PAPER B2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT

SERVICES

THREE STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE OFFICE ACCOMMODATION ON GROUND FLOOR WITH EIGHT FLATS OVER; THREE STOREY BLOCK OF FIVE FLATS AND FIVE MAISONETTES, PARKING; ALTERATIONS TO ACCESS

FORMER BUILDER CENTER, ST. JOHNS ROAD, NEWPORT, PO30 1LP

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Former commercial premises (The Builder Center) located to rear of residential properties on western side of St. Johns Road. Served by an access road from St. Johns Road about 50 metres south of the junction of that road with Drake Road. Adjoined to east and for the eastern part of the northern part of the site by the rear gardens of residential properties fronting St. Johns Road and Albert Street, to the western part of the northern boundary and the northern part of the western boundary by Moreys Timber Yard, in the south of the western boundary by a Scout HQ and on the southern boundary by an access road serving a parking/servicing area for the Scout HQ and an informal unsurfaced parking area. South of the access road is the former Newey and Eyre premises, the subject of a current planning application for residential development, to be considered under Paper B1 at the Development Control Committee meeting on the 4 February 2003.

Site generally slopes downwards from south to north and is at a lower level than the Newey and Eyre site adjoining. Two vacant buildings, the smaller in the eastern part of the site steel framed storage structure, whilst in the western part, adjacent the northeast corner of the Scout HQ is a substantial single storey warehouse building constructed from artificial stone block with profiled sheeting for roof.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/12986/J – Outline for residential development on the site given conditional approval in August 2002. Proposal shared access onto St. Johns Road with the Newey and Eyre site opposite and in approving application on this site, 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 site. 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.

TCP/1870/F – Application for demolition of buildings, construction of 23 houses and 8 flats, parking and alterations to access road, submitted in respect of the Newey and Eyre site to the south, in October 2002 and withdrawn in December of that year.

TCP/1870/G – Demolition of building; construction of 8 flats, 23 houses with parking; alterations to vehicular/pedestrian access submitted in December 2002 in respect of the Newey and Eyre site on the south side of the access road and due to be considered under Paper B1 at the Development Control Committee meeting on 4 February 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission sought for the construction of two 3 storey buildings, parallel with the southern boundary. The more easterly block to provide office accommodation on ground floor with eight 2 bedroom flats on two floors above and the more westerly block to contain five 1 bedroom flats on ground floor with five 2 bedroom maisonettes on first and second floor.

Access to the maisonettes would be internal, via doorways in the northern elevation of the building, adjacent the main entrance to the ground floor flats. Each maisonette would have a terraced area (balcony), 2.5 metres deep and 6 metres wide at first floor level across the full width of the property.

Access to the flats above the office development would be via two shared, covered access stairways projecting northwards from the main building. Each access would serve four flats, two on each floor, via a shared landing a stairwell. Access to the ground floor office area would be via a doorway in the centre of the western elevation. 14 car parking spaces serving the offices are proposed adjacent the western part of the northern boundary of the site i.e. adjoining Morey’s Timber Yard. Parking for the flats and maisonettes in each block (19 spaces in all) are proposed immediately adjacent the northern elevation of each building. Vehicular access is via the existing access road onto St. Johns Road, which it is proposed will divide from the road serving the Newey and Eyre site at the point where the present access to the former Builder Center site currently exists. The roadway would ramp downwards from that access, before turning northwards roughly halfway into the site to give access to the parking areas described above.

Materials for each block are proposed to be interlocking tiles for the roofs, with approved multi-red colour facing bricks and grey brick string and soldier courses, white UPVC windows and galvanised mild steel balustrading to the roof terraces. The ground floor of each building would contain blue facing brick string and soldier courses with blue facing bricks as a pediment below damp proof course. No information is submitted directly regarding the provision of office accommodation at this site, but a supporting letter from the Rural Community Council, contains the following:

“… the RCC currently occupies offices at Langley Court, 11 Orchard Street and in a former warehouse in Orchard Street which is under notice of demolition. The Council wants to use the Langley Court offices and we are in negotiation about disturbance and removal costs.

We have 15 staff now at Langley Court, planned to increase to at least 19 during early 2002 (sic) as a result of planned growth in projects. In addition we would wish to release pressure on our 11 Orchard Street offices by relocating 4 staff. My understanding is that the available life of these offices to the RCC are limited which might eventually involve relocating a further 3.

My estimate of staff members at St. Johns Road is initially 23, with planned growth over the period 2003/4 to 2005/6 adding a further 5. This makes 28 and we have worked on the basis of a practical working capacity of 30 staff, which I would expect to be reached within a further 2 years. It is quite possible that these numbers maybe reached earlier.

