PAPER B1
SCHEDULE OF APPEALS
1. NEW APPEALS LODGED
TCP/15279/B Mr S Scott and Miss J Juby, against refusal of outline for a dwelling, land adjacent Kern View, The Shute, Newchurch.
TCP/24112/A Mr and Mrs D Floyd, against refusal for terrace of two houses and two maisonettes and formation of vehicular access onto Palmerston Road, Shanklin.
E/20360/B Mr and Mrs Gedling, against Enforcement Notice relating to hardstanding, bund and access road, at OS parcel 0042, off Oakhill Road, Seaview.
TCP/24660 Mr and Mrs Barrett, against refusal for first floor extension to provide additional living accommodation, at 37 St Johns Road, Ryde.
TCP/23951/A Mrs Marshall, against refusal for retention of dormer window, at Sunnyside, Steyne Road, Seaview.
TCP/884/N Mr D F Weeks, against refusal for demolition of store and workshop and construction of chalet bungalow, site of Coach House and workshop, Southdown Road, Freshwater.
E/22305D Mr B Loneragan, against Enforcement Notices and
E/22305E Listed Building Enforcement Notices relating to shed and
E/22305G fence and mobile home, at Sun Inn, Hulverstone.
TCP/23144/J Mr J and Mrs P Rodger, against non-determination of application within the prescribed 8 weeks, for conversion of living quarters and school rooms of Upper Chine School into six self contained flats and alterations, extension and improvements to theatre to provide ten self contained flats, at 22 Church Road and Margaret Pasmore Theatre, Priory Road, Shanklin.
2. APPEALS WITHDRAWN
TCP/24342 Heathwood Properties Ltd, against non-determination of application within the statutory 8 weeks, for proposed lifestyle village to include residential retirement dwellings for over 50's, at Whitecroft Hospital, Sandy Lane, Newport. The inquiry scheduled to take place on 23, 24 and 25 July, 2002 was cancelled.
3. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES
No new dates to report.
4. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS
(a) TCP/9667/T Island Care Ltd RBS, against refusal of outline for housing development at Hosiden Besson site, Binstead Hill, Binstead.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 27 November 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 25 June 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposed development on the future use of the remaining employment site.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The remaining factory unit would be left in a back land location.
∙ All traffic associated with future use of the factory would have to pass immediately adjacent to the proposed dwellings.
∙ The factory would be very unattractive to potential users.
∙ There would be a potential conflict between commercial and domestic traffic on the access drive.
∙ There is some evidence of a demand for small low cost starter units for new businesses.
∙ In order to meet local employment needs and reduce cross town commuting every possible employment related use of the appeal site should be fully explored and discounted before redevelopment for other uses is considered.
∙ The proposed development would adversely affect the future use of the remaining employment site and would conflict with Policy E3 of the UDP.
.......................................................................................................................................................
(b) TCP/22290/C Mr A H Medley, against refusal for three storey block of twelve flats, car parking and associated landscaping, land adjacent Cemoc, Rectory Drive, Wootton.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 27 November 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 8 July 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
∙ The effect of the proposal upon neighbouring residents’ living conditions (specific reference to visual intrusion and loss of privacy).
∙ Effect of the proposal on highway safety.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The new building would be located on a prominent corner plot fronting the main road to Newport.
∙ The building would appear over dominant in the street scene and have little in common with its immediate host environment.
∙ The scheme would fail to harmonise and be compatible with its surroundings and is contrary to policies G4 and D1 of the UDP.
∙ The relationship between the existing dwellings and the proposed dwellings does not appear overbearing and oppressive.
∙ The proposal would not result in any undue loss of privacy to the occupiers of Rectory Drive properties.
∙ A combined use of the One Stop community store access arrangements would be a sensible and pragmatic approach to reducing a multiplicity of access points.
∙ In terms of highway safety the proposal is acceptable.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(c) TCP/5412/D Mr G Osborn-Smith, against refusal of outline planning permission for dwelling with access off Binstead Road, land to the rear of Windsor Manor, Binstead Road, Ryde.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 4 September 2001.
Appeal Decision: Allowed - 4 July 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposed development on highway safety in Binstead Road with particular reference to the visibility available to drivers of emerging vehicles at the access point and the width of the access itself.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ Windsor House was divided into four dwellings in the late 1950's.
