PAPER B2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 6 AUGUST 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 - 6 AUGUST 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/6-8-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 6 AUGUST 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 6 AUGUST 2002

(a)      TCP/24506              Part OS Parcels 7400 and 0003, south side of 

                                           Burnthouse Lane, Alverstone, SANDOWN

(b)      U/345/01                 Area adjacent Bembridge Boat Yard, 

                     Embankment Road, BEMBRIDGE

PART II

See joint report on application no. LBC/5674S/P1569/00.

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

The applications relate to two sites, the first to a piece of ground at the rear of Canaan, a residential property located on the eastern side of the main road through Chale Green. This land has previously been used in connection with an agricultural contractor's business which occupies open ground to the north of the current application site and also involves the use of a range of buildings located between Canaan and Nivana which is another residential property on the eastern side of the main road. To the south of the application site is open agricultural land whilst to the east is a hedge beyond which the land rises.

The second part of the application site relates to part of a barn and yard located between Canaan and Nivana on the road frontage. The yard lies behind a stone wall and a deep roadside verge. The wall is broken at the northern end by an access point.

Relevant History

In July 1998 an application for a Lawful Development Certificate was refused for continued use of land for the storage and testing of agricultural machinery and equipment on a site to the land to rear of Nivana through to 2 Steyne Villas on the grounds that the applicant failed to provide appropriate evidence to indicate that the use had taken place for a period in excess of ten years.

An Enforcement Notice was served with an effective date of 24 November 1998 giving six months for the land to be cleared and restored to an agricultural field.

A Lawful Development Certificate application on a reduced area running between Nivana and Canaan was considered and accepted in May 1999.

An appeal which had been submitted against the Enforcement Notice was withdrawn following the approval of the second Lawful Development Certificate application. This set a new date for compliance of 1 December 1999. At the meeting on 2 January 2000, the Planning Committee considered a report noting that the operator had withdrawn from the most contentious area but was continuing to undertake the Pipewise operation as he had been unable to relocate. This 'Pipewise' undertaking was a new business venture in addition to the established operation. Information was submitted in support of their efforts to move. Whilst the Committee agreed that the use was inappropriate in this location, they were mindful of the potential impact on the general business operation and agreed to delay action seeking compliance with the Enforcement Notice. A further report was considered at the 11 July 2000 Planning Committee meeting, noting the operator's continued presence on site and agreeing again to suspend any prosecution until the end of July 2000.

Subsequent discussions with the applicant's agent and the Legal Section raised the question whether the pipe supply business was actually covered by the Enforcement Notice. Having considered the evidence, the judgement was that the Pipewise business may well be excluded. In response, application has been made to retain the use.

Details of Applications

Applicant seeks both full planning permission and listed building consent for operation of an additional enterprise from site which already has established use as an agricultural maintenance facility.

Full planning permission sought for continuing to use part of the agricultural contractor's open storage area for the storage of pipes and associated items together with the siting of a portable building in the yard area between the barn and Nivana and use part of that listed barn as a trade counter and part of the open yard for storage with associated items.

Submitted plans show intention to use approximately 40% of the open agricultural contractor's storage area behind the road frontage buildings in connection with the Pipewise storage operation. In addition to ground storage, plans show proposal to utilise three racking areas which range in height from one metres, three metres and four metres. The northern boundary of the Pipewise storage area to the agricultural contractor's storage area is open whilst the southern boundary extends 9 metres further than the defined Lawful Development Certificate area with a newly planted Leylandii hedge defining the limit. The site runs up to the eastern hedgerow boundary and on the western side abuts the rear of Canaan. Access to this area will utilise the existing concrete roadway which runs on the northern side of Canaan and provides access to the agricultural contractor's buildings and the open storage area.

Regarding the second site, the plans show the intention to utilise approximately 110 square metres of the yard area for open storage and also introduce a portakabin 3 metres by 6 metres abutting the barn of which approximately 25 square metres would be used as a trade counter.

When the application was first submitted, an accompanying letter was also submitted, this has been followed by a further letter outlining additional information. Both letters are copied and attached to this report for Members' information.

More recent letter states that if use operated from about two years without causing any problems, it should be acceptable and it benefits rural employment.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Chale does not have development envelope.

The sites lie within an area considered to be open countryside within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered to apply.

Strategic Policies:

S4 - The Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S5 - Proposals for development will, on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies) will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

Detailed policies:

G4 (General Locational Criteria of Development)

G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements)

G10 (Potential Conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding users).

D1 (Standards of Design).

B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings).

B3 (Change of Use of Listed Buildings).

E8 (Employment Development in the Countryside).

C1 (Protection of Landscape Character).

C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

C17 (Conversion of Barns and other rural buildings).

Representations

Chale Parish Council has no objection.

Highway Engineer does not wish to comment, as proposal has no highway implications.

AONB Officer (memo summarised):

Noted fronting onto the green, yard had various items of building material stored within it.

The storage area to the rear is well hidden from the road.

Within village settings, small scale contracting work associated with rural industries may not be out of place and could provide employment and income.

Understand premises used for the storage and sale of pipe work associated with major contracts. This alters nature of business considerably and affect the type of traffic likely to call at site.

This aspect of the business would cause concern from an AONB perspective and would be better suited to a more centralised industrial estate type location.

Would object to any continuation of a substantial contracting business serving more than local need which involves storage large amounts of equipment not generally required for local rural options.

Two letters of objection received (main points summarised).

No objection to temporary use in hope that applicants find alternative premises.

Given nature and volume of traffic, do not consider this use belongs in countryside.

Previous application rejected with Enforcement Notice and find it incredible application on a larger site now being considered.

Object on the grounds of noise, air pollution (dust) and that scheme is detrimental to AONB.

This an inappropriate use in the village of Chale and is gradually creating an industrial estate.

Submitted plans do not show land holdings accurately in that we purchase land at the rear to extend our garden over 20 years ago.

Nor do plans show site surrounded by land within applicant's family control.

Concerned that since excavations on site, have suffered from drainage problems.

Note recent Inspector's decision relating to bike shed and believe Pipewise is more intrusive than that operation.

One letter of support from a member of the applicant's family who lives in an adjoining property.

Evaluation

Determining factors with regard to the planning application are firstly, whether the proposal conforms with the Council's general planning policies with regard to development in this locality, secondly the weight that should be given to the Lawful Development Certificate which applies to the use of most of the application site, thirdly traffic implications and finally, the impact of the operation on the amenities of adjoining residential properties.

In so far as the listed building consent proposal is concerned, main issue relates to the impact the presence of the portable building and surrounding use will have on setting of the listed building.

I propose to deal with the planning application first and then turn to the listed building consent proposal.

With regards to general policy I believe it is a question of weighing up the general landscape protection policies, (C1 - Protection of Landscape Character, C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) against those policies which support employment based activities within rural areas (G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements and E8 - Employment in the Countryside). Although the applicant has already been operating a business at this site, the Pipewise operation is new. Given the number of people employed (four) and the fact that this operation could be located anywhere on the Island, I do not believe on balance that the proposal is in accordance with the Council's general planning policies with regard to development within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I believe that this view is supported by the comments of the AONB Officer.

Turning to the second point on the planning history of the site, Members will note from the report above that the majority of the application site has the benefit of a Lawful Development Certificate for the storage and testing of agricultural machinery and equipment. This is clearly a material consideration that should be taken into account. A similar situation arose in Ningwood where a Lawful Development Certificate had been granted for a mobile home and an application and subsequent appeal was made seeking to replace this unit with a permanent dwelling. Regarding the weight to be given to the LDC in that case the Planning Inspector at that time made the following observation. "... The grant of the certificate results from the operation of immunity provisions in Part 7 of the 1990 Act (as amended) which depend upon the passage of time .... and involves no consideration of the planning merits of the residential use of the appeal site." At this site the Lawful Development Certificate relates to a use which clearly has a greater affinity with the surrounding countryside area and involves the retention on site of agricultural equipment which would not appear discordant with the overall landscape. In contrast, the Pipewise operation relates to the storage of plastic pipes, septic tanks and other associated items, some of which are stored in tall racking facilities and which by their very nature appear alien in the overall landscape. On this basis, I do not consider that the weight to be given to the certificate is sufficient to justify overriding the relevant planning policies.

Concerning the third point on traffic matters the Highway Engineer raised no objection.

Finally, regarding the impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties, although I note applicant's attempt to screen the site by the introduction of conifers I am of the opinion that the various items kept by Pipewise would not readily be associated with a rural location and I would draw a distinct difference between their visual appearance as opposed to a view out towards agricultural machinery and equipment parked on the land.

Regarding the application for Listed Building consent for the siting of the portable building which lies adjacent to the barn, the listed structure is of a simple nature and on balance, I believe that a temporary consent for this facility would be appropriate in this particular location.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that the introduction of the Pipewise operation insofar as it relates to the use of the land at the back of the buildings is inappropriate because of its impact on the landscape and on the amenities of the adjoining residential properties. If Members support this recommendation it would be necessary to follow this through with an enforcement action. In this regard, applicant has made some efforts to find an alternative location and this information was submitted as part of the application. A period of 6 months to relocate would not be inappropriate.

With regards to the application for Listed Building consent I believe that this can be supported subject to a temporary consent.

TCPL/5674R/P1346/00

       1. Recommendation -       Refusal

2. Recommendation -         That enforcement action be authorised requiring the cessation of the use of the land at rear for open storage, the dismantling of the storage racks and the removal of all items associated with the distribution      business. Time period for compliance of six months.

LBC/5674S/P1569/00

        Recommendation         -       Approval (temporary consent)

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint report TCP/12046J

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

Application relates to the former W Hurst & Sons open gas cylinder storage site situated either side of Lukely Brook located on the corner of the junction between Sea Street and Little London. Site contains a number of buildings, mainly in the western area of the site, with those buildings extending around to the rear of The Railway Medina public house which abuts the overall site on its western side. Site presently has two vehicular accesses off Sea Street, one opposite the public car park on the southern side of Sea Street and the other on the corner of Sea Street and Little London. A substantial brick wall encloses the site on the road frontages. Adjoining the site to the north east are 19th Century semi-detached properties 1 and 3 Little London. Finally, to the east on the corner of Little London and Sea Street is the Quay Arts Centre beyond which is a series of terraced traditional established Listed Buildings whilst opposite the site is a Council public car park to the west of which is the new probation office and to the east of which is a further group of terraced properties.

Relevant History

Previous history relates to use of site as gas bottle store.

