REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 5 DECEMBER 2003

2.

TCP/18349/S P/01370/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Registration Date: 18/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Demolition of dwelling; construction of a terrace of 4 town houses fronting Cliff Road; 3/6 storey building to provide 10 flats; formation of vehicular access Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318DQ

Members will recall that this application was deferred at the last meeting held on 4 November 2003 with the deferral being on the basis that Committee required some comfort that the proposals are acceptable from a stability point of view. In this regard they considered the views and the possible attendance at the next meeting of the Council's Coastal Manager, Robin McInnes, would assist in providing such comfort. Members are advised that all relevant information has been passed on to Robin McInnes for his consideration and therefore it is anticipated that his own views on this matter will be available or he will attend the meeting to advise Members accordingly. Members are reminded, however, that the application in terms of ground stability and foundation details have been the subject of extensive consultation with the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer with all the issues being covered within the Evaluation section of the report under the sub-heading "Slope Stability".

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which raises important planning issues.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application and will have taken twenty weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to an almost rectangular site situated between Cliff Road and Baring Road being on the southern side of Cliff Road and northern side of Baring Road. Site slopes steeply from south to north and has a 26 metres wide frontage onto Baring Road where site currently accommodates a split level detached dwelling known as Essex House which stands between two detached split level dwellings, one being The Spinney which is a single storey/two storey split level dwelling to the west of the application site and the other being Oak Bank which is a more substantial detached dwelling being approximately two storey fronting Baring Road but three and a half storey fronting Cliff Road. The Cliff Road frontage itself adjoins the rear garden areas of properties which front Baring Road, whilst to the west is a partially developed building site on which a pair of semi-detached dwellings has been constructed and another pair had been commenced, however, following a substantial ground movement work has ceased on that section of the site.

For Members' information the general character of the area is residential and made up of older traditional Victorian dwellings with a number of newer dwellings. The site itself has no landscape features apart from a number of boundary trees.

Opposite the site on the Cliff Road frontage are a number of substantial Victorian split level multi-occupier type dwellings with the split level character reflecting the continuation of the sloping nature of the land in the area. Members' attention is also drawn to a further substantial hotel premises known as Villa Rothsay which stands further to the east adjacent to the property Oak Bank and immediately abuts the zigzag footpath which links Cliff Road with Baring Road. The Cliff Road frontage of that property has in the recent past been the subject of a further land slippage which has been rectified by the construction of an engineer designed retaining wall and the creation of additional parking linked to a retaining wall for the hotel premises served off Cliff Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In August 2002 planning consent issued for the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and development of two houses, garages and a flat with vehicular access off Cliff Road and two houses and garages with vehicular access off Baring Road. Although the decision was issued on this date the application itself was considered in November 2000 at which time it was resolved by the Committee that the design, density and mass height arrangement and impact on neighbours was acceptable but that no decision should be issued until outstanding geotechnical issues had been resolved. Those issues were not finally resolved until the date of issue. The consent itself was the subject of a number of conditions, one of which is quoted as follows:

"Prior to commencement of work an adequate site investigation stability assessment shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any such investigation and assessment shall show that the development shall not be adversely affected by any site slope instability nor will it adversely affect land stability beyond the boundaries of the site".

In terms of other planning history in respect of adjoining sites these are itemised as follows:

The adjoining site to the west on the Cliff Road frontage subject to an approval granted in April 1995, two pairs of semi-detached houses and integral garages. One pair has been constructed and is occupied with the remaining pair which immediately adjoins the application site commenced but with work having ceased following land slippage to the north. That approval was the subject of a number of conditions, one of which required the submission of a structural engineer's assessment of ground conditions along with suggested foundation design. Detailed information was provided following an exchange of correspondence after consultation took place with the Building Control Department and the Council's Coastal Manager. Compliance with the condition itself was agreed in November 1998 following which work commenced. Following the land slippage incident no further works have been carried out on site apart from remedial works providing stabilization to the slope.

In July 2001 consent granted for construction of slope stabilization works and formation of eight parking spaces off Cliff Road to rear of Villa Rothsay. This consent has been fully implemented having been the subject of substantial detailed information provided by a geotechnical engineer which included bore hole analysis and which was subject of consultation with the Council's own consulting geotechnical engineer.

In November 2002 consent granted for retention of slope stabilization works in respect of the property The Spinney, with those works being required following the land slippage incident on the site which abuts the application site to the west. Again, those works have been carried out having been the subject of extensive slope stability reports, again including bore holes, all prepared by appropriate competent geotechnical engineers.

In terms of the adjoining site to the east, rear of Oak Bank, and in particular to that element of the curtilage which fronts Cliff Road, this was subject of an approval for a detached house over basement, garage and new vehicular access onto Cliff Road. That consent was granted in April 1995 and has now expired.

Renewal of the abovementioned approval was received in April 2000 and has since been finally disposed of.

Finally, a detailed consent was granted in April 1995 for a three storey split level dwelling with integral garage accessed off Cliff Road in respect of land at the rear of the hotel premises Villa Rothsay fronting Cliff Road further to the east.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks detailed consent for the following residential development which is in two parts.

