PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

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 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.

Background Papers

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.

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

5 OCTOBER 2004

TCP/02700/G P/01778/04

Demolition of existing building; construction of 4/5 storey building to form 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor (revised scheme)

9, Pier Street, Sandown

Sandown

Conditional Approval

TCP/02729/Z P/01419/04

Demolition of buildings; outline for 14 houses & alterations to vehicular access

58, St. Johns Road, Newport

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/19679/C P/00089/04

Siting of vessel 'MV Calbourne' for use as a restaurant

East Creek, Newport Harbour adjacent car park, Sea Street and, The Quay, Newport

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/20820/C P/00187/04

Erection of livestock building; proposed access road between Chapel Lane & Merstone Lane; variation of condition no. 6 on TCP/20820 to allow increased working hours from 0700 to 2300 hours daily

Land at Broadfields Farm, Chapel Lane, Merstone, Newport

Arreton

Conditional Approval

TCP/24776/B P/01015/04

Formation of new agricultural access including closing up of an existing access

Land north of Padan Aran, Merstone Lane, Merstone, Newport

Arreton

Conditional Approval

TCP/25671/B P/01395/04

2 pairs of semi-detached houses, terrace of 2 houses & a bungalow, detached bungalow; formation of vehicular access & parking

Land at and rear of 52 and 54, Wyatts Lane, Cowes

Northwood

Conditional Approval

TCP/26079 P/00107/04

Telecommunications installation comprising 15m high trailer mounted lattice tower supporting three 4 stack dipole antennae & 1 transmission dish; generator fuel storage tank & equipment cabin enclosed by temporary security fencing

Land at Greatwood Copse, off, Cowleaze Hill, Shanklin

Shanklin

Conditional Approval

TCP/26171 P/00404/04

Telecommunications installation comprising 10m high telegraph pole supporting 1 antenna; associated equipment cabinet

Land adjacent landslip car park, Leeson Road, Ventnor

Shanklin

Refusal

TCP/26483 P/01611/04

Demolition of single storey extension; construction of end of terrace house

9 Northumberland Road, Newport

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/02700/G P/01778/04 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown South

Registration Date: 20/08/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Isle of Wight Development Ltd

Demolition of existing building; construction of 4/5 storey building to form 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor (revised scheme)

9, Pier Street, Sandown, PO36

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is being reported at the request of the Head of Planning Services given the history, nature and level of objections.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at the 5 October meeting, this application will have been processing within the 8 week period.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site has an area of approximately 0.02 hectares and is located on the northern side of Pier Street just before its junction with the Esplanade. The Esplanade and Pier Street are situated on rising land on a curve turning from east, rising to the north towards the High Street. The site is presently almost completely covered by the existing building which is a three storey white painted rendered structure comprising a disused pub or nightclub with flats over. The land also rises behind the building, quite steeply to the rear of properties located off High Street. There is a small area of open, garden land intervening between the site and those properties.

To the east, No. 11 Pier Street is a three storey property, of similar appearance and of similar finish; again shops on ground floor with flats over. Beyond, further to the east is the Trouville Hotel, a modernised four storey hotel building of some considerable length facing the Esplanade, presenting a ground floor, predominantly glazed, elevation with balconies on first and second floors, surmounted by a false Mansard style roof incorporating dormer windows on the Esplanade elevation.

To the west lies a cafe/restaurant on ground floor, but the ground floor is at a much higher level since, at this corner, there is an extremely steep gradient as Pier Street rises from the Esplanade to High Street. Slightly further north, attached to this building is a private residence and, beyond, Montpelier Hotel, again at a significantly higher level.

The area is one of mixed uses, but is predominantly tourist orientated with flats, shops, cafes and restaurants, hotels and, with the pier opposite, could be regarded as the centre of Sandown's tourism.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning consent granted for the change of use from amusement centre to cafe in May 1995, referring only to the ground floor of the premises.

Variation of condition on the previous permission to allow preparation of other cooked foods - temporary planning permission in August 1997 for a period of 1 year.

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to food and drink (Class A3) approved as a retrospective consent in October 2001.

Application for redevelopment of the site for 4/5 storey block of 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor was the subject of a site inspection and negotiation to reduce the height by a floor (and two flats) was eventually approved in April of this year resulting in a scheme of 3/4 storeys of 5 flats over a ground floor retail unit.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This proposal again represents the complete redevelopment of the site following demolition of the existing building, the construction of a four storey building to form 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor. The proposals are for an identical development to that originally proposed in the earlier submission. It is assumed that the submission is intended to be the subject of an appeal if refused.

Plans show the building to have 4/5 floors despite the very steep gradient of Pier Street, ground floor is shown to be on a single level. Flats are shown to comprise two bedrooms, bathroom and living/dining/kitchen, with a staircase situated towards the rear of the building served by a common stairwell accessed via the passage just to the west of the building and from a door in the frontage. The plan forms for first, second and third floors are similar but, on the fourth floor, the top floor, the flat comprises three bedrooms, two of which are en-suite, a bathroom, and a living/kitchen/dining room. The first floor flats open out onto a balcony facing the sea.

The building is proposed to be constructed in masonry with an unspecified finish. Essentially the front elevation is of a symmetrical design although the ground floor, which projects forwards beyond the main part of the structure by about 2 metres, is not necessarily symmetrical and, indeed, on plan forms a curved facade and incorporates arched window openings, the shop front being set beneath the main structure. The second and third floors incorporate balcony features projecting 0.9 of a metre from the main structure and fenestration with a horizontal emphasis prevails.

In relation to the adjoining properties, the parapet, behind which sits the Mansard style top floor, is consistent with the height of the Trouville Hotel a few metres east whereas, on the western side, the parapet is slightly below the eaves level of the adjoining property although oversails the adjoining balcony by about 2.7 metres. The east elevation of the building is plain; the western elevation is not especially detailed with the exception of string courses and the rather unusual feature of secondary windows to bedrooms and kitchen inset in a splayed recess approximately midway within the building's depth. The windows are situated in the splay and are secondary windows to rear bedroom 2 and the living/dining/kitchen room in their respective flats.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the designated development envelope and shown within Tourism Policy 4 of the Unitary Development Plan. T4 states: -

"In the hotel areas defined on the proposals map, proposals for hotel accommodation will be acceptable in principle. Applications involving the loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where they involve the upgrading or improvement of existing hotels. Proposals involving the loss of other forms of tourist accommodation, facilities, entertainment and parking to other uses unrelated to tourism will not be approved."

The site is under no specific allocation and is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or a Conservation Area.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer's recommend conditions if approved.

TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

As before Sandown Town Council object to the development on grounds of being out of character, loss of privacy, history of land instability in this area, adverse effect in the street scene, loss of vision for motorists and overdevelopment of the site.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of writing, two letters of objection from local and neighbouring property owners on grounds of adverse effect on existing fire escape, history of land instability, excessive height of building representing an overdevelopment of the site, overlooking and loss of privacy, development out of character and over dominant on properties adjoining, loss of outlook and inadequate car parking. One writer suggests that, in the event that planning permission is granted, the fire escape on the western side of the site is retained at all times and that the ground floor of the property is restricted to retail use only.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment, but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Again in essence this proposal seeks to demolish the existing building, last used as a takeaway and restaurant and bar on ground floor with flats over, and replacing it with a four/five storey building (rooms within roof space) to form retail on ground floor with four floors of residential above. In terms of the footprint, the site coverage is very much the same as the existing building as in the previous proposal.

In terms of the use, it is proposed to substitute the residential and commercial use with another, although it is acknowledged that the residential use of this site is proposed to be intensified. Accordingly, in terms of policy and principle and bearing in mind the proposal seeks to retain a commercial ground floor, proposals are considered to be consistent with current UDP policy. Indeed the principle of residential development over a shop has now been established with the grant of planning permission in April for the reduced scheme.

The height, scale and mass of the existing building is altered only in the proposal to increase the height by 2 floors, one of which is contained within the Mansard style roof. The width of the building and its scale is consistent with the one it replaces and adjoining properties, and although the height has been increased by 2 floors it is similar in height to the Trouville Hotel a few metres to the east and, of course, as the site is on rising land, the building rises with land levels and is also consistent with the adjoining building to the west. It is accepted that, in providing an additional 2 floors, there are 4 more flats, but this is consistent with Governmental advice seeking to maximise the use of urban land and increase densities. The only way to increase density in this instance is to increase height. However, in visual terms, whilst the adjoining property to the east is somewhat dwarfed by the new development, it is already dwarfed by the appearance of the adjoining hotel on its eastern side which means that the adjoining property is the "odd one out".

Objections have been received to the scheme based on excessive height and reasons cited for these objections are based on dominance, loss of privacy, overshadowing and overdevelopment of the site, clearly objections based on perceived impacts on the individual properties adjoining. No one has a right to a view and indeed, presently, some properties enjoy a view over the site to Sandown Bay. Some loss of outlook will be realised, but these properties are essentially the ones behind, to the north, involve distances of between 15 and 25 metres and most are at higher level as the land rises from the Esplanade to the north.

Bearing in mind the distances involved and the relative heights, it is unlikely that levels of light will be affected significantly.

In terms of overlooking, the rear elevation of the proposal includes 4 floors including a dormer window in the roof, and these windows serve bedrooms only, with the exception of windows to the stairwell. In an urban area it is generally accepted that there will be some mutual overlooking from upper floor residential windows, a factor which is ultimately inevitable in many instances due to decreased distances between properties, a consequence of increased densities. However, the stairwell windows could be obscured glazed in order to maintain light levels but whilst eliminating a degree of loss of privacy.

The western elevation of the building includes an unusual splayed recess containing windows serving the flats on first, second and third floors, a kitchen window and a bedroom window in each of the flats on each of the floors, but these windows are generally secondary, needed only for obtaining light and ventilation, and in order to maintain privacy could also be obscured glazed.

The first floor flats both have a small balcony on the front elevation. This is at a lower level than the terraces on the adjoining property to the east. The lower terrace is used commercially for the restaurant/bar use but the terrace on the adjoining property on the next level is used purely residentially. This cannot be overlooked by the lower balconies but could be overlooked from a terrace at roof level. The front of the Mansard at roof level is in a position approximately equal to that of the upper terrace adjoining, and the terrace level is about 2 metres higher. This means that some view will be blocked from that terrace but, of course, loss of view cannot be counted as a reason for withholding permission. As the terrace is situated further forward, to effect overlooking users of the terrace would have to stand close to the western edge of the terrace and "look back" in a northerly direction to view it. This could be overcome by setting a barrier to the upper terrace adjoining the westernmost window, perhaps in the form of a glazed screen, which would prevent access to the westernmost extent and, to a certain extent, reduce possible overlooking.

In terms of design, the building comprises features which emphasise the horizontal appearance of the building including string courses, fenestration with horizontal glazing bars, parapets and railings to the terraces, features which are found generally within the area. The inclusion of a flat within the Mansard roof allows for a fourth floor (or fifth level) whilst maintaining the building at its lowest. The inclusion of a Mansard roof is similar to the Trouville Hotel in close proximity and the Montpelier Hotel further up Pier Street. Finishes to the building have not been specified but many other buildings in the vicinity, especially on the north east side of Pier Street, are finished in either white or cream painted masonry or render. The plans submitted suggest a similar finish.

Land stability has been raised as a reason to resist the proposed development and although Building Control have no record or reports of movement or remedial work, third party allegations of structural instability have been made but, of course, these could be specific to the building's failure as opposed to geological fault. However, Building Control consider that a structure of the size envisaged could have a significant effect on the overall stability of land and the buildings in the vicinity and suggest that a full Method Statement should be submitted and agreed, both for the demolition works and for the requirements for retaining existing surrounding land and property, before, during and after construction works. Such a statement would need to include results of a stability survey and the provision of designed foundations and retaining structures before any work commenced on the site.

The site is proposed to be developed with no parking provision. The site is located within Zone 2 where 0-50% of normal requirement could be provided; in this instance zero parking is felt appropriate.

In essence, determination turns of whether the Committee are prepared to withdraw from their previous stance and accept the additional storey. I remain of the opinion that the development is appropriate and maintain my recommendation for approval.

