PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

WEDNESDAY 5 JUNE 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

                                                                 WARNING

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

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

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

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

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

Background Papers

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

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

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

LIST OF PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 5 JUNE 2002

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

www.iow.gov.uk/council/committees/developmentcontrol/5-6-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 5 JUNE 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 5 JUNE 2002

(f)       TCP/22128A           Land north Mountbatten Drive                            NEWPORT

(g)      TCP/24799              Part os parcel 0077, Station Road                     SHALFLEET 

PART II

Site and Location

Application relates to Niton Garage and land to rear, located on western side of Newport Road approximately 125 metres north of its junction with Church Street and Rectory Road. Site comprises commercial garage premises and adjoining land which presently forms part of curtilage to bungalow to rear of garage.

Application site, as defined on submitted plans, has frontage to Newport Road of approximately 30 metres and maximum depth of approximately 140 metres. Site varies in width between approximately 15 metres at its narrowest to 32 metres at its widest point and is bounded to north east by gardens to properties fronting Newport Road, to north west by open fields and to south west by Downside Avenue which runs virtually full length of boundary to site. Ground falls gently towards Newport Road.

Relevant History

An application seeking outline planning permission for three dwellings with access off Downside Avenue was refused in July 1979 on grounds that site, by reason of its restricted depth was unsuitable for the development proposed and would result in cramped appearance out of character with other development in the locality, resulting in overdevelopment.

Application seeking outline planning permission for two dwellings with access off Downside Avenue was conditionally approved in July 1986.

These applications involved areas of land equating to approximately one half and one third respectively of the area the subject of the current application, located towards rear of site.

Details of Application

Original submission sought outline planning permission for 15 houses with siting and access to be considered at this stage and all other detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval. Submitted plans showed majority of proposed dwellings, comprising both semi-detached and detached units, running along south western boundary of site, flanked on one side by Downside Avenue and to the other by the proposed access road serving the development, with four further dwellings arranged around turning area at north western end of site. Proposal involved demolition of the garage premises and the bungalow to the rear. Submitted plans indicated that each dwelling would have parking for at least one car. Revised plans were subsequently submitted showing slight alterations to layout of dwellings, increasing number along south western side of site and rearranging those around the turning area at north western end of site.

Following discussions with applicant's agent, scheme was significantly revised and further plans submitted showing alterations to the layout and the type of dwellings to be provided. Revised plans showed total of 14 dwellings comprising pair of semi-detached properties fronting Newport Road and terrace of three dwellings with car parking at south eastern end of site, retention of existing bungalow and terraced/mews style development of nine dwellings at north western end of site. In addition, submitted plans show two structures located adjacent south western boundary providing covered parking for ten vehicles. Furthermore, plans indicate that off street parking would be provided, accessed off road within the development, to serve three existing properties which front Newport Road.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

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

TR6 - Cycling and Walking.

TR7 - Highway Consideration for New Development.

The survey work undertaken in connection with the Urban Capacity Study identifies the site as having potential for development.

Representations

In their initial comments Niton and Whitwell Parish Council expressed view that this was an important application in terms of the size of the village and recommended that a site inspection should take place. Following revision of the scheme and further consultations with the Parish

Council, further comments have been received from them recommending refusal to application on grounds of overdevelopment of site and effects of off-street parking on the surrounding area.

Highway Engineer has been involved in considerable discussions regarding this scheme, and following initial opposition on highway design and safety grounds, has agreed that the revised scheme now put forward for determination is acceptable to him, providing conditions are imposed, including a "grampian" condition requiring the provision of a dedicated footway within highway land between the site and Niton village centre.

Council's Assistant Ecology Officer has visited site and has found evidence of badgers entering the site. She advises that there is a worn track about halfway along the rear boundary and the grassed areas would provide a suitable foraging habitat. However, she advised that the site itself does not appear to be suitable for a sett and no sett was obvious in the field behind the garage. It is the sett which is protected from disturbance, not foraging areas, and she did not think that level of activity observed was likely to create a problem for development of the site. With regard to the other species referred to by objectors, she advises that slow-worms are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and if approval is recommended, it should be subject to a condition requiring the removal of the slow-worms from the site to a suitable habitat elsewhere prior to work commencing on site. She does not consider site provides suitable habitat for Great Crested Newts.

Principal Environmental Health Officer and Contaminated Land Officer have recommended conditions, should application be approved, to deal with potential contamination of the site.

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service consider proposal to be satisfactory subject to decommissioning of existing petrol filling station in compliance with the current requirements of Health and Safety Executives and Fire and Rescue Service. He indicates that written notification is required before any such works commence.

Total of 26 letters were received from local residents (some households submitting more than one letter) in respect of original submission and first minor revision to scheme, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Loss of privacy - provision of fewer houses or bungalows may be possibility.

Increased traffic generation - potential hazard to pedestrians particularly children due to lack of pavement in area. View was expressed that garage does not generate significant levels of traffic.

Site is used by badgers. In addition, other wildlife including foxes, weasels, stoats, bats, barn owls, sparrow hawks, woodpeckers, frogs, newts, slow worms, pheasants and other birds are present in the area. Development would have adverse impact on wildlife.

Development would detract from outlook of adjacent properties.

Proposal is contrary to policy of maintaining greenbelt land within a rural area.

Development would be threat to safety of cattle in adjacent fields.

Site is accessed off busy public highway of inadequate width and with very limited visibility.

Downside Avenue adjacent site is private road which should remain so.

High density development out of keeping with character of village and will detract from rural character of area.

Development of site should reflect other developments which took place in village during 60's, 70's and 80's.

Access road is of inadequate width.

Garden area to properties are almost non-existent.

Development would adversely effect already poor visibility at junction of Downside Avenue and Newport Road.

Parking and turning areas on development are minimal likely to lead to on-street parking in adjacent roads.

Overdevelopment.

Loss of local amenity within village i.e. the garage.

No indication of type of boundary treatment to be provided between site and Downside Avenue.

One objector indicated no objection to principle of residential development on site and, having regard to unattractive appearance of garage premises, development could improve appearance of site. Concern was also expressed by one objector that only one household in Downside Avenue was notified about proposal giving little opportunity for people to comment.

Letter was received from adjacent property owner advising no objection to development of site if it is done in an imaginative way and in a style that reflects character of area and comments that access road should be positioned so as not to prejudice future development of adjoining garden areas.

Following receipt of further plans, revised scheme was publicised in local press and by display of a site notice and adjoining owner/occupiers and those who had submitted representations were notified accordingly. As a result of this exercise, a further eight letters were received objecting to proposal raising additional issues as follows:

Facilities in village e.g. shop are not sufficient to service extra families.

There are many empty and second homes in area - no need for further building.

Covered parking and higher fencing will detract from outlook of adjacent property.

Lower number of single storey buildings would blend with area better - current proposal seems to be heading towards Housing Association type development.

Houses would be unsightly and overbearing due to rising ground.

Development would lead to increase in foul and surface water drainage. In heavy rain flooding already occurs at crossroads at bottom of Newport Road.

In addition, following publicity of revised scheme, three letters were received in support of proposal raising following issues:

Proposal will improve an architecturally ugly part of an attractive village.

Proposal will encourage new residents in the village and contribute to life of its community.

Site is close to village and will not encroach onto surrounding agricultural land.

Design has taken account of possible dangers that could occur.

Removal of garage premises will result in reduction of traffic, particularly lorries, delivery vans etc.

Evaluation

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

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

Original proposal involving row of houses flanked by access road to the development on one side and Downside Avenue to the other was considered to be unacceptable, resulting in a poor arrangement likely to prejudice the amenities of future occupants of the dwellings. I would agree with the view expressed by the Highway Engineer in his initial comments that the most logical way of developing this site would involve properties fronting onto and with access from Downside Avenue. Therefore, applicant's agent was advised to investigate feasibility of such a proposal. However, Downside Avenue is a private road and I am advised by the applicant's agent that, despite lengthy negotiations and discussions with residents, he has been unable to reach agreement with them over use of Downside Avenue to access the development. Nevertheless, this would not provide justification for allowing development which is of sub-standard or poor layout. Therefore, further negotiations were undertaken with applicant's agent to overcome the planning objections to the proposal, namely the poor layout of the development and to address the concerns of the Highway Engineer.

Further plans were subsequently submitted showing a revised layout for 14 dwellings incorporating semi-detached and terraced properties. Objectors have suggested that site could be developed with a smaller number of single storey dwellings or should be similar to development which took place in the village during the 60's, 70's and 80's. However, I consider that, subject to appropriate design and elevational treatment, the development of the site in the form shown on the revised plans would reflect the more traditional cottage architecture found within the village. Furthermore, if full advantage is taken of the fall of the land, the dwellings, and particularly those to the north western end of the site, could be stepped to create an interesting design and appearance. In this respect, Policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan seeks to ensure that development maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment and planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and conform with the criteria set out in the policy, including respecting the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area. In this instance, I consider that proposal provides opportunity to develop site in a fashion which would be complimentary to and sympathetic with the surrounding development providing a sense of place.

With regard to highway considerations, revised scheme incorporates layout and, in particular, visibility and road geometry at junction of access road and Newport Road which are acceptable to the Highway Engineer. Furthermore, following submission of additional information in respect of levels through access road, he is satisfied that acceptable gradients can be achieved.

