PAPER C1

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

 

1.        NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

           TCP/24680                                 Southern Households Ltd against refusal for variation of condition to reduce number of affordable houses from 4 to 3, land adjacent Prospect Cottage, Plots 1-4 High Street, Freshwater

 

           TCP/17574/E                              Sol Training against refusal for continued use of training centre; retention of dwelling to provide managers accommodation at Fort Bouldnor, Main Road, Bouldnor

 

           TCP/25157                                 Mr A H Ridett & Mrs P G Cameron against refusal for three detached houses with integral double garages and vehicular access, land rear of Binfield House, Mill Lane, Binfield

 

           TCP/23182/E                              Parchment Housing Group against refusal for block of 8 maisonnettes, 5 bungalows, access road & parking, land adjacent The Vineyard, Port La Salle, Bouldnor

 

           TCP/16351/B                              Mr D Hughes against refusal for the formation of vehicular access and hardstanding at 13 Arthurs Hill, Shanklin

 

           TCP/23688/B                              Roebeck Registered Caravan & Camping site against refusal for 3 holiday units; managers accommodation incorporating toilet & washing facilities for use at the camp site at Roebeck Registered Caravan & Camping site, Gatehouse Road, Upton, Ryde

 

           TCP/2180/C                               Dr J Cloke against refusal for demolition of building and pair of semi-detached bungalows and pair of town houses, D G Laundry Services, 65-67 New Street, Newport 

 



 

2.        HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

           TCP/24849/P                              Trustees of A E Brown against refusal for single storey extension to form annexed accommodation with glazed link to main dwelling at Merstone Lodge, Chapel Lane, Merstone, Newport. Hearing to take place on 4 June 2003.

 



 

3.        REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

           (a)       TCP/24850                     Mr Chandler & Miss Stewart against refusal for two storey rear extension at 85 Mary Rose Avenue, Wootton.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 24 June 2002.

           

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 18 December 2002.


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

                     The effect of the proposal on the appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

                     The host building is a small end of terrace house in a densely developed residential area.

 

                     The proposed relatively large flat roofed extension would appear seriously at odds with the existing house with its pitched roof and out of place with other houses in the area.

 

                     The extension would be visible by nearby residents and those using the adjacent parking area and nearby footpaths.

 

                     The proposal would appear incongruous and would detract significantly from the appearance of the original house and its surroundings.

 

                     There would be an unacceptably harmful effect on the appearance of the host building and the surrounding area and the proposal would be contrary to UDP policies.

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

           (b)       TCP/13571/C                  Messrs A B Scovell against refusal of outline for 5 detached houses served by private road, land rear of 4-10 Landguard Manor Road, Shanklin

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Approval.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal - 10 May 2002.

 

           Appeal Decisions:                    Allowed - 18 December 2002.

 

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

 

                     The adequacy of the access proposed between 2b and 4a Landguard Manor Road and its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

 

                     The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents.

 

                     The effect of the proposal on the local road conditions and highway safety.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

                     An access road in this location would be steep in parts and some form of embankment or support required but this would be barely visible from vantage points.

 

                     The access road would be located sufficiently far from the adjoining dwellings to avoid any unduly overbearing appearance or unacceptable harm to living conditions.

 

                     Landguard Manor Road is a busy road with parked cars in the vicinity of the site.

 

                     There is sufficient space for cars to pass and reasonable visibility would be available at the access point.

 

                     Traffic generated by the proposal would not be so great as to be beyond the capacity of the local road network.

 

                     There would not be an unduly harmful effect on the local road conditions or on highway safety.


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

 

           (c)       TCP/24624                     Mr S Peters against refusal of outline for a detached house on land adjacent 7 Station Road, Sandown.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 2 July 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 18 December 2002.


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

                     The affect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of numbers 6 and 7 Station Road with particular reference to its affect on daylight and outlook.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

                     Numbers 6 and 7, the two houses at the side of the site, have small windows in their side elevations which are below street level and which illuminate the basement rooms.

 

                     These windows clearly preform an important role in providing light to the front basement areas of numbers 6 and 7.

 

                     The proposed development would seriously curtail light reaching number 6 basement window and remove virtually all of the light available to the basement in number 7.

 

                     The outlook from these rooms would be dominated by the tall side walls of the proposed house and be much less pleasant as a result and would be harmed unacceptably.

 

                     The proposal would be contrary to policies D1 and H5.

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


Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.