In summary, the replacement of an existing residential and commercial building with a more intensive one is felt to be an appropriate development, and with conditions it is felt that the objections are substantially mitigated sufficient to grant planning permission.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 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 aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the replacement of this commercial and residential development with one more intensive is felt appropriate provided that the tourism/retail use is maintained on ground floor. The design, scale and mass of the building are consistent with existing development in the near vicinity and the development is consistent with Policies D1, D2, T4 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The windows to be constructed in the west elevation shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing, all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The stairwell windows in the north elevation shall be finishes in permanent obscure glazing, all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03

Screening to a height of 1.8 metres above terrace level shall be installed and maintained at the western end of the 4th floor terrace in a position commensurate with the westernmost part of the window to bedroom 1 as shown on the approved plan, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the building. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the building is occupied and the screen shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property and in accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The ground floor of the premises shall be used only as shown on the approved plan for access to the flats hereby approved and as a shop falling within Use Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

Reason: In order to ensure that the use of the premises accords with the terms of the application and to prevent any alternative use being made of the premises which could be a source of nuisance or disturbance to occupants of neighbouring properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to any construction work commencing on site a full Method Statement for both the demolition works and requirements for retaining existing surrounding land and buildings, before, during and after construction works, and details of the foundation design including full calculations, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any demolition, excavation and construction works would not adversely affect adjoining sites and that the development is capable of withstanding continuing land movement in the area, and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The passage situated on the western side of the site shall be maintained as a clear route at all times during and after construction work to enable adequate fire escape.

Reason: In the interests of public safety and in accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The dwellings hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of 7 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of Sheffield Hoops unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plans.

TCP/02729/Z P/01419/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Mount Joy

Registration Date: 16/07/2004 - Development for sale by Council (Reg4)

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Isle of Wight Council

Demolition of buildings; outline for 14 houses & alterations to vehicular access

58, St. Johns Road, Newport, PO301UD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at the 5 October meeting of the Development Control Committee, this application would have been processed within the 13 week period for major applications.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located on the north-west corner of the junction of Whitepit Lane and St John’s Road at Shide Cross in an area of predominately residential use. A site area of 0.34 hectares of irregular shape and containing two red brick buildings currently used as Council offices. One of the buildings is long established, the other is of more modern origin. There are presently three vehicular accesses to the site, two off St John’s Road, one off Whitepit Lane, each leading to parking areas in front, at the rear and to the southern end of the building.

There is an electric sub station adjoining the southern access on St John’s Road.

To the north of the buildings and on the west side of St John’s Road, the development is well established, large three storey buildings, semi detached properties of yellow and red brick under slate roofs.

Opposite, on the eastern side there is a mix of detached bungalows and houses whilst to the west, comparatively large properties in large sites except for those properties fronting Whitepit Lane which are, again, a mix of designs, styles and sizes. The frontage to both Whitepit Lane and St John’s Road is marked by stone walls surmounted by hedgerows containing some mature and semi mature trees which effectively screen the building from view. The small section of pavement adjoins the boundary wall with the property right at the junction of the two highways but is not continued along either frontage. Apart from these employment premises, the use of the surrounding land is almost entirely residential.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Following demolition of all buildings on site, the outline proposal is to redevelop the site for residential purposes, a development comprising four terraces of three and four properties each, totalling fourteen units. Siting and means of access only to be considered at this time.

It is proposed to use the existing accesses onto Whitepit Lane and the northerly access onto St John’s Road, effectively closing the southern access onto St John’s Road, except for access to the electric sub station for utility vehicles.

The layout plan shows three terraces, only slightly stepped fronting St John’s Road at a distance of approximately 10 to 15 metres with a further terrace of four properties situated in the deepest part of the site towards the north western corner, also facing in a north easterly direction and distanced from the rear face of the north easterly most block by about 20 metres. The layout shows the two accesses to be linked, providing 16 car parking spaces. Each property is shown to have adequate front and rear garden areas and a pedestrian path has been included meandering its way from north to south within the site giving pedestrian access to each of the individual dwellings and also providing a pedestrian exit/entrance to the site onto the pavement situated at the junction of Whitepit Lane and St John’s Road.

Five trees are shown to be removed, the vast majority being retained since they are in peripheral locations, mostly on the St John’s Road and Whitepit Lane frontages of the site, in elevated position above the road level due to high land levels within the site. The right of way is proposed to be retained for access to the electric sub station accessed exclusively for service vehicles off the southern access to St John’s Road.

Each of the properties has pedestrian access from its rear garden onto the access road serving the development and the car parking spaces situated towards the rear (west) of the site where car parking areas already exist for the present user. The terrace of four at the north western corner includes two car parking spaces for each of the ends of the terrace and for the car parking in the general parking areas for the centre of terrace properties.

The three front terraces contain accommodation of three floors although the upper floor is contained partially within the roof space with upper storey windows which penetrate the eaves producing small dormer style windows. Constructed in brickwork the properties are shown to have kitchen and lounge on ground floor, two bedrooms and a bathroom on first floor (with the exception of the centre of terrace which only has a single bedroom and bathroom on first floor) with a further two bedrooms and bathroom on second, again with the exception of the centre of terrace which has just two bedrooms on second floor.

The rear most terrace is purely two storeys, again constructed in brickwork with accommodation comprising lounge and kitchen on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom over.

Despite the extensive details included in the scheme Members are reminded only siting and access are to be considered.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Proposed development is subject to PPG3 regarding densities, re-development of brown field sites and provision of housing. Within the designated development envelope and within an area of residential use.

Policies applicable to this proposal include Policy H4 which presumes in favour of residential development within development envelopes where sites are not allocated and Policy H5 presumes in favour of infill residential development where the amenity of adjoining properties not unduly damaged. Policy G1 and G4 presume in favour of developments within the existing development boundaries but conversely Policy E3 seeks to resist the development of existing and allocated employment land. Policy TR7 seeks to achieve satisfactory access and the site is located within Zone 3 of the parking guidelines where 0 to 75% of normal parking requirement would be applicable.

The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, not within a Conservation Area and not within any designated site of nature conservation value.

The majority of the trees on site are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The highways engineers recommend conditions if consent is granted relating to construction and finish of accesses and parking areas, the provision of such areas prior to occupation of any of the dwellings; the improvement of the accesses with the highway; access for the disabled and provision of adequate pedestrian access and provision of 16 spaces for parking.

Scottish and Southern Power raised no objection but point out that there remains a need to access the electric sub station (revised plans received account for this requirement).

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATION

Seven letters of objection from local residents on grounds of over development, loss of privacy, inadequate car parking, inadequate access, lack of pavements and pedestrian dangers caused by the increase in traffic and inadequate provision for pedestrians, development out of character and loss of a building of architectural merit.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not, however, anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Essentially outline planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of this site, currently used as offices by the Council, for residential redevelopment. The scheme submitted is comprehensively detailed but siting and means of access are the only matters to be considered at this stage; the development seeks outline permission for 14 houses hence the need for layout and accesses to be determined.

Determination terms on matters of policy in principle, the capacity and adequacy of the accesses to cater for the volume of traffic bearing in mind the scale of development and impacts on surrounding properties.

On the first issue, that of policy, the site is located within the development envelope in an exclusively residentially used area and although the existing office use could not be described as incompatible, residential redevelopment would be acceptable in principle. Policy E3 of the UDP seeks to preserve sites which are in use as employment sites but it is apparent in this instance that the intention is to relocate the existing staff elsewhere and that, as a direct result of this proposed redevelopment, loss of employment will not occur as this is a Council department carrying out statutory functions.

Accesses to the site are in existence and, bearing in mind the areas used presently for car parking and those proposed under the development scheme, a substantial reduction in parking would result as part of the development. Principally, the main car parking area at the rear (west) of the building will remain with perhaps one or two additional spaces and the car parks at the front and southern end will be lost to the redevelopment. Bearing in mind the nature of the use of the offices and the volumes of car parking provided, it is felt inevitable that a reduction in the use of the accesses would result. In support of this contention, the highways engineers have recommended conditions in the event that planning permission is granted, based upon the submitted plans.

The revisions to the scheme in terms of access enable Scottish and Southern’s continued access for maintenance purposes of the electricity sub station via the access situated approximately mid way in the St John’s Road frontage and also allow for a pedestrian

pathway linking the northerly vehicular access to a pedestrian access ant the south eastern corner of the site onto the pavement situated at the roundabout.

The siting of the dwellings in four terraces seeks to utilize the land as best it can, incorporating access as far from the roundabout junction of St John’s Road and Whitepit Lane to best effect. This results in three terraces fairly close to the St John’s Road frontage with a fourth, two storey terrace located towards the rear of the site facing but at a distance of 21 metres from the rear face of the north eastern most terrace. Bearing in mind the distances involved, I do not consider this to be unacceptable especially as the site’s access road runs in front of that terrace effectively segregating those parts of the development.

The southern most block projects beyond the position of the existing building on site, by a considerable distance leaving the new building approximately 3 to 4 metres from the site’s boundary with Whitepit Lane. Although this is comparatively close, the property on the opposite side of Shide Cross, fronting Watergate Road, is approximately 5 metres from Whitepit Lane at its closet point. I do not consider this close proximity detracts from the amenity of the area or that of the adjoining property since the properties on the north side of Watergate Road commence a substantial distance away and therefore comparison of depth of frontage is not an issue.

Turning to the objections raised, first the matter of over development, it will be seen that the site’s area is 0.34 of a hectare and 14 dwellings are proposed. This computes at 42 dwellings per hectare in the mid range of the government’s recommended density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. Bearing in mind location, the relative densities in the vicinity and the shape and nature of the site I consider the density to be quite appropriate.

Accesses to the site are existing and it will be seen that the numbers of parking spaces proposed, in this Zone 3 allows for one car parking space per unit with an additional two spaces for visitors to the development. Zone 3 suggests that there should be between 0-75% provision; the development comprises 48 bedrooms with 16 spaces which computes at 33%, approximately mid way in the 0-75% requirement under Zone 3 therefore is considered satisfactory.

Objectors have claimed that the limited parking provided on site will generate congestion in St John’s Road and Whitepit Lane and perhaps in the surrounding roads but the provision is consistent with governmental advice contained in PPG13.

Objections on grounds of inadequate pedestrian routes are understood however the main pedestrian route within the site leads to the northerly vehicular access where the pavement commences on the western side of St John’s Road. It is anticipated that this route would be the most used but a pedestrian link is also proposed to the short section of pavement abutting the junction of Whitepit Lane and St John’s Road and there are pavements in both Watergate Road and Shide Road. It is acknowledge that there is a “gap” of pavement provision in Whitepit Lane of a short section from the existing vehicular access to the site to the raised pavement but this is a situation which already exists and it is not possible to resolve this within the limits of the site.

Turning to loss of privacy, two or three properties may be affected these would be immediately adjoining the boundaries of the nearest properties in St Nicholas Close, Watergate Road and the adjoining property in St John’s Road but distances involved are substantial and landscaping could be carried out to assist in the maintenance of privacy. However I do not consider the degree of overlooking to be substantial and could, to a degree, be addressed at a reserved matter stage.

In other circumstances, a development of this size would require, the applicant to enter an agreement to make financial contributions towards the provision or enhancement of open space or recreational land and towards any shortfall in educational facilities created by the development, if such a shortfall is identified.

As this is a Council application submitted with the intention of disposing of the site, it would be most appropriate if the contributions normally associated with the development were taken into account when the property is offered for sale, and the relevant sums are transferred to the appropriate departments from the capital receipts accrued.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and attached appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, it is considered that the loss of the site for employment purposes to residential use is acceptable and consistent with Policies G1 - Development Envelopes; H4 - Unallocated Residential Development; H1 – New Development within main Island towns; E3 – Change of Use of Employment Land and TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development.

1. RECOMMENDATION – Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4	Details of roads, etc, design and construction - J01

No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with [the details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority].

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6	Access - junction details - J36

Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to gain access to the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use.

Reason: To ensure adequate access for disabled persons and to comply with policy D12 (Access for People with Disabilities) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No building shall be occupied until the means of access thereto for pedestrians and cyclists has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

A common footpath link shall be installed and maintained as shown on the approved plan, constructed and finished in materials agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The footpath shall be installed prior to occupation of any of the residential units, and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No additional pedestrian or vehicular accesses shall be formed either to St John's Road or Whitepit Lane without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surface in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for 16 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The southern vehicular access in St John's Road, situated approximately 30 metres from the junction with Whitepit Lane shall be permanently retained closed with the existing or replacement gates other than for service access to the electric sub station by the appropriate statutory undertaker. The access shall not be used otherwise. Any replacement gates to be installed shall be in accordance with a specification submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That appropriate financial contributions are made and a memorandum is sent to the Property Services Manager drawing his attention to those requirements as described in the final paragraph of the evaluation section above.