It is accepted that Newport Road is relatively narrow and, whilst some lengths of footway have been constructed by the Council, at present, there is no continuous footway link between the application site and the centre of the village. Provision of such a facility would involve areas of land outside the control of the applicant. However, submitted plans indicate that a footway would be provided across the entire frontage of the application site. I consider that provision of footway across frontage of application site would improve visibility from junction of Downside Avenue and Newport Road in a northerly direction thereby benefitting existing residents. Existing footway to south of site, beyond junction of Downside Avenue and Newport Road, continues along western side of road for a distance of approximately 40 metres before terminating. Section of highway having distance of approximately 45 metres from this point to the existing pavement outside retail premises on corner of Newport Road and Rectory Road has no footway. Following site meeting attended by applicant's agent and Highway Engineer, it has been established that continuous footway link could be provided by creating a pinch point/safe haven at point where pavement on western side of road terminates, providing a crossing point to opposite side of road where a pedestrian area would be marked out along the eastern side of the carriageway. I am satisfied that provision of this facility would achieve a significant community benefit and can be secured by imposition of condition recommended by Highway Engineer, should Members be minded to approve the application.

In terms of impact on neighbouring occupiers, I consider that any overlooking and loss of privacy from the development can be kept to minimum with careful consideration regarding positioning of windows within dwellings. In this respect, direct overlooking of properties to north of site is likely to be restricted to area of garden furthest from the dwellings and I do not consider that this would provide a sustainable reason for refusal. Similarly, amenities of property immediately adjacent site within Downside Avenue could be protected with appropriate boundary treatment and, again, careful positioning of windows within nearest dwelling.

Concern has been expressed that proposal would result in loss of valuable facility to the village, namely the garage premises. In this respect, it is understood that owner of garage has now ceased to sell petrol and premises are used solely for servicing/repair of vehicles. These services are also provided by garage premises to south of village, at bottom of Barrack Shute. Therefore, I do not consider that refusal on grounds of loss of the garage facilities would be justified. It has also been suggested that existing facilities within the village, e.g. village shop, are inadequate to cater for additional housing. However, it could be argued that provision of additional housing would provide additional trade for these facilities thereby improving their viability or enabling existing businesses to expand.

Following consultations with the Council's Assistant Ecology Officer, I am satisfied that development will not have adverse impact on wildlife within the area, and in particular, protected species such as badgers. Following these consultations, it is understood that there is no badger sett within or near the site and whilst it may be used for foraging, this would not preclude development. Furthermore, I am satisfied that characteristics of site are such that it would not support a wide diversity of wildlife or that which is present would necessarily prevent development.

Applicants agent has provided letter from engineers dealing with issue of foul and surface water drainage. The engineers advise that they have carried out a preliminary assessment of the drainage requirements of the proposed development and have also requested that Southern Water carry out a hydraulic analysis of the existing sewerage system so that the down-flow section of the Newport Road and Rectory Road drainage system, which comprises a 175 mm diameter pipe with significant falls due to the topography of the area, can be confirmed as being sufficient in capacity to accept flows from the development. Notwithstanding this exercise, they

express the view that the increase in flow arising from the development will be low in relation to the overall flows currently catered for by the existing system and it is unlikely that it would be found to be inadequate.

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

Application was publicised in the local press and by display of a site notice, and owners of properties which adjoin the site were notified of application in writing. Exercise was repeated on submission of the revised plans and also letters sent to all those who had made representations in respect of proposal. Therefore, I am satisfied that adequate publicity measures have been carried out in respect of this application and in particular that the regulations for publicity of planning applications have been complied with.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that proposal represents an acceptable form of development, which would reflect the more traditional cottage architecture found within the village and, therefore, would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the locality. Furthermore, I do not consider that proposal would have excessive or adverse impact on adjoining properties to detriment of amenities enjoyed by occupiers thereof. I am satisfied that, subject to implementation of off-site works to provide a continuous footway link between the site and centre of village, Highway Engineer's concerns have been addressed.

       Recommendation -     Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Members will recall that this application was considered at the meeting held on 14 May 2002 when a decision was deferred in order to allow further opportunity for applicant to reconsider issue of provision of increased ground floor retail floor space to accord with relevant policy of the Unitary Development Plan.

Subsequent letter received from agent addressing issue of retail provision is attached as an appendix to this report.

Site and Location

Application relates to a recently cleared site situated on south western side of York Avenue which has benefit of small return frontage onto Marsh Road which is a small cul-de-sac running parallel to former highway.

Relevant History

In respect of larger site including corner property number 23 Castle Street planning consent granted in 1989 for conversion and extension to existing shop and flat to provide retail at ground floor level with eight flats above. This consent was renewed in 1993 and again in 1998.

More recently consent granted for conversion and extension to existing shop and flats to provide retail at ground floor with eight flats, granted consent in November 1998.

Details of Application

Application seeks consent to construct three-storey property on this cleared site having L-shaped footprint.

Development which would link corner property number 23 Castle Street with adjacent development in York Avenue provides retail unit and two 2-bedroom flatted units. Four further two bedded flat units are shown on first and second floors.

In design terms brick building would present first and second floor bay window features and balconies with pedestrian access gained to upper floors via rear staircase. No off-street parking is incorporated within current proposal.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Site located within town centre boundary and also identified as retail only frontage within adopted Development Plan.

Policy R1 seeks to ensure that planning applications that protect and maintain and/or enhance retail function of defined town centres as a whole are approved.

Policy R5 deals with retail only frontages and advises that planning applications within such areas will be approved if the development proposed is a Retail A1 Use on the ground floor. Applications for A2 and A3 Uses will only be approved where specific criteria are met.

Representations

East Cowes Parish Council comment that shop floor area is not to be reduced and that development should only be approved on condition that shop remains on site and not removed at a later date.

East Cowes Business Association refer to previous consents on this site and have been advised accordingly of relevant consents.

Sixteen standardised letters have been received objecting to proposal on grounds that as the Development Plan designates York Avenue as retail only frontage whole of ground floor should be retained in retail use. Revised plan shows shop unit of just over two metres wide and doubt is cast over viability of such retail unit and adequacy to run business therefrom. Recent developments in East Cowes have seriously undermined integrity of retail use only area and any further changes of use would have detrimental effect on character and vitality of town centre. Writers state they wish to save town and shops.

One further letter has been received objecting to proposal again on Development Plan policy and relative size of proposed retail unit. Writer refers to recent developments in York Avenue where small retail units are proposed which is claimed will either be unusable or are clear contravention of Development Plan.

Comments of Environment Agency are awaited.

Letter received from adjoining owner raising no objection provided replacement dormer window is constructed in his property.

Evaluation

Considerations relate to both central Government guidance in respect of retail development and adopted Development Plan policy of Local Authority. Other issues relate to highway matters and any comments from Environment Agency concerning flood risk.

Advice contained within PPG6 "Town Centre and Retail Developments" advises that Development Plans should provide sites with different types of retail developments and applications for non-retail use of these sites should not normally be permitted. In same document with regards to mixed use development advice suggests that in order to avoid areas of town centre losing vitality due to large single use developments Planning Authorities should promote mixed use development to provide additional housing and create lively street frontages. To encourage such developments Authority should take flexible approach to residential and car parking and other standards.

Adopted Development Plan policy shows the majority of site within retail only frontage where policy R5 applies. Policy seeks to retain Retail A1 Use with alternative A2/A3 Uses in appropriate circumstances. Policy also advises applications which would create dead frontage or otherwise not contribute to character and vitality of shopping area will be refused.

Local Planning Authority has maintained consistent approach in dealing with applications in York Avenue against background of need to retain retail uses at ground floor level in identified shopping centres and recent decisions have been consistent with this aim. Sites on opposite side of York Avenue planning consents have been granted for developments incorporating retail floor space at ground floor level, and on additional site opposite application site Members may recall that outline consent was granted for seven dwellings and a tourist information office subject to conditions requiring shop front window displays whilst allowing development of this site incorporating shop, office and residential use at ground floor level. A point should also be made that housing provision represented affordable housing element in respect of Old Road

development site and therefore was given appropriate weight in the light of guidance contained within circular on affordable housing. This use of site was considered acceptable and in line with central Government advice.

With regards to site under consideration it is important to note that planning consent was granted in March 1999 for conversion and extension to existing shop and flat to provide two retail units and twelve flats above. This site included property at corner of York Avenue and Castle Street (number 23). Approved scheme involved retention of existing retail units at ground floor level and introduction of infill residential accommodation to replace the existing ancillary storage building. Whilst that proposal did introduce non-retail use at ground floor level the extent of existing retail frontage remained unaffected. Whilst potential for additional retail floor space is lost, scheme retained existing retail element.

Whilst not including number 23 current application is very similar to 1999 approval. Main change to scheme is that proposal involves three-storey development across entire York Avenue frontage and incorporates external changes to the design of the building.

