelope for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

D3 - Landscaping

H3 - Allocation of Residential Development Sites

H6 - High Density Residential Development

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of a Housing Scheme

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

L10 - Open Space in Housing Developments

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

Reference is also made to the recent housing needs survey, the main conclusions of which are as follows:

Demand for rented accommodation

Although there is a need in most Island settlements, the areas with most need are Newport, Ryde, Shanklin/Lake/Sandown followed by Cowes

Large proportion is for single person accommodation although there continues to be ongoing demand for two/three bedroom homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

Members will also be aware of recent government statements which emphasises the need to deliver affordable housing in the south east.

The site is located within the parking zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum of 0 to 50% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Also under Appendix G which covers this policy the site's zonal location means that any development on this site in excess of 10 units will be subject of transport infrastructure payments at the rate of £750 per unit as a contribution to a sustainable transport fund and therefore would make the application subject of a legal agreement covering this issue. The aim of the fund is to finance off site transport initiatives to help address the travel demands generated by any proposal within zones 1 and 2.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval covering submission of details in respect of estate roads, visibility and sight lines, access, provision of turning space and parking loading and unloading provision.

Council's Contaminated Land Officer recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved.

Southern Water initially expressed some concern regarding the adequacy of the sewer in Westminster Lane to accept the additional discharge and welcomed the imposition of a condition covering this issue. They acknowledge that some capacity checks have been carried in respect of the sewer with those checks being inconclusive.

Following further investigation Southern Water now confirm the following:

Further analysis has been carried out to investigate the effect of connecting the development foul water flow, estimated at 1.5 litres per second into the public sewage system at manhole 3001 which is located in Westminster Lane immediately outside the development site. The model predicts that the proposed flow (foul water only) only can be accommodated at this location.

Environment Agency, following receipt of detailed calculations and additional information from the applicant's drainage engineer, state the following:

There is no objection from the Agency to the details submitted.

Other issues and information referred to in their letter are summarised as follows:

Lukely Brook is not designated as a main river and therefore prior written land drainage consent for works will not be required.

Agency recommends that detailed investigation of capacity of any culvert is undertaken to establish flood risk.

Any surface water design should include details of throttle type device such as a hydrobrake to create the necessary storage.

Reference made to use of porous block paving in the car parking area as being more sustainable way of dealing with surface water being the SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) system.

It is anticipated the underlying soils will be impermeable and therefore Agency suggests that porous paving could still be employed in conjunction with a sealed reservoir structure below.

Agency would be supportive of plans to reopen and maintain the capacity of the ditch adjacent to Charnwood Close.

Any water course within the development should have ownership fully resolved.

Upon completion of development riparian owners must be informed of their rights and responsibilities regarding future maintenance and above all the situation should be avoided where no-one admits to owning a water course with subsequent maintenance problems.

Agency is aware of the adjacent proposed residential development. In terms of surface water drainage, however, they state the following:

"In the instance of this site, although prior to any development in the area it may have drained to the same sub-catchment as the aforementioned development site adjacent to Charnwood Close, this may no longer be feasible according to capacities of the water course and culverts that are currently in place. The Agency would therefore suggest that it should be treated as a separate system in this instance."

The above apart, the Environment Agency recommends appropriate condition which to a great degree has been addressed by the applicant's drainage engineer.

Council's Ecology Officer has raised a number of issues relating to protected species with particular reference to badgers and bats. Both issues have been subject of investigation by the applicant and with regard to the badger issue the Ecology Officer has confirmed the following:

Evidence of badgers on the site has been confirmed. Two sett entrances have been located close to the access to the site off Westminster Lane. These are considered to be old and no longer in use. English Nature have been consulted. It is likely that provided further investigation confirms that they are no longer active then they will be closed down within the next six to eight weeks. Therefore assuming this to be the case badgers will cease to be an issue on this site.

With regard to the issue of bats, the Ecology Officer has visited the site to investigate whether or not the existing bungalow accommodates habitation by bats. It was confirmed that bat droppings were located thus providing evidence that the building is used as a bat roost.

In view of the this the applicant has taken on board advice and employed a consultant to prepare the necessary report. The Council's Ecology Officer confirms that "due to their protection under the habitats directive, any development which will result in disturbance requires a derogation from the provisions of the regulations. This takes the form of a licence issued by DEFRA. Such a licence would need to satisfy the following tests:

Derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status.

There is no satisfactory alternative.

The development is for imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature.

The likely result of this process is placing constraints on the timing of the demolition of the bungalow. The second and third issues are required to be considered by the Local Planning Authority in granting consent.

Ecology Officer recognises that this is a cumbersome process although ultimately licence applications are successful provided that planning permission has been granted and it is accepted that a developer may wish to develop the site before the bungalow can be demolished under the terms of the DEFRA licence.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application is subject of four letters of objection. Three from residents of Westminster Lane and one from a resident of Caesars Road. Points raised are summarised as follows:

1. Concern at the partial site clearance that has taken place and its effect on wildlife habitat.

2. Any development of the site will result in loss of considerable wildlife habitat which has existed on the site over many years. Specific reference made to existence of badgers and bats and considerable amount of bird life. Any development on this site will be at the expense of that wildlife habitat.

3. Concern that existing local infrastructure with particular reference to schools, doctors, dentists, etc will be able to accommodate the additional pressures on those services caused by this development.

4. Concern by one of the occupiers of the semi-detached properties which front Westminster Lane that the dwellings proposed behind those properties will create an overlooking and loss of privacy because those dwellings will stand higher than the existing properties.

5. Concern that the development will adversely impact on the integrity of existing boundary/retaining walls, both during construction and upon completion.

6. One objector considers that access should be off Charnwood Close and not off Westminster Lane and that the existing line of trees along the Westminster Lane boundary should be retained to screen the site. Objector makes reference to the fact that Charnwood Close is an adopted highway whereas at the moment Westminster Lane is effectively a private road.

7. Westminster Lane presently used by a number of commercial vehicles, taxis and mobility vehicles and this proposal to access the site off this lane will increase that level of traffic causing hazards to road users.

8. One objector makes specific reference to the inadequacies of the existing road system in the area and this proposal will simply add to the problems of traffic movement with a potential for causing blockages, creating difficulties for emergency vehicles.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Comments on this issue are awaited.

EVALUATION

Principle

There is no objection to the principle of development of this site, given that the site forms part of an overall residential allocation in the Unitary Development Plan which in itself went through a UDP procedure. Members will appreciate the importance of deliverability and the need to

achieve the housing delivery figures over the Unitary Development Plan period. Applicants have therefore submitted a full planning application to enable an early commencement on site assuming consent is granted.

Layout/Density

The density of the proposal is 55 units per hectare which reflects the number of terraced units with particular reference to the predominance of two bedroomed dwellings. This mix of dwellings with particular emphasis on two bedroomed units entirely accords with the identified needs as indicated in the Council's Housing Needs Survey and this, along with the site's location in relatively close proximity to the town centre, makes this level of density entirely acceptable.

In pre-application negotiations applicant was considering a development of 24 units which included the retention of the existing bungalow. The applicant was encouraged to consider a higher density in the interests of making efficient use of land, given the brownfield nature of the site. I therefore have no hesitation in suggesting that this level of density is acceptable.

In terms of layout and general arrangement of dwellings, applicant has indicated a semi cul de sac/courtyard approach with all units facing onto the courtyard area. Again, the applicant has been encouraged to create space which not only provides parking but also is laid out to create a community space within which the motorist and pedestrian can function in relative safety. The importance of this area in contributing to the overall character of the development cannot be over emphasised. Again applicant has been encouraged to submit as part of the application the landscaping proposals as opposed to dealing with these as a condition. The soft and hard landscaping scheme clearly indicates introduction of strategically placed landscape features along with changes in surface treatment separating the vehicle and movement areas from the parking areas and pedestrian routes. The parking has been indicated to the front of the dwellings which effectively means that the dwellings do not have any recognised front gardens but merely some protectable space enclosed by metal railings. I consider that this represents a suitable type of development in compliance with the recommendations contained in "By Design Better Places to Live", a companion guide to PPG3.

Applicant has also carefully considered the entrance to the site off Westminster Lane with the fencing being set off the back edge of carriageway to allow space for appropriate planting to both visually enhance the appearance and provide security.

Applicant has been encouraged to vary the design of the units with particular reference to roof shapes with ridges running both parallel with and directly facing the courtyard area. This along with the introduction of variation in finishes with various features will hopefully provide the development with a sense of place. Members will note that development is restricted entirely to two storey which is compatible with the recent development in Westminster Lane. The layout itself, although of a reasonably high density does provide a good level of private garden space which equates favourably with the adjoining recent development in Westminster Lane and Charnwood Close. This space provision along with the type of layout of the courtyard leads me to the view that it would be unreasonable to require the provision of a specific area of open space to serve this relatively small development.

Access/Parking

It is my understanding that this element of Westminster Lane is not an adopted highway although is in the ownership of the Council. This proposal to access the site off this lane will achieve two purposes. Firstly the works to be carried out provides for an increase in the carriageway width to 4.8 metres and the resurfacing and construction of the length of Westminster Lane with a bitumen macadam surface on a base course. Effectively this will result in this short length of Westminster Lane being brought up to an adoptable standard.

Second benefit is that the very fact that this work is to take place at a cost to the developer enables the release of this land for development, albeit being accessed from a different direction to that indicated on the policy statement for the overall allocated land. Whilst appreciating that this may put increased pressures on traffic using the adjoining road system, this is a relatively modest development when linked to the overall allocation and there is a need to ensure as far as possible that development takes place in the short term in the interests of deliverability and this is one method of achieving it.

Charnwood Close may have offered a limited alternative, however that has been designed as a cul de sac and is unlikely to ever be extended to serve other land and therefore it was considered that the whole of this development should be served directly off Westminster Lane with the scheme itself effectively turning its back on Charnwood Close. No adverse comments have been received from the Highway Engineer on this issue.

In terms of parking, as already stated the site is within Zone 2 being 0 - 50% of guidelines. In this case 100% guideline for this site would require 78 parking spaces. Therefore the maximum which would be allowed under this policy would be 39 spaces. The application actually indicates a total of 37 spaces and therefore is within the maximum figure. Second resultant factor of the site being within Zone 2 is the requirement for a transport infrastructure payment which in this case would be a total of £24,750 (33 x £750). Applicant is aware of this requirement which will be subject of a legal agreement.

Provision of Affordable Housing

Members will note that the affordable housing provision does not meet the 20% requirement under policy H14, however made reference to the extenuating circumstances which apply to this site with particular reference to the various constraints and therefore it is considered not unreasonable to reduce the actual requirement. The applicant could have pursued an application for 24 units which still would have been within the density parameters and would not have triggered the need for affordable housing at all. However, the applicant has co-operated by increasing the density and therefore the range of dwellings and a lesser provision of affordable housing is considered to be acceptable in this case. I can also confirm that a housing association is being brought on board in respect of the 5 units to be provided and have verbally confirmed their interest. Again this provision will need to be the subject of a legal agreement.

Drainage

This is another issue which has been the subject of extensive research and negotiation with the end result being that Southern Water have finally confirmed that the existing combined sewer within Westminster Lane has sufficient capacity to accommodate this number of units. There had been some concern regarding whether there was sufficient capacity and indeed at one time Southern Water were concerned that there would be sufficient to accommodate the foul drainage from 33 units without the need to upgrade the sewer over a considerable length at a substantial cost to the developer. Further research has now been carried out and Southern Water are now satisfied that the whole development can be accommodated.

This would mean, however, that the remaining sites which form part of the overall allocation would not be able to discharge into this sewer without it being upgraded over a substantial length in a north easterly direction. This would clearly be a matter for those developers to address as and when the sites come forward.

The whole of the above assumes that no surface water drainage will drain into this pipe and would be draining directly into Lukely Brook. Again this has been the subject of some discussion including the submission of detailed calculations by a drainage engineer. These calculations indicate that the surface water will discharge into Lukely Brook via the existing culvert at the north eastern corner of the site. Also the calculations indicate that the surface water sewers will need to be in the form of oversized pipes to provide attenuation storage. In detail the conclusions of the report which have been accepted in principle by the Environment Agency are as follows:

The development of the site will result in a significant increase in the peak surface water run off from the site. In order to eliminate the risk of this increase causing flooding or exacerbating existing flooding elsewhere attenuation should be provided to limit the peak flow to that from the undeveloped site.

The volume of storage required to attenuate the flow is 10 cubic metres. This will ensure that the redevelopment of the site will not cause a flooding problem elsewhere or exacerbate an existing flooding problem.

The infilling of the existing ditch along the northern boundary of the site appears to have impeded the natural flow from the west of the site. The gullies draining Charnwood Close now discharge into the site rather than to the ditch. The ditch should be cleared over the length of the site to ensure that the drainage from the west of the site and the carriageway of Charnwood Close is not impeded.

With regard to the latter issue above, Members will note the Environment Agency would prefer for the ditch to be reformed and remain as an open ditch. However, the applicant's consulting engineer is suggesting that the drainage path should be reinstated in the form of a pipe the same size as that culvert which runs under Westminster Lane with a surround of permeable material laid along the eastern boundary of the site. This would enable the existing gullies in Charnwood Close to properly connect to this pipe which would represent a vast improvement on the current situation which has these gullies simply draining into the site.

One of the reasons the applicant is reluctant to provide an open water course or ditch is that it presents a potential source of danger to small children particularly as such features are attractive to children. For safety reasons an open ditch would need to be enclosed by a fence. This would seriously hamper maintenance. It is important to emphasise that the Environment Agency is expressing a preference for the open ditch but do not appear to be insisting that this should occur. I consider this is an issue that can be adequately covered by condition.

Finally with regard to the suggestion by the Environment Agency that a soakaway system should be introduced this has been addressed in the drainage engineer's report stating that:

"The underlying soil is likely to be of low permeability and therefore unsuitable for soakaway drainage systems particularly close to buildings."

Ecology

Members will note the reference to badger activity in the area contained within letters of objection. This has been the subject of some investigation and the Council's Ecology Officer's comments referred to above are self-explanatory. I am satisfied, therefore, that this issue has been satisfactorily addressed.

In terms of effect of this proposal on existing landscape features being mainly intermittent hedging and trees along the boundaries, applicant's landscape architect has given this careful consideration and a written report has been received.

All principal boundary trees and large hedgerows which have a sustainable future will be retained.

All such trees should be protected and any tree surgery should be carried out where necessary. Unfortunately none of the trees can be described as being significant, however efforts should be made to conserve those trees where they are able to mature.

With regard to the elm trees fronting Westminster Lane, the following points have been made:

All the existing trees are dead from base to canopy.

The extent of cover of what would appear to be sucker growths from earlier principal trees extends well into the site some 8 - 10 metres.

The regeneration of sucker growths from elm root systems cannot be guaranteed as they are frequently affected by the fungus either failing to appear or perishing very early in their development.

Should regrowth occur and flourish it would not form a tidy or continuous boundary hedgerow, indeed it would most likely be patchy and extend into the site. In any event it would not provide a satisfactory boundary treatment for quality properties bordering on a residential road.

Regenerated elm would not be appropriate for a tight residential development. I know of no such hedgerow within any contemporary development that is sustainable. I will support the proposal if it were in a rural development with adequate space to allow for the establishment of a broad natural hedgerow or adjoining open land.

Hedgerow treatment to this site, where included, should be tight knit and largely evergreen to meet the objectives of creating privacy, providing security and avoiding natural litter traps and dumping grounds.

Finally, in terms of the badger issue the landscape architect stated that during his extensive site survey no evidence of old or freshly dug setts were observed and no clear pathways were evident traversing the site.

A thorough investigation has been carried out in respect of the possibility of bats being present within the existing bungalow. The Council's Ecology Officer's comments are self explanatory and are set out below.

The applicant has commissioned a bat survey and a report has been produced by Woods Ecology Consultants (October 2003). This confirms the presence of a bat roost in the roof of the bungalow which is proposed for demolition.

English Nature are being consulted on the findings of the report but it seems virtually certain that they will recommend that there will be a need for the developer to obtain a Habitats Regulation licence from DEFRA prior to demolition of the building.

The conditions of a licence will stipulate the timing and method of demolition of the bungalow and the necessary mitigation. We are currently seeking English Nature's advice as to the details of this. However, on the evidence provided in the report it seems likely that a suitable licence application will prove successful.

Consequently, I would advise that a condition of any planning approval should be that the timing and method of demolition and any mitigation should be agreed with the LPA prior to demolition of the bungalow. There is no reason why development of the site should not proceed prior to this to enable the building to be demolished at an appropriate time to avoid disturbance to the bats.

A letter regarding the need for a DEFRA licence should accompany any confirmation of planning approval.

At the time of preparing report English Nature's comments are being sought and will be reported accordingly. Also Members' attention is drawn to suggested condition no.18 and the contents of the second recommendation. I am certainly satisfied that the applicant is aware of his duty with regard to this issue evidenced by the commissioning of a report by an appropriate competent ecologist.

General

In terms of general boundary treatment applicant has indicated to me 2 metre high boarded fencing with trellis on top to the main boundary. This is obviously acceptable in principle, however care would need to be taken with regard to the boundary treatment to the corner units, i.e. plots 1a, 1, 5a, 28 and 25 and these plots should be subject therefore of an appropriate condition should Members be mindful to approve the application.

Some concern has been expressed by the site clearance that has taken place prior to any consent being granted. It is important to appreciate that site clearance was necessary in order to carry out survey work and establish levels on the site. This information is essential in assessing the merits of any application.

Reference has been made to the impact this proposal may have on local services, however it is important to remember that this is an allocated site and therefore the issues of development on allocated land and its impact on local services would have been an issue taken up at that time and would have been taken into account during the process.

The concerns relating to potential overlooking and loss of privacy in respect of the properties which front Westminster Lane (46 - 56 even numbers Westminster Lane) have been considered and whilst there obviously will be some impact the distances involved are such as to suggest that this would not involve a sustainable reason to refuse the application. Total distance back to back is 18 metres with the depth of the proposed gardens being 9 metres. Whilst the proposed houses will stand higher than the existing, given these distances I do not consider there will be any sustainable loss of privacy or overlooking occurring. Also, proposed fencing plan indicates the erection of a 2 metre high boarded fence as previously described.

