1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5. THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
CHALE, NITON AND WHITWELL	site of Niton Garage and Ivy Cottage, Newport Road, Niton	TCP/06487/L	4	APPROVAL
CHALE, NITON AND WHITWELL	site of existing children's carousels, Blackgang Chine Leisure & Fantasy Park, Blackgang	TCP/19292/W	5	REFUSAL
EAST COWES SOUTH	Frank James Hospital, Adelaide Grove, East Cowes,	TCPL/04731/C	2	APPROVAL
EAST COWES SOUTH	Frank James Hospital, Adelaide Grove, East Cowes	LBC/04731/D	3	APPROVAL
SHANKLIN SOUTH	The Boathouse Restaurant, 3, Esplanade, Shanklin	TCP/03889/J	1	APPROVAL

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BRADING AND ST HELENS	Rowborough Lodge Beaper Shute Ryde	TCP/19190/M	11	REFUSAL
BRADING AND ST HELENS	Part OS Parcels 7267 and 7874 off Rowborough Lane Brading	TCP/25262	14	APPROVAL
CENTRAL RURAL	Margaret Nursery Macketts Lane Hale Common	TCP/10237/P	9	APPROVAL
CENTRAL RURAL	land adjoining Osborne Cottage Main Road Arreton	TCP/11277/K	10	APPROVAL
CENTRAL RURAL	land rear of Dove Farm House and 2 Dovecotes forming part of Merston Valley Nurseries Merstone Lane Merstone	TCP/20109/E	12	REFUSAL
CENTRAL RURAL	Puddles, East Lane Merstone	TCP/20109/F	13	REFUSAL
COWES CASTLE WEST	6 Magdalen Crescent Cowes	TCP/25270	15	REFUSAL
FAIRLEE	land adjacent Clevedon House 138 Staplers Road Newport	TCP/03441/M	6	APPROVAL
SEAVIEW AND NETTLESTONE	Spring Vale Hotel and Restaurant Springvale Road Seaview	TCP/05294/T	7	REFUSAL
SANDOWN NORTH	59 St. Johns Road Sandown	TCP/25276	16	APPROVAL
WOOTTON	land rear of 22 High Street fronting Red Road Wootton Bridge	TCP/09152/D	8	APPROVAL

The site has nearly approximately 0.02 hectares located at the extreme end of Shanklin Esplanade on the rising land at Chine Hill which marks the southern end of the physical development of the Esplanade. Chine Hill rises to the south, turns to the west whilst still rising and, in pedestrian form provides access to the Chine Public House, and turning further northwards links with Chine Avenue and Everton Lane. The rear of the site is marked by the bottom of the cliff and further terraced houses etc. abut the site further to the north including 4 and 5 storey block of flats known as Waverley Court. The site is currently occupied by 1, 2 and 3 storey buildings currently used as cafe/restaurant with residential accommodation covering the majority of the site.

Change of use of ground floor from retail to cafe approved in January 1995 and in April 1994 a change of use from class A1 retail to class A3 cafe was also approved, the two applications relating to opposite ends of the building.

Outline consent is sought for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 4 houses. Siting is the only matter to be considered at this stage. Revised plans show the layout of the site indicating the footprint and sketch plans have been submitted showing a possible elevation indicating the building will be on 4 floors providing, typically, lounge, kitchen and 3 bedrooms. A revised plan shows a scheme submitted which preserves the right of way at the northern end of the site and steps the building to clear a window in the adjoining property to the north.

Site is within development envelope; outside but abutting Shanklin conservation area; outside tourism policy (T4) area.

Fire and Rescue Service question suitability of development without turning facilities.

Shanklin Town Council oppose the development on grounds of loss of amenity in the prime tourist area. Stating that loss of such facilities on the seafront threaten the long term viability of the Esplanade and therefore the tourist trade in Shanklin.

Ten letters of objection from and on behalf of local residents on grounds of over development of the site, development too high and excessive density; inappropriate design. Objectors point out lack of parking and expected generation of traffic. Identified that there is no amenity space for the dwellings and a building of this size would result in the loss of sunlight to adjoining properties. Loss of an attractive building and loss of a tourist facility. Writers also draw attention to its location at the foot of a cliff suggesting that the cliff is unstable.

The relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

This application seeks to establish the principle of the redevelopment of the site with 4 storey four residential units in a single block but, at this stage, only the principle is sought but for a specified number of units.

The site is outside the designated tourism area for Shanklin and outside of the hotel area where 'facilities' would be required to be retained and therefore there is no principle objection to the sites redevelopment for residential purposes.

The only details to be considered at this time is the siting as numbers of units has been specified. Revised plans have been received which show a recess in the northern extent of the floor plan with the intention of retaining some space around and adjoining properties kitchen window to ensure light and ventilation to that property is not adversely affected. Although the site is shown to be practically fully covered with the new building, much of the development to the north, as far as Waverley Court, the large block of flats to the north, much of the development takes a similar form.

The development of this site, outside but abutting the conservation area, with a block of 4 floor in height, uses the slope of Chine Hill to give articulation to the elevation. However, irrespective of the fairly substantial height, the building would be seen from the Esplanade and fore shore but with a backdrop of the cliff which rises well above the site. a sketch elevation shows the building to be subdivided into its four elements with varying floor levels and in my view a building erected in this position could result in an interesting environment, consistent with design policies in the UDP. Design, however, will be a matter for a future application in the event that this application is successful.

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 or occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

The use of this site for residential properties does not contradict policies within the Unitary Development Plan regarding tourism or to the designated conservation area adjoining. The development of the site for residential purposes is likely to result in a lesser generation of traffic, bearing in mind the authorised use of there premises for residential use and as a cafe/restaurant therefore it is considered that having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, the use of the site for four houses is acceptable and consistent with policies D1, TR7 and B6 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 site investigation report documenting the ground conditions in the vicinity of all the above-ground tanks, lines and filling points in accordance with BS10175:2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice",

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

b) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including 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 shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. 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.

Reason: To protect the environment and protect harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The existing boundary wall fronting Adelaide Grove shall remain undisturbed except where required to improve access onto Hospital Road as shown on the approved drawing no. RP518/11 received on 18 July 2002.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing Listed Building and its boundary wall.

These applications were considered at the Committee meeting held on 19 November 2002 when the application was deferred to allow Members to carry out a site inspection.

Site inspection was duly carried out on Friday 29 November 2002 and Members deferred a decision on these applications to allow opportunity for further negotiations to take place. Subsequently discussions have been undertaken with agent and applicant and the submitted revised scheme is now before Members for determination. The previous reports presented to Members are reproduced below with appropriate amendments to the text.

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

Application relates to Listed Grade II former hospital building which fronts Adelaide Grove located close to junction with York Avenue and which has return frontage onto Jubilee Recreation Ground. Building which is constructed of red brick under tiled roof comprises of central block which is single storey with attic accommodation characterised by four main dormers with wooden barge boards and large central gable. Projecting wings are of two storey height with crow-stepped end gables. There are five gabled dormers to each wing and verandah to ground floor on all sides. Later two storey addition to south is flat roofed.

Red brick wall to front of site is also Listed. Originally building constructed as Frank James Memorial Home in 1893, originally built for aged seamen, building only used for this purpose for six years. South wing added as extension in 1938. Property then became convalescent home and in 1903 a cottage hospital. In 1948 building taken over by National Health Service.

These applications seek both Listed Building and planning consent for proposal which involves demolition of 1938 extension back to earlier pitched roof extension, reinstatement of symmetry of building by construction of new extension on north end.

Briefly, proposal seeks to convert the existing building to comprise three houses in each wing, each of which uses original entrance point off terrace or cloister with central section converted to three flats sharing central staircase that is retained as common and landing. Entrance hall is enhanced by relocation of various plaques and mementos and are located in corridor of existing hospital. Extensions and conversion at north and south ends will provide two two-storey houses with access from drive at back of site.

Design philosophy adopted has been to leave all that is good and original wherever possible and where original window or door has been moved (almost all at basement level) reuse of existing brick and stone surrounds are intended. At ground floor level principal changes are rear of two west facing wings. Existing openings have been used as far as possible with insertion of small paned metal windows and doors reflect style on western end. New landings and external stairs with cast handrails provide access to gardens. At roof level, apart from work to north and south ends, only changes to insert heritage roof lights over new stairwell. It is envisaged that grounds in front of building will be maintained under a maintenance agreement on behalf of all properties together with some enhanced planting in due course.

In terms of new build, seven two-bedroomed units are proposed in a terrace along Hospital Road frontage. These are stepped up with slope and reflect style of original building. Stepped gable end feature is complimentary to main building with roof pitches and materials similar to main premises. It is intended to offer three of these units for affordable housing. New development will require considerable amount of land levelling.

Hospital Road is altered by way of construction of footpath on north side linked to widened areas on north and south sides to form traffic calming ramps and crossovers. Parking bays are located off-road with railings and boundary walls enclosing house frontages.

With regards parking, additional parking for six cars is shown off Adelaide Grove at north western corner of site using existing vehicle entrance. Rear of site (eastern boundary) shows parking for some ten vehicles with a service road linking through from York Avenue to Hospital Road. Seven parking spaces are shown for seven new residential units fronting Hospital Road.

With regards revised proposal main changes involve siting of new dwellings along Hospital Road frontage. Previous scheme showed footprint of buildings to be at slight angle to existing hospital building, resited buildings achieve development which is perpendicular to Adelaide Grove road frontage and mirrors orientation of former hospital building. This alteration also allows new buildings to be stepped in appearance along Hospital Road frontage and provides larger area of land available for highway alterations to that road itself. Dwellings themselves would be similar in terms of design detail to originally submitted scheme. Amended scheme also provides for extension of existing boundary wall around rear curtilages of proposed dwellings located nearest Adelaide Grove frontage.

Other main changes involve highway and vehicular access arrangements. Revised plan shows introduction of "home zone" along entire length of Hospital Road from junction with Adelaide Grove to Jubilee Recreation Ground. This area which would be block paved seeks to provide user friendly shared surface which seeks by way of constraints and parking arrangement to significantly reduce traffic speeds so as not to prejudice pedestrian safety. In addition the existing footway along the southern boundary of Hospital Road will be maintained. In addition rear service road which links York Avenue to Adelaide Grove is shown to be closed off with both Hospital Road and service road having their own turning heads to allow independent access. Changes result in loss of one parking space whilst service road onto York Avenue will become two-way.

Agent confirms his agreement to inclusion of appropriate condition regarding the requirement for affordable housing rather than achieving such provision by way of planning obligation.

Members will be aware of requirements of circular guidance and provisions of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require Local Authorities when considering applications for planning permission or Listed Building consent for works which affect a Listed Building to have special regard to certain matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building. Additional advice is contained within PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment). There is statutory requirement also to have special regard to desirability of preserving any Listed Building or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In terms of use, guidance advises that generally best way of securing upkeep of historic buildings and areas is to keep them in active use. In principle, aim should be to identify optimum viable use of property that is compatible with fabric interior and setting of the historic building. Relevant PPG also advises that many Listed Buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate continuing or new uses.

Text contained within paragraph 15.26 whilst relating principally to new retail development, advises that in dealing with applications involving loss of local community facilities including shops and pubs, the Council will expect evidence to be submitted to show that the business is not able to be commercially viable and all alternative means for its retention have been explored. This will require an assessment of the viability of alternative uses, the continued local support for such a community need, the presence of similar facilities in the locality and their accessibility to local people and the impact on other elements of the local economy, i.e. tourism.

English Heritage have been consulted but at time of preparing report no reply had been received.

Highway Engineer advises that carriageway width along Hospital Road is too narrow for two vehicles to comfortably pass each other and leaves insufficient manoeuvring space to access driveway. Plans also indicate excessive traffic calming measures and concern is expressed over enforcement of proposed one-way traffic flow from York Avenue onto Hospital Road. Revised plans have been submitted incorporating suggested alterations by Highway Engineer. Briefly revised scheme involves single pinchpoint shared highway surface of 4.5 metres and increased turning head.

In view of fact that Hospital Road provides safe route access to local school Highway Engineer has been asked to comment further on appropriateness of highway works in Hospital Road and whether or not it would be prudent to seek to introduce one way system between York Avenue and Adelaide Grove.

Environmental Health Officer recommends condition relating to contamination report being carried out should consent be granted.

Both English Heritage and Highway Engineer have been consulted on amended scheme but to date no formal response has been received.

East Cowes Town Council raise no objection to application, however, they advise that they will be monitoring the plans put forward by North Medina Community Development Trust in coming months.

Town Council have been reconsulted but no further comments received at time of preparing report.

Fourteen letters have been received objecting to proposal. Objections can be summarised as follows:

Alterations have adverse impact on the character and setting of Listed Building.

Loss of community facility which should be kept available for local community and for which it was originally intended.

Increased residential activity on site and resultant increase in vehicular traffic in locality.

Inappropriate use of Listed Building and doubt is cast over housing meeting local needs.

East Cowes group of the Isle of Wight Society support proposal in principle, however, they suggest minor amendments relating to end elevations of proposed dwellings and access and parking arrangements.

Governors of East Cowes Primary School raise concern given that Hospital Road has been designated a safe route to school and many children and adults use this road as their main access to the school and to Jubilee Recreation Ground. Increase in traffic will lessen effectiveness of safe route.

Revised scheme has been readvertised and local residents and previous respondents have been notified accordingly. To date no further responses have been received.

Main planning considerations are appropriateness of alternative use of building in policy terms, impact on character and setting of Listed Building in respect of demolition and reinstatement works together with the construction of the seven new dwellings. Issue of affordable housing also needs to be addressed.