In the light of the extant planning consent on this site there is no reasonable objection to current proposal. Bearing in mind previous approved scheme, whilst proposal is contrary to policy R5 mixed development of this nature complies with guidance in the relevant Planning Policy Guidance Notes in helping to revitalise locality, bringing buildings into active use on a site which has to a large extent laid dormant for many years. Proposal does not increase extent of non-retail frontage from that previously existing and therefore Members may consider opportunity should be taken to approve scheme which reinstates partial retail use of this site at ground floor level. Mass, scale and design of proposal is in other respects similar to extant approval on this site.

Proposal complies with zonal parking policy which does allow for no off-street parking in this locality.

Letter from agent is attached as appendix to this report. Briefly, in support of application agent refers to existing extant planning consent on this site which relates to residential accommodation built above one small retail unit. Writer also refers to lack of demand for retail floor space in locality and current application seeks to provide six higher standard residential units for local people and if refused consent his client will proceed with approved scheme for smaller residential units and single retail unit. Copy letters are also attached received from property consultants who confirm there is little or no demand for commercial retail units located along lower end of York Avenue.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that proposal represents acceptable form of mixed development on this site reinstating previous retail unit at ground floor level thereby helping to protect vitality of town centre outweighing other policy considerations in this instance. I therefore recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

The building known as Lisle Barn comprises a detached stone built barn situated in the open countryside on the eastern side of the road leading from Chale to Chillerton, approximately 150 metres north of the dwelling known as Chillerton Farmhouse and to the north east of the barns forming part of Chillerton Farm complex. The barn itself is situated alongside the highway with an area of flat ground to the east rising to open fields which surround the building. There is a vehicular access to the south of the barn and the roadside bank has recently been regraded to improve visibility with new planting to provide screening.

Relevant History

A previous application for alterations and conversion of the building to form a dwelling was refused in May 2000. The reasons for refusal were that insufficient information had been submitted to show that every reasonable attempt had been made to secure employment, recreational or tourism use of the building and the residential use proposed would therefore be contrary to Policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan. Additional reasons related to the proposed alterations to the building which were considered to be detrimental to its character and appearance and would not serve to preserve a building of architectural or historic importance and the proposal by reason of the introduction of a residential curtilage and domestic paraphernalia would be detrimental to the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to requirements of Policy C2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

A subsequent application for alterations and conversion of the barn to form holiday accommodation was approved in January 2001 and was subject to conditions restricting the use to holiday accommodation only and other conditions relating to use of materials, landscaping, vehicular access etc. This has not been implemented.

Details of Application

The application now under consideration is for alterations and conversion of the former barn to form permanent living accommodation comprising living room, dining room, kitchen and ancillary accommodation at ground floor level with five bedrooms and two bathrooms at first floor level contained partially within the roof space. The submitted details indicate that existing door and window openings would generally be reused with three new conservation type roof lights in the rear facing roof slope. The overall alterations to the building would be similar to those which were previously approved showing conversion of the building for holiday purposes.

The applicants have also provided information regarding improvements to the vehicular access and visibility including substantial landscaping and planting along the roadside boundary and elsewhere on the site.

The application is also supported by a structural engineer's report indicating that the building is in good structural condition and is capable of conversion without major reconstruction, although some remedial works and strengthening may be required.

Additional background information has been provided showing that the building has been marketed for tourism use for a period of approximately 6-months at a period when the market

was buoyant with an independent valuation and surveyor's report. The applicant has also

discussed his proposals direct with the Isle of Wight Tourism Officer and has provided a comprehensive valuation report from a chartered surveyor.

The applicant has also contacted the owners of other converted holiday units on the Island and the responses confirm that average occupancy for self-catering cottages and houses is 49%.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

The site is situated within open countryside outside any development envelope and is within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The following policies in the Unitary Development Plan are considered applicable to the application;

Policy C2 relates to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty indicating that proposals would only be allowed where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

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

Policy H9 relates to Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries and indicates that this will only be permitted where it is for replacement of existing dwelling or an essential dwelling for agricultural units of appropriate size for a farming operation where a functional need is proven, or for the conversion of a Listed or historic building provided no other alternative use is feasible. Policy may also allow residential developments if they are essential for the operation of an approved tourism use or for a specific locally affordable housing scheme, or if they comprise an acceptable infilling in an otherwise built up frontage.

Government advice is contained in PPG7 and Annex G refers to reuse and adaption of rural buildings. This indicates that the primary consideration should be whether the nature and extent of the new use for the building is acceptable in planning terms and also indicates that whilst a residential conversion has a minimal impact on the rural economy, conversions for holiday use can contribute more and may reduce pressure to use other houses in the area for holiday use. Paragraph 3.14 indicates that reuse and adaption of existing rural buildings has an important role in meeting the needs of rural areas for commercial and industrial development as well as for tourism, sport and recreation. It can reduce demands for new building in the countryside, avoid leaving an existing building vacant and prone to vandalism and dereliction and provide jobs. Especially in areas where the creation of local employment is a priority, Authorities may include policies which do not allow residential reuse unless the applicant has made every reasonable attempt to secure suitable business reuse and the application is supported by a statement of the efforts which have been made, or the residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for business reuse.

Representations

Parish Council have confirmed support for application.

Comment received from AONB Officer who notes planning history of site and evidence submitted in support of application. The owners of the site have received funding through the Landscape Improvement Grant administered by the AONB Unit which has funded replanting and restoration of hedgerows on the site and will help stabilise the bank and reduce the risk of runoff onto the highway which has historically been a problem in the area. The design for the proposed application is supported which will secure the future of the barn which is of architectural merit and a feature of the area.

Highway Engineer confirms similar requirements as previous application.

Concern is expressed regarding possible precedents which may be set as an approval to convert for residential use and it is suggested that a true measure of the viability of the site for self-catering tourist accommodation could only be gauged by carrying out the conversion and actively marketing the completed development. It is however appreciated that this would be an economic risk and it is noted that former barns on the adjacent site do have consent to convert for residential use. Isolation and lack of local facilities are cited as strong reasons for the unsuitable nature of the site for the tourism sector. Isolation brings with it space, quiet and direct access to the countryside and the barn is situated with good access to public rights of way network on the Island and is within the designated AONB.

These factors would exist whether the conversion is for residential use or tourism accommodation and could equally be argued for or against each case. Use of rural buildings for tourism purposes can act to regenerate the rural economy and revitalise villages and rural communities. It is urged that the Authority seek further evidence that the site is not economically viable for tourism use but it is understood that this may be difficult and there comes a point when the decision has to be made one way or the other.

Whilst the principle of the application is opposed on policy grounds it is appreciated that there is a need for a flexible approach to this. The long term future of historic redundant agricultural buildings as landscape features is vital and should be encouraged and wherever possible this should be tied to rural regeneration and sustainability.

A letter received from Island Watch objecting to application for conversion of the barn to a dwelling which does not conform with the Unitary Development Plan requirements and makes no economic contribution to the rural area.

Comment received from Isle of Wight Tourism indicating that their responsibility is to support the provision of quality visitor accommodation to service the needs of today’s and future businesses. Therefore policy would be to support the planning argument and resist conversion of such buildings into private permanent residential accommodation. However, this is unlikely to be the only consideration in this matter and it is always important to take into account other factors.

Evaluation

This application relates to a disused barn situated within open countryside and well outside any defined development envelope and the proposed conversion must be considered under the terms of Policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan.

There is a significant history relating to this building including previous refusal for conversion for residential use and an approval for conversion of the building for tourism purposes. The current applicants have marketed the building for the approved tourism use and also for other business uses and have provided surveyors reports regarding the viability of the previously approved conversion for tourism purposes which appears to indicate that the economic returns for tourism purposes would not be viable related to the costs of conversion and maintenance of the building. These reports have been considered by the Property Services Manager who has commented on the various issues as follows;

Viability

"The cost of converting this building would be approximately £125,000. This includes all services but excludes a garage and also excludes any allowance for the value of the land. The balance of potential income from lettings against debt charges, running costs and management costs and profit indicate that the scheme would produce a negative return and is therefore not financially viable for holiday letting. In terms of other commercial tourism use the location is inappropriate and other industrial use or agricultural contracting use together with lack of demand would not justify the investment without some form of grant."

Marketing

"The exercise was carried out at a time when the property market was buoyant. Although there was an initial downturn in confidence after the 11 September 2001, the market did re-establish itself quickly and has remained stable since. The marketing undertaken was certainly sufficient to test the market and I recall seeing the advertisement at the time. The details provided are correct."

Valuation

"In terms of valuation I believe the main question is the asking price of £90,000 when the property was marketed. It is understood that the price was the same or close to the price paid for the property by the applicant. This has to be the applicant's decision as it puts him at risk if consent is not granted for change of use. The former owner may have pursued the same case but clearly has chosen not to and has released the property from his holdings. A price which would be similar to a building plot of this size in this location. If the application is approved the value of the site will improve by some £20,000 to £30,000 but this is no different to the improved value that accrues as a result of most consents in respect of residential proposals."

The overall design and alterations to the building are considered to be acceptable and would respect the character and appearance of the existing building and its rural setting. The changes to the building are similar to those which were previously approved for holiday use and the applicants have undertaken a substantial planting and landscaping scheme in conjunction with the AONB Section and the Forestry Commission. Conversion for residential use could result in the introduction of domestic paraphernalia and clutter but there is an area to the rear of the barn which is well screened and I am therefore of the opinion that these matters could be controlled by suitable conditions if the application is approved.

