PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 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 ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (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 Head of Legal and Democratic Services, 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 PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

07 DECEMBER 2004

TCP/01272/F P/02019/04

Demolition of dwelling; outline for 11 houses and formation of vehicular access

Clematis Cottage and land rear of Avalon and Berrylands, Heathfield Road, Bembridge

Bembridge

Conditional Approval

TCP/03886/V P/00752/04

Detached house with integral garage; split level bungalow with integral garage (revised scheme)

Land north east of Pintiles, Binstead Road, Ryde

Ryde

Conditional Approval

TCP/09052/C P/02530/03

Outline for terrace of 3 houses with parking; alterations to & construction of new vehicular access, (further revised scheme) (readvertised application)

Land adjacent 51, Albert Road,

Cowes

Gurnard

Conditional Approval

TCP/13425/D P/00984/04

Demolition of bungalow; outline for 8 dwellings

50 Gunville Road, Newport

Newport

Conditional Approval

5. &

TCP/13798/C P/01572/04

CAC/13798/D P/01960/04

Demolition of shops & flats; 3/4 storey building to form retail store (class A1) with 9 flats over; vehicular access & basement parking (revised plans) (readvertised application)

Island Furnishing, 52-58 High Street, Ventnor

Ventnor

Conditional Approval

TCP/17828/S P/01932/04

Outline for retail unit with parking (revised scheme)

Brickfields, Newnham Road,

Ryde

Refusal

TCP/21037/D P/01624/04

Outline for house with access off Nodgham Lane (revised scheme)

Land adjoining 110 Clatterford Road and fronting, Nodgham Lane, Newport

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/21374/L P/02086/04

Renewal: continued use of barn for wholesale, internet trading & retail of cycles & spare parts

The Bike Shed, Perreton Farm, East Lane, Merstone, Newport

Arreton

Refusal

10.

TCP/23485/C P/01909/04

Change of use of summerhouse to bed & breakfast accommodation for a maximum of 2 persons

Tamarisk, Love Lane, Ventnor

Ventnor

Refusal

11.

TCP/26039/B P/01107/04

Pair of semi-detached houses with access & lay-by parking (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

Land rear of 91 & 93 Elm Grove, fronting, Whitepit