Details of Application

TCP/12046H/P518/02

Detailed consent is sought for 100 space car park, including spaces for disabled, serviced by an improved and widened access off Sea Street, located opposite in part the public car park and the probation office building. Proposal includes bridges both for vehicular and pedestrian access across Lukely Brook. Proposal provides the access at the junction of Little London with Sea Street to be stopped-off with fixed metal railings. The parking area extends round the back of The Railway Medina public house and includes provision of lighting and specific pedestrian routes. The existing narrow footpath on the north side of Sea Street to be widened and a new enclosure approximately two metres high to be constructed along the back edge of the widened footpath, consisting of one metre high dwarf wall with powder coated steel fence over between brick piers. The gates to the car park to be in similar powder coated steel finish with two circular features. Remaining perimeter wall to consist of the existing brick wall with metal grills and gates. Provision has been made for motor cycle parking.

Applicants have referred to the following features within the design statement:

The northern area of the site which is in the form of steep embankments is indicated to be a managed wildlife area with that wildlife area being fenced off by new galvanised metal fencing.

Similar metal balustrading has been indicated along the edges of the brook. The balustrading to be in the form of galvanised steel balustrading with galvanised weld mesh infill and includes a 75 mm galvanised steel handrail and has removable sections within it to allow maintenance access by the Environment Agency.

Where buildings are to be demolished new concrete surfaces to be laid otherwise existing concrete surfaces to be retained. New surface water drainage systems to be incorporated with the new drains meeting at a new 900 litre capacity bypass petrol interceptor before discharging into the brook.

Applicants indicate that a consultant structural engineer has inspected and prepared a report in respect of the bridges, both of which have been found to be structurally adequate for their purposes. Goalpost type barrier is to be installed on the south side of the vehicular bridge to limit the height of vehicles crossing the bridge.

The new position of the site entrance as previously described is designed to align with the existing vehicular bridge across the brook.

Car spaces have been laid out at 4.8 by 2.4 metres with the disabled bays being 4.8 by 3.6 metres each.

Other matters contained within the detailed design statement are summarised as follows:

Reference made to the centralisation of Hurst's activities within the new building currently under construction between Lugley Street and Crocker Street. Reference also made to the scaling down of the calor gas business from a wholesale/delivery operation to a retail/collect only basis.

The car park is to function not only in the business interests of the applicants but in the interests of car using shoppers and will be fee paying.

Reference is made to the difficulty of policing the existing limited parking provision of the applicants off Crocker Street, with this proposal providing a short stay car park enabling the applicants' customers to park in a relatively short distance of the shop. The car park will also be to the benefit of shoppers using other town centre businesses and retail outlets and also those wishing to enjoy the quayside facilities, such as the Quay Art Centre.

The car park and its entrance will be relatively close to the dual carriageway Medina Way thus enabling cars to avoid entering the town centre, thus reducing congestion.

Applicant makes reference to a recent parking study carried out by consultants for the Council which incorporated results of Chamber of Commerce transport study at the end of 2000.

Proposal seeks to redress the balance with the statistics of the above-mentioned report, being that between 1998 and 2000 there was a reduction in pure car park spaces from 1,461 to 1,225. The study also indicated that there would be a loss of 78 on street car parking spaces as result of any pedestrianisation of the High Street. Applicant acknowledges that this application will only go one third of the way in replacing the above lost spaces and would not therefore compromise the Council's transport strategy.

Reference made to policy statement within the UDP which will be quoted elsewhere in this report.

Proposal provides for eight bicycle parking spaces.

In conclusion the design statement states the following:

"The location of much of this site within a flood plain makes it a very difficult site on which to convince the Environment Agency that any significant built development can take place. The Environment Agency supports the site's use as a public car park.

The use of this site as a car park will generate trade and custom for Hursts as well as many other town centre and edge of town local businesses, particularly since most of the small businesses in Newport do not have the luxury of their own dedicated car parking. This proposal will therefore be assisting in one of the Government's main policy objectives of regenerating town centres which have suffered in the last two decades due to the predominance of out of town retail developments (which, see below, continue to be approved by Local Authorities).

Bearing in mind the recent granting of planning permission to B & Q at the Isle of Wight College site for a new superstore with a huge amount of car parking provision, Hursts hope that the Council will not jeopardise the viability of a local retailing business now employing over 100 Island people at the expense of a major national retailer. They would urge the Council to support this proposal."

TCP/12046J/P519/02

Conservation Area consent is sought for demolition of the redundant industrial and storage buildings situated in the western half of the former gas sales and storage depot.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

National policies are covered in PPG13 - Transport March 2001 with the relevant section quoted as follows:

Parking Controls and Charges

57. "As part of an overall approach on parking covering both the Local Transport Plan and Development Plan, Local Authorities should adopt on street measures to compliment land use policies. Car parking charges should also be used to encourage the use of alternative modes. The regional transport strategy should set out the context for parking controls and charges by each Local Authority. Within this context Local Authorities should set out appropriate levels and charges for parking which do not undermine the vitality of other town centres. Controls over public parking (both on street parking and in car parks) need to be backed up by adequate enforcement measures.

58. Authorities should generally refuse planning permission for car parks which do not accord with this guidance or the policies set out in the Development Plan or Local Transport Plan and where appropriate should encourage redevelopment or reuse of existing parking".

PPG13 has three main objectives as follows:

Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight.

Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling.

Reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

Whole of the site is situated within the Newport town centre boundary and with the exception of the north west corner, is in the Newport Conservation area.

Within the UDP the site is subject of a geographic overview as follows:

Sea Street

"Relocation of the gas bottle store will also enable Sea Street car park to be fully redeveloped for either residential or business uses and allow the realignment of Sea Street. Car parking provision could be replaced on the existing gas bottle storage site and the river frontage of Lukely Brook opened up as a pedestrian route linking to the route alongside Currys store and hence to Hunnyhill. The brewery owning The Railway Medina public house could become a partner in financing such a scheme to enable their premises/beer garden to be extended. The Sea Street car parks between Quay Street and County Hall have some development value and in particular the site at the bottom of Quay Street is visually important and a worthy and attractive building to provide a focus of views from the town and lead to the redeveloped harbour quays".

There is also an overview statement in respect of Newport Harbour, however, Members attention is drawn to the land use strategy allocating land use to sites in respect of "a vision for Newport Harbour" which has recently been the subject of public consultation, and the application site has been identified as public open car park. This process represents a review of the planning brief agreed in 1997 and its aim is to identify and promote specific proposals for the regeneration of Newport Harbour. Relevant extract from the pamphlet in respect of the application site is as follows:

"Majority of residential accommodation should be allocated towards the town end of the quay. There is an opportunity to form "residential quarters" around Carpenters Quay and around New Quay. Residential development would also be suitable for the existing car park on Sea Street site one. Car parking provision could be replaced on the existing gas bottle storage site."

It is important to appreciate that the above is in essence a consultation document on which no firm decisions have been made and the consultation procedure is ongoing.

Local Plan policies which apply are as follows:

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

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies) will be for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

S11 - Land use policies and proposals to reduce the impact of and reliance on the private car will be adopted and the Council will aim to encourage development of an effective, efficient and integrated transport network.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G6 - Development in Areas Liable to Flooding.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D14 - Light Spillage.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

B7 - Demolition of non-Listed buildings in Conservation Areas.

C7 - River Corridors and Estuaries.

P1 - Pollution and Development.

TR1 - An Integrated Transport Network.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

Policy TR16 and in particular Appendix G to the Unitary Development Plan, makes reference to PPG6 - Town Centre and Retail Developments as well as PPG13 as follows:

"The Government's Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 - Town Centre and Retail Developments and 13 - Transport both suggest that car parking charges be included as part of a broader town centre management strategy. The Government suggests that it may be able to achieve better use of existing car parking by adopting policies which give priority to short term visitor parking for shoppers whilst discouraging long term commuter parking.

Car parking charges may now in certain circumstances be considered as a useful method of governing car use and could, where pressure dictates, be varied or adjusted to influence where people park, for how long they park or indeed the level of car use in that area".

Finally, reference is made to the pedestrianisation of Newport High Street proposals which will result, if implemented, in the loss of on street parking within the High Street and Members will note that this has been referred to by the applicants in their submission.

Major area of the site either side of Lukely Brook is within a floodplain area as indicated on the 1999 indicative floodplain maps prepared by the Environment Agency.

Representations

Council's Traffic and Transportation Engineer has commented on policy matters in detail and his comments are attached to this report.

Assistant Development Control Engineer has commented in detail on the technical considerations, five of which have been addressed in revised plans. Issues raised which have not been addressed are as follows:

Engineer considers South Street/Little London should be retained for pedestrian use only.

Cycle parking facilities should be repositioned near the pedestrian access.

Because of the overall site area there appears to be a shortfall in gullies to drain such areas effectively.

The Environment Agency has suggested a number of conditions which are summarised as follows:

Any metal balustrading along edge of Lukely Brook should be designed to be demountable.

All surface water from the car park shall pass through an oil separator of appropriate capacity.

Prior to commencement of development a planting scheme of native species shall be submitted in respect of the land abutting the northern boundary.

Appropriate habitat management plan to be submitted before development commences in respect of the above-mentioned land.

Prior to commencement of work a full contamination investigation shall be submitted and appropriate action to be taken where appropriate in terms of measures and monitoring.

Arrangements need to be approved ensuring instant response vehicles have access to the car park and Lukely Brook at all times.

In addition to the above-mentioned suggested conditions the Agency advises the Planning Authority of the following:

The Agency remains strongly of the opinion that the new riverside footpath link alongside Lukely Brook between Quay Arts and Railway Medina public house should be created as part of the redevelopment of the site. This could easily be achieved through realignment of parking spaces with only a very minor loss of parking capacity.

Agency makes reference to memorandum of understanding (MoU) entitled 'Restoring Newport's Rivers' to which the Isle of Wight Council is a signatory. This document commits signatories to work towards many aims for Newport rivers including this stretch of Lukely Brook. Access improvements are specifically sought restoring Newport's rivers will work to improve landscape, habitat and access along selected river reaches and associated open space.

Proposal does not go far enough in creating a new riverside pedestrian link and wildlife corridor. Agency advises that any through footpath could be by way of a permissive path as opposed to a public right of way.

Agency confirms that the use of the site as a car park would not result in any loss of storage within the floodplain area.

Council's Contaminated Land Officer makes reference to need to consider the potential contamination of the site.

The County Archaeologist recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved.

Health and Safety Executive suggest there are no reasons on major hazard grounds for advising against the granting of planning permission in this case.

Planning Policy Section comment is summarised as follows:

Confirmation that geographic overview statement mentioned above is still applicable with that policy being carried forward in the planning brief for Newport Harbour also mentioned above.

Development of a car park closely linked to the development of the existing Council car park for residential use in both the UDP and the brief.

Confirmation that the application is acceptable in policy terms although concern is expressed relating to future policy issues should an application be received for the development of the current car park which would obviously result in the net loss of car parking spaces for Newport.

The Island's MP has expressed an interest in this application following the applicant contacting him raising a number of issues.

