PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/25821/A

Mr N Greenhalgh against refusal of outline for a bungalow on land rear of 3 Trinity Road, Ventnor.

 

 

TCP/22049/B

Mr S De Belder against refusal of outline for dwelling with garage on land between 4 St Edmunds Walks and Sans Soucci, New Road, Wooton.

 

 

TCP/15171/F

Mr I Cantelo against enforcement notice relating to conversion, alterations and extensions to disused mill for use as residential accommodation at Cheeks Farm, Merstone Lane, Merstone.

 

 

TCP/223419/A

Ms S Doran against refusal for demolition of garage and replacement detached garage and erection of chalet bungalow with garage, land adjacent and at Springs, Seaview Lane, Seaview.

 

 

TCP/22017/B

Mr A Gallop against refusal for demolition of garage and two storey of block of 5 flats, parking and alterations to vehicular access, land rear of 32 Atherley Road and fronting Milford Road, Shanklin.

 

 

TCP/2697/c

Mr and Mrs J Garnham against refusal for change of use from retail to additional living accommodation in connection with existing dwelling at 41 High Street, Bembridge.

 

 

 

2.

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

TCP/16015/L

George Jenkins Transport Limited against condition relating to number of tractor/trailer units operating in respect of planning permission for new building at Bigby Farm, Alverstone Lane, Alverstone Road, Apse Heath, Sandown. Hearing to take place on 9 August 2005.

 

 

TCP/1272/E

BB Developments against refusal for removal of condition relating to the provision of affordable housing on land at Clematis Cottage and Berrylands, Heathfield Road, Bembridge. Hearing to take place on 13 September 2005.

 

 

 

3.

REPORT OF APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

 

  (a)

 

 

TCP/25771

Mr & Mrs J Batchelor against refusal for extension at first floor level to form additional bedroom at Melita, Weston Road, Totland Bay.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 30 September 2203 

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 25 August 2004

 

 

Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the proposed development would materially harm the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers.

 

·         Whether the development would harm the character of this and the adjoining dwellings.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The proposed siting right on the joint boundary will cause loss of sun light and over shadowing to the adjoining property.

 

·          The development would have an overbearing effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants.

 

·          Despite the neighbours raising no objection, the depth and the height of the extension would have an unacceptably detrimental effect on the living conditions of those occupants.

 

·          The hipped end of the proposal would look a little out of place but it has been reasonably thought out and designed as a simple extension.

 

·          The extension would not be out of character to an extent that would justify dismissing the Appeal but this does not outweigh the strong objections on the detrimental impact on the living conditions of the neighbours.

 

 

 

 (b)

 

E/22975/C and TCP 22975/F

 

Newport Meeting Room Trust against enforcement notice requiring the removal of existing lighting columns and refusal of planning permission against the retention of lighting columns with reduced height and number at Buckbury Lane, Staplers, Newport.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval to application for the retention of reduced height and number of lighting columns.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal and enforcement action to remove the lighting columns – 16 December 2003

 

 

Appeal Decisions

Dismissed (both) – 6 September 2004

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the development materially harms the character and appearance of the area.

 

·         Whether the development materially harms the living conditions of the adjoining residential occupiers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The site was visited both in the daylight and when it was dark and the effect of the lights on the area was able to be seen.

 

·         Even though two of the light fittings have already been removed and some of the columns reduced in height there was considerable light spillage into the surrounding area which could be seen from the adjoining roads.

 

·         Close to the site, the light was very bright in what was a very dark area once the lights were switched off

 

·         Lowering as proposed of the columns would not make a material difference in the amount of light spillage to the surrounding area.

 

·         The lights illuminate far more of the grounds than just the parking areas.

 

·         The submission that the lighting is required for safety reasons was not accepted.

 

·         The lighting is seriously detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and should not be permitted either as it exists or as the proposed amended scheme.

 

·         The site is considerably higher than dwellings on the other side of Buckbury Lane, the tree screening is intermittent even in summer and the lights are a kin to search lights when standing outside the front of these dwellings.