∙ The access serves all four existing dwellings in the original house as well as a row of six garages.
∙
The use of the existing access by just one more dwelling is unlikely to have any significant difference to the amount of traffic entering and leaving Binstead Road at this point.
∙ In view of the number of access points along this road, drivers would be anticipating vehicles pulling out.
∙ Visibility to the east is restricted to about 45 metres but speed of vehicles approaching from the east appears to be regulated by the light controlled junction and the bend in the road.
∙ Although not to present standards, the existing visibility is adequate to serve one more dwelling with no significant effect on highway safety.
∙ The width of the access point itself is not sufficient to allow two vehicles to pass but a short distance into the drive there is room to pass.
∙ The proposal would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in the number of occasions when vehicles meet at the access point.
∙ Limited additional inconvenience, for one vehicle having to reverse a short way back up the drive, would not justify the refusal of planning permission.
∙ Proposed development would not harm highway safety on Binstead Road and would not conflict with policies of the UDP.
.....................................................................................................................................................
(d) TCP/24192 Mr M Hamilton, against refusal for the formation of a vehicular access, at part OS parcel 9354, land adjacent Benham, Whiterails Road, Wootton.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 20 August, 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 9 July 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The implications of the proposal upon the safety of road users along Whiterails Road.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ This stretch of Whiterails Road is mainly straight, busy, and where vehicles travel and overtake at speed.
∙ The visibility splay identified on the application would fall considerably short of that required by the Highway Engineer.
∙ The provision of the new access, even if used on a limited basis, would lead to an increase in traffic hazards to the detriment of highway safety.
∙ The proposal is contrary to Policy TR7 of the UDP.
.....................................................................................................................................................
(e) TCP/19052/B Mr and Mrs J Butler, against refusal for detached house and formation of vehicular access and parking area, at 34 New Barn Road, East Cowes.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 4 September 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 5 July 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The character of the area where the appeal site is located is one of substantial dwellings and gardens with spaces between the houses.
∙ Although the proposal is a detached dwelling of modest proportions it would fill almost the full width of the plot.
∙ The proposed house would be spaced less than 1 metre from its fenced side boundaries and would give the impression of being wedged into the site.
∙ The proposal would result in a form of development which would appear cramped and out of keeping with its immediate host environment.
∙ The proposal would unduly damage the distinctive and spacious character and appearance of this part of New Barn Road.
∙ The scheme would be contrary to policies D1 and H5 of the UDP.
.....................................................................................................................................................
(f) TCP/21627/C Mr A Button, against conditions imposed on planning consent for demolition of building and proposed three houses with integral garages and vehicular access, land adjacent 139 Pallance Road, Cowes.
Officer Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Committee Decision: Approval with conditions - 18 December 2001.
Appeal Decision: Allowed and appealed conditions deleted - 5 July 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether the conditions in dispute are reasonable, necessary and enforceable in order to protect highway safety and the character and appearance of the area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ Condition no. 5 requires the existing access serving 141 Pallance Road to be stopped up and abandoned in accordance with a scheme to be agreed on completion of the new access with plot 3.
∙ The submitted plans shows that the current access to no. 141 is not within the control of the applicant.
∙ The condition as imposed could not be enforced even if necessary and reasonable.
∙ There would be no material difference between the access as proposed and that preferred by the Council.
∙ The closing up of the current access to no. 141 would make no material difference to enforceable parking provision.
∙ Highway safety would not be materially improved by the closure of the access and condition 5 is not necessary.
∙ Condition no. 12 sought to remove permitted development relating to windows and dormer windows within the eastern elevation of the dwelling on plot 1 and the western elevation of the dwelling on plot 3.
∙ Restrictions on permitted development should only be used exceptionally.
∙ No such exceptional conditions exist in this case.
∙ There are no particular features of the locality which would benefit from protection by the condition.
∙ Condition 12 is neither necessary or reasonable.
.....................................................................................................................................................
(g) TCP/9150/C Urban Catalyst Ltd, against refusal of reserved matters application for the demolition of former hospital building; and the erection of 2 four storey blocks of 32 flats with associated landscaping and parking and alterations to vehicular access off Luccombe Road, at the former Shanklin Hospital, Luccombe Road, Shanklin.
Officer Recommendation: Approval.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 3 August 2001.
Appeal Decision: Allowed - 5 July 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The area generally has no special designation with many styles of buildings in the locality.
∙ The proposed flats would be of uncompromisingly modern design, but being set down in the site would mean the height would be relative to neighbouring buildings.
∙ The proposed elevational treatment would introduce features which are not common in the area but would add interest within the locality.
∙ Although of significant size the proposed buildings would sit well with the other development in the area.
∙ The relatively simple, clean lines of the blocks would stand out in contrast to the fussy detailing of much of the recent building nearby.
∙ Far from harming the character of the area, the proposal would enhance it in a manner envisaged by criterion 6 of Policy G4 of the UDP.
∙ The proposed development would not be out of keeping to nearby buildings in terms of scale, height, mass or density.
∙ The design is interesting and appropriate to the site and would counter balance the more common place designs of the recent past and would enrich the character of the area.
.....................................................................................................................................................
(h) TCP/24128/A Mrs J Summerfield, against Listed Buildings Enforcement Notice requiring removal of five UPVC windows from the front elevation of a Grade II Listed Building and their replacement with timber frame double hung vertically sliding sash windows, at India Cottage, Grove Road, Ventnor.
Officer Recommendation: Enforcement action to seek the removal of the UPVC windows.
Committee Decision: Enforcement action as above.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 19 July 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether the new windows preserve the Listed Building, its setting and its features of architectural and historic interest.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The windows are an important part of the essential character of a Listed Building.
∙ These top opening lights have lost the shadow line that vertically sliding sashes produce.
∙ The new frames are clumsy in proportion to the openings and the imitation leading is quite inappropriate for a town building of distinction of its period.
∙ The windows ignore the character of the Listed Building’s architectural features and degrades its dignity.
∙ The new frames have severely altered the fenestration to the detriment of the character of the building and has compromised the essential design of the cottages.
∙ The new windows have a detrimental effect on the surroundings and the character and appearance of the conservation has been neither preserved nor enhanced.
.....................................................................................................................................................
(i) TCP/24339A Mr P F May, against Enforcement Notice requiring use of caravan as a day rest, tea making and toilet facility to cease and for the caravan to be removed from the land, at Alverstone Marsh, south side of former railway line, Sandown.
Officer Recommendation: Enforcement action to secure the cessation of the use and the removal of the caravan from the land.
Committee Decision: Enforcement action as above - 25 September 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 9 July 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the caravan on the rural character of the area in the AONB and the SINC.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The land is part of the AONB with a sense of rural tranquillity.
∙ The surroundings would be vulnerable to new development and the introduction of vehicles or the like would affect the visual aspects of the area as a whole.
∙ The use of the caravan could affect the status and quality of the wetlands and risk the introduction of invasive ornamental plant species that could affect the integrity of the site.
∙ There is a risk of contamination of the wetlands from spills of toilet waste, chemicals and domestic refuse.
∙ The visual effect of the caravan would have a severely adverse effect on the AONB.
∙ The use of the site would introduce alien suburban aspects to an undisturbed natural scene.
∙ Similar development on the other plots that have been marketed recently would exacerbate the damage.
.....................................................................................................................................................
(j) TCP/2080/E Mr J Parker, against refusal for the construction of a temporary vehicular and pedestrian access to serve an approved house, land adjacent 44 Worsley Road, Cowes.
Officer Recommendation: Approval.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 18 December 2001.
Appeal Decision: Allowed - 18 July 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
∙ The effect of the proposal upon the safe use of the access leading to the Women’s Institute Hall.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The materials and method of construction for the access would only have a minimal impact upon its surroundings.
∙ The proposal would neither harm the long term integrity of or set a precedent for future development within this area of countryside.
∙ The provision of additional landscaping and the offer to plant a semi mature replacement ash tree would compensate for the loss of the mature ash tree.
∙ Had this proposal been required for an agricultural access planning permission for the gravelled section would not have been required.
∙ This represents a small scale form of development needed to implement a housing scheme that has been approved within the development envelope.
∙ The proposal would not undermine or harm the Council’s policies to protect the countryside.
∙ The surfacing widening and lighting of the existing uneven and narrow access to the WI Hall would not appear out of context with its location.
∙ It is likely the improvements would be of considerable benefit to those using the access and facilitate a safer relationship between pedestrians and vehicles.
.....................................................................................................................................................
Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.