Application has been the subject of two letters of support with both writers referring to the contribution that such a car park will have in reducing congestion, and one letter writer expressing concern at the apparent policy of reducing car parking in Newport.

Evaluation

The main material considerations relate to that of principle and the more detailed aspects of the proposal in relation to specific policies etc.

With regard to principle Members will note that there are many relevant policies which need to be considered with the issue of sustainability being the most important. The general thrust of these policies is to try and reduce the need to travel especially by car and to promote alternatives to car use by encouraging the provision of improved public transport facilities thus making them more user friendly. Certainly this proposal satisfies the Geographic Overview Statement where it states "car parking provision could be replaced on the existing gas bottle storage site and the river frontage of Lukely Brook opening up as a pedestrian route etc....." The Newport Harbour plan currently in the course of public consultation acknowledges this by identifying the site for public open car park. The Overview Policy however, does make specific reference to the removal of the gas bottle store as a hazardous material site freeing up the possibility of redeveloping the Council's car park on the southern side of Sea Street for either residential or business use with that site being indicated again on the Newport Harbour plan as set aside for significant residential with some element of employment mix.

The Traffic and Transport Engineer within his statement having referred to the Parking Needs Survey has made reference to the pedestrianisation of the Newport High Street and the resultant loss of parking. In essence he supports the proposal on the basis that there will be a need to offset the potential for loss of parking in the High Street although he does make reference to other policies which encourage transport by other means. He emphasises however that the car park should be short stay and the charges be in line with the Council's charging policy.

It is important to appreciate that although this proposed car park will be open for the public use it will be administered by a specific retailer although also benefiting other town centre businesses etc.

Obviously whilst the public car park opposite the site continues to function this car park proposal will be seen as an additional facility available for Newport shoppers. Members may need to bear in mind however that the Council's car park opposite the site may be the subject of a planning application for a change of use as identified in the Newport Harbour Land Use Strategy Plan.

There are a number of comments in respect of the submitted plans from the Environment Agency and from the Development Control Engineer.

Applicants have not felt able to include all the requirements of the Highways Engineer in their submitted proposal.

Whilst agreeing to close the vehicular access on the corner of South Street and Little London, they do not wish to create a pedestrian access at this point. Whilst such an access would be desirable, I do not consider it essential, or its omission to be a reason to refuse the application.

As far as the location of the cycle racks is concerned, applicants consider that these are appropriately located less than 15 metres from the main entrance gates to the car park. On the north side of the brook, the racks are next to the pedestrian access gate and the bicycle land along the west side of Little London.

Again, I would not see the location of the bicycle racks as being a reason to refuse the application.

The Highways Engineer has suggested there is a shortfall in surface water disposal gullies but the applicants point out that the surface water drainage layout has been designed by a Chartered Civil and Water Engineer and suggests therefore that the 9 proposed road gullies will be adequate.

None the less, in my recommendation for approval, I suggest a condition requiring submission and approval of design details and calculations regarding surface water drainage system.

The more critical issue is that relating to the provision of a riverside footpath link through the site. Clearly the applicants are concerned at the safety issues which may result from such a proposal. The desire for such a pedestrian route along Lukely Brook has however been clearly flagged up in the Overview Statement and further reinforced within the comments of the Traffic and Transportation Engineer and the Environment Agency.

This is obviously an important issue and applicants have been further requested to reconsider their stance in terms of providing a pedestrian walkway. In this regard they state the following

... "Hursts are still reluctant to encourage people onto the site purely for recreational purposes. However they have asked me to point out to the planning authority that ....that the desired pedestrian route will be substantially provided in any case with the application scheme along approximately 50 % of the northern edge of the Brook and 25% of the southern edge. This may not be totally what the planning authority are looking for but it represents a considerable improvement on what is currently available - zero public access to this stretch of Lukely Brook - and again shows that Hursts are willing to meet the Council half way in their outlook."

Applicants request that this be considered as a reasonable compromise.

Whilst acknowledging the above comments and confirming that footpath routes contained within the car parking scheme do provide waters edge access then obviously that is not continuous particularly towards the west. Again in part this satisfies the policy statement however the end result is that pedestrians will be directed towards Sea Street and thence along the northern side of Sea Street a relatively short distance from Lukely Brook. members may consider it is important to provide the whole of the access as required in the policy statement. If this is the case then clearly an impasse has been reached and refusal of the application is the only appropriate step to take on this ground.

On the other hand members may consider the applicants have presented a compromise with the level of Riverside walkway being sufficient and therefore approval is appropriate. It may be that the latter approach would be acceptable given that it would at least achieve the site being brought on line for car parking purposes in line with the policies.

Applicants agents have expressed concern regarding the Environment Agency's request that all balustrading along the edge of Lukely Brook should be demountable. Their letter is summarised as follows:

"We have designed certain sections of the balustrading in potentially critical locations to be removable but not all of it."

Agent not clear whether EA requires entire length of balustrading to be demountable, if so, applicants consider this would be unreasonable, suggesting that a condition could be worded that extent of demountability of the balustrading be subject of an agreement between applicant/Environment Agency/Planning Authority.

The site's location within the Conservation Area results in a duty of every applicant to ensure preservation and enhancement of that area. Members will note that the proposal involves the construction of a new boundary wall to Sea Street which differs in design and appearance to that element of the existing wall which is to be retained. The reason for the change in design is to enable surveillance into the car park through the vertical powder coated steel fence element of the wall. This apart however, I consider the design to be acceptable providing good quality brickwork is used and certainly would represent an improvement over the current situation in respect of the existing buildings which face Sea Street.

TCP/12046J/P51902

The existing buildings on this site, even those which are of a more solid construction, do not contribute to the quality of the Conservation Area and therefore it is considered that their demolition is an improvement in this case. Obviously in this case they are not being replaced by buildings but by a car park which in visual terms is not likely to enhance the Conservation Area, however, I am satisfied the proposal satisfies the test in terms of preservation of the Conservation Area given the design quality of the boundary wall as described above. The provision of landscaping and the opening up of the site as compared with the present use as a gas bottle store will in my opinion protect the character of the Conservation Area.

Reasons for Recommendation (both applications)

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that both the Conservation Area and the planning applications are acceptable in planning policy terms. The proposed car park accords with the main thrust of the policy in terms of its use as a car park, and provided care is taken with finishes represents an improvement to the established use as a gas bottle store. I therefore consider that conditional approval is appropriate.

       Recommendation - Approval (both applications)

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint report on CAC/14420S and LBC/14420T

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint report on TCPL/14420R and LBC/14420T

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

Application relates to three/four storey Grade II Listed building which currently operates as 51 bedroomed hotel complex situated on southern side of The Strand between its junctions with Cornwall Street and Simeon Street. The premises has double road frontage with rear parking area and garage block fronting Simeon Street.

Relevant History

Several consents granted in past for extensions to premises, most recent of which relate to single storey extension to provide private nursery and enclosed steps/access to lower ground floor level approved in June 1993.

Details of Application

Application seeks consent for change of use of eastern part of hotel premises (formerly numbers 34 and 35) from current hotel usage to conversion into eight self-contained flats.

Existing building easily converts to flatted development given, its original residential use and fact that building itself at one time was detached from adjoining buildings but which has been linked by way of later extension to allow operation as hotel complex.

The conversion provides for eight three bedroomed flatted units over four floors and involves minimal internal works.

Other works involve demolition of substantial ground floor rear extension and detached garage fronting Simeon Street.

Premises has benefit of rear parking area with access onto Simeon Street.

Remainder of hotel premises would continue to operate as such offering a reduced operation totalling I understand some 26 letting rooms.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

As site is located within Conservation Area and relates to a Listed building the following policies are considered relevant:

G1 - Development Envelopes.

G6 - Development in Areas Liable to Flooding.

D1 - Standards of Design.

B1 - Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings.

B3 - Change of Use of Listed Buildings.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

T5 - Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Areas.

Representations

Tourism services have been consulted.

Evaluation

Main planning considerations relate to consideration of relevant development plan policies, fact that buildings themselves are Listed and whether or not such change of use/alterations will protect and/or enhance Conservation Area.

Policy T5 advises that outside defined hotel areas development resulting in loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where there is a change of use to another form of holiday accommodation, existing accommodation is upgraded or improved or proposal involves a change of use of premises of less than ten lettable bedrooms. Text attaching to this policy advises that Ryde is outside defined hotel area but is important tourist resort in its own right and provides good hotel accommodation. Roughly 60% of hotel type accommodation is in smaller establishments (hotel and guest houses) with less than ten bedrooms, but in the main these are bed and breakfast establishments and it is anticipated that these will move in and out of serviced accommodation depending upon market influences.

In support of application applicant company has submitted statement which outlines the current trading difficulties.

Briefly, report advises that mainstay of trade of Teneriffe Hotel is coach tours (over 90%), although such trade within Britain has been declining for some time it has been possible to reverse trend with good service and low prices. However, shrinking coaching market is beginning to become quite severe resulting in coach company cancellations which has been a significant feature of current trading year. Furthermore, increasing accessibility of Europe via both coach and air is compounding problem with alternative competition. Low cost airlines have made a further incursion in to market share. Additional problem is limited discount offered by ferry operator which contributes significantly to problem of filling hotel. Introduction of minimum wage has increased costs together with recruitment and retention of necessary staff. Change of use of part of hotel to residential will enable operator to add positively to community rather than have hotel closure. Conversion would allow investment required for internal structural changes to allow remainder of premises to operate in the tourist sector.

Clearly proposal is contrary to policy T5, however, Members will appreciate there are other material considerations which should be borne in mind in assessing application. Firstly, the building itself is Grade II Listed and policy B3 does allow for change of use of such buildings provided that they do not have detrimental effect on long term structure of building and preserves the building's special architectural features. Secondly, removal of unsightly rear addition and detached garage will improve setting and appearance of Listed Building and is supported by policy B1. Demolition work also accords with policy B6 which seeks to protect and enhance Conservation Areas, with reduced parking area and introduction of landscaped areas.

It should also be noted that application proposes retention of western section of building which will allow for its continued use as hotel premises providing some 26 letting rooms. As previously referred to, building itself lends itself to easy sub-division whilst maintaining main entrance to hotel and associated facilities.

Whilst development is contrary to policy T5 I consider in this instance that there are other equally important policies which apply in respect of proposal. Proposal still leaves significant hotel operating from adjoining building and proposal would offer alternative use for Listed Building which would help ensure its long term maintenance and upkeep thereby maintaining

the character of Conservation Area. Indeed demolition works will remove several unsightly buildings and help improve overall appearance and setting of Listed Building and adjoining Listed properties.