In terms of principle there is no Unitary Development Plan policy which would preclude against loss of hospital facility. In general, such policies seek to ensure provision of social, community, health and educational facilities in order to meet need created by new residential development. As explained by applicant in following paragraph hospital facility is no longer required following re-organisation of health care provision.

By way of explanation applicant (NHS Trust) advise that at the end of July 2002 existing patients were relocated to modernised and refurbished wing of existing Newcroft building at St Mary's Hospital. Frank James Hospital is therefore surplus to requirements of Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust and under NHS disposal criteria Trust must endeavour to obtain best price on open market in selling asset. Trust advise that whilst best price is likely to be achieved by way of residential development they emphasise that when final offers are invited on open market it will not necessarily be sold for that purpose. It would however enable Trust to more accurately evaluate final offers which could include a variety of uses including community beneficial use. Net proceeds from sale will all go towards improving NHS patient care on Island.

Alternative use of building for residential purposes will not, it is considered, detrimentally impact on character or setting of Listed Building and would indeed facilitate its maintenance. B national and local policy support a flexible approach in dealing with changes of use of Listed Buildings. As advised by Council's Conservation Officer demolition of inappropriate extension and balancing up of wings of main building have been handled sensitively and with respect to original architecture. Removal of pitched roof extensions and freestanding buildings is supported although removal of small building to east which was mortuary chapel is regretted. Use and general layout of main building, whilst extensive, will not adversely affect general character and ambiance of building. Importance of axial symmetry of building to north has been handled well, including retention of former landscaping to north elevation.

The provision of seven houses along the Hospital Road frontage are accommodated for by way of removal of the southern wing and minimum distance of some thirteen metres is achieved between the new build and the remaining footprint of the Listed Building. This distance, together with proposed design of dwellings, is considered sufficient to assimilate new development within grounds of Listed Building without adversely impacting on its character or setting.

Residential development of this scale on site of this size is expected to provide affordable housing in compliance with Policy H14 of the UDP. Such provision at 20% requires three/four units to be allocated for such provision. Agent states that three of the new units at the east end are to be made available for affordable housing but makes point that design and construction are the same as the remaining units fronting Hospital Road and is agreeable to appropriate condition to cover this requirement.

Whilst it is usual for Planning Authority to round up requirement for such provision, in this particular case, given considerable costs involved in ensuring appropriate alterations/works to the Listed Building, it is considered appropriate to require lower number of units of affordable housing in this instance.

Revised condition has been suggested seeking to ensure an approved scheme is submitted for boundary fencing along both the northern boundary of the site and in respect of the south western corner of the site around the curtilage of the proposed dwellings it is understood that further revised plans will plan show the provision of a brick wall enclosure.

With regards maintenance of the grounds it is anticipated that the grounds in front of the building will be maintained under a maintenance agreement on behalf of all properties. It is understood that the artefacts have been taken out and photographed prior to being replaced however these may be relocated at a suitable location and applicants would be willing to accept a condition accordingly.

Members may recall that during discussion at Site Visit Committee meeting, whilst raising no objection in principle to use of site for residential purposes and subject to provision of some affordable housing two main points of concern were raised. Firstly, potential conflict with use of Hospital Road as access to proposed seven residential units with use of highway and potential conflict, particularly with pedestrian traffic, generated throughout various peak periods by local school and adjacent recreation ground. Other principle issue was concern expressed at relationship and alignment of new buildings with Listed building itself as it was felt that such an arrangement would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the setting of that Listed building.

Clearly applicant has reflected wishes of Members by alterations shown within revised scheme. Relationship between new build and existing is significantly improved thereby improving prospects for preservation of setting of Listed Building with such alterations resulting in less dominant building, slight reduction in height of ridge above ground level and providing the opportunity for two blocks to be stepped both horizontally and vertically to create more interesting appearance. Scheme also allows for introduction of high boundary wall enclosing proposed rear gardens linked to existing Listed building and introduction of "home zone" modelled on highway advice issued by Central Government. Finally, proposal stops up potential highway link between York Avenue and Adelaide Grove and access amendment onto Adelaide Grove allows for retention of existing boundary wall around site.

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Impact this development may have on owners/occupiers of neighbouring property has been carefully considered and whilst there may be some interference with rights of these people balance has to be achieved with rights of applicant to develop land in 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.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that revised proposal offers opportunity to bring back into active use and ensure continued maintenance of this Listed Building with proposed works improving overall appearance of the building whilst new build as amended will successfully integrate within site. Proposal is therefore seen as complying with policies B1, B3 and H14 of the UDP and accordingly application is recommended.

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

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

Application involves area of land which previously formed part of larger area, the subject of an application for residential development, and current proposal raises number of issues to be resolved.

Application relates to commercial garage premises located on western side of Newport Road approximately 125 metres north of its junction with Church Street and Rectory Road.

Application site as defined on submitted plans has frontage to Newport Road of approximately 34 metres and rises away from road in a northwesterly direction. Site is presently occupied by a two storey detached dwelling and a number of single storey structures used in connection with the garage business. Dwelling would be retained whilst the latter would be demolished in order to facilitate development of site.

Previous application sought outline planning permission for residential development of fourteen houses with associated parking and access road on larger area of land, including the current application site. The application was initially considered by the Development Control Committee at the meeting held on 5 June 2002 where it was resolved to defer the application pending receipt of additional information regarding capacity of sewerage system in Newport Road. This information was obtained and the proposal was again considered by the Committee at the meeting held on 17 September 2002 where it was resolved to defer the application in order for Members to carry out a site inspection. Following the site inspection, held on 27 September 2002, Members resolved to defer the application for further negotiations, particularly in respect of access to site, layout of the development, the range and mix of housing to be provided, including affordable housing, and surface water runoff from the site. Application was subsequently withdrawn.

Outline planning permission is sought for five dwellings and, with exception of siting and access, all other detailed matters are reserved for subsequent approval.

Submitted plans show formation of new access road within Newport Road frontage of site, approximately 20 metres north of junction with Downside Avenue. Existing stone cottage on northern side of access road is shown to be retained and proposed dwellings would be arranged with pair of semi-detached houses fronting Newport Road with L-shaped block of three dwellings to rear. Whilst land to rear of application site, which formed part of land the subject of the previous proposal, has been omitted from the scheme, layout and design of access road in current proposal maintain potential for future development of the adjacent land.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal, in which, applicant's agent advises that, due to the protracted nature of the negotiations on the previous application and following deferral of the application by Committee, it has been decided that the rear area of land will not at this time be included in the development proposal. The owner of this land lives in the bungalow to the rear of the garage premises which, at the time of the Committee site inspection, Members suggested should be demolished in order to facilitate a more comprehensive development proposal. Applicant's agent advises that the occupant of this bungalow is quite elderly and losing his sight and would not wish to move at this time, resulting in him withdrawing the land from the proposal. However, applicant's agent indicates that his client is in full agreement that the road to be installed for the five units at the front of the site will be made available for future development on the adjacent land.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing, sets out Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimising the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximising the reuse of existing buildings. Guidance Note indicates that national target is that by 2008, 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings.

Site is shown on Unitary Development Plan to be within development envelope for Niton. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites) rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the Plan period. While a large proportion of this will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved, including "Grampian" condition requiring the provision of a dedicated footway within highway land between the site and Niton village centre. However, he does indicate that parking arrangements for plot 5, as shown on the submitted plans, are not satisfactory as any vehicle would have to reverse out then drive to the end of the road to turn around. Therefore, he considers that this matter would need to be resolved.

Contaminated Land Officer (Environmental Health Department) recommends conditions should application be approved regarding potential contamination of site and measures to be implemented to overcome any such problems.

Consultations have been carried out with the Policy Section with regard to issue of affordable housing and Principal Planning Officer considers that, although current application is for smaller site, it has been clearly demonstrated through the previous proposal that a more comprehensive scheme could be delivered and whilst adjoining landowner does not wish, for personal reasons, to progress with the larger scheme at present, this does not diminish the likelihood of further development taking place in the future. He expresses view that current application forms part of a larger site and, therefore, should be dealt with as such enabling the objectives of PPG3 to be met in ensuring housing meets identified needs, makes best use of land, provides for good design, creates sense of place etc. He also advises that the recent Direction (Circular 01/02) from Government is yet more evidence that development is expected to be considered in a more comprehensive fashion as this is the best way of meeting housing and wider sustainability objectives. It is considered that there are limited opportunities in Niton for new housing development and it is more important that such sites are fully utilised to meet the requirements of housing needs and the objectives of PPG3. He notes from the information submitted in respect of the previous proposal that the units proposed were valued at between £130,000 and £150,000 which he considers to be a conservative estimate. In any event, he advises that the Housing Needs Survey 2001 states that prices in the region of £60,000 - £70,000 would be required in order to be affordable to first time buyers on the Island and that, in the absence of any affordable housing, the current scheme would therefore not assist in providing for any local needs.

Principal Planning Officer (Policy) indicates that he is aware of the negotiations that have taken place over access to the site from Downside Avenue but considers that the current layout and accessing arrangements are creating design solutions which do not meet objectives of PPG3. He suggests that use of the existing access could lead to far more acceptable, effective and efficient development and must be worthy of further exploration particularly given the cost of the new access and the fact that it is both unnecessary and less desirable in planning terms.

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend refusal on grounds of overdevelopment of site and deleterious effect of additional off-street parking.

One letter received from local resident in support of proposal who considers that the proposed configuration of five properties, designed to be sold at the lower end of the market, appear to be in keeping with the existing cottages in the village and would provide a welcome opportunity for single (old or young) people and first time buyers to remain within the village. In addition, she comments that scheme will also give vital vehicular access to rear of nos. 1 and 2 Alma Cottages thus removing two cars from the limited on-street parking space in Newport Road and enhancing the quality of the general housing stock. She also considers that proposed access road would open the possibility of future development of the parcel of land to the rear of Ivy Cottages and nos. 1 and 2 Alma Cottages which lies within the village development plan.

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, whether number of houses proposed and general layout as indicated on submitted plans would detract from character of area and amenities of neighbouring occupiers and whether proposal would give rise to unacceptable highway hazards.

Whilst site is not allocated for residential purposes in the UDP, it is located within the development envelope. Policy S7 of the Plan identifies a need for at least 8,000 housing units over the Plan period and, in addition to previously identified sites and new land allocated in the Plan, this demand will also be satisfied by developing currently unidentified sites. I consider that proposal, involving development of a brownfield site, is consistent with the aims of Policy S7 and the provisions of PPG3 which encourages development on such sites in order to relieve pressure on greenfield sites. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to development of site for residential purposes.

At time of the site inspection carried out in respect of the previous application, Members expressed the view that the existing bungalow within the site should be demolished and that development should be accessed off Downside Avenue. This option was thoroughly explored by the applicant's agent in respect of the previous application and it is understood that he carried out extensive discussions with the residents of Downside Avenue in order to achieve this. However, these discussions were unsuccessful thereby necessitating formation of a new access road to serve the development on land within the ownership of the applicant. Whilst use of Downside Avenue to access the development may be considered more desirable, the Authority must consider the application before it and, in this instance, the access arrangements and layout are considered by the Highway Engineer to be broadly acceptable. In particular, I do not consider that, in this instance, the existence of a possible alternative means of developing the site would provide a sustainable reason for refusal.

Applicant's agent provided letter in connection with previous application from engineers dealing with issue of foul and surface water drainage. The engineers advised that they have carried out a preliminary assessment of the drainage requirements and also requested Southern Water to carry out a hydraulic analysis of the existing sewerage system so that the down flow section of the Newport Road and Rectory Road drainage system, which comprises a 175 mm diameter pipe with significant falls due to the topography of the area, could be confirmed as being sufficient in capacity to accept flows from the development. Notwithstanding this exercise, and at time of dealing with previous application, engineers expressed view that the increase in flow arising from the development will be low in relation to the overall flows currently catered for by the existing system and it is unlikely that it would be found to be inadequate.

With regard to storm water flows, the engineer advised that these can either be disposed of to soakaways which, given the granular nature of the underlying soils, are considered to be acceptable or, if capacity permits, the development could be connected to the existing storm water drainage in Newport Road, subject to detailed design considerations which may possibly require the installation of an attenuation system to regulate outflow from the development during times of high rainfall.

Current application was accompanied by letter from consulting engineers and surveyors acting on behalf of the applicant addressing in greater detail matters relating to disposal of foul water and surface water from the development. The information was also accompanied by correspondence from Southern Water indicating that the results of a hydraulic assessment of the existing sewerage system indicates that there is sufficient capacity in the system to accommodate a foul flow no greater than 0.7 l/s. The engineers calculated that foul flow from the development previously proposed, involving fourteen houses, would be 0.65 l/s. Therefore, on the basis of the information provided, and the fact that current proposal involves only five houses, it is considered that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage system to serve the proposed development. However, the correspondence from Southern Water indicated that the hydraulic assessment carried out by them indicates that there is insufficient capacity in the sewerage system to accommodate any additional surface water flows. They suggested that the developer will have to seek an alternative means of surface water disposal such as soakaways and/or any natural watercourses, subject to all parties approval.

The engineers acting on behalf of the applicant have previously carried out consultations with the Council's Highways Department who have confirmed that there is spare capacity for surface water runoff in the adjacent road drainage system, the head manhole of which is located just adjacent the site. The information provided indicates that this system comprises a minimum 150 mm diameter drain, which, between the development site and its discharge into the culverted Yar at the lower end of Newport Road would typically have a full flow capacity of 42 l/s. Engineer suggests that during a two year event, this pipe could accept a further flow from the development site equivalent to some 25% of its capacity, i.e. 10 l/s, although in practice, this might be more as the road gulley here already receives considerable runoff from the existing garage site. On this basis, the engineer suggested that it would be necessary to provide a retention system capable of holding some 20 cubic metres of storm water pending regulated discharge, which could be achieved through appropriately sized pipes beneath the access road with the outlet from the system design regulated to ensure a maximum discharge to the highway drain of no more than 10 l/s. However, engineer indicates that, in order to accommodate the effects of a one in thirty year storm event, a higher storage capacity of some 50 cubic metres would be necessary, or alternatively, an equivalent combination of storage and soil infiltration systems, both of which could be constructed beneath the paved roadway and parking areas.