TCP/19679/C P/00089/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North

Registration Date: 14/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr R L Turner

Siting of vessel 'MV Calbourne' for use as a restaurant

East Creek, Newport Harbour adjacent car park, Sea Street and, The Quay, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Whittaker, following a recent discussion during which he expressed concern in respect of potential impact on nearby residents through noise and emissions. He also made reference to problems that have arisen in the past in respect of the former Pirate Ship.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 38 weeks to date. This application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications because of negotiations in respect of flood risk, subsequent consultation with the Environment Agency and officer work load.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to East Creek at Newport Harbour, being bounded by County Hall Car Park to the south and the dual carriageway to the north. Part of the southern quay wall to the creek is a Grade II listed structure, being constructed of stone with brick dressing. Application site is within Newport conservation area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/19679/M/4479 - Siting of Pirate Ship Museum, Exhibition Centre, Restaurant and Gift Shop, at Eastern Creek – temporary planning consent granted in July 1988 for a period until 30 June 1990.

LBC/19679A/M/4479 – LBC to site Pirate Ship Museum, Exhibition Centre, Restaurant and Gift Shop, at Eastern Creek – temporary listed building consent granted in July 1988 until June 1990.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Permission is sought for the siting of vessel “MV Calbourne” for use as a restaurant. This vessel has overall length of approximately 33 metres and beam in the region of 6 metres. It has a black painted steel hull with relatively small yellow painted steel deck house and wheel house on top. It essentially has the appearance of a barge and is currently moored at Blackhouse Quay, on the western side of the River Medina.

The applicant has requested consent for a restaurant use under Class A3 of the Use Classes Order 1987. The style and opening hours of the restaurant have yet to be decided, but can be controlled by suitable conditions should Members be minded to grant consent.

Access to the restaurant would be from the northern side of East Creek.

Creek wall (southern wall adjacent County Hall car park) forms part of a former warehouse building which was listed as being of architectural or historic interest. Although permission was granted for demolition of building itself in mid 1970s by the Department of the Environment, the Inspector dealing with this matter stipulated that the listing should be preserved on remaining section of wall below ground level. In view of this, Listed Building Consent would also be required for mooring of the MV Calbourne.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies are covered in PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Development). Specific reference is made to leisure and the evening economy. A diversity of uses in town centres and their accessibility to people living and working in the area is encouraged because it is felt that they make an important contribution to the vitality and viability of town centres. Paragraph 2.12 states:

“The local Planning Authority should therefore encourage diversification of uses in town centre as a whole…..different but complimentary uses, during the day and in the evening, can reinforce each other making town centres more attractive to local residents, shoppers and visitors. Leisure and entertainment facilities……, restaurants, pubs, bars, cafes all add variety.”

Whilst confirming that leisure uses may disturb nearby residents, any planning permissions should be grated subject to conditions which would protect amenities of nearby residents. Some leisure uses (including restaurants) are best located in local centres whilst others need to attract customers from a wider catchment area.

In terms of local policy, application site is shown to be within town centre boundary for Newport as identified on the IOW Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and is within the Conservation Area.

Relevant policies are considered to be as follows:

S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S6 – All developments will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G4 – General Locational Criteria of development.

G6 - Development in Areas Liable to Flooding

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development within the site

B1 – Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings

B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

R6 – Areas outside retail only frontages

P1 – Pollution and Development

The Brief for Newport Harbour, which is agreed Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG, does not directly address the issue of using vessels within the harbour but does seek to promote the eastern side of the harbour as a public domain and for the provision of facilities for the public, residents, tourists and visitors. The guidance states that it is considered vital that the quay should be used both during the day and evening to provide a continuity of life and activity in the area. Development should provide a range of activities and uses within the locality both to attract people to the area and to provide for those visiting or working in the town. Within the SPG, the adjoining temporary car park area is considered as a key site for future development with public domain type uses on the ground floor and possibly office accommodation above.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environment Agency confirm that, following submission of what it considers to be an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment, it raises no objection to the proposed use subject to a condition stating that no sewage or trade effluent is discharged to any surface water drainage system.

Highway Engineer states that he would not wish to see the vessel accessed through County Hall car park as, in his opinion, this could result in a potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. It has since been confirmed by the applicant that access would be achieved from the opposite side of the Creek. Confirmation is awaited from the Highway Engineer in this respect but it is anticipated that no objection will be raised.

Environment Health Officer recommends that conditions are applied to any approval.

Planning Policy Team Leader confirms no objection in principle and states that the proposed use sits quite comfortably within the ethos of the Newport Harbour Brief. He states that the Brief seeks improvements in the public domain areas meaning that it is therefore important to ensure that any street furniture such as lighting, handrails or other objects associated with the use as a restaurant or access to such is of high quality, good design and suitable materials. It is important to ensure that the vessel is maintained in good visual condition and not detract from the visual improvements already achieved and those planned for the future. He importantly points out that the vessel appears to have strong historic links to the Medina Estuary and Newport Harbour and suggests that it may be appropriate to provide interpretation for the public to explain this history.

The Council’s Conservation Officer confirms that the vessel would be within a designated conservation area and moored to part of the quay wall which is a Grade II Listed structure. He states that the area adjacent to the site has been degraded by the loss of the former warehouses and subsequent use as a car park, but this is an important location and any development would have a significant impact upon the character of the conservation area. In principle though, he considers the mooring of this vessel, which has historic associations with Newport Harbour, would not adversely affect the character or the appearance of the conservation area or the quay wall. Indeed, it is his opinion that this would seem to be appropriate addition to the Quay, in keeping with the character of the area and would add interest to Newport Harbour. The submitted details do not appear to involve any other works or structures on the quay itself and would therefore have little impact on this, apart from any mooring attachments to the listed wall which would require Listed Building Consent. He does state that future consideration would have to given to the visual impact of any signage, external lighting or other ancillary structures which are not included in this application.

Council's Ecologist confirms that swans do not nest at this site and that they breed some distance away from East Creek. The presence of a floating vessel here is most unlikely to affect these birds in future years and highly likely that a family of swans will continue to use Newport Harbour.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four letters have been received raising objections which can be summarised as follows:

Important area for swans and should be retained in current condition.
Access through County Hall car park could be potentially hazardous.
Restaurant use may not be acceptable alongside future development on car park site.
MV Calbourne will do nothing to enhance the neglected state of Newport Harbour.
Noise disturbance.
Applicant has no right of access to the East Creek.
Difficulties associated with servicing and powering the restaurant.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Crime and Liaison Officer has been consulted in this respect and his comments are awaited.

EVALUATION

The main considerations in respect of this application relate to the principle of establishing a restaurant in this location together with the potential impact of such a use on nearby property occupiers and the surrounding area in general, particularly impact on setting of the Conservation Area.

In terms of principle, the site of the proposed restaurant is within the Town Centre boundary for Newport, as indicated on the UDP, where both local and national policies encourage a variety of uses that would contribute positively to the vitality and viability of the town centre, not just during and the daytime but also to promote the evening economy as well. Further to this, Newport Harbour has been identified as an area where the public domain should be given priority and this forms the basis of the SPG. Bearing these points in mind, I believe that the principle of providing a restaurant in this location is acceptable subject to the inherent impacts not detracting from the amenities of nearby property occupiers or the area in general.

The proposed use is as a restaurant, not a pub, club or function room which would inevitably create a certain degree of noise and disturbance to nearby residents. A vessel of this type does not necessarily have the sound proofing properties that a conventional building would have, but bearing in mind the low key nature of a restaurant use coupled with a range of conditions that could be applied to control hours of use, music, deliveries etc., it is my opinion that the proposed use would not have a significant impact, particularly when considering the variety of uses in this part of Newport together with the ambient noise levels around the dual carriageway. It should also be noted that the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that a restaurant in this location would sit harmoniously alongside adjoining land uses, subject to conditions of the type mentioned above.

As the applicant and Newport Harbour Master have confirmed, the actual location of the vessel in the East Creek, its sea worthiness and suitability to use any particular part of the harbour is a matter of rights of navigation and for the Harbour Master to determine. It is not the physical mooring of the vessel that requires planning consent, but the use of this craft as a restaurant. Strictly speaking, the visual impact of this vessel is not therefore a matter for planning consideration other than any signage, access or lighting or other factors associated with the proposed use as a restaurant.

Notwithstanding this, it is my view that the East Creek is a suitable location for the vessel in question, particularly when bearing in mind the historic links it has with the Medina Estuary and Newport Harbour. It is important to ensure that the vessel is maintained in good condition and not detract from the visual improvements that have already been achieved and those planned for the future. I therefore consider that a suitably worded condition to ensure the future maintenance of the vessel is both reasonable and necessary together with a further condition limiting future alterations to the vessel. Any associated advertisements would require Advertisement Consent.

Mooring the vessel to the Listed Quay wall will require Listed Building Consent in its own right, at which time the impact of such will be assessed. However, the Council’s Conservation Officer has confirmed that he has no objection to this in principle but will require further details in respect of attachments so that the impact upon the integrity of the listed wall can be fully assessed.

In terms of the potential impact on swans, the site of the proposed restaurant is not designated as being of importance to nature conservation. Council’s Ecologist confirms that East Creek is not breeding ground for swans and that the proposal would not have a direct impact on swans. With regards to service provision, I would suggest that this can be controlled by an appropriate condition to ensure that means of sewage/effluent disposal and power supply would not detract from the character or appearance of the vessel or surrounding area in general.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the use of the MV Calbourne as a restaurant in this quay side location within the town centre boundary is acceptable in principle and could make a positive contribution not only to the viability and vitality of the town centre in its wider sense, but also to the long term regeneration of Newport Harbour. Impacts of the restaurant on nearby properties, the surrounding area in general or future adjoining development through noise, smell or disturbance can be controlled through appropriate conditions. Bearing these points in mind, I am of the opinion that the proposed use complies with policies contained within the UDP.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

The MV Calbourne shall not be moved into the East Creek until it has been fully renovated and fitted out for use as a restaurant.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the vessel in particular and the surrounding area in general and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria), D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The restaurant hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the MV Calbourne has been painted in accordance with the scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority. Such an agreed scheme shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

No form of external lighting shall be installed on or adjacent the MV Calbourne unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the vessel in particular and the surrounding area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No alterations or extensions shall be undertaken to the MV Calbourne unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the vessel in particular and the surrounding area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No temporary buildings shall be stored on the deck of the MV Calbourne unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.

The restaurant hereby approved shall not be brought into use until details of sewage and trade effluent disposal have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority. Such waste shall not be discharged of to the river or to any surface water drainage system and the agreed means of disposal shall be provided before the restaurant is brought into use and retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the restaurant hereby approved is adequately drained and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The restaurant hereby approved shall not be brought into use until means of power supply has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority. Thereafter, such provision shall be made and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the use hereby approved commencing, the local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended range of foods to be prepared and sold at the premises. Upon receipt of this information, the Local Planning Authority will specify measures to be taken by the restaurateur for the control of odour/fumes from the premises use. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until these measures have been completed by the applicant. Any odour control measures specified by the Local Planning Authority shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To minimise impact from odour omissions from the approved restaurant and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to the use hereby authorised commencing the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended business hours of the premises. The use shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary, by the local Planning Authority. Such agreed hours of use shall be strictly adhered to thereafter.

Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance from the restaurant use and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the impact of noise) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The restaurant hereby approved shall not be brought into use until adequate provision has been made for the temporary storage of refuse in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority. Such agreed means of refuse disposal shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the impact of odour omissions from the premises and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to the use hereby authorised commencing, the local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended hours for deliveries and dispatches to the restaurant. The use shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary, by the local Planning Authority. Such agreed hours shall be strictly adhered to thereafter.

Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance from the approved premises and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The use hereby approved shall not be brought into use until details relating to means of access to the vessel have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall specify the position, route and materials to be used for the provision of the access. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the character and appearance of the vessel and surrounding area in general and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design), B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

This consent shall only authorise the use of MV Calbourne as a restaurant and for no other purpose whatsoever contained in Class A3 of the Use Classes Order 1987, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby properties in particular and surrounding area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to the use hereby approved commencing, an electronic sound limiter shall be installed in the premises to control the level of noise from the playing of music or amplification of sound. The details of the sound limiter to be installed in the premises shall be submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority. The sound limiter shall be installed and set up in accordance with the approved details by a competent person. It shall be set at a level agreed with the Local Planning Authority and shall not be adjusted without prior approval and no playing of music or amplification of sound shall take place on the premises unless the limiter is operational. The noise limiter shall be maintained and effectively operated in accordance with the approved details when the property is in use for the purpose authorised by this permission.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential properties in particular and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/20820/C P/00187/04 Parish/Name: Arreton Ward: Central Rural

Registration Date: 27/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Marvel Farms

Erection of livestock building; proposed access road between Chapel Lane & Merstone Lane; variation of condition no. 6 on TCP/20820 to allow increased working hours from 0700 to 2300 hours daily

land at Broadfields Farm, Chapel Lane, Merstone, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

These applications (joint application with TCP 24776/B) are particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Broadfields Farm is a farming operation which comprises several tracts of land in the Merstone locality, some fronting Chapel Lane and Merstone Lane, and some to the north of Rookley village abutting Blackwater Hollow and some on Blackwater Road. There are buildings situated on the Chapel Lane frontage comprising existing farm buildings and a grading plant for potatoes on the southern side of Chapel Lane.

Merstone Village is situated to the east of this tract, the area is predominantly rural, agricultural landscape.

DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS

Application seeks consent for the retention of a vehicular access where work has commenced.

The second application is in three elements comprising the alteration of the condition on a previous permission relating to the potato grading plant to allow its operation between the hours of 0700 to 2300 hours daily; the construction of an access road of approximately 600 metres running between Merstone Lane and Chapel Lane close to the south eastern boundary of land within the applicant's ownership; and the erection of a livestock building.

The access point in Merstone Lane is approximately 200 metres south of the junction with Merstone Lane at Croucher's Cross and the access onto Chapel Lane is shown to be almost due north of the potato grading plant. The application states that the road will be a rolled gravelled finish, without kerbs, using a natural drainage regime and for use only by traffic connected with the operation of the potato grading plant and farm vehicles which would otherwise use Chapel Lane and Merstone Lane. The third part of the application seeks consent for the erection of a livestock building, proposed to be located to the south of the main complex of buildings in Broadfields Farm, a building shown to be almost 46 metres by just over 15 metres, open fronted to the north east elevation, constructed in steel framed and clad in profiled sheet cladding with windproof netting above ground for the first 2 metres.

A fourth element of the application (but which has now been omitted) was for outline permission for the erection of a dwelling on the south side of Chapel Lane, just to the east of the potato packing plant.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is well outside any designated development envelope and therefore shown as countryside within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Policy E8 - relates to Employment in the Countryside.

Policy B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage is applicable.

PPG7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development) advises Local Planning Authorities on matters relating to the countryside, agriculture and other development.

The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and no other designations affect the site.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Memorandum from the County Archaeologist registering an objection to the development on the grounds of a loss of not only the hedgerow but of the bank upon which the hedgerow is growing. This substantial hedgerow is designated under the criteria the hedgerow regulations as an important hedgerow for two reasons:

a) It existed prior to 1850 and was recorded on the IOW County SMR (Site and Monument Record) at the relevant date

b) It incorporates an archeological feature which is recorded on the County SMR

The hedgerow sits on top of an archeological linear boundary bank which runs the entire length of the island from Kings Quay to St Radagunds Path and which pre dates some medieval parish boundaries which run into it and respect it. It is a continuous boundary which is shown on the 1793 and 1860 OS maps and it is likely that it dates from Roman, Saxon or early medieval times. The County Archeologist considers that this is probably the most important boundary on the Island from an archeological perspective; that the removal of a 270 metre length of this monument would have a negative impact on the archaeology and ecology of the Island would set entirely the wrong precedent for the Council's operation of this statutory instrument (The Hedgerows Regulations 1997).

The County Archaeologist points out that there are other ancient monuments in the area too but reluctantly accepts the loss of the hedgerow so long as the roadside bank is not disturbed in any way and is turfed over to give protection. The replanting of the hedgerow behind visibility splay is recommended.

The Countryside Officer points out that development is contrary to Policy C13 which states that development proposals which are likely to adversely effect an important hedgerow or its location directly or indirectly, will not be permitted.

Highway Engineers formal comments to be reported.

PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Arreton Parish Council object to the loss of the hedgerow.

Arreton Parish Council also object to the variation in hours due to adverse effect on adjoining properties; object to dwelling as the site is outside the designated development envelope and that there are existing vacant properties in the village; state that the building is currently used for furniture storage and not grading of potatoes; adverse effect of the development on adjoining properties, suggesting that the disused potato grading shed is not used for its authorized purpose but should be used for sheep as the proposed livestock building.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Ramblers Association, whilst not objecting, raise concern at the possible effects on the right of way, requesting conditions be imposed to ensure the right of way remains open at all times, suggesting safeguards to protect users of the footpath.

CPRE object to all aspects of the development, raising suspicion over future intentions of use of the building, that there is no established need for such provision; adverse effect on at least two properties; that there is no need for increased hours; no need for a dwelling on the site, and objecting to the adverse effects of noise from traffic and from increased working hours.

One letter of representation, not objecting but raising concerns over use of the road, its construction and to the amended hours condition, but so long as such conditions are in force, no objection would be raised. Writer opposes the establishment of a dwelling.

12 letters of objection from local residents on grounds of development contrary to UDP policy; suggesting that Isle of Wight Potatoes is not trading and therefore the road is not required, neither is the extension to operating hours; suggests that proposals represent an increase in industrial use of buildings; that the livestock building is not justified nor necessary and that there is no need for a dwelling. Writers point out that other dwellings are available in the village. Roadway of inadequate construction likely to result in generation of noise and dust from frequency and times of traffic moving along the new road. One writer suggests that grading plant should be moved to alternative building thus allowing the existing building to be used for livestock and precluding the need for a further building. Development out of keeping with the character of the area.

Two letters of support from local residents stating that roadway may remove traffic from the village thereby causing less effect on majority of properties, and support the development providing need for a dwelling is proven.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not, however, anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

These applications now seek consent for three elements. These refer to the new livestock building; the formation of the access road from Chapel Lane, from the west side of those properties fronting Merstone Lane and exiting on to Merstone Lane as detailed above and , finally, the variation of the condition which limits the operation of the potato grading plant to the hours 07.30 to 18.00 Monday to Saturday thus allowing the use of the building on a daily basis between the hours of 07.00 and 23.00 hours. The use of the building for that time period specified is closely linked with the construction of the access road, that is to say the construction of the access road is proposed to be carried out to eliminate some objection to the increased operating hours by taking heavy vehicles out of the centre of the village and especially the junction of Merstone Lane with Chapel Lane.

The proposed livestock building is proposed to be located close to the existing agricultural building of similar proportions and sited approximately 11 metres from it and in a position which relates directly to other farm buildings in the vicinity. The need for agriculture buildings does not have to be justified.

The proposed building is typical of modern farm building being steel framed and clad roof and part of the sides down to a height of 2.1 metres above ground floor where wind proof netting would be applied on the rear and side of the building with the front left open, the front being the north eastern elevation. Building is 4.2 metres to eaves and approximately 8 metres to the ridge, overall dimensions of 45 metres x 15 metres and proposed to be used for lambing and other agriculture activity. In my view this building is appropriately sited and providing the materials used are in a dark green finish, I do not consider the impact will be severe.

It is my view that the alteration of the condition as proposed should not be accepted unless some mitigation of the vehicle impacts on the village and other residential property can be incorporated. The proposed road is about 600 metres in length and its use would divert much traffic away from the Chapel Lane and Merstone Lane parts in the village and at the junction where the use by heavy lorries has generated much opposition on the grounds of noise and disturbance. The implementation of the proposed road would therefore reduce the impact on the local property thus allowing a possible increase in the hours of operation without commensurate impacts on property.

The Merstone Lane junction of the new road does, however, require substantial visibility splays due to the unrestricted speed of traffic (national speed limit) where splays of 120 metres in a southerly direction and 150 metres in a northerly direction with an X dimension of 4.5 metres means that approximately 270 metres of ancient hedgerow. Important archeological information would be lost since not only would the hedgerow have to be removed but the bank upon which it sits, a bank which contains the archeological artefacts and which in its own right is an archaeological monument would also have to be removed. The choice is therefore the desire to take heavy traffic out of the village by agreeing the new access road weighed against the loss the hedgerow and bank and the implication regarding archaeology and ecology.

The main determining factor to be resolved is the conflict resulting from the archaeological interest and the highway safety aspect. To sum up, the County Archaeologist points out the importance of the hedgerow and roadside boundary which is a feature of the County Site and Monument Record and strenuously resists the loss of the hedgerow but more importantly the bank upon which it is situated. The Highway Engineers do not wish to accept the formation of an access on to either Merstone Lane or Chapel Lane without the visibility splays normally required, which, in the case of Merstone Lane would mean the removal of 270m of hedgerow and the substantial reduction in height of the bank (the archaeological feature) to a height of 1.05m.

The options open to Members are:

1. Approve the applications subject to the condition regarding visibility splays, and accept the loss of the archaeological feature.

2. Approve the applications losing the hedgerow only but preserving the bank and requiring the replanting of the hedge thus not providing the recommended visibility splays.

3. Refuse the application on grounds of inadequate visibility and loss of archaeological features and commence Enforcement Action against the works which have already been implemented namely the formation of the accesses onto Merstone Lane and Chapel Lane, and the construction of the access road across the field.

A certain amount of damage has already been effected to the archaeological feature by the removal of a section of bank and hedge and I would not wish to see more damage occurring. Bearing in mind the road and accesses would be used by agricultural and haulage vehicles mostly in connection with the operation of the potato grading plant and the fact that the road would not be a public thoroughfare, I consider the limitations on visibility is outweighed by the retention of the archaeological feature and that the benefits by the likely reduction in noise impacts on the Merstone residents by re-routing traffic associated with the potato grading plant out of the village outweighs the disadvantages of the provision of full visibility splays and recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, the balance in striking a decision in this instance turns primarily on the importance of the archeological feature, namely the hedgerow and bank and the significant loss the 270 metres visibility splays would require. The splays can be provided in part by resiting the hedgerow behind the splay lines. The bank will be retained and as the access will be used by large vehicles the reduction in bank height will not prevent the vehicles being seen or their driver’s visibility in either direction in Merstone Lane. Chapel Lane is not heavily trafficked and speeds are comparatively low but signage will need to be added to warn drivers of emerging vehicles.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (BOTH APPLICATIONS)

Conditions/Reasons:

Within one month of the date of this permission a comprehensive landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following approval.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy C1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Visibility splays of X = 4.5 m; Y = 150 m in a northerly direction and Y = 120 m in a southerly direction shall be formed within one month of the date of this permission, at the junction of the access road with Merstone Lane by the removal of the hedgerow only in accordance with Condition 3 below.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The hedgerow in the visibility splay required by condition 2 above shall be removed by cutting then poisoning the remaining stumps and roots. No hedgerow plant shall be dug or grubbed out and any successive growth within the visibility splay shall be removed by the same method to retain the visibility splay free from obstructions.

Reason: In the interests of the Archaeological value of the site and in accordance with Policy B9 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The earthwork bank shall be retained in its entirety and no further re-moulding shall take place; the cleared earthwork bank within the visibility splays shall be turfed and so maintained hereafter in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the Archaeological value of the site and in accordance with Policy B9 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

A new hedgerow of species to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority shall be planted along but behind the full length of the visibility splays (except where the access breaches) within one month of the date of this permission. Thereafter the replacement hedgerow shall be retained, replanted as necessary and maintained in a manner consistent with good arboricultural practice.

