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.

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

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.