In view of the above comments I consider there are special circumstances which collectively are of greater importance than policy T5 consideration in this particular instance.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that the circumstances surrounding this particular application are sufficient to warrant exception to be made to normal policy (T5) which seeks to retain hotel accommodation. Considerations concerning policies B1, B3 and B6 are considered to outweigh policy objection and in any event, proposal seeks to retain significant part of hotel accommodation. The application is recommended accordingly.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

This matter has been brought back to Committee as the applicants have appealed against the planning application on the grounds of non-determination. Members will be aware that following the resolution on 2 April 2002 to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement a further report was brought back to the Development Control on 25 June 2002 in which the following resolution was taken:

“Reject the applicants offer and reaffirm the resolution of 2 April 2002, that is to enter into a Section 106 Agreement securing the use of the theatre by an appropriate contribution and mechanism for delivery. Issue the permission for ten residential units providing no adverse comments are made in the public consultation period that would warrant reconsideration by the Planning Committee. Allow the applicant 14 days to reconsider his position and if no satisfactory progress is made bring the matter back to Committee with a likely recommendation for refusal.”

The report below is amended to take into consideration whether or not planning permission can be granted without a legal agreement.

Site and Location

The site is part of the curtilage of the former main school building and its grounds. This area itself is divided by the Upper Chine which is an established landscaped belt furnished with a stream and indigenous landscaping. The former school main building is on the site. Primary access is from a substandard driveway to the north, although existing access points exist further to the south west (off site). Between these access points is an established tree belt. Adjoining the school building and part of the site is the former Margaret Pasmore Theatre known now as The Portico.

Generally this part of Shanklin appears as open undulating landscape with plateaus and the buildings appear very well integrated into this setting. The bridle path runs to the south of the site in a sweeping curve and terminates further north from the site. This route has now been improved and upgraded to form a road. On site clearance work has taken place.

Existing substantial specimen trees are scattered all over the site. Boundary treatments are informal.

Overall the site is attractive and forms a transitional area between town and country and has the appearance of very low density. The application site is approximately half the area of the immediate land surrounding the former school building. The former school building is located to the south west of the site. Generally the surrounding area is residential in character with a number of commercial properties used as hotels and guest houses.

Relevant History

The following planning permissions are appropriate:

            An application entitled “Demolition and replacement of Norfolk Lodge & adjacent outbuildings with 2 detached dwellings; change of use of Clevelands Lodge (& associated Clevelands Cottage), Suffolk Lodge & Fairfield House from school dormitories to 3 detached houses; proposed 3 detached dwellings with garages & access drive off Priory Road; provision of access off Priory Road serving 2 detached dwellings. In addition, submitted for illustrative purposes only, the conversion of Upper Chine School to hotel, restaurant, themed wine bar & associated facilities; glazed enclosure over swimming pool, alterations to junction of Church Road/Priory Road and associated car/coach parking and 6 detached dwellings and the conversion of Downdale Lodge and Downdale Court to residential, site of Upper Chine School, Priory Road, Shanklin,”, was approved on 13 June 1998 subject to conditions and a legal agreement restricting the use of specific plots and the provision of affordable housing.

            Demolition of part of school building; outline for six dwellings; change of use of Downdale Lodge and Downdale Court to residential; change of use of school building to hotel; proposed car parking and landscaping and alteration to public footpath; new access road off Priory Road and highway improvements at junction of Church Road/Priory Road approved 5 August 1998.

(Early ‘release’ of three of the residential units was agreed by the Planning and Countryside Committee on 30 March 1999, along with releasing the requirement to improve the building’s envelope following an offer from the developer to demolish a further element of the main school building).

Demolition of theatre, partial demolition of former school building, conversion of two/three storey extension to former school building and provide thirteen self-contained units of holiday accommodation, four detached houses, resiting of car park and alterations to vehicular access, traditional restaurant building and conversion of former building to bar linked to restaurant. Planning permission was refused on 30 June 1999.

An application for partial demolition of former school building; conversion of two/three storey section of former school building and extension to form thirteen self-contained holiday units, swimming pool, gym and ancillary accommodation; infilling of existing swimming pool to form tennis court; alterations to vehicular access has been approved subject to satisfactory highway improvements, 19 November 1999.

TCP/23144A - Two travel lodges and parking area; extension and conversion of former school building to form hotel/bed and breakfast accommodation and integral swimming pool. Granted 27 October 2000.

TCP/23144B - Three holiday units, one disabled person's holiday unit and manager's accommodation (Phase 2). Granted 3 May 2000.

TCP/23144E - Change of use of manager's office accommodation to form five holiday units with access off Church Road. Granted 13 September 2000.

TCP/23144F - Three holiday units. Granted 19 March 2001.

TCP/23144G - Conversion of living quarters in north wing to form ten flats. Refused 28 June 2001.

TCP/23144H - Demolition of theatre; construction of two travel lodges, formation of vehicular access and parking area. Granted 30 November 2001.

TCP/24645 – Four units of holiday accommodation with parking and turning area. Granted 17 May 2002.

Details of Application

This application now occupies a reduced area to that which was originally submitted. In essence, the old school building will be converted into residential accommodation with very little external alterations which will not be tied down to holiday accommodation.

Coupled with the conversion are extensions and alterations to the theatre building in order to bring it up to a satisfactory standard for use by the public. The proposals include disabled facilities (toilets, ramps etc), improvements internally to the lighting system and additional facilities for eating etc.

Extensions include a one storey conservatory to the rear and one storey extensions to the front effectively filling in the void of the existing overhang.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

PPG1 emphasises the following:

           The Government is committed to a plan-led system of development control which is given statutory force by Section 54A of the 1990 Act which emphasises where adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies then application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

“The objective of the plan-led system can be summarised as:

           ensuring rational and consistent decisions;

                                   achieving greater certainty;

                                   securing public involvement in shaping local planning policies;

                                   facilitating quicker planning decisions;

                                   reducing the number of misconceived planning applications and appeals.”

PPG21 The planning system should therefore facilitate and encourage development and improvement in tourist provision. The development control system views that all new tourist related development is subject to proper appraisal where necessary, a new development can be made subject to conditions regulating its scale, location, access, design, landscaping, hours of operation and other requirements that will lessen its impact.

Unitary Development Plan

The Unitary Development Plan embodies PPG21 and the economic significance of tourism and its environmental impact and its importance in land use planning.

Application site forms part of H3 (94) and as T7(e).

Policy T7(e) states:

“Planning applications for tourism uses in the area specified below and found on the proposals map will be approved:

(e)       Upper Chine (formerly school site).”

Appendix H - Summary of existing and proposed developments:

Item 16 - Upper Chine, Shanklin.

A tourism development area T7(e) comprising of 2.5 hectares of land, including school buildings, playing fields and the Margaret Pasmore Theatre which, due to the relocation of the school, are now surplus to requirements. The site is adjacent to Shanklin Conservation Area and adjoins Big Mead Recreation Area. Access is from Church Road. An area of land allocated for residential development, in conjunction with this site, is considered suitable for reuse of the former large house and low density development of part of the school grounds, not complete redevelopment of the site. It is considered that the site is suitable for conference facilities for tourism accommodation, although reuse for educational purposes would also be acceptable. Any use of the site would need to reflect the character of the area.

Within the Unitary Development Plan, the following policies apply:

H1       “The majority of new residential development will be expected to be located within the defined development envelopes of the main settlements of Cowes, East Cowes, Newport, Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin. Planning applications for major residential schemes outside the main Island towns will not be permitted.”

H3       “Planning applications for residential development will be approved on the sites listed in Appendix A subject to any specific guidance as detailed.”

Appendix A (item 94) - land at Upper Chine Shanklin:

“Two areas of land totalling 2.4 hectares to the south of Shanklin are included in the development envelope and allocated for residential development. The site of the former cottage hospital, derelict in a major fire should be redeveloped in keeping with the large properties in the area. The second area is part of a comprehensive development scheme in conjunction with tourism development allocated to the north and will be the subject of a detailed brief to guide the whole development. This area includes now redundant dormitory accommodation of Upper Chine School. Some parts of the former school accommodation are not considered suitable for retention or conversion whilst the former large houses within the grounds could be largely retained either as a large individual dwelling or as flatted accommodation. The parts of the former school grounds included in the development envelope are considered suitable for low density housing development within the landscaped grounds. Both the upper and lower playing fields are not considered suitable for development and are to be retained as open space.”

Policy D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development in the Site), Policy D3 (Landscaping), D11 (Crime and Design), D13 (Energy Conservation), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development), TR6 (Cycling and Walking), TR17 (Public Rights of Way) and C8 (Nature Conservation).

Representations

Highway Engineer makes adverse comments on this application regarding vehicular access and parking.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment, but advises that notification under Section 49 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 has to be made to the Environmental Health Officer.

Definitive Map Officer from Highways and Transportation comments as follows:

"Note that Section 6(b) of the application is incorrect, as public footpath SS91(Vaughan Way) runs adjacent to the site. It appears from the plans that the proposal will use existing vehicle accesses and there will be no additional vehicle traffic using footpath 91

(Vaughan Way), in which case I have no comment to make, but I would be glad if you could notify me if there is any intentional or amendment at a later stage which would open an access across the footpath."

The Theatres Trust comment:

"We note that your covering letter states that this 'seeks to generate monies for the inclusion of the existing theatre'. I am not clear whether the works proposed would be contrary to the Development Plan policies or have any potential negative effects. Our expertise is in theatres buildings. In order to assess whether you are being presented with 'a good deal', I will need to know this as well as the following. How much money will be generated, what will it be spent on, what mechanisms will ensure that it is spent in the best way, will there be a Section 106 agreement?"

Shanklin Town Council comment:

"Members were opposed to the conversion of the living quarters and remaining school building into flats. This building should be retained for tourist related use. Members were however supportive of the retention and improvement of the Margaret Pasmore Theatre."

Five letters of objection from two writers concerned regarding the surrounding area and former uses, requesting that any approval should have conditions containing the development with no consideration being given to trees on the site. Work being carried out without permission, access being formed, greater activity at junctions and any approval should prevent burning on site.

Twenty three letters of support primarily focus on being an asset to the area, contribution to tourism, improvement to derelict and neglected site, securing a use for this special building, a long-term solution as well as of local community benefit.

Evaluation

In order to keep this application in context of the Unitary Development Plan’s policy for the area, a brief mention of the history is relevant.

Although the area of application is shown on the Unitary Development Plan as an area where Policy T7(e) is appropriate, it is clear from the text that this site should be developed in conjunction with H3(94).

This has happened in the approved applications described within the history above. Generally speaking, the Planning and Countryside Committee allowed increased density and two units outside the development envelope to enable the former Girls’ School main building to be ‘pump primed’. That is, the profits from one development are set against the potential losses from another, allowing it to be more likely to be developed.

