PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

DEMOLITION OF BUILDING; CONSTRUCTION OF 8 FLATS, 23 HOUSES WITH PARKING; ALTERATIONS TO VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

NEWEY & EYRE LTD, ST. JOHNS ROAD, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT, PO301LR

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved; the application has also attracted a substantial number of representations.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Former commercial premises (Newey & Eyre Limited) located to the north of and directly abutting Elm Grove to the west of Woodbine Villas, the garden of number 3 of which runs alongside the eastern boundary of the site. To the south is the former builder merchants premises (Builder Center), which is the subject of a second application, due to be considered at the meeting under paper B2. Also running alongside the northern boundary is an access road leading to the head quarters of the First Newport Scout Group which has a fenced car parking area to the south, separated from the application site by an access road leading to a gravelled open area, used in the main for casual car parking. To the south, is Elm Grove, which has dwellings, looking northwards over the application site, on its southern side.

The site itself contains, in its northern part, a single storey form of commercial building measuring some 42 metres x 26 metres, with open ground rising towards the south where there is a mixture of hedging and trees to the boundary with Elm Grove. Beyond the car park to the west of the site is Nine Acres Lane, a public footpath (FP152) which links Elm Grove and South View. Beyond that, to the west, is a recreation ground.

Area to the east and south of the site is characterised by residential development, whilst the site itself and the land to the north are of commercial character.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/1870/F – P/1501/02 – Application for demolition of buildings, construction of 23 houses and 8 flats, parking and alterations to access road, submitted in October 2002 and withdrawn in December of that year in favour of the current application.

TCP/12986/J – P/1010/02 – Outline for residential development on the Builder Center site to the south given conditional approval in August 2002. Proposal utilised the same access point onto St. Johns Road as the current and previously withdrawn proposals for the Newey and Eyre site and Members required a covering letter to be sent, advising, amongst other things, of the need to relate the development on both sites together, in order to ensure a cohesive development taking into account all the common factors relating to the sites. The conditions imposed covered

contamination issues, drainage, landscaping, ability to develop land to the west, number and range of dwelling sizes and types with minimum density of 50 units per hectare linked to provision of affordable housing and parking to appropriate guidelines.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission sought for residential development served from the existing access onto St. Johns Road north of Woodbine Villas. This access would serve both this site and the Builder Center site, separating some 30 metres from St. Johns Road and turning south into the site some 60 metres from that highway, and then dividing into two “arms” one running to the eastern edge of the site and one to the west, allowing frontage development whose rear elevations would look towards Elm Grove.

A mix of dwellings is proposed comprising:

8 one bedroomed flats located in two blocks of 4 each, in the northeast corner of the site fronting the access road to the scout hut;

a terrace of 4 four bedroomed dwellings with rooms in the roof and dormers facing northwards, in the northeast corner of the site fronting the access road and on the same alignment as Woodbine Villas;

a terrace of 4 two bedroomed units, centrally located in the southern part of the site with rear elevations a minimum of 9.5 metres and maximum of 11.4 metres from Elm Grove;

6 two/three bedroomed units, 4 in a terrace in the southeast corner of the site with rear elevations minimum of 10.4 metres maximum 12 metres from the carriageway of Elm Grove and 2 in a pair of dwellings in the central part of the site, looking southwards towards the western arm of the access road;

9 three bedroomed units, a terrace of 4 in the southwest corner of the site, rear elevations minimum of 7.8 metres maximum 9.3 metres from the carriageway of Elm Grove, a terrace of 3 located in the western central part of the site, immediately west of the pair of two/three bedroomed dwellings and fronting the western arm of the access road and a pair in the eastern central part of the site, fronting east west onto the north south access road into the site.

All dwellings on the site (including the flats) are proposed to be two storey, with the block of 4 four bedroomed units accommodating two bedrooms and a shower room in the roofspace. This results in four dormer windows in the north facing roof pitch, and 8 rooflights in the southern roof plane.

The site (including access roads) is 0.52 hectares, giving a density of development of 59.6 dwelling per hectare (24.1 dwellings per acre).