 

·         Reducing the height of the columns will do nothing to reduce the glare and brightness which will be far worse in the winter when there is less tree screening.

 

·         The development both in its existing and proposed form has a seriously detrimental effect on the living conditions of the adjoining residential occupiers and should not be permitted.

 

·         The lighting as exists or as the proposed amendments would be contrary to policies of the UDP

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 (c)

 

 E/25894

Mr and Mrs M Lewis against enforcement notice requiring the removal of a wooden building on land at OS Parcel 5445, Windgate Copse, Porchfield Road, Newtown.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Enforcement Action to remove building.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Enforcement Action - 16 December 2003. 

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 6 September 2004

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the development is necessary in connection with the use of the land.

 

·         Whether the development is materially harmful to the character and appearance of the rural area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          The building is far larger than the existing shed and has not been designed as a secure storage building.

 

·          There is no need for a covered veranda if the building is to be used for storage.

 

·          The objectives of the relevant UDP policies are to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area.

 

·          The building, which is not a small storage building, is highly intrusive and should not be permitted.

 

 

 

 (d)

 

 TCP/23787/B

Mr J G Harrison against refusal for conversion of barn to form two holiday units at Heath Farm, Staplers Road, Newport.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 5 December 2003. 

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 7 September 2004

 

 

Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The suitability of the existing building for conversion to holiday accommodation.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          The building is about 20 years old, roughly built of concrete blocks, steel frame, corrugated cement fibre roof and corrugated plastic roof lights.

 

·          The building is neither substantial nor permanent and does not contribute to the appearance of the countryside.

 

·          The proposed development would require new inner walls and roof, higher outside walls, a rebuilt end elevation and new foundations.

 

·          All these works amount to major or complete reconstruction and would conflict with C17 of the UDP.

 

·          The importance of tourism and leisure in the rural economy is recognised but this is not a working farm and the development would be tantamount to a replacement building in the countryside.

 

·          The development would bring about no significant environmental improvement to the landscape.

 

 

 

 

 (e)

 

 TCP/20244/M

St Catherine’s School against refusal for portable building to provide two class rooms at St Margaret’s, Grove Road, Ventnor

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) 9 February 2004

 

 

Appeal Decision

Allowed – 7 September 2004

 

 

Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the need for the temporary building outweighs its existing effect on the appearance of the Listed Building and the street scene.

 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          St Margaret’s is a Grade II Listed Building within a cluster of insubstantial buildings beside it which harmfully affects its setting.

 

·          The additional demountable building adds to the congestion.

·         The design of the building is basic and functional and contributes nothing to the appearance of the area.

 

·          In its present position, projecting forward of the building line, it has a harmful impact on the neighbouring terrace by appearing prominent, low, out of character and intrusive.

 

·          It particularly affects the end terrace house which over looks it at close quarters.

 

·          The development conflicts with the relevant environmental policies of the UDP.

 

·          None of the measures suggested by the appellants to improve the appearance of the building would make it any less prominent or any more acceptable.

 

·          The environmental harm and the shortcomings of the design are over ridden by the pressing need for the classrooms to meet short term educational requirements.

 

·          A grant of temporary consent (3 years) will enable the appellants to evolve their master plan and adopt longer term plans.

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 (f)

 

 TCP/10386/G

Mr J Gosling against refusal for chalet bungalow and vehicular access on land adjacent 18 Marlborough Close, Ryde

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal ( Part 1) 4 March 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 7 September 2004

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The suitability of the site for a chalet bungalow, having regard to its relationship to trees around the site which are the subject of a TPO.

 

·         The affect of the amenity and the privacy of the neighbouring houses.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The proposed development would be roughly in line with the existing property to the north but several metres forward of No 18 to the south.

 

·         The proposed dwelling would be rather large for the plot but not unduly obtrusive.

 

·         The juxtaposition of windows and blank gable ends would not give rise to overlooking or seriously affect the neighbours privacy.

 

·         The development would not conflict with H5 or PPG3.

 

·         There is a fine row of Corsican Pines, in healthy condition, just outside the front boundary.