Initial plans include two small meeting rooms and a conference room for board meetings and for use by voluntary and community organisations, as already takes place at Langley Court.”

The site area (including access roads) is 0.25 hectares, giving a residential density of development of 72 dwellings per hectare.

A small ground floor amenity area between the building and the access road to the south will be available to the ground floor flats in the western part of the site; the only other specific amenity space available are the terrace areas in the northern elevation of the maisonettes and the flats above the offices.

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 or developers making specific housing units available to a registered social landlord, that the housing proposed within the “affordable” category, remains available in the future.

PPG13 (Transport) makes it clear that Local Planning Authority should seek to ensure that new development is designed to reduce the number of journeys likely to be undertaken by the private car and therefore developments which reduce the length of journey to work, or enable greater use to be made of other means of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking, are to encouraged.

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;

E4 – Mixed uses to promote employment development;

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 – recommends conditions if approved.

Southern Water – main concern is to limit amount of surface water draining to the foul/combined sewer. The southern part of the site (Newey and Eyre) can drain by gravity to surface water sewer in access road leading to the site. The northern part (Builder Center, subject of this application) is too low to drain to the surface water sewer by gravity. Understand 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.

Council’s Contaminated Land Officer suggests conditions regarding investigation of potential contamination and requirement for remediation scheme if contamination found, should application be approved.

Environmental Health Officer suggests a condition requiring a detailed noise emission report to be prepared prior to construction work commencing in respect of the adjoining builders merchant and timber yard business in Trafalgar Road. Any works required to ameliorate noise emissions should be completed before occupation.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Seven letters, four (including one duplicate) from residents of St Johns Road and three from residents of Albert Street, objecting on the following grounds:

· Concern at three storey development adjoining neighbouring gardens, blocking light and outlook from rear, although no windows directly overlooking;

· Will overshadow properties in Albert Street as well as St Johns Road;

· Out of character with adjoining properties and inclusion of offices not in keeping with area;

· Increasing traffic using access to St Johns Road, which is narrow and has very poor visibility with no proposals to improve;

· Lack of on-street parking in area – proposal will only increase pressure;

· Balconies on northern elevation of residential units will create invasion of privacy of properties in Albert Street and St Johns Road, already lower than proposed units;

· Noise, danger and pollution will arise from access and garaging along existing rear gardens;

· No objection to residential development as long as services are adequate and disruption to existing householders is minimised;

· Loss of security – sturdy boundary wall needed;

· Levels such that adjoining gardens 2 metres lower than site and will need secure fencing to prevent cars being driven over the edge;

· No gardens or children’s play areas allocated;

· Noise disturbance accentuated as adjoining gardens lower than application site;

· Three storey buildings will look four storeys from gardens of properties in Albert Street;

· Piecemeal development, access road conflicts with proposals for Newey and Eyre site – development of overall site, including Scout Hut, car park and Moreys yard should be considered within common boundary;

· Traffic flow over access, which is of substandard construction, will be significantly increased;

· Both developers of adjoining sites claim minimal increase in traffic flow;

· Agree with development of land, overall potential should be taken into consideration with more sympathetic approach and proper infrastructure in place;

· Recent trial drilling caused vibration to existing properties adjoining site so ground may not be suitable for development;

· Applicant states no properties at different levels, this is not the case as adjoining properties to east and north considerably lower;

· Disturbance from construction would go on for period of months, with dust, grit etc possibly creating health hazard.

First Newport Scout Group objects on grounds that peaceful development of the general area is not in the best interests of existing users. A comprehensive scheme with all parties involved in general consultation would be a better long-term solution. Utility services, drainage and adoption of roads are issues which need to be considered as a whole rather than under individual applications. Scout needs as well as those of Nine Acres School, should be paramount in that both provide valuable community service which may well be eroded if good planning practice is not followed.

Group would support a more comprehensive scheme where all parties concerned are consulted and open invitation to officers and Members for site meeting is extended.

Local Member expresses concerns as to area’s future use by local community is in need of a strategy particularly as other development sites share the same access. 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 similarly used by Scout Group and Nine Acres playing field for soccer, athletics and cricket and as pedestrian way linking Nine Acres and St Johns Road.

The realigned proposal places occupants of bungalows fronting Albert Street being grossly overlooked from second and third floor dwellings. Second floors have verandas. Occupants below use rear gardens for recreation and are concerned that vehicular access road to rear has no substantial wall. Area above is open plan and unlicenced and underage drivers frequent the area. Also concerns over surface water disposal into back gardens and measures required to overcome accident risk.