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until the developer has secured a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

To facilitate monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of the start date and appointed archaeological contractor shall be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any works:

The County Archaeologist

County Archaeological Centre

61 Clatterford Road

Newport

Isle of Wight

PO30 1NZ

Reason: To ensure that details of the archaeological site can be properly investigated prior to any development of that part of the site being carried out and to comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the livestock building hereby approved is commenced, samples of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

This permission shall authorise the use of the potato grading plant to the hours of 07.00 hours to 23.00 hours daily and the building shall not be used nor vehicles dispatched or received other than between those hours.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the nearby residential properties in particular in accordance with Policies D1, E6 and E8 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The increased hours of operation of the potato grading plant hereby approved shall only operate whilst all haulage traffic associated with that use approaches and departs from the plant via the new access hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the nearby residential properties in particular in accordance with Policies D1, E6 and E8 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

11	Within one month of this decision, traffic signage shall be displayed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/24776/B P/01015/04 Parish/Name: Arreton Ward: Central Rural

Registration Date: 10/05/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Marvel Farms

Formation of new agricultural access including closing up of an existing access

land north of Padan Aran, Merstone Lane, Merstone, Newport, PO30

This is a joint report – see details in Application TCP/20820/C

Conditions/Reasons:

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy C1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan..

Reason: In the interests of the Archaeological value of the site and in accordance with Policy B9 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The County Archaeologist

County Archaeological Centre

61 Clatterford Road

Newport

Isle of Wight

PO30 1NZ

8	Within one month of this decision, traffic signage shall be displayed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/25671/B P/01395/04 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood

Registration Date: 29/06/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Anchorage Homes Ltd

2 pairs of semi-detached houses, terrace of 2 houses & a bungalow, detached bungalow; formation of vehicular access & parking

land at and rear of 52 and 54, Wyatts Lane, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This report has been requested by the local Member, Councillor Mazillius, who repeats the objections he raised in respect of the previous application, which are detailed in the representations section of this report, and considers these to be relevant in this case. Bearing this in mind, Councillor Mazillius is not prepared for this application to be determined under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 14 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications due to officer workload and the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an irregular shaped site which previously formed part of domestic curtilage to Nos. 52 and 54 Wyatts Lane, being on the western side of that road and approximately 60 metres south of its junction with Harry Cheek Gardens. The area is characterised by a mixture of modern and more established residential development in the form of detached and semi detached properties, with examples of bungalows, chalet bungalows and houses. The nearby development at Harry Cheek Gardens is relatively modern and comprises of detached and linked detached bungalows constructed during the 1980s.

The site was fenced off from numbers 52 and 54 following the recent grant of outline consent, but retains character of informal landscaped gardens including a number of large mature trees. The property at number 52 is an older established two storey cottage building, whilst property number 54 is a more substantial thatched cottage which is also a Grade II Listed Building.

Northern boundary of the site comprises mainly of an established hedgerow with intermittent fencing and separates the site from Harry Cheek Gardens. The south-eastern and southern boundaries are in the form of a curve immediately abutting a public footpath (CS14) beyond which in part is an open field. This particular boundary is heavily wooded, comprising mature oak and ash trees with holly and blackthorn.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25671/A - P/01562/03 - Demolition of garage; outline for seven dwellings (including siting and means of access), formation of vehicular access and access drive approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement on 14 September 2004. The Section 106 Agreement secured a financial contribution of £15,000 in respect of carrying out a traffic management/safety scheme to reduce traffic speed in Wyatts Lane, and the contribution to the upgrading of the surface of the adjacent public footpath.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is a full application for 8 dwellings comprising of six houses and two bungalows. The site would be served by a new access road running between Nos. 52 and 54 with visibility splays extending across the front of said properties.

The development would comprise of two pairs of semi-detached houses along the southern boundary, a terrace of two houses and one bungalow along the south eastern and part of the northern boundaries and a detached bungalow adjacent the northern boundary. The four semi detached houses would be situated between 8 and 10 metres from the southern boundary and the two bungalows would be approximately 3 to 4 metres from the northern boundary.

There would be 11 parking spaces interspersed within the proposed development, eight of which would provide an allocated space for each dwelling and three providing parking for visitors.

Three of the most substantial individual trees would be retained, two of which are within the curtilage of the Listed Building and one is situated on the south eastern boundary adjacent the public footpath. Plans also confirm that the dense belt of trees and other vegetation along the southern and south eastern boundaries would be retained, thus providing a good level of screening between the site and nearby property No 56 Wyatts Lane.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies are covered in PPG3 (Housing) and can be summarised as follows:

13. Need to address housing requirements for the whole community by the provision of wider housing opportunity and choice including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

14. Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

15. Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.

16. Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30 units to 50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

17. More than 1.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect government emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Site is within the development envelope boundary for Northwood as defined on the IOW Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The development envelope boundary not only encompasses the application site but also includes land both to the south and south east of a public footpath which abuts the application site.

Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 - New Development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has previously been developed.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the plan period.

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for development

D1 - Standards of design

D2 - Standards for developments within the site.

D3 -Landscaping

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to define settlements.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for new development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and Services provision

C12 - Development affecting tress and woodland

Reference is also made to the recent housing needs survey which indicates a significant demand for one and two bedroomed dwellings either in the form of a mixture of flats and/or modest houses.

Site is located within parking Zone 3 of the UDP Parking Guidelines which stipulates a maximum of 0-75% parking provision for the site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends approval subject to a condition in respect of visibility.

Council's Ecology Officer made the following observations in respect of the previous outline application and these are considered relevant to this particular case:

18. The site supports a number of fine mature trees together with areas of scrubby woodland to the farthest end of the gardens. In addition, a dense woody boundary adjoins the public footpath (CS14) which leads into open countryside.

19. The wooded southern boundary comprises mature oak and ash trees with holly, blackthorn and hazel. Some of the trees are growing on an old bank and the presence of Butchers Broom here suggests that this may well be an old boundary bank. The track way is clearly indicated on 1793 Survey for the first edition Ordnance Survey map. This wooded boundary forms a clear demarcation from the built areas of Northwood and the open countryside. It is an important landscape feature as well as a valuable wildlife corridor.

20. The preservation of this wooded boundary is important and can only be assured if it is outside of the curtilages of any new approved development. I would advise that the gardens of the proposed properties adjoining this boundary should be redrawn to exclude this wooded corridor.

21. There are some other good quality trees on the site and these should be retained and protected.

Comments by Southern Water have been received which confirms that they have recently granted consent for the developer to connect to the public sewerage system at Wyatts Lane subject to conditions that no surface water should be discharged to the public sewer and that foul water discharge must not be pumped at a rate exceeding 10 litres per second. Southern Water also confirm existence of surface water drain in Wyatts Lane which runs under the

footpath in a southerly direction. An application to discharge surface water from the proposed development into this drain is currently being considered by Southern Water.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Local Member, Councillor Mazillius, considers that the comments he made in respect of the previous outline application for seven units are relevant in respect of this application for eight dwellings. His objections can be summarised as follows:

22. There are no pavements along this section of Wyatts Lane and the site is opposite a Scout Hut. Therefore concerned that satisfactory visibility cannot be achieved and potential conflict with other highway users.

23. Additional traffic could exacerbate problem with speeding vehicles.

24. Unacceptable density bearing in mind proximity of site to the development envelope boundary.

25. Out of character.

26. Inadequate drainage capacity.

Six letters received, one from Northwood Community Partnership and five from local residents, objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

27. Overdevelopment

28. Inadequate infrastructure, particularly drainage, to accommodate yet another dwelling.

29. Existing surface water drain struggles to cope during periods of heavy rain, therefore proposed development is likely to exacerbate this problem.

30. More wildlife/natural space will be affected by the proposed development compared with the outline consent.

31. Inadequate access to accommodate yet another dwelling on this site.

32. Additional pressure on local primary school.

33. Site contains Japanese Knot Weed.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Given that the site is within the development envelope and that outline consent has already been granted for 7 dwellings, Members are advised that the principle of this development cannot be questioned. The main consideration is whether the site is of a sufficient size to accommodate 8 dwellings without adversely impacting upon neighbouring property occupiers or the area in general. Drainage, access and wildlife implications are other specific issues to be addressed.

In terms of density, the extant outline consent for seven dwellings is a material consideration that carries significant weight. The approved scheme would result in a relatively low density of 35 dwellings per hectare. The development now under consideration would represent 38 dwellings per hectare, which again satisfies the minimum density advocated by PPG3. Therefore in numerical terms, I do not consider that this latest level of density would be inappropriate in this suburban location despite its proximity to the edge of the countryside.

In layout terms, the applicant has been encouraged to ensure a mix of unit types with the location of single storey dwellings adjacent to the Harry Cheek Gardens development thus avoiding any undue impact on those properties and to a certain extent reflecting that type of development. The proposed houses have deliberately been arranged in order to avoid direct overlooking of adjoining properties. The introduction of two bedroomed units would assist in addressing the Housing Needs Survey with those housing needs being equally appropriate for Northwood as for any other suburban location. There is a need to ensure a range of dwelling types to aim at all income groups and hopefully provide a wider mix of social groups and age ranges.

Bearing in mind the relatively low density of 38 dwellings per hectare, the acceptable spatial relationship with adjoining properties together with variety of house types, it is my opinion that proposal constitutes an appropriate and sustainable level of development for this suburban location.

It is fair to say that the design of each dwelling would be relatively simple, but the assortment of dwelling types and unregimental layout would create a certain degree of interest. Material choice will also be key to the success of this development. I therefore recommend an appropriate condition should Members resolve to grant consent. The proposal to intersperse parking in between buildings rather than grouping spaces into one communal area would also help ensure that the motor car does not take precedence over the quality of the scheme.

The concerns of the Council's Ecology Officer have been addressed with the heavily vegetated corridor along the south east and southern boundaries being retained outside of any residential ownership. I am satisfied that this will provide an effective landscape screen substantially reducing any likely impact that these dwellings may have on the edge of the countryside, whilst also minimising any overlooking of the property to the south. Also, the retention of this landscape corridor will retain wildlife habitat with particular reference to squirrels.

The adjustments made to the layout to accommodate one additional dwelling would not, in my opinion, have any greater impact upon the landscape setting of the site compared with the seven units approved in outline form.

With regard to impact on the adjoining countryside, it is important to note that in fact the land beyond to the south continues to be within the development envelope boundary and that the application site itself is not on the edge of the development envelope boundary, but it is accepted that the land beyond the public footpath does have a countryside character despite being within the development envelope.

In terms of access, the recent outline planning application was subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of a financial contribution towards traffic management system for Wyatts Lane. The financial contribution has been made and the agreement subsequently completed. The Highway Engineer has also indicated that a satisfactory visibility splay can be achieved across the frontage of numbers 52 and 54 which is shown as forming part of the application site. Bearing these points in mind together with the fact that one dwelling over and above what has already been approved will not generate a significant level of traffic activity, it is in my opinion that the proposed development of eight units would not add unduly to the hazards of other highway users and therefore accords with Policy TR7 of the UDP.

In terms of parking, the proposed scheme allows for one space per dwelling plus three additional spaces for visitors. This would result in parking provision of less than 1.5 spaces per unit which not only complies with Policy TR16 of the UDP but also the maximum provision advised in PPG3. Spaces have been arranged so that they are easily accessible by its respective property occupiers. I am satisfied that in both parking provision and location terms the parking proposals are satisfactory.

In terms of drainage, Southern Water confirm that they have already granted consent for the developer to dispose of foul sewage into the existing combined system in Wyatts Lane, but subject to surface water being disposed of separately. It is not necessarily the case though that the existing foul system has sufficient capacity to cater for this development. I therefore recommend a condition, similar to that included on the outline consent, requiring a capacity check in respect of the combined sewer in Wyatts Lane and whether it is able to accept the additional foul drainage from the proposed eight units.

In terms of surface water, it is proposed to dispose of this via an existing surface water drain which runs along Wyatts Lane and along the footpath to the south of the application site. A local resident expresses concern that the existing surface water system struggles to cope during periods of heavy rain. I would therefore suggest that a condition be applied requiring a check of the sewer to ensure that it has sufficient capacity to accommodate additional surface water from the site. If sufficient capacity does not exist, the applicant has indicated that he will pursue the possibility of a soakaway system to be provided in conjunction with building control. Alternatively, it is possible that the developer could utilise a large pipe system to be fitted with a hydraflow valve in order to attenuate surface water during periods of heavy rainfall. Bearing in mind that drainage can be adequately controlled through planning conditions, I see no justifiable reason to further delay determination of this application on drainage grounds.