It was previously suggested that there are flooding problems at the lower end of Newport Road at crossroads in the centre of the village. In this respect, engineer indicates that, as a long term resident of Niton, he has observed that the prime cause of what has only been very occasional surface flooding of the roads in this area, has been the effects of storm water runoff from the fields on the slopes of St Catherine's Down which have overwhelmed the road drainage gulleys in Blackgang Road to the west of the village. He suggests that there have been no such problems affecting Newport Road itself, even though a large part of the area of the proposed development site currently drains naturally onto the road where it passes the garage frontage. He therefore expresses the opinion that new drainage proposals in connection with the development will not have any adverse effects upon the present drainage regime within the centre of Niton.

In accordance with Policy H14 of the UDP, the Authority will, in appropriate circumstances, seek to negotiate an element of affordable housing as part of residential development schemes. In the case of proposals for residential development within settlements having less than 3,000 population, the explanatory text to the policy suggests that ten units or more is an appropriate threshold to trigger the requirement for affordable housing. Previous application proposed fourteen dwellings thereby triggering the requirement for affordable housing. However, in determining whether it was appropriate to require the applicant to provide affordable housing in respect of the previous proposal, and the scale and type such provision would take, it was considered necessary to have regard for a number of factors, including local needs. Furthermore, it was considered necessary to have regard for other benefit which may arise from the development in the form of creation of improved pedestrian link between the site and the centre of the village. In addition, the explanatory text to Policy H14 of the UDP advises that, given the economics of small schemes, any thresholds must not stifle development but equally should provide the opportunity to address rural needs wherever possible.

When dealing with previous proposal, applicant indicated willingness to make financial contribution for off-site works to provide an improved pedestrian link between the site and the village centre. Whilst this provision would be a direct result of the development, it would of course provide benefits for residents living in the area in general. It is understood, notwithstanding the reduced number of dwellings being proposed, that applicant would still be willing to make such a contribution.

Clearly any proposal for residential development within the village below the ten dwelling threshold would not trigger a requirement for affordable housing. However, whilst current proposal involves construction of only five houses, it is necessary to have regard for the circumstances leading to the submission of the application and whether, in this instance, the absence of any affordable housing within the scheme would provide a sustainable reason for refusal. In this respect, applicant's agent has indicated that his client does not own or have any control over the adjacent land, which was included in the previous proposal. Nevertheless, development potential of this land has been acknowledge and the layout of the houses and road in the current scheme is such that development of the garage site in isolation would not proclude development of the adjoining land at some future date.

Whilst I accept that sub-division or incremental development of large sites could be seen as a way for developers to avoid making provision for an element of affordable housing, I consider that each case must be considered on its merits and, in particular, consideration given to the likelihood of the larger area being developed as part of a single comprehensive scheme. In this instance, the applicant does not own or control the land to the rear of the garage premises and wishes to proceed with the development of the land within his ownership, in isolation from the remainder of the site. Therefore, under the circumstances, I do not consider that refusal of the application for non provision of affordable housing would be sustainable in this instance.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others, it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aims of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that proposal represents an acceptable form of development which would reflect the more traditional cottage architecture found within the village and, therefore, would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the locality. Furthermore, I do not consider that proposal would have excessive or adverse impact on adjoining properties to the detriment of amenities enjoyed by occupiers thereof. I am satisfied that, subject to implementation of off-site works to provide a continuous footway link between the site and the centre of the village, proposal is acceptable in highway terms. Whilst it is acknowledged that site could be developed as part of a more comprehensive development involving adjacent land, I am satisfied that design and layout of the proposal maintains potential for further development on the neighbouring site. Having regard to the fact that applicant does not own or have any control over the adjacent land, I do not consider it would be appropriate, in this instance, to require provision of affordable housing in connection with the development of the garage site with only five dwellings.

No development shall commence on site, including site clearance until:

a) a methodology for investigations and assessments of any potential ground contamination to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to site investigations and assessments being carried out by an appropriately qualified person. The investigations and assessments shall be in accordance with British Standard 10175:2001 (Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Best Practice". The laboratories used for analysis of samples shall be registered to the ISO17025:2000 quality standard. The investigations and assessments shall be in accordance with current Government and Environment Agency guidance and shall identify the types, nature and extent of contamination present, the risks to human and groundwater receptors and the potential for migration within and beyond the site boundary;

b) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminants identified has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling 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 occupants of the development and to safeguard against the contamination of groundwater in accordance with Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report to the Local Planning Authority, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the agreed scheme as required under condition 5 above. 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. Further monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme has been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such scheme shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure that additional flows do not cause flooding or overloading of the existing system. The agreed systems shall be installed prior to occupation of any of the dwellings within the development and shall be retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Application involves proposal which raises a number of issues and potential conflict between policies of the Unitary Development Plan which need to be resolved.

Application relates to area of land within Blackgang Chine Leisure and Fantasy Park, immediately to south of the St Catherine's Quay Exhibition. Area of land is tarmacked, with gradual fall in southerly direction, and is presently occupied by two children's amusement rides.

The park has been subject to numerous applications for development in connection with its use as a tourist attraction. More recent applications considered to be of particular relevance to current proposal are listed below.

TCP/19292R/P1460/97 - Planning permission for construction of water slide on land immediately to south of roundabout on Blackgang Shute conditionally approved January 1998.

TCP/19292S/P822/98 - Planning permission for installation of bumper boat lake and four children's rides conditionally approved August 1998. Application involved area of land the subject of the current submission.

TCP/19292V/P21/01 - Planning permission for relocation of nursery land and extension of pirate fort attraction conditionally approved July 2001. Nursery land attraction was to be relocated to area of land immediately to south of and running parallel with Blackgang Road.

Planning permission is sought for installation of family roller-coaster ride on land immediately to south of the St Catherine's Quay Exhibition. Application site is roughly rectangular having maximum length of approximately 60 metres and depth of 19 metres. Area to be occupied by roller-coaster itself would have length of approximately 40 metres and depth of 16 metres. Track to roller-coaster ride would reach maximum height of 8.5 metres and proposal would include provision of assembly point for visitors to the attraction. Application was accompanied by design statement providing information in support of proposal which is attached to this report as an appendix. In addition, letter was subsequently sent to the Chairman of the Development Control Committee providing additional information which is also attached to this report as an appendix.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside advises that the guiding principle in the countryside is that development should both benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment. It acknowledges that rural areas can accommodate many forms of development without detriment, if the location and design of development is handled with sensitivity. In terms of tourism, the guidance note advises as follows:

"Rural tourism makes a major and growing contribution to rural economic activity and the rural labour market. It needs to develop in a way which draws on the character of the countryside and does not destroy the very asset on which its popularity depends. Given that guiding principle, a wide variety of tourist developments, in terms of nature and scale, can be acceptable in the right location."

Application site is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Heritage Coast. The primary objective of the AONB designation is conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. PPG20 - Coastal Planning advises that the Heritage Coast designation provides a flexible management tool for balancing the requirements of conservation and access to the coastal zone. The guidance note provides the main objectives of the Heritage Coasts, including to facilitate and enhance their enjoyment, understanding and appreciation by the public by improving and extending opportunities for recreation, education, sporting and tourist activities that to draw on and are consistent with the conservation of their natural beauty and protection of their heritage features.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 21 provides advice and guidance on issues relating to tourism. The guidance note advises that the Government is committed to encouraging tourism in Britain while at the same time conserving those qualities in the environment that are a major attraction for tourism. The guidance note also acknowledges that the appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are material considerations and good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process.

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be outside any settlement defined by the development boundaries and to be within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Heritage Coast and adjacent a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

S10 - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

Views of the Environmental Health Officer and Tourism have been sought and any comments received will be reported at the meeting.

AONB Officer acknowledges that site has been developed for leisure purposes over a period exceeding 100 years but considers that this was originally centred on the dramatic geological formation of the Chine and latterly associated with the cultural links to smuggling and wrecking in the area. He considers that the relocation of facilities in recent years to address problems of rapid erosion has had an impact both visually and for noise generated by equipment and users, the most significant of these being the water slide.

With regard to current proposal, AONB Officer is satisfied that there is no visual impact of any significance as the structure would sit comfortably on the site below the roofline of existing buildings. However, he is concerned about the impact of noise on the surrounding countryside. He advises that the Heritage Coast designation was established to protect and celebrate the most special coastlines of England and Wales and, unlike the AONB designation, there is a presumption in favour of leisure and recreation activities within the designation, with emphasis that such activity should be informal, 'for quiet enjoyment' and in harmony with the conservation and enhancement of the AONB. He considers that the information submitted by the applicant regarding noise likely to be generated by the ride is not directly transferable to the proposal and would prefer to see a more detailed report reflecting the national importance of the AONB and Heritage Coast designations.

In summary, AONB Officer advises that information submitted by applicant providing an analysis of likely noise levels to be generated by ride is insufficient to allow a reasoned decision to be taken by the Planning Authority. He is concerned that, if submitted to scrutiny and decision by the Development Control Committee as it stands, this would inevitably lead to a decision that has not demonstrated duty of regard as conferred by Section 85 of Part 4 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

No third party representations had been received at time of preparing this report.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal would have unacceptable impact in the landscape, particularly having regard to its designation as an AONB and Heritage Coast, and whether benefits to the tourism industry are sufficient to outweigh any adverse impact from the development.

Due to nature of the proposal, I consider that the likely impact on the landscape would be both visual and potential disturbance from noise generated by the attraction. With regard to visual impact of proposal, I consider that the roller-coaster structure would be reasonably well screened by adjacent buildings and by trees to south of site. Submitted plans indicate that track to roller-coaster at its highest point would be approximately 1.7 metres below ridge line of St Catherine's Quay building immediately to north of site. Nevertheless, roller-coaster structure would be clearly visible from higher ground surrounding the park and, in particular, from the viewpoint car park at the top of Blackgang Shute. However, I am satisfied that the roller-coaster ride would be seen in the context of the existing buildings and structures within the park and that the visual impact of the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the landscape character of the area.

Of greater concern, I consider that proposal would be likely to generate noise at levels which would detract from the peace and tranquility of the surrounding countryside. This would include the operational noise of the roller-coaster itself together with noise generated by riders of the facility, i.e. screams and shouts. Correspondence has been received from the applicant advising that the manufacturers of the ride confirm that it produces no more than 50 decibels of noise when fully loaded. It is understood that this information relates to the operational noise of the roller-coaster, excluding noise generated by riders. Whilst noting the concern raised by the AONB Officer in this respect, applicant points out that proposed site of roller-coaster is presently occupied by junior roundabouts generating noise, together with recorded music from an adjacent steam organ. However, the existing rides referred to by the applicant are smaller and likely to attract younger visitors than the proposed roller-coaster. Therefore, I do not consider that the noise levels generated by these attractions would be significant.

Applicant has subsequently submitted additional information in an attempt to provide an indication of the noise levels likely to be generated within and close to the leisure park. This information has been produced by the applicant using noise level data on a roller-coaster ride at Seaworld, Orlando in Florida. This ride is significantly larger, having overall height of approximately 60 metres and is not considered to be at all comparable with the proposed roller-coaster at Blackgang Chine. Furthermore, the information has not been prepared by a specialist noise consultant raising concerns with regard to the accuracy of the predictions made. In any event, whilst the main objectives of Heritage Coasts, as specified in PPG20, include facilitating and enhancing their enjoyment, understanding and appreciation by the public by improving and extending opportunities for recreational, educational, sporting and tourist activities, I consider that the roller-coaster is likely to generate noise levels which would not be consistent with the conservation of the natural beauty of the area and would detract from the peaceful enjoyment of the area by other users, including walkers on nearby public footpaths. Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, acknowledges that designation of areas such as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty does not preclude the use of land for sporting and recreational activities, but noisy or other intrusive activities should be restricted to locations where they have minimal or no impact on residents or other recreational users.

It is acknowledged that Blackgang Chine is one of the Island's main tourist attractions and provision of additional facilities at the park will assist in maintaining its success and viability as such. Therefore, proposal may be considered as complying with policies which seek to promote tourism on the Isle of Wight. However, I consider that it is necessary to have regard for other factors and features which are an asset to the Island as a tourist destination, including landscape character and peaceful enjoyment of the countryside which is popular with walkers and the like. Therefore, in this instance, I do not consider that the benefits to tourism are so significant that they would outweigh the harm that would result from this development.

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse permission is proportional to he legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the operation of the proposed roller-coaster would be likely to generate noise at levels which would detract from the character and enjoyment of the surrounding area which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast, and insufficient information has been submitted by the applicants to indicate otherwise.

To give Members opportunity to consider whether reasons for refusal for a previous similar application have now been overcome.

Clevedon House is a substantial building, formerly used as residential home for the elderly on southern side of Staplers Road approximately 100 metres west of the junction with Landscape Lane. Property and main area of curtilage set back from road and surrounded by residential development fronting Staplers Road, Landscape Lane and Long Lane. Building Victorian in character, brick built and with garden area (lawn) to west. Vehicular access onto Staplers Road with parking areas provided off the access and between Clevedon House and properties fronting Staplers Road.