For this enabling development to work successfully, ideally an end result should be strived for. The ‘result’ under the two planning applications TCP/14525W and Z were described as follows:

           Conversion of Upper Chine School to hotel, restaurant, themed wine bar and associated facilities and glazed enclosure over swimming pool.

           Change of school buildings to an hotel.

Subsequent to these approvals, Members have also agreed to relax the restriction on timing of occupancy of three of the five agreed residential units to allow the costing which was to go forward to the renovation of the school buildings to be put to use in the demolition of outer buildings. Four schemes for holiday accommodation have recently been approved on the scheme to the south and two lots of the travel lodges giving a total of three (two overlap).

So that is where we are today. The overall comprehensive development has moved on and we find ourselves looking at half of the remaining site for a residential use and the conservation/renovation of the theatre.

Unfortunately, this remaining part of the site has been further split by the main building now having two owners. Part of the main building has now also been taken outside the application site, requiring further details to be submitted regarding the internal arrangements.

Quite clearly there is little physical alterations to the main building and no principal change to the theatre. Therefore this application should be determined primarily on the principle of allowing residential accommodation. On its own residential accommodation has been refused for ten flats on policy grounds. This application is somewhat different in that it brings forward and safeguards the use of the theatre by effectively paying for its retention by the share of profits made on the residential development. However, and as touched on earlier, the safeguarding of the use of the theatre is paramount.

It is clearly a departure and it is my opinion that it simply falls to be determined on how much weight should be given to this community facility and whether in itself this outweighs the primacy of the Unitary Development Plan. That is, whether the material consideration of retaining this theatre outweighs the effective concession of allowing residential development.

It is a fine balance to make, but there does seem from the letters of support and the perceived feeling from the community that this asset is required. To date, it can be clearly seen that money has been invested in a refurbishment of the building so there does appear to be a genuine intent to improve this facility. An engineer's report on the structure of the buildings has been submitted and shows that maintenance and repair costs could be prohibitive.

The proposed theatre's use will be more than a theatre and will attempt to attract school parties (possibly staying overnight) and other uses of conference facilities. This ties in with the original intentions of Policy T7.

To date, the designation for Tourism (T7) has only come forward with holiday accommodation which although meritable in itself, does not actually provide any variety of facilities. The theatre would. It is important that the permission if forthcoming establishes how much money will be generated for the theatre, what it will be spent on and what mechanisms will ensure that it is spent in the best way.

Figures have been produced that the maintenance running costs per year will be £70,000.

Specific legal advice has been taken and it has been suggested that there could possibly be a way of establishing a fund such as a charitable fund with an agreed governing document to show which direction any funding should go. It is accepted that you cannot force something to be opened but you can certainly facilitate it by providing funding each year. A solution could be that a contribution of £50,000 for four years be paid into an agreed trust with a proviso that the theatre site is not redeveloped for the next ten years and the revocation of the existing planning permission TCP/23144H is voluntarily made.

There may of course be some scope if planning permission is forthcoming to use the accommodation within the Travel Lodge for overnight accommodation.

Turning to the detail, the internal arrangements within the theatre are what you would expect in a theatre with some form of ancillary usage. The extensions to the front take into account the overall design of the 1970s building.

The application has been changed to ten units of accommodation with less bedrooms than the previous six. This ties in closer to the demand of one and two bedroom units shown in the Housing Needs survey. The conversion of the former school building to residential development by definition relates to an existing building which in itself will have an established visual impact. Improvements to the building's envelope is focused on minor alterations as touched upon earlier. The proposed renovations will have a positive impact of this attractive building..

Highways raises an objection on highway requirements on parking and vehicular access.

Landscaping apart from the existing survey submitted has not been shown, but it is important to retain as much as possible of the landscape into the Upper Chine and in an appropriate position to safeguard its integrity is suggested.

Facilities are provided in the theatre for the general public.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that bringing forward the benefit and retention of the theatre outweighs in this instance the primacy of the Unitary Development Plan and such an application should be supported. However, without a proper mechanism to secure the use of the land the proposal is unacceptable. It is important to establish the mechanism and the delivery of such.

Recommendation - If the Development Control Committee were in a position to determine the application the recommendation would be REFUSAL for the following reasons:

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

Site of 1.049 hectares east of Parkhurst Road and north of St Mary's Hospital grounds, south of properties 1 - 10 (consecutively) Woolcombe Road to east of nos. 10 and 13 Woolcombe Road and south of 11 - 18 (consecutively) Harris Road. Application site includes the whole of Hewitt Crescent from its southern cul-de-sac head through to its junction with Parkhurst Road via Partridge Road. It also includes the existing access on the eastern side of Parkhurst Road between 22 and 23 Hewitt Crescent.

Site elevated above the level of Hewitt Crescent. Eastern half of the site is in the ownership of the Council whilst the western half is in the ownership of the Prison Service with a very small element centrally located to the north of the industrial units forming in part, part of the rear garden of no. 10 Woolcombe Road. Although not part of the application site application indicates location of group of four industrial units which has a further separate access off Parkhurst Road. The Council owned area of the site also accommodates the library headquarters. The only landscape features on the site are two small groups of conifer trees. Adjoining in part the northern boundary of the site is an area of open space which stands on the eastern side of Hewitt Crescent. Site has a high voltage overhead cable running in an east west direction parallel with the southern boundary.

Planning History

Outline consent for residential development with access off Hewitt Crescent granted to the prison service in September 2001, for the prison service owned land only for the west of the current application site. The consent reserved siting, design, external appearance and landscaping for further approval but included access only, and was subject of conditions relating to landscaping, drainage, highways, provision of parking requirement for a range of dwellings, provision of affordable housing and need to construct road to the eastern boundary of the site to an adoptable standard.

The above-mentioned consent formed one of eleven applications for residential development on various sites throughout the prison estates (Albany, Camphill, Parkhurst) of which two were refused, seven have been approved and two remain undetermined. Members will recall that the strategy behind the obtaining of these consents was to amass sufficient funds to ensure roads, sewers and street lighting can be brought up to an adoptable standard.

Details of Application

Outline consent is sought by the Council for residential development consisting of 11 no. two bedroom units and 35 no. three bedroom units with all matters reserved apart from siting and means of access.

Layout indicates a mixture of semi-detached and terraced units with the arrangement of dwellings and road layout dictated by the alignment of the overhead cable and the retention of the industrial units. Proposal indicates retention of a 4 metre tree screen along the eastern boundary.

Hewitt Crescent has been included along with the length of Partridge Road to its junction with Parkhurst Road.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

The overall site including the land on which the industrial units stand is zoned for residential development with a policy relating to the land being as follows:

"An area of land 1.59 hectares east of Parkhurst Road north of St Mary's Hospital previously partly used as tree nursery is considered suitable for residential development in conjunction with undeveloped land within the southern part of the residential estate to north and possible redevelopment of adjoining library headquarters site. This may be reduced for the proposed road link from Parkhurst Road to Dodnor Lane. Presently occupied by library headquarters and buildings, housing, small number of light industrial units the development of the site will be reliant upon suitable alternative accommodation being found for some existing uses and subject to existing vehicular access being improved."

Members are advised that during the UDP process the hospital no longer required a proposed road link between Parkhurst Road and Dodnor Lane and therefore this element of the above policy no longer applies.

Application site does not encroach into zoned open space area to the north.

National policies are covered as follows:

PPG3 - Housing March 2000 which emphasises the following:

Meeting housing requirements for whole community including those in need of affordable housing.

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

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of green field sites.

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30 units to 50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

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

Delivery of affordable housing major material consideration in respect of housing development. Objectives should be to ensure that affordable housing secured will contribute to satisfying local housing need as demonstrated by vigorous assessments.

Local Plan Policies

The relevant policies are 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 green field 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.

D3 - Landscaping.

H2 - To ensure that large residential developments contain a variety of house sizes and types.

H3 - Allocation of Residential Development Sites.

H6 - High Density Residential Development.

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

L10 - Open Space in Housing Developments.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

P1 - Pollution and Development.

P5 - Reducing the Impact of Noise.

Reference is made to the recent Housing Needs Survey, the main conclusions of which are as follows:

Demand for rented accommodation.

Although there is a need in most Island settlements, the areas with the most need are Newport, Ryde, Shanklin/Lake/Sandown followed by Cowes.

The large proportion is for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for 2/3 bedroom homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

Members will also be aware of recent Government statement which emphasised the need to deliver affordable housing in the south east.

Representations

Highway Engineer confirms application should include access route including all of Hewitt Crescent as the increase in number of units served off that road is unacceptable without widening in Hewitt Crescent, particularly around the bends. New junction to Partridge Road/A3020 should be provided.

Environmental Health Officer has commented as follows:

"Having visited the site I am of the opinion that housing at this location is not appropriate or compatible with existing industrial use of the adjacent land for the reasons of causing potential disamenity by noise and/or odour to future occupiers of residential premises. I should point out that should permission be granted a situation could arise where intervention by this Department could be required to restrict the business activities or require substantial modification to the business operations which could affect their economic viability."

Council's Contaminated Land Officer suggests appropriate condition requiring a methodology for investigation and assessment/remediation scheme to deal with any contaminants should be applied.

Fifteen copies of a pro-forma letter have been received from residents of Hewitt Crescent and a copy is attached to this report. In addition to the above, four individual letters of objection have been received from residents of Hewitt Crescent covering, in some cases in some detail, the issues contained within the pro-forma letter. Members should note that item 8 on the pro-forma letter is not relevant to planning and should not be considered.

Evaluation

Issues to consider are as follows:

Principle of development.

Density/provision of affordable housing.

Potential conflict between industrial/housing.

Highway issues.

Drainage issues.

Open space issues.

Members will note that because of the allocation of the site for residential development any resistance to the principle of residential development on this site would be unsustainable. Members should appreciate that this application has been submitted on behalf of the Council in conjunction with the Prison Service. Members will appreciate that part of the overall allocated site has been excluded from this application being the part which accommodates the industrial units as previously described. I am advised that the library headquarters are to be relocated although no specific alternative site has been identified as yet. I am also advised that the scheme could not proceed until the library headquarters has been relocated and the disposal of this site will be the funding mechanism to achieve relocation.

Next issue relates in essence to siting with reference to the density and mix of development being proposed. The proposal results in a density of 32 units per hectare which is at the lower end of the suggested densities referred to in PPG3. An analysis of the layout would suggest that more efficient use of the land could be achieved with particular reference to using this site to ensure it fully addresses the identified needs as indicated in the Housing Needs Survey. The layout itself is relatively traditional in approach and obviously represents a method of developing the site.

Members will appreciate from recent Government pronouncements that the need to ensure provision of affordable housing is high on the agenda with deliverability being the main object.