Members will note that the application site adjoins the northern and western boundaries of a Grade II Listed Building. The latest scheme would result in built development being closer to the Listed Building compared with the outline approval. However, the gap between the Listed Building and the nearest new dwelling would be just under 30 metres which is considerable to be an acceptable degree of separation, particularly when bearing in mind the considerable level of screening within the curitlage of the Listed Building. The other aspect of the development that could affect the setting of the adjoining Listed Building is the proposed access road which would run along its northern boundary. This was considered at the time of the outline consent when it was resolved to impose a condition in respect of surface finish to ensure that surface treatment is compatible with the setting of the Listed Building. Otherwise, it is considered that the Listed Building would retain much of its landscaped setting.

With regard to other considerations, one dwelling over and above what has already been approved would not invoke a requirement for an educational contribution. The presence of Japanese Knotweed should not influence the outcome of this application, but I will advise that this is brought to the developers attention so that he can take appropriate action.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the increase in density by one unit would not impact significantly upon neighbouring property occupiers or the surrounding environment in general. In fact, it is questionable whether the impacts of the proposed scheme compared with the likely impacts of the seven units approved in outline form would be that apparent. It is considered that the site represents an ideal windfall site through this relatively modest level of development. Arrangement of dwellings has fully respected the adjoining Harry Cheek Gardens development and the introduction of two bedroomed terraced housing will provide the type of property which has been identified in the Housing Needs Survey as being in demand. To conclude, the eight units as proposed would offer an appropriate and sustainable form of development for this location and, as such, accords with the development plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until samples of materials and finishes, to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied no development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

Boundary treatment to be erected in accordance with Condition No 3 shall ensure that any fencing along the southern and south eastern boundaries is situated on the inside of the existing hedge/tree line.

Reason: To ensure the longevity of the existing hedge and tree line and to comply with Policy C12 (Development affecting trees and woodlands) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan

The development shall not be occupied until site lines have been provided in accordance with the visibility splays shown on the approved plan (Drawing No. A/6868/1). Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain within that visibility splay.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses, car parking areas together with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and approved by, and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No commercial/construction vehicles shall enter the public highway (Wyatts Lane) unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent material being deposited on the highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overloading of any existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed.

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

In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of (1 year) from (the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use).

(a)No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work);

(b)If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, shrubs and other natural features, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification. Such protection shall include a continuous fence along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority providing protection for the wooded southern boundary (adjacent public footpath CS14) and such fencing shall be retained both during and following completion of the development hereby approved. This wooded southern boundary shall not be included in any future residential curtilage.

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 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, 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.

(c)No placement or storage of excavated soil.

(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 all general trees and shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of the amenity and to ensure the wooded southern boundary is retained as an important landscape feature which provides a valuable wildlife corridor, all in compliance with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No existing hedges or hedgerows shall be removed, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. All hedges and hedgerows on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage for the duration of works on the site by the erection of a 1.2 m minimum height chestnut paling fence to BS 1722 Part 4 securely mounted on 1.2 m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground or other agreed protection along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any parts of hedges or hedgerows removed without the consent of the Local Planning Authority or which become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practical and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with plants of such sizes and species and in such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Any scrub clearance or removal of woody species shall only take place between the months of August and February and at no other time.

Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/26079 P/00107/04 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South

Registration Date: 16/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Airwave mmo2 Ltd

land at Greatwood Copse, off, Cowleaze Hill, Shanklin, PO37

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

These submissions involve a form of development which has become potentially contentious and, in particular one of the applications has attracted a large number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

These are minor applications. The processing time for both applications has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications. In the case of the proposal at Greatwood Copse (TCP/26079) the processing of the application has taken approximately 38 weeks to date. This is due to a number of reasons, including difficulties in carrying a site inspection, on two occasions site was shrouded in mist presenting difficulties in carrying out an assessment of the impact of the installation on the surrounding area. Delays in the determination of this application have also been incurred due to discussions with applicant’s agent over a number of issues, delays in receipt of final comments from consultees and case officer workload. The application in respect of the site on land adjacent the Land Slip car park at Leeson Road has taken approximately 31 weeks to determine. This proposal is effectively an alternative option for an installation to provide signal coverage in the same area raising a number of issues which need to be considered in conjunction with the proposal for Greatwood Copse. Therefore, it was considered appropriate to delay determination of this application in order to consider both applications at the same time.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

TCP/26079 – Land at Greatwood Copse, Cowleaze Hill, Shanklin

The installation at Greatwood Copse occupies a rural location at the foot of Shanklin Down some 220 metres north west of the point at which Church Road meets the bottom of Cowleaze Hill. Site is immediately adjacent to and approached over a track which is also defined as a public footpath, off Cowleaze Hill which meanders through woodland between the road and application site. The ground rises from the roadside to the application site and beyond to Shanklin Down. The site sits on the edge of dense woodland with further screening provided by trees and other natural growth adjacent the site.

TCP/26171 – Land adjacent land slip car park, Leeson Road, Ventnor

This proposal represents an alternative to the site at Greatwood Copse and would involve the erection of an installation on an area of grass verge on eastern side of Leeson Road and adjacent a public car park. The site is located on outskirts of and to north of Ventnor. Ground to west of application site, on opposite side of Leeson Road, rises steeply to downland beyond whilst land to east falls away quite rapidly to the coastline. Grass verge forms island between the access points to the car park and bounded to west by Leeson Road. Whilst site is visually prominent when viewed from public highway, eastern and southern side of car park is bounded by trees providing a degree of screening.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25689 – P/01141/03 – Application for telecommunications installation comprising temporary siting of 15 metre high pole supporting three antennae and one dish with associated generator and fuel tank, equipment cabin and ancillary fencing on land south of Cowleaze Hill, opposite the Lynch, refused August 2003 on grounds that submission was accompanied by insufficient information to demonstrate whether there was any practical alternative location for the installation and that the Authority was not satisfied that the site chosen and design of the installation were visually and technically the least harmful that could be achieved.

Notwithstanding the refusal of the above application, the operators proceeded to erect installation on site and the matter was the subject of investigation by the Enforcement Officer. Discussions took place between the authority and the operator which culminated in the installation being removed from site. However, due to the need for the operator to provide continued coverage in this area, the installation was relocated to the site at Greatwood Copse, the subject of the current application.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

TCP/26079 – Land at Greatwood Copse, Cowleaze Hill, Shanklin

Application is retrospective in nature seeking consent to retain a telecommunications installation comprising a 15 metre high trailer mounted lattice tower supporting three four stack di-pole antennae and one transmission dish. In addition, proposal involves siting of generator, fuel storage tank and equipment cabin, all within a compound enclosed by temporary security fencing. This installation is clearly of a temporary nature and supporting information which accompanies the application indicates that it is required as part of the network to facilitate the commissioning, integration and testing of the system in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police Force area. The supporting information also indicates that this temporary installation would be removed upon completion of a permanent solution to provide coverage in the area of Shanklin and Luccombe. In this respect, applicant’s agent also seeks an indication from the Authority as to whether this site would be considered suitable for a permanent installation, details of which would need to be confirmed although it is understood that this would be of similar height to the temporary installation presently on site.

Shortly after publicity of the application, it was brought to the attention of the Authority that a free standing satellite dish was located on ground adjacent the application site. Following discussions with the applicant’s agent, it is understood that this dish was required in order to provide a satellite link between this installation and the overall network. However, the Authority have subsequently received notification that the free standing dish has been removed from site and a transmission dish installed on the lattice tower. This element is included in the proposal for which consent is sought.

In accordance with the requirements of PPG8 – Telecommunications, the submission was accompanied by an ICNIRP Compliance Notice for public exposure guidelines.

TCP/26171 – Land adjacent landslip car park, Leeson Road, Ventnor

Application seeks consent for telecommunications installation which is commonly referred as a “street works” proposal. The submitted plans show the installation would have the appearance of a 10 metre high mock telegraph pole with the antennae encased within the upper part of the structure. A small equipment cabinet would be located adjacent base of the pole.

The application is accompanied by information in support of the proposal, in which applicant’s agent indicates that a proposal for a 15 metre high permanent telecommunications tower would be preferable solution in terms of coverage, although their client would be prepared to compromise with the proposal for an installation adjacent the landslip car park. The report which accompanies the submission also includes details of two alternative sites elsewhere along the A3055 although these were rejected on grounds which include access problems to the site and that the installation would be visually prominent. In accordance with the requirements of PPG8 – Telecommunications, the application is accompanied by an ICNIRP Compliance Notice.

General Comments

The supporting information which accompanies both submission includes background information to the Airwave MM O2 system. This system is for use by the police force and replaces the old analogue radio systems. The installation would form part of a wider network which comprises some 117 installations within the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police Force area. The system has been commissioned by the Home Office for all police forces in England, Wales and Scotland and will enable them to communicate with each other, which was not possible with the old system. The system is intended for use both in car and on the beat and offers a large number of significant benefits to users including;

Digital voice quality, with background noise filtered out
Much faster call connection
Terminals capable of offering simultaneous radio, mobile telephony and data services
Real time access for officers in the field to local and national databases of information
Encryption, enabling secure communications which cannot be easily scanned or monitored
More effective use of control room resources when dealing with complex incidents
Automatic person and vehicle location capability
Simple, one touch help button to summon immediate assistance
Better coverage, including previously hard to reach spots.

Whilst this system is initially for use by the police forces, it is understood that it would have capability to serve other emergency services, including fire, ambulance and potentially the coastguard etc. These proposals represent alternative solutions to the provision of coverage within the Shanklin and Luccombe areas.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Advice and guidance on telecommunications development in contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 – Telecommunications (PPG8). The Guidance Note highlights the benefits of modern telecommunication systems in terms of local community and the national economy and the Government’s general policy on telecommunications to facilitate the growth of new and existing systems together with its’ commitment to environmental objectives, including well established policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. The Guidance Note acknowledges that telecommunications development may require particular locations in order to work effectively and that such locations may be prominent locations which pose challenges to policies for the protection of high quality landscapes and quality in urban areas. Therefore planning authorities are encouraged to develop an understanding of the needs and technical problems of telecommunications development and they are advised to take into account all material considerations and that applications should not be refused on the basis of policies which take insufficient account of the growth and characteristics of modern telecommunications.

The Guidance Note also acknowledges that the Government has responsibility for protection of public health. In this respect, the Guidance note clearly indicates that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determination of submissions for telecommunications development and that it is for the decision maker to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

However, the Guidance Note states that:

“…it is the Government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government’s responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government’s view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for the Local Planning Authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.”

In accordance with the advice contained in the Guidance Note, all new base stations are expected to meet the ICNIRP and all applicants should include with their application a statement that self certifies to the effect that the base station when operational, will meet the guidelines.

Both sites are located outside of the development boundaries defined in the Unitary Development Plan and are within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). In the case of the proposal at Greatwood Copse, the site is located immediately adjacent a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is accessed over a track which runs through the designated area. In the case of the site at Leeson Road, the downland slopes to the west are designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an SSSI and the coastal slopes to the east are also designated SSSI. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S10 – In areas of designated areas of 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.

G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G4 – General locational criteria for development.

G5 – Development outside defined settlements.

D1 – Standards of design.

C1 – Protection of landscape character.

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C8 – Nature conservation as a material consideration.

C10 – Sites of national importance for nature conservation.

U17 – Telecommunications facilities.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

TCP/26079 - Land at Greatwood Copse, Cowleaze Hill, Shanklin

AONB Officer makes reference to Part IV of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which has increased the profile, protection and management of AONBs. Additionally, it places a “duty of regard” on all local authorities and public bodies to consider the impact of their policies or activities on the purposes of the designation. He advises that the Isle of Wight AONB Partnership aims to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the Isle of Wight AONB in line with the statutory purpose of the designation and that they work to increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the nationally treasured landscape by those who live in, work in or visit the area.

With regard to the current submission, and whist appreciating that the retrospective nature of the application may not be a material consideration in the determination of the matter, the AONB Officer raised strong concerns and objection to the approach and procedures adopted by MM O2 Airwave with respect to this and other sites within the AONB. In addition, he considers that this represents a clear lack of fulfillment of the “duty of regard” towards the AONB conferred on the Home Office (and subsequently their contractors). Whilst he welcomes the submission of a more detailed supporting document with this application, he considers it contains many inaccuracies, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the status of the AONB designation and is very selective in its’ reliance on Government planning policy guidance to justify the argument for mast siting. In particular, he is disappointed that the supporting documents contains no visual impact assessment and considers that the inclusion of a photomontage and/or zone or visual influence would have been beneficial and easily achieved considering the retrospective nature of the application.