Baring Road Frontage

Proposal indicates a building which has a split level design with two and a half storeys facing onto Baring Road and five and a half storeys facing towards the Solent (northward). Block provides a total of ten units itemised as follows:

Three two bedroom units

Six three bedroom units

One four bedroom units

The block is indicated to stand at its minimum five metres off the edge of carriageway to Baring Road to maximum of six metres. The block itself measures approximately 5.8 metres in depth by 24.6 metres in width and stands on a site which has an overall width of approximately 25.5 metres. The building has a height above the carriageway of Baring Road of 8.8 metres. At this height the proposed block will be level with the ridge height of the adjoining property Oak Bank but will be approximately four metres above the ridge height of the adjoining property to the west, The Spinney.

Block provides basement car parking indicating a total of thirteen parking spaces set at a level approximately seven metres below the carriageway level of Baring Road and serviced off Cliff Road to the north by a sloping access drive.

The accommodation within the two lower ground floors which face Cliff Road are stepped forward four metres from the main block finished with a flat roof which functions as a terrace decking. The rear ground level and height of block where it faces Cliff Road equates with adjoining dwelling to east known as Oak Bank. Rear elevation also contains balconies on upper floors with the western and eastern end having side screens to those balconies.

Block to be finished in banded rendering on the lower three floors with the upper floors being constructed in brick with a central vertical feature also finished in banded render. Block to be roofed in concrete roofing tiles with the two side elevations having a slightly projecting feature at roof level finished in vertical tile hanging. Proposal provides for a parking lay-by three metres deep running parallel with Baring Road virtually over the whole frontage onto that road. The parking lay-by will provide maximum parking for four vehicles.

Cliff Road Frontage

Consent sought for a block of four split level terraced houses being four storeys in height where it faces Cliff Road and three storeys in respect of its south facing elevation.

Each house provides substantial accommodation including a garage/car port set directly off back of footpath along with games room and utility room on the lower ground floor. The first floor and second floor accommodation provide bedroom and kitchen/study accommodation whilst the third floor consists entirely of a living room with terrace on the north facing elevation. Block to be constructed in a mixture of smooth render and facing brick with glazed third floor.

Directly abutting the rear (south facing) wall of the block at lower ground level is a series of underground water tanks housed within a storage space and having a top access off the terrace which serves the four terraced units. Block to be finished in a low pitch profile metal roof covering.

Central Landscaped Area

Area between the two blocks to be partially paved but mainly set to lawn with shrubs and includes retention of existing trees on the eastern boundary. Application has been accompanied by a Landscape Statement which is summarised as follows:

Proposal will result in loss of a small number of existing trees compensated by the planting of seven new specimen trees within the site.

Any new specimen trees will be planted as large transplants and will reflect those grown locally and will be indigenous trees.

All trees to be retained will be fenced off in accordance with standard procedures.

Future management of the amenity space will allow for major watering of trees during periods of drought.

Area will provide an informal recreational space as well as offering space for seating and barbecue/patio area.

Banked areas will be planted in shrubs with the level area seeded in grass.

Boundary Treatment

Eastern boundary indicated to be mainly in the form of close boarded timber fencing with post and rail fencing at its southern end and this boundary also includes retention of hedgerows and further shrub planting.

In terms of the western boundary where it abuts the proposed access to the car parking area, this is to be in the form of hedge planting with close boarded fencing and includes a crib lock retaining wall. Where this boundary directly abuts the Baring Road block fencing will be in the form of post and rail.

Access

Application indicates a proposed access in the north eastern corner with that access being 4.5 metres wide and providing a passing bay where it directly abuts Cliff Road. Security gates are provided approximately eight metres off the back edge of carriageway to Cliff Road beyond which the access narrows to three metres in width with 0.4 metre margins either side.

Ground and Slope Stability

Application has been accompanied by a detailed geotechnical-technical report prepared by consulting geotechnical engineer, with that report including extensive borehole information.

The resultant conclusions and recommendations are quoted as follows:

"1. The visual evidence from the site itself and from the Works to adjacent properties, together with our analytical assessment calculations, demonstrates that the slope is prone to shallow seated translational or circular slip movements.

2. Relatively shallow excavations associated with construction activities in February 2000 on the adjacent site below 'The Spinney' triggered movement, which suggests that the factor of safety on the present slope is close to unity. This is substantiated by the slope stability analyses. The extremely wet winter of 2000/2001 triggered movement at Villa Rothsay, which demonstrates the sensitivity of the area generally to a high ground water table.

3. The slope monitoring programme confirms shallow land slip movements as anticipated from surface observations. There is evidence from the inclinometer data to suggest that movement may be occurring at much deeper levels.

4. Site investigations and laboratory testing have been carried out followed by a detailed geotechnical appraisal. As a result of this, we are satisfied that the site can be developed within the requirements set out in PPG14.

5. The proposed piled wall extends the degree of slope stability protection already provided to adjacent properties. The combined effect will be to enhance the general stability of the area especially in relation to potential shallow and medium depth slip planes.

6. As a result of the Architectural Geometrical Design and the Geotechnical Proposals the loading on any potential deep seated slip plane will be reduced.