Members will note from the submitted details that the applicants have carried out a marketing exercise and have provided substantial support and evidence to indicate that the approved use of the building for tourism purposes would not be viable. They also refer to a similar situation relating to the former farm buildings nearby at Chillerton Farm which were also marketed for tourism and industrial purposes and subsequently approved for permanent residential use.

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

In this case, although the building is not Listed, it is a traditional structure with stone and brick elevations and is a prominent feature in the landscape and forms an integral part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It also relates visually and historically to the nearby farm buildings associated with Chillerton Farm and I therefore consider the building to be worthy of retention as a historic feature.

The determining factor is therefore considered to be whether the last resort situation has been reached whereby no alternative uses can be found for the building which would help to diversify the rural economy and provide local employment. In this context, neither advice in PPG7 or UDP Policy C17 identifies the precise nature of the evidence required to prove that no alternative uses would be viable. The applicant has however provided substantial evidence from professional valuers and has carried out a marketing exercise which does appear to conclude that the approved use for tourism purposes would not be viable in the current situation. Information has also been provided from owners of similar properties indicating that the isolated rural location would be an impediment to use of the building for tourism or business purposes.

This information must be balanced against the concerns of Isle of Wight Tourism and the interpretation of Policy C17, particularly bearing in mind that there are a number of rural buildings on the Island which have approvals for tourism use which do appear to be viable.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that on balance the weight of evidence submitted would indicate that the circumstances of this particular barn, bearing in mind its size, condition and location means that it is unlikely that a viable tourism or business use could be found for the building in the present circumstances. The building is an attractive traditional structure situated in a prominent location within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and it is therefore considered important that a suitable use is found in order to restore and retain the building as a feature in the countryside. On balance I therefore consider that the proposed residential use of the building would be the only viable way of achieving the above aims in this case and therefore consider that the proposals are in accordance with the requirements of Policy C17 in that every reasonable attempt has been made to find alternative uses for the building and residential conversion would therefore be acceptable as a last resort. I therefore recommend the application is approved, subject to a 3-year time limit to ensure that the condition of the building does not deteriorate before the conversion is carried out.

               Recommendation -   Approval (Subject to standard covering letter on barn                                                         conversions)

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

Representations

Brighstone Parish Council object to the application on the basis that there is insufficient detail on the plans to evaluate the size of the conservatory and that the applicant should have sought permission for the conservatory prior to constructing it.

Two letters of objection received commenting on the fact that the conservatory was already constructed prior to applying for planning permission.

Evaluation

The proposal involves the retention of a conservatory. The Farm is a stone clad bungalow for which planning permission was granted in 1964 and is subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. A further application TCP/08146/P for the continued use of the land for the keeping of horses, animal sanctuary and the grazing of stock; variation of condition to permit agricultural purposes together with the keeping of horses and the running of an animal sanctuary, is currently under consideration.

The conservatory has a footprint of 11 square metres and a volume of approximately 35 square metres. Planning permission is necessary for the conservatory on account of the presence of a chalet within the curtilage of the property. The volume of these two buildings exceeds the 50 cubic metres which is allowed without the need for planning permission in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The conservatory is situated on the southern elevation of the property within the rear garden. The eastern boundary consists of a low post and rail fence, however views from Moor Lane to the east are limited being screened by hedges and trees. The property and conservatory are well screened when viewed on approach to the property from Gaggerhill Lane.

UDP Policy D1 'standards of design' seeks to ensure that appropriate design standards are applied to new development and in my opinion, the design of the proposal meets the standards required to accord with that policy.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, it is considered that given the size and position of the conservatory and the level of screening around the site, the proposal is consistent with policy D1 and its approval would not prejudice application TCP/08146/P.

               Recommendation - Approval

Representations

Highway Engineer initially made no formal comment. Has further visited site to address concerns and potential conflict with the existing bus services within Ashey Road and raises no objection. He confirms that the existing use of the shop means that vehicular movements to the site take place throughout the day whereas the proposed use would mean limited periods of trading. It is also likely that the majority of trade that the proposed chip shop generates would be derived from the surrounding residential area and would not significantly increase vehicular traffic to the site. Also confirmed that the Traffic Department agree that any standing vehicle problem caused by the change of use is unlikely to be worse than that arising from general retail use.

Highways are concerned that the reference to Policy TR7 in the draft reason for refusal may be difficult to justify in an appeal.

Environmental Health states that unconditional approval of this application may cause disamenity to occupiers of neighbouring residential properties from noise, fumes and odour. Initially the application contained insufficient information to properly assess these environmental implications.

Further information has been provided by the applicant and further comment received from Environmental Health. Having reviewed information relating to kitchen extraction equipment, hours of use, and delivery times, in order to protect the amenities of neighbouring residential properties Environmental Health section recommends conditions if application approved.

Building Control Officer confirms Building Regulations not required for change of use from shop to A3 unless structural alterations, new drainage, or material alterations are carried out which adversely affect the means of escape in case of fire.

Southern Vectis opinion is the possibility of increased parking with subsequent potential obstruction to the highway on what is a registered local bus route and ask that should permission be granted, these implications be considered and addressed as appropriate.

A petition has been received from nine residents of Leighwood Close objecting on grounds of parking, highway safety, litter nuisance and health hazard, not in keeping with residential area.

Forty two letters of objection from thirty three households (some residents written under separate cover to local Member who has forwarded letters to file) raising objection on following grounds:

Inappropriate use in out of town residential area, detrimental to character of neighbourhood, insufficient local demand, devalue properties.

Highway safety - fast flowing busy road, no parking provision, proximity to junior school, no pavement to north of site, increased traffic volume and accidents, pedestrian safety. Proximity to existing two bus stops, limited forecourt, parking on road reducing traffic to one lane, encouraging standing traffic on the highway.

Proximity of extractor duct to residential properties causing smell, noise nuisance and health hazard.

Lack of street lighting.

Increased litter, noise, vandalism, social nuisance attracting meeting place for youngsters outside CCTV area, and late night disturbance.

Increased fire risk due to neighbouring 4" party wall, noise from operation.

Disagree with residents within immediate vicinity demonstrated high degree of support.

Strain on existing drainage system.

Concern that drawings submitted do not reflect semi-detached nature of property.

Increased rodents.

Too near to Ryde to serve town but not far enough away for it to be an area that hasn't own separate identity. Other similar ventures have struggled and closed.

Agents letter hopes the Local Planning Authority will treat application sympathetically bearing in mind support of local people, applicants track record in operating Cowes establishment and generation of employment which will result in five part time and one full time member of staff in what is presently a vacant shop which has been offered for sale for many months without success.

Six letters of support were submitted with the application from residents in Cowes who live in close proximity to existing chip shop in Victoria Road. Letters state that writers live in the vicinity of chip shop which is of high standard of quality and is clean and well run. The shop is set within a purely residential area and serves the local community. Letters state they have no problems with the shop or its location and have not been adversely affected by it in any way. As far as they are concerned there have been no negative reports regarding the chip shop and no complaints or problems raised because of its location.

Ten letters of support from seven households have been received from the Ryde area. Letters say that chip shop would be welcome in area. There used to be one and it served all the local community and that the current chip shop is too far away to walk to. Letter also states that a shop of this nature would help generate a community feeling in the area and that there are not many existing local shops, furthermore, "no objection whatsoever to the opening of a fish and chip shop in my area".

Letter received from applicant feeling that they have not had a fair opportunity to rebut the areas of concern and feel that this would invade their Human Rights for a fair and impartial hearing.

Evaluation

This application was deferred at Committee on 14 May 2002 at applicant's request to allow opportunity for him to respond to areas of concern. Any response from the applicant should be submitted by 26 May 2002 and will be reported to Members.

This application relates to a semi-detached property which is sited on the western side of Ashey Road approximately halfway between the junction with Pitt Street to the north and Wray Street to the south. Application seeks consent to change use of ground floor for retail Class A1 to take away fish and chip shop Class A3. Plans show internal changes to accommodate counter area, cooking area and preparation area and shows extract ducting to emanate from the southern side of the building.

The proposed trading times will be Monday to Saturday 4.30 pm to 9.30 pm and Saturday lunchtime 12 noon to 1.30 pm. Preparation time will be every morning for approximately two to three hours. Deliveries will be one only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at approximately 11 am.

The premises were formerly a retail shop which ceased trading in June 2001. There is currently residential accommodation at first floor.

Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. In particular, applications should provide for safe, convenient access and circulation for the public including the disabled; do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings; do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site.

Policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) states that before granting planning permission for development, the Council will take into account the potential for conflict between existing, adjoining or surrounding development and activities. Development proposals may be refused permission if they are considered incompatible with existing, adjoining or nearby activities.

Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) states that applications for new development will be approved where they take into account the following matters for highway safety; proper provision of facilities to ensure safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians.

Determining factors in considering application therefore are whether there is any potential conflict of uses in the surrounding area and whether the proposal detracts from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings and whether it provides safe movement for vehicular traffic, cycles and pedestrians.

This is a vacant shop in a residential area which would in the past have generated vehicular, pedestrian movement and deliveries. In considering whether the proposed use is appropriate in this location, it has to be borne in mind that planning conditions can be imposed to control hours of operation, deliveries, kitchen extraction equipment, refuse storage and noise levels. In terms of the extraction system's visual appearance, I am satisfied that this does not unduly attract from a visual impact point of view on the amenities of the area.

With regard to letters of support, it should be noted that these are not from properties in immediate vicinity.

When considering applications of a change of use it is often difficult to assess how much weight to give to the fact that the existing use does have on impact of amenity and arguably this effect on amenity has therefore been established in principle. However, an A3 use is clearly distinguishable from an A1 use which is reflected in legislation in that they are placed within separate use classes. Planning permission is not required for an A3 use to move closer (via A2) to an A1 use but planning permission is required in reverse. Of course the impact of an A3 use can be substantially reduced by the imposition of conditions. But should these be so tight that the use will have difficulty operating successfully?

It would also be unreasonable to restrict its use to a Fish and Chip Shop as its use could be a number of different fast food outlets. If these other uses put different demands (say late night activity) they may be difficult to resist as the principle of an A3 use would be established.

Overall although this application's impact on amenity can be reduced it still remains that this will be an A3 use in a residential area and will likely create conditions that will have an unacceptable impact.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the application represents an unacceptable, incompatible use in this residential location, detrimental to the amenities of the area and does not accord with policy and recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Parish Council comment that the type of dwelling proposed is inappropriate to the area. The building is too large for the land in that it is out of proportion to the shape of the plot. Less length and more depth would be favourable and the lack of a garage is also a concern. Following submission of revised plans, Parish Council have indicated that this is only a slight variation and confirm that previous comments still hold.

AONB Officer comments that planning history of the site indicates that principle of residential development has been accepted. The site at present has the appearance of a semi-natural woodland glade and provides a screen for the adjacent property and in some ways helps to soften the approach to the village centre when entering the road from the north east. Whilst it is regrettable that the site has been granted permission it is considered that sympathetic design and scale are of great importance. The barn like design of the building is to be encouraged but at an appropriate scale and without the addition of the unnatural curved wall shown on the plans. Reference is made to the Countryside Design Summary and particular concern is expressed regarding the porch structure which is not sympathetic to the design.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions relating to the access if the application is approved.

Southern Water comment that connection of the drainage to the main public sewer will require formal approval and no surface water should be discharged to the public foul sewer as this could cause flooding to downstream properties. Records of flooding in the area relate to periods of rain suggesting that there are surface water connections to the foul sewer. The new property should only have minimal effect on the flow in the sewer as only foul flow would be connected. A water supply can be provided for the proposed development.

Comment received from the Tree and Landscape Officer that most of the trees on the site are young elm suckers apparently growing from neglected hedges and young sycamore seedlings. The two most important trees are a sycamore and a holm oak. These are reasonably attractive trees but not so significant that they would be adequate reason to refuse consent. It is suggested that the proposed dwelling is repositioned further away from these trees. Any consent should be conditional on a hedge retention and planting plan.

The plans have been considered by the Architects Panel who commented that given that the general design style was of a converted barn, the Panel were of the opinion that this was supported. Comment was made that the two storey entrance appeared heavy and unrelated particularly on the first floor and reconsideration of this element was necessary.

Eight letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposed development with matters raised summarised below;

The site which comprises a small copse of trees is considered to be an integral part of the entrance to the village.

Proposal will result in significant loss of trees to the detriment of the character of the area.

The size of the dwelling is considered to be excessive in relation to other properties in the area and out of proportion with the size and width of the plot.

Size and siting of dwelling will result in significant loss of trees in this prominent location.

Design of dwelling is considered inappropriate and a smaller dwelling reflecting characteristics of the existing buildings would be considered preferable.

The proposed dwelling would be too close to the boundaries of the site.

Previous developments have already changed the character of Brook and further development will add to the effect.

Proposal will cause overloading of the drainage system.

Development will result in congestion by builders lorries and contractors vehicles.

The submitted plans do not show construction of a garage and this is likely to lead to the need for additional outbuildings in the future.

Evaluation

This application relates to an approximately triangular shaped area of land which is the northern part of the garden to Holly Wood, a property located on the south eastern side of the road and which is the first property approached when entering Brook from the north. Site has a frontage to the road of approximately 40 metres and contains a number of trees with a good screening to the boundary.

There is planning history for the site indicating that planning permission for a dwelling was first granted in 1964 with further approvals in 1979, 1982, 1985 and 1988 with a reserved matters approval dated September 1990. Most recent consent is an outline planning approval dated February 1999 with all matters being reserved. Consent was subject to conditions regarding protection of trees and provision of access and turning for vehicles.

The adjacent property (Holly Wood) has been the subject of a two storey extension constructed in accordance with plans granted in 1992.

The site is located within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast and is adjacent to a Park/Garden of Local Interest.

The application now under consideration is for approval of reserved matters following the granting of outline planning consent in 1999. The determining factors are therefore considered to be the size and design of the dwelling, as well as its siting, and the effect of the development on the character of the area and the amenities of existing properties.

The proposed dwelling is of somewhat unusual design and a design statement has been submitted by the agents indicating that the house has been designed with a footprint that runs parallel with the main road with all principal rooms to the house facing south west to the rear of the property. This takes full advantage of views to the south west but also provides privacy to the garden, reduces traffic noise and minimises the effect on the property adjacent.

The building has been designed with a slight curved feature to enhance the above aspects and will be constructed of good quality stock facing bricks with plain clay tile roofing with feature bands incorporated. Consideration has been given to the layout with regard to the existing trees and planting on the site which will also be enhanced with new planting.

The submitted plans show construction of a two storey dwelling with the first floor accommodation contained within the pitched roof. The dwelling would contain living accommodation at ground floor level with a glazed verandah to the southern elevation and would have four bedroom accommodation at first floor level served by a gallery landing. The dwelling would be constructed of brick elevations with a large cropped gabled plain tiled roof of simple design and configuration giving the building the appearance of a large barn-like structure.

As a result of comments received, negotiations have taken place resulting in submission of revised plans which have slightly reduced the overall size and height of the building and have also reduced and simplified the gabled entrance feature which was commented upon by the AONB Officer and the Architects Panel. The dwelling has been set slightly further back in the site to allow retention of the larger trees at the front. The agents have also confirmed that the utility room within the building could be used as garaging if necessary in the future to minimise the need for construction of further outbuildings at a later date.

Whilst the comments received regarding the size and design of the building are noted, Members are advised that the previous approval of reserved matters for a dwelling on this site showed a significantly larger building in comprising two storey accommodation with additional rooms in the roof space served by dormer windows as well as a separate detached garage. Although the previously approved building would not have extended so close to the side boundaries, the overall ridge would have been approximately 2.6 metres higher than that now proposed and the building would have been approximately 2 metres further forward on the site bringing it closer to the larger trees.

It is acknowledged that the previous consent is time lapsed but nevertheless this does give an indication of the size and type of house previously considered acceptable on this site.

Brook village as a whole contains a variety of house sizes and types and the immediately adjacent property (Holly Wood) is a substantial detached house with rendered elevations and a gabled roof. It is not necessarily considered appropriate to mimic or copy the adjacent or nearby properties and in principle, I consider that the design approach taken providing a simple building shape with a relatively low roof height giving the appearance of a rural barn or farm building would be an appropriate solution on this site.

The Countryside Design Summary for the area indicates various design factors and in particular notes that simple styles with little in the way of detailing are common and buildings have a robust and solid feel. Traditional buildings are characterised by small windows and doors and make good use of existing vegetation and contours for location and every attempt should be made to retain boundaries where they exist. Dormer windows are not considered to be a feature of the area and emphasis should be placed on road frontage development and the roofs and walls dominate over window and door details. In principle, I consider that the design of the building now proposed follows these design guidelines and the revised details which have simplified the roof shape and reduce the overall size of the building would serve to retain as much of the existing tree screening as possible. The submitted details also indicate that the existing tree screening would be reinforced as part of an approved landscaping scheme.

An appeal decision dated January 2002 relating to a nearby site at Chapel House contained comments on the size and design of the proposed building which may be relevant to this application. The Inspector commented that the house which was the subject of the appeal would be of modern design utilising a variety of natural materials and providing some accommodation in the roof. The Inspector commented that the proposal would include a number of different design features and a crucifix plan form with a complex roof with each of the main elevations being different in appearance. The design also incorporated balconies, dormer windows, roof lights and french windows as well as ordinary windows and although the Inspector appreciated that each of these features was included for good reason the resulting building would have an elaborate appearance and look fussy. This was considered to conflict with the design indicators in the Countryside Design Summary notably that styles in the area are simple with little in the way of detailing. The design details for the house under consideration on this site are considered to be simpler and more compatible with the Countryside Design Summary whereas an attempt to copy other design features of buildings in the locality may lead to a more complicated and intrusive design as indicated above.

Southern Water have confirmed that connection to the foul sewer will be acceptable, and will not significantly affect flows, provided that surface water is disposed of away from the foul sewer. Whilst flooding from the sewer may be a material consideration, it should not carry significant weight, as the statutory consultee considers the proposal to have only minimal effect.

