PAPER C1
SCHEDULE OF APPEALS
1. NEW APPEALS LODGED
TCP/24309 Mr & Mrs Brannon, in respect of conditions imposed on planning permission for alterations and conversion of barn/garage to form one holiday unit, adjacent to Highview, Palmers Road, Wootton.
TCP/4461/G Mr L Gustar, against conditions imposed on approval of vehicular access, at 70 Cockleton Lane, Cowes.
2. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES
TCP/17048/E R F & P Osman, against refusal for alterations and conversion of storage building to form dwelling, at farm machinery building adjacent Dexter Cottage, Brambles Lane, Freshwater. Hearing to take place on 2 October 2002.
3. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS
(a) TCP/16334/Y Ms C Tirone, against refusal for proposed summer house at 241 Brambles Chine, Monks Lane, Freshwater.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 20 September 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 2 May 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The visual impact of the proposal on the wider setting.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The proposed summer house would detract from the uncluttered open plan setting.
∙ Proposal would be harmful to the established character and appearance of the park.
∙ The appellant’s current health problems do not outweigh the planning objections.
∙ Although assessed on its individual merits, it is acknowledged similar development elsewhere on the estate would cause further visual harm.
∙ Proposal is contrary to UDP policies which require new development to respect and harmonise with the appearance and distinctiveness of the area.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(b) TCP/24178 Mr & Mrs W Saunders, against refusal for two storey extension to form annexe, at Carholme, High Street, Freshwater.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 12 July 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 2 May 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The impact on the neighbouring property.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ Proposed extension would significantly reduce sunlight to the neighbouring patio/garden.
∙ Proposal would seriously affect the outlook from the kitchen and rear bedroom windows of neighbouring dwelling.
∙ Proposal is contrary to UDP policies which seek to ensure that new development is appropriate to its site and setting and does not detract from the enjoyment of neighbouring properties.
......................................................................................................................................................
(c) TCP/23145/D Mr & Mrs R Fisk, against refusal for detached house with double garage, land adjacent Berry Barn Farm, New Road, Brighstone.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 1 August 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 8 May 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal on the character of the area.
∙ The effect of the proposal in terms of scale, design and appearance on the visual amenities of the locality.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The site lies outside the development envelope of Brighstone and is a separate entity standing apart visually from other development.
∙ The loss of this site to residential development would blur the clear distinction between the developed area of the village and the surrounding countryside.
∙ The creation of a vehicular access on the site frontage and the repositioning of the existing hedgerow would emphasise the insensitivity of the scheme.
∙ There is no suggestion that a rural location is essential for the development or there will be any specific benefit to the rural economy.
∙ The proposal does not represent acceptable infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses.
∙ The proposal will be prejudicial to the rural character of the area which is emphasised by the location being within the AONB.
∙ The proposed dwelling would be an over fussy, unduly dominant building of suburban appearance, totally out of keeping with the nearby buildings of traditional design.
∙ The proposed development would not maintain or positively contribute to the environment and conflicts with policies of the UDP.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(d) TCP/23145/E Mr & Mrs R Fisk, against refusal for detached house with double garage (revised scheme), land adjacent Berry Barn Farm, New Road, Brighstone.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 18 December 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 8 May 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal on the character of the area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The site lies outside the development envelope of Brighstone and is a separate entity standing apart visually from other development.
∙ The loss of this site to residential development would blur the clear distinction between the developed area of the village and the surrounding countryside.
∙ The creation of a vehicular access on the site frontage and the repositioning of the existing hedgerow would emphasise the insensitivity of the scheme.
∙ There is no suggestion that a rural location is essential for the development or there will be any specific benefit to the rural economy.
∙ The proposal does not represent acceptable infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses.
∙ The proposal would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area which is emphasised by the location being within the AONB and conflicts with policies of the UDP.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(e) TCP/2584/T Mr C A G Whittle, against removal of condition which restricts occupation of holiday units to periods not exceeding 6-weeks
in any rolling year, at Barney’s Roadhouse, Military Road, Brighstone.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 4 September 2001.
Appeal Decision: Allowed - subject to replacement condition - 10 May 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether the disputed condition was reasonably imposed taking into account the relevant policies of the UDP.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The appellant has made it clear he does not seek to have condition removed in its entirety.
∙ The policies referred to by the Council contain no reference to the need to impose conditions of the type contained on the planning permission for this development.
∙ There is no support in Circular 11/95 for a restriction of the type imposed by the Council.
∙ It would be difficult for the Council to enforce the disputed condition as intrusive checks throughout the year of duration of occupancy would be necessary.
∙ In view of the existence in the leasehold of a clause precluding the use of the units for permanent occupation, the condition is unreasonable and unduly restrictive.
∙ The units of accommodation are of a standard suitable for all round occupation and a condition limiting the use to holiday purposes only and precluding their use as permanent or main residences would be justified.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(f) TCP/23674/A Mr N Howell, against refusal for use of approved ancillary accommodation as a holiday let, at River Cottage, Station Road, Yarmouth.
Officer Recommendation: Approval.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 16 October 2001.
Appeal Decision: Allowed - 13 May 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The suitability of the building for use as holiday accommodation having regard to local and national planning policies.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ Because of problems with vehicular access, parking, privacy and proximity and relationship of unit to River Cottage, it would be unacceptable to use the summer house as a separate permanent dwelling.
∙ Lesser standards are acceptable for short holiday periods and in accordance with UDP and PPG21.
∙ With appropriate conditions, the use of the summer house could be permitted as holiday accommodation.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(g) TCP/20893/D Mr D Hermiston-Hooper, against refusal for three storey detached house and vehicular access, at land adjacent 5 Barge Lane, Wootton.
Officer Recommendation: Approval.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 26 October 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 14 May 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The visual impact of the proposal in relation to neighbouring properties and the character and appearance of the locality.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The proposal would have a far more pronounced vertical emphasis than that presented by the dwellings to either side.
∙ The increased visual impact would be such as to cause the proposed dwelling to look noticeably out of place and out of scale with existing development.
∙ Proposal would be intrusive in the street scene and at odds with the character of the area.
∙ The proposal would conflict with the intentions of Policy D1 of the UDP.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(h) TCP/6438/E Mrs S Robinson, against refusal for retention of vehicular access, at Former Dairy, South Street, Yarmouth.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 25 May 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 16 May 2001.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether the retention of the existing access, enabling off-street parking, would be harmful to the prevailing character of the Conservation Area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The area close to the appeal site is characterised by close knit development.
∙ The absence of on-site parking contributes significantly to the character and appearance of both South Street and High Street and to the Conservation Area.
∙ An integral part of the scheme which permitted the development of the former dairy site was for the vehicular access to be closed and replaced by a wall.
∙ The retention of the vehicular access and car parking facility removes one of the fundamental benefits of the approved scheme.
∙ Virtually all of the intended front amenity space to The Dairy is taken up with parking and this is not only incongruous in the street scene but also intrusive to the outlook of adjoining residents.
∙ The retention of the vehicular access causes serious harm to the intrinsic quality of the area and is in conflict with UDP policies.
..........................................................................................................................................................
Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.