All dwellings proposed have private garden areas the smallest about 5.7 metres in depth and the largest about 6.8 metres. 8 parking spaces (to serve the 1 bedroomed flats) are proposed fronting the central north south access road, the two nearest the flats being designated for use by disabled persons. The properties backing onto Elm Grove have a hard surface forecourt accessed off the east-west roadway for car parking purposes the remaining dwellings have allocated individual parking spaces immediately outside the property. Small front garden areas are provided for these dwellings, with communal landscaped areas around the perimeter, where hedging would be reinforced by new hawthorn/blackthorn or similar planting where necessary. Additional tree planting is proposed on the eastern boundary alongside Woodbine Villas and at other appropriate locations within the site, e.g. on the southern side of the east west access road and between the proposed flats and the two storey dwellings to the south.

A cross section is provided showing that the ground levels in the southern part of the site will be reduced by a maximum of some 3.0m, some 2.9 m north of the carriageway of Elm Grove. A “timber-lock” retaining wall will be constructed so that rear garden levels equate with the floor levels of the proposed dwellings in the southern part of the site. Details of the changes in level and the appropriate measures for retention have been submitted in a supporting statement, copies and attached for Members’ information at Annex A

The site levels and design are such that there is no access, pedestrian or vehicular, to Elm Grove.

A “foul and surface water drainage principles statement” has been submitted with the application indicating that dwellings will be connected to a new, adoptable foul sewer constructed within the roadway of the new development, which in turn will be connected to the public foul sewer within the site access road. This is subject to confirmation of capacity by Southern Water Services. Applicants point out that the sewer within the access road is 150 millimetres diameter and receives flows from commercial properties and do not consider that capacity is an issue at this stage.

With regard to surface water drainage, existing development on the site has a paved and roof area of 2016 square metres generating surface water flow into the adjacent public surface water sewers of 28 litres per second for a 15 millimetre rain fall intensity, assuming the flow is unattenuated.

Proposal is that adopted roadways within the development will be drained by trapped road gulleys and adopted highway drainage to the public surface water sewer in an unattenuated state as flows of 12 litres per second from 855 square metres of hard surface areas will be generated. Subject to permeability tests, all private areas (roofs, patios and driveways) will drain to soakaways within the private gardens. Any cut-off drains required will also be routed to the private soakaways.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policy regarding residential development is contained within PPG3 (Housing). In that document, the following issues are raised:

· Priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressure off development of greenfield sites;

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities of 30-50 units pre hectare;

· Seek greater intensity of development in places with good public transport accessibility, such as town centres etc;

· Provide a mix of housing types, including affordable housing particularly where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing top meet local needs – decisions about the amount and types of affordable housing to be provided in an individual proposal should reflect local housing need and individual site suitability and be a matter for agreement between the parties;

· More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect governments emphasis on sustainable residential development;

· Places and spaces which are attractive have their own distinctive identity and respect and enhance local character should be created, always bearing in mind the needs of the people which the development will serve;

· Designs and layouts which are safe taking into account crime prevention and community safety; and;

· Planning authorities should avoid inflexible planning standards and reduce road widths, traffic speeds to promote a safer environment for pedestrians.

Government Circular 6/98 (Planning and Affordable Housing) is also relevant and sets out criteria for which an element of affordable housing should be provided in the development of a site, and seeks to ensure, through the medium of developers making specific housing units available to a registered social landlord, that the housing proposed within the “affordable” category, remains available in the future.

The Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan contains the following relevant policies:

S1 – New development concentrated within existing urban areas;

S2 – Development encouraged on land which has been previously developed;

S6 – All development expected to be of high standard of design;

S7 – Need to provide for at least 8000 housing units over the planned period;

G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages;

G4 – General locational criteria for development;

H4 – Unallocated residential development restricted to defined settlements;

H6 – High density residential development;

U11 – Infrastructure and services provision;

E3 – Resist development of allocated employment land for other uses;

L10 – Open space in housing development;

TR7 – Highway considerations for new development;

TR16 – Parking policies and guidelines (including transport infrastructure payment policy contained in Appendix G of the plan);

TR6 – Cycling and walking;

D1 – Standards of design;

D2 – Standards for development within the site;

D3 – Landscaping; and

P2 – Minimise contamination from development.