In summary, enlarged number of dwellings will add greatly to overlooking into rear gardens of bungalows, sure to have “amphitheatre” effect on lives of occupiers. Substantial retaining wall requested by residents affected, concerns over surface water and sewer capacity should be evaluated. Designs should be modified to take account of these objections.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has no objection to proposed development but is concerned about access to whole site with houses opposite and potentially more development in front of Scout Hut. Principle of access must be a planning consideration. Only comment about application is the office car parking spaces which are away from the office so surveillance is not the best but main consideration would be lighting even if it is time limited. There are health and safety considerations about staff accessing the parking spaces in the dark. What is the proposed lighting for the area?

EVALUATION

The issues to be considered in the determination of this application are principle (in terms of national guidance and the UDP), the layout and design of the development including materials to be used, questions of access traffic and parking, landscaping and relationship with the adjoining area, including the relationship with adjoining residential and commercial uses and comprehensive development considerations.

The site is within the development envelope for Newport and is adjoined on three sides by (existing and proposed) residential and associated community uses whilst on the northern side is a substantial timber yard. Thus, the principle of development of the site is considered acceptable and the decision must be made as to whether a purely residential use, a mixed residential/commercial as now proposed, or purely commercial redevelopment would provide the best solution in the context of the area.

The outline consent granted last August clearly indicates that purely residential redevelopment of the site would be acceptable. On that basis therefore, I can find no reason to object to the principle of providing residential redevelopment on this site.

The current proposal, however differs from that granted outline consent in that a commercial element, i.e. some 310 square metres of office floor space, is now proposed to be included. This floor space would be utilised by a single user, the Rural Community Council and would allow the consolidation of offices from a number of separate sites within Newport town centre, which would remain available for office use, should the RCC relocate.

Office use falls within class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and is considered, under its definition, to be a use which can be carried on within a residential area, without disturbance to nearby residents. In general, an office use is considered to be, by its nature quiet and unlikely to cause disturbance, other than through the comings and goings of employees and visitors. National guidance recognises that one way to reduce the number and length of journeys by the private car is to reduce the length of journeys to work and the provision of mixed development such as now proposed would help to achieve these aims. Therefore, I have no objection in principle to the provision of the office use proposed within the scheme; indeed this could be said to maintain some element of employment at the site, following the move of the former occupiers (The Builder Center) to the Dodnor Industrial Estate. I would suggest, if the application is approved, that conditions are imposed to ensure that the working hours of the offices are compatible with the associates residential use, so that disturbance to residents from the comings and goings of employees is minimised.

Although provided as illustrative material only, the outline residential approval was supported by drawings showing two terraces, one of 8 dwellings, parallel with the access road and one of 5 dwellings, aligned north/south in the eastern part of the site.

The current detailed submission shows once again two buildings to be provided, one in the east, one in the western part of the site and separated by the access road running northwards to the parking areas. This layout is considered satisfactory in that it preserves privacy of occupiers, separates the office parking (adjacent the northern boundary) from that serving the residential units, which is located close to the access points to the dwellings. Although the adjoining residential development is a mix of two and single storey, the levels of the site, the alignment of the properties and the distances between them are such that no undue loss of privacy or amenity should result, even from the balconies proposed on the northern elevations. Although the end gable of the western most three storey block, which would be “dug in” by approximately 1 metre below existing ground level and have a height to eaves of some 8 metres, is only about 1 metre from the rear boundary of properties fronting St. Johns Road and would inevitably result in a certain amount of overshadowing of those gardens in late afternoon/evening, the distance between buildings is some 14 metres, considered to be an acceptable distance within this urban context.

The design of the two buildings could be said to be simple, with standard window sizes but the use of good quality materials, including contrasting string and soldier courses, together with small gable features at eaves level and a variation in roof design of the western most block to accommodate landings and stair access, would in my opinion result in a fairly standard, although acceptable building design. Again, in this context, the careful use of good quality materials will be an important feature in ensuring that the finished appearance of the development is satisfactory. The first floor terraces, or balconies, will be an important and integral feature of the design and appropriate colouring and design of railings to these balconies will again have significant impact on the finished appearance of the buildings. The northern elevation of the eastern block (containing the offices) is given added interest by the projecting, covered staircases, with angled pitched and tiled roofs, which provide access to the flats above. In the context of this block, and the proposed balcony/terraces, it will be necessary, should approval be granted, to impose a condition requiring an opaque screen to be constructed on the eastern side of the eastern most balcony, to protect the amenities and privacy of the rear gardens of properties fronting the west side of St. Johns Road.