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 all the numerous issues have been addressed and that the proposal represents an appropriate type of residential development on this important allocated site. Also I am confident that providing approval is granted it will commence in the near future thus making an important contribution to both the open market housing and affordable housing demand. Although of a high density the range of dwelling

types are aimed at the lower end of the housing market, possibly first time buyers which given the site's location close to Newport town centre is in compliance with the demands identified in the Housing Needs Survey. I therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable and does not conflict with policies contained within the UDP and therefore I recommend accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans) (Subject to a Section 106 Planning Obligation requiring transport infrastructure payment of £24,750 (£750 x 33 units) and the provision of five affordable housing units sold at half market price to a registered social landlord for rent within an agreed timetable.)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No dwelling shall be occupied until the road improvements to Westminster Lane as indicated on applicant's drawing no. QB/NC/1C have been constructed to an adoptable standard in accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Details of the construction of the new road/courtyard along with footpaths and car parking spaces with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall provide for a roadway surface of tarmac, with the path and parking areas being in contrasting block paving finishes. Prior to commencement of work details of the texture and colour of the block paving shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such constructional details and finishes shall be used in the carrying out of the development. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for new development and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area in compliance with Policy T1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Visibility splays of x = 4.5 metres and y = 70 metres dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter, Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Developments) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The building shall not be occupied until a means of access for pedestrians and/or cyclists has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is provided within the site to enable refuse vehicles and fire appliances to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 37 parking spaces have been provided in the form indicated on the layout plan hereby approved and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate maximum off street parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	Construction of the buildings 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.
10	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.
11	No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of a surface water regulation system is designed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in compliance within agreed calculations. The regulation system for the site must ensure that the run off from the 1% probability storm is controlled and will restrict the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a greenfield. The scheme shall include a maintenance programme and establish ownership of the storage system for the future. Reason: To prevent flooding and ensure future maintenance in compliance with Policy G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	No surface water drainage shall discharge into the existing combined sewer in Westminster Lane. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is available for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the 2 metre high close boarded boundary fencing indicated on the plan has been erected and any such fencing shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity and screening in the local area.
14	Prior to occupation of units 3 - 11 inclusive, details shall be submitted of the treatment of the south eastern rear boundary to those properties and any such boundary treatment erected thereafter shall be in accordance with the agreed details and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of screening between the proposed development and the existing development (nos. 46 - 56 even numbers Westminster Lane) in compliance with Policy D1(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved the landscaping proposals indicated on the applicant's drawing no. PDM/03/01/1 shall be completed and provision shall be made for the maintenance of such planting during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	All planting areas shall be within raised beds suitably enclosed in materials to be agreed and such beds shall not be removed or altered in size without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of future visual amenity in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
17	Before the development commences further landscaping proposals shall be submitted indicating additional shrub planting beds within the parking areas which serve plots 26, 27 and 28 and within the parking area which serves plots 11, 12, 13 and 14. No occupation of any of those units shall take place until the landscaping has been implemented in accordance with agreed details. Provision shall be made for the maintenance of such landscaping during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and to ensure the areas are not used for additional parking in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	No development shall take place including further site clearance on the site until all existing trees/hedgerows to be retained on the site shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: 1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or storage of material; (b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c) No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of bonfires. (e) No physical damage to bark or branches. (f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g) No changes in ground levels. (h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees and hedgerows to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
19	Prior to commencement of work the timing and method of demolition of the existing bungalow on the site shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority along with the mitigation and timing of measures for alternative bat roost sites within the development. Any such programme and mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In order to avoid disturbance to a protected species bats in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - Letter be sent to the applicant emphasising the need to obtain a Habitats Regulation Licence from DEFRA prior to demolition of the existing bungalow on the site referred to in condition no. 18.

2.

TCP/09257/B P/01586/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West Registration Date: 11/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Mr T Reed Conversion of 1st & 2nd floors of hotel to form 4 flats; retention of ground floor as bar/restaurant; provision of balconies on front elevation at 1st & 2nd floor level Richmond Hotel, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381JX

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report has been requested by the local Member, Councillor Bartlett, when consulted under the delegated procedure as he is concerned about loss of holiday accommodation.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twelve weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to Case Officer workload and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to Victorian three storey detached building situated towards western end of Ventnor Esplanade.

Property is operated as an hotel with bedrooms on first and second floor level and bar and restaurant facilities at ground floor level which are also open to the general public. The property has total of nine letting bedrooms plus owners' accommodation. Letting bedrooms include small single room with interconnecting door with an adjoining room which owners generally let as a family suite. With exception of two bedrooms, all rooms have en suite facilities with bath or shower.

Property has been extended to front and rear at ground floor level with single storey flat roofed extensions and has balcony to front of building at first floor level.

RELEVANT HISTORY

There is no planning history relevant to the current proposal.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought to convert upper floors of property to form four flats, including provision of balconies on front elevation at first and second floor levels and retention of bar and restaurant at ground floor level.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within the development envelope boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Policies of the plan considered to be of particular relevance to current proposal are as follows:

D1 - Standards of Design.

T4 - Designation of Hotel Areas.

T5 - Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Areas.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Tourism Marketing and PR Manager advises that some recent development on Ventnor Seafront has served to better deliver the Tourism Experience, including eating and drinking which are major issues for tourists. The proposed development including retention of the ground floor bar/restaurant is therefore welcomed, provided that issues regarding overall build quality are recognised as of critical importance.

Principal Environmental Health Officer sought further information and recommends conditions to safeguard occupants of flats from noise and odour emissions from the bar/restaurant at ground floor level.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council recommend refusal of application and consider that property should be retained for use as an hotel.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None at time of preparing report.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factor in considering the application is whether there is a sustainable policy objection to conversion of property into flats and, in particular, loss of the hotel accommodation.

In accordance with policy T4 (Designation of Hotel Areas) of the Unitary Development Plan, proposals involving the loss of hotel accommodation, regardless of the number of bedrooms involved, will only be approved where they involve the upgrading or improvement of existing hotels. Outside the policy area, policy T5 (Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Areas) applies where development resulting in the loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where there is a change of use to another form of holiday accommodation, existing accommodation is upgraded or improved, or the proposal involves a change of use of premises of less than 10 lettable bedrooms. In this instance, the property is not located within a hotel policy area and has less than 10 letting bedrooms. Therefore, whilst the loss of the hotel accommodation, in what is considered to be a prime location, is regrettable, I do not consider there to be a sustainable policy objection which would justify withholding planning permission in this instance.

External alterations to the property in connection with the conversion are limited to minor alterations to window in side elevation of property and provision of balconies at first and second floor level on front elevation. I am satisfied that the general design and appearance of the balconies, as detailed on the submitted plans, is appropriate and will not detract from the character of the building or the amenities of the area in general.

It is acknowledged that there is potential for conflict between the commercial activities on the ground floor and the residential accommodation on the upper floors. However, following further discussions with Principal Environmental Health Officer, it is considered that amenities of future occupants of the flats can be safeguarded by implementing sound proofing within the

building and exercising appropriate and reasonable controls over the commercial activities. I am satisfied that these issues can be adequately addressed by conditions, should Members be minded to approve the application.

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 DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, having regard to the location of the property outside of any designated hotel policy area and the number of letting bedrooms within the property, there is no sustainable planning objection to the loss of the hotel accommodation and its conversion to residential accommodation.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to any work commencing on site, a comprehensive noise assessment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such assessment shall be carried out by a competent person and shall identify anticipated noise emissions from the operation of plant, machinery and business activities, including deliveries and entertainment, on the ground floor of the premises and any proposed controls. The assessment shall also provided details of sound proofing between the commercial element and the residential accommodation and other measures to be implemented. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out and the sound proofing and any other agreed measures implemented in full prior to occupation of any of the flats within the development and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of future occupants of the flats and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Prior to work commencing on site, details of the range of food to be prepared and sold at the premises together with a full specification of any existing extract ventilation system shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Before the flats within the development are occupied, the extract ventilation system shall be upgraded/provided and thereafter maintained and operated to a standard to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority for as long as the authorised use continues. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of future occupants of the flats and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	This permission authorises the use of the ground floor as a restaurant and bar and no food shall be sold for consumption off the premises without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse following the commencement of use of the buildings hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the implementation of such provision for refuse has been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The bar and restaurant on the ground floor of the premises shall not open to the public outside the hours of 10:00 hours to 23:30 hours Monday to Saturday and midday and 22:30 hours on Sundays unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general, future occupants of the flats hereby approved and other nearby residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to the flats within the development hereby approved being occupied, an electronic sound limiter shall be installed in the bar/restaurant premises to control the level of noise from the playing of music or amplification of sound. The details of the sound limiter to be installed in the premises shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The sound limiter shall be installed and set up in accordance with the approved details by a competent person. It shall be set at a level agreed with the Local Planning Authority and shall not be adjusted without prior approval and no playing of music or amplification of sound shall take place on the premises unless the limiter is operational. The noise limiter shall be maintained and effectively operated in accordance with the approved details when the property is in use for the purpose authorised by this permission. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general, future occupants of the flats within the development and adjoining residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3.

TCP/09338/Y P/01599/03 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes North Registration Date: 01/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Mr T J Docherty Variation of condition no.1 on TCP/3474/P & condition no.2 on TCP/9338/T to allow parking of trailers and HGV's between the hours of 0700 and 2300 for a temporary period of 12 months marshalling area, Ferry Road, East Cowes, PO32

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is particularly contentious and has raised a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken nine weeks to date.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application site relates to marshalling yard which is surrounded on three sides by Castle Street, Link Road and Ferry Road with entrance being gained to site via latter highway. The property along southern boundary of site is generally in residential use.

Site is used for ferry traffic, parking and/or involves traffic crossing Castle Street into Trinity car park to await ferry embarkation. Northern most corner of site previously contained The Star Public House which was demolished to enlarge car parking area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning history of this site is somewhat complex and relevant planning decisions made are summarised below:

Consent issued in June 1994 for use of land for relief marshalling of cars over seasonal peak periods and construction of vehicular access point onto Ferry Road and Link Road. Condition attached to that consent restricted use of marshalling yard for that of motor cars only. (TCP3474N).

Subsequent application sought consent to vary condition attached to earlier consent restricting yard to that of marshalling motor cars. Application was approved in August 1997. Application site outlined red included all land within current car parking area except for those buildings, i.e. public house and nos. 13 and 15 Ferry Road which were subsequently demolished. This consent allowed parking for commercial vehicles between the hours of 0800 and 2100 and restricted such commercial parking to the northern half of the site where it fronts Link Road and required commercial vehicles to exit onto Link Road. (TCP3474P).

In March 1999 consent granted for the demolition of buildings, i.e. The Star Public House and nos. 13 and 15 Ferry Road and use of land as marshalling area in connection with adjoining Phoenix Yard. Again, condition attached to this consent restricted use of application site to marshalling of motor cars only. (TCP9338T).

Most recently proposal seeking to vary restrictive condition attached to 1999 consent was considered by Members at the meeting held on 4 September 2001. At this meeting Members resolved to refuse consent on grounds that continued use of site for marshalling of commercial freight vehicles resulted in significant loss of amenity detrimental to occupiers/operators of adjoining properties particularly by reason of noise, general disturbance and operational hours. (TCP9338V). Further recommendation agreed required letter be sent to applicants advising them that should lorry parking not cease within two months, then enforcement proceedings would be instigated seeking to rectify breach of planning control. Letter was duly sent on 12 September 2001.

Following this decision, meeting was held with Red Funnel and their legal representative seeking to clarify and resolve planning situation regarding use of yard. situation is complicated in so far as previous decisions on this site have related to various parts of both existing and proposed car parking areas and are subject to different restrictive conditions. Whilst 2001 refusal sought to allow entire Phoenix Yard site to be used for marshalling of commercial freight vehicles, operators refer to earlier consent and are of the view that they have a legal right to operate under earlier planning consent as a fall-back position. They also refer to earlier meetings and subsequent correspondence and are of the view that they are legally entitled to use two centre lanes through the site for HGV parking. Whilst respecting decision of Council to refuse most recent application, company advise that they have instructed drivers to only use these two lanes overnight when operational requirement dictates.

Members may recall that further report was considered at the meeting held on 23 April 2002. Report again outlined planning history of site, its current use and was presented in order to allow Members to consider an appropriate response given current operation of yard. Report concluded that whilst yard was being used for lorry parking, given likelihood of application in near future it was suggested to Members that they may take the view that it would be more appropriate to allow further period of time in which to submit a planning application for lorry/trailer park in alternative location which may assist in rectifying/clarifying use of Phoenix car park itself.

Members resolved to take no immediate action regarding investigation into alleged breaches of planning control on the understanding the operator would submit a planning application for an alternative siting of the lorry/trailer park within two months. Should that application not be received in that timeframe then enforcement action was authorised commensurate with the alleged breach.

In respect of alternative facility Members may recall that the application seeking to use land southeast of Osborne Works, Whippingham Road as commercial trailer park was approved in November 2002. This consent was for a limited period of one year and contained additional conditions requiring visibility, boundary treatment, restrictions on use and restriction on time of vehicle movements which allowed site to be used only between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours Mondays to Saturdays.

Application currently under consideration for variation of condition to allow operation of site on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

With regards the application seeking 'Village Green' status on land adjoining Osborne Works, Whippingham, this matter was heard at the Regulatory Appeals Committee on 11 April 2003. Consideration of the application was adjourned as the applicant could not attend the meeting and to allow the landowner an opportunity to submit additional evidence. Following further consideration by Committee it has been determined that matter will be decided by Public Enquiry for which no date has yet been set.

Application seeking variation (removal) of restricted conditions on earlier consent to allow parking of HGVs across lanes 3-10 inclusive was submitted on basis that such variation was required on a temporary period until such time as Osborne Works site was fully functional as trailer park. This application was considered by Members on 20 May 2003 when in accordance with my recommendation permission was refused on the basis that unrestricted marshalling of commercial freight vehicles would result in significant loss of amenity detrimental to occupiers/operators of adjoining properties, particularly by reason of noise, general disturbance and operational hours. Members also agreed with a further recommendation that a local forum be established with a view to all interested parties meeting with objective of overcoming present difficulties on a pro-active basis.

This forum met on 24 June, 24 July and 7 August of this year. Following the third meeting of local forum it was decided that in view of recent submission of a formal of planning application it would not be appropriate to continue such meetings and the forum was formally disbanded.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks consent for variation of condition no. 1 on TCP/3474P and condition no. 2 on TCP/9338T to allow parking of trailers and HGVs between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 for a temporary period of twelve months.

In support of application the applicants state that application built on discussions that have taken place at local forum in East Cowes where opportunity was taken for applicants to state its business case for operations in East Cowes, equally members of community had voiced their concerns over aspects of operations such as late night noise.

They consider application sets out to strike compromise between operational requirements, community concerns and economic requirements of operator to service various stores and enterprises that utilise trailer shipment services.

By way of background, applicants request note is taken in terms of significant change in transportation patterns particularly of overnight trailers for many superstores and new businesses operating on Island in recent years. There are now around 250,000 commercial vehicles visiting the Island every year of which around 87,000 will travel via East Cowes. Ten years ago these figures were 174,000 in total, 36,000 via applicants operation. Five years ago the respected figures were 209,000 and 68,000.

A significant number of these vehicles are now "drop trailers" involving multi-movements e.g. ship to yard, yard to yard, store to yard and yard to ship. This practice driven by superstores has increased the need for extended parking of vehicles at ferry terminal. In this respect current operating conditions placed on Phoenix Yard in 1998 are not only outdated but are also impractical. They request that Committee take heed of significant business contribution ferry services deliver to Island and need to recognise that these operations involve complex logistics management twenty four hours a day seven days a week. Operating method statement is attached as an appendix to this report.

In summary, their planning application seeks to make efficient use of Phoenix Yard for trailers between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 daily. They see this as a temporary solution for a period of twelve months to allow the potential development of an alternative trailer park, known as the Selangor Racecourse site. In addition, it may also allow time for any potential developments to arise within the framework of Project Cowes.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Majority of site not allocated for any specific purpose in the Unitary Development Plan although southern corner of site fronting Ferry Road which previously contained nos. 9 and 10 Ferry Road is shown as being included within town centre boundary.

The following policies of adopted Development Plan are considered relevant in this case:

G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages)

G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development)

G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses)

TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development)

TR9 (Encouragement of Provision of Improved Transport Facilities)

TR10 (Cross Solent Ferry Links)

Policy TR11 states that Council will approve appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes which will help address traffic and marshalling problems associated with Island's cross-Solent ferry terminals subject to scheme remaining in keeping with surroundings, is appropriate in scale and operation for the location proposed and will not have unacceptable detrimental or adverse environmental impact on wider area in general.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that there are no highway implications.

As with previous application, the Environment Agency did not object but bring to attention of applicants the flood risk in this area and need to control spillages etc.

Environmental Health Officer advises that unconditional approval of this application may cause disamenity to neighbouring land uses from noise. Application contains insufficient information to properly assess these environmental implications and requests additional information in the form of a comprehensive Noise Assessment before a recommendation can be made on the proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Town Council strongly recommend that operating times be changed to no movement of vehicles after 22:00 hours.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Twenty two individual letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal. Objections can be summarised as follows:

Continued and increased disruption and disturbance

Unacceptable impact, particularly for reason of noise and dust

Contrary to local forum discussions

Inappropriate location in predominantly residential area

Reference is made to ongoing problems experienced from operation of site

Reference is made to potential use of alternative local sites

Inappropriate hours of operation impacting adversely on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers

Inappropriate to Cowes Waterfront Project

Company have not demonstrated need for relaxation

Impact from vibration and resultant damage

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Principal planning considerations relate to UDP policy and implications of such policy in terms of impact on amenities of residential occupiers adjacent the site.