The housing needs survey, carried out by consultants and adopted by the Council in January 2002 concludes:

· There is a 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;

· A large proportion of need is for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for 2/3 bedroomed homes to meet statutory homeless requirement.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer – not available at time of writing.

Southern Water Services comment as follows:

“The main concern of Southern Water is to limit the amount of surface water draining to the foul/combined sewer. The southern part of the site can drain by gravity to the surface water sewer in the access road leading to the site. The northern part is too low to drain to the surface water sewer by gravity. I understand that there are drains from the former Builder Center that run north to Albert Street. If they are to be utilised for the new development, although they are not the responsibility of Southern Water, they should be checked for their structural and hydraulic adequacy. Any new development, including those utilising existing connections, require the formal approval of Southern Water Services for the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer.”

Contaminated Land Officer suggests appropriate conditions relating to the site’s potential to contain contamination and how this is to be treated.

Fire Safety Officer refers to need to remove existing underground petrol installation which I understand was converted to diesel in May 1993. His comment is as follows:

“Removal of all underground petrol tanks and equipment (diesel) by a qualified engineer in compliance with Health and Safety and Institute of Petroleum Requirements.”

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Forty seven letters in total, nineteen from residents of Elm Grove, seventeen from residents of St Johns Road and eleven which have been signed but give no address. Of these forty seven, thirty six (including the eleven without addresses) are a standard format, an example of which is attached to this report for Members’ information, four are individual letters, with the standard letter attached, and seven are individual letters, two identical letters from one address.

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

· Precedent set by development of Newey and Eyre site for this type of development, for remainder of land previously occupied by Builder Center, car park, scout hall and Moreys wood yard;

· Proposal will increase noise and nuisance from the type of housing in the proposed development;

· Number of properties is too great and flats not suitable as they would overlook existing housing and not be sympathetic to style of property in area of St Johns Road, which are mostly Grade II Listed;

· Surprised flats even considered in area of long established housing;

· Consideration for road access not been given to amount of vehicles that number of properties would generate;

· Thoughts of residents in surrounding private housing should be taken into account before granting planning permission;

· Likely increase of noise (up to about midnight), vandalism of cars and property, domestic and social violence, influx of motor vehicles in varying states of repair, illegal activities, constant litter and rubbish in surrounding streets and verbal/physical abuse if comments made on above;

· Parking very limited in surrounding area, even to Council offices – roads are small and extra traffic will be detrimental to residents;

· Loss of privacy to residents of Elm Grove;

· Screening from Elm Grove is poor and needs to be large trees and substantial fence to keep development very separate from owners of Elm Grove;

· Age and style of surrounding area and buildings should be considered, ensuring sympathy towards existing residents;

· Ugly modern “shoeboxes” especially flats and three storey buildings, will detract from visual amenity of area;

· Overdevelopment, out of character with surrounding area, contrary to UDP policies B1 and D2;

· Large housing association development inappropriate for area;

· Properties too small, sub-standard accommodation especially for number of children in a non “child friendly zone” with busy roads and no footpaths, children playing will spill onto surrounding area;

· Properties in south of site will require landscaping of embankment and are too close to Elm Grove roadway and will be constantly overlooked;

· Residents inadequately notified of plans;

· Issues of light and noise pollution to existing residents;

· Unsuitable for development as surrounded by high number of residential properties;

· Piecemeal development, access to Builder Center should be included, together with Scout Hut, car park and Moreys yard;

· Possible structural effects on neighbouring property through improving access road which is of substandard construction;

· Increase in traffic flow from site;

· Major excavation needed, affecting trees on eastern boundary and creating potential for subsequent land movement;

· Agree in principle with development of land, proper infrastructure should be put in place;

· Poor visibility at access to St Johns Road;

· Traffic to and from site includes parents dropping off children for Nine Acres School;

· Overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining property in Woodbine Villas, which has windows in side elevation;

· Details of boundary fences needed, high enough to protect privacy;

· Should be left as small industrial site or large car park, possibly park and ride to Newport town centre;

· Elm Grove used to be quiet, crime free but now has more than fair share of problems;

· Elm Grove “rat run” for all types of traffic and road cannot take more;

· Loss of trees/hedges will deprive increasingly rare sparrows and thrushes as well as other birds and butterflies of habitat.