He accepts and does not question the aim of providing better coverage for police and other emergency services but believes that this should be through a proper assessment of all other factors and not purely based on the need to fulfill a time limited contractual obligation. The AONB Officer goes on to highlight a number of inaccuracies or inadequacies in the information accompanying the submission. In summary, he considers that the application is lacking in information to provide a true assessment of the impact of this development on the AONB as it has clearly misunderstood the purpose and status of the designation and does not include any formalised landscape or visual impact assessment. Secondly, he believes that due to the national importance of the AONB landscape, applications for temporary permission should in principle be resisted in favour of a strategic, planned and thoroughly assessed process and not based on a retrospective basis. Therefore, he raised a strong objection to the proposal.

Additional comments were subsequently received from the AONB Officer following further consideration of this matter and photographs of the application site. He reiterated his earlier concerns and suggested that, by not requesting further information referred to in his earlier communication, the Local Planning Authority has placed itself in the position of having to undertake this work itself rather than placing the onus on the applicant. In addition, he considers that a further disadvantage of this is that such information has not been subject to consultation through the planning process. He confirmed that their original comment concerning the lax approach taken by the applicants with respect to this and other applications within a nationally protected landscape still stand. However, having looked at photographs of the application site, he agrees that there is minimal visual impact form this temporary structure within the AONB although this is something which he considers could have been easily proven by the applicant bearing in mind the retrospective nature of the submission. Therefore, he is satisfied that the temporary consent on this site has limited impact upon the AONB and has withdrawn his objection to the development. However, he considers that, should the applicant submit a later application for a permanent siting of the mast at this location, he would expect a detailed submission including supporting documentation, correcting their inaccuracies and providing details of their visual impact considerations.

Council’s Ecology Officer confirms that site is adjacent but outside the Greatwood and Cliff Copse SSSI. However, he considers it is difficult to envisage how this development would directly impact upon the SSSI, provided that damage is not caused to the banks and edges of the access track which runs within the designated area. Whilst it is noted that some objectors have claimed that the radiation emitted by the tetra masts will affect wildlife, he advises that there is no scientific evidence to support his claim although, it has to be said that this is in part due to the fact that if there were any effects on wildlife they would be subtle and tetra masts have not been around for a long enough time for this to have been studied. He also acknowledges that the electro magnetic radiations are considerably lower than those used be bats in echo location. He considers that it is reasonable to assume that, because animals are mobile, they are unlikely to come into close and direct contact with any radiations from a base station for a period of time. As such, he considers that it is highly unlikely that there would be any adverse effects, and, in the absence of any evidence, he can see no reason to conclude that adverse effects on wildlife can be anticipated.

English Nature acknowledge that the development is immediately adjacent to the SSSI and has used the access track running trough the designated area to bring equipment in. However, observations of the track and the works have not identified any obvious damage to the SSSI. In view of this, English Nature does not wish to raise an objection to the proposal, subject to conditions being imposed on any planning permission requiring the developer to provide details of any maintenance work required and how they will ensure this does not damage the access track and adjacent land within the SSSI and measures to prevent fuel and oil associated with the generator from polluting the designated area.

The National Air Traffic Services advise that proposal does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria and accordingly raise no objection.

TCP/26171 – Land adjacent landslip car park, Leeson Road, Ventnor

AONB Officer comments that, as a point of principle, it is disappointing that the applicant has not provided a detailed assessment of the likely visual impact (from Nansen Hill) and afforded coverage provided by this application. Whilst accepting that the visual impact of this site is less than the alternative masts and antennae at Cowleaze and Greatwood Copse, he would still expect a much more detailed application and justification for the installation of telecommunications infrastructure within a nationally protected landscape, the procedure for which is set out in the Telecommunication Code of Practice. However, due to the proposed location and existence of other street furniture in this area, he is content that the likely visual impact of this development is minimal and accordingly raises no objection.

English Nature confirm that, in their opinion, the development is unlikely to have significant effect on the interest features of the cSAC and will not require an appropriate assessment. In addition, they confirm that development is unlikely to adversely affect the wider interest features of the SSSI.

The National Air Traffic Services advise that proposal does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria and accordingly raise no objection to this proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

TCP/26079 – Land at Greatwood Copse, off Cowleaze Hill, Shanklin

Shanklin Town Council indicate that their members felt unable to support an application for a TETRA mast until they were satisfied that there was no danger to public health.

TCP/26171 – Land adjacent landslip car park, Leeson Road, Ventnor

In similar terms to the application at Greatwood Copse, Shanklin Town Council indicate that its members are vermently opposed to all applications related to TETRA masts until there is unequivocal evidence that they do not pose a risk to health.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

TCP/26079 – Land at Greatwood Copse, off Cowleaze Hill, Shanklin

Application has attracted a total of 37 letters, including 18 from Shanklin residents, 17 from elsewhere on the Island and representations from the Ramblers Association and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) objecting to the application and raising the following concerns:

Site located within AONB – mast and associated equipment is intrusive and detracts from area.
Site is adjacent well used public footpath – residents and users of path exposed to emissions from mast and noxious fumes emitted by generator.
Submission incorrectly suggests that Greatwood Copse is a SINC when it is in fact a SSSI – a higher designation. Application therefore based on incorrect information and is floored.
Use of access track, including maintenance vehicles, would cause disturbance to wildlife, especially red squirrels, and would churn up the surface of the track and involve potentially damaging operations within the SSSI.
Generator at site disturbs wildlife and discharges noxious fumes, damaging to nature.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 imposes duty of regard on public bodies in respect of purpose of AONB designation – mast is an intrusion into landscape contrary to duty of regard.
Equipment cabin and generator clearly distinguishable at base of mast.
Noise from generator is unwelcome.
Concern over retrospective nature of application and apparent disregard for planning regulations – company should be made to take mast down.
Mast represents threat to health and well being of the community.
IEGMP recommended in May 2000 that’s as a precautionary measure amplitude modulation of around 16 hertz should be avoided – tetra masts operate at 17.6 hertz – sufficiently close to cause concern.
People of Church Road have experienced health problems since mast was erected.
Tetra technology has been used in the past as a weapon.
Users of the handset are at risk.
Further decisions on masts should be postponed until the results of further investigations are available or the company erecting the mast can give 100% guarantee that they do not present danger to people and wildlife.
Residents close to previous site of mast suffered ill health – mast has now moved closer to properties in Church Road with wide range of different aged people from very old to very young.
Health matters are a material consideration and tetra installations have been refused by other authorities on health grounds. It is not sufficient for applicant to hide behind a claim that installation complies with ICNIRP guidelines.
Certain measures should be adopted when dealing with all future tetra installations including requirement for all applications to be referred to Development Control Committee, procedures given in ODPM Code of Best Practice for Telecommunications Installation should be carefully followed, health implications for any tetra installations should be taken into account as well as usual environmental considerations and that temporary 12 month consent in some locations should not be taken as precedent for the establishment of a permanent mast at that location. Any subsequent application for a permanent installation should be rigorously examined and be subject to full procedure.

Two of the letters were accompanied by petitions against the application, one containing 23 signatures and the other 37 signatures.

TCP/26171 – Land adjacent landslip car park, Leeson Road, Ventnor

Letter received from Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Site is in an extraordinarily sensitive area adjacent the AONB and SSSI going up to Nansen Hill and a few yards from the SSSI comprising The Undercliffe. An installation of this kind would be an environmental desecration next to these protected sites.
Mast would be visible from footpath on Nansen Hill and from public highway and would be visually intrusive.
Concern expressed regarding health implications associated with tetra installations.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated as a direct result of the development. However, it is understood that new communications system for the police force will provide benefits for officers on duty, including much faster call connection, improved security and more effective use of control room resources etc. which should improve response times and efficiency of the service.

EVALUATION

In accordance with policy U17 (Telecommunications Facilities), when dealing with proposals for telecommunications development, the Authority will need to be satisfied that the sharing of any existing installation is not technically feasible. Furthermore, within the designated areas of landscape, nature conservation, scientific or historic interest, such developments will not be permitted unless there is a compelling technical justification and no suitable site or sites outside the designation. In particular, where no practical alternative location is available and a new structure is necessary, the authority will expect the site chosen and design to be visually and technically the least harmful that can be achieved. Members will note from the relevant history detailed in this report, that the previous application for an extension elsewhere on Cowleaze Hill was refused principally due to the fact that the application was accompanied by insufficient information to demonstrate whether there was any practical alternative location for the installation and, in this instance, the authority was not satisfied that the site chosen and design of the installation were visually and technically the least harmful that could be achieved.

Having regard to the above comments, the main factors in the consideration of the current submissions are whether the installations are/would be visually intrusive, detrimental to the landscape character of the area and whether applicant’s agent has adequately demonstrated that either site represents the least harmful solution that can be achieved, both visually and technically. Having given due regard to the comments in this report, Members will need to consider whether either site satisfies this criteria or whether there would be grounds to withhold consent on either site by reason of the visual impact of the development in the landscape and/or other factors. However, in considering this issue, Members should give appropriate weight to the technical constraints associated with this type of development which will have an implication on the choice of site.

Both sites are located within the AONB although, having regard to the tree cover surrounding the site at Greatwood Copse, an installation at this location, whilst visible from the adjacent footpath, has minimal impact in the wider landscape, particularly when viewed from Shanklin Down or Church Road. In contrast, the site adjacent the landslip car park does not benefit from the same level of screening and, although the proposal at this site involves a smaller installation disguised as a telegraph pole, it will be clearly visible within the landscape, particularly from the adjacent public highway and downland to the west. Whilst there are street lights in this area and a litter bin close to the proposed site of the installation, the grass verge

has an uncluttered appearance and, notwithstanding the comments of the AONB Officer, I consider that an installation in this position would be visually intrusive.

A similar proposal for a telecommunications installation, involving a mock telegraph pole design, on land at Barrack Shute was refused by this authority in April 2000 and was the subject of a subsequent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. In the decision letter, the appointed inspector acknowledged that the verge at this location already accommodates various vertical features on it, including electricity poles which, together with their connecting wires, do no favours for the AONB. Although the proposed installation was disguised to blend into this setting, the Inspector considered that the prominent verge, within the AONB, needed less, not more, paraphernalia on it. He therefore considered that the siting of yet more equipment upon the verge would be intrusive and cause serious harm to the surroundings and to the wider area of the AONB. I consider that this appeal case represents a direct comparison with the proposed site adjacent the landslip car park at Leeson Road. Therefore, of the two sites currently being proposed, I consider that the site at Greatwood Copse is visually least harmful.

It is understood that these proposals represent alternative options for an installation to provide coverage within the Shanklin and Luccombe area and that, due to technical constraints associated with this type of development, the number of potential sites is limited. It would appear that, given the search area identified by the applicant’s agents and details of alternative sites considered by them, a location on rising ground to the south of Shanklin is necessary in order achieve the required coverage within Shanklin and Luccombe village, the latter presenting particular difficulties due to the topography in the surrounding area. A large part of the area to the south of Shanklin, including the area of Shanklin Down and Luccombe village, is designated as AONB. It is noteworthy that all of the sites considered by the applicants are located within the designated landscape and given the need to have regard for the technical constraints associated with this type of development and the need to provide coverage within the Luccombe area, it is likely that any solution for a single installation to cover this area would be located within the area designated as AONB.

Whilst it is considered that the temporary installation at Greatwood Copse has minimal impact in the landscape, it is accepted that the site is located immediately adjacent to and accessed over a track running through an ecologically sensitive area. It is understood that the use of the track by vehicles maintaining the site would not necessarily cause unacceptable damage to the SSSI, although care would need to be taken by operatives visiting the site so as to ensure that vehicles do not damage the steep vegetated banks either side of the track. In this respect, I am advised by the applicant’s agent that, in normal circumstances, maintenance visits are carried out to the site of installation of a bi-annual basis, either on foot or, where necessary, by Landrover. However, in this instance, due to the presence of a diesel generator on site, visits would be needed every six to eight weeks in order to refill the diesel tank. Due to the condition of the track to the site, this necessitates the use of a special 6 wheel all terrain vehicle of slightly smaller dimensions than a Landrover.