Policies in general seek to encourage infrastructure improvements in terms of cross-Solent ferry links and associated traffic management schemes. However, criteria contained within such policies (TR10 and TR11) seeks to ensure no adverse impact on local environment and compatibility with existing and nearby land uses.

Policy G10 reinforces need to take into account potential for conflict between existing and adjoining or surrounding development and activities.

Previous planning decisions on this site outlines approach of Local Planning Authority in attempting to accommodate wishes of major commercial cross-Solent operator whilst affording appropriate level of protection to amenities of surrounding businesses and residential occupiers.

Whilst previous application seeking unrestricted use of site was refused in June 2003, current proposal as applicants admit seeks compromise between operational requirements of ferry operator and general economic benefits to Isle of Wight community and community concerns in respect of impact of such operation on surrounding residents and immediate locality. Proposal in seeking use between 07:00 and 23:00 hours daily does involve potential to use entire site rather than lanes 3-10 which were previously considered.

Notwithstanding difference of opinion in respect of fall back position, on balance it is considered that the current application seeking to use entire site on basis of 07:00 to 23:00 hour operation is likely to conflict with policies which seek to protect amenities of surrounding land users and occupiers. Given the application site relates to entire area of available car park, given type of operation involving manoeuvring of transporter units, often with refrigerated units aboard operating up until 23:00 has potential for considerable detrimental impact on amenities of neighbouring and nearby owner occupiers.

Clearly the onus is on the applicants to support any such application with appropriate information, however, as Environmental Health Officer advises, as application is not supported by a noise assessment application as it stands contains insufficient information to properly assess environmental implications. In the absence of such information it is difficult for the Local Planning Authority to support the proposal as in such cases a precautionary approach is to be preferred.

Whilst it is appreciated application is made on a temporary basis until such time as alternative HGV/trailer parking facilities are available elsewhere i.e. either at Whippingham which, as Members will be aware, is currently subject to application seeking Village Green status, or land at Racecourse which is currently under consideration.

Notwithstanding temporary nature of application, given lack of information and likely impact on locality it is not considered that temporary consent would be appropriate in this instance.

In summary, whilst it is considered that use of area for motor vehicle parking operates at an acceptable and appropriate level, use of entire site for commercial vehicle parking during hours proposed has potential to adversely impact on neighbouring and nearby owner occupiers by reason of noise, general disturbance and hours of operation to be sufficiently serious to warrant refusal of this application.

As with previous application considering present use of site and retrospective nature of application Members will also have to consider what action they wish to take in respect of current breaches of planning control, as such action has been temporarily held in abeyance following a report to Members in April 2002. Members previously resolved to take no immediate action based on understanding that an application would be submitted in near future which would provide opportunity to remove problem from site. Following refusal in June 2003 the formation of a local forum has been unable to satisfactorily reach a compromised solution which would be acceptable to both operator and surrounding residents. The Local Planning Authority has taken very flexible approach in seeking to resolve this matter, however, Members may consider the point has been reached whereby formal enforcement action is necessary to resolve the problem. This could take the form of either a formal Breach of Condition Notice or Enforcement Notice with the latter procedure providing operator with right of appeal.

It is also relevant for Members to note that whilst not condoning any alleged breach of planning control on this site the operator has been utilising additional nearby industrial site to accommodate commercial traffic and this situation has to some extent alleviated problems experienced by local residents in respect of use of Phoenix Yard.

Given that application is currently submitted for a scheme in alternative location which would alleviate problems in long term and fact that operational changes currently being undertaken by operator have reduced impacts on local residents and notwithstanding that Members agreed to exercise their discretion in terms of enforcement action in April 2002, it may be considered that in the light of these changed circumstances again no immediate action is taken regarding an investigation into alleged breaches of planning control on the understanding that the situation can be reviewed at any time if operational procedures are altered such as to adversely impact on residential occupiers.

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 RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this report I am firmly of the opinion that the continued use of the site for parking and marshalling of commercial freight vehicles as proposed results in serious harm to adjoining owner occupiers representing a serious planning objection to proposal. I do not consider that application can be supported and is contrary to policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan and the application is accordingly recommended for refusal.

1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The use of the site as proposed for the marshalling of commercial freight vehicles would result in a significant loss of amenity, detrimental to the occupiers/operators of adjoining properties particularly by reason of noise, general disturbance and operational hours and is therefore contrary to policies D1, G10 and TR11 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - To take no immediate action regarding an investigation into alleged breaches of planning control on the understanding that the situation can be reviewed at any time should a change in current operational procedures occur.

4.

TCP/09477/D P/01177/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East Registration Date: 13/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Mr R Churchill Demolition of garages; conversion of coach house to form a dwelling; construction of a terrace of 3 houses and double garage (revised scheme)(readvertised application) land rear of 2-12, Nelson Street, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twenty weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed period due to detailed negotiations and need to readvertise and reconsult on the revised submission.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to former coach house, garage block and forecourt area which are served by separate covered access between properties in Nelson Street. Application site is bounded on north side by residential properties and their associated curtilages.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/9477 - construction of block of lock-up garages and stores - approved October 1983.

TCP/23547 - alterations to existing garage and provision of external staircase and sun deck - approved July 2000.

TCP/23547A - formation of vehicular access, new boundary wall and railings - approved April 2001.

Members may recall that at the meeting held on 14 January 2003 an application seeking consent for a house in the rear curtilage of no. 13 Melville Street was refused on grounds of inappropriate impact on Conservation Area and more particularly adversely impacting on setting of Listed Buildings whilst having overbearing and overdominant effect.

At same meeting application was also considered for demolition of garages and coach house and construction of five houses. This application was also refused, again on grounds of adverse impact on character of Conservation Area, inappropriate developments affecting setting of Listed Buildings, overbearing and overdominant effect and inadequate turning facilities for vehicles.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application site is identical to previous proposal which was subject to refusal in January 2003.

Briefly, application (as revised) seeks consent for conversion of coach house into dwelling, demolition of existing garage block and construction of terrace of three town houses.

Revised plans show proposed town houses to be located on footprint of existing garage block which runs north south and immediately joins garden to no. 13 Melville Street a Listed Building to east, and to west is separated from residential property in Nelson Street by their own individual private garden areas and garage forecourt area. The town houses would comprise kitchen/living/dining room at ground floor level with two bedrooms above together with attached double garage at northern end of site. Existing coach house located at southern boundary of site which would attach to new build would provide living/dining room at ground floor level with bedroom above.

Resultant L-shaped building would have stepped roofline to reflect land which generally slopes in northerly direction. Height to ridge of town houses would have average height of some six metres above ground level with heights to eave totalling approximately 4.2 metres. Coach house would have limited openings and new build would present blank wall to western elevation fronting rear garden to no. 13 Melville Street. Facing inwards (westwards) towards forecourt and rear of properties in Nelson Street each townhouse would present single downstairs living/dining room window with two bedroom windows located at eaves level in new buildings.

Proposed materials include natural slate roof finish with walls in reconstituted stone between quoins constructed from red facing brick. Windows and doors are to be double glazed painted timber units.

Proposal also involves construction of double garage and submitted plans indicate open parking area which could accommodate two vehicles at southern end of site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The following policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered particularly relevant:

G1 - Development Envelopes.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

B7 - Demolition of Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas.

H1 - New Development Within Main Island Towns.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development.

H5 - Infill Development.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Relevant advice is also contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 "Planning and the Historic Environment". Members will also be aware of the requirements of Section 72 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in requiring Local Authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Sections 16 and 66 of this Act also require Authorities in considering applications for planning permission which affect a listed building to have special regard to certain matters including the desirability of preserving the setting of such buildings. The guidance note goes on to state that settings are often an essential part of the building's character especially if a garden or grounds have been laid out to complement its design or function. Space about building can also contribute to contribution it makes to townscape.

Central Government guidance contained within PPG3 seeks to make best use of urban land.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that Nelson Street is lightly trafficked residential road within centre of Ryde where public transport links within easy walking distance, it falls within Zone 2 of the UDP parking guidelines. He requests revised drawings to be submitted providing independent proven turning area within curtilage of site and parking layout shown to provide one space per dwelling inclusive of garages. He also recommends that landscaping is incorporated within parking layout to control vehicle parking within the site.

Architects Panel were consulted on originally submitted scheme and they commented as follows.

Firstly, Panel noted that sections did not make reference to plans, question proposed use of materials and fact that application was not supported by a design statement. They also commented in respect of detailed matters relating to design including overall fenestration, linked dormers and proposed lean-to extension being unsympathetic. Relationship to other buildings in area was also questioned with regard to possible overlooking and loss of privacy and commented that there was an overall lack of information on drawings.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Nineteen letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Loss of privacy

Loss of garaging and off-street parking

Not in keeping with character of Conservation Area

Overdevelopment of site

Loss of green space

Difficulties in respect of emergency access

Poor access creating dangerous conditions for highway users

Inadequate drainage details

Backland development

Loss of trees

Setting of precedent

Visual and noise pollution

Proposal does not overcome previous reasons for refusal

Loss of light

Impact on living conditions

In respect of revised scheme previous consultees were consulted and three further letters of objection were received with writers again repeating their concerns/objections.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Principal planning considerations in respect of this development relate to appropriateness of development in terms of its impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area, implications for setting of nearby Listed Buildings, impact on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and related highway issues.

Firstly, with regards to previous refusal for similar development main changes in respect of current proposal are that buildings proposed do not encroach within onto of 13 Melville Street and therefore reflect rear building line of existing garage block. Revised proposal also involves less dense development incorporating four residential units in total whereas previous scheme proposed five houses. Scale and design of houses have been modified to minimise visual impact by reducing average height to ridge which previously indicated some seven metres. Proposal now also retains former coach house building which is utilised by conversion to residential use.

Revised proposal involves removal of two end garages and omits the previously proposed lean-to extension to the coach house.

Given the proposal represents to a large extent existing footprint of buildings on site and reduced massing I do not consider proposal would have adverse impact on setting of nearby Listed Buildings.

Whilst previous scheme was criticised by the Council's Conservation Officer it is considered that revised scheme shows more sympathetic approach to development of this site incorporating more modest townhouse development characterised by a more simplified design approach. Existing coach house remains to a large extent unaffected and removal of garages and deletion of lean-to extension help open up courtyard area in front of proposed buildings and present opportunity to remove rather unsightly buildings.

I estimate approximate distance from rear of properties fronting Nelson Street to the front wall of the proposed houses is in the order of eleven metres and given general support of scheme in all other aspects I consider distance is not such as to warrant refusal solely on grounds of overlooking and/or loss of privacy. Overlooking and/or loss of privacy potential will only be gained from six individual bedroom windows located at eaves level and in urban situations some level of mutual overlooking is generally experienced. In this particular instance the level and extent of overlooking is not considered to be unreasonable for this location and it should be noted that majority of rear amenity space is taken up with parking areas or extensions and several properties in Nelson Street have benefit of high level balcony areas Members will note that there are many examples of tandem development in this Conservation Area.

On balance it is felt that revised scheme overcomes majority of criticism level in respect of previous scheme and whilst proposal may have potential for some impact on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers it is not considered that this is sufficiently serious to warrant refusal of this application on these grounds alone.

With regards parking arrangements, although not currently used to its full potential existing land use involving some ten lock-up garages has considerable potential in terms of highway generation and traffic movement. Current proposal will substantially reduce this potential and parking is shown for some four vehicles including two within proposed double garage. This level of parking will allow vehicles to turn within site and enter and leave in forward gear and again whilst visibility onto Nelson Street across pavement is extremely limited, reduction in usage is to be welcomed in terms of highway safety. It is unlikely that further parking will take place within application site as this would be likely to lead to problems for vehicles turning and accessing proposed residential units.

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 outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed scheme meets requirements of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act and Unitary Development policy in seeking to protect or enhance Conservation Areas and related issue of maintaining appropriate settings for Listed Buildings within such areas. Additionally, it is considered that design of proposal (as revised) is of sufficient standard to contribute to character of Conservation Area whilst proposal is able to offer significant benefits in terms of highway safety without adversely impacting to an unacceptable extent on residential amenity of local residents.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Scheme)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings 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.
3	Submission of samples - S03
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes B, D and H of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The doors and window frames of the building and garage doors shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of four parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5.

TCP/11819/F P/01545/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport South Registration Date: 04/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr J Stevens Change of use from a dwelling to provide office accommodation 92 Carisbrooke Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301DB

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by the Local Member, Councillor Cunningham when approached through the delegated procedure for the following reasons:

1. Increase in number of business properties changing character from residential to commercial.

2. Fear of increase in crime, particularly as property would not be occupied during the evening.

3. Parking problems and lack of highway access.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken thirteen weeks and two days to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period because of the need for consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a substantial detached Victorian residence situated on The Mall, Carisbrooke Road. The property was converted into a private dwelling in 1997 after being used as a doctors surgery for many years. The property has a double garage and maximum of four parking spaces accessed over a private access road off Field Place.

Although the area is predominantly residential in character offering a mix of different house types and flats, there is a residential care home two doors away and an office use four doors away in a westerly direction. In the opposite direction is Westmont School and some further commercial properties on The Mall.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/11819B/M/876 - Change of use to doctors surgery approved in November 1974.

TCP/11819D/M/8062 - Car park for doctors surgery approved in February 1990.

TCP/11819/E - P/00219/97 - Change of use from doctors surgery to dwelling approved in April 1997.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to change the use of this property from a single dwelling house to offices. There would be no external alterations and internal work would be minimal. Six parking spaces would be provided, two within the existing garage and four outside on a hard standing.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is shown as being within the development envelope for Newport but clearly outside of the town centre boundary. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

S1 - New development to be concentrated within existing urban areas.

H8 - Loss of Dwellings.

E1 - Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Environment Agency raise no objection.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four individual letters and a sixty signature petition have been received objecting on grounds that can be summarised as follows:

· The private access road serving the proposed parking area is narrow and substandard. Its use for commercial purposes would create human dangers.

· Significant increase in volume of traffic.

· This is a residential area and should be retained as such. Change of use would be highly inappropriate and thoroughly detrimental to this residential area.

· Inadequate parking.

· Increase in noise and general disturbance.

· Loss of privacy, particularly to the swimming pool area at the bottom of the neighbours rear garden.

· Human rights.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Comments of the Architectural Liaison and Crime Prevention Officer had not been received at the time of writing and will therefore be reported at the Committee.

EVALUATION

The main considerations in respect of this application relate to policy, principle and whether the proposed commercial use of this building would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers or the character of the area in general.

In terms of Development Plan policy, the site is shown as being within the development envelope for Newport but clearly outside of the town centre boundary. Policy H8 refers to the loss of dwellings and states that development leading to the loss of existing dwellings, especially those which are suitable for people not easily able to compete in the existing housing market, will not be permitted unless the new development is a specific proposal of the UDP. This is a substantial five bedroom detached house which would not meet requirements of those seeking property at the lower end of the housing market. Policy E1 promotes suitably located employment uses, particularly in or adjacent existing settlements so as to reduce the need to travel to work by car. The site is situated close to and within easy walking distance of the town centre, and as such is within Zone 2 of the Parking Guidelines.

Having regard to the substantial nature of the property in question, planning policy promoting employment uses together with proximity of site to Newport town centre, it is my opinion that the principle of the proposed use is, on balance, acceptable.

Whilst recognising that this is predominantly a mixed residential area, it should also be noted that there are other commercial uses nearby with the town centre within easy walking distance. The property in question would retain its residential appearance and would be used purely for office/administrative purposes. Occupancy is therefore likely to be during normal office hours. Taking the above points into consideration, I am of the opinion that the proposed office use would not compromise the character or setting of the surrounding area.

There are no additional windows proposed as part of this development. Obviously first floor rear facing windows will serve offices rather than bedrooms, but I do not believe that this would give rise to a significant level of overlooking to warrant refusal of this application. Privacy can be further safeguarded through the provision of obscure glazing in the lower half of the rear facing windows. The applicant has also agreed to keep the lower section fixed shut. These points can be covered by a condition should Members be minded to grant planning permission. Furthermore, it is my opinion that an office/administrative use of this building would not give rise to a considerable level of noise or disturbance. I would, however, suggest a condition limiting the use to Class B1(a) in order to prevent any other light industrial use from taking place.

Traffic activity would be restricted to a certain extent by the limited amount of parking available. The provision of six spaces (including two garages) for office workers should not, in my opinion, lead to a significant increase in traffic generation, particularly when considering the size of the existing house. It is highly probable that the previous use as a doctors surgery would have generated far more traffic than the proposed office use. Concern has been expressed that there is inadequate parking to cater for the proposed use. In fact, having regard to location of site within Zone 2 of the Parking Guidelines, the proposal for six parking spaces is the maximum allowed under Policy TR16. It should also be noted that the Highway Authority raise no objection to the proposed use.

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 DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the principle of converting this substantial detached house into offices is acceptable and that this use would not prejudice the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbours, the general character of the area or highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The building shall only be used as offices as defined in Class B1(a) 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, that is to say, as an industrial building, in which the processes carried out, or the machinery installed, are such as can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenities of that area. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy E9 (Employment Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The offices hereby approved should only be used between 08:00 and 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and at no other times including weekends or recognised Bank Holidays. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The use hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the lower half of all first floor rear facing windows have been fitted with obscure glass and fixed shut in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such an approved scheme shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

6.

TCP/12291/J P/01426/03 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill Registration Date: 16/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hilton Erection of 2 storey detached building forming bed & breakfast accommodation at ground floor level with owners living accommodation over land rear of Royal Essex Cottage and Syringa, High Street, Godshill, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is particularly contentious and there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application has taken eighteen weeks to process due to protracted negotiations on design.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is located on the south side of Church Hollow a few metres to the west of its junction with High Street at Godshill. An area of 0.06 hectare, roughly rectangular, a width of 16 metres, a depth of approximately 34 metres maximum, currently used as a car parking area and as an amenity area forming part of the land associated with the Royal Essex Cottage, tea rooms and restaurant fronting High Street. There is an existing vehicular access off Church Hollow. The land rises generally from east up to the west into open land further west from the site, the adjoining properties including the main building which fronts the High Street are essentially two storey, mostly stone buildings, very tightly sited and close to the public highway.