Substantial beech tree (some 14 metres spread) to south of access some 14 metres back, but visible from, Staplers Road and the locality generally.

TCP/3441L - conversion of Clevedon House to eight flats - approved subject to conditions, 25 June 2002.

TCP/3441K - outline for three dwellings - refused 25 June 2002 for reasons relating to:

Overdevelopment - leading to loss of outlook and character with prevailing pattern of development in area;

Loss of space around Clevedon House to detriment of visual amenity and character, including contribution site makes to apparent density of the locality;

Proposal likely to result in significant physical damage to beech tree, important in local landscape.

In outline, for two dwellings, with siting only reserved matter to be considered.

Submitted plan shows proposed pair of dwellings to be sited 4.5 metres from Clevedon House and minimum of 2.1 (increasing to 3.5) metres from western boundary. Proposed pair of dwellings to measure 10 metres frontage by 9.8 metres depth, giving minimum distance of 7 metres (maximum 7.5 metres) from southern boundary.

Proposed dwellings shown on plan to be located 10 metres from trunk and 7 metres from crown of the beech tree.

A supporting statement submitted by applicant's agents, indicating why, in his opinion, previous reasons for refusal have been overcome. A copy is attached for Members' information at appendix A.

Agent also submits a further copy of the applicant's arboriculturalist's report submitted in connection with the refused application, indicating his view that the existing beech tree will probably survive for a further ten years or so, but will subsequently need replacement. This could be done sooner, rather than later, to help maintain continuity.

PPG3 encourages Local Planning Authorities to accept development within designated areas and to increase housing densities, where practical. Such density increase should not be at the expense of the character or nature of particular areas. PPG13 encourages development within defined areas, where easy access is available to public transport, shops, work and community facilities, thereby potentially reducing reliance on the private car for transport.

Site is within the development envelope for Newport as defined in the UDP and the following policies are considered relevant:

Tree and Landscape Officer - comments requested, will be reported at the meeting.

One letter from a resident of Staplers Road indicating not clear whether proposal for two detached or semi-detached dwellings. Objects on the following grounds:

· Undesirable intensification of residential development, incompatible with locality. 20 dph much greater than 5-6 dph in area. Could be precedent for further development of large gardens in area;

· Vehicular traffic and noise would greatly increase and be unacceptable to nearby residents;

· Access onto busy main road would be unsafe and increase in use would result - no Highways comments on previous approval for flats;

· Nature of adjacent development approved leads to conclusion one dwelling only should be approved - application for five dwellings on larger adjacent site refused and dismissed on appeal;

· If to be semi-detached, then cannot be in keeping, as only two semi-detached properties in area.

The site is within the defined development envelope for Newport and proposes residential development, appropriate, in principle, for the area. Therefore the issue to be considered is whether the current submission overcomes the three reasons for refusal identified in connection with the previous application. Each reason will therefore be dealt with in turn.

The application site is 0.1 hectares in extent and therefore the reduction of number of dwellings from three to two reduces the density from thirty dwellings per hectare to twenty. Notwithstanding the Government's desire to increase housing densities to reduce pressure on greenfield sites and the conversion of the adjoining dwelling to eight flats, a density of twenty dwellings per hectare may be considered more compatible with the surrounding area, which is characterised, for the most part, by detached and semi-detached dwellings, with reasonably sized gardens. Although in outline, siting is not reserved for future approval and the submitted drawings clearly show the siting of a pair of semi-detached houses. I consider therefore that a pair of dwellings as now proposed is more appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, than the terrace of three previously refused.

Although the density now proposed would be greater than that of the surrounding area (excluding Clevedon House and the application site) I consider that bearing in mind PPG3 and the requirement to increase urban densities where appropriate, overdevelopment could not now be supported as a reason for refusal.

The second reason related to loss of space around the existing building and the adverse effect on character and amenity arising there from.

The building now proposed would stand some 4.5 metres from the nearest part of the western elevation of Clevedon House, which itself is 0.75 metres from the proposed site boundary. Within the area, a distance of this nature between dwellings is not uncommon (indeed in a number of cases it is rather less) and I believe this significant increase in space between the buildings over the previous scheme results in an acceptable relationship between the two. Whilst there are windows in the elevation of Clevedon House facing towards the application site, these will look onto the side wall of the proposed dwelling, and the issue of mutual privacy could be addressed at reserved matters stage, should outline approval be granted.

Reference is also made in the second reason for refusal to the contribution which the lawn area, the subject of the application, makes to the pattern of development in the locality. In my opinion, whilst there would be a significant reduction in the amenity space available to residents of Clevedon House, sufficient amenity space (including parking) is retained with that property.

Providing the space between the proposed dwellings and the boundaries of the site are maintained, I consider that the impact of the dwellings proposed on the pattern of development in the locality would not be so detrimental as to warrant refusal of the application on this ground.

The third reason for refusal relates to the proposed impact of the development on the mature beech tree within the application site.

Comparison of the submitted drawings indicates that the nearest point of the proposed development to the trunk of the tree is increased from 6.5 metres (i.e. approximately equal to the crown spread) to 10 metres from the trunk and 3.5 metres from the crown. Parking requirement within the crown spread of the tree has also been eliminated.

Subject to the view of the Tree and Landscape Officer, I consider that the relationship between the proposed development and the mature beech tree is now acceptable, although it will be necessary, should approval be granted, for conditions to be imposed relating to the planting of a further tree as long term replacement.

With regard to highways and parking issues, ten parking spaces were shown within the grounds of Clevedon House in connection with its approval for eight flats and any approval for the current application should be subject to a condition requiring two of those spaces to be made available for occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

Overall, I consider that the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome by the reduction of number of dwellings proposed from three to two and recommend accordingly.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Taking into account the policies and principles set out in the evaluation above, it is considered that the development now proposed overcomes the previous reasons for refusal for three dwellings on the site in that it is at an acceptable density, respects the properties around it, and secures the long term replacement of the beech tree within the site.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until the existing beech tree adjacent the western boundary has been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: 1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply:

(a) No placement or storage of material;

(b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals.

(d) No lighting of bonfires.

(e) No physical damage to bark or branches.

(f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area.

(g) No changes in ground levels.

(h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers.

(i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged.

Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use:

(a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm

2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Application premises is operated by Parish Councillor and involves significant extension and alterations to property.

Hotel premises situated on southern side of Springvale Road approximately 100 metres west of junction with Oakhill Road. Building consists of mixture of three and four storey elements and has the benefit of parking facilities to rear.

Subsequently further consents granted for minor alterations and entrance canopies in 1994 and 1998.

Application seeks detailed consent for construction of rear extension to hotel to allow internal rearrangements to provide lift shaft, improve access arrangements and accommodation in terms of room sizes.

Rear extension would be located towards southern corner of building and involve construction at basement level with three levels above. Third floor would provide for mansard roof treatment to reflect existing detail of hotel premises.

Extension would project minimum of some 3.9 metres from rear main wall of existing premises and maximum distance of some 5.85 metres with overall width of extension totalling some 13.5 metres.

Extension would provide laundry room and pool room at basement level with bedroom, dining room and verandah at ground floor level. Three floors above would allow improved accommodation for two bedrooms on each floor.

Proposal also incorporates construction of verandah at ground floor level which would project a further 3 metres from proposed extension over a width of approximately 11 metres.

The external treatment of extension would be rendered finish beneath slate mansard style roof.

Environment Agency advises that development proposed lies within area identified at risk of flooding and due to lack of Flood Risk Assessment they are unable to make full comment on application. Agency therefore request a deferment of application until such time as applicant has provided further information which may result in Agency placing objection on application. If Local Planning Authority are minded to grant permission contrary to Agency's advice, consultations should be undertaken to ensure that other environmental issues are appropriately addressed by planning consideration.

English Nature confirm that application site lies adjacent to but outwith designated boundary of SSSI/SPA/RAMSAR site. Proposal is unlikely to have significant affect on interest features of the SPA/RAMSAR site. Proposal does not therefore require appropriate assessment. Additionally, while the conservation interests of SSSI are unlikely to be detrimentally affected by proposal. English Nature therefore do not object to application but urges Planning Authority to take into account fact that area is at risk from flooding which is likely to increase with sea level rise of at least 6mm per year over the next 50 years. They would not wish to see any further enhancement of coastal defences such it might encroach onto SSSI or promote coastal squeeze. Additionally, they would not wish any possible increase in capital value of property to lead to increased requirement for coastal defences.

Three letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposed development on following grounds:

Proposal will result in loss of light to adjoining and neighbouring residential occupiers.

Main planning considerations with regard to this submission are application of UDP policy, particularly policies D1 and D2 relating to design issues, Policy G4 which requires applications to harmonise with their surroundings by using appropriate scale and design and Policy G6 relating to development in areas liable to flooding. Due regard should also be given to policies relating to promotion of tourism, particularly policies T1 and T3.

In support of application the applicant advises that reason for extension is to make provision for lift and to improve existing accommodation. There is no numerical increase in guest accommodation although bar size will be increased by turning present dining room into bar and providing replacement dining room in extension. This is necessary because existing bar area is too small to cope with guest numbers. Having considered the alternative methods of overcoming the problem of access to upper floors, proposed lift shaft is only possible solution without make more radical structural alterations to property. Many of their customers are often reluctant or unable to manage upper floors and as premises has four floors much of hotel is inaccessible to clientele. There is also a requirement to provide access for disabled and whilst it is admitted that extension is large, unless improvement is made to hotel access and standards long term viability of hotel may be in jeopardy. He is of the opinion that overlooking of adjacent property will be less than it is now as bedroom windows will be set further back and will overlook woodland to rear. Visual impact will also be improved as mansard roof design will be more attractive than utility block effect of existing arrangement.

Whilst appreciating need for extension seeking to upgrade accommodation within existing hotel and notwithstanding tourism policies which support generally such upgraded facilities, I am concerned in respect of both the excessive footprint of the proposed extension and its height being constructed over five floors including basement and roof accommodation. Whilst appreciating property is commercial premises and existing building is significant is terms of building mass, proposed extension is considered excessive particularly when bearing in mind curtilage of premises is rather restricted and does not reflect scale of building itself. Extension of this size would it is considered over dominate existing building to which it attaches and would not meet requirements of Policy D1 or D2 of the Unitary Development Plan which requires development to be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing and of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses.

Equally important consideration relates to impact of proposed building on amenities of adjoining residential occupiers given that property is located within predominantly residential area. Extension of this size will given its proximity to south eastern boundary of site over dominate to unreasonable level adjoining residential occupiers in Haven House and inevitably result in some loss of light to rear south west facing windows to that property. Additionally proposal involving installation of four side facing windows and additional rear facing windows and balcony areas would result in significant loss of privacy by reason of direct overlooking of rear amenity space and property itself. It should also be noted that part of north western end of hotel is in separate residential use and proposed extension would be positioned even closer to rear facing windows to these flats and result unacceptable living conditions for those occupants.

With regards to the need for flood risk assessment matter has been discussed with applicant however in view of planning objections expressed to him and to avoid any unnecessary expense matter was left with him for any action he may wish to take on this issue. At time of preparing report no additional information had been received in respect of this matter.

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Notwithstanding policies which support tourist related development and improvement to such facilities extension of this size, scale and mass is considered excessive, detrimentally impacting both on character and scale of existing property and having unacceptable adverse impact on amenities of adjoining residential occupiers. Additionally matter of flood risk assessment has not been addressed

Application relates to block of purpose built garages situated on eastern side of Red Road which itself is private unmade road leading off High Street, located close to junction with New Road. Application site adjoins shop and small workshop premises which are located at junction of High Street and Red Road.

None in respect of application site under consideration. Following decisions have been made in respect of adjoining land:

TCP/3091E - Two detached houses with car ports at land rear of Holford House, New Road. Approved January 1990.

TCP/22458A - Detached house with integral garage, land between Little Beaut and Cressida, Red Road. Approved February 1999.

Application relates to irregular plot of land currently comprising lock-up garages and land to rear which adjoin small workshop premises and shop.

This application is outline submission with siting to be considered at this stage which seeks consent in principle for construction of pair of semi-detached houses. Original proposal incorporated no parking facilities within curtilage of application site but has subsequently been revised to include a car hardstanding space adjacent to each property. As a result footprint of proposed dwellings has been reduced in width and increased in depth.

Illustrative plans indicate properties having one metre setback from edge of Red Road carriageway with accommodation comprising lounge and kitchen at ground floor level with two bedrooms above.

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered relevant in this instance:

Southern Water advise that there have been a number of sewer incidents in this area, possibly the most dramatic being the bursting of a rising main from New Road pumping station. Sewers in the area are indicated as combined and are thus liable to overloading due to excess surface water entering the system. They request surface water if possible to be disposed of by alternative means than into foul/combined sewer. If only foul element from new development is connected to foul sewer the amount would not be significant in the overall flow.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should consent be granted including requirement to carry out pre and post condition survey of Red Road.

In respect of originally submitted scheme indicating no off-street parking Parish Council objected to application on grounds of additional strain and pressure in respect of on-street parking in Red Road which would be detrimental to amenities of local residents. Residents of Red Road have highlighted serious car parking issues along length of this road which is regularly cluttered with vehicles parked along both sides, often over spill parking from High Street and people using local shops. Parked cars cause obstructions resulting in difficulties for local residents when manoeuvring in and out of properties and cars are often parked close to junction with High Street where road is narrow, causing serious congestion and hampering access which leads to highway safety problems at this junction. Any additional strain on car parking in Red Road would worsen problems further. Similarly problems would arise with construction traffic associated with proposal and problems concerning access for emergency service vehicles is highlighted. Also, obstructions have highway safety implications given that there are no footways. Other grounds of objection are overdevelopment, wear and tear on unmade road, loss of privacy particularly by reason of overlooking and crime and disorder implications given already frustrating car parking access problems suffered by local residents. In respect of revised proposal which provides for single off-street parking space for each property Parish Council, whilst acknowledging amendment, maintain objections again on grounds of car parking and highway safety issues for reasons previously outlined together with previous objections relating to overdevelopment, wear and tear on unmade road, privacy and crime and disorder implications.