 

·         Two of these trees would have to be felled to provide the vehicular access and a sound and healthy Oak tree close to the boundary would also need to be felled.

 

·         The proposed dwelling would be affected by the remaining protected pine trees and it would be difficult for the LPA to resist applications for topping, lopping or even felling.

 

·         The development would make it highly probable that the surviving trees would be at risk in the long term and there is no room on site for adequate replanting.

 

·         The trees have a high amenity value and their anticipated loss would seriously affect the character and amenity of the area and conflict with C12.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 (g)

 

 LBC/21034/H

Dr J A Parsons against refusal of Listed Building consent for the retention of UPVC windows and door at West Billingham Farm, Billingham.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) 27 November 2003.

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 13 September 2004

 

 

Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          As a surviving example of an early 18th century vernacular building, the house has some historic interest.

 

·          Unsympathetic changes to features such as doors and windows could potentially have a damaging impact on the simplicity of the design of the house.

 

·          On close examination, the replacement windows have little in common with traditional details.

 

·          Because the windows are viewed from within the building as well as from outside, the changes that have been made impact on the character of the interior.

 

 

·          The front of the house is the most imposing and architecturally significant part of the Listed Building and the nine replacement windows on this elevation are particularly damaging.

 

·          Nevertheless, the fact that the other windows and the door have been installed in the newer parts does not make them any more acceptable.

 

·          What matters is the impact on the building as a whole and the windows and door at the back and side are just as out of keeping as those on the front.

 

·          The fact that the building is relatively inconspicuous does not make inappropriate and damaging alterations anymore acceptable.

 

·          As the Listed status implies, the building is an important heritage asset that should be protected for its own sake.  

 

 

 

 

 (h)

 

 TCP/18349/S

Indigo Homes Limited against refusal for demolition of dwelling and the construction of a terrace of 4 town houses and a 3/6 storey building of flats at Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal 25 November  2003. 

 

 

Appeal Decision

Allowed – 15 September 2004

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The affect of the proposed development on the scenes of both streets and the appearance and character of the neighbourhood.

 

·         Further considerations relate to the density, access, car parking and instability of the land.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         Baring Road has no established building line or consistent character.

 

·         There is ample scope for a large building on this site if suitably designed.

 

·         The proposed development would be wholly different in character from the existing buildings in Baring Road and would occupy the whole frontage but its scale and mass would not be out of place.

 

·         From Cliff Road the development would appear modern and striking in character but wholly domestic in scale.

 

·         The existing mixture of styles and periods has resulted in an interesting and eclectic townscape and the proposed buildings could be integrated without harm.

 

·         In terms of density, the development meets the requirements of PPG3.

 

·         The access and parking arrangements meet the requirements of the highways authority.

 

·         The developers have given overriding priority to the problems of instability and technical remedies.

 

·         The current scheme would be preferable to the extant consent for two dwellings and three flats.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 (i)

 

 TCP/25191/B

Mrs S Hicky against refusal for demolition of farmhouse and the erection of a new detached farmhouse and new vehicular access at Durrants Farm, Colemans Lane, Porchfield.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) 3 February 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 15 September 2004

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The affect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locality.

 

·         The affect of the proposed development on highway safety.

 

·         The affect of the development on the hedgerow adjoining Colemans Lane.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The proposed dwelling could not be described as being of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling by any reasonable interpretation of H9a.

 

·         Notwithstanding the Council’s interpretation of H9a when permitting the 2003 replacement,  the difference in scale and mass of the proposed dwelling to the existing dwelling is too great for it to fall within Policy H9a.

 

·         The underlying purpose of H9 is to protect the countryside from development and the proposal represents an unacceptable conflict with that objective.

 

·         The provision of the new access would result in the loss of the roadside hedge.

 

·         The hedgerow is important as it contains at least seven woody species and the development would therefore have an adverse affect on the hedgerow and be contrary to C17.

 

·         The Council’s requirement for visibility of 2.4 metres x 215 metres in each direction is not convincing as the existing access was considered suitable for the 2003 replacement dwelling.

 

·         There is scope for negotiations between parties regarding the access.

 

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services