The area is one of fairly intimate development fronting the High Street, small to medium scale buildings of considerable age, some properties are thatched but a mix of materials prevails.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in relation to this part of the site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for the erection of a free standing building, of one and a half storeys in height, accommodation on both ground and first floors (the latter within the roof space) to form three units of bed and breakfast accommodation at ground floor (accessible by disabled persons) and for a first floor, self-contained owners living unit.

Following extensive negotiations in respect of the design of this proposal, revised plans now show the building to have overall dimensions of 9.7 metres in width and 17 metres in length. The ground floor plan shows the three units to comprise bedroom and en-suite accessible bathroom, each with a floor area of approximately 32 square metres; the building incorporating a conservatory at the southern end which includes a staircase to first floor providing two bedrooms, one en-suite, a bathroom, living room and kitchen. Much of this accommodation is contained within the roof space and therefore has coved ceilings. The building incorporates three gables on the eastern elevation, allowing the roofspace to be used.

The building is proposed to be constructed mostly in stone with feature quoins but the revised plans do not show further details of the materials. The living room windows on the eastern elevation are 'french doors' protected by a railing which is flush with the elevation.

The site plan shows the building to be sited approximately 13 metres back from the front boundary with Church Hollow, the scheme to incorporate the existing vehicular access from Church Hollow to a cobbled drive and turning area providing three disabled parking spaces and one owner's parking space, the remaining area being set aside for turning. The hard surface area finishes one metre in front of the building and there are small areas of land available for landscaping along the front boundary and around the building. The front elevation to Church Hollow includes two gable features, incorporates small scale fenestration with a vertical emphasis and feature quoins, decorative barge boards with finials. The eastern elevation incorporates three feature gables of similar design and first floor fenestration of similar proportions to those in the north elevation. The western elevation is relatively plain. This elevation is close to the west boundary but is screened by a dense line of conifers. The roof plane incorporates a roof light serving one of the bedrooms to the owners living unit.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Inset T - Godshill shows that the Development Plan boundary travels right through the centre of this site, the building is therefore right on the boundary.

The site is within the designated Conservation Area and is within the designated area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Accordingly the following policies are applicable:-

G1 - Development Envelopes

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

T3 - Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

AONB Officer considers the building is too large but in the event of approval the wall on the front boundary should be stone and appropriate landscaping carried out.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Godshill Parish Council object on grounds that the development is not in keeping with the spirit of the Conservation Area and it encroaches into the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at a most vulnerable point. Furthermore, development could create a precedent for further buildings in close proximity to the ancient church and cottages.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection from a local resident on grounds of inappropriate design, poor access and questioning the future occupancy. Further letter from a local resident, whilst not objecting to the development raises concerns over the suitability and specification of the access with special reference to arrangements during the construction process.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Essentially this application seeks consent for the erection of a new building in the rear garden area of the Royal Essex Cottage, on an area which has in part been previously used for car parking. The buildings are proposed to provide three accessible bed and breakfast units (each comprising of a bedroom and en-suite) and for owners living accommodation above. It is the intention that the Royal Essex Cottage and this development would be separate entities and therefore the owners accommodation would be maintained with the three holiday units in order to run them.

Despite the several policies which are referred to in the Policy section above, essentially the determination of this development turns on matters of principle, the visual impact of the development, the effect on adjoining properties and matters relating to highways and parking.

In principle, the provision of tourist accommodation, even in this village centre, is appropriate and Policy T3 supports this principle, providing it is associated with existing permanent accommodation or represents serviced accommodation. The provision of accessible accommodation for the disabled is clearly supported. Whilst the site straddles the designated development envelope, it is pointed out that a few metres to the west is an existing building which is in use as holiday accommodation. This proposal would fill a gap rather than spreading into open countryside.

The visual impact of this proposal can be categorised into effects on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, effects on the Conservation Area and the possible impacts on the setting of the Listed Buildings in close proximity.

Developments are not precluded by Policy B6 merely because they are located within the Conservation Area. Developments which preserve or enhance the character of the area are likely to be approved and therefore how this development is designed will determine whether or not the result preserves or enhances the character. In terms of the Conservation Area I consider that the design and proportions of the building are now complimentary to this location provided that the quality of materials chosen to complete the development are satisfactory in this location. Design features incorporated into the scheme echo similar features on other buildings in the location and therefore I am of the opinion that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved or enhanced as a result.

In terms of the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, this site is located on the very edge of the AONB and is not within an open area of countryside, being located almost in the heart of the village. I do not consider the design or appearance of the building or even the materials used are likely to adversely affect the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The distance from the proposed building to Royal Essex Cottage is shown to be approximately 20 metres. Whilst this is on the site within the same ownership of the Royal Essex Cottage, the site clearly relates more to Church Hollow since that is the area from which a public

viewpoint may be achieved. Accordingly it is felt that this proposal does not affect the setting of the Listed Building which Policy B2 seeks to protect.

In terms of effect on adjoining properties, access to the site will be via Church Hollow to a small car parking area where the occupants' cars would be parked. Although there will be some manoeuvring in this area, it should be remembered that the site's existing use is that of a car park therefore, if anything, a reduced impact from vehicles would be realised by adjoining properties. The new building incorporates some fenestration at first floor height, to the owners accommodation at first floor and to the holiday accommodation on ground floor, however, due to the distances involved I do not consider that this is likely to result in a significant loss of privacy any greater than any other urban situation where residential property is developed.

Turning finally to highways issue and parking, hitherto the site has been used for parking in connection with the Royal Essex Cottage and therefore the result will be a net reduction in volumes of traffic entering and leaving the site via Church Hollow. Although there will be a loss of the car parking facility, Godshill is a village which is served by a very large car parking provision at The Smithy which the public use in order to enjoy the facilities of the whole of the village. Much of the trade generated by all businesses in Godshill is passing trade by pedestrians who are already in the village visiting the various attractions. The Highways Engineers accept that the car park has been underused for a considerable time and do not oppose the loss of the facility.

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 the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above it is considered that the resultant development in terms of its use, its visual impact, affect on adjoining properties and highway implications will be an acceptable form of development, consistent with policies G1, D1, D2, B2, B6 and T3 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the building 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.
3	Notwithstanding requirements of Condition 2 above the walls of the proposed building shall be constructed of such natural stone or such other material in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no construction shall be commenced in advance of any such approval. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Notwithstanding plan no. B203/252/05 the front boundary wall of the development on the frontage of Church Hollow shall be reconstructed in natural stone in accordance with the specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The occupation of the bed and breakfast units hereby approved shall be limited to holiday use only and they shall not be occupied by any person, a family, or group of persons, for a period in total exceeding six weeks in any rolling year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The owners accommodation hereby approved shall be retained with the bed and breakfast units hereby approved as one property and none shall be sold off or leased separately, and the owners living unit is in such a position and relationship to the holiday units that it should not be occupied separately without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The owners dwelling unit hereby approved shall be occupied only by an owner or manager of the holiday units, and his or her resident dependants and by no other persons. Reason: The owner's living unit is in such a relationship with the holiday units that it would not normally be permitted and so that Policy T3 is not compromised in relation to this development.
8	The development shall not be brought into use until the car parking and turning facilities have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved plan Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Notwithstanding condition 4 above the new stone front boundary wall shall be erected to a height not exceeding 1.0 metres above road level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	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. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas and hard surfacing materials; Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

7.

TCP/18349/S P/01370/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 18/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Indigo Homes Ltd Demolition of dwelling; construction of a terrace of 4 town houses fronting Cliff Road; 3/6 storey building to provide 10 flats; formation of vehicular access Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318DQ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which raises important planning issues.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application and will have taken eleven weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to an almost rectangular site situated between Cliff Road and Baring Road being on the southern side of Cliff Road and northern side of Baring Road. Site slopes steeply from south to north and has a 26 metres wide frontage onto Baring Road where site currently accommodates a split level detached dwelling known as Essex House which stands between two detached split level dwellings, one being The Spinney which is a single storey/two storey split level dwelling to the west of the application site and the other being Oak Bank which is a more substantial detached dwelling being approximately two storey fronting Baring Road but three and a half storey fronting Cliff Road. The Cliff Road frontage itself adjoins the rear garden areas of properties which front Baring Road, whilst to the west is a partially developed building site on which a pair of semi-detached dwellings has been constructed and another pair had been commenced, however, following a substantial ground movement work has ceased on that section of the site.

For Members' information the general character of the area is residential and made up of older traditional Victorian dwellings with a number of newer dwellings. The site itself has no landscape features apart from a number of boundary trees.

Opposite the site on the Cliff Road frontage are a number of substantial Victorian split level multi-occupier type dwellings with the split level character reflecting the continuation of the sloping nature of the land in the area. Members' attention is also drawn to a further substantial hotel premises known as Villa Rothsay which stands further to the east adjacent to the property Oak Bank and immediately abuts the zigzag footpath which links Cliff Road with Baring Road. The Cliff Road frontage of that property has in the recent past been the subject of a further land slippage which has been rectified by the construction of an engineer designed retaining wall and the creation of additional parking linked to a retaining wall for the hotel premises served off Cliff Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In August 2002 planning consent issued for the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and development of two houses, garages and a flat with vehicular access off Cliff Road and two houses and garages with vehicular access off Baring Road. Although the decision was issued on this date the application itself was considered in November 2000 at which time it was resolved by the Committee that the design, density and mass height arrangement and impact on neighbours was acceptable but that no decision should be issued until outstanding geotechnical issues had been resolved. Those issues were not finally resolved until the date of issue. The consent itself was the subject of a number of conditions, one of which is quoted as follows:

"Prior to commencement of work an adequate site investigation stability assessment shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any such investigation and assessment shall show that the development shall not be adversely affected by any site slope instability nor will it adversely affect land stability beyond the boundaries of the site".

In terms of other planning history in respect of adjoining sites these are itemised as follows:

The adjoining site to the west on the Cliff Road frontage subject to an approval granted in April 1995, two pairs of semi-detached houses and integral garages. One pair has been constructed and is occupied with the remaining pair which immediately adjoins the application site commenced but with work having ceased following land slippage to the north. That approval was the subject of a number of conditions, one of which required the submission of a structural engineer's assessment of ground conditions along with suggested foundation design. Detailed information was provided following an exchange of correspondence after consultation took place with the Building Control Department and the Council's Coastal Manager. Compliance with the condition itself was agreed in November 1998 following which work commenced. Following the land slippage incident no further works have been carried out on site apart from remedial works providing stabilization to the slope.

In July 2001 consent granted for construction of slope stabilization works and formation of eight parking spaces off Cliff Road to rear of Villa Rothsay. This consent has been fully implemented having been the subject of substantial detailed information provided by a geotechnical engineer which included bore hole analysis and which was subject of consultation with the Council's own consulting geotechnical engineer.

In November 2002 consent granted for retention of slope stabilization works in respect of the property The Spinney, with those works being required following the land slippage incident on the site which abuts the application site to the west. Again, those works have been carried out having been the subject of extensive slope stability reports, again including bore holes, all prepared by appropriate competent geotechnical engineers.

In terms of the adjoining site to the east, rear of Oak Bank, and in particular to that element of the curtilage which fronts Cliff Road, this was subject of an approval for a detached house over basement, garage and new vehicular access onto Cliff Road. That consent was granted in April 1995 and has now expired.

Renewal of the abovementioned approval was received in April 2000 and has since been finally disposed of.

Finally, a detailed consent was granted in April 1995 for a three storey split level dwelling with integral garage accessed off Cliff Road in respect of land at the rear of the hotel premises Villa Rothsay fronting Cliff Road further to the east.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks detailed consent for the following residential development which is in two parts.

Baring Road Frontage

Proposal indicates a building which has a split level design with two and a half storeys facing onto Baring Road and five and a half storeys facing towards the Solent (northward). Block provides a total of ten units itemised as follows:

Three two bedroom units

Six three bedroom units

One four bedroom units

The block is indicated to stand at its minimum five metres off the edge of carriageway to Baring Road to maximum of six metres. The block itself measures approximately 5.8 metres in depth by 24.6 metres in width and stands on a site which has an overall width of approximately 25.5 metres. The building has a height above the carriageway of Baring Road of 8.8 metres. At this height the proposed block will be level with the ridge height of the adjoining property Oak Bank but will be approximately four metres above the ridge height of the adjoining property to the west, The Spinney.

Block provides basement car parking indicating a total of thirteen parking spaces set at a level approximately seven metres below the carriageway level of Baring Road and serviced off Cliff Road to the north by a sloping access drive.

The accommodation within the two lower ground floors which face Cliff Road are stepped forward four metres from the main block finished with a flat roof which functions as a terrace decking. The rear ground level and height of block where it faces Cliff Road equates with adjoining dwelling to east known as Oak Bank. Rear elevation also contains balconies on upper floors with the western and eastern end having side screens to those balconies.

Block to be finished in banded rendering on the lower three floors with the upper floors being constructed in brick with a central vertical feature also finished in banded render. Block to be roofed in concrete roofing tiles with the two side elevations having a slightly projecting feature at roof level finished in vertical tile hanging. Proposal provides for a parking lay-by three metres deep running parallel with Baring Road virtually over the whole frontage onto that road. The parking lay-by will provide maximum parking for four vehicles.

Cliff Road Frontage

Consent sought for a block of four split level terraced houses being four storeys in height where it faces Cliff Road and three storeys in respect of its south facing elevation.

Each house provides substantial accommodation including a garage/car port set directly off back of footpath along with games room and utility room on the lower ground floor. The first floor and second floor accommodation provide bedroom and kitchen/study accommodation whilst the third floor consists entirely of a living room with terrace on the north facing elevation. Block to be constructed in a mixture of smooth render and facing brick with glazed third floor.

Directly abutting the rear (south facing) wall of the block at lower ground level is a series of underground water tanks housed within a storage space and having a top access off the terrace which serves the four terraced units. Block to be finished in a low pitch profile metal roof covering.

Central Landscaped Area

Area between the two blocks to be partially paved but mainly set to lawn with shrubs and includes retention of existing trees on the eastern boundary. Application has been accompanied by a Landscape Statement which is summarised as follows:

Proposal will result in loss of a small number of existing trees compensated by the planting of seven new specimen trees within the site.

Any new specimen trees will be planted as large transplants and will reflect those grown locally and will be indigenous trees.

All trees to be retained will be fenced off in accordance with standard procedures.

Future management of the amenity space will allow for major watering of trees during periods of drought.

Area will provide an informal recreational space as well as offering space for seating and barbecue/patio area.

Banked areas will be planted in shrubs with the level area seeded in grass.

Boundary Treatment

Eastern boundary indicated to be mainly in the form of close boarded timber fencing with post and rail fencing at its southern end and this boundary also includes retention of hedgerows and further shrub planting.

In terms of the western boundary where it abuts the proposed access to the car parking area, this is to be in the form of hedge planting with close boarded fencing and includes a crib lock retaining wall. Where this boundary directly abuts the Baring Road block fencing will be in the form of post and rail.

Access

Application indicates a proposed access in the north eastern corner with that access being 4.5 metres wide and providing a passing bay where it directly abuts Cliff Road. Security gates are provided approximately eight metres off the back edge of carriageway to Cliff Road beyond which the access narrows to three metres in width with 0.4 metre margins either side.

Ground and Slope Stability

Application has been accompanied by a detailed geotechnical-technical report prepared by consulting geotechnical engineer, with that report including extensive borehole information. The resultant conclusions and recommendations are quoted as follows:

"1. The visual evidence from the site itself and from the Works to adjacent properties, together with our analytical assessment calculations, demonstrates that the slope is prone to shallow seated translational or circular slip movements.

2. Relatively shallow excavations associated with construction activities in February 2000 on the adjacent site below 'The Spinney' triggered movement, which suggests that the factor of safety on the present slope is close to unity. This is substantiated by the slope stability analyses. The extremely wet winter of 2000/2001 triggered movement at Villa Rothsay, which demonstrates the sensitivity of the area generally to a high ground water table.

3. The slope monitoring programme confirms shallow land slip movements as anticipated from surface observations. There is evidence from the inclinometer data to suggest that movement may be occurring at much deeper levels.

4. Site investigations and laboratory testing have been carried out followed by a detailed geotechnical appraisal. As a result of this, we are satisfied that the site can be developed within the requirements set out in PPG14.

5. The proposed piled wall extends the degree of slope stability protection already provided to adjacent properties. The combined effect will be to enhance the general stability of the area especially in relation to potential shallow and medium depth slip planes.

6. As a result of the Architectural Geometrical Design and the Geotechnical Proposals the loading on any potential deep seated slip plane will be reduced.

7. The planning application includes the following specific proposals for the construction of the development, in particular:

7.1 The scheme includes a substantial bored pile wall behind the proposed townhouses on Cliff Road with the toe of the piles taken down to -1.2 m ODN. The apartments at the Baring Road level include a further semi-contiguous bored pile wall with the toe of piles at + 10.0M ODN. These piled walls are designed to protect the site from the known shallow failure planes, and from potential medium seated failure planes, with a factor of safety on calculation of at least 1.35 within the site itself.

7.2 The buildings are constructed off piled raft foundations, which provide a stiff foundation to distribute the building loads below the levels associated with shallow seated slips. This structural form is tolerant of minor movements.

7.3 The design for the superstructure elements of the proposed development will be detailed to provide flexibility to absorb the effects of slight movements should these occur in the future.

7.4 The proposed scheme will include cut off drains, to intercept ground water within the permeable strata. Furthermore, the significantly increased impermeable surfaces on the site combined with the related surface water collection system will reduce the amount of water permeating into the subsoil. These two factors alone should provide a marked improvement to the stability of the existing slope."

In summary, the main engineering works cover the following:

The provision of piling to stabilise surrounding land to take account of reduced levels within application site.

Excavation and removal from site of large earth quantities to reduce loading.

Provision of surface water drainage system with attenuation tanks to reduce amount of water entering subsoil.

Report has been the subject of a vetting procedure by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

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 pressure 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 units 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 etc.