In respect of originally submitted proposal thirteen letters of objection have been received. Grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Red Road being inappropriate access to serve application site, particularly by reason of parking and narrowness of road itself.

Red Road has no footway system and as a consequence proposal will increase hazards for pedestrian users.

Details of revised proposal have been advertised and following correspondence received. Eight further letters of objection received repeating points of concern summarised above. In addition, following objections made:

Inappropriate visibility for traffic entering and leaving Red Road at its junction with High Street.

Given site's location within development envelope main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of this infill development in terms of street scene, plot size, impact on surrounding residential occupiers and highway issues.

The site, which has maximum depth of some 11.7 metres and width of some 15 metres, is considered sufficient in terms of size to accommodate a pair of dwellings without undue adverse effect on street scene. Whilst dwellings would be located maximum distance of some 3.6 metres from rear boundary Members should appreciate that land to rear of application site is predominantly used as parking/turning area rather than private amenity space. Whilst proposed buildings themselves are located close to highway frontage given lack of consistent building line this aspect of development is not considered to be inappropriate.

Turning to highway issue it is appreciated that Red Road is private unmade road in relatively poor condition which also suffers from periodic parking problems, particularly from casual visitors to local shops. Revised application has support of Highway Engineer who recommends standard conditions and it is important to note that whilst garages subject of application may not all be in active use there is potential for application site to attract number of vehicles and vehicle movements were they in active use and it could be argued that the current proposal seeking to provide two hardstanding spaces would result in less vehicular traffic movement than potentially current site could generate. Furthermore, whilst any obstruction of private road is civil matter and notwithstanding fact that current structure provides garaged accommodation, it is reasonable to assume that active use of hardstanding areas in connection with proposed development will be likely to reduce occurrences of vehicles parked opposite application site thereby improving generally accessibility along Red Road.

Point should also be made that proposal complies with zonal parking standards adopted in UDP. This location (zone 3) requires a on site provision of up to three spaces (maximum).

Members should also note from relevant history section that additional infill residential development has been approved north of application site, both served off New Road and having benefit of off-road parking. In view of above comments it is considered that proposal represents opportunity to improve appearance of locality by removal of block of garages and construction of pair of dwellings having benefit of off-road parking. On balance it is felt that proposal, in providing off-road parking replacing existing garaging, will not be likely to materially increase traffic movements and/or associated parking problems on Red Road.

Indeed proposal may help remove to some extent existing on-road parking problems experienced and referred to by local residents.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aims and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations it is considered that the development of this previously developed site accords with policies of UDP and guidance contained within PPG3 'Housing' the proposals will not significantly affect the amenities of the locality of adjoining residential occupiers.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans)(Subject to a planning obligation requiring pre and post condition surveys of Red Road and the making good of any damage at the applicant's expense)

See joint reports in application numbers TCP/20109/E (Item Number 12) and TCP/20109/F (Item Number 13).

The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for heavy) vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use:

(b) Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm

2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material

3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological Centre and shall enable them to observe all groundwork and to record features of archaeological significance.

Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work:

County Archaeological Officer

County Archaeological Centre

61 Clatterford Road

Carisbrooke

NEWPORT

Isle of Wight

PO30 1NZ

Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Report requested by local Member as she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

Site is located on the northeast side of Main Road approximately 150 metres northwest of the junction with Cherrywood View. It has a frontage of about 25 metres and a depth of about 19 metres (max) and situated between existing residential properties contained within the ribbon of development off Arreton Street. The site falls away from the road, its rear boundary adjoining Arreton Stream, a watercourse flowing at the backs of the properties in Arreton Street in a southeasterly direction.

To the southeast of the site is a pair of red brick semi-detached houses whilst to the northwest of the site is a pair of cottages immediately abutting the footpath. Beyond is an access track and footpath serving the residential properties, set some way back from the highway. There is an existing vehicular access to the site and the site contains two septic tanks serving the adjoining properties to the northwest.

Arreton Street is a long narrow ribbon of development and with the exception of Hazely Combe, Cherrywood View and development around the church and Arreton Barns, comprises a ribbon of development with shallow sites fronting the main road.

House and garage were approved on the southeastern part of this site in November 1990, renewed in January 1996. A vehicular access adjoining the extreme northwestern end of the site was approved in February 2001 and the planning permission for the house and garage was subsequently renewed again in December 2001.

Full consent sought for erection of two detached dwellings with attached garages. Plans show dwellings to be sited approximately six metres back from the front boundary, vehicular accesses in extreme ends of the frontage with provision made for access and parking to the adjoining property to the northwest. Removal of both septic tanks and replacement of new sewage management plant in extreme north corner of the site with treated discharge water into Arreton Stream. Two individually designed properties, each comprising lounge, dining/kitchen and W.C. on ground floor with three bedrooms (one en-suite) and bathroom on first floor, each with an attached garage towards the side boundaries respectively. Dwellings shown to be approximately 1.8 metres apart. Dwellings proposed to be constructed in facing brick under concrete interlocking tiled roofs.

Land is shown to be within designated development envelope as shown on Arreton inset X on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Policies G1, G4, D1, D2 of UDP apply and PPG3 supports development which utilises land within development envelopes more economically, also steers residential development towards areas designated or within development envelopes.

Parish Council object on grounds of excessive development and inadequate amenity space for each unit; difficulties with sewerage discharge. Land is liable to flooding from the main road and the stream; land has a steep incline towards the stream.

Five letters of objection from local residents on grounds of inaccuracies in the plan (mainly identification of properties); inadequate drainage; overdevelopment; overlooking; stating that the septic tank is too near their property and that it will discharge treated water to the watercourse; that the development is incompatible as it is two dwellings and the properties are sited too far back from the highway to be in keeping with the general pattern of development.

This is a site located within the designated development envelope in what is mostly a ribbon of development fronting Arreton Street. Given the fact that the development envelope includes this site, the principle of residential development is not questioned, especially since there is a valid permission for a single dwelling granted and renewed over the last twelve years. Despite the fact that a single dwelling has been approved, the use of the site for two dwellings should be determined on the basis of whether or not the development works practically and the resultant density. Bearing in mind the existing development in the vicinity, particularly to the southeast, it would appear that two dwellings on this site would result in a similar density of development. PPG3 supports the increase in densities generally and policies D1 and D2 seek to provide development with an acceptable impact on adjoining properties through the design and layout of the scheme. The principle of residential development of two dwellings is considered therefore to be acceptable.

The Highway Engineer has recommended conditions if approved, indicating that matters relating to access and parking can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site.

In design terms, Arreton Street is not a Conservation Area but development should be compatible with surrounding development within which it is to be accommodated. In terms of scale and mass, the two dwellings fit into the street scene satisfactorily, despite their increased frontage depth since development in the immediate vicinity, especially to the northwest does not obey a rigid building line.

The site is partially presently occupied by two septic tanks and the proposal involves removal of these and their replacement with a sewage management plant located in the extreme northern corner, behind plot 1's garage with the new dwellings discharging into it before its discharge of treated water into the Arreton Stream. The existing septic tanks are to be removed and replaced by a single treatment plant but I am assured by the Building Inspector that, subject to a satisfactory specification for the sewage management plant, there is no reason why both the existing and the proposed plots could not be adequately served. Removal of the existing septic tanks and the provision of the new and the connection of the existing properties to it will be a matter of legal agreement between the developer and the owners of the properties concerned and the arrangements for servicing the new plant will also be for their agreement. However, it would be desirable if the sewage management plant were installed and operational prior to commencement of any other works on the site.

Members will note that the Environment Agency are satisfied with the proposed scheme as will be seen from the consultee response above.

With regard to effect on adjoining properties, all windows except one are restricted to the front and rear elevations and in the case of plot 1, only a landing window at first floor height has been included and this has been included as an obscure glazed window. Both of the elevations in plot 2 are shown to be devoid of windows.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

This is a site within the development envelope, flanked by other residential property and the site has had a consent for a residential property in the past. Current proposal seeks to use the land in a more economic way, developing with two smaller dwellings. Arreton Street is a mix of residential ages, styles, designs and materials and two dwellings with smaller curtilages will still fit in with the character of the street scene. The development will therefore be consistent with policies H5, D1, D2 and G1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the development is commenced. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding conditions 3 and 6 of this permission a wall of one metre in height, in materials to be agreed as part of the submission of details as required by condition 2, shall be constructed along the full width of the frontage except for the sections required for vehicular access.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and in accordance with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Report requested by local Member and additionally application raises important policy considerations.

Application relates to recently converted farm building which is currently residentially occupied and is located to south of Rowborough Farmhouse which was previously main farmhouse for agricultural holding. This property and its curtilage has been sold off with remainder of agricultural land remaining in ownership of applicant.

Landholding is situated on western side of Beaper Shute bounded by railway line to south and Harding Shute to north.

TCP/19190L - Change of use of land and buildings to equestrian centre, conversion and extension of farm building to manager's accommodation, alterations and use of farm buildings as stable block, feed and bedding store and reception area. Approved subject to legal agreement April 2000.

As detailed above, planning consent granted in April 2000 for equestrian centre which also included consent for conversion and extension to existing farm building to provide manager's accommodation. Condition no. 3 of this consent required the residential accommodation to be occupied by a manager or employee of the equestrian centre and also sought to ensure that such accommodation should not be sold off, leased or used as a separate unit of accommodation independently of the equestrian usage hereby approved. The reason for this condition was that the site lay in an area where residential accommodation would not normally be approved unless related to the essential operation of the equestrian centre thereby approved.

Application seeks consent for removal of this condition to allow residential unit to be occupied independently. Land subject of change of use approval to equestrian centre remains within ownership of applicant.

Site is situated within open countryside outside any development envelope and following policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered applicable to application.

Policy C17 relates to change of use of rural buildings and indicates that proposals for conversion for community, employment, recreational, tourism or business uses would normally be acceptable provided there was no detrimental impact by reason of the proposed use on the character or appearance of the building or surrounding area, local amenity or highway capacity or safety. Buildings should also be structurally capable of alteration or conversion and proposals should not involve any loss of significant archaeological or architectural features. Policy indicates however that proposed conversions for residential use will be refused unless every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreational or tourism use for the building or conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for employment, recreational or tourism uses and the buildings are of architectural or historic merit.

Policy H9 relates to residential development outside development boundaries and indicates that this will only be permitted where it is for replacement of existing dwelling or an essential dwelling for agricultural units of appropriate size and where functional need is proven. Policy may also allow residential development if they are essential for operation of an approved tourism use or for a specifically locally affordable housing scheme.

Government advice is contained within PPG7 and Annex G refers to reuse and adaption of rural buildings. This indicates that primary consideration should be whether nature and extent of new use for building is acceptable in planning terms and also indicates that whilst a residential conversion has minimal impact on rural economy, conversions for holiday use can contribute more and may reduce pressure to use other houses in area for holiday use.

3.14 indicates that reuse and adaption of existing rural buildings has an important role in meeting needs of rural areas for commercial and industrial development as well as for tourism, sport and recreation. It can reduce demands for new building in the countryside, avoid leaving existing buildings vacant and prone to vandalism and dereliction and provide jobs. Especially in areas where creation of local employment is a priority, Authorities may include policies which do not allow residential reuse unless applicant has made every reasonable attempt to secure suitable business reuse and application is supported by a statement of the efforts which have been made, or the residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for business reuse.

Brading Town Council strongly object to application on grounds that development lies outside Brading development envelope. Additional accommodation would be detrimental to this rural area and would set a precedent for applications of a similar nature. The Town Council consider that this application represents a desire to encourage creeping development.

Principle consideration is fact that approval for conversion and extension of this farm building was granted on the basis that such accommodation would be used by a manager or employee in connection with the equestrian use also approved at the same time in respect of the entire site. Such a decision was in accordance with both central government guidance and specific policy contained within Council's Unitary Development Plan in that proposed occupation was required in connection with establishment of recreational/tourism use approved for site and that such residential conversion was seen as a subordinate part of the scheme.

The only aspect of April 2000 approval that has been carried out is conversion and extension of farm building which is now occupied for residential purposes. Application seeks to rectify situation by seeking removal of condition which ties such occupation to operation of equestrian centre.

Policy C17 clearly indicates that permanent residential use will only be considered as a last resort if no other alternative uses will be viable and building is considered to be of architectural and historic merit.

In this instance although building is not listed it was traditional structure and at time of application was considered worthy of retention and alterations and extension to building were considered appropriate.

Authority is faced with 'fait accompli' in this instance as property is residentially occupied and applicant seeks to remove conditional tie to land use which was original justification for conversion and no other alternatives are or have been placed before the authority for consideration.

Given that independent residential occupation represents last resort situation applicant has not investigated alternative uses of building which would comply more satisfactorily with central and local government policies in respect of rural conversions. There is no evidence that applicant has carried out marketing exercise in effort to provide supporting evidence to indicate that approved use of building for tourism purposes would not be viable. Whilst it is appreciated that neither advice in PPG7 or UDP policy identifies precise nature of evidence required to prove that no alternative uses will be viable any such applications would normally be expected to provide professional valuers reports and details of any marketing exercises carried out to support any opinion that tourism/appropriate commercial activity would not be viable.

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report I am of the opinion that independent residential occupation on converted building is contrary to policy and in the absence of any supporting evidence to the contrary consider that occupation of the building should remain tied to the approved equestrian usage or other appropriate tourism/commercial use in accordance with adopted policy.