1^st Newport Scout Group objects on the ground that piecemeal development is not in best interests of existing users. Comprehensive scheme with all interested parties would provide better long term solution. Utility services, drainage and adoption of finished roads all issues which need to be considered as a whole. Needs of the Scout Group, as well as Nine Acres School, should be paramount as will continue to provide valuable community service which may be eroded if good planning practice is not followed.

Would support a more comprehensive scheme where all parties concerned are consulted.

Local Member points out that area’s future use by local community is in need of a strategy as there is community long term use within the two sites and former car park which is still used as a safe dropping off to Nine Acres Community School 130 metres away. Area is used by Scout Group and Nine Acres playing field used for soccer, athletics and cricket as well as pedestrian way linking Nine Acres Lane and St Johns Road.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer, Crime & Disorder Team, can be summarised as follows:

· Development very tight with little or no spare space, in some respects good for disorder issues but 31 living units no provision for young people to play. Site next to unmade car park and Scout Hut with access via public footpath to Nine Acres field. Potential for disorder in area until whole site has been properly developed, not necessarily housing;

· Could be further development in area and road access totally inadequate as development could double or treble in size. Should include changes to parking in St Johns Road, e.g. extension of double yellow lines – without extra highways work surely access is unsuitable for the proposed developments;

· Units 1 – 6 require 1.8 metre high fences, visible to everyone, to create privacy. Previous design meant fences were out of general view. If fences not erected, look of area would be affected by people’s use of back garden and could lead to disagreements. Lack of privacy is important to individuals – new design not so good as previous because of potential for increased dispute problems and increased management issues. Not sufficient to object but is an area of concern;

· Boundary between proposed development and current properties should be as secure as possible and not cause loss of privacy;

· From architectural liaison prospective, development should not generate crime and antisocial behaviour other than as referred to above. Important point is how development is managed after it is built especially the public areas, maintenance of infrastructure and foliage;

· Regarding antisocial behaviour, registered social landlord very keen on tenants abiding by their agreements and local Police fully support approach taken and work closely with them;

· As finance for development through housing corporation, applicants should strive to achieve “secured by design” standards but no approach yet made about this;

· Concern at not knowing what future development is likely to be as that could alter the good points of this proposed development.

EVALUATION

A number of significant issues arise for consideration in the determination of this application. These are identified as follows:

Principle of residential development on a site which has an established commercial user;

Comprehensive approach to application site and adjoining and nearby land;

Appropriateness of proposed development regarding its nature and density;

Environmental impact on surrounding properties including privacy and amenity, type of properties proposed and drainage/service provision;

Traffic issues – access and parking;

Provision of off-site works; and

Landscape issues.

Principle

The original occupier of the site (Messrs Newey & Eyre, electrical equipment wholesalers) have relocated to Dodnor Industrial Estate and therefore no direct loss of employment would result. However, the premises, although not allocated in the UDP for employment use, could still be made available for that purpose. UDP Policy E3 which would resist the development of employment land for other uses applies. This policy does allow exceptions where non-employment use will be permitted where, “the loss of the site would not prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs; or ….. involves the relocation of a non-conforming use from an unsuitable existing site ….”.

The provision of specifically allocated employment land within the Newport area ensures that local employment needs can still be met and the relocation of the previous user and redevelopment of the site for residential purposes would remove a non-conforming use from what is predominantly a residential area.

Comprehensive Development

The site to the south, which shares access from St Johns Road, has already received outline consent for the principle of residential development to replace commercial use and is the subject of a current, detailed, application due to be considered at this meeting. Indeed, Members required the outline planning permission for the site to the south to be accompanied by a letter suggesting that it would be appropriate to consider the development of both sites together. Additionally, there is undeveloped land to the west, which is not subject of current planning application, but whose potential for development is recognised in the layout now proposed for this particular site.