Matters relating to access to the site have also been considered and are considered to be acceptable in principle, with appropriate conditions as recommended by the Highways Engineer.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this report, I am of the opinion that the application for approval of reserved matters in respect of the size, design, siting and access to this property are considered acceptable and appropriate in this location and whilst the design of the proposed dwelling would not mimic traditional properties in the area, it does respect the design guidelines in the Countryside Design Summary and is considered appropriate in this rural location on a prominent site close to the northern entrance to the village. The building has been located to retain as far as possible the tree and hedge screening to the boundaries and the larger trees on the site frontage. This would be supplemented by additional landscape screening which could be covered by condition if the application is approved.

The submitted details are considered to be in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies D1 and C2 and are therefore recommended for approval.

               Recommendation - Approval (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

One letter of representation received, points of objection are summarised as follows:

Overlooking.

Invasion of privacy.

East Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

Evaluation

Application relates to a large detached property on the western side of Cambridge Road that is set within an L-shaped curtilage and is approximately 25 metres from the junction of the Esplanade with Cambridge Road.

The application before Members seeks consent for the formation of a balcony at first floor level on the rear elevation of the property. Floor area is shown to be 3.37 metres by 2.82 metres, and finished with balustrading to a height of 1.07 metres.

Main planning considerations are firstly Development Plan policy and the potential impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the adjoining property occupiers.

Relevant policies are considered to be D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. D1 refers to Standards of Design and states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and should respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings. Similarly H7 refers to Alteration and Extension of Existing Properties and states that applications will only be permitted where the impact on neighbouring properties is not excessive.

Regarding impact on neighbouring properties, main area of concern relates to the potential loss of privacy and overlooking. Whilst it is taken into account the balcony is of a sizeable depth the property to the immediate west is blank on the rear elevation apart from one small window and natural screening and outbuildings within that property's garden provide an effective screen. Given the distance of approximately 16 metres between the proposed balcony and the rear garden of the property to the south west and the existence of a walled garden the potential for loss of privacy and overlooking will be minimised and indeed this can also be reduced further if a balcony screen was erected on the south west perimeter of the balcony, this can be covered by condition.

It is appreciated that there will be some degree of overlooking given the balcony's location but I consider the issue is not sufficient to warrant a refusal.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that the proposed balcony at first floor is acceptable in terms of policy D1 (Standards of Design) and policy H7 (Alteration and Extension to Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Recommendation is made accordingly.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer confirms no highway implications.

East Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

Environment Agency comment following receipt of further information relating to foul drainage and surface water disposal confirm no objection in principle.

Eight letters of representation have been received which can be summarised as follows:

Loss of well used tennis facility which is a good public facility for all ages in community and holiday makers, popular, sometimes have to wait for a court in summer.

Denying amenity and safe place for children, nearest other public court is at Seaclose.

Already plenty of facilities for sailing enthusiasts along river.

Covenant restricting use of land.

Flood risk in vicinity.

Dinghy parks generally eyesores.

Letter stating proposal has much merit as useful facility for East Cowes and is sympathetic to Esplanade. However, matters to be addressed before progressing are surface water drainage, foul water disposal and proximity to overhead telephone lines.

Evaluation

This is a full application for change of use from tennis courts to dinghy storage park and for the erection of a single storey building to provide changing rooms on the northern most tennis court at Esplanade, East Cowes. The single storey changing room building is to be sited in the north west corner of the site constructed of softwood shiplap timber stained olive green with onduline brown roof and is to be sited on a concrete block base. The building measures 13.150 metres by maximum 5.830 metres with a height to ridge of 3.950 metres. There is also a timber deck with balustrade shown at the front of the building with wheelchair access ramp. This is an open site on the Esplanade with residential properties to the west and caravan park to the south east. The nearest public slipway is approximately 85 metres away opposite Shore Cottage.

The site is allocated as open space in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan lying immediately outside the development envelope boundary. The following policies are considered relevant in respect of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan;

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements, G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses, C1 - Protection of Landscape Character, L2 - Formal Recreation Provision and D1 - Standards of Design.

Given established recreational/sports use of application site, main planning consideration relates to impact on amenities of locality in general and surrounding residential occupiers in particular.

The use of this site for leisure purposes has already been established and the proposed use is an alternative leisure pursuit located where it would be expected, in a seaside location. Environment Agency raise no objection in principle, but advise applicant regarding principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems. Southern Water have verbally advised no particular problem envisaged. Whilst concern relating to loss of tennis court is understood, in land use terms the alternative recreational activity is acceptable. Concern relating to private covenants and overhead lines would be a civil matter and would need to be addressed by the applicant prior to implementation of the consent. There has to be a balance between the community's need as a material consideration, the effect of the proposal in terms of land use and the siting of the building in terms of visual impact.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I am of the view that the proposal is for an appropriate use of land and appropriately sited and recommend accordingly.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer points out that access is extremely restricted, approximately 2 metres but requires details of how demolition/construction works will be carried out.

Environmental Health Officer - no adverse comment.

Contaminated Land Officer suspects possible contamination of site and recommends conditions if approved.

Two letters of comment from local neighbours pointing out that some windows in the proposed development open over the access road questioning road safety; questions how emergency services might access the site if necessary, questioning how buildings will be removed and how construction may ensue, both bearing in mind the restrictive access; questioning adequacy of sewerage and questioning the provision of parking and turning on the site and possible obstruction to the rear of properties adjoining.

Evaluation

This is an irregularly shaped site located behind properties fronting the western side of High Street and behind the library fronting Victoria Avenue. A former printing works, the buildings are a mix of red brick with corrugated steel sheeting and only one of the buildings is of good order in terms of its appearance. Access to the site is off Victoria Avenue, a narrow access lane of a minimum of 2 metres in width but metalled joining Victoria Avenue about 20 metres from the junction of Victoria Avenue with High Street. Many of the buildings adjoin the eastern boundary of the site, those properties fronting High Street are tall and abut the eastern boundary of the site and there are two or three small yard areas with access off the application site. The buildings on the application site are no longer in use.

To the east, the library site there is also a rear access yard with vehicular access off Victoria Avenue. The rear of the existing buildings on the application site abut the common boundary.

The proposal is to clear the site and redevelop it with two storey cottage buildings, seven in number comprising kitchen/dining area and lounge on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom over, constructed in masonry, finished in facing bricks with some parts of the first floor clad in tiles. The site layout shows the buildings to be laid out in a slightly different form from those they replace covering a slightly reduced area, each dwelling having a private but compact yard area and each looking onto the landscaped and communal courtyard area.

Whilst abutting the western boundary, the buildings do contain some windows serving the kitchen, two bathrooms and a bedroom in two of the units but these windows face into the yard abutting the library rather than any other residential property.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, effect on adjoining properties and matters relating to access and parking.

In terms of policy and principle, this development comprises the redevelopment of a "brown field" site close to the town centre for much needed residential units.

In design terms this is a stand alone development and therefore need not relate directly to adjoining properties but its appearance is quite acceptable, resulting in a compact and intimate residential atmosphere.

In terms of effect on adjoining properties, much of the adjoining is not in residential use and the proposed buildings replace existing although the northern most dwellings are higher than those which they replace. However, the nearest building which might be affected would be the comparatively recently constructed hostel off Victoria Avenue which might be affected by one bedroom window and the possible dominating effect of a two storey building within a distance of approximately 4 metres. This is not considered sufficient to affect the building sufficiently to warrant rejection.

Turning to access, this is narrow and in a position where any increased use could cause a serious traffic hazard, being located at or adjoining the traffic lights in Victoria Avenue. It is anticipated by the developers that access to the dwellings will be via foot only and that there will be no parking provision in this centrally located site. Access presently exists to the rear of some of those properties fronting High Street and therefore it would not be possible to eliminate vehicular access altogether but hard and soft landscaping within the courtyard area could be used to preclude parking allowing only essential access.

In summary the re-use of this site for residential purposes is considered appropriate and, subject to appropriate conditions, is recommended for approval.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the re-use of this brown field site for residential purposes within the town centre is considered appropriate in terms of density and inter-relationship with adjoining buildings consistent with UDP policies regarding housing and the re-use and economic use of land within development envelopes.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds of inadequate turning on site.

St Helens Parish Council raise no objection.

Local Member considers the application should be approved as there are currently 21 properties in Station Avenue that have off-road parking facilities with no turning space.

Evaluation

Application relates to a detached property situated on the eastern side of Station Road approximately 200 metres south of its junction with Upper Green Road.

Consent was granted in August 1999 for a detached house with a condition restricting parking within the site: "No car/vehicle parking shall take place within the site outlined red on the submitted plan without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority". Reason: "In the interests of highway safety". Planning permission was refused in March 2001 for the removal of the above-mentioned condition on the grounds of inadequate turning.

The Highway Engineer has stated that:

"Although other properties in the road have vehicular access, these are substandard based on current guidelines. The Highway Authority cannot approve the formation of a vehicular access at this point without adequate turning space within the site to allow a vehicle to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear".

Main considerations are the previous applications and Development Plan policy. Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight UDP states that planning applications for new development will be approved where they take account of the following matters for highway safety:

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

That any new road layout including vehicular access are constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users.

Proposal is considered contrary to the policy requirements of TR7, I therefore have no option than to recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that the proposed vehicular access and hardstanding is contrary to the policy requirements of TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. This application is accordingly recommended for refusal.

       1.            Recommendation - Refusal

        2.            Recommendation - Within 3 months of the date of the decision notice                           measures will be taken to close up the vehicular access.

Representations

Parish Council recommend approval as this would improve the overall appearance.

Five letters of objection have been received on grounds of increasing the overall height of the buildings which would be intrusive and out of character with the area. Concern is also expressed that this may set a precedent for increasing the height of other buildings in the locality which would change the character of the area and would be claustrophobic. Reference is also made to loss of harbour views from the properties to the rear which are considered to be an essential part of the amenities of the locality. The previous scheme for increasing the height of these buildings was refused and the current proposals are not considered to be significantly different, and would result in a 56% increase from Embankment Road. There is a public footpath through the area which is well used by children and ramblers who appreciate the beauty of the area.

Thirteen letters have been received supporting the proposals as the roof extensions are considered to be well designed and would improve the overall appearance of the buildings which are currently flat roofed boxes out of character with the area. The proposals are considered to be in scale and character with other buildings in the area and would improve the overall appearance of this locality.

Letter received from English Nature commenting that the site lies adjacent to but outside the designated boundary of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site. The proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the above and does not therefore require an appropriate assessment in accordance with the regulations. The wider conservation interests are unlikely to be detrimentally affected and no further comments are therefore made.

Evaluation

This application relates to a terrace of buildings which form part of a group of similar structures which were built approximately 30-years ago as a speculative development. The buildings are located on the eastern side of Embankment Road immediately to the east of the sailing club and are accessed via Harbour Strand which is a cul-de-sac to the east leading from Station Road. The buildings form a stepped terrace of dwellings constructed of buff brickwork with glazed and cladding panels under a flat roof with a parapet. The eastern frontage is three storeys in height incorporating access and garaging at the lower level whilst the western frontage is two storeys in height with glazing overlooking a landscaped area adjacent to Embankment Road. Buildings to the south comprise traditional two storey pitched roof structures and Members will be aware that the former Spithead Hotel site is currently being developed for residential use comprising substantial buildings with pitched roofs.

The submitted details show extension to the properties at second floor level comprising a traditional pitched roof constructed above the existing flat roof of the properties. The roofs will be stepped in line with each of the properties and part of the roof area on the western side would be stepped back to form a roof terrace with hand railing. The additional accommodation would comprise a living area with loft storage and a roof terrace, all accessed via an internal stairway.

The new roof eaves line would be at the same level as the existing parapet with the ridge being approximately 3.5 metres higher thereby adding an additional storey to the properties.

Reference has been made to the previous application which was refused for the reasons that the proposed second floor extension by reason of its position, size and design would be intrusive, out of scale and character with the existing development as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality which was considered to be contrary to Policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan. The previous application also included proposed introduction of timber fences to the western side of the building within the open landscaped area which was considered to be out of character with the locality. Members are advised that this element of the proposal has been omitted from the current application.

The previously refused scheme incorporated a curved roof design incorporating steel coated cladding and timber boarding to the elevations. The previous proposal included raising the overall eaves line of the building by approximately 2 metres with the curved roof above giving an overall increase in height of approximately 2.8 metres. The previous design including increasing the overall height of the walls of the buildings was considered to be visually intrusive and out of character.

The scheme now under consideration shows a more traditional roof design and although the overall ridge height would be somewhat higher than the previous scheme, the eaves line would be similar to that on the existing buildings with a traditional pitched roof which would have less visual impact from street level.

The submitted details include a design statement showing pictorial views of the proposed roof design and also citing examples of other properties in the locality which have had similar traditional pitched roof extensions, including properties at North Quay, St Helens; Preston Close, Ryde and St Johns Hill in Ryde.

The determining factor is therefore considered to be whether the increased roof height and provision of additional living accommodation at second floor level would adversely affect the character and amenities of the area or the amenities of owners of other properties in the locality.

Members will note that objections have been received from property owners to the rear of the site on grounds of visual intrusion which would be out of character with the area. Comments have also been received regarding the views of the harbour which can be obtained from properties to the rear which are considered to be characteristic of the area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the ground rises to the east and some properties may have distant views above this terrace, Members will be aware that individual views cannot be protected under the Planning Legislation and I do not consider that the roof extensions under consideration would be so visually intrusive as to detrimentally effect the overall character and amenities of the locality.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, and taking account of the third party comments received, I am of the opinion that the revised details now for consideration showing a traditional pitched roof extension above the flat roof of the existing properties would improve the individual design and appearance of the properties and would not be so much higher or visually intrusive as to be out of character with the area as a whole, particularly bearing in mind the size and height of other developments nearby.

The roof extensions are considered to be far enough away from the existing dwellings not to result in any significant loss of daylight or sunlight to existing properties and although it is acknowledged that the increase in height will intrude into the overall views and outlook of some of the properties to the east, I do not consider this to be so serious as to warrant refusal of the application in this case.

It is noted that the application relates to five individual properties and it is considered essential that if approved, the development is carried out simultaneously to avoid a situation where some of the properties have roof extensions and some do not.

On balance I consider the proposals to be acceptable in accordance with Policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer's comments awaited.

Environmental Health Officer confirms no adverse comments in respect of application.

Two letters have been received from local residents making comments and objections to proposal with matters raised summarised as below:

Development is within Conservation Area.

There is no street parking available on the northern side of Market Street and area is usually full with parked cars.

The existing garages have a forecourt just deep enough to allow the average car to park in front of the garages clear of the pavement.

Proposed garden area indicated at the front of the house would limit the parking area available and this would require considerable manoeuvering to avoid the vehicle obstructing the pavement.

Additional dwellings would add to already high density in the area and site is not really big enough to support another dwelling.

The existing low structure is unobtrusive and blends with its surroundings a new two/three storey building would be intrusive.

Proposal would connect the dwelling to the existing drains which discharges through a private drain serving nearby properties.

Evaluation

This application relates to an irregular plot of land situated on the northern side of Market Street close to the right-angle bend at the western end of the road. The site is immediately adjacent to a two/three storey cottage which forms one of a group fronting the northern side of Market Street and is currently occupied by three single storey garage units having a parapet to the front wall. These garages are situated in front of the modern detached property known as The Chimes which is within the same ownership as the application site.

Site levels fall to the north and The Chimes is therefore relatively unobtrusive in the street scene being set at a lower level.

The site immediately abuts but is outside the designated Conservation Area and this part of the street is characterised by traditional two storey cottage-style development with a substantial stone wall fronting The Chimes.

The application now under consideration is for removal of the existing single storey garages and construction of a two/three storey cottage with a single lean-to garage attached at the western end.

The proposed cottage would have a small garden forecourt area with parking adjacent to the footpath and the single garage attached would be maintained for use of The Chimes.

The proposed dwelling would be of traditional appearance, reflecting details of the adjacent property to the east (Fuchsia Cottage). The accommodation would comprise kitchen and living area at ground floor level with a utility room and small enclosed garden at lower ground floor level to the north. The first floor would contain three bedrooms and a bathroom.

The determining factors are considered to be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area with particular reference to the character of the adjacent Conservation Area and also on the amenities of local residents and the locality as a whole.

The site is situated in a town centre location within parking Zone 2 as identified in the Unitary Development Plan. The retention of one garage space serving The Chimes together with a parking area outside the cottage would be considered acceptable in principle for this location.

The overall design and layout of the proposed building is considered to be acceptable and would reflect characteristics of the traditional cottage next door and would, in fact, be considered a design improvement providing a traditional street frontage immediately abutting the Conservation Area. This would be considered more acceptable than the relatively uninteresting design of the parapet roofed garage block already on the site.

The layout of the accommodation is considered acceptable and although the amenity space is limited, this is considered to give an acceptable living environment within this town centre location and would not be dissimilar to other properties nearby.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of its design and appearance and would not adversely affect the amenities of the area or nearby properties. The site is situated within the central area of the town where additional development is considered acceptable in principle and the limited parking indicated would be in accordance with the standards set for parking Zone 2 within the Unitary Development Plan. Overall, the development is considered to be in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies G1, G4, D1 and B6 and is therefore recommended for approval.

               Recommendation -   Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Comments of the Highways Engineer are awaited.

The Conservation Officer has visited the site and suggests that Laurel Cottage is early Victorian and of no real historic or architectural value to recommend listing. The building is modest in size and virtually invisible from the road. It is generally in a poor state of repair, however he is of the view that it would not be appropriate to demolish a sound building to build an estate type of house in a rural village and recommends a full assessment of the existing building in order to clarify this point. In terms of the architectural merit of the proposed building, the Conservation Officer considers that the proposal makes no architectural reference to nearby properties, the proposed siting would have a greater impact on the amenities of the adjoining properties and would dominate the site.

Four letters of objection received from residents of Town Lane raising the following concerns:

Unnecessary demolition of 'early Victorian Cottage', which contributes to a group of historic buildings within Town Lane.

The site is elevated and is highly visible from a distance.

Proposed new dwelling is too large, out of character with neighbouring properties, one of which is a Listed Building and would result in overlooking.

The excavation of the boundary wall to create a parking area is dangerous to pedestrians and motorists and would detract from the character of Town Lane.