The continued residential occupation of the premises unrelated to the approved tourism/commercial usage of the site is contrary to both policy C17 (Conversion of Barn and other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained within PPG7 "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development" and no information has been submitted to show that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure alternative employment/recreational or tourism use of the building.

That the applicant be afforded a period of two months before the formal issue of an Enforcement Notice to provide an opportunity for him to address the implications of such a notice.

See joint reports in application numbers TCP/10237/P (Item Number 9) and TCP/20109/F (Item Number 13).

See joint reports on application numbers TCP/10237/P (Item Number 9) and TCP/20109/E (Item Number 12).

These three applications represent a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved and the proposals are, in part, contrary to policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan.

The site of the first application (site 1) is a relatively flat open field, located on the west corner of Fighting Cocks Cross at Hale Common. The site has an area of approximately 2.7 hectares with overall dimensions of 130 metres by approximately 240 metres, surrounded by existing thorn field hedge, the land being currently fallow. To the north and northwest of the site is the Fighting Cocks public house and currently disused nursery, whilst to the east further nurseries on the northeast side of Hale Common. To the southeast is open, agricultural land part of which is field used for the garlic festival whilst to the west, on the opposite side of Macketts Lane is a large area under glass in the same ownership. There are some residential properties in close proximity situated immediately northwest of the western extent of the site which fronts Macketts Lane.

Site 2, the site for residential development is situated on the eastern side of Merstone Lane opposite the junction with Chapel Lane. The site has overall dimensions of 108 metres x 69 metres and is presently partially occupied by now derelict glass houses and ancillary buildings. There is a vehicular access off Merstone Lane opposite Chapel Lane and this irregularly shaped piece of land has boundaries comprising hedgerows and fencing with part of the site surrounding a two storey property known as Valley House, fronting Merstone Lane. The majority of the land is located behind properties fronting Merstone Lane with open, agricultural fields to both north and south of the frontage development.

Site 3 is ‘Puddles’ a large, detached bungalow occupying a site with overall dimensions of 82 metres x 87 metres located on the west side of East Lane, separated from site 2 by a tract of land within the same ownership having dimensions of 90 metres x 94 metres and a very large proportion currently occupied by glass houses. The land surrounding the building is mostly laid to grass; its southern boundaries marked by a field hedgerow and its north and west boundaries by a dense screen of leyllandi trees. There is a vehicle access in the north eastern corner of the site leading to a driveway in front of the dwelling and travelling westwards towards the remaining part of the complex. The area of land associated with ‘Puddles’ is 0.66 hectares.

Refusal of planning permission for a glasshouse in June 2001 on grounds of excessive size and adverse visual impact.

Outline planning permission for residential development was refused on the site in June 2001 for reasons of development contrary to policy regarding residential development in rural areas and on grounds of inadequate access.

Extension to form a kitchen to ‘Puddles’ approved in April 1989. Bungalow originally approved in February 1980 subject to the usual occupancy condition.

Proposed glasshouse, overall dimensions of 103.5 metres wide and 192 metres long. A maximum height to the eaves of 4 metres and to the ridges maximum height of 4.8 metres. The plan shown the building to be sited approximately 10 metres behind the Bathingbourne Lane frontage hedgerow and between 15 and 25 metres back from the existing field hedgerow forming the boundary of the site with Hale Common. A public footpath runs along the north-western boundary, the route of which will be preserved. A new access is proposed to be located in the south-western corner onto Macketts Lane leading to a parking and turning area between Macketts Lane and the south-western end of the new building.

The proposals involve the demolition of the existing glasshouses and seek outline planning permission for the erection of 9 houses with siting, means of access and landscaping to be considered at this stage. Plans show 1 dwelling to be located on the north side of Valley House, the existing dwelling, sites with a similar depth of frontage to the existing property but with vehicular access to its rear. The new access road formed in a position almost central in the sites main frontage with a single dwelling adjoining it on its northern side with a further 7 houses, 2 of which are shown as semi-detached arranged around a new cul-de-sac access road reaching around the rear of those properties fronting Merstone Lane to the south of the sites frontage. The access road includes a spur to serve the semi-detached houses but stopping short of the sites boundary.

This application relates to ‘Puddles’, the agricultural workers dwelling situated off East Lane. The proposal is to remove the agricultural occupancy condition imposed when the dwelling was permitted in February 1980 to enable the property to be sold on the open market.

These three applications are offered as a package and although they relate to separate sites, the agents, on behalf of the applicants have submitted them as a combined approach claiming an enabling factor. Essentially the derelict glasshouse complex of Merstone Valley Nurseries no longer operates and the intention is to fund the construction of the new glasshouse at Fighting Cocks Cross by selling the agricultural workers dwelling as a open market residential property by removing the occupancy condition and by developing part of the Merstone Valley Nurseries site with 9 residential units for sale on the open market. The intervening road between ‘Puddles’ and this residential site would be offered to the Parish Council to retain as open space.

Further in support of the proposals the agents have submitted a planning brief which they feel justifies the grant of planning permission for the three applications collectively submitted in essence the intention is to fund the construction of the glasshouse at Fighting Cocks Cross by selling ‘Puddles’ as a residential property and gaining planning permission for 9 residential units on the derelict nursery. This they feel will tidy up all the sites and enable the applicants to retain 150 person employment base.

The nursery at Merstone ceased to operate in 1998. It comprises 7000m² of glass, 230m² square feet of workshop, 60m² of offices, 102m² of boiler house, another 118m² of workshop, 56m² of old dairy and 28m² of storage buildings. It also includes ‘Puddles’ and Valley House, a three bedroom detached house fronting Merstone Lane. When fully operational the site employed 15 persons. The buildings are rapidly falling into disrepair and is uneconomic to replace plant, machinery or the buildings and estimates to repair amount to £280,000; a new boiler system will be £75,000 and the computer installation to control the operation would be £25,000.

The agents argue that the proposals are an enabling development to finance the construction of the glasshouse and has been submitted following discussions with the parish council and the local residents in a balanced form attempting to compromise between the economic needs of the new development, planning policy, highway concerns and concerns of the local residents.

Agents point out that a large section of land between the new residential development site and ‘Puddles’ in East Lane would be returned to farmland, proposing to sell the freehold interest to the parish council and to lease back and, in addition, place covenants on the land against future commercial or residential development.

The new access onto Merstone Lane is thought by the agents to satisfy the requirements of the Highways Engineers and that in order to alleviate concerns over drainage, the new development will be served by a new private foul sewerage system. A claim that the development will actually reduce storm water drainage and improve the degree of flooding which is attributable to the run off from the area of glass. And, in addition, an attenuation pond would be provided to overcome any problems of flash flooding.

The developers are keen to work with the parish council to provide signage and install speed control in the highway.

The proposed glasshouse at Fighting Cocks Cross has previously been refused but the agents point out there is a strong need in the market place for organic tomato products of which the applicant has been a leading company in the UK market up to the present. They feel that the development of the field is imperative to allow the business to expand and that the new glasshouse location is the most appropriate due to its proximity to an existing operation. The site also has organic status and the agent points out that concerns over the previous refusal have been addressed, a smaller building is proposed enabling a bund and planting to screen effectively the new building from the main road.

Agent points out that the residential development would take only 20% of the land currently occupied by the uneconomic nursery, the remainder being returned to a greenfield. It is anticipated that the funds raised from the sale of property known as ‘Puddles’ and the residential development could be within a £750000 - £800000 bracket, the main operation is actually at Margaret Nurseries, close to the site of the proposed glasshouse where 150 persons there are employed with a further 120 jobs at Isle of Wight Salads. They form an integral part of the leading marketing group which has a turnover of approximately £20 million and which the operators wish to continue to expand and retain the position in the market place. The agents suggest that this enabling planning proposal similar to those which have been given to Westlands, Aerolaminates, SP Systems and arti giano to allow economic growth and assist with employment opportunities. The development will provide the following benefits:

· Allow Bridgeguild Limited to invest in the organic market which is one section of where this company is seen as a market leader.

· These new investment funds can be made available to improve technology and expand areas of glass to increase production and jobs in the future.

· To invest in the CHP plant to make the company more competitive in the international market and to provide energy that is environmentally friendly which is being promoted nationally by the government and through the EEC.

· The ability to expand glasshouses on a central Margaret Nursery site which can provide sustainable organic economic product.

· To help increase turn over and economic benefits to the community and parish in the long run retaining jobs and expansion where found appropriate.

At present it is suggested that the nursery in its present condition and ‘Puddles’ with the occupancy condition would fetch only £80000 and £175000 respectively and concludes that there is a strong enablement argument. Agent suggests that development complies with policies of Unitary Development Plan as it is infilling in an otherwise built up frontage or addition to a group of houses; better returns proportion of the land back to agricultural purposes and prevents further erosion of the countryside; visit does not increase substantially the use of the access due to previous uses of the site; that adjoining properties would benefit from development through improved amenity; alternative developments have been discounted as they are not economically justifiable.

In conclusion agents suggest that the development is a positive step and benefits the locality by:

· Assists the company in providing capital projects to stay ahead in terms of technology in the market place in both the UK and Europe.

· Provides a definite proposal for the whole site of Merstone including putting the middle part of the site back into agricultural forever and controlled by the community.

· Concludes by stating that the development provides a planning gain which they believe would be good not only for the village in the long term, but also for the parish and the medium long term.

Specifically regarding the application for the removal of the occupancy condition on ‘Puddles’ agents supply information showing there is no longer any need for the dwelling at the site due to the cessation of the use of the glasshouses and that there is no longer any requirement for somebody to live on this site in relation to the remainder of the activities of the firm. The property has been marketed and with local farms and a survey undertaken to test whether or not there is any interest in the property for occupation by an agricultural worker concluding that there was no requirement for the dwelling in the locality from persons who would comply with the condition.

Strategic policy S1 states that new development will be concentrated within existing urban areas. Policy S2 seeks to utilise brownfield sites; policy S4 seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

Policy G1 expects new developments to be located within existing settlements defined by development envelopes and policy G2 seeks to resist proposals for development which would lead to a consolidation of scattered, dispersed or low density development in the countryside. Policy G5 details those developments which will be considered acceptable outside the designated development envelope. And policy H4 requires new residential development on sites which are not allocated for housing where they are within designated development envelopes. Policy H9 details those examples where residential development outside development boundaries would be acceptable including infilling a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses.

Policy E1 supports new developments which provide for employment providing they are suitably located and accessible policy E8 accepts developments outside development envelopes where they are of benefit to the rural economy subject to certain safeguards.

None of the sites are within an area of outstanding natural beauty or under any designations of nature conservation interest.

PPG7 (The countryside environmental quality and economic and social development) gives general advice in relation to the support and diversification of agricultural activities whilst maintaining the character of the countryside by finding new ways of enriching the quality of the whole countryside whilst accommodating appropriate development in order to compliment the protection which designations offer.

County Archaeologist confirms that site 1 for the glasshouse is a site of known archaeological interest and recommends conditions if approved.

Parish Council raise objections to the residential development of 9 dwellings on the grounds of flooding and pollution with sewage and on grounds of inadequate access at the junction of the site with Merstone Lane. Also raise objection to the removal of the occupancy condition on ‘Puddles’.

CPRE recommend refusal on grounds of precedent and development contrary to policy.

11 letters of objection on grounds of development contrary to policy, inadequate drainage and site liable to flooding, loss of agricultural use, inadequate access, inadequate parking, over development, precedent and pollution and the fact that no attempt has been made to sell the nursery as a going concern. With reference to site 1 visual impact dominating the area adverse effect on adjoining property, flooding, inadequate drainage, traffic crossing Macketts Lane causing noise and disturbance and traffic danger. Inadequate access in terms of construction of Macketts Lane. Inadequate screening. Adverse effect on water table. Visual impact of continuing glasshouse development. Dominant effect and loss of outlook from property. Increase traffic levels in Macketts Lane. Generation of noise from working vehicles at unsocial hours. Generation of noise from working vehicles at unsocial hours. Generation of vegetable waste and consequent pollution. Adverse effect on wild life due to significant falls in water table.

In addition to the representations a survey has been carried out by a local resident of local residents the results indicating that of the 47 participants the majority were against the residential proposal stating over development, precedent, development contrary to policy but some writers supported the proposal saying that new dwellings were better than derelict buildings.

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

The erection of a glasshouse on this site was refused in July 2001. The reason for refusal was based on the excessive size and the resultant visual intrusion which would be contrary to countryside protection policies. That glasshouse was shown to have overall dimensions of 200 metres x 103.5 metres with a height to the ridge of 4.5 metres. The new proposal relates to the same site but the glasshouse has been reduced in its size to 192 metres by 103.5 metres and the plan shows a bund and landscaping to take place in that area between the north-eastern end of the glasshouse and the boundary of the site with Hale Common. It is pointed out that there is a wide grass verge at this crossroads in addition to the section of the site remaining and consequently the glasshouse would be about 26 metres from the carriageway of Hale Common and about 12 metres from the carriageway of Bathingbourne Lane.

As with the previous proposal which was refused, the principle of glasshouse development in the Arreton Valley is supported by policy C21 which states that planning permission for horticulture and commercial glasshouse development will only be approved where: -

a) It is outside, and does not adversely impact upon, an area of outstanding natural beauty;

In all cases, development must be acceptable in terms of visual impact and appropriate conditions and agreements will be applied to ensure the development remains in horticultural commercial glasshouse use.