7. The planning application includes the following specific proposals for the construction of the development, in particular:

7.1 The scheme includes a substantial bored pile wall behind the proposed townhouses on Cliff Road with the toe of the piles taken down to -1.2 m ODN. The apartments at the Baring Road level include a further semi-contiguous bored pile wall with the toe of piles at + 10.0M ODN. These piled walls are designed to protect the site from the known shallow failure planes, and from potential medium seated failure planes, with a factor of safety on calculation of at least 1.35 within the site itself.

7.2 The buildings are constructed off piled raft foundations, which provide a stiff foundation to distribute the building loads below the levels associated with shallow seated slips. This structural form is tolerant of minor movements.

7.3 The design for the superstructure elements of the proposed development will be detailed to provide flexibility to absorb the effects of slight movements should these occur in the future.

7.4 The proposed scheme will include cut off drains, to intercept ground water within the permeable strata. Furthermore, the significantly increased impermeable surfaces on the site combined with the related surface water collection system will reduce the amount of water permeating into the subsoil. These two factors alone should provide a marked improvement to the stability of the existing slope."

In summary, the main engineering works cover the following:

The provision of piling to stabilise surrounding land to take account of reduced levels within application site.

Excavation and removal from site of large earth quantities to reduce loading.

Provision of surface water drainage system with attenuation tanks to reduce amount of water entering subsoil.

Report has been the subject of a vetting procedure by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer.

Supporting letter received from applicants representative providing an overview of the scheme and highlighting some relevant points. Contents of letter summarised as follows:

· Reference made to planning history of site.

· Reference made to minor landslips in the area and geotechnical works which have been carried out either side of the proposed site.

· Reference made to the importance of geotechnical issues in respect of this site and the need to increase stability to the site itself and immediate adjoining areas.

· Cost of geotechnical works clearly meant that the approved scheme would not be viable.

· Therefore appropriate expertise has been commissioned including Civil Engineering Department of Portsmouth University to assess a suitable design for the site.

· Resultant site investigation and detail studies having been fully checked by the Council's own consulting engineer now satisfies the geotechnical situation proposed for this development. Solution provides increased factor of safety for the proposed development above that which has been required for any remedial works carried out hitherto. The phasing has been examined in detail to ensure that works at all times provide increased factors of safety.

· Application designed to fit within two storey context of Baring Road, similarly town houses of Cliff Road are appropriate in style and scale.

· In their opinion proposal complies with the normal planning considerations in respect of car parking, water services, vehicular access etc.

· His conclusion is as follows:

"In conclusion this application is the result of more than two years investigation and consultation with the Isle of Wight Planning Authority. This proposed development will provide a marked increase in the slope stability for Essex House site when under construction and completed with direct benefit to that area of Baring Road and the areas immediately adjacent to each side of the site. The increased density of this development is

necessary to sustain the costs of the geotechnical works but it does comply with Isle of Wight Council's known requirements and will provide a high quality of development".

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows:

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

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

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty units to fifty units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility such as town centres etc.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

PPG14 - Development on Unstable Land, Landslides and Planning, Annex 1, March 1996. Relevant points as follows:

In relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of landslides on development by controlling or restricting development where appropriate.

Policies should outline the considerations which will be given to landsliding including the criteria and information requirements which should be used in determining planning applications.

Where appropriate planning applications should be accompanied by a Slope Stability Report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so and will not be affected by or trigger landsliding beyond the boundaries of the site.

Local Plan Policies

The site is not allocated but is within the development envelope boundary for Cowes as indicated in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

D3 - Landscaping

H6 - High Density Residential Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

The site is located within Parking Zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum 0 - 50% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Also under Appendix G which covers this policy the site's zonal location means that any development on this site in excess of ten units will be subject of a Transport Infrastructure Payment at the rate of £750 per unit as a contribution to a sustainable transport fund and therefore would make the application subject of a legal agreement covering this issue. The aim of the fund is to finance off-site transport initiatives to help address travel demands generated by any proposal in Zones 1 and 2.

Members will be aware of the publication of the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study commissioned by the Council. The study area extends from Market Hill in Cowes through to Gurnard Marsh and inland as far as Baring Road and Solent View Road. The main objectives of the study were to review the stability of the coastal slopes and provide guidance for future planned development. In terms of the current application the site is within an area defined as normally requiring submission of a full stability report prepared by a competent person which the document advises should be a geotechnical engineer.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval with conditions relating to visibility and sight lines, access and provision of parking for loading and unloading. In this regard, Highway Engineer has recommended a widening of the parking lay-by on Baring Road to three metres and revised plans have been received accordingly.

Fire Safety Officer considers proposal to be satisfactory.

Southern Water confirm the availability of a combined sewer in Cliff Road and that they would prefer that surface water was disposed of in an alternative way than into that sewer. However, they accept that this sometimes is not practical and therefore it is the rate of flow which is more important than the total volume of flow. Attenuation of flow therefore is the important issue to ensure that the maximum rate of flow of both and foul and surface water from the new development is less than that from existing property, then connection to the sewer is likely to be accepted.

Application has been considered by the Architects Panel and their comments are summarised as follows:

Roof scape considered to be dominant and uninteresting with reference to height and massing of the roof and the crop gable and dormer windows were not considered to be characteristic of the area.