Boundaries and other details are inaccurately drawn on submitted plans.

Development would result in a loss of tree.

Evaluation

The site lies in an elevated position adjacent to Town Lane with the boundary to Town Lane comprised of a stone wall some three metres high and topped with a hedge. Pedestrian access to the property is from Town Lane via a set of steps and there is no vehicular access. Development on the southern side of Town Lane consists of a mix of detached and terraced properties of a variety of styles and ages, the northern side of Town Lane opposite the application site, looks across agricultural land, within designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The existing dwelling consists of a modest one and a half storey cottage of painted brick with a roof of slate and several single storey extensions. Fenestration faces entirely eastwards, with two upstairs windows overlooking part of the garden of Lostland. Boundaries to the site, comprise a hedge to the east and a low corrugated iron fence to the west. The garden to the rear of the site is somewhat overgrown and contains a number of mature trees. Currently there are views from the site westwards into the adjacent property known as "Long Thatch" and which is a grade 2 Listed Building.

The site lies outside the development envelope as defined in the adopted Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies are C2, D1 and H9. Policy H9 allows the replacement of a residential property provided the replacement is of a similar scale and mass to the existing, while D1 requires new development to enhance the quality and character of the built environment, wherever possible. Policy C2 seeks to ensure the development within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

The application has been submitted as an outline with only siting to be considered. The submitted drawings show the new position of the dwelling to be set back into the site so that the front wall of the new dwelling aligns with the rear wall of the existing cottage. The floor area of the existing is approximately 66 square metres over two floors, whereas the footprint shown on the block plan for the new dwelling measures 82 square metres. Translated into a two storey building, this would amount to a floor area of 164 square metres, which is two and a half times the size of the existing. It is considered that a new development of this floor area would be contrary to policy H9 in that the replacement should be of a similar size and mass to the existing. Additionally, the siting of the new development further back into the site, increases the potential for overlooking into the two adjacent properties, Lostland and Long Thatch. Illustrative drawings accompanying the application indicate a two storey development of a larger footprint and massing than the existing and as such would have an adverse impact on the character of the existing street scene, including that of the adjacent Listed Building and the AONB.

The plans also show the stone boundary wall and entrance steps to be realigned and reconstructed. The boundary wall forms part of a longer stretch which runs along the boundary of Lostland and makes a significant contribution to the character of Town Lane. Its realignment would have a detrimental impact on this character.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, it is considered that the replacement of the existing property by a new dwelling in the position shown would have an adverse impact on both the character of the area and adjacent properties. As a result it would be contrary to Policies C2, D1 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

               Recommendation -   Refusal (subject to the views of the Highways                                                                Engineer)

Conditions/Reasons:

PART IV REPORTS – ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS

(a)       TCP/22128A   Surface water balancing pond, including inlet and outlet structures, land north of Mountbatten Drive, Newport, Isle of Wight

Summary

To update Members on the position reached with regards to this application following the consideration of the initial resolution of 13 March 2001 and further consideration of this matter at the meetings on 16 October and 6 November 2001. Based on the current position Members are requested to make a determination with regards to this proposal.

Background

At the 13 March 2001 Planning Committee Meeting Members considered a report on the above development. Briefly, it was proposed to create a long narrow almost kidney shaped balancing pond which would be used to collect surface water run off from a section of the Mountbatten Drive/Sylvan Avenue residential development site for 203 houses. The appropriate consultations had been undertaken with the Environment Agency and Southern Water and these were noted in the report. Provisional discussions had taken place with the Councils Legal Section and these resulted in the recommendation which was subsequently adopted by the Planning Committee. This was as follows:

Approval (revised plans) (subject to a 106 Agreement authorising the pursuant of negotiations with the land owner and developer for the creation and conveyance for a nominal sum to the Council of the pond together a maintenance area for use as an urban wildlife feature and copse and the payment of a commuted sum for future maintenance of the same and secure such agreements in the agreement).

For further information, Members are requested to refer back to the agenda of 13^th March 2001, a copy of which can be inspected at the Committee Services office if necessary.

Following the March 2001 Planning Committee meeting discussions took place with the developers in an attempt to identify an appropriate commuted payment sum to reflect the future maintenance and liabilities of adopting the balancing pond. From an initial offer of £2,000 this was raised to £5,000 and was subsequently increased to £20,000. The intention was for the balancing pond to be adopted by the Highway Authority and maintained by them on behalf of the Isle of Wight Council.

Because of a variation in the terms of the proposed Legal Agreement as set out in the March 2001 Development Control Committee meeting resolution, the matter was reported back to the October and November 2001 Development Control Committee meetings. Members may recall that at the October meeting the matter was deferred until the next meeting on 6 November 2001 by which time Members would have attended an Environment Agency Seminar at Gurnard Pines in the hope that this Seminar would provide further information on how this proposal should be approached.

At 6 November 2001 Development Control Committee meeting Members reviewed the situation and resolved to request Officers to undertake further negotiations so that no liability in the short or long term fell on the Isle of Wight Council. Following this meeting a letter was sent to the developers setting out the Council’s position and asking if they could see an alternative way forward. Highway have continued to indicate that the sum on offer is reasonable. It has not been possible to progress the matter with the applicant or with the Highways Department and I

am conscious that the facility is in place and indeed the applicants are currently selling properties on the early phase of the estate. The implication of approving the application without the legal agreement is that the responsibility for the future maintenance of the balancing pond falls on the developer.

In conclusion, at past meetings Members have indicated that they do not wish the Local Authority to take on any responsibility for the future maintenance of the balancing pond even though the applicant is willing to make a commuted payment of £20,000 towards that purpose. On the basis that it has not been possible to progress the matter since it was last considered I believe that the matter should be resolved by the granting of planning permission but without the original Legal Agreement.

Members should however be aware that the past record on future maintenance of such a facility by a resident group (if one is set up) is not good and there is a possibility of the Authority being drawn into the maintenance of the balancing pond at a later date because of our general responsibilities to the community. At such a time no payment to assist in the maintenance may be available and the cost will fall on the Council’s general funds.

Recommendation

That planning permission is granted without the applicants entering into a Legal Agreement with the Isle of Wight Council with the following conditions:

1.        Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision notice a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with any such landscaping scheme providing for the planting of appropriate species. The landscaping shall be undertaken within the first planting season following the agreement of the scheme. Any such planting shall include provision for its maintenance during the five years from the date of planting.

           Reason: To ensure the character of the balancing pond and its environs will contribute to the Nature Conservation interest and amenity of the area.

2.        Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision notice a fence shall be erected around the pond in location and of height and style agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority with any such fencing being retained hereafter.

           Reason: To prevent direct access to the pond by the public in the interests of safety.(b) TCP/24799           Siting a caravan on part OS parcel 0077, Station Road, Ningwood, for residential purposes.

Summary

To consider whether an Enforcement Notice should be served requiring the removal of a caravan from part OS 0077, Station Road, Ningwood which is being used by the owner for residential purposes when he visits the Isle of Wight.

Background

At the end of April 2002, an Enforcement Officer received a complaint that a man who was resident in Stoke-on-Trent but had business interests on the Island, stayed in a mobile home within a barn at the above location whilst he was on the Island.

On 1 May 2002, the Enforcement Officer visited the site and found a caravan which was screened by a block wall with the front end just inside a barn. There was a 47 kilogram propane gas cylinder connected to the caravan and a tube leading from the caravan into a polythene container which appeared to contain water. Through the window clothing, bedding, and a saucepan and kettle on the hob could be seen. There was also a Siamese-type cat within the caravan. Nearby in a polythene bag, was domestic refuse and there were also other cooking pans in the barn. As there was no person present at the barn, the Enforcement Officer left a note asking the owner to contact him.

On 9 May 2002 the owner was finally contacted and came to the Council’s Seaclose offices by appointment and was interviewed by the Enforcement Officer. Eventually, the owner did admit that he stayed in the caravan whilst on the Island which he stated was convenient. The owner of the caravan states that he is attempting to develop his business interests on the Island and stated that he was unaware that it was contrary to the planning law for him to reside in the caravan.

In policy terms there is no development envelope for Ningwood and consequently this is considered to be open countryside. The Unitary Development Plan policy H12 states that residential caravans shall be treated as permanent accommodation and so policy H9 applies. In this case there are no reasons why an exemption to the normally restrictive policy should apply.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1.  To serve an Enforcement Notice on the owner of the land requiring the cessation of residential use and the removal of the caravan from the land. Time for compliance 3-months.

2.  To take no action in respect of the unauthorised change of use of the land.

Conclusion

I feel that it is necessary to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of residential use and the removal of the caravan from the land to prevent this use from becoming established. The owner’s main place of abode is Stoke-on-Trent, and there are therefore no Human Rights implications in respect of depriving somebody of their living accommodation. The siting of this caravan is contrary to Policies S4, The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development. G1 – in general, development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in this Plan by development envelopes. G4 – planning applications for new development will be permitted provided they harmonise with their surroundings etc. G5 – outside the defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, and is an appropriate scale. H9 – Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries, and H12 regarding Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice on the owner of the land requiring the cessation of residential use and the removal of the caravan from the land. Time for compliance 3-months.

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services