Whilst noting the request from English Nature to impose condition controlling maintenance works and how this will be carried out to ensure that the access track is not damaged, I do not consider that such a condition would be enforceable. Furthermore, on the basis of the information available regarding the likely number of visits to the site and the type of vehicle used, I consider that the risk of damage is limited and do not consider that refusal on grounds of likely adverse impact would be justified. However, anyone causing damage to an SSSI may be guilty of an offence under the Countryside and Wildlife Act. Therefore, should Members be minded to approve the application, I consider that decision notice should be accompanied by a letter advising the operator that all reasonable care should be taken to avoid damage to the designated area when accessing the site and that they may be guilty of an offence under the relevant legislation should any damage be caused.

English Nature have also requested that any consent is subject to a condition controlling measures to prevent fuel and oil associated with the generator from polluting the SSSI. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable requirement and consider that any consent should be subject to a requirement that the applicant submit a contingency plan detailing precautions to be taken during refueling to minimise risk of spillage and measures to be taken in the event of spillage to avoid damage to the designated area. In this respect, it is understood that the generator incorporates a double lined fuel tank, all of which is housed within a container. I am advised that this type of generator is typically used on sensitive sites, such as water treatment sites and would therefore minimise any risk of spillage. However, spillage could occur during refueling and any contingency plan should specifically deal with this issue.

Development involving provision of telecommunications equipment and, particularly TETRA installations, have attracted concern regarding radiation safety and the effect of emissions on the health and well being of nearby residents. It is accepted that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be material considerations in determining submissions for telecommunications equipment. The matter of radiation safety has and continues to be the subject of extensive research. In particular, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is responsible for advising the Government on the possible adverse health effects of radiation, including the non-ionising electro magnetic radiation associated with telecommunications systems. Members will also be aware that this matter has also been the subject of reports produced by the Independent Expert Group on mobile phones (IEGMP) who have previously concluded that:

“…the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.”

Following consideration of the reports produced by the IEGMP, a revised PPG8 was issued, reflecting the findings and recommendations of the group. In particular, in accordance with the provisions of the PPG, all installations will be expected to satisfy the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to emissions from telecommunication installations. Furthermore, it is a requirement that all applications for planning permission or prior approval are accompanied by certification that the installation will meet these guidelines. Both of the submissions, the subject of this report, were accompanied by the relevant certification. Therefore, whilst I consider that the proposed installation adjacent the landslip car park would be unacceptable on grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area, I do not consider that refusal of either application on grounds relating to health considerations or the well being of local residents would be sustainable.

In this respect, whilst I am aware that some Authorities have refused permission for telecommunications installations for reasons which have included health related matters, it is understood that a subsequent appeals to the planning inspectorate have been allowed and claims for costs against the relevant authority have been successful on the basis that it had acted unreasonably. One such case, which attracted significant media coverage, involved the refusal of an application by Winchester City Council for an installation at Byron Avenue, Winchester. In considering this appeal, the Inspector identified one of the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the amenity and well being of those who live, learn and work in a locality arising from the perceived risk to their health. In his decision letter, the Inspector discussed this issue at some length, including reference to the report produced by the Stewart Group and Government advice on this issue. In particular, he commented as follows:

"The courts have held that the implications for health can be material considerations in determining applications for prior approval, even if not objectively justified and that the weight to be attached is for the decision maker in each particular case. The Government's strong view is that a proposal which meets the ICNIRP guidelines incorporates a sufficient margin of safety that further consideration of health concerns should not be necessary. It is an important principle of planning control that each decision is based on its' individual merits, however, and I am not required to slavishly follow Government advice, nor do I consider my decision to be fettered by it. Nonetheless, I am also mindful of the evidence that since the revised PPG 8 was published, no appeal decisions where health issues were raised (including those tabled at this inquiry) have found public concern about health affects to override the advice at paragraph 98. In addition, no challenges to decisions consistent with this advice have been successful in courts. Consequently I believe that PPG8 represents advice of some considerate weight, and that this appeal would have to demonstrate special or particular circumstances of even greater weight to override it."

The Inspector concluded that the proposal complied with up to date policy advice in PPG8, which seeks a balance between need and environmental impact, and with the relevant development plan which was consistent with this advice. He considered these to be matters of substantial weight and in his judgement, they significantly outweighed the very limited harm to the character and appearance of the locality and detriment to the well being of those living, learning and working nearby. In dealing with the claim for costs, the Inspector concluded that, on the question of health concerns, there was no justification for departing from clear and firmly stated Government advice and that the reason for refusal in this respect did not properly take PPG8 into account and that, therefore, the Council had acted unreasonably and ruled that an award of partial costs was justified.

A more recent case involving the erection of a TETRA mast in Chichester, refused by the District Council on grounds which included health matters, was also the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. It is understood that, similar to the Winchester case, the appeal was allowed and costs were awarded against the local Authority. Having regard to this information, I would strongly advise against refusing permission on possible adverse impact on health or the well being of residents.

As I have indicated earlier in this report, the applicant’s agent has sought an indication from the authority as to whether the site as Greatwood Copse would be considered suitable for a permanent installation. It is understood that such an installation would be of similar height to the temporary installation presently on site and is therefore unlikely to have a significantly greater impact. Clearly, in accordance with the advice from the AONB Officer, any such application would need to be accompanied by detailed information which acknowledges the status of the AONB and includes an assessment of the landscape character of the area and the likely impact of the proposal. In addition, the impacts from the construction and ongoing maintenance of such an installation on the SSSI would need to be addressed and carefully considered. Subject to these matters being satisfactorily addressed and, in the absence of any alternative site which may be considered visually and technically less harmful, I consider that this site represents a suitable location for a permanent installation.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to the recommendations in respect of each of these applications, consideration has been given to the rights and provisions set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions). The impacts this development is having or may 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 right of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. In the case of the recommendation to approve consent for the installation at Greatwood Copse and insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others, such consideration is deemed necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also accepted that, in the case of the proposal on land adjacent Land Slip car park, Leeson Road, a recommendation to refuse consent may result in some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. In both cases, it is considered that the recommendations are proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Having given due regard and appropriate weight all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, notwithstanding the intention of the operator to disguise the installation as a mock telegraph pole, the proposal in respect of land adjacent landslip car park would be visually intrusive to the detriment of the amenities and character of the landscape, designated as an AONB. However, I consider that, given the level of tree cover surrounding the site at Greatwood Copse, the temporary installation at this location has minimal impact in the landscape and I am satisfied that adequate precautions can be implemented to safeguard the adjacent SSSI. On the issue of the effect of the development on the health and well being of residents, I do not consider that sufficient evidence has been submitted to outweigh the advice contained in PPG8 - Telecommunications or that refusal on these grounds would be sustainable.

RECOMMENDATION 1 - TCP/26079 - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The telecommunications installation together with all associated equipment and fencing hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30 September 2005, or such time as a permanent installation on an alternative site (to provide coverage in the same area) becomes operational, whichever is the sooner. The restoration of the site shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme of work and timescale submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The use is not of a type considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Within 28 days of the date of this permission, a contingency plan for dealing with pollution control in the event of spillage of oil or diesel fuel from the generator, including precautions to be taken during refueling, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, in the event of a spillage, the contingency plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To minimise risk of pollution/contamination and to safeguard the nature conservation value of the adjacent SSSI in accordance with Policies C8 (Nature Conservation as Material Consideration) and C10 (Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 2 - That the applicant should be advised in a covering letter accompanying the decision notice that extreme care should be taken by vehicles visiting the site in connection with maintenance of the installation to ensure that damage is not caused to the vegetated banks either side of the access track and that they may be guilty of an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act if damage is caused to the SSSI.

RECOMMENDATION 3 - That the Authority give a without prejudice indication that the site at Greatwood Copse may be considered suitable for a permanent installation, subject to the height and design of such an installation and any submission adequately addressing matters relating to the status and landscape character of the AONB and the ecological interests of the adjacent SSSI.

TCP/26171 P/00404/04 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South

Registration Date: 01/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Airwave MM02 Ltd

Telecommunications installation comprising 10m high telegraph pole supporting 1 antenna; associated equipment cabinet

land adjacent landslip car park, Leeson Road, Ventnor, PO38

This is a joint report – see details in Application TCP/26079 – P/107/04

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The telecommunications installation would be unduly prominent to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the locality and the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the site chosen and design is visually and technically the least harmful that could be achieved. In consequence, the proposal is contrary to Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and U17 (Telecommunication Installations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would therefore be contrary to Strategic Policy S4 (The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development) and S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/26483 P/01611/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Parkhurst

Registration Date: 28/07/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mrs Long

Demolition of single storey extension; construction of end of terrace house

9 Northumberland Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305SA

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor G Price, has requested that the application is considered by the Committee as he raises concerns relating to inadequate drainage, loss of open space, access particularly pedestrian and that proposal would set a precedent.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 10 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning application due to the request from the local Member for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposal is set within the prison estate comprising of late ‘60s style semi detached and terraced properties with lawned garden areas fronting the dwellings. Site is located on corner plot and will sit south of 9 Northumberland Road. Located on south side of the property is a single storey mono pitched element with a 1.8 larch lap fence which projects out approximately 3 metres and then runs along in a westerly direction. A newly laid footpath has been constructed which follows the contours of the site and is immediately adjacent the highway.

RELEVANT HISTORY

No relevant history.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to demolish the single storey element located on south side of 9 Northumberland Road and also relocate the positioning of the boundary fencing. Proposal is for an end of terrace with a single storey lean-to element within a corner plot attached to No 9 Northumberland Road and will replicate the design of neighbouring properties. Proposal would also involve formation of access and provision of off street parking.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site is located within development boundary on the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S6 – All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

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 development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages

G4 – General locational criteria for development

D1 – Standards of Design

H5 - Infill development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for new development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 – Infrastructure and services provision

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer raises no objections following negotiations with the applicant to introduce off street parking.

Southern Water confirm they have some reports of sewer incidents but none of them appear to involve flooding. Downstream of this site there are concerns about lack of capacity in the sewers and an investigation is currently being undertaken to identify the problem parts of the sewerage system. However, in this particular case they consider that the foul flow from one house would only marginally increase the total flow. Southern Water confirm that existing surface water flows enter the foul sewer, although it would be advantageous to divert this elsewhere i.e. soakaway, ditch, etc as this would reduce the net flow to the foul sewer.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Email received from local Ward Member objecting strongly to the application as it would set a dangerous precedent and there is an issue over ownership and liability which still needs clarification.

Ten letters were received from local residents objecting to the application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Inadequate drainage, which results in flooding
Locations of sewage pipe works, gas and electricity supplies are unknown
Parking in this area is limited and proposal will make the situation worse.
Highways are in a state of disrepair.
Approval would set a precedent for similar proposals

· Proposal is out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern.

Open plan ethos will be compromised
Area fenced may restrict line of site for vehicles.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principal and whether the site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings.

Site is located within development boundary and proposal is considered acceptable in principal. With regard to suggestions that proposal represents over development, I am satisfied that the site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings, without detracting from amenities of the area or neighbouring properties. In particular, the site is of adequate width to accommodate building of similar proportions to applicant’s property whilst retaining a large area of lawned garden and will therefore, not detract from the open character of this corner plot. I am of the opinion that an end of terrace would not be out of keeping with the general pattern of development in the area.

Further negotiations on the siting of the fence have resulted in the reposition of it running parallel with the proposed dwelling which then tapers off to connect with existing boundary fence, retaining the open nature of the property and its surroundings. after consulting with Highways I am of the opinion that the fence would not obscure visibility of highway users.

In terms of drainage it is my opinion that one dwelling would not add significantly to the flows to the foul systems. However, I would recommend that, should Members be minded to approve application, this is addressed by a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed drainage scheme including calculations and capacity studies which will need to be agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority in order to alleviate any potential drainage problems.

Concerning the location of utilities it is the applicant’s responsibility to make themselves aware of the location and route of all services and take appropriate precautions to avoid damage.

Issues relating to parking have now been overcome by successful negotiations with the agent who has introduced off street parking.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The 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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal to develop an end of terrace property would make efficient use of the site without having excessive or unacceptable impact on the environment or neighbouring properties and would not detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above I am satisfied that proposal does not conflict with policies of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted and agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system that adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such systems have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

4	Vehicular access - J30

The dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for a minimum of 2 cars to be parked. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) and TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building hereby permitted is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter only such approved boundary treatment shall be created, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

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

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services