Concern relating to the visual effect of the roof shape on the side elevations with some criticism of the plans themselves providing a false impression.

Whilst Panel noted that height of block equated to the adjoining property Oak Bank they considered that the dormer windows and roof features increased the visual emphasis of the roof.

Panel considered that there was a need to subdivide the rear elevation which appeared massive by introducing some form of horizontal division which may lighten the effect of the building.

Particular reference made to the vertical division within the centre of the rear elevation (facing Cliff Road) which was not considered appropriate.

Some concern expressed relating to the massing of the building when seen from Cliff Road with suggestions that ground levels should be banked up based on level of accommodation omitted to reduce the impact of the rear elevation. Some reference made to the prospective drawings differing from the details indicated on the submitted elevations.

Panel considered design appeared to include a mixture of unresolved design elements.

Block Fronting Cliff Road

Panel considered more overhand or emphasis to the flat roof design would improve the appearance of the building.

Roof treatment was considered to be more appropriate than that shown for the larger block.

Panel noted that proposed proposal included a number of balconies at higher level and question whether this would cause a problem with overlooking of adjacent properties.

Panel commented that the overall quality and design of the finished building would depend on the detailing.

Finally, Panel question the need for essential parapet feature at roof level.

The ground and slope stability report submitted with the application has been carefully vetted by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer and I am in receipt of a fairly extensive report. The most significant part of that report however, is the summary which is quoted as follows:

"To summarise, I believe that the proposals, as presented, do indicate that the proposed development can be built without causing instability to the surrounding area and without itself being significantly adversely affected by instability. However, there are a number of important details to be addressed, particularly with regard to the design of the retaining walls and their propping structure and also the effects of the proposed walls and drainage on the surrounding buildings before the scheme can be recommended for approval."

Whilst Robin McInnes, Council's Coastal Manager, did not attend the meeting his comments were reported and a copy of his memo attached in its entirety, however, it is summarised as follows:

· Reference made to the site being identified as being particularly vulnerable to slope stability problems within the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study August 2000.

· He notes that the technical report is accompanied by a Stability Report Declaration form signed by a fully qualified geotechnical engineer in line with guidance in PPG14.

· He notes that other ground stabilisation works which have been undertaken in the area to assist in reducing ground instability and in his opinion "these questions have been examined in a holistic manner using the best possible knowledge and information including sub-surface investigations".

· Consultant's report confirms slope stability has been approached in a comprehensive way and has been scrutinised by the Council's own consulting geotechnical engineer who is particularly experienced in stability issues in Cowes.

· Most relevant paragraph quoted as follows:

"Taking account of these factors and the benefits that will arise in terms of reducing slope instability the civil engineering measures proposed within this application together with work carried out on adjacent sites do satisfy me that the proposed development will not adversely affect properties up slope and down slope of the site or adjacent to it. I should point out that under guidance that is set out in PPG14 the responsibility for demonstrating that the site is safe to develop rests with the applicant and not with the Council."

· Reference made to developer adopting right approach and confirmation that Building Control are aware and will be monitoring closely the development from their perspective.

· Reference made to ongoing maintenance and management with particular reference to good practice over such issues as drainage, care of retaining walls and management of vegetation. He suggests letter sent to applicants requesting them to liaise with the Isle of Wight Centre for Coastal Environment to ensure that these kinds of good practice measures are put in hand once development has been completed.

· Subject to all the above he recommends that development could be approved.

The comments of the Building Control Manager have also been received and these are as follows:

Comments received from John Lutas, the Building Control Manager, confirming that work should be carried out properly and in correct sequence, however, this cannot be guaranteed through Building Control inspections particularly if the developer opts to use an approved Inspector rather than the Local Authority for this function. He would prefer an undertaking to be given by the applicant relating to site supervision by the design engineer if this can be enforced by planning legislation.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council object on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, that the proposed development would be over dominant and incompatible with the neighbouring properties, because of the ground instability in the area and the possible effects on adjoining properties and on the grounds of loss of amenity due to insufficient provision of car parking spaces and inadequate vehicular access.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application is subject of fourteen letters of objection from residents of Cliff Road, three letters of objection from residents of Baring Road and one letter from the Isle of Wight Society. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site due to excessive scale and massing inappropriate to the characteristics of the area.

Proposal will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using Cliff Road with the proposal providing insufficient parking likely to intensify on-street parking in Cliff Road.

The parking arrangement for the Cliff Road block in terms of its closeness to the back of footpath of that road would be likely to result in encroachment across the footpath by parked vehicles.

Reference made to the poor construction quality of Cliff Road and the fact that this development will exacerbate that situation.

Concern at the closeness of the Cliff Road block to the back of footpath which would be out of character with the area.

High level of concern in respect of the effect on slope stability that may occur as a result of this development with local residents pointing out that general ground conditions are very poor, making reference to the fact that even in this dry summer running water continues to discharge from the site. Also reference made to subsidence problems in the area, particularly to the north.

The block on the Baring Road frontage encroaches forward of a recognised building line along that road.

Construction works will cause inevitable disturbance and disruption, particularly given the inadequacies of Cliff Road both in terms of width and standard of construction.

Cliff Road is regularly being used for visitors parking in order to avoid car parking charges on the Esplanade which have recently been introduced.

Concern that any stabilization groundworks on the site will simply transfer problems to adjoining land.

Suggestion that Members should inspect the site prior to determining the application.

Neighbouring property owner is concerned that any stabilization groundworks should not be carried out during the winter months.

General concern that the mass of the development will cause a loss of sunlight and loss of privacy to properties on the north side of Cliff Road, with particular concern from the adjoining property owner to the east who expresses great concern that this proposal will result in loss of sunlight to his garden and conservatory.

Concern from the neighbouring property owner that the proposal encroaches beyond land owned by the applicant.

Proposal could set a precedent for similar extensive development.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections to proposed development but has raised a number of detail issues which need to be considered and in this regard would be happy to discuss them with the architects. Essentially he considers that this scheme could easily be made very self-contained by introducing electronic access control systems and appropriate fencing etc.

EVALUATION

There are a number of issues involved in assessing the merits of this application as follows.

Planning History

Members will note that there is an extant consent on this site relating to a lesser density and lesser mass and height of development. The comparison therefore is whether or not the general increase in size of development when compared with that extant consent will represent excessive development, out of scale and out of character with the area. In terms of the Baring Road block the extant consent indicated a four storey building when viewed from Cliff Road and a two storey building when viewed from Baring Road with a traditional roof and stood 1.6 metres lower than the adjoining property known Oak Bank. The extant consent was in the form of two separate blocks essentially linked by a lesser height structure, and was of lesser mass and height. The proposed block is both wider and taller representing a width increase of 2.3 metres and a height increase of 1.7 metres placing the roof height level with the adjoining property Oak Bank. Also the block is continuous across the whole of the site, however, design does indicate a central vertical feature on both front and rear elevations which creates a sense of separation.

The second difference in terms of mass is that the extant consent showed balcony projections to the rear facing Cliff Road whereas the current proposal indicates a more substantial stepped feature as described.

Obviously in type of accommodation terms the current proposal indicates ten units within the block whereas the extant consent indicated just two houses albeit with substantial accommodation. I suggest that the number of units contained within a block is not necessarily a major issue, it is the size, scale and mass of the block and how it sits into the site's topography and character of the area which is the determining factor.

With regard to the Cliff Road frontage the block which is subject of the extant consent is in the form of two split level houses with a central link providing two garages with a covered access to a flat at first floor. These dwellings would have a two and a half storey appearance from Cliff Road and the second floor accommodation being partially within the roof and the rear elevation will have an appearance of 1.5 storeys. The two houses and linked block will have the appearance of a terrace of three stepped to reflect the angle of the road. This compares with the current application which indicates a rectangular block of four terraced houses being four storey in height facing Cliff Road and three storey in height facing to the south. Each unit is relatively narrow frontaged and stands towards the eastern half of the site, thus accommodating the access to the basement car park within the block on Baring Road. This compares with the extant consent which indicates the block virtually across the whole of the frontage onto Cliff Road. Comparison in height terms suggests that this proposed scheme has an overall height to top of the flat roof of 20.4 metres which is exactly the same as the maximum height of the extant consent. It is important to appreciate that the extant consent has a traditional pitched roof.

I understand that the problem with the extant consent is its viability. This then leads on to the second and critical issue of slope stability.

Slope Stability

Members will appreciate from the planning history the precarious nature of the ground conditions and slope stability between Baring Road and Cliff Road. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is shallow, medium and more importantly deep seated slippage and therefore development on this site, not surprisingly, has been the subject of extensive site investigation including the laying down of deep bore holes and significantly the Council's consulting engineer has commented as follows in respect of the deep slippage issue:

"It is recognised that a deeper slip exists than has been catered for in the design of the work. However, it is demonstrated that the factor of safety on this slip has been increased albeit slightly and that the likely movement over the lifetime of the building will not lead to significant adverse effects on the building."

I cannot emphasise enough the complexity of this issue evident by the amount of time spent following Committee's decision to approve the previous proposal with that time spent in obtaining and discussing in some depth additional information and whether or not it was sufficient to enable a consent to be granted. Eventually agreement was reached to enable the decision to be issued although it was made subject of a condition requiring more site investigation stability assessments. That consent was also issued with an accompanying explanatory letter which drew attention to a general advice document prepared by the Council's consulting engineer covering all the issues relating to land which has the potential for instability within the remit of PPG14.

Members will also note that within the quoted summary of the consulting engineer (see Consultee Responses) there remains some details to be addressed, however, I am satisfied that these matters can be covered under the auspices of the Building Regulation application and therefore should not delay the issuing of a decision on this site.

From all of the above it is not surprising that this element of any development on this site represents a high cost factor and to a great extent is dictating the density of development in order to achieve viability. Whilst recognising the importance of the slope stability issue the Planning Authority need to be satisfied that other important factors have been satisfactorily considered and should not be accepting a scheme which can be deemed to be contrary to basic policies on the grounds that it is the only scheme that would be viable given the slope stability problems and costs. It is important however to state that given the general history of slippage in this area then the stability of this slope has to be questioned and therefore providing the development on the site is carried out appropriately in terms of geotechnical engineering then that development will have a stabilising effect on the slope.