The proposal involves the construction of 18 dwelling units and therefore is below the thresholds set out in the UDP for the provision of affordable housing in Newport. Those thresholds would require developments of more than 25 units, or on sites exceeding 0.5 of a hectare, to make available 20% of the housing to a registered social landlord. It could be argued, that as the site in question shares access and is seen as part of an overall development with the Newey and Eyre site to the south, both sites should be regarded together for the purposes of provision of affordable housing. If this were to be the case, then the total number of units proposed would be 49, clearly exceeding the threshold and creating a requirement for 5 “affordable” housing units. Clearly, as the whole of the Newey and Eyre site is to be developed by a registered social landlord, creating 31 “affordable” units, the affordable housing requirement is significantly exceeded, even if both sites are considered as one comprehensive residential development.

Access to the site utilises the existing junction with St. Johns Road which also serves the Newey and Eyre site to the south. Whilst this junction does not meet modern visibility or radius requirements, the Highways Engineer has indicated that its use for the development proposed on this site is acceptable because the amount of traffic generated is likely to be less than that which was generated when the site was in commercial use. Besides employee traffic, the Builder Center did have a retail element and a significant amount of delivery traffic, both to and from the premises, would have occurred. Overall therefore, in traffic generation terms, the Highways Engineer finds the proposal acceptable.

Within the site, 19 parking spaces are proposed for the 18 flats and maisonettes. The location of these spaces is adjacent to the blocks they serve and therefore convenient for the occupiers. Under the adopted parking guidelines, 47 spaces (including 6 visitors spaces) should be provided. However as the site is within parking zone 2, a maximum of 50% of the guideline figure (i.e. 24 spaces) should be provided. It can be seen therefore that provision of 19 spaces to serve the residential element of the development is in accordance with UDP parking policies.

With regard to the offices, one space per 20 metres floor space, plus 1 lorry space should be provided. Under the parking guidelines, this would give a requirement of 16 spaces plus 1 lorry parking space. Again, within zone 2, a maximum of 50% of the guideline figure should be provided therefore the 14 spaces proposed are an overprovision by 6 spaces insofar as the office parking is concerned. Should Members be minded to approved the application, a condition requiring a maximum of 8 parking spaces to serve the office development could be imposed.

Under the UDP, development such as this within parking zone 2, would require a transport infrastructure payment of some £21,500. The applicant’s agent has indicated, during a meeting with officers, that at no time during discussions on the application was he advised that such a payment was necessary, that there was no requirement for the provision of such infrastructure payment when the outline consent was granted in August 2002 and that the office element is provided to allow relocation of the occupiers of Langley Court so that the premises can be used by the Council. He feels that these circumstances should lead to the conclusion that, under the current application, no infrastructure payment should be made.

Reference to the previous outline approval confirms that no transport infrastructure payment was required, although such payment was at the time part of the planning authority’s policy under the UDP. If this submission were for reserved matters then despite the existence of the UDP policy, no infrastructure payment could be required. Equally, there is no specific record of discussions between officers and the applicant’s agent, although I have no reason to doubt the agents assertion that in any such discussions reference was not made to transport infrastructure payments. However such payments are part of the Council’s published policies and I do not consider that lack of reference to such payments in pre-application discussions necessarily negates the policy requirement for them. Furthermore, that the development may enable relocation of occupiers of an existing building, which may be helpful to the Council in furtherance of other aims, should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the policy regarding infrastructure payments should be set aside.

I would point out that under annexe G of the UDP, the question of such payments is referred to thus:

“The Council will, when considering planning applications for development in parking zones 1 and 2, seek to establish, a legal agreement, by which contributions will be made to finance off site transport initiatives to help address the travel demands generated by the proposal.”

The applicant’s agent considers that this wording, under which the Council will “seek to establish” a legal agreement for such payments does not create a specific obligation, under which proposals which do not provide for such payments, must be refused.

I believe however that if the system of transport infrastructure payments is to retain its credibility, then, as the development proposed is within zone 2, and does not specifically involve the provision of affordable housing with fixed budgetary requirements, as is the case with the Newey and Eyre site to the south, a contribution to the sustainable transport fund should be sought.

However Members may consider that, in the circumstances outlined above, namely lack of specific advice to the agent regarding the requirement for such a payment and his contention that the development enables the Council to pursue other aims, either a reduced contribution, or no contribution at all should be payable. Members views on this element of the proposal are requested, and the recommendation is worded in such a way as to reflect this request.

Within the urban context, very little landscaping is proposed. Some planting is indicated on the fringes of the parking areas and outside the flats and maisonettes and it may be that some landscaping would be appropriate between the access road and the office block, and adjacent the northern and western boundaries. Should approval be granted, these issues can be covered by condition.

With regard to the relative levels between the application site and gardens and commercial premises to the north, if Members are minded to approve the application, conditions could be imposed requiring the construction of boundary walls, of appropriate height and strength, to secure the safety of the site.

As touched on earlier in this report, both in the representations and evaluation sections, and in Paper B1, both this site and the Newey and Eyre site to the south need to be seen in the context of the overall development of the area. The Local Planning Authority must be assured that any approved layout for one site, will not adversely affect the other.

In this context, the Highways Engineer is happy that the shared access proposed is adequate and that the arrangement to split access to the Builder Center site and the Newey and Eyre site is acceptable and follows the principles established when the outline consent of development of the Builder Center site was granted.

With regard to the physical relationship between buildings on both sites, the layout is logical, providing frontage development to either side of the access road to the scout hall. That access road is retained and maintained and its use to serve both developments will not adversely impact on its ability to serve the scout hall itself and land further west, should that become necessary in the future. In the western part of the overall area, the proposed flats and maisonettes on the Builder Center site are to be located approximately 12.5 metres apart with the access road between them. At ground floor, lounge/dining and kitchen windows on the northern side of the road would face bedroom windows at ground and first floor. However, the former would be at significantly lower level, due to the contour of the site and the “digging in” of the block and the dining/kitchen windows at first floor level, would equate roughly with the level of the access road. At upper floor level, bedrooms would look towards bedrooms. Bearing in mind that the two sets of buildings are separated by a reasonable distance (12.5 metres) and an access road, I do not believe that privacy in either block would be significantly compromised. With a regard to the block to the east, which on the north side of the access road would comprise the office development at ground floor with bedroom windows at first and second, these would stand opposite the three storey dwelling on the south side of the access road whose outlook northwards would be kitchen and hall at ground floor, bedroom and landing at first floor, and bedroom dormer windows in the roof space. Again, bearing in mind the distances between buildings (some 22.5 metres) and the ground levels involved, I do not consider that unacceptable privacy or amenity issues are raised. The scheme therefore respects and takes account of the development proposed on the land to the south.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Rights 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 has 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 the proposal makes adequate use of vacant urban brownfield land, adjoining by residential and commercial premises. Proposal to include office space within the development is acceptable in policy terms, creating mixed development and potentially reducing journey to work. The mix of 1 and 2 bedroom properties in proposed, appropriate for the area and the access arrangements are acceptable to the Highways Engineer. An over provision of parking for the office element can be addressed by condition and although no transport infrastructure payments are proposed, the applicant’s agent gives reasons why he considers such payments inappropriate in this case. Whilst officers consider it appropriate to seek such payments under UDP guidelines, Members will need to consider whether such payments are appropriate in this case, and if so, at what level.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL (members to consider whether, in the circumstances outlined in the report, a legal agreement to secure transport infrastructure payments is required and if so, what level of contribution is appropriate.)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Neither the office building, or any dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve those elements 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

No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been provided within the site for a maximum of 10 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear and such provision shall thereafter be retained.

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

The office space hereby approved shall not be occupied until a maximum of 8 parking spaces have been laid out within the site and for the loading and unloading of vehicles and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear and such provision shall be retained thereafter.

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.

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.

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; hard surfacing materials; refuse or other storage units, lighting; 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 7 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 any construction work is commenced, a wall, a minimum of 2 metres in height, of materials and specification to be agreed in advance in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be constructed along the full length of the northern boundary of the site the subject of this permission. Such wall shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed details, prior to any other construction work taking place on site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity and security of the properties adjoining to the north, in accordance with policies D4 (External Building Works) and G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Before the first floor flat at the eastern end of the eastern block hereby approved is occupied, an opaque screen of height and specification to be agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority shall be erected on the eastern side of the first floor terrace area, and such screen shall be retained thereafter in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers and in accordance with Policy D1(h) (Standards of Design) 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 tests 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 11 above shall be constructed, in accordance with the agreed details, prior to the occupation of any element of the development hereby approved.

Prior to the commencement of any works on the site (other than those required by condition 9), any fuel tanks within the site shall be located and removed in accordance with a scheme agreed in advance in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

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.

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 BS10175:2001;

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.

The construction of buildings pursuant to this consent shall not commence until a report, to confirm that all remediation measures required under condition 14 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