This development does form an extension to an existing commercial glasshouse enterprise even though it is on the opposite side of Macketts Lane and therefore, in principle, glasshouse development is acceptable. The reduced size of glasshouse does allow a strip between the building and the highway which could be substantially planted to ensure softening or screening of the development from the highway and determination of this proposal must be considered upon whether or not adequate landscaping and planting could be provided to be effective.

The residential development of the now disused Merstone Valley Nurseries site was refused in July 2001 in principle. Policies G1, G2, H4 and H9 were referred to in the reason for refusal as the development proposed was to erect residential property outside any designated development envelope, a development which was felt would consolidate scattered or low density development in the countryside and policy H4 recognised that this new residential redevelopment site was outside a designated development envelope. Policy H9, whilst making exceptions to the normal policy of restraint, does not allow for substantial residential development, allowing only infilling of gaps in an otherwise built up frontage, replacement dwellings or, exceptionally, a specific locally affordable housing scheme.

The current development proposed takes a similar form to that previously refused except for the inclusion of two infill plots on the Merstone Lane frontage and a differing site layout. Essentially this proposal is the same as before, representing the introduction of a residential development of substantial form outside a designated development envelope and the current proposal is, therefore, at least, contrary to several policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan.

This is an outline application with siting, means of access and landscaping to be considered although few details of landscaping have been submitted. Siting maximises the distances between existing and proposed dwellings by siting the buildings towards the eastern and southern boundaries, access has been sited in a position commensurate with the existing access, directly opposite Chapel Lane and visibility in a northerly direction can be achieved across the whole of the sites frontage.

This application involves the removal of the occupancy condition on ‘Puddles’. This is a standard occupancy condition compatible with governmental advice prevalent at the time the dwelling was approved. PPG7 states that:

“Changes in the scale and character of farming and forestry in response to market changes may affect the long term requirement for dwellings for which permission has been granted subject to an occupancy condition. Such dwellings should not be kept vacant, nor should their present occupants be unnecessarily obliged to remain in occupation simply by virtue of planning conditions restricting occupancy which have outlived their usefulness. Application for the removal of occupancy conditions should be considered on the basis of realistic assessments of the existing need for them, bearing in mind that is the need for a dwelling for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in an area as a whole and not just on the particular holding that is relevant.”

In essence such an application for removal of the occupancy condition would need to be determined on the basis of the need, firstly of the holding which it is stated does not require a residential presence then any residential presence required in the area in connection with a local agricultural need.

It is quite clear that, bearing in mind the location of the dwelling and its relationship to Merstone that a dwelling would not have been approved in this location had there been no agricultural justification. In addition, as with the application for residential development on the Merstone Lane frontage, there is no defined development envelope for Merstone and essentially the removal of the occupancy condition would result in yet another residential property in the countryside. Furthermore within the last 3 months a planning application for a dwelling in connection with the agricultural use of the land in the vicinity was refused, on a site approximately 250 metres south of this site. The submission of that application was linked to an established turf production company, which is a form of agriculture which the applicants considered required a residential presence. The fact that an application for an agricultural workers dwelling was submitted in the vicinity and in such close proximity clearly indicates there is a need for an agricultural workers dwelling in the vicinity and, to my mind, negates the claim that there is no market for the dwelling or a need in the vicinity.

These three applications have been submitted by the agents as a package and, to recap, the intention is stated to be to accrue the maximum income from the site of the derelict nursery and the associated agricultural workers dwelling in order to fund the erection of the very large glasshouse situated on the site 1 at Fighting Cocks Cross and the applicants request that the circumstances of an ‘enabling’ development are considered favourably, overriding the basic planning objections to the scheme as submitted. Individually the development of site 1, the glasshouse site is considered acceptable in principle subject to the satisfactory implementation of the scheme in terms of levels and landscaping in order to reduce and minimise visual impact of such a large structure.

Site 2 containing the proposed residential development has already been refused in the past in principle and, in my opinion, nothing has changed to warrant the reversal of that decision and still, the proposal is contrary to development proposals contained within the Unitary Development Plan since there is no defined development envelope for Merstone and the proposed development does not fall within any of those categories detailed in policy H9 where exceptions to the normal restraints policy of residential development in the countryside would otherwise dictate.

Site 3 which involves the removal of the occupancy condition on ‘Puddles’, involving the curtilage of approximately 0.67 hectares is also contrary to policy since this would result in the establishment of a private residential property in an area where residential property would not normally be given consent and despite the details of the marketing exercise which the agents suggests shows there to be no demand for such a property, it is clear that recently an application for an agricultural workers dwelling in the vicinity was made and was refused, a clear indication that a need existed in the area for such accommodation.

The final consideration in determining this package of three application is whether Members consider as an enabling development to achieve the construction of the glasshouse, at the strong restraint policies relating to development in the countryside should be set aside.

I am of the opinion that neither the residential development nor the removal of the occupancy condition are justified as the nursery ceased operations some 4 years ago and such a new building would not continue levels of employment and, in the case of the property known as ‘Puddles’, there is a clear requirement for agricultural workers accommodation in the near vicinity which could only otherwise be provided for by the erection of yet another dwelling if no existing agricultural dwelling were used.

In coming to the recommendations to grant planning permission for the new glasshouse and to refuse planning permission for the residential development and for the removal of the occupancy condition, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The impacts of the developments which might result on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of those people in relation to the application for the glasshouse, that 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 on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the sites at East Lane and Merstone Lane 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 interests.

Whilst these applications have been submitted as a package and have been evaluated both separately and collectively it is felt that the applicants contention that the two applications which enable financially the erection of the glasshouse are not of sufficient weight to set aside the individual and collective policy objections to those schemes. Similarly the desirability of the glasshouse development and presumption in favour of such a scheme does not outweigh the strong and sustainable policy objections to the developments at Merstone Valley Nurseries. Accordingly the application for the glasshouse is consistent with policies C1 and C21 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and the developments at Merstone Valley Nursery are contrary to policies S1, S4, G1, G2 and H9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Report requested by local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

Application relates to irregular shaped parcels of agricultural land situated on eastern side of Rowborough Lane which immediately adjoin main railway line which runs between Ryde and Brading. Site is serviced from existing access point which leads on to Rowborough Lane and locality is generally characterised by hedgerows and undulating grassland.

Application seeks approval for construction of L-shaped building comprising three stable units, tack room and hay barn constructed of stained timber cladding within centre of site.

Building itself will have maximum dimensions of some 16.5 metres length with maximum width of 7 metres reducing over majority of footprint building to some 4.75 metres. Stable building is shown to be located adjacent mature hedgerow which runs along centre of site.

Site is not subject to any special designation but lies in countryside outside any recognised development envelope boundary.

Policy C23 (Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside) advises that such structures will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harming visual amenity of countryside for occupiers of adjoining land or buildings, are of a scale, design and construction appropriate for the location and are of timber construction and where conditions and/or legal agreements may be applied to prevent incremental developments such as feed stores, tack rooms, mobile field shelters, caravans or similar structures, and removal of jumps and associated equipment when not in frequent use.

Railtrack makes suggestion applicant may wish to contribute to cost of raising boundary fence to stop horses straying onto railway line. Whilst such observation may not be able to be incorporated within formal planning consent they request that applicant be advised of such a request by way of an informative attached to decision notice.

Main planning considerations relate mainly to whether or not development accords with appropriate UDP policy and implications for highway safety.

As referred to in policy section (C23) applications for stables and field shelters will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harming visual amenity and are appropriate in terms of scale, design and use of materials.

Whilst Policy C22 allows for changes of use of land, development will be supported provided natural features are protected, landscape is not harmed however such proposals should be adjacent settlements and not isolated in countryside. On latter point it is not considered reasonable to object to proposal solely on this aspect particularly given compliance with other relevant policy.

Given undulating nature of land in locality and predominance of established hedgerows I consider the proposed structure will be appropriately assimilated into locality without any adverse impact on its character and additionally will not be readily viewable from public viewpoints (apart from train passengers). Furthermore, design and use of materials is considered appropriate as is scale of development which provides for three stable units and associated storage facilities which agent has confirmed is for non-commercial usage.

With regards highway issues, site is served by wide good standard concrete apron which has adequate visibility in both directions onto Rowborough Lane. It is considered therefore that no reasonable objection can be raised in terms of access to and from site which will in any event involve limited vehicular movements given level of development proposed.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aims and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report I am of the view that application represents appropriate development complying with policies C23 and TR7 and recommend accordingly.

The local Member would like the application to be considered by the Planning Committee due to the number of objections from local residents.

Number 6 is a residential property which fronts onto Magdalen Crescent, the front of the dwelling is set back some 5m from the pavement and public highway. Area primarily residential, with pairs of two storey houses, linked by garages, in this part of the Crescent. Other properties in the street are bungalows.

Property attached to adjacent property by the garage. Proposal is for a 1st floor extension on the north east elevation, over the garage.

The site is within the development envelope for Cowes. Policy D1 (Standards of Design), H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) and G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be relevant.

· The size of the of the extension and its relation to neighbouring properties.

· The effect the extension will have on the street scene and the view that it will not be in keeping with the rest of the properties in the area.

Proposal for a first floor extension to form en-suite bedroom. The extension is to be placed on top of the existing garage and follow the building line along the side of the dwelling.

Magdalen Crescent consists of low density mixed housing development, the row of houses which encompasses number 6 has a very distinct character comprising of detached properties all attached to the adjacent property by the garage.

These properties are of uniform design with notable regular size gaps between them. These gaps in turn provide an attractive rhythm to the development when viewed from Magdalen Crescent or Parklands Avenue to the rear of the property. The appearance and treatment of these gaps between the buildings are of comparable important to the design of the buildings themselves, as expressed in PPG1. The proposed development would have the effect of eroding the relationship between buildings and spaces, to the detriment of the character of the area.

Furthermore, to grant planning permission would make it difficult for the council to resist similar applications which cumulatively would adversely affect the distinctive character of the area by effectively creating a terrace of development, rather than the more open nature of the area at present.

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

It is considered that the 1st floor extension does not meet policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan as it does not reflect the style of the property or respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area. It also does not meet policies H7 and G4 in terms of size, scale and design and the impact on neighbouring properties is considered to be excessive.

Report requested by Local Member as she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

The semi detached property is located on the western side of St Johns Road in a residential area of similar properties. The property is a two storey dwelling with single storey rear extension and is constructed of brick under slate roof. The rear garden is at a higher level than the floor level of the dwelling and land rises to the rear. No similar extensions have been noted in the immediate vicinity.

The proposal is for the construction of an extension at lst floor level to the rear of the property to form a bedroom. The extension will be 2.7 metres deep by 4.2 wide with a hipped and pitched roof. One window is proposed in the centre of the rear elevation, none on the side elevations of the new extension but one new one at first floor on the southern side of the existing dwelling.

Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) are applicable. Proposals should be sympathetic in scale and materials to the original property, provide adequate daylight, sunlight to development and adjoining uses, not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings and are acceptable where the impact on neighbouring properties is not excessive.

One letter from neighbour stating that whilst accepting little grounds for objecting to proposal, has several points which are a great importance. Letter details health and welfare needs of writer. Concerned over existing parking at application site and congestion within road/obstruction, appearance of site; proposed extension has potential for generation of more of same.

Concerned regarding noise disturbance during construction, loss of light to bedroom making manoeuverability within room more difficult.

Concern over collapsed party wall as a result of previous works, reluctant to allow erection of scaffolding on property and queries insurance cover.

The proposal is for a modest projection off the rear of the property at first floor. In design terms the proposal is considered to tie in well with the original dwelling, of an appropriate scale/ mass and materials shown to match.

Concerns relating to existing parking/congestion is not relevant to matter under consideration. With regard appearance of site, at time of inspection appearance did not in my opinion adversely affect amenity of area. As with all development, some disruption is expected when construction works are underway. Previous alleged damage to party wall, insurance query and whether scaffolding will be placed on neighbouring property will be civil matters.

Main issue is whether the addition at first floor level will adversely impact on adjoining property. This adjoining property has a small obscure window and a door at ground floor with one window at first floor and a block built detached outbuilding close to the rear of the property.

The proposal will present some loss of daylight to the first floor neighbouring bedroom window. I have taken account of representations in particular the fact that considerable time is spent in this first floor room but am of view that loss of daylight to a bedroom for a limited part of day is not sufficient to justify a refusal.

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with Policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

(a) TCP/3189A Alleged breach of planning control, Puckaster Niton Undercliff, Niton, Isle of Wight

To consider whether the information put forward by the property owner is considered as acceptable grounds for delaying submission of an application for a Lawful Development Certificate at the above property.

Following a complaint, five alleged breaches of planning control had been investigated at the above property. These were:

3. The use of a detached dwelling in the lower garden area for residential purposes.

4. The construction of a detached building between the eastern end of the property and the boundary to Puckaster Lane.

Following visits to the site and exchanges of correspondence with the owner of the property, it has been verified that the height of the wall adjacent Puckaster Lane has been reduced so that it is now back to its original height. On that basis it has been indicated to both the property owner and the complainant that this matter is closed.

Regarding the concerns relating to the alleged construction of a building adjacent the Puckaster Lane boundary wall, information given to the Local Planning Authority gives every indication that the structure was formed in the early 1990’s. On that basis, with the works having been undertaken more than four years ago, then the Local Planning Authority is time barred from taking any further action.

Concerning the formation of a residential unit within a building in the lower garden area of the property, this has been inspected and found to be no longer occupied as the building has been affected by recent ground movement. Accordingly, any alleged unauthorised use has ceased and this aspect of the complaint has not been taken any further.

Regarding the construction of a detached building between the eastern end of the property and the boundary to Puckaster Lane, it was the property owner’s contention that the building was in this position for some time and all that he has done is change the roof to this outbuilding. On that basis, an application was submitted in June 2002 for the retention of replacement roof and this was approved with the decision notice dated 26 July 2002.