Design, Density, Mass and Height

Members will note that the application has been before an Architects Panel whose criticisms of the scheme were more related to detail and have been presented to the applicants for their attention. This has resulted in design adjustments which have addressed some of the points and in other cases they have commented on why they consider the scheme should remain in its present form. I summarise these issues as follows:

The artist's impression has been corrected to more accurately reflect the proposed scheme.

In terms of roof scape to the Baring Road block applicants emphasise that dormer windows have been utilised to break up the roofline as well as providing appropriate scale. The introduction of sloping roofs at either end reduces the visual length of the roof. Without these features the applicants' architects consider that the building would appear visually larger. This apart, however, the applicants have reduced the size of the roofs over the dormers.

In terms of the introduction of hipped roofs and cropped gables applicants' architects consider that these are features found on existing surrounding buildings and therefore contend that they are in character. Applicants would not object to these elements being removed if required by the Planning Authority.

Applicants have noted the comments with regard to the side elevations but state that they have deliberately kept this treatment simple to reflect adjoining properties. This apart, however, they have provided additional features to reduce the visual massing.

In terms of the elevation of the Baring Road block which faces Cliff Road, applicants confirm that this has been the subject of detailed consideration to ensure that it visually interacts with the immediate existing neighbours and its wider context in the new townhouses proposed at Cliff Road.

Applicants have purposely introduced a variety of materials carefully used to reduce mass and scale.

Height of building has been restricted to that of its neighbour Oak Bank and unlike the neighbouring properties Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay the facade has been stepped, which reduces visual impact to those buildings adjacent. Also, reference is made to the central feature having been recessed.

Horizontal elements are incorporated within the design to counter the vertical main emphasis.

Whilst noting the Architects Panel's reference to additional earth mounding at the rear, applicants point out that this would add loadings to the slope which would be counter to the geotechnical design principles established from the outset.

With regard to the Cliff Road townhouses roof design has been amended to deepen the overhang as suggested by the Panel.

The parking provision design has been amended.

Emphasis that the inclusion of a central parapet feature provides a focal point to Cliff Road and provides a visual link to the Baring Road apartments, however, if required these features can be omitted.

Members will note from the above that the Panel's comments have either been taken on board or have been answered and therefore I consider design issues have been fully addressed.

In density terms this proposal obviously represents a considerable increase over the extant consent which replaced one unit with five units, whereas this proposal is replacing one unit with fourteen units. The density itself is 140 units per hectare which reflects the mainly flatted accommodation. Members are reminded of the policy in PPG3 which encourage efficient use of urban land to take pressures off greenfield sites. This policy is not at the expense of poor quality development or cramped development. The test will be whether or not the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationship between the proposed blocks and in relation to effect on adjoining properties and visual effect on the area in general. It will be noted that even at this high density the scheme does not trigger the need for affordable housing with the threshold being fifteen units or more.

Probably the most important issue is that relating to mass and height. Members will note that this is one of the main issues causing concern to local residents. The applicants have used as a parameter the height of the existing prominent buildings Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay to the east. In this regard they have designed the Baring Road block to continue the same height as those two buildings and whilst the width of the block reflects the width of the site the general massing is again similar to these two adjoining properties. It is important to also appreciate that the two storey stepped feature at the base of the Baring Road block will help soften the very strong vertical visual effect prevalent with those two adjacent buildings to the east. This, coupled with the use of materials, with particular reference to the horizontal banded render features, should assist in again reducing visual impact.

Obviously I accept that the Baring Road block will stand higher than the property The Spinney which was indeed the case on the extant consent. It should be remembered however that the role The Spinney plays in respect of the Baring Road street scene is that it stands at the end of a row of property and therefore acts as a transition stepping down. The development beyond The Spinney to the west is that known as Nubia Close which are flat roofed properties which tend to stand separately from the more traditional properties to the east and are in any event set back.

With regard to the mass and height of the Cliff Road terraced units this block would tend to stand on its own with the nearest properties to the west being the pair of properties which form part of the site adjacent to Alfresco. The modern design approach is therefore not considered to be inappropriate, a view largely supported by the Architects Panel. The terrace block itself has features which assist in articulating the building with the top floor being set back to help break up the visual impact. In this form I consider the proposal will provide a visual contribution to this side of Cliff Road and act as a contrast to the more traditional Victorian development on the northern side of Cliff Road which is a mixture of properties of substantial height ranging from four storey to two storey.

Arrangement of Dwellings/Environmental Impact

The slope of the site and the stability problems caused by that slope has to a large extent dictated the position and type of development. From the description the block on the southern boundary (Baring Road) will stand taller than those on the Cliff Road frontage although the Cliff Road frontage block will screen to some extent the block fronting Baring Road. This apart however, there will be an element of dominance, particularly in terms of the five storey appearance of the rear elevation on the Baring Road block but this would be no different to the dominance of Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay. The only difference with the current application is the stepped two storey projecting element which not only assists in providing greater stability but will also help to break up the dominant effect.