In the past provision of affordable housing has been covered by condition, however, recent problems have resulted in discussions with the Council's Legal Services Department and advice obtained from other Authorities in the south and south east, suggests that the most appropriate method of dealing with this is through a Section 106 Agreement. However, in this case, given that the application has been submitted by the Council such a procedure would not be appropriate. The reason behind using the 106 procedure is that it provides a greater certainty and in most cases would involve a registered social landlord as a party to the Agreement.

This is an application however, by the Council for disposal and therefore the use of a condition is the only appropriate method. I would however, suggest an advisory letter be sent suggesting that any applicant other than the Council submitting a detailed application should be prepared to enter into a Section 106 Agreement in conjunction with a registered social landlord to ensure deliverability of affordable housing on this site.

I would concur with Environmental Health Officer concerns and the matter has been discussed with the Property Services Manager with it being suggested that, in the interest of achieving an overall comprehensive development, the industrial units should be relocated and the site included in the current application site. In reply the Property Services Manager states the following:

"I appreciate that the current application does not help you with the comprehensive approach to planning in the area but I am happy to undertake a recommendation to the Council that the current application is phase I of the process and that we should now commence work on the second phase to this area to bring forward a second application involving the commercial element that would no doubt fall primarily to residential use. If you are happy with this approach I would be willing to share this with my portfolio holder and the businesses concerned and progress the second phase application. Under this process you would then be able to obtain comprehensive planning."

I accept that this is a method of addressing this issue, for there are existing occupiers within these industrial buildings who have had an established use over many years. This apart however, the building themselves are of a poor appearance and the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer do have relevance for if the worse case scenario should occur where residential development does take place without either relocation or integration of the commercial uses then conflict will result.

The result of retaining these industrial units is inevitably the retention of the existing access which serves them. This access is off Parkhurst Road and it was anticipated that residential development on the overall site would result in not only the removal of the industrial units but also the closure of the access. The Property Services Manager states the following:

"The established access to the industrial units does form an exclusive route to their site and it was my view that this forms segregation of the two types of vehicles. Having known the site for many years and having discussed the site with my colleagues in Highways it is also my understanding that this proposal was accepted."

Members will appreciate that the extensive road improvements which forms part of the residential proposals in respect of the prison sites involve the creation of one traffic junction off Parkhurst Road and improvements to the junction of Partridge Road with Parkhurst Road, thus

enabling the closure of all the other various accesses including the access which serves these industrial units. The current application will not unfortunately result in this happening.

Roads are currently owned by the Prison Service and the reason for their inclusion is to enable appropriate conditions to be applied requiring their upgrading which will include widening and general improvements to the junction of Partridge Road with Parkhurst Road. Such improvements will not only result in an appropriate road to serve the proposed development but will be of benefit to existing residents by the creation of an access road to an adoptable standard which would also serve those existing properties.

Members will be aware that the inadequacies of the drainage systems in this area is one of the main reasons why delays have occurred in respect of marketing of the prison service approved developments.

The major problem with drainage relates to capacity with the drainage issues currently being the subject of considerable negotiations with the relevant agencies including Southern Water. Although some progress is being made there are outstanding issues relating to ecology and environmental matters which need to be resolved before a final solution can be reached. The consents that were granted to the prison service made reference to three conditions covering drainage, one covering the need to ensure no increase in frequency and volume of storm overflow events at Dodnor Lane and Prior Crescent wastewater pumping station, second related to the need to ensure a surface water regulation system has been approved and implemented and the third requiring the submission of a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies being submitted in respect of foul water disposal, with no dwelling being occupied until such agreed scheme has been completed. In view of the current unresolved situation with regard to drainage, I suggest that if Members are mindful to approve this application those same conditions should apply.

With regard to open space, Members will note that the site directly abuts a substantial area of open space which serves the current development. This proposal, apart from some minor encroachment that may occur in respect of highway improvements will not in essence alter the availability and capability of that area to serve as open space for the adjoining residential development. The proposed layout does indicate some small areas of open space within the layout. Although the layout is relatively small in scale it clearly indicates that at least one parking space per unit has been achieved with, in a number of cases, two parking spaces. I suggest as long as the average is approximately 1.5 parking spaces per unit this would satisfy the guidance given in PPG3.

Proposal will result in loss of the limited number of trees on the site, however, proposal does indicate a 4 metre tree screen along the eastern boundary.

When relating proposal to the pro-forma letter I consider most of the points raised in that letter have been addressed either by way of submitted proposals or by way of conditions. It is important to appreciate that this is an outline application which both establishes the principle and in this case the number of units along with the means of access. Most of the concerns within the pro-forma letter relate to highway matters. These can be adequately covered by conditions with one of the main benefits of this proposal being the upgrading of Hewitt Crescent and a short length of Partridge Road to an adoptable standard thus introducing the various road widths, kerbs, footpaths etc which will produce a much safer and more usable road. Essentially, any developer of this site will be expected to carry out these works in order to provide a suitable access. A similar situation relates to the drainage queries. In terms of the enjoyment of the existing open space area this should not be affected by this proposal other than by a need to encroach slightly for road widening and providing appropriate curvature on the roads.

In summary proposal relates to an allocated residential site with a layout indicating a relatively low density development albeit within the minimum figures suggested in PPG3. The actual layout itself does not necessarily represent the best solution and the site could easily accommodate a higher density of development. Whilst the retention of the industrial units does not allow the preferred more comprehensive approach to development of this site, the commitment to bringing forward a second application involving the remaining area of the site on which the industrial units stand. Because of the nature of the application affordable housing would have to be addressed by way of condition as will the drainage issues.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider this proposal accords with the relevant policies and will, in terms of Hewitt Crescent particularly, result in an upgrading of that road to an adoptable standard to enable the site to be serviced and more significantly to be of benefit to existing residents.

1.            Recommendation -    Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

2.            Recommendation -    That an advisory letter be sent suggesting that any                                                              applicant other than the Council submitting a detailed                                                         application should be prepared to enter into a Section                                                        106 Agreement in conjunction with a registered social                                                        landlord to ensure deliverability of affordable housing                                                        on the site.

PART III

Representations

Rights of Way Officer points out that the public footpath runs through the site and raises concern if the new building would affect the right of way.

Evaluation

Durton Farm House is located on the south side of Long Lane, at the end of Durton Lane. The existing farm building is a rectangular, two storey brickwork finished dwelling under a hipped roof overall dimensions of 12.6 x 7 metres with an approximate volume of 572 cubic metres. On its eastern side, connected by a masonry wall is an existing stone barn, overall dimensions of 5 metres x approximately 15 metres. The two masses of building are about 6 metres apart and the approximate volume of the barn is 310 cubic metres.

The proposal is to demolish both the existing dwelling and the adjoining barn and erect a replacement dwelling which the plans show has overall dimensions of 13.7 metres x 9.4 metres, constructed in red facing brickwork under a hipped, plain clay tiled roof. The approximate volume of the new dwelling is 880 cubic metres and coincidentally, the volume of the existing dwelling and the barn total virtually the same.

Determination of this application turns on matters of policy and principle, design and visual impact in the landscape.

Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan states: -

       "Planning application for residential development outside the development boundaries             of defined settlements will only be permitted if they are for:

       a) A replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling..."

Clearly the principle of the demolition of the existing dwelling, which is claimed to be structurally unsound, is acceptable. The policy does not require those dwellings which are to be replaced to be derelict or unsound but the replacement dwelling should be of similar scale and mass to the existing.

The policy implication in this instance is the matter of whether or not the adjoining barn should be included in the capacity of 'the existing' to enable that volume to be combined in the new dwelling.

It has been claimed that the barn was the original dwelling on the site having, at one time, being replaced by the current dwelling. It is apparent that the building did contain some sort of kitchen as there is a large chimney breast at the southern end which clearly contained some sort of oven. There is also an aga type cooker immediately adjoining that fire place but it is not apparent whether this was an original fitting or not.

Irrespective of whether or not this barn was the original farm house, its use, as a farm house was clearly abandoned and the building was otherwise used. The policy is quite specific when it relates to the replacement dwelling being required to be of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling, rather than the dwelling and any other buildings on the site.

Turning to design issue, the style and general shape of the proposed building is similar to that which it proposes to replace and although the size and mass of the structure is greater, I do not have any objection to the style.

In terms of visual impact, clearly the larger the building, the greater the impact irrespective of the fact that the proposal also proposes to remove the barn, the replacement building would be of such greater mass that its impact alone would be significant whereas the low scale of the barn is already partially hidden by the existing dwelling in the most prominent view point, from the south west. Whilst it is accepted that Permitted Development Rights could be removed thus restricting the size of the building and any other out buildings in order to maintain control on further development, the introduction of a large single mass would have a significant impact on the landscape which would be contrary to Policy H9 and contrary to Policy C1 seeks to protect such landscapes.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, the development of a replacement dwelling of this scale and mass on this site would be contrary to Policies H9 and C1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Two letters of objection have been received from the occupier of the adjoining property at Shide Road, points of objection are summarised as follows;

       Loss of amenity due to the close proximity of the petanque area to the boundary.

       Loss of privacy.

       The interests of Highway Safety are compromised.

The Environment Agency has no objection in principle.

Council's Chief Environmental Protection Officer has made the following comments:

"As you are aware the petanque terrain is already in position and in use and the current application is in retrospect. The terrain is situated a few feet from the boundary of the neighbouring domestic premises at 55 Shide Road and is positioned immediately beneath the bedroom window of those premises.

Whilst petanque is not a particularly noisy game and, having observed a period of play, the players are not particularly noisy, there is a concentration of people (during my period of observation there were 12 people) all talking and generally enjoying themselves beneath the bedroom up to 11 pm at night. This can be very disturbing for the occupants of the domestic premises.

Whilst I would not go so far as to say this should not be a petanque terrain at the          Barley Mow I believe that the proposed/current position is unsuitable."

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited.

Evaluation

Application relates to the Barley Mow Public House situated on the northern side of Shide Road approximately 40 metres west of the junction with Blackwater Road.

The application can be divided into two elements firstly the retention of the petanque area and secondly the retention of children's play equipment.

The petanque area is shown to be located alongside the western boundary of the site, with the children's play equipment shown to be to the north of the Barley Mow.

Relevant policies are considered to be G10 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

G10 relates to the potential conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses and 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 D1 relates to standards of design and states the development will be permitted only where it maintains and wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment and that it does not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

Whilst it is appreciated that the Barley Mow is a public house with outdoor seating, the location of the petanque terrain is considered to be an unneighbourly addition, detrimental to the residential occupier's amenity due to the close proximity to the boundary of the adjoining property where there are a number of windows on the south east elevation. In terms of the children's play equipment, the siting and design of the equipment are considered to be acceptable.