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

PPG14 - Development on Unstable Land, Landslides and Planning, Annex 1, March 1996. Relevant points as follows:

In relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of landslides on development by controlling or restricting development where appropriate.

Policies should outline the considerations which will be given to landsliding including the criteria and information requirements which should be used in determining planning applications.

Where appropriate planning applications should be accompanied by a Slope Stability Report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so and will not be affected by or trigger landsliding beyond the boundaries of the site.

Local Plan Policies

The site is not allocated but is within the development envelope boundary for Cowes as indicated in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant 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

D3 - Landscaping

H6 - High Density Residential Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

The site is located within Parking Zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum 0 - 50% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Also under Appendix G which covers this policy the site's zonal location means that any development on this site in excess of ten units will be subject of a Transport Infrastructure Payment at the rate of £750 per unit as a contribution to a sustainable transport fund and therefore would make the application subject of a legal agreement covering this issue. The aim of the fund is to finance off-site transport initiatives to help address travel demands generated by any proposal in Zones 1 and 2.

Members will be aware of the publication of the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study commissioned by the Council. The study area extends from Market Hill in Cowes through to Gurnard Marsh and inland as far as Baring Road and Solent View Road. The main objectives of the study were to review the stability of the coastal slopes and provide guidance for future planned development. In terms of the current application the site is within an area defined as normally requiring submission of a full stability report prepared by a competent person which the document advises should be a geotechnical engineer.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval with conditions relating to visibility and sight lines, access and provision of parking for loading and unloading. In this regard, Highway Engineer has recommended a widening of the parking lay-by on Baring Road to three metres and revised plans have been received accordingly.

Fire Safety Officer considers proposal to be satisfactory.

Southern Water confirm the availability of a combined sewer in Cliff Road and that they would prefer that surface water was disposed of in an alternative way than into that sewer. However, they accept that this sometimes is not practical and therefore it is the rate of flow which is more important than the total volume of flow. Attenuation of flow therefore is the important issue to ensure that the maximum rate of flow of both and foul and surface water from the new development is less than that from existing property, then connection to the sewer is likely to be accepted.

Application has been considered by the Architects Panel and their comments are summarised as follows:

Roof scape considered to be dominant and uninteresting with reference to height and massing of the roof and the crop gable and dormer windows were not considered to be characteristic of the area.

Concern relating to the visual effect of the roof shape on the side elevations with some criticism of the plans themselves providing a false impression.

Whilst Panel noted that height of block equated to the adjoining property Oak Bank they considered that the dormer windows and roof features increased the visual emphasis of the roof.

Panel considered that there was a need to subdivide the rear elevation which appeared massive by introducing some form of horizontal division which may lighten the effect of the building.

Particular reference made to the vertical division within the centre of the rear elevation (facing Cliff Road) which was not considered appropriate.

Some concern expressed relating to the massing of the building when seen from Cliff Road with suggestions that ground levels should be banked up based on level of accommodation omitted to reduce the impact of the rear elevation. Some reference made to the prospective drawings differing from the details indicated on the submitted elevations.

Panel considered design appeared to include a mixture of unresolved design elements.

Block Fronting Cliff Road

Panel considered more overhand or emphasis to the flat roof design would improve the appearance of the building.

Roof treatment was considered to be more appropriate than that shown for the larger block.

Panel noted that proposed proposal included a number of balconies at higher level and question whether this would cause a problem with overlooking of adjacent properties.

Panel commented that the overall quality and design of the finished building would depend on the detailing.

Finally, Panel question the need for essential parapet feature at roof level.

The ground and slope stability report submitted with the application has been carefully vetted by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer and I am in receipt of a fairly extensive report. The most significant part of that report however, is the summary which is quoted as follows:

"To summarise, I believe that the proposals, as presented, do indicate that the proposed development can be built without causing instability to the surrounding area and without itself being significantly adversely affected by instability. However, there are a number of important details to be addressed, particularly with regard to the design of the retaining walls and their propping structure and also the effects of the proposed walls and drainage on the surrounding buildings before the scheme can be recommended for approval."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council object on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, that the proposed development would be over dominant and incompatible with the neighbouring properties, because of the ground instability in the area and the possible effects on adjoining properties and on the grounds of loss of amenity due to insufficient provision of car parking spaces and inadequate vehicular access.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application is subject of fourteen letters of objection from residents of Cliff Road, three letters of objection from residents of Baring Road and one letter from the Isle of Wight Society. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site due to excessive scale and massing inappropriate to the characteristics of the area.

Proposal will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using Cliff Road with the proposal providing insufficient parking likely to intensify on-street parking in Cliff Road.

The parking arrangement for the Cliff Road block in terms of its closeness to the back of footpath of that road would be likely to result in encroachment across the footpath by parked vehicles.

Reference made to the poor construction quality of Cliff Road and the fact that this development will exacerbate that situation.

Concern at the closeness of the Cliff Road block to the back of footpath which would be out of character with the area.

High level of concern in respect of the effect on slope stability that may occur as a result of this development with local residents pointing out that general ground conditions are very poor, making reference to the fact that even in this dry summer running water continues to discharge from the site. Also reference made to subsidence problems in the area, particularly to the north.

The block on the Baring Road frontage encroaches forward of a recognised building line along that road.

Construction works will cause inevitable disturbance and disruption, particularly given the inadequacies of Cliff Road both in terms of width and standard of construction.

Cliff Road is regularly being used for visitors parking in order to avoid car parking charges on the Esplanade which have recently been introduced.

Concern that any stabilization groundworks on the site will simply transfer problems to adjoining land.

Suggestion that Members should inspect the site prior to determining the application.

Neighbouring property owner is concerned that any stabilization groundworks should not be carried out during the winter months.

General concern that the mass of the development will cause a loss of sunlight and loss of privacy to properties on the north side of Cliff Road, with particular concern from the adjoining property owner to the east who expresses great concern that this proposal will result in loss of sunlight to his garden and conservatory.

Concern from the neighbouring property owner that the proposal encroaches beyond land owned by the applicant.

Proposal could set a precedent for similar extensive development.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections to proposed development but has raised a number of detail issues which need to be considered and in this regard would be happy to discuss them with the architects. Essentially he considers that this scheme could easily be made very self-contained by introducing electronic access control systems and appropriate fencing etc.

EVALUATION

There are a number of issues involved in assessing the merits of this application as follows.

Planning History

Members will note that there is an extant consent on this site relating to a lesser density and lesser mass and height of development. The comparison therefore is whether or not the general increase in size of development when compared with that extant consent will represent excessive development, out of scale and out of character with the area. In terms of the Baring Road block the extant consent indicated a four storey building when viewed from Cliff Road and a two storey building when viewed from Baring Road with a traditional roof and stood 1.6 metres lower than the adjoining property known Oak Bank. The extant consent was in the form of two separate blocks essentially linked by a lesser height structure, and was of lesser mass and height. The proposed block is both wider and taller representing a width increase of 2.3 metres and a height increase of 1.7 metres placing the roof height level with the adjoining property Oak Bank. Also the block is continuous across the whole of the site, however, design does indicate a central vertical feature on both front and rear elevations which creates a sense of separation.

The second difference in terms of mass is that the extant consent showed balcony projections to the rear facing Cliff Road whereas the current proposal indicates a more substantial stepped feature as described.

Obviously in type of accommodation terms the current proposal indicates ten units within the block whereas the extant consent indicated just two houses albeit with substantial accommodation. I suggest that the number of units contained within a block is not necessarily a major issue, it is the size, scale and mass of the block and how it sits into the site's topography and character of the area which is the determining factor.

With regard to the Cliff Road frontage the block which is subject of the extant consent is in the form of two split level houses with a central link providing two garages with a covered access to a flat at first floor. These dwellings would have a two and a half storey appearance from Cliff Road and the second floor accommodation being partially within the roof and the rear elevation will have an appearance of 1.5 storeys. The two houses and linked block will have the appearance of a terrace of three stepped to reflect the angle of the road. This compares with the current application which indicates a rectangular block of four terraced houses being four storey in height facing Cliff Road and three storey in height facing to the south. Each unit is relatively narrow frontaged and stands towards the eastern half of the site, thus accommodating the access to the basement car park within the block on Baring Road. This compares with the extant consent which indicates the block virtually across the whole of the frontage onto Cliff Road. Comparison in height terms suggests that this proposed scheme has an overall height to top of the flat roof of 20.4 metres which is exactly the same as the maximum height of the extant consent. It is important to appreciate that the extant consent has a traditional pitched roof.

I understand that the problem with the extant consent is its viability. This then leads on to the second and critical issue of slope stability.

Slope Stability

Members will appreciate from the planning history the precarious nature of the ground conditions and slope stability between Baring Road and Cliff Road. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is shallow, medium and more importantly deep seated slippage and therefore development on this site, not surprisingly, has been the subject of extensive site

investigation including the laying down of deep bore holes and significantly the Council's consulting engineer has commented as follows in respect of the deep slippage issue:

"It is recognised that a deeper slip exists than has been catered for in the design of the work. However, it is demonstrated that the factor of safety on this slip has been increased albeit slightly and that the likely movement over the lifetime of the building will not lead to significant adverse effects on the building."

I cannot emphasise enough the complexity of this issue evident by the amount of time spent following Committee's decision to approve the previous proposal with that time spent in obtaining and discussing in some depth additional information and whether or not it was sufficient to enable a consent to be granted. Eventually agreement was reached to enable the decision to be issued although it was made subject of a condition requiring more site investigation stability assessments. That consent was also issued with an accompanying explanatory letter which drew attention to a general advice document prepared by the Council's consulting engineer covering all the issues relating to land which has the potential for instability within the remit of PPG14.

Members will also note that within the quoted summary of the consulting engineer (see Consultee Responses) there remains some details to be addressed, however, I am satisfied that these matters can be covered under the auspices of the Building Regulation application and therefore should not delay the issuing of a decision on this site.

From all of the above it is not surprising that this element of any development on this site represents a high cost factor and to a great extent is dictating the density of development in order to achieve viability. Whilst recognising the importance of the slope stability issue the Planning Authority need to be satisfied that other important factors have been satisfactorily considered and should not be accepting a scheme which can be deemed to be contrary to basic policies on the grounds that it is the only scheme that would be viable given the slope stability problems and costs. It is important however to state that given the general history of slippage in this area then the stability of this slope has to be questioned and therefore providing the development on the site is carried out appropriately in terms of geotechnical engineering then that development will have a stabilising effect on the slope.

Design, Density, Mass and Height

Members will note that the application has been before an Architects Panel whose criticisms of the scheme were more related to detail and have been presented to the applicants for their attention. This has resulted in design adjustments which have addressed some of the points and in other cases they have commented on why they consider the scheme should remain in its present form. I summarise these issues as follows:

The artist's impression has been corrected to more accurately reflect the proposed scheme.

In terms of roof scape to the Baring Road block applicants emphasise that dormer windows have been utilised to break up the roofline as well as providing appropriate scale. The introduction of sloping roofs at either end reduces the visual length of the roof. Without these features the applicants' architects consider that the building would appear visually larger. This apart, however, the applicants have reduced the size of the roofs over the dormers.

In terms of the introduction of hipped roofs and cropped gables applicants' architects consider that these are features found on existing surrounding buildings and therefore contend that they are in character. Applicants would not object to these elements being removed if required by the Planning Authority.

Applicants have noted the comments with regard to the side elevations but state that they have deliberately kept this treatment simple to reflect adjoining properties. This apart, however, they have provided additional features to reduce the visual massing.

In terms of the elevation of the Baring Road block which faces Cliff Road, applicants confirm that this has been the subject of detailed consideration to ensure that it visually interacts with the immediate existing neighbours and its wider context in the new townhouses proposed at Cliff Road.

Applicants have purposely introduced a variety of materials carefully used to reduce mass and scale.

Height of building has been restricted to that of its neighbour Oak Bank and unlike the neighbouring properties Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay the facade has been stepped, which reduces visual impact to those buildings adjacent. Also, reference is made to the central feature having been recessed.

Horizontal elements are incorporated within the design to counter the vertical main emphasis.

Whilst noting the Architects Panel's reference to additional earth mounding at the rear, applicants point out that this would add loadings to the slope which would be counter to the geotechnical design principles established from the outset.

With regard to the Cliff Road townhouses roof design has been amended to deepen the overhang as suggested by the Panel.

The parking provision design has been amended.

Emphasis that the inclusion of a central parapet feature provides a focal point to Cliff Road and provides a visual link to the Baring Road apartments, however, if required these features can be omitted.

Members will note from the above that the Panel's comments have either been taken on board or have been answered and therefore I consider design issues have been fully addressed.

In density terms this proposal obviously represents a considerable increase over the extant consent which replaced one unit with five units, whereas this proposal is replacing one unit with fourteen units. The density itself is 140 units per hectare which reflects the mainly flatted accommodation. Members are reminded of the policy in PPG3 which encourage efficient use of urban land to take pressures off greenfield sites. This policy is not at the expense of poor quality development or cramped development. The test will be whether or not the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationship between the proposed blocks and in relation to effect on adjoining properties and visual effect on the area in general. It will be noted that even at this high density the scheme does not trigger the need for affordable housing with the threshold being fifteen units or more.

Probably the most important issue is that relating to mass and height. Members will note that this is one of the main issues causing concern to local residents. The applicants have used as a parameter the height of the existing prominent buildings Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay to the east. In this regard they have designed the Baring Road block to continue the same height as those two buildings and whilst the width of the block reflects the width of the site the general massing is again similar to these two adjoining properties. It is important to also appreciate that the two storey stepped feature at the base of the Baring Road block will help soften the very strong vertical visual effect prevalent with those two adjacent buildings to the east. This, coupled with the use of materials, with particular reference to the horizontal banded render features, should assist in again reducing visual impact.

Obviously I accept that the Baring Road block will stand higher than the property The Spinney which was indeed the case on the extant consent. It should be remembered however that the role The Spinney plays in respect of the Baring Road street scene is that it stands at the end of a row of property and therefore acts as a transition stepping down. The development beyond The Spinney to the west is that known as Nubia Close which are flat roofed properties which tend to stand separately from the more traditional properties to the east and are in any event set back.

With regard to the mass and height of the Cliff Road terraced units this block would tend to stand on its own with the nearest properties to the west being the pair of properties which form part of the site adjacent to Alfresco. The modern design approach is therefore not considered to be inappropriate, a view largely supported by the Architects Panel. The terrace block itself has features which assist in articulating the building with the top floor being set back to help break up the visual impact. In this form I consider the proposal will provide a visual contribution to this side of Cliff Road and act as a contrast to the more traditional Victorian development on the northern side of Cliff Road which is a mixture of properties of substantial height ranging from four storey to two storey.

Arrangement of Dwellings/Environmental Impact

The slope of the site and the stability problems caused by that slope has to a large extent dictated the position and type of development. From the description the block on the southern boundary (Baring Road) will stand taller than those on the Cliff Road frontage although the Cliff Road frontage block will screen to some extent the block fronting Baring Road. This apart however, there will be an element of dominance, particularly in terms of the five storey appearance of the rear elevation on the Baring Road block but this would be no different to the dominance of Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay. The only difference with the current application is the stepped two storey projecting element which not only assists in providing greater stability but will also help to break up the dominant effect.

The principle of developing on the south side of Cliff Road has not only been established by the extant consent on this site but also past outline consent in respect of land to the north of Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay. I accept that neither of these consents have been taken up, however, they have established a principle. Obviously in terms of Villa Rothsay the stabilisation works which have recently been carried out would suggest that there is unlikely to be any intention to construct a dwelling to the north of Villa Rothsay, however, in terms of Oak Bank, obviously has the potential for a development subject to other factors being acceptable.

In terms of impact on adjoining properties, again a development of this mass and scale will always have an impact. Generally speaking the high density developments in urban areas results in a closer relationship both within the proposed development and in terms of impact on adjoining properties.

Whilst I accept the Baring Road block projects forward of and to the rear of the adjoining property Oak Bank, but these projections are marginal being two metres to the front and 1.5 metres to the rear. I do not consider that this level of projection would adversely affect that property. Similarly with regard to the adjoining property The Spinney to the west with the block essentially standing between rather than forward of these adjoining properties. Applicants have recognised the potential for overlooking in terms of the balconies and in both cases, i.e. Oak Bank and The Spinney, the end balconies have been provided with obscure glazed side screens 1.8 metres in height designed to avoid direct overlooking of those adjoining properties. Finally, the windows that have been indicated in the side elevations of this block are in the form of glass block windows and therefore of a fixed obscure type.

Highway and Parking Issues

This is another issue of great concern to local residents with their concerns being understandable. In view of these concerns the applicants have been requested to consider construction traffic management and a statement as to how the works will be carried out given the amount of piling that is necessary. It is important to appreciate however that the avoidance of disturbance would be impossible in respect of the level of building works involved in respect of this scheme. This apart, however, applicants have submitted a construction traffic methodology statement which is summarised as follows:

Contractor will be required to submit proposals to manage construction traffic to limit disruption to other users of the highway. This would be required as a pre-tender Health and Safety Plan being essential under the Construction Design Management Regulations. Such a plan will include local impact, working hours and requirement for the contractor to liaise on the on-going basis with local residents, committees and the Council for the duration of the works.

Vehicular access to the site is available from Baring Road and Cliff Road, both being public highways. Limited on-site parking off Cliff Road may be available but not for the full duration of the works and other arrangements for site operatives transport will have to be made. The site operatives will not be allowed to park on Cliff Road.

A tower crane will be erected as soon as possible to service the site. Majority of building materials will be delivered via Baring Road and handled directly onto site by this crane. Construction work will be carried out in stages as follows:

Stages 1 - 5 inclusive cover the groundworks anticipated as lasting approximately three to four months. Stage 6 covers the building construction anticipated as lasting a further twelve months.

In terms of the foundation works the five stages are described as follows:

Stage 1 - lower piling platform off Cliff Road at this stage will only require small scale earth moving equipment with limited transport of materials.

Stage 2 - Cliff Road bored pile wall. Piling equipment will be similar to that recently used on the neighbouring stabilisation works together with associated concrete and reinforced steel deliveries. Construction deliveries likely to require vehicles reversing up Cliff Road. During this operation restriction on car parking may need to be negotiated to avoid possible damage to third party vehicles. Where works take place outside the main tourist season subject to negotiations with the Council the car park at the east end of Cliff Road may be available for temporary parking of vehicles or site compound.

Stage 3 - Installation of bored piles to north of Baring Road. Baring Road proposed access route. Piling platform will extend the lay-by to sufficient width to accommodate construction equipment, deliveries of concrete, steel deliveries and small craneage operations.

Stage 4 - Bulk excavation. Both Baring Road and Cliff Road used for this stage with substantial volumes of spoil involved. Excavations will form a level area about thirteen metres wide behind back of verge to be used as temporary construction compound. Steel frame temporary loading platform will be provided behind the kerb line of Baring Road to avoid parking of vehicles on public highway during loading operations.

Stage 5 - Foundation construction. Access from both Baring Road and Cliff Road will be as for above stage which includes installation of a tower crane at Baring Road for subsequent construction operations.

In terms of the main building work for both town houses and flats primary construction access will be from Baring Road using tower crane to handle materials directly from delivery vehicles on the site. A secondary access will be required from Cliff Road but restricted to smaller items and vehicles.

In terms of parking provision, Members will note the site's location within Zone 2 of the Council's Parking Guideline Policy which requires a 0-50% provision of parking. In this case applicants have indicated a total of thirteen spaces within the lower ground car parking provision which makes allowance for parking for the disabled. That provision allows for a parking space per unit plus three visitor spaces. Such level of provision is within the maximum guidelines for Zone 1.

The single parking space per unit to the Cliff Road terraced units again is within the parking guideline of 0-50%. The arrangement itself is unusual, however, I am satisfied that the space provided is sufficient to encourage its use for parking although there are no guarantees as to how individual occupiers may use the space. Parking in Cliff Road is restricted with Cliff Road having a limited carriageway width. Therefore, I am satisfied that this space will be used for the purposes of parking a vehicle for alternative parking provision would be by necessity some distance away.

I accept that fourteen units will attract additional traffic using Cliff Road, however, the Highway Engineer has not commented on this issue and is recommending approval. I certainly would not consider that the level of traffic generated by this development would be sufficient to warrant a refusal.

Members are reminded that advice contained within Circular 11/95 (The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions) states that planning conditions are not an appropriate means of controlling the right of passage over public highways. This is on the grounds that such conditions are likely to be very difficult to enforce effectively. The circular recognises the possibility of encouraging drivers to follow preferred routes by posting site notices to that effect or by requiring them to use a particular entrance. Where there is a particular reason for controlling routes for traffic then the correct mechanism is an Order under either Section 1 or Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Applicants have revised the proposal to show a cycle parking space per flat accommodated under cover within the basement parking area.

Finally, with regard to the location of the site within Zone 2 this does trigger the need for Transport Infrastructure Payments of being in excess of ten units. Applicants acknowledge this and draft 106 Agreements are being prepared parallel with this application.

General

With regard to the suggestion that site encroaches on adjoining land, applicant has confirmed in writing that he is satisfied that he both owns and controls all the land which is the subject of the application. The Planning Authority can go no further than this for it is not the Planning Authority's function to involve itself in any land ownership disputes.

Drainage

Again, this has been the subject of a detailed report by a drainage engineer and the comments of Southern Water are self explanatory. Members will note that there are four surface water attenuation tanks to be provided located to the rear of the four town houses with these tanks attenuating surface water run-off to equate to the natural surface water run-off from the undeveloped site. Therefore, additional drainage entering the sewer will be adequately attenuated to ensure that discharge will satisfy the requirements of Southern

Water. The calculations are obviously based on a worst scenario basis which dictates the size of the attenuation tanks. Maintenance of the tanks would be covered by condition with the likelihood being that the total development would be subject of a management plan administered by a management company.

Whilst I appreciate the level and extent of concerns being expressed both by local residents and the Town Council I am of the view that because of the particular ground condition problems of this site a scheme of this type in terms of density, mass, scale etc is inevitable to ensure viability, and whilst I accept this is not necessarily a planning consideration from a practical point of view it has to be taken into account. I consider the applicants in this case have kept within reasonable parameters resulting in a scheme which will have an impact on the area but not to a degree which would warrant a refusal of the application.

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 referred to in this report I am satisfied that the proposals for this difficult site are satisfactory for the reasons indicated in the Evaluation section and therefore recommend accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised plans)(Subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the payment of £10,500 in respect of Transport Infrastructure Payments (14 x £750).)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected 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.
3	Any gates to be provided shall be set back a distance of five metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The access and crossing of the footway shall be constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby approved is occupied. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Space shall be provided for the loading/unloading and parking for vehicles in accordance with the parking provision indicated on the plans hereby approved and thereafter all those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate maximum off-street parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The development 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 ten bicycles. Such provision shall be as indicated on the plans hereby approved, 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.
7	Construction of the buildings 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.
8	Submission of samples - S03
9	The banded and smooth render surfaces indicated on the development hereby approved shall be finished in a colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the elevations of the buildings hereby permitted shall not be painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all existing trees to be retained as indicated on the plans shall have been protected by fencing along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or storage of material; (b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c) No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of bonfires. (e) No physical damage to bark or branches. (f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g) No changes in ground levels. (h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with policies C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the details indicated on the landscape statement which accompanied the application. The agreed landscaping details shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	A management plan including long term design objectives, manager's responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscaping areas, communal parking areas, and maintenance of storage attenuation tanks shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development whichever is the sooner. Any such management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure long term maintenance of the hard and soft landscaping, parking and attenuation tanks in compliance with policies D3 (Landscaping) and U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until the 1.8 metre high obscure glazed side screens to the balconies indicated on the plans hereby approved have been erected and such screens shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	No occupation of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until the boundary treatment indicated on the plan hereby approved have been erected. Such boundary treatments shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and the adjoining residential properties in particular in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	The fixed glass block windows within the east and west facing elevations of the flat block facing Baring Road shall be retained and shall not be replaced without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to applicants advising them of the need to adhere to the Construction Traffic Methodology Statement which accompanied the application ensuring site works are carefully managed to cause least disturbance and the need to ensure that those outstanding issues raised by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer are adequately addressed within the submission of the Building Regulation application.

8.

TCP/21214/P P/01519/03 Parish/Name: St. Helens Ward: Brading and St Helens Registration Date: 30/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Park Resorts Construction of 14 static caravan bases on site of existing car park (revised scheme) (readvertised application) Haven Holidays, Nodes Point Holiday Park, Nodes Road, St. Helens, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331YA

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application as originally submitted constituted major development and has proved to be particularly contentious raising a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application, the processing of which has taken fourteen weeks to date due principally for need to readvertise revised scheme.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Members will be familiar with this holiday camp located midway between St Helens and Nettlestone with main complex located at northern end of site with southern downland section used as open space and for caravan and tented camping use.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Application seeking consent for twenty four chalets and six single storey blocks, siting of sixty four static caravans, forty tent bases, reorganised sports facilities, reception building, facility building and improvements to vehicular access was refused on grounds that siting of static caravans would be contrary to policies contained within Development Plan which sought to protect countryside from inappropriate development and which would have been detrimental to visual character of area which was (then) designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value.

Application seeking consent for demolition of chalets and siting of 141 timber clad units, twenty four single storey chalets, all-weather recreation facilities and landscaping was refused in August 1998, again on grounds of inappropriate development detrimental to visual character of area and contrary to emerging UDP policy.

Planning consent granted in October 1999 for demolition of twenty chalets and construction of fifteen caravan bases within "top end" of site around existing developed complex.

Further planning consent granted in March 2001 for demolition of chalets/facility buildings and formation of eighty six static caravan bases, general manager's accommodation and all-weather sports weather. This application again related to northern part of holiday camp within existing built complex.

Most recently, planning consent granted for construction of ten caravan bases in July 2003. This development replaced sub-standard chalets within main complex.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application as originally submitted sought consent for construction of twelve caravan base units within middle section of open south sloping grassland known as Church Butts, immediately behind landscaping belt that runs east west across parkland. In addition scheme proposed fourteen bases to be sited within existing car parking area which is located at north western corner of site adjacent main entrance.

Following submission and publicity agent has advised that following discussion with clients it has been decided to withdraw that aspect of proposal involving construction of twelve base units on upper Church Butts area.

As a result of this request, application has been readvertised and respondents re-consulted on the basis of seeking consent solely for construction of fourteen static caravan bases within site of existing car park in north western corner of site.

Car park is located close to existing main entrance and comprises gravel finish surrounded by natural tree/hedge screen on all sides. Only gaps in screen allow entrance to car park from main service road and southerly access point which provides access to lower slopes and tented camping area.

Agent advises the car park has in past been used as primary parking area where guests would leave their vehicles and walk to accommodation. Through redevelopment the new bases created by demolition of old chalet stock are constructed with either a dedicated parking bay or small cluster of bays, and as a result the central car parking area is now surplus to requirements. The site has been saddled with much substandard and dated chalet stock that required substantial investment to demolish and redevelop over the years. Their clients have invested heavily in recent past and are now at a stage where majority of old stock has been replaced with modern caravans with last remaining "spine units" intended to be demolished this coming winter.

Agent also comments on number of issues aired by Parish Council and highlighted in press, namely increase in guest numbers, extra sewage generation and residential status. In regards of first issue, park has reduced in unit numbers from its peak during mid-1970s and are currently approximately fifty units down from the chalet numbers operated at that time. Entire park is connected to the main sewer system and bearing in mind the unit reduction over time the effluent discharge to the sewer network has been dramatically reduced. On the subject of residential status, he confirms that his clients are holiday park operators who operate their business at Nodes strictly within the terms of the Site Licence issued/monitored by this Authority.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The following UDP policies are considered applicable to this application:

S1 - New development to be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S4 - Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S5 - Proposals for development which, on balance, will be for overall benefit of Island by enhancing economic, social or environmental position will be approved provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

T1 - Promotion of Tourism and Extension of Season.

T3 - Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation.

T6 - Permanent Accommodation Sites.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C3 - Development of the Coast Outside of Development Envelopes.

B10 - Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest.

Existing holiday camp encompassing existing complex and buildings on site at northern end of site is allocated as site of permanent holiday accommodation which is specifically covered by Policy T6. Car park area subject of application lies immediately adjoining allocated land but is itself unallocated for any specific purpose within UDP. Land immediately north of main access road to site is identified as Historic Park or Garden.

Nodes Point Meadow (SINC) lies south of application site outside curtilage of holiday camp.

Coastal fringe is designated as SSSI, SINC and is also of European Importance.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Formal comments of Highway Engineer have yet to be received at time of preparing report.

English Nature advise that development is on cliff that is adjacent to both SSSI and SPA. Their main concern is potential to interfere with ability of cliff section of coast to naturally erode and slump in response to natural coastal processes. In view of their concerns they consider development is likely to have a significant affect on interest features of SPA and therefore will require appropriate assessment. They also object because it is considered development has potential to adversely affect geological interest of SSSI by interfering with coastal processes, however, it may be possible for development to avoid impacts by ensuring development allows for natural erosion.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommend refusal of this application as they consider that use of Church Butt field for static caravan will be visually intrusive from seawards and from Bembridge. This area can be seen not only from harbour area but also from village centre. Both areas proposed for use of static caravans are contrary to the agreed boundary for use as permanent accommodation as outlined in UDP. Additionally, Church Butt field is adjacent to SSSI and whole area is environmentally sensitive. Current trees will be unable to satisfactorily screen these sites.

St Helens Parish Council object strongly to proposal on following grounds:

Application is departure from existing Local Plan.

Site is within an Area of Great Landscape Value.

Expansion beyond area of permanent holiday accommodation.

Benefit for economic and tourism arguments do not justify detrimental impact on landscape and visual amenity.

Damage coastal and countryside heritage of Island.

No environmental enhancement of area.

Increased noise, light and air pollution.

Adverse effect on adjacent RAMSAR site and SSSI.

Site is outside designated area of UDP.

They also raise concern that company are selling off some caravans and site is becoming semi-residential.

Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council object to proposal on following grounds:

Site is within an area of landscape value and further development will detract from this.

Plans will unnecessarily extend area of holiday accommodation.

Alleged benefits do not justify detrimental effect on landscape.

Adverse effect on adjacent SSSI. In addition, it is noted that the site is outside development area included in UDP.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Original Submission

Local commercial operator objects to proposal on grounds that it is detrimental to amenities of area, most particularly when trees are bare in winter. Site concerned is already unsightly and any additional caravans can only make visual impact more unacceptable.

Solent Protection Society object to application as it is considered use of Church Butt field for static caravans will be visually intrusive from seawards and both areas are contrary to agreed boundary for use as permanent accommodation as outlined in UDP. Church Butt field is also adjacent SSSI and whole area is environmentally sensitive and existing trees will be unable to screen these sites.

Island Watch object to application as site is outside areas owned for permanent holiday accommodation, is immediately adjacent SINC and metres away from SSSI. Proposal would also adversely affect visual amenity of this very sensitive area.

Local Sailing Club object to application, particularly in respect of Church Butts field which fails to comply with UDP policy. Even with careful screening and use of unobtrusive colouring units will intrude visually into area, particularly when viewed from Bembridge side of Harbour. Policy T6 specifically stresses importance of ensuring that expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites do not detract from their surroundings. Concern is also expressed in respect of increased light pollution and lack of screening, particularly in winter time.

Seventy seven individual letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal. Objections are summarised as follows:

Inappropriate development in countryside.

Contrary to UDP policy - particularly T6.

Adverse impact on countryside and National Trust land.

Represents visible development in open countryside.

Adverse impact on protected species.

Loss of car park.

Possible provisions of new internal roadways.

Loss of trees which will not be replaced.

Inadequate and narrow access creating danger to highway users.

Intensification and resultant increase in traffic.

Increase in light pollution and noise.

Impact on SSSI and other sites valued for nature conservation.

Setting a precedent.

Not possible to screen development adequately.

Overdevelopment of site.

Implications of increased pressure on locality and services.

Revised Submission

St Helens Parish Council maintain their objections as previously stated.

One letter received from local resident stating that previous comments still apply.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

In policy terms, Unitary Development seeks to encourage development of holiday accommodation where such development is associated with an existing permanent accommodation site and particularly when existing accommodation is upgraded, extension of tourist season is promoted and that the Council is satisfied that development will be retained for holiday use. Generally speaking Policy T1 promotes and supports tourism provided any detrimental or adverse impact is minimised.

Of particular importance is Policy T6 which states that expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites will be approved provided they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities, do not detract from their surroundings, enhance the environment or improve the visual appearance of the site and if new or replacement units are proposed their design and appearance are appropriate and resultant density of site does not adversely affect rural character of area.

Members will be aware of previous decisions on this site with refusals based on development of lower south facing open grassland area known as Church Butts. Revised application does not involve any intrusion into this part of site but involves construction of fourteen caravan bases on site of existing car park which immediately adjoins main entrance to site. Whilst site is not allocated within bounds of permanent accommodation allocated land, Policy T6 does allow for expansion where such development adjoins and/or is directly related to the existing built facility.

Main test therefore with regards this proposal is whether or not development meets other criteria, particularly in respect of visual impact and appearance and appropriateness of new units in terms of design and resultant density.

It is important to note that existing car park is well screened on all sides with only two relatively small gaps in screening to allow vehicular access to the land. The site adjoins the main built complex and given its previously developed nature reads as part of the "top end" of the holiday camp where all the permanent structures are located.

Whilst boundaries around existing permanent accommodation site have been defined, Policy T6 enables site to retain flexibility to undertake appropriate expansion and upgrading.

In view of previous decisions on this site I do not consider that development of car park and its relative position to existing complex would represent inappropriate expansion particularly as proposal would not be readily visible from public viewpoints or long-distance views. I do not therefore consider any harm would be caused to landscape quality of locality with open south sloping grassland areas remaining undisturbed.

Furthermore, location of application site as revised is located well away from sensitive coastal areas designated for nature conservation purposes and therefore no issue can be raised in respect of this particular matter. Similarly development site is sufficient distance from nearby SINC and Historic Park to ensure no direct impacts.

Whilst appreciating content and extent of letters of representation on this matter it is only fair to point out that majority of comments have been made in respect of originally submitted scheme proposing development of Church Butts site. Nevertheless, points raised in respect of increased pressure on locality are appreciated but are not considered reasonable or sustainable given relatively modest increase in level of use proposed. Additionally, resultant density of site is not considered excessive.

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 referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I consider expansion of this holiday accommodation site as proposed is appropriately located resulting in no undue adverse environmental or visual impact, particularly as proposal avoids development of open and exposed grassland on southern side of site facing Duver and Bembridge. Proposal is considered to be compatible with Policy T6 of the UDP and is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Scheme)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The caravan units, the subject of this application, shall not be occupied other than as holiday accommodation. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with the policy of the Local Planning Authority in respect of permanent residential development outside established development envelope boundaries and in respect of the use of caravans for permanent residential development as set out in policies T10, G5 and H9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The caravan units hereby approved shall not be occupied by any person, family or group of persons for any one period exceeding six successive weeks in any calendar year without the written prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with the policy of the Local Planning Authority in respect of permanent residential development outside established development envelope boundaries and in respect of the use of caravans for permanent residential development as set out in policies T10, G5 and H9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme indicating additional planting and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

9.

TCP/21907/E P/01220/03 Parish/Name: Chale Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell Registration Date: 08/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: J & J Bradshaw Ltd Single storey building to provide bar & dining area with ancillary kitchen/toilet facilities/implement store Chale Bay Farm, Military Road, Chale, Ventnor, PO382JF

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a minor application which has attracted a number of letters in support of the proposal and raises a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twelve weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to Case Officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land to rear of tourism accommodation building located on southern side of Military Road approximately 190 metres west of its junction with Chale Street. The proposed structure would be located approximately 26 metres from the existing building and would be partially screened to north, east and south by ground at higher level, including earth bunds. Site is located well outside any defined settlement in area which is rural in character.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21907/IW/P71/96 - Full planning permission for alterations and single storey extension to dwelling; demolition of derelict buildings; replacement with two storey extension to dwelling and single storey extension forming eight en-suite bedrooms and associated facilities for holiday use approved September 1996.