The principle of developing on the south side of Cliff Road has not only been established by the extant consent on this site but also past outline consent in respect of land to the north of Oak Bank and Villa Rothsay. I accept that neither of these consents have been taken up, however, they have established a principle. Obviously in terms of Villa Rothsay the stabilisation works which have recently been carried out would suggest that there is unlikely to be any intention to construct a dwelling to the north of Villa Rothsay, however, in terms of Oak Bank, obviously has the potential for a development subject to other factors being acceptable.

In terms of impact on adjoining properties, again a development of this mass and scale will always have an impact. Generally speaking the high density developments in urban areas results in a closer relationship both within the proposed development and in terms of impact on adjoining properties.

Whilst I accept the Baring Road block projects forward of and to the rear of the adjoining property Oak Bank, but these projections are marginal being two metres to the front and 1.5 metres to the rear. I do not consider that this level of projection would adversely affect that property. Similarly with regard to the adjoining property The Spinney to the west with the block essentially standing between rather than forward of these adjoining properties. Applicants have recognised the potential for overlooking in terms of the balconies and in both cases, i.e. Oak Bank and The Spinney, the end balconies have been provided with obscure glazed side screens 1.8 metres in height designed to avoid direct overlooking of those adjoining properties. Finally, the windows that have been indicated in the side elevations of this block are in the form of glass block windows and therefore of a fixed obscure type.

Highway and Parking Issues

This is another issue of great concern to local residents with their concerns being understandable. In view of these concerns the applicants have been requested to consider construction traffic management and a statement as to how the works will be carried out given the amount of piling that is necessary. It is important to appreciate however that the avoidance of disturbance would be impossible in respect of the level of building works involved in respect of this scheme. This apart, however, applicants have submitted a construction traffic methodology statement which is summarised as follows:

Contractor will be required to submit proposals to manage construction traffic to limit disruption to other users of the highway. This would be required as a pre-tender Health and Safety Plan being essential under the Construction Design Management Regulations. Such a plan will include local impact, working hours and requirement for the contractor to liaise on the on-going basis with local residents, committees and the Council for the duration of the works.

Vehicular access to the site is available from Baring Road and Cliff Road, both being public highways. Limited on-site parking off Cliff Road may be available but not for the full duration of the works and other arrangements for site operatives transport will have to be made. The site operatives will not be allowed to park on Cliff Road.

A tower crane will be erected as soon as possible to service the site. Majority of building materials will be delivered via Baring Road and handled directly onto site by this crane. Construction work will be carried out in stages as follows:

Stages 1 - 5 inclusive cover the groundworks anticipated as lasting approximately three to four months. Stage 6 covers the building construction anticipated as lasting a further twelve months.

In terms of the foundation works the five stages are described as follows:

Stage 1 - lower piling platform off Cliff Road at this stage will only require small scale earth moving equipment with limited transport of materials.

Stage 2 - Cliff Road bored pile wall. Piling equipment will be similar to that recently used on the neighbouring stabilisation works together with associated concrete and reinforced steel deliveries. Construction deliveries likely to require vehicles reversing up Cliff Road. During this operation restriction on car parking may need to be negotiated to avoid possible damage to third party vehicles. Where works take place outside the main tourist season subject to negotiations with the Council the car park at the east end of Cliff Road may be available for temporary parking of vehicles or site compound.

Stage 3 - Installation of bored piles to north of Baring Road. Baring Road proposed access route. Piling platform will extend the lay-by to sufficient width to accommodate construction equipment, deliveries of concrete, steel deliveries and small craneage operations.

Stage 4 - Bulk excavation. Both Baring Road and Cliff Road used for this stage with substantial volumes of spoil involved. Excavations will form a level area about thirteen metres wide behind back of verge to be used as temporary construction compound. Steel frame temporary loading platform will be provided behind the kerb line of Baring Road to avoid parking of vehicles on public highway during loading operations.

Stage 5 - Foundation construction. Access from both Baring Road and Cliff Road will be as for above stage which includes installation of a tower crane at Baring Road for subsequent construction operations.

In terms of the main building work for both town houses and flats primary construction access will be from Baring Road using tower crane to handle materials directly from delivery vehicles on the site. A secondary access will be required from Cliff Road but restricted to smaller items and vehicles.

In terms of parking provision, Members will note the site's location within Zone 2 of the Council's Parking Guideline Policy which requires a 0-50% provision of parking. In this case applicants have indicated a total of thirteen spaces within the lower ground car parking provision which makes allowance for parking for the disabled. That provision allows for a parking space per unit plus three visitor spaces. Such level of provision is within the maximum guidelines for Zone 1.

The single parking space per unit to the Cliff Road terraced units again is within the parking guideline of 0-50%. The arrangement itself is unusual, however, I am satisfied that the space provided is sufficient to encourage its use for parking although there are no guarantees as to how individual occupiers may use the space. Parking in Cliff Road is restricted with Cliff Road having a limited carriageway width. Therefore, I am satisfied that this space will be used for the purposes of parking a vehicle for alternative parking provision would be by necessity some distance away.