The consideration of this application site and that to the south at the same meeting and the nature of layout proposed which recognises the possibility of access to adjoining land to the west from this site, leads to the conclusion that the development as proposed recognises the potential for comprehensive development in the vicinity and would not prevent such development from taking place in due course.

Appropriateness of Proposals

The applicant in this case is a registered social landlord (Medina Housing Association) and therefore the proposal represents 100% affordable housing. It is to be noted that there is some concern by local residents expressed both in relation to this application and that for a similar development, withdrawn in December, as to the appropriateness of this type and level of housing provision in the area. There are a number of perceptions regarding affordable housing relating to large single tenancy estates, poor quality of design, environments out of keeping with surrounding areas, high densities, high levels of unemployment, crime and antisocial behaviour, with reference to “problem families”. Whilst these concerns are recognised there is no doubt that there are considerable benefits associated with the local provision of affordable housing with social landlords playing a positive role in providing essential housing for those unable to afford the private sector. In order to quantify the extent of the housing problem on the Isle of Wight, the Council commissioned a “Housing Needs Survey”, adopted in February 2002, which identified a specific need for rented accommodation, for smaller households, and concluded that there is a particular requirement for flats and two bedroomed terraced houses. Additionally, the general mix of two bedroom, three bedroom and four bedroomed houses together with flats complies with UDP policies regarding major developments containing a variety of house sizes and types (H2) and makes efficient use of this important brownfield urban site, in accordance with national Government policies.

The mix of development is reflected in the density proposed, which, although slightly above the 50 units per hectare referred to in PPG3, is not considered excessive particularly given that the proposal includes eight one bedroomed flats. On this issue, I conclude that the development proposed, managed by a registered social landlord is acceptable in the area, at a density which reflects the site’s location close to Newport town centre and represents a reuse of brownfield land in a manner encouraged by Central Government through PPG guidance and which the Council’s own UDP seeks to achieve.

It should be pointed out that it is not the Planning Authority’s function to differentiate between one type of residential development from another (i.e. rented housing association property or owner occupiers) and that the location, arrangement, number and mix of units and environmental impact are the issues which should be considered in determination of the application. It would not be appropriate, or supportable on appeal, that the Planning Authority should refuse an application for such development on the basis of a perception that it may bring about antisocial behaviour.

Environmental Impact

Accepting that the site is appropriate for residential development, two areas need examining. Firstly, the relationship between the dwellings now proposed, i.e. that the relationship between new dwellings within the layout is acceptable and secondly that the proposed development provides acceptable relationship between the new dwellings within the site and those established around its periphery.

On the first issue, the proposed buildings are all two storey in scale and arranged in such a way that each one has a private rear garden with the opportunity for a garden shed, clothesline etc to be provided within a private amenity area. The flats proposed have a “patio” area to the south, wherein clotheslines and sheds can also be accommodated. Distances between properties (quantified in the Details of Application section of this report) are such that reasonable standards of privacy and avoidance of overlooking can be maintained. The flats are arranged so that bedroom windows only are provided at first floor level, where they back onto two storey dwellings. Although kitchen windows in the two blocks face each other at a distance of some 3.6 metres, this is not considered to be an overriding problem, as kitchens are not defined as habitable rooms. The layout proposed allows for proper circulation of vehicles and pedestrians within the site and allows at least one parking space to be made available in close proximity to each dwelling, with specific parking (including two bays for use by disabled drivers) adjacent the flats.

In terms of relationship between buildings in the site, protection of privacy and amenity and the allowance of proper access, I believe the layout to be satisfactory.

With regard to relationship with properties outside the site, of particular importance will be residential properties fronting the north side of Elm Grove and Woodbine Villas, a terrace of three properties at right angles to St Johns Road.