Whilst the current siting of the play equipment is considered to be in accordance with policy the application has to be considered in its entirety, the applicants have been given the option to relocate the petanque terrain to an alternative site within the curtilage of the public house, this however was declined, the Council is unable in law to make a 'split' decision and I therefore recommend refusal. As the terrain is in place, I also consider it appropriate to recommend that Enforcement action is authorised to secure its removal, within a timescale of 3 months to comply.

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 retention of the petanque area in its current location is unneighbourly and intrusive development that is likely to adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining residential property, proposal therefore is contrary to Policies G10 (Potential conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses) and D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

       1.    Recommendation -       Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

       2.    Recommendation -     Enforcement action is taken to ensure the removal of    the petanque area and a return of the land to its former condition with a 3 month period for compliance, and to also invite an application for the retention of the play equipment.

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

Five letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

1. Development out of character with Conservation Area resulting in further sub-division of plots and loss of large curtilages which characterise area.

2. Over development of site.

3. Lack of infrastructure and in particular standard of road system in locality.

4. Loss of privacy from over looking.

5. Loss of significant hedge.

6. Inappropriate alterations to roof profile with loss of cropped gable ends.

7. Proximity of entrance to site to adjoining property entrance.

Evaluation

Application relates to rectangular plot of land which currently forms northern parts of curtilage to Roxanna which is itself detached property situated immediately north west of junction of St Georges Road with Augusta Road.

Application site is situated within Ryde Conservation Area lies at considerably lower level than land around existing property to south. Land generally falls in northerly direction and site itself is characterised by mature hedge along Augusta Road frontage.

Similar application seeking outline consent for detached house on this site was refused under delegated powers in February of this year. Reasons for refusal were undesirable arrangement of dwellings resulting in unsatisfactory environment for future occupants of proposed dwelling, insufficient use of all curtilage left for existing dwelling and inadequate and insufficient detail for submission within Conservation Area.

Current submission seeks to overcome previous reasons for refusal incorporating slight alterations to proposal and supplying additional information.

Firstly agent has confirmed that application is now full detailed submission which would normally be expected in respect of development within Conservation Area.

Other alterations involve minor changes to design of building simplifying its appearance by removal of cropped gable ends and additional information which shows more substantial and higher retaining wall along southern boundary of application site which would allow for construction of 2 metre high boundary fencing. Such additional retaining works would also allow for existing garden area to be raised thereby providing more usable garden space rear of Roxanna.

Whilst Members will appreciate requirements of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires local authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas members will note that in respect of previous refusal on this site specific grounds for refusal did not relate to principle of development of site. Existing property has substantial curtilage and as with other decisions in the locality provided application site presents reasonable plot size and leaves remaining property with sufficient curtilage then there is no fundamental objection to appropriate development in Conservation Area.

Plot size (20.5 metres x 35.5 metres) is considered more than adequate and would in my opinion allow for development which would not adversely impact on character of locality. Proposed dwelling would sit comfortably within proposed plot with sufficient distances to common boundaries to prevent any undue adverse impact.

Whilst property would sit at substantially lower level than existing dwelling increased height of boundary fencing would minimise, to significant extent, over looking of proposed dwelling and its garden space. Alterations result in no over looking from garden area of existing dwelling with only direct over looking of rear garden space occurring from first level windows of existing property. However given distances and orientation involved I do not consider that this issue is sufficiently serious to warrant refusal.

Finally, retaining wall would allow for rear garden land to existing property to be built up to provide greater usable rear garden space.

Whilst new access will be formed onto Augusta Road which is private highway works would only result in removal of small section of hedge row which can be subject to condition requiring its retention along road frontage where it offers significant screening to the application site.

Reason for Recommendation

Having due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that the revised proposal successfully overcomes previous objections to development of this site and represents appropriate development within the designated Conservation Area complying with relevant policies and in particular policies H5, B6 and D1 and is therefore considered acceptable.

       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer considers proposal has no implications.

A copy of a pro forma letter has been received from three residents of Medina Avenue, all of whose properties abut the site which is the subject of the application. The contents of that pro forma letter are as follows:

       Access

There is no direct access to this plot from Medina Avenue. The only access is through the garden of number 48 which would make it impossible for emergency services to attend the proposed property. This situation is further exacerbated by the traffic in the area immediately to the front of number 48. At certain times of the day this is at a standstill due to the proximity of two sets of traffic lights and the sheer volume of traffic. The drive to number 48 also lies on an extremely busy junction. Although there would appear to be an unofficial pedestrian access to the side of 62 Medina Avenue this is private access for numbers 62-68 only. It has never been in regular use by the owners             of 48 as is evident by its overgrown state.

       Surface Water

       Surface water may run off into nearby property because of elevated position of site.

       Sewage/Water

Properties 62-68 Medina Avenue have a shared water main with one stop cock. Any new surfaces which need to be connected to the proposed property must go across land of another property either 62, 68 or 48. Concerned over possible disruption which this may cause on a long term basis.

       Previous Application

Understood that a previous application to develop this garden as a building plot has already been refused. The garden remains as back land and building is totally inappropriate.

Environment Agency has no objection in principle.

Chief Environmental Protection Officer raises no objection.

Evaluation

Application relates to a square area of garden land situated to the rear (south) of 48 Medina Avenue, a guesthouse situated almost opposite the service yard of Marks and Spencers on the south western corner of the Medina Avenue junction. Application site measures 23 metres by 19 metres being a level site surrounded on three sides (west, south and east) by conifer hedge rows. It is surrounded by rear gardens of established traditional residential development

consisting of mixture of semi-detached and mainly terraced two storey dwellings. Application includes a narrow footpath access off Medina Avenue which runs between 60 and 62 Medina Avenue.

Only relevant planning history is approval in 1993 for continued use of 48 Medina Avenue as a guest house.

Outline consent now sought with all matters reserved for the construction of a single storey dwelling with indicative plan showing building to be centrally located on the site directly to the south of the existing garage which serves 48 Medina Avenue. The proposal does not provide any parking facilities but includes a pedestrian access off Medina Avenue as previously described. This access is approximately one metre in width and is currently overgrown. Proposal indicates retention of the existing tree screen as previously described.

Illustrative plans indicate a square two bedroomed bungalow providing basic accommodation. The applicant has confirmed through his contractor that he enjoys a "right of way in the legal title via the pathway that leads to Medina Avenue alongside numbers 60 and 62 Medina Avenue".

Relevant policies are as follows:

Policy D1 - Standards of Design.

Policy D2 - Standards For Development Within the Site.

Policy D3 - Landscaping.

Policy H5 - Infill Development.

Policy TR7 - Highway Considerations.

Policy TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

No. 48 Medina Avenue and its curtilage are situated in a relatively densely developed area in close proximity to Newport town centre. In policy terms the site can be deemed to be brown field in nature. Given this characteristic the material considerations in respect of this proposal relate to environmental impact on neighbouring properties suitability of access and suitability of type of dwelling.

There is no doubt that this proposal does represent development at the rear of other properties. However, Members will be aware national policy does encourage efficient use of urban land although not at the expense of town cramming or unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore the location of the proposed dwelling should not necessarily result in a refusal decision.

Applicants have taken the zero parking option which obviously now avoids any vehicles travelling up the side access to service the proposed dwelling causing noise and fume nuisance to neighbouring properties. However, whilst the dwelling may attract car ownership placing increased pressures on on-street parking in the area, the site is close to a public car park and is within zone 2 in terms of the Council's parking policy which accepts the parking provision of 0-50%. The site's relationship to 48 Medina Avenue does not lend itself to practical provision of vehicular access and the zero parking option does comply with policies.

Applicants have specifically sought consent for a single storey dwelling with the illustrative proposal indicating a relatively modest dwelling which sits comfortably on the site giving reasonable distances to nearby boundaries. This coupled with the very strongly screened boundary in the form of conifer hedge rows leads me to the view that little or no overlooking will take place in respect of neighbouring properties.

Other factors relating to access by emergency services the site is within recognised distances from nearest public highway with particular reference to fire appliance.

Any developments to this site in the form proposed with particular reference to single storey accommodation would have little or no impact in terms of public highways and therefore I consider this proposal to be acceptable.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that outline consent for this proposal would be appropriate subject to controlling conditions regarding type of dwelling to be constructed, means of pedestrian access, boundary treatments and provision of further hedge planting. Whilst I note the concerns of adjoining property owners I do not consider that they represent sufficient content to warrant a refusal of the application which could be sustained on appeal. I appreciate the zero parking issue will always be contentious and this site is no exception. The issue has to be whether or not the potential addition of a further vehicle needing to park on-street in this area would result in an unacceptable traffic management problem sufficient to warrant a refusal. Highway Engineer has no comment. Given this assessment I support this proposal and therefore recommend accordingly.

       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

This application was to be determined via the delegated system but is before the Committee at the Local Member's request.

Representations

Godshill Parish Council reiterate their comments in respect of the previously refused scheme stating that they would not normally entertain a planning application for this sort of site in a Conservation Area, but in the interests of retaining the local shop combined with the post office, conditionally support the proposal but feel that the ownership of the house should be linked with the ownership of the shop and should only be granted if a condition was imposed linking the two properties. Furthermore, the Parish Council point out that building materials must be sympathetic to the local environment but also confirm that if the condition to link the two properties could not be imposed then Godshill Parish Council would not support the proposal.

Environment Agency has no objection in principle but would require adequate steps to be taken for the provision of surface water drainage.

Environmental Health Officer - no adverse comment.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Evaluation

This is a triangular shaped site fronting High Street at Godshill, on the bend directly opposite the Old World Tea Garden and Essex Cottage just to the south of the post office. The site has a maximum depth of 21 metres with a frontage comprising natural stone wall onto the High Street of approximately 26 metres in length. To the north of the site is the applicant's remaining land and property comprising a two storey detached building incorporating a shop with post office on ground floor with living accommodation over. To the east is a public house and beer gardens and parking area comprising two storey public house and restaurant building with additional site buildings of single storeys in height. Opposite the site are detached two storey, stone and thatched and slated buildings with some painted natural stone finishes. The site is central in the village scene.

In front of the site there is a grass verge separating the footpath from the highway containing public benches. The curved stone front boundary wall of the site is approximately 1 to 1.2 metres high and has been the subject of a Civic Trust Award with the display of the usual plaque on the wall. Behind the wall there is a conifer and shrub boundary, a thick and effective screen to an otherwise grassed area to the Post Office and its residential accommodation.

This application seeks full consent for a two storey cottage-style house. Details show the building to be L-shaped in plan with overall dimensions of 9 metres by 9.5 metres and sited at approximately 1.5 to 2 metres back from the stone wall with pedestrian access only, centrally sited in the site's frontage. The building is proposed to provide lounge, kitchen, study and dining room on ground floor with three bedrooms and two bathrooms on first floor. Proposed to be constructed in brickwork or dressed Island stone with features under a slate, ridged roof with decorative ridge tiles. Windows are proposed to be of timber and painted white with black painted facias and rainwater goods.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle, design and impact in the street scene bearing in mind the area's status as a Conservation Area and the history of the site which includes the previous refusal for a bungalow.