I accept that fourteen units will attract additional traffic using Cliff Road, however, the Highway Engineer has not commented on this issue and is recommending approval. I certainly would not consider that the level of traffic generated by this development would be sufficient to warrant a refusal.

Members are reminded that advice contained within Circular 11/95 (The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions) states that planning conditions are not an appropriate means of controlling the right of passage over public highways. This is on the grounds that such conditions are likely to be very difficult to enforce effectively. The circular recognises the possibility of encouraging drivers to follow preferred routes by posting site notices to that effect or by requiring them to use a particular entrance. Where there is a particular reason for controlling routes for traffic then the correct mechanism is an Order under either Section 1 or Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Applicants have revised the proposal to show a cycle parking space per flat accommodated under cover within the basement parking area.

Finally, with regard to the location of the site within Zone 2 this does trigger the need for Transport Infrastructure Payments of being in excess of ten units. Applicants acknowledge this and draft 106 Agreements are being prepared parallel with this application.

General

With regard to the suggestion that site encroaches on adjoining land, applicant has confirmed in writing that he is satisfied that he both owns and controls all the land which is the subject of the application. The Planning Authority can go no further than this for it is not the Planning Authority's function to involve itself in any land ownership disputes.

Drainage

Again, this has been the subject of a detailed report by a drainage engineer and the comments of Southern Water are self explanatory. Members will note that there are four surface water attenuation tanks to be provided located to the rear of the four town houses with these tanks attenuating surface water run-off to equate to the natural surface water run-off from the undeveloped site. Therefore, additional drainage entering the sewer will be adequately attenuated to ensure that discharge will satisfy the requirements of Southern Water. The calculations are obviously based on a worst scenario basis which dictates the size of the attenuation tanks. Maintenance of the tanks would be covered by condition with the likelihood being that the total development would be subject of a management plan administered by a management company.

Whilst I appreciate the level and extent of concerns being expressed both by local residents and the Town Council I am of the view that because of the particular ground condition problems of this site a scheme of this type in terms of density, mass, scale etc is inevitable to ensure viability, and whilst I accept this is not necessarily a planning consideration from a practical point of view it has to be taken into account. I consider the applicants in this case have kept within reasonable parameters resulting in a scheme which will have an impact on the area but not to a degree which would warrant a refusal of the application.

The comments of Robin McInnes supports the conclusions of the Council's independent geotechnical consulting engineer that the details provided represent a suitable solution in compliance with the relevant advice, particularly the advice contained in PPG14. I therefore continue to be satisfied that the Council has carried out its best endeavours to ensure safe development given the procedures which have been followed although it is important to emphasis that the responsibility for safe development will always be with the developer.

I do not consider it would be appropriate to cover by condition issues relating to supervision and ongoing maintenance and management. Such conditions would be difficult to enforce without the appropriate in-house expertise and in any event could be deemed to be unreasonable and unenforceable and would place elements of responsibility on the Council which would be contrary to the advice contained in PPG14. I would, however, suggest that such elements be covered in letter form providing advice to the applicant.

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 all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the proposals for this difficult site are satisfactory for the reasons indicated in the Evaluation section and therefore recommend accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised plans)(Subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the payment of £10,500 in respect of Transport Infrastructure Payments (14 x £750).)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1.05 metres above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Any gates to be provided shall be set back a distance of five metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The access and crossing of the footway shall be constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby approved is occupied. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Space shall be provided for the loading/unloading and parking for vehicles in accordance with the parking provision indicated on the plans hereby approved and thereafter all those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate maximum off-street parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The development 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 ten bicycles. Such provision shall be as indicated on the plans hereby approved, and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Construction of the buildings 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Submission of samples - S03
9	The banded and smooth render surfaces indicated on the development hereby approved shall be finished in a colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the elevations of the buildings hereby permitted shall not be painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all existing trees to be retained as indicated on the plans shall have been protected by fencing along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 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 trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with policies C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the details indicated on the landscape statement which accompanied the application. The agreed landscaping details shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	A management plan including long term design objectives, manager's responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscaping areas, communal parking areas, and maintenance of storage attenuation tanks shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the development or any phase of the development whichever is the sooner. Any such management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure long term maintenance of the hard and soft landscaping, parking and attenuation tanks in compliance with policies D3 (Landscaping) and U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until the 1.8 metre high obscure glazed side screens to the balconies indicated on the plans hereby approved have been erected and such screens shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	No occupation of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until the boundary treatment indicated on the plan hereby approved have been erected. Such boundary treatments shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and the adjoining residential properties in particular in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	The fixed glass block windows within the east and west facing elevations of the flat block facing Baring Road shall be retained and shall not be replaced without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to applicants advising them of the need to adhere to the Construction Traffic Methodology Statement which accompanied the application ensuring site works are carefully managed to cause least disturbance and the need to ensure that those outstanding issues raised by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer are adequately addressed within the submission of the Building Regulation application.

Applicants also be advised that all foundation works are supervised by an appropriate geotechnical engineer obviously preferably the engineer who prepared the extensive report. Also, applicants are advised to liaise with the Isle of Wight Centre for Coastal Environment to ensure good practice in terms of ongoing maintenance and management takes place and such good practice is put in hand once development has been completed.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services