The development is proposed to be “dug-in” to the south side of Elm Grove and as two storey dwellings are proposed, both eave and ridge heights of the proposed new buildings are kept as low as possible. A north south cross section through the centre of the site indicates that the eave level of the new properties parallel with Elm Grove will be some 1.5 metres above the level of the carriageway, some 17.5 metres to the south of the front wall of the existing properties on the north side of the road. The proposed ridge of the new buildings would be about 4.1 metres above carriageway level, about 18.5 metres from the front of properties on the north side of Elm Grove. I do not therefore believe there would be a significant reduction in amenity or privacy to the occupiers of properties on the north side of Elm Grove, sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Although the new dwellings are proposed to the south of Elm Grove, even when the sun is at its lowest, I do not believe there would be any additional overshadowing of the front of the existing properties.

Although there would be a change in outlook from the existing dwellings fronting Elm Grove, loss of view is not an issue which the Local Planning Authority can take into account in determining applications.

It should be pointed out that many of the properties fronting north of Elm Grove are Listed, Grade II. However, because of the nature of relationship between properties outlined above, I do not believe that the proposal will have any impact on the setting of these listed buildings. In general, their character is of terraced and semi-detached properties, listed, in part, because of their group value.

With regard to Woodbine Villas to the east, the terraced dwellings proposed for this part of the site are aligned east-west, so that gable ends only present to the side boundary of the nearest property, no. 3 Woodbine Villas. Although the terrace in the north eastern part of the site offers three floors of accommodation, the upper floor is contained within the roof space and the property gives the appearance of two storey construction. Between the two terraces is a pair of semi-detached properties, aligned east west, so that the rear wall of the pair, containing bedroom windows at upper floor, is some 6.5 metres from the side boundary of no. 3 Woodbine Villas. The distance between the two buildings concerned is a minimum of some 11.8 metres. There are trees on the eastern boundary of the site, towards its southern section with a group close to the northern boundary, and it is proposed to plant further trees within the gap, to provide further screening between the properties.

Overall, I consider the relationship between proposed units within the site and those existing dwellings adjoining to the south and east is satisfactory and does not provide any sustainable reason to refuse the application.

The development proposed on the former Builder Center site to the north, is the subject of a separate application to be considered under Paper B2 at the meeting. It provides a mixed development of a terrace of ten one bedroom flats and two bedroom maisonettes in the eastern part of the site (lining through with the scout hut) and a block of eight two bedroom flats with ground floor offices in the eastern part of the site. Each block is proposed parallel with the access road and the southern boundary.

Each of the blocks is three storeys and the nature of the outlook from windows in the southern elevation and relationship with those flats and terraced dwellings on the south side of the access road within the housing association site will need to be considered. The western block, offers lounge and kitchen to the one bedroom flats at ground floor, and dining and kitchen windows at first floor. Bedroom and bathroom windows are proposed on the second floor, facing towards the housing association site. The eastern block indicates general office area, reception area and meeting rooms at ground floor on the southern elevation with bedroom windows at first and second floor.

The buildings on the Builder Center site, although three storey, are set at a lower level and as a result the kitchen windows of the western block are effectively at road level. The cross fall also means that, although full three storeys, the eaves level of the Builder Center development is only about 0.9 metres higher than the eave level of the housing association development opposite, whilst the ridge level, because the roof pitch is less steep, is some 1.1 metres below. Bearing in mind the distance between the proposed blocks (9.8 metres in the west and 22 metres in the east) and the fact both blocks face an access road, I believe the relationship between the two proposed developments will be acceptable and that no undue loss of privacy or amenity between the two proposals will ensue.

As indicated earlier, both developments share the same access road from St Johns Road, which divides to serve each piece of land, one to the north one to the south, roughly 30 metres from St Johns Road itself. The Highways Engineer is happy with the design and layout of the access road and considers it sufficient to serve both proposed developments, bearing in mind the nature of commercial traffic which previously used the same access. Overall, I consider that each development has, both in principle and detail terms, recognised the relationship between existing proposed developments and potential future schemes on adjoining land and that there is no reason to refuse the current application because of adverse effect on other proposed or possible development in the vicinity.