Regarding the allegation relating to the subdivision of the main property into a number of separate residential units, this has been discussed at some length with the property owner, but still remains an outstanding matter.

it has been the owner’s view that the property has contained a number of units for some considerable period of time. The electoral register has been checked and whilst not conclusive, does show a single entry for Puckaster Close for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 but subsequent to that date the records reveal the following:

Under the Planning Regulations, any subdivision which involves the formation of a new residential accommodation unit (providing it is self-contained) has to be identified and enforced against within four years after which time it becomes immune from further action. Going back four years it does appear that the electoral register is identifying between five and seven independent units. The following units have been identified over the past four years.

Of the five alleged breaches as at May 2002 only the concern with regards to the works to the detached building (no. 4) and the need to resolve the number of separate units within the main property (no. 5) remained unresolved. The submission of the planning application in June resolved the matter with regards to the outbuilding and this has left only the matter relating to the number of units within the main property. It had been suggested to the property owner that an application for a Lawful Development Certificate be submitted to establish the number of independent residential units within the building which are exempt from planning control. This suggestion has been made on a number of occasions, most recently in a letter to the property owner dated November 2002. In a reply dated 13 December 2002 the property owner has put forward a series of points indicating why an application has not been made to date but will be made at a later date. These are as follows:

· Puckaster Close is the one property in imminent danger of being lost to the coastal landslip. Beginning of December 2002 lost a football pitch sized section of the garden only 30 metres from property’s main retaining wall.

· There are now 1 – 5 cms cracks in every wall and floor of Puckaster Close and the foundations of the house have 3 – 6 cms multiple cracks across the entire 150 foot property. All cracks increased during past 6 – 8 months.

· In past year at Puckaster Close one of tenants had to move out due to fears of cracking walls and moving floors and that flat declared uninhabitable and removed from Council Tax register. This now makes a total of five flats at Puckaster Close which have become similarly uninhabitable due to continued land slippage.

· All people living at Puckaster Close in imminent threat of massive additional landslip and live in constant fear and anxiety.

· Still at least twelve months away from an operational scheme that will provide a safer living environment.

· Since last visit by Planning Officers there have been major changes in the accommodation themselves in addition to the accommodation declared uninhabitable. Firstly, both two adult children have completed their initial education and moved back into the family home. Accordingly, each unit they occupied has been reconnected to main residency so we have full access to each other’s quarters as one large family home although each maintains a private entrance. Furthermore, one accommodation unit now vacant and used as guest quarters for immediate family.

· Two remaining accommodation units occupied by single tenants of over five and ten years residency, but even this accommodation showing signs of instability and could be requirement for this to be vacated if conditions worsen.

· Given the above, use of accommodation very much influx and tenuous but anticipate hopefully circumstances will clarify during the next year.

· Would remind you that previously, accommodation situation remain unchanged for over the past 20 – 25 years as proved by detailed Council Tax inspection and Council Tax registration. Inspector at that time decided to classify each of them as single self-contained residencies since each had a private entrance to the drive. All accommodations also had access via long north hall so they could have been classified (and arguably could still be classified) as self-contained bedsits in one large multiple occupancy house. The decision by the Inspector to classify them as separate units maximised Council Tax revenue.

· Suggests the concern that situation needs to be clarified because of a possible sale is not realistic as advice from estate agent some years ago indicated best price would be for the property as one single residency with granny flats, guest accommodation etc. Accordingly, value to me of an LDC is not so great.

· Also note on application forms fee is an increment of £220 per unit which on basis may lose additional units due to landslip seems an expensive solution.

· House uninsurable and has low income. Consequently, if house eventually protected by landslip scheme will probably sell it as a large united single residency, but if house crumbles or becomes uninhabitable will be forced to reconsider options.

· See no harm to any person in temporarily postponing application until the above circumstances clarify themselves in the next six months to a year, yet suggests real harm and suffering could result if LPA continues to press this matter at current time.

· Hope the above both clarifies and updates information needed for Committee Members to come to a reasonable and humane decision on this matter. Whilst respect planning regulations must be adhered to, unique and consequential set of circumstances need to be appreciated with the result of a further temporary delay of one year.

1. To note the information put forward by the property owner and to defer any further action for a twelve month period.

2. To note the information put forward by the property owner but to indicate that the Local Planning Authority wishes to see an application for a Lawful Development Certificate to be submitted within 28 days.

The only outstanding issue with regards to this investigation relates to the number of accommodation units within the building. The specific question is whether these can be considered to be independent residential units or whether circumstances would indicate that the term “house in multiple occupancy” would more appropriately apply. With regards to the time limits beyond which immunity could be claimed these would be four years for independent residential units and ten years if it were found the property was subdivided up as an HMO. Whichever time period is chosen, without wishing to prejudice any final decision, from the electoral register it does not appear that the Local Planning Authority is faced with an imminent deadline with regards to immunity. Indeed, the property owner has indicated on a number of occasions that the property has been divided up for a significant number of years. Nor do I consider that the benefits of any planning permission which the property may obtain in the future with regards to a Lawful Development Certificate offer the site any additional development potential. Taking these factors into consideration I do not believe that the Council’s general planning policies with regards to development in this locality would be prejudiced by agreeing to the applicant’s request to defer this matter for a further twelve month period. Nor do I believe that any deferment would prejudice the issue of ground stability.

In coming to this recommendation not to undertake any immediate enforcement action consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given the apparent longstanding use of the building I do not consider that deferring any consideration of future action prejudices the proper planning of the area nor exacerbates or contributes to the issues surrounding ground stability in this locality. This decision is made balancing the rights of the individual concerned and the response is considered proportionate to the legitimate aims and the wider public interest.

To note the information put forward by the property owner and to defer any further action for a twelve month period.

(b) TCP/13988W Additional community based activities at West Wight Sports Centre, Freshwater, Isle of Wight

To consider what course of action to take in respect of a complaint regarding non-sports activities at West Wight Sports Centre, Queens Road, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.

On 26 November 1996, the Development Control Committee approved an application made by Totland Parish Council for alterations and extension to form sports hall and associated facilities, at West Wight Swimming Pool, Queens Road, Freshwater, Isle of Wight. Within the application, the stated use of the facility was for leisure and entertainment, and in a letter from the Clerk to Totland Parish Council which accompanied the application, it stated that in addition to the sports and fitness activities the multi-purpose room and kitchen facility would be available for private functions. Part of the building was also to function as a youth club.

This facility is run by a trust and has become a popular venue not just for the local community but for a wider catchment area stretching as far afield as Cowes, Newport and Ventnor. Inevitably this popular facility has to some extent impacted on a limited number of local residential properties. A complaint has been received in the Planning Department regarding noise from discos which are held in the sports hall and lighting nuisance from external security lighting. The letter of complaint also mentioned that a farmers market was held weekly although the complainants have subsequently clarified that this use is not a nuisance to them.

Regarding the question of the security lights no planning conditions were imposed and I consider that the installation of a limited number of lights would not have required the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Concerning the retail use, on Friday 13 December 2002, the Enforcement Officer visited West Wight Sports Hall and found that the Women’s Institute were holding a small market in the multi-purpose room. Sales by the Women’s Institute are held each Friday between 9.15 am and 11.30 am. The sale of goods appears to be quite low scale and I cannot imagine that they generate much, if any, nuisance or disturbance (a situation now acknowledged by the complainant). When the Enforcement Officer spoke with the manager, she informed him that in addition to the Women’s Institute market, a farmers market is held on the second Wednesday of every month where produce such as bread, bacon, pies, and fruit and vegetables are sold to the public, this event takes place in the sports hall.

From a planning point of view, a sports centre is a D2 use as are discos. Consequently the use of the hall to run a disco does not represent a change of use. I understand from colleagues in the Environmental Health Section that they have been monitoring the discos and as a result a limiter has been installed on the music amplifier.

Indoor markets are an A1 use and so technically, an application for change of use would be required to operate an indoor market if the level of usage was considered to represent a material change of use.

Although the use for market purposes is not within the original remit of the enterprise, I believe that it is very much ancillary to the community based uses which are also in operation.

1. To invite a planning application from West Wight Sports Centre for change to a mixed use which includes use as an indoor market.

2. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use as an indoor market.

3. To take no further action in respect of the use as an indoor market at its current level but to write to the facility informing the trustees that if there is an intensification for use as an indoor market then a planning application will be required.

4. To write to the complainant advising them that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the installation of the security lights does not represent development requiring the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority and that the use of the facility to run discos is not a material change of use.

In coming to this recommendation, to firstly recognise the limits of planning control and secondly not to take any enforcement action with regards to the retail change of use issue, 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. On balance, I believe that the proposal to take no enforcement action at this stage is a proportionate response and does not undermine the public interest as exhibited through the planning policies.

The installation of the security lights which are attached to the building do not need the consent of the Local Planning Authority. When the facility was approved, no limitation was imposed on the scope of the D2 use (assembly and leisure).

The use of the multi-purpose room for 2¼ hours a week for the Women’s Institute, and the use of the sports hall for one day a month for use by the farmers market, when compared with the overall use of the facility could be considered to be not only diminimus but ancillary to the community based activities carried on at the centre. Accordingly I do not consider that this level of use triggers the requirement for consent.

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the extension to be altered to comply with the approved plans.

In July 2002 an enforcement officer visited the site to ascertain that the extension had been built in accordance with the approved plans and that all conditions have been complied with. During the visit the officer noted that although the extension had been built to the same dimensions, additional windows had been inserted to give the impression of a conservatory.

The changes were considered to require the submission of a fresh application and although the developer indicated that they would be willing to submit an application, to date, despite further correspondence from the officer, one has not been forthcoming.

1. To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring that the extension be altered so that it is accordance with the approved plans

4. To write to the property owner bringing to their attention that notwithstanding the decision to take no further action, that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the extension as built has no planning permission and that should any search be undertaken in the next 4 years that this will form the basis of the Local Planning Authority’s response. Accordingly they are invited to apply without prejudice to the final decision to remedy the outstanding breach.

Were it not for the fact that a footpath runs along the rear of the property then the extension could have been built under the householders permitted development rights by virtue of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as the extension is relatively small. The extra windows pose no additional overlooking problems as the rear garden is well screened and permission was originally granted for windows in all three elevations.

In coming to the recommendation to take no further action, considerations have 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. There is no additional impact on the occupants of neighbouring properties and the service of an enforcement notice would not be a proportionate response nor would it serve any wider public interest.

4. To write to the property owner bringing to their attention that notwithstanding the decision to take no further action, that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the extension as built has no planning permission and that should any search be undertaken in the next 4 years that this will form the basis of the Local Planning Authority’s response. Accordingly they are invited to apply without prejudice to the final decision to remedy the outstanding breach.

(d) TCP(E)25293 Unauthorised vehicular access onto a classified road at Bexhill Cottage, Newport Road, Bierley, Niton, Isle of Wight

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use by vehicular traffic of a lay-by type access at Bexhill Cottage, Bierley and the permanent closure of the access to prevent future use.

In December 2002, the Highways Department contacted the Planning Department and passed on information to the effect that a block paved lay-by has been constructed without planning permission at Bexhill Cottage, Bierley. Newport Road, Bierley is a classified road and therefore planning permission is required to construct a vehicular access.

The opinion of the Highways Department is that enforcement action to have the access closed should be taken as soon as possible as visibility is extremely limited and the continued use is regarded as being highly unsafe.

On 6 January 2003 a Planning Enforcement Officer visited Bexhill Cottage and spoke with the house owner, he pointed out that Newport Road is classified and that planning permission is required to construct a vehicular access. He also pointed out to the house owner that it was her right to make a planning application but that such an application would be unlikely to receive consent in view of the opinion of the Highways Department that this access is regarded as being highly unsafe.

1. To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use by vehicular traffic of the access at Bexhill Cottage Beverley and the permanent closure of the access. Time for compliance one month.

2. To take no further action in respect of the unauthorised vehicular access at Bexhill Cottage.

In coming to this recommendation to seek enforcement action, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact of the unauthorised development on highway safety has been carefully considered. Whilst this action may interfere with the rights of the owner of Bexhill Cottage, it is considered that the recommendation to take enforcement action is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Having visited the location, the Enforcement Officer is of the same opinion as the Highways Engineer, which is that the access is very unsafe. The house owner states that they only drive off the lay-by in the direction of Niton in order to avoid meeting, head on, traffic coming round the adjacent bend. If the right to park on their property is removed from the house owners, they would have to resort to parking their vehicle on the highway verge and across the field entrance which is some 150 yards further on towards Newport. The house owners used this as a parking space prior to constructing the lay-by but it caused annoyance to a neighbour because people were stopping at night and looking the car over causing her dog to bark which awoke the household.

On the day following the Enforcement Officers’ visit, the co-owner of Bexhill Cottage, phoned to discuss matters. He stated that they use the mirror, which has been erected opposite their house, to exit their access, and by this means they can see around the adjacent bend, and possible up to 100 yards back along the road. The problem with this is that the mirror is within the highway verge, and such mirrors require special authorisation from GOSE, and this one would not meet their criteria for approval. The Development Control Engineer has asked the Highways Maintenance Section to take action on this mirror.

This unauthorised development is contrary to Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan which states: -

a) that the proper provision of facilities within the development has been made so as to ensure the safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians.

b) that any new road layout, including vehicular access, road junctions, and crossing points are constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users, particularly the needs of the more vulnerable, such as cyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled.

This is a case where the rights of the householder have to be weighed against the broader aspect of general highway safety, and I believe that highway safety must take precedence.

To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use by vehicular traffic of the access at Bierley and the permanent closure of the access. Time for compliance one month.