TCP/21907/C/P01412/97 - Full planning permission for agricultural store and changing rooms and formation of a swimming pool conditionally approved in December 1997. At time of dealing with this submission, it was understood that the facilities were to be used for maintaining the land and for purposes incidental to the adjacent holiday accommodation. Work in respect of this building has commenced but has not proceeded beyond digging footings and pouring of concrete for foundations.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for a single storey building to provide bar and dining area with ancillary kitchen/toilet facilities and implement store. Building would be constructed on site of previously approved implement store and changing rooms, utilising the foundations which have already been laid. In this respect, the principal element of building would have same dimensions (length, width and height) to the previously approved building but would differ in design and appearance by reason of the addition of a reception foyer on the north elevation, a bay window on each of the west and south elevations and differing arrangement of window and door positions.

Accommodation within the building would comprise a bar/dining area, kitchen, barrel store, implement store and ladies and gents toilet facilities. It is understood that use of the facilities would not be restricted to guests of the Chale Bay Farm but would also be available to residents of the village of Chale and the public in general. Therefore, proposal should be considered as creating a new public house.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside any settlement defined by the development envelope boundaries on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan within a landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Heritage Coast. In addition, site lies within an area subject of a notification under Section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This involves an extension to the area which has a long established designation as an SSSI and, although the extension to the designation is yet to be confirmed, the area benefits from the protection under the designation.

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C4 - Heritage Coast.

C10 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer indicates that he would wish to see a centre line marked down the centre of the access road where it adjoins the Military Road using an appropriate thermoplastic material. Furthermore, he advises that the first 10 metres of the access surface will have to be a bound material to provide a suitable surface for the centre line to adhere to. He considers that these measures should assist in keeping existing vehicles over to the left hand side of the access thus lessening the chances of vehicles having to wait in the Military Road

for other vehicles to exit. Highway Engineer notes that surface water is to be disposed of to soakaways and suggests that views of Coastal Management Section are sought in this respect due to proximity of site to coastal slope.

AONB Planning and Information Officer expresses strong concerns about scale of tourism activity on this site and believes that this particular proposal is contrary to both the Heritage Coast Policy (C4) and AONB Policy (C2) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Whilst she notes that the permission for the agricultural store and changing rooms and formation of a swimming pool was granted in December 1997, she is aware that development may have started and that, should this be the case, she would wish to ensure that the restrictions on the use of the approved development, should it be completed, are strictly adhered to and enforced. She advises that she would not wish to see this development turned into additional tourism facilities as proposed and considers that intensification of tourism activity that has already taken place on this site would not be consistent with the quiet enjoyment of the Heritage Coast or "low key" improvement of the existing development.

Principal Coastal Engineer advises that refusal of application on grounds that surface water is to be disposed of to soakaways would be inappropriate as the distance between the site and the cliff is in the region of 300 metres. However, he questions whether applicant could be advised that disposal of surface water to suitable water course would be a preferred alternative.

English Nature make the following comments:

The development is within an existing development footprint with little or no nature conservation interest.

The maintenance of special interest of the SSSI/cSAC i.e. vegetated sea cliff habitat associated fauna and flora, geology and geomorphology in favourable condition is dependent on dynamic coastal processes, i.e. slumping and erosion being maintained. English Nature would not like to see this or any development within the SSSI result in an increase in a demand for coastal protection works and other cliff stabilisation measures, which would interfere with coastal processes. This would be contrary to the guidelines set out in PPG20. However, English Nature do not consider this development is likely to significantly increase the demand for coastal protection works, taking into account the distance from the cliff edge, its scale and the fact that it is confined to an existing development footprint. Notwithstanding these comments, and to ensure that development does not fall onto the beach and interfere with coastal processes, English Nature recommend condition of any planning permission requiring the development to be removed, including its foundations before this is likely to occur.

The development is outside the development envelope for the Chale area.

English Nature concluded that they did not wish to raise an objection to the development, subject to imposition of the recommended condition. In addition, they do not consider that development is likely to have significant effect on the interest features of the cSAC and will not require an appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Chale Parish Council raise no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted thirteen letters from local residents and one from proprietors of a nearby tourist attraction supporting proposal and raising the following issues:

Proposal would be of benefit to tourists and locals alike.

Proposal would contribute to regeneration of rural community to benefit of village life.

There is growing need for small independent pubs.

Although within area notified under Section 28c of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as an SSSI, development is not within 25 metres or even near cliff edge to which SSSI designation applies - would not damage special features of the designated area.

Wight Mouse now themed commercial pub not fulfilling requirements of a local village pub.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer advised that, although he does not have any objection to the proposed development, the building is in a very isolated and vulnerable location and most of the security required does not unfortunately fall within planning regulations. He comments that the building is in a dip with banks on three sides giving no natural surveillance and, depending on the gap, the roof may be accessible by laying a ladder across it and using it as a bridge. Furthermore, he comments that there is access on three sides where unauthorised people would be hidden from view, especially during hours of darkness and, to compound the lack of surveillance, the building is behind the Chale Bay Farm accommodation building thereby restricting the surveillance even further.

He considers that with all buildings intended for public use, lighting is a very important element to ensure that customers can access the entrance to the building from their cars in good light, with no dark areas which can lead to a fear of crime feeling. As a tourist facility it is more important that the appropriate lighting is installed. Furthermore, any landscaping should not compromise surveillance and, if appropriate, any light source.

Architectural Liaison Officer notes that, from the floor plan of the proposed development, there is no office, so the cash handling policy will be very important as a member of staff would be walking from the bar to the main building with amounts of attractive cash. He advises that there has been attacks on similar premises in the area so the risk is real and not theoretical.

He advises that the sort of security measures required would include the following:

Close circuit television (CCTV).

Burglar alarm.

Cash handling policy.

Possible lone worker policy.

Appropriate doors/windows to the risk.

Appropriate locks fitted to doors/windows.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether construction of a new building to provide public house facility in this location is acceptable in principle and whether development would have adverse impact on the landscape character of the area, designated as an AONB and Heritage Coast.

Site is located in an area well outside any settlement defined by the development envelope boundaries on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan where further development will generally be resisted, other than that falling into certain categories of development specified in policies of the plan. In this respect, Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) is considered to be particularly relevant. In accordance with this policy, outside the defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is of an appropriate scale and falls within one or more of the categories set out in the policy. These categories include recreation and sports activities appropriate to the countryside, appropriate rural tourism development and small scale development ancillary to existing housing, industrial, commercial, tourist, recreational or community development. In this instance, I do not consider that proposal falls into any of the categories outlined in the policy. In particular, as the facility will be open to the general public, I do not consider it can be considered as being ancillary to the adjacent holiday accommodation site. Therefore proposal conflicts with policies of the plan which seek to resist proposals outside the settlements defined by the development envelope boundaries and to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

Whilst it may be argued that proposal would provide additional tourist facilities and be consistent with policies which seek to promote and support tourism, the current proposal involves the provision of a facility to serve the entire community and not just the tourist economy. Therefore, I do not consider that approval of the development would be justified on the basis that it is associated with tourism.

Whilst planning permission has previously been granted for a building with a virtually identical footprint and scale to that currently proposed, that consent was granted in December 1997, since which there have been a number of changes in the policy considerations which would apply to such a development proposal. In particular, Part 4 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduces provisions to enable the better management and protection of AONBs and places a duty on relevant authorities when exercising or performing any function in relation to, or so as to affect, land within the designated area, to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. In addition, the government has confirmed that AONBs are equal in their landscape quality to the National Parks, and equally stringent measures to protect the landscape should apply. Therefore, whilst work in respect of the approved building has commenced and can proceed to completion, I do not consider that this permission should carry any significant weight in determining the current application. In particular, the previous proposal involved facilities for use incidental to the existing accommodation site. Furthermore, I consider that the current proposal would have greater impact, to detriment of the landscape character of the area, by reason of the activities associated with the intended use, including traffic generation, parking facilities, lighting for safety and security purposes, as required by the Architectural Liaison Officer, and other potential structures associated with a public house, including children's play equipment etc.

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 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 RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, having regard to location of site within the countryside, outside any settlement defined by the development boundaries in the Unitary Development Plan, proposal is unacceptable in principle. Furthermore, I consider that the development, by reason of its physical impact and associated activities would have an adverse effect to the detriment of the landscape character of the area, designated as an AONB and Heritage Coast.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Reasons:

1	The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of development would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Strategic Policies S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas) and S4 (Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development) and Policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area by reason of the physical impact it would cause together with activities associated with the proposed development and would therefore conflict with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the natural beauty of the landscape and would therefore be contrary to Policy S10 (Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated as a Heritage Coast and 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 Strategic Policy S10 (Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policies C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and C4 (Heritage Coast) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The proposal, by reason of the location of the site, design and layout, site conditions and the intended use would create opportunities for crime and would be likely to prejudice public safety contrary to Policy D11 (Crime and Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/24112/B P/01123/03 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South Registration Date: 12/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Mr D Floyd 5 holiday units comprising a pair of semi-detached houses; 2 storey building to provide 2 flats & 1 house; formation of vehicular access & parking (revised plans) land on corner of Alexandra Road and, Palmerston Road, Shanklin, PO37

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The report has been requested by the local Member, Councillor Harry Rees at the time of submission.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application has taken 21 weeks to process due to protracted negotiations and revision to the scheme by the agents.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site has overall dimensions of 36 metres by 21 metres, a rectangular shaped site located on the eastern side of Alexandra Road at its junction with Palmerston Road at Shanklin.

Originally the site formed part of the Marlborough Hotel, the adjoining building to the east, as part of the hotel grounds and although is presently overgrown, it was a lawned area associated with the hotel.

The area is one of large hotels situated in comparatively spacious grounds, predominantly tourist orientated containing hotels, guest houses and some residential property and is primarily two and occasionally three storeys in height.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Single storey extension to form twelve bedrooms, as an extension to the hotel was approved on this site in August 1998 but was not implemented.

In January 2002 an application was made for the erection of a terrace of two houses and two maisonettes, for the formation of a vehicular access to Palmerston Road on this site, but was refused planning permission on the grounds that the site was located within the designated hotel area and the development sought was not associated with holiday use which would result in a detrimental effect on the character of the area and health of the tourist industry contrary to Policy T4. The subsequent appeal was dismissed.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for the erection of five holiday units comprising a pair of semi-detached houses and a two storey building to provide three flats. The revised plans exclude a single storey element, replaces it with a two storey wing but sited further from the boundary with the Marlborough Hotel.

Plans show the two storey building to be sited with a similar depth of frontage onto Palmerston Road as the existing Marlborough Hotel adjoining, a distance of approximately 10 metres back from the front boundary and a distance of approximately 4 metres back from the boundary with Alexandra Road.

The building takes the form of two main blocks with a two storey link which provides access to the ground and first floor flats; each having two bedrooms, bathroom, lounge/diner and kitchen.

The remainder of the development comprises three houses, two comprising two bedrooms, bathroom, lounge/dining room and kitchen and the third, three bedrooms, bathroom, lounge/dining room and kitchen. Four of the units are accessed via pedestrian accesses off Alexandra Road, the fifth, on the east elevation. Vehicular access is shown to be provided in the north eastern corner of the frontage to Palmerston Road serving a car parking area providing six spaces, but no details of surface finishes to the car park have been shown.

Buildings are proposed to be constructed in facing brickwork under hipped slate roofs. The site has not been shown to be sub divided into individual curtilages.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Within designated development envelope and within Policy area T4 as shown on proposals map of UDP. The site is not within the Conservation Area nor is it an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shanklin Town Council support the application subject to occupancy restriction in respect of holiday use.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from adjoining hotel owner (Marlborough) querying distance of the building from the common boundary.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

This application seeks consent for the erection of two storey buildings in an area which is already developed with two storey properties, large blocks of building in comparatively large sites. The site being well within the development envelope. Determination of this proposal is considered to turn on matters of policy and principle, especially in the light of the appeal decision in relation to Policy T4 of the UDP; details of access and parking and the effect of development in terms of townscape, especially those details of the development associated with the built form.

In the Appeal decision, dated 4 February 2003, the Inspector acknowledged the appeal proposal would not result in the direct loss of existing hotel accommodation but more that it would result in the loss of a tourist facility in the wider sense. He pointed out that Policy T4 did not define the meaning of tourist facilities so that had to be a matter of interpretation having regard to all circumstances. He concluded that it was not unreasonable to regard the curtilage as a linked tourist facility and attached little significance to the fact that the appeal site was then separated from the hotel by a wall. My interpretation of the Inspector's conclusions must therefore be that this site forms a tourist facility within the designated tourism area and should not be lost to a general residential use.

No objection was raised by the Inspector to "development" of the site. The erection of a tourist facility on this site would not therefore be contrary to the Inspector's findings.

It is recognised that the proposed development which comprises two flats and three houses could readily be used for purely residential purposes despite the fact that there is a communal access and parking area. The three houses could quite easily be provided with separate curtilages by fencing although the flats are in such a position that residential curtilage could not be provided. However, such a criticism could be levelled at any form of tourist development and if this application is approved an occupancy condition could be imposed to ensure the accommodation remains for holiday use, a restriction which could only be removed or varied by the submission of a planning application.

In terms of access and parking, access in the position proposed has already been approved in the past and the Highways Engineer considers the proposed development to be acceptable subject to conditions in respect of visibility, the construction of the access, the provision of parking spaces and bicycle parking before the development is commenced.

In terms of townscape, the provision of the two blocks, linked by a substantial structure would give the appearance of a single building, located in its own site which will be consistent with the character of development in the locality. In addition as the grounds will not be sub divided and the areas surrounding the building will be communal, the appearance of the building will be as one property. Subject to satisfactory hard and soft landscaping around the building, the provision of suitable boundaries, I consider the development will be acceptable in the local scene.

Finally, in terms of conditions, apart from the standard ones regarding landscaping and materials, I consider that the occupancy of the units should be limited to a maximum of six weeks for any individual or group of persons to ensure the accommodation is retained for holiday use as a tourist facility. In addition I consider it appropriate to ensure that the holiday units are retained together as one property rather than being sold off as separate holiday homes which would not guarantee their retention for general tourism purposes. If such a restriction is not imposed, individual units could be purchased by five separate owners who could maintain them for their own holiday purposes which would not meet with the Council's objective, supported by the Inspector in attempting to retain tourist facilities for the good of the tourist industry.

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 the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above and the Inspector's determination in the recent appeal, I consider the development of the site for the provision of holiday accommodation in a single block would be an appropriate form of development consistent with Policies D1, T4 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the building 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.
3	The occupation of the flats shall be limited to holiday use only and they shall not be occupied by any person, a family, or group of persons, for a period in total exceeding six weeks in any rolling year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The holiday flats hereby approved shall be retained together as one property and none shall be leased or sold off separately. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Visibility splays of x = 2 metres and y = 55 metres dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter, eastwards from Alexandra Road junction with Palmerston Road. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to completion of the development hereby approved, the Palmerston Road 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	The access and crossing of the highway or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, 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.
8	Retention of parking - K08
9	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 6 parking spaces have been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	The holiday units 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 2 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.
11	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. These details shall include boundary walls or fences, car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials, other surface treatments and tree and shrub planting. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCP/25536 P/00701/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard Registration Date: 15/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: C Jago Esq Detached house (revised proposal - reduced length, reduced height) (re-advertised application) 22 Shore Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318LD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application subject to a number of representations from local residents, Parish Council and local Councillor and raises a number of issues including design considerations and therefore Committee determination is appropriate.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

Application has taken twenty nine weeks to process and is a minor application. It has taken more than eight weeks because of the extensive level of negotiation, readvertisement and the need to take the application to Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Sloping site situated on the north eastern side of Shore Road, currently accommodating an elongated split level dwelling measuring approximately 15 metres in length by 5.5 metres in width sited off the south eastern boundary. Existing building, as with other buildings which immediately abut and adjoin to the rear, are of traditional style of seaside architecture being mainly small in size with timber clad finishes under shallow pitched roofs, having in general a holiday chalet type appearance. The existing building has a maximum height of 4.2 metres (ground to ridge) at its north eastern end reducing to 2.4 metres where it fronts onto Shore Road.

Existing property stands between holiday style chalet buildings with no.18 Shore Road abutting to the south east and no.26 Shore Road abutting to the north west. There are also similar chalet properties which abut the lower half of the plot with no.20 abutting the south eastern boundary and no.28 abutting the north western boundary. Adjoining the rear boundary is property no.24 Shore Road which sits at the base of the valley beyond which is a stream, known as the Jordan stream. Beyond the stream is an area used for dinghy parking by Gurnard Sailing Club which attaches to Gurnard Green.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent sought for replacement dwelling located in a similar location but measuring 14.5 metres by maximum width of 6.3 metres, reducing to 5.5 metres at the south western end where it faces Shore Road. The south eastern elevation sits directly on the south eastern boundary over a length of 9.9 metres, however where it directly abuts property no.18 Shore Road, proposed dwelling is set off that boundary by approximately 0.9 metres. In terms of its relationship with the north western boundary where it abuts no.26 Shore Road, the proposed property is set a distance of 1.1 metres measured off that adjoining property. In terms of height the property is single storey in height to the Shore Road frontage and two storey in height to the rear. The dwelling will have a maximum height of 6.95 metres at its north eastern end (rear) reducing to 4.85 metres at its south western end where it fronts onto Shore Road.

Dwelling to be finished in stained rough sawn timber cladding under painted galvanised steel sheeted shallow pitched roof. Dwelling to provide three bedroom accommodation on the lower floor level with living, kitchen etc accommodation at upper floor level. Dwelling also to be provided with a small area of decking on the lower floor with a substantial area of decking across the whole width of the proposed dwelling to the rear end with a smaller area of decking to the front. Dwelling is approximately 0.6 metres shorter than the length of the existing dwelling but is approximately 0.7 metres wider than the existing dwelling.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The relevant policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G7 - Unstable Land

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards of Development within the Site

H5 - Infill Development

Site is within the development envelope as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer raises no comment (no change is circumstances, existing car parking space to be retained).

Environment Agency raises no objection.

Application was subject of a site report by a structural engineer which has been vetted by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer who is of the opinion that "the recommended foundations, i.e. the whole building, should be piles taken down at least 8 metres plus the depth required to provide adequate bearing resistance and with low friction sleeving over the top 8 metres, should fulfill the requirements of PPG14 provided that the piles are substantial and designed to withstand some lateral movement of the ground, i.e. are robust, of reasonable diameter say a minimum 450 mm and are fully reinforced."

Engineer suggests that if the base of the proposed building is lower than the adjacent buildings then the foundation should be investigated and a construction method developed to ensure support throughout the construction period.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Both the initial proposal and the readvertised revised proposal have been before the Town Council and on both occasions the Council objected to the proposal. Their comments in respect of the revised proposal are quoted as follows:

That the Parish Council strongly objects to the application on the grounds that the proposal amounts to overdevelopment of the site.

That there are land stability concerns in the area.

That the proposals are out of character with the surrounding dwellings and would result in a serious loss of neighbouring amenities.

The Parish Council also comments that the plans again seem not to accurately portray the proposed development and little seems to have been changed to effectively address the concerns and objections previously made in May. The Parish Council, therefore, is strongly opposed to the proposed development.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Initial application attracted nine letters of objection, eight from residents of Shore Road and one from resident of The Avenue, along with objection from local Councillor and Isle of Wight Society. Following readvertisement of the application a total of eleven letters of objection received, nine from residents of Shore Road, one each from resident of Solent View Road and The Avenue and a letter from Isle of Wight Society. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Dwelling too large and will appear cramped, therefore represents overdevelopment.

Dwelling fails to respect slope of site and will appear excessively massive when viewed from the north east (Gurnard Green).

Generally it is considered that the size of the dwelling is out of keeping with the prevailing character of small scale dwellings in the area.

Concern expressed that ground conditions will be incapable of supporting the development and that the foundations will unduly impact on neighbouring properties.

Proposals could cause flooding problems.

Proposal may have an adverse impact on existing drainage systems.

Proposal will result in loss of privacy and light with reference to overlooking and from the proposed balcony in respect of the immediately adjoining dwellings, particularly the adjacent dwellings either side of the plot.

Concern that the height of the dwelling where it is being built off the south eastern boundary which will have an over dominant effect on the adjoining property no.18 Shore Road.

Concern that the building is likely to encroach beyond the boundaries of the plot.

Some objectors questions the accuracy of the plans.

Some objectors refer to applicant's contention that the proposal will not result in loss of trees.

Construction works will cause substantial disturbance due to the constraints of the size of the site and its narrowness.

An objector suggests that the proposal is contrary to the UDP policies D1, H5, G4 and G7.

The revised proposal which was readvertised set the building a distance of 0.9 metres off the south eastern boundary where it directly abutted the dwelling no.18 Shore Road. However, applicant indicated the building to be directly abutting the property on the adjoining boundary no.26 Shore Road. This revised siting attracted a specific letter of objection from the owner of that property expressing concerns relating to fire hazards, inability to maintain the adjoining property.

EVALUATION

Firstly it is important to appreciate that in terms of the relationship with the two adjacent properties, nos. 18 and 26 Shore Road, the proposed dwelling now being considered indicates a gap either side of those two properties. This is contrary to the initial and revised proposal which showed the proposed dwelling either directly abutting no.18 and in the case of the revised proposal directly abutting no.26 Shore Road. The 0.9 metre gap now being indicated adjacent no.18 clearly assists in providing the passage of light to the existing bay window which is located directly on the party boundary. Similarly the 1.1 metre gap now being indicated both from the curtilage and particularly the property itself no.26 Shore Road, removes the immediate concerns of the owner of that property.

It is important, however, to stress that both adjoining property owners continue to express concerns regarding the overall height and mass of the property emphasising its adverse effect on the general pattern and development in the area.

Members will note that this application has been the subject of a number of design adjustments which applicant considers addresses some of the immediate concerns of neighbouring properties, however, I am of the view that this is as far as the applicant is willing to go and considers that the overall scale of the dwelling, although larger than the existing, will sit comfortably on this site. This, I suggest, is the overriding issue which Members will need to consider carefully.

Two factors which Members need to consider is the comparison of the proposed dwelling to the existing and whether the increase in scale, with reference to height and mass, is acceptable. With regard to the later issue, the resultant impact of the proposed dwelling on the general pattern of development in the area when viewed particularly from Shore Road and from the northern area Gurnard Green etc is particularly important.

Whilst recognising the subjective nature of this particular issue I am of the view that the size of the dwelling is not excessive in this case and it sits on a plot which is certainly larger than most in the area and because of its location I do not consider it will be excessively dominant.

I certainly consider that the reduction in width referred to above has provided that element of space, particularly when viewed from Shore Road, and has overcome any potential for this proposal to appear cramped. I also consider that when viewed from the Green it sits reasonably comfortably between the various properties which surround.

With regard to immediate effect on the neighbouring property, with particular reference to the adjoining property no.18 Shore Road, it is important to appreciate that the existing property stands directly on the boundary. Therefore whilst there will be an increase in height there will be no change in the situation apart from the effect that the increase in height may have on that adjoining property.

In terms of any potential overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly in respect of proposed balconies, it is noted from the site inspection that there are a number of balconies attached to adjoining properties, all of which generally overlook one another. This apart, however, I consider any potential overlooking from the proposed balconies/decking to this dwelling could easily be overcome by the imposition of a condition requiring screening to the sides of those features. I would suggest an appropriate condition if Members are mindful to approve the application.

With regard to other issues, the question of ground stability has been adequately addressed by the submission of an appropriate report and Members will note the comments of the Council's Consulting Engineer.

With regard to any flooding effect, the Environment Agency has raised no objection and in terms of drainage this proposal will merely discharge into the drainage which serves the existing dwellings.

The applicant has deliberately designed the dwelling in terms of material finishes to pick up on the pattern of development in the area in terms of the seaside architectural appearance.

Whilst I fully acknowledge the concerns being expressed by local residents I consider the dwelling for which consent is now being sought is acceptable and while having an impact on the area I do not consider that impact will be sufficiently excessive to justify a recommendation for refusal. I therefore do not consider there are any reasonable planning objections to this proposal.

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 referred to in this report I am satisfied that the negotiations and design adjustments have resulted in a dwelling which will sit comfortably within the essentially random nature of the development in the area and will not adversely impact on the general character of the area. Impact on neighbouring properties has now been addressed either by the adjustments themselves or by appropriate condition and concerns regarding ground conditions and foundations have been fully addressed. I am satisfied, therefore, that the development to this site as indicated is acceptable and that the impact on neighbouring properties will not be such as to warrant a refusal of the application.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	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 in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking and reenacting that order, with or without modification, no windows shall be constructed in the south east elevation. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining property and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved a 1.8 m high screen of opaque finish shall be erected on the south east facing and north west facing sides of the two deck areas on the rear elevation as indicated on the applicant's drawing no. 1000-020 revision E. Such screen shall be of agreed design and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A, B and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to the applicant reminding him of his responsibility in respect of the Party Wall Act 1996 which requires the adjoining owners to be notified of intentions with regard to party walls and party boundaries.

12.

TCP/25823 P/01679/03 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South Registration Date: 27/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Mr S Redhead Change of use of land to private garden land adjacent 2 Hungerberry Close and fronting, Victoria Avenue, Shanklin, PO37

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Harry Rees at the time of submission.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a piece of land, formerly a green area situated at the junction of Hungerberry Close with Victoria Avenue at Shanklin. Overall dimensions are 15 metres by 8 metres located in front of the bungalow presently under construction over which its access presently runs. The front boundary of the application site corresponds with the visibility line set between 2.4 and 3 metres back from the rear of the footpath.

The area is one of low density, detached dwellings.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning consent granted for chalet bungalow on land at the rear of 2 Hungerberry Close in March of this year, the dwelling is nearing completion. Access to the site was shown to be off Victoria Avenue over the open green area, land which is within the ownership of the Council.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent to enclose the piece of land immediately adjoining the frontage of the existing building plot, a site of 8 metres by 15 metres (max), part of the open green area at the junction of Victoria Avenue with Hungerberry Close and to use it as private garden in connection with the bungalow presently under construction. No details of means of enclosure have been submitted.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Within development envelope as shown on the UDP - no specific notation.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved ensuring visibility; that boundary works, if any, are carried out in accordance with a detailed plan and no structures or hedgerows exceed a height of one metre.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

No comment received at the time of writing.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection from a neighbouring property on grounds that the original plans showed a new hedge line in line with the existing property which was more in keeping with the amenity of the area which would reduce the impact of the density of development in the vicinity.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations received but it is not anticipated that there would be any implications.

EVALUATION

The enclosure of this piece of green area requires planning permission as it is a change of use. It is not intended to "develop" the site other than to use it as a private garden in connection with the dwelling but it is intended to enclose it with some, but yet unspecified means.

The land was formerly within the ownership of the Council and the applicant is presently negotiating with the Estates Department for its purchase. Hitherto a right of way was agreed with the Council for access to the dwelling.

The two issues which will determine the application are considered to be matters of visibility both from the access to the dwelling and any effect on visibility from traffic exiting Hungerberry Close and, secondly, the visual impact of the enclosure of the land.

On the first point the Highway Engineers consider the development to be acceptable from the Highways point of view provided that no structure or erection exceeding one metre in height is situated within the site. Indeed the site's boundary closest to the highway is shown to be on the visibility splay. In addition, the visibility splay from vehicles exiting Hungerberry Close will be unaffected due to the substantial splay and setback shown.

The second determining point is the likely visual impact of this change of use and enclosure. At present the easterly extent of the open space is marked by a close boarded fence which is approximately 1.2 metres high and which cuts back at 90 degrees to the front boundary of the application site. In effect, this right angled enclosure would be moved approximately 15 metres westwards and would give a similar appearance, except rather than enclosing fairly dense tree growth, would remain open apart from the one metre high (max) enclosure. In my view, so long as the means of enclosure is relatively subdued in its appearance such as a close boarded fence stained dark brown to a height not exceeding one metre, I do not consider the visual impact will be substantial. However, I do feel that hedgerow of mixed species used as a means of enclosure would be preferable, particularly the short section of side boundary visible from the open space. Of course this would require continuous maintenance to ensure that it does not exceed one metre in height so as to maintain adequate visibility.

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 change of use of this land to garden land associated with the property under construction is unlikely to cause any visual impact from Victoria Avenue although it will result in a reduced, open green area which is presently part of the local scene. It will not create a precedent as further developments are unlikely and further erosion of the open space will not occur. Subject to conditions limiting the height of the enclosure and its nature and ensuring that no enclosure, structure or planting occurs between the agreed means of enclosure and the back of the highway, I do not consider visibility will be impaired. Having considered the determining factors contained within the Evaluation section above I therefore consider the proposal to be consistent with UDP Policy D1 and Policy TR7 regarding highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	No structure, fence, wall or other means of enclosure exceeding one metre in height shall be erected within the area marked in red on the approved plan no. 1646A. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Any hedgerow planted to mark the boundaries of the application site shall be maintained at a maximum height of one metre above ground level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No fence, wall or other means of enclosure or any tree or shrub exceeding a height of 0.3 metre shall be sited or planted within that area between the area delineated on drawing no. 1646A and the rear of the footpath fronting Victoria Avenue. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a)	TCP(E)18550/E	Unauthorised siting of a second satellite dish on a block of flats below 15 metres in height, 33 Pier Street, Ventnor, Isle of Wight
	Officer: Mrs H Byrne	Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the second satellite dish from the rear of 33 Pier Street, Ventnor.

Background

In August 2003, the enforcement section received a complaint that a second satellite dish had been installed on the rear elevation of a block of four flats. Members may be aware that planning permission is not required for the first dish to be installed on a small block of flats (unless the property is listed or in a conservation area or in an area of outstanding natural beauty) but that any subsequent dish requires the benefit of planning consent.

An Enforcement Officer visited the site and noted that both dishes are installed on the rear elevation of the property, which backs onto Dudley Road, this area lies within the Ventnor conservation area. This road is largely comprised of the rear elevations of properties in Pier Street and Albert Street. The second dish has been attached to a metal post that protrudes from the ground floor flat and is situated approximately 10cm from the first floor flat’s rear wall, the two dishes are approximately 3 metres from the level of the road. The two dishes appear quite close together.

The owner of the property was contacted and the situation explained to them, they were unaware that consent was required for their dish but were invited to make a retrospective application for the retention of the dish. To date no application has been forthcoming.

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered to apply.

D1 – Standards of design

H7 – Extensions and alterations

B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

U17 – Telecommunications Facilities

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To issue an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the satellite dish and the removal of the associated bracket and pole.

2. To take no further action in respect of the satellite dish.

Human Rights

The impact that the erection of the second satellite dish might have on the adjoining property and any other third party have been carefully considered. In coming to the recommendation not to undertake any 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 of Human Rights. I do not feel that there is any additional impact on the neighbouring properties and the service of an enforcement notice would not be a proportionate response nor would it serve any wider public interest.

Conclusion

The installation of a second satellite dish on a block of flats less than 15 metres in height does require the consent of the Local Planning Authority, however taking into account the relevant policies along with the relatively minor impact on neighbouring properties, were an application to be made for the retention of the dish, even within the conservation area, I believe it would be likely to gain favourable officer support.

Recommendation

2. To take no further action in respect of the satellite dish.

(b)	TCP/20443E and TCP/9702	Two unauthorised mobile homes being used for residential purposes at Hawthorn Manor Farm, Chale Green, Isle of Wight and one mobile home and one caravan being used for residential purposes at Sheep Lane Farm, Chale
	Officer: Mr P Barker	Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To determine whether in the light of changed circumstances additional enforcement action should be taken seeking the cessation of residential use of two mobile homes at Hawthorn Manor Farm, and one mobile home and a caravan at Sheep Lane Farm, and their removal from the land.

Background

This report is supplementary to two reports which were submitted to the Development Control Committee in respect of the above mentioned farms on 23 April 2002.

Both Hawthorn Manor Farm, and Sheep Lane Farm, are owned by the same farmer and the 2002 reports sought authority to issue Enforcement Notices requiring the removal of specific caravans and mobile homes from both farms. Since that time some caravans have been removed from Sheep Lane Farm but others have been introduced at both farms. This supplementary report seeks to update the authorisation to include the additional caravan and mobile homes in order to serve the Enforcement Notices.

The need to update the authorisation to take enforcement action was determined on Thursday, 2 October 2003, when the Planning Enforcement Officer and the Council’s Senior Solicitor visited both farms to assess the current situation.

At Hawthorn Manor Farm, there is a mobile home which is occupied by the land owner’s daughter which is sited in breach of a planning condition which required its removal once the farm house was built. This was going to be dealt with by way of a Breach of Condition Notice but it is now felt that an Enforcement Notice would be more appropriate. A second mobile home has now been sited next to this mobile home, and again it is being used for residential purposes.

At Sheep Lane Farm it was noted that a touring caravan had been placed on the land and there were many indications that it was being used for residential purposes. The Enforcement Officer also found an additional mobile home which had been sited adjacent to some farm buildings, and there were clear indications that it was being used for residential purposes.

The siting and residential use of the caravan and mobile homes on both sites are contrary to policies S4 which states that the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development, G1 development will be expected to be located within settlements, H9 residential development outside development boundaries, H12 mobile homes and residential caravans and C2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

To reaffirm Committee decisions of 23 April 2002 to take enforcement action against remaining mobile homes/caravans which were mentioned in the 2002 reports.

To authorise enforcement action requiring the cessation of use of the two mobile homes at Hawthorn Manor Farm, and the cessation of residential use of the caravan and mobile home at Sheep Lane Farm, and the removal of the caravan and mobile homes from the respective farms. Time for compliance six months from when the Notice takes effect.

To take no further action regarding the unauthorised siting and occupation of the caravan and mobile homes.

Conclusion

To summarise, at Hawthorn Manor Farm enforcement has already been authorised against two caravans whilst we have had to acknowledge that one further caravan is immune from action due to the time it has been on site. At Sheep Lane Farm there is an authorisation for action against two caravans close to the buildings and a third caravan in a hollow away from the buildings.

Although one of the ‘new’ mobile homes at Hawthorn Manor Farm is in breach of a planning condition, there is no right of appeal against a Breach of Condition Notice and as a residential use is involved it would be more appropriate to proceed by way of an Enforcement Notice thereby giving the occupant the right of appeal. The second ‘new’ mobile home at Hawthorn Manor Farm would in any event have to be dealt with by way of an Enforcement Notice. At Sheep Lane Farm both ‘new’ caravans are additions since April 2002.

In the light of the recommendation the intention is to serve two Enforcement Notices, one relating to each farm encompassing both the caravans against which action has already been authorised and those caravans for which authorisation is sought through this report.

Human Rights

As the caravan and mobile homes are being used for residential purposes, there are clear human rights issues which have to be considered and weighed by the Committee. Your Officers have considered the issues and are of the view that the recommendation for enforcement is still the advised option. In coming to this recommendation, 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; whilst it is accepted that the recommendation to commence enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the occupants of the mobile homes and caravan, this has to be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the occupants, it is considered necessary for the protection of rights and freedoms of others. The policy objections stated in respect of the continued used of the two properties are those encompassed in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and it is not considered that the current use could remain even by imposition of conditions. It is also considered that enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Recommendation

1. To reaffirm Committee decisions of 23 April 2002 to take enforcement action against remaining mobile homes/caravans which were mentioned in the 2002 reports.

2. To authorise enforcement action requiring the cessation of use of the two mobile homes at Hawthorn Manor Farm, and the cessation of residential use of the caravan and mobile home at Sheep Lane Farm, and the removal of the caravan and mobile homes from the respective farms. Time for compliance six months from when the Notice takes effect.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services