Design and Materials

Design of the proposed dwellings is traditional in nature, making use of standard fittings such as doors and windows. With regard to design, gables predominate for the terrace and semi-detached dwellings whilst the flats are proposed to have a hipped roof. Construction is proposed to be in red brick, with artificial grey slates as the roofing material. No other details of external materials are submitted, but these matters can be covered by condition, should approval be granted. In general, the nature of materials proposed is acceptable within the context of the area. Although a number of the properties in Elm Grove are clapboard finish, there is a mixture of external materials in the area and bearing in mind the nature of relationship between existing and proposed properties particularly the distance from and proposed ground levels with, Elm Grove, I do not consider that the simple design approach adopted or the materials suggested to be used, would be out of character with the area.

Landscaping

The plans proposed indicate additional planting, particularly on the southern boundary (with Elm Grove) where the existing hedge and elm trees are in poor condition, and on the eastern boundary, where the boundary between the site and residential properties to the east can be strengthened. New perimeter planting on the western boundary, comprising hawthorn, blackthorn or similar is proposed, with soft landscaping in shared areas adjoining the proposed new highways, together with new tree planting in appropriate locations, is also proposed. Again, the exact nature of such planting and its timing can be the subject of conditions, should approval be granted.

Traffic/Parking

There is no doubt that the access to the site from St Johns Road does not offer the levels of visibility which would be expected for a new residential development of this type. However, the Highways Engineer accepts that the proposed level of traffic generation is not likely to exceed that which was generated by the commercial use of the site. It is on this basis, that he accepts the proposed redevelopment of the site for 31 dwellings. Although it is difficult to quantify exactly, application of the standards contained within Appendix G of the UDP would indicate that some 66 parking spaces, plus lorry spaces would be necessary for the commercial use. Application of the guidelines to the residential development proposed would require 69 spaces, including provision for visitors parking. As the site is within Zone 2 of the Parking Guidelines, a maximum figure between 0% and 50% of the guideline would be required this giving a maximum of 33 spaces for the commercial development (plus lorry spaces) and 35 for the residential. The proposed figure of 31 spaces (one per dwelling curtilage) clearly accords with the adopted Parking Guidelines and visitor space can be provided within some curtilages. Although car ownership levels are difficult to predict and this has been an issue raised in representations, the proposed development clearly complies with the Council’s adopted Parking Guidelines and with the amount of traffic generation likely acceptable to the Highways Engineer in the context of the existing access, I can see no highways or parking provision reasons to refuse the application.

However, there is an issue of the Transport Infrastructure payment which the UDP expects applicants to make, in accordance with a given ratio in order to help to finance offsite works which would lead to improved provision of public transport, cycle and pedestrian facilities within the area. The applicant housing association has previously confirmed that the requirement for a Transport Infrastructure payment (which in this case would amount to some £23,250) would affect the overall viability of the scheme to such a degree that it could not be carried out. The association has pointed out that:

“…. we have, with the Council’s support, submitted a bid for grant funding to the housing corporation hopefully to enable a start on site in April 2003. The bid identifies budget costings approaching 110% of the corporation’s current total cost indicators. The additional cost of this payment will affect the overall viability of the bid. It cannot, as the Council is aware, offset this cost through enhanced rents as housing associations are required to drive rents down over the next ten years.”

It appears therefore that there is a straight choice between acceptance of the development without Transport Infrastructure Payment, or an insistence on such a payment, which would prejudice the provision of the housing by the applicant association. Members will therefore have to balance these conflicting issues and decide whether the overall benefits to the community from the provision of the housing proposed by the housing association outweighs the loss to the community of the potential improvements which the Transport Infrastructure payment would bring. In my view, approval of the proposal without Transport Infrastructure contribution would be in accordance with the broad strategic aims of the UDP and the more specific housing and corporate aims regarding provision of affordable housing and such a decision would therefore be justifiable within the context of the Council’s overall policies.

Other Matters

Drainage of the site is clearly an important issue and the application has been accompanied by a Drainage Statement which has been passed to Southern Water for comment. The submitted report confirms that an investigation has been carried out by properly qualified appropriate engineers and the principles set out for foul drainage, including a new adoptable foul sewer within the site to a 150mm diameter sewer which currently receives flows from commercial premises, would appear a satisfactory solution. Southern Water has been asked to check capacity of the sewer. The proposal is that adopted roadways within the development will be drained via trapped gulleys and adopted highway drainage to the existing public surface water sewer and that, subject to permeability results from a site investigation which has been carried out but still needs analysis, all private areas (roof, patio and driveways) will drain to soakaways within private gardens. It is clear therefore that the drainage issues have been given proper consideration in the formulation of the scheme, and that technical solutions are available to resolve any outstanding issues, particularly the requirement of Southern Water to limit the amount of surface water draining to the foul/combined sewer. In my view, should the application be approved, appropriate conditions could be imposed.

Similarly, the need for and nature of retaining walls has been fully analysed by the applicants and the solutions designed by an appropriately qualified engineer. Again, should it be necessary, appropriate conditions can be imposed, should approval be granted.

From a crime and disorder point of view, relevant Officer, although not raising objection, does raise a number of issues. Although adjoining sites to the west are not proposed currently for development, and the proposal allows for such development, I do not consider that a refusal could be sustained because of potential for disorder in the adjoining areas, not subject of the application. Although Architectural Liaison Officer refers specifically to access, this is an issue for the Highways Engineer, who has previously accepted the principle of development on the site as long as traffic generation is not increased. Privacy is provided to rear gardens, although 1.8 metre high fences are visible. Privacy is maintained and should approval be granted, the applicants can be made aware of the management issues raised.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties has 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 freedoms 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 consider this proposal makes proper use of a non-conforming urban brownfield site providing 100% mix of affordable housing in line with the Isle of Wight Housing Needs Survey. The original occupier has relocated and there is no direct loss of employment. Arrangement of dwellings along with road design are acceptable and although no Transport Infrastructure payments are proposed, the proposed development favours the aim of the Council to provide affordable housing in appropriate locations. Road design is acceptable and analysis of parking levels suggest there should be no major impact on the junction with St Johns Road. In this context the proposal is acceptable to the Council’s Highways Engineer. Any potential environmental impacts on adjoining properties are not at a level which would warrant refusal and no negative impacts are anticipated on the setting of listed buildings to the north of Elm Grove. Overall the proposal is considered to comply with the strategic and detailed aims of the Unitary Development Plan and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

None of the dwellings hereby approved 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 in advance in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed development, in accordance with Policy TR16 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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

None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the car parking space/spaces which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed in advance in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety and sustainability in accordance with Policy TR16 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

5	Submission of samples - S03

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; construction and appearance of retaining walls; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures eg. refuse or other storage units, lighting etc; proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc).

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

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all hard and soft landscape works approved pursuant to condition 6 above have been completed in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice, unless otherwise in accordance with a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced before the end of the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

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

Before the development hereby approved is commenced, full details of the height and materials of all boundary treatment to private gardens and other enclosed areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatments shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwelling which they serve and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure appropriate levels of privacy and amenity to occupiers of the proposed dwellings and in accordance with Policy D4 (External Building Works) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Before any part of the development hereby approved is commenced, a scheme of foul and surface water drainage which shall include capacity checks for existing sewers, details of the means of disposal of foul and surface water from the site, including routes and capacities of any piped system and porosity for any surface water soakaways, points of connection to existing sewerage system and any surface water attenuation scheme which may be required shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory scheme of drainage from the proposed development, in accordance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Such drainage scheme as may be agreed under condition 9 above shall be constructed, in accordance with the agreed details, prior to the occupation of any element of the development hereby approved.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a) a desktop study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research report nos.2 and 3 and S10175:2001;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desktop study in accordance with BS10175:2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice",

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

c) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant included in an implementation timetable monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation.

Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and in accordance with Policy P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The construction of buildings pursuant to this consent shall not commence until a report, to confirm that all remediation measures required under condition 11 above have been carried out fully in accordance with the approved scheme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the approved plan, attached to this planning permission. The material shall be removed from the site in accordance with a programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the excavation taking place.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services