In principle, as before, residential development in this area is not contrary to policy since the village centre is of mixed uses including residential and commercial and the site is located within the development envelope. Main determining factors are therefore matters of design, mass and visual impact on this part of the Conservation Area.

Following the previous refusal for a bungalow it is clear that a two storey, cottage style building would be a more appropriate form of development since it would reflect the design, proportions and general scale and mass of surrounding development. The building is close to the highway but in this part of Godshill, most of the adjoining properties actually abut the rear of the footpath but due to the spacing of adjoining properties it is not felt that the result of this development would be cramped.

Due to the triangular shape of the site, the building would need to be sited well forward and bearing in mind the proximity of adjoining properties to the highway, this proposal would be in keeping. The majority of the stone front boundary wall could be retained with the exception of the pedestrian access to the dwelling. However, the dense tree screen at the front of the site would need to be removed to construct the building and to make it satisfactory as residential accommodation, since such close proximity of dense natural growth would diminish light levels to an unacceptable degree. This would mean that the building would be seen in the street scene, but a properly designed dwelling, constructed of appropriate materials would enhance the Conservation Area rather than detract from it.

The dwelling would share access and parking with the existing dwelling, negating the need to form a further vehicular access on the site. These requirements meet with the Highway Engineer's requirements since he has recommended conditions if approved. He points out that existing levels of car parking should be maintained and not increased.

Turning to the comments of the Parish Council, firstly I do not consider the approval of this development could justify the retention of the shop and such a proposal should be determined on individual merit, bearing in mind the determining factors above. Similarly I do not consider a condition could be imposed to require the post office/shop and its residential accommodation to be retained with this dwelling as one property. The imposition of such a condition would not make this development more acceptable as I consider the determining factors to be matters relating to access and parking and the appearance of the building. There is residential accommodation in the shop/post office building which if not occupied by the proprietor, could be occupied by others thus resulting in two dwelling units on the site. Restriction of the occupation of this accommodation to that in connection with the shop, in a residential area, would be an unreasonable restriction. I consider that this development should be considered as a 'stand alone' proposal and if acceptable in design, access and parking terms should be approved subject to those conditions.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above it is felt that this proposal to build a cottage style dwelling of appropriate materials, in the Conservation Area is an appropriate form of development. The proposal would therefore be an appropriate addition to the street scene in the Conservation Area in terms of its design, scale and proportions and would therefore be consistent with policies D1 and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan and PPG15.

       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Ventnor Town Council consider that planning consent should be subject to the laying of grass crete to protect and preserve the existing grass area.

Highway Engineer recommends condition should application be approved.

Evaluation

Application relates to rectangular site located on northern side of Newport Road, directly opposite Ventnor County Middle School. Site is used for display and sale of cars.

Planning application for use of site for used car sales and display area was conditionally approved in February 1999. Condition 2 stated:

       "No structure or display vehicle shall be positioned on any of the grass area coloured              yellow on the revised plan dated 8 February 1999. This area shall be kept clear and               retained as a grass area."

The grassed area referred to in the condition runs across frontage of site immediately adjacent back edge of footpath. Reason for imposing this condition was "in the interests of the general character of the area". It was also a requirement of the permission that the applicant erect a three bar ranch style fence along a line identified on the revised plans, including to the rear of the grassed area.

Current application seeks to vary the above-mentioned condition to permit the display of two vehicles on the grass area.

Determining factor in considering current application is whether use of the grassed area across frontage of site for the display of vehicles for sale would detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality.

Site is located within development boundary as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is not allocated for any specific purpose. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

       G4 - General locational criteria for development.

       D1 - Standards of design.

A planning application seeking to remove the condition which restricts the positioning of any structure or display vehicle on the grass area was refused in March 2002 for the following reason:

       "The removal of condition would be likely to result in vehicles being displayed or other             structures being positioned on the grass area across the frontage of the site resulting              in a cluttered appearance to the detriment of the amenities and character if the area,               contrary to polices G4 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan."

The area to the front of the car sales and display area forms part of an open grass verge which continues along northern side of Newport Road from site in westerly direction and is considered to make a significant contribution to the amenities and character of the locality. During consideration of previous application, applicant indicated that he would only wish to display two vehicles on the area in question and agent acting on his behalf in respect of current submission has confirmed this in letter which accompanied the current submission. Applicants agent also wishes the following points to be taken into account in considering the application:

Vehicles will be driven onto the grassed area from the access road to the site, ie not direct from Newport Road across the footway.

Permission is initially sought for a period of 1 year to enable the Local Planning         Authority to assess the matter and to ensure that his client adheres to the two car     restriction.

If required applicant is willing to erect a low post and looped chain fence along the frontage to Newport Road.

Applicants agent also expresses view that this limited proposal would not appear      cluttered nor would it be detrimental to the amenities of the area.

He also points out that the parking on the adjacent commercial premises has been extended towards the road and the two vehicles parked on the grass area would not detract from appearance of his clients site and the surrounding area.

Whilst noting the points raised by the applicants agent, I remain of the opinion that the parking of any vehicles on the frontage of the site would detract from the amenities and character of the locality. Whilst noting the comments regarding the adjacent commercial premises, parking is provided within a defined area, retaining the grass verge between the car park and back edge of the footpath free from clutter.

At the time of a recent visit to the general locality, it was noted that applicant is already parking vehicles on the grassed area. Therefore, should members be minded to refuse the application, and the applicant continues to park vehicles on the grassed area, it may be necessary to serve on him a Breach of Condition Notice under delegated powers requiring vehicles to be removed and the area kept free from vehicles or other structures.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the use of the grassed area across the frontage of the site to display vehicles for sale would result in a cluttered appearance and detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality.

       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Shalfleet Parish Council raised no objection.

Council's Ecology Officer advises that application site includes woodland which is part of a SINC and which is also covered by a Tree Preservation Order. He notes that the current application seeks to develop away from this area and, therefore, impacts will be minimised. In order to ensure that the rural character of the area is not degraded, he considers that approval should be subject to conditions similar to the previously approved scheme which will also ensure that the protected SINC woodland is not damaged during construction and that an appropriate tree planting and landscape scheme is submitted and implemented.

Evaluation

Application relates to area of land on western side of Hamstead Road approximately half a kilometre north of its junction with Ningwood Hill. Site as defined on submitted plans has overall frontage of 70 metres with maximum depth of 105 metres. Approximately two thirds of site on northern side is wooded and forms part of larger area designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

Site was previously occupied by relatively small dwelling, having volume of approximately 112 cubic metres, which has recently been demolished. Site has been subject of number of applications for replacement dwellings, the first of which was refused in September 1999 on grounds that the site is outside the development envelope boundary and the replacement dwelling was not considered to be of a similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling and was therefore contrary to Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan. The volume of the dwelling was calculated to be approximately 836 cubic metres.

A subsequent planning application for a smaller dwelling was approved in October 2000. Whilst the dwelling was still considerably larger than the original building which occupied the site, the proposal represented a significant reduction in terms of scale, mass and volume to the previous proposal refused in September 1999. A further application for a slightly larger dwelling, having a volume of approximately 565 cubic metres, was approved in March 2002. On submitted plans, dwelling was shown to be in a different position to previously approved scheme. Therefore, permission was granted subject to a revocation of the previous planning permission. This procedure has now been concluded and the decision notice issued. Approved dwelling provides two storey accommodation, although front elevation has appearance of chalet bungalow with three dormers in roof.

Current application seeks permission for alteration to design of dwelling and slight increase in volume to that previously approved.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal represents significant increase in size of dwelling which would justify refusal of application and whether proposed building would detract from rural character of area.

Site is located outside any designated development boundary as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Site is located within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and section of site which is heavily wooded forms part of larger area designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

       S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

       G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

       G4 - General Locational Criteria for Developments.

       G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

       D1 - Standards of Design.

       H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundary.

       C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

       C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

       C11 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

Plans which accompanied original submission showed dwelling which, similar to previous proposals, provides two storey accommodation and an alternative design which incorporated increased eaves level to front elevation, cutting half way through first floor windows, and two storey gable feature facing Hamstead Road. Whilst having slightly larger footprint than previously approved dwelling, current proposal involved provision of similar level of accommodation. Volume of dwelling was calculated to be approximately 672 cubic metres.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal in which applicant refers to previously approved scheme as "unimaginative and frankly plain". He considers that the new scheme is more suitable in terms of design and aesthetic appeal. He also makes reference to number of other sites in area were replacement dwellings have been approved and, in particular, the dwelling presently under construction on site of former Womens' Institute Hall, Ningwood Hill. Applicant considers that this building incorporates some of the features that he would wish to use and expresses view that this property occupies very prominent position and replaces a small wooden building. However, he points out that his site is screened by large oak trees, set in a two acre plot, next to a two storey modern dwelling having similar footprint to proposal. Reference is also made to a replacement dwelling constructed close to application site with stone to front elevation and cottage type windows. Applicant considers that with good use of materials, his design will enhance the area and blend with the rural character.

Following negotiations with applicant, further plans have been submitted showing a revised scheme. Alterations to the design and appearance of the dwelling include a reduction in the height of the two storey gable ended element to the front of the dwelling and the introduction of a cropped gable to this element. I consider that these alterations reduce the dominance of this element. In addition, main roof to dwelling has also been hipped. These alterations, whilst representing a relatively small reduction in the overall volume of the building, assist in reducing the overall mass and bulk of the dwelling.

The alterations reduce the volume of the dwelling to approximately 650 cubic metres, representing an increase of approximately 85 cubic metres on the dwelling, the subject of the extant planning permission. Having given regard to the volume of the previously approved dwelling when compared with the original building which occupied the site, I do not consider this increase to be significant. However, I consider that any further increase in size would be unacceptable.

When viewed form Hamstead Road, the building would have appearance of chalet style dwelling. I am satisfied that dwelling would not detract from character of the locality, particularly having regard to its designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty, and will not have adverse impact on amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers. Furthermore, I am satisfied that dwelling is a sufficient distance from the boundary with the adjacent SINC that the proposal will not have adverse impact on this area.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material consideration referred to in this report, I am satisfied that proposal represents an acceptable form of development and will not detract from character and amenities of the locality. However, I consider that applicants should be advised that any further proposal for an increase in the size of the dwelling would be unlikely to receive favourable consideration.

Recommendation -       Approval (covering letter to accompany Decision Notice advising applicant that any further application for an increase in the size of the replacement dwelling would be unlikely to receive a favourable consideration.)

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint report LBC/23329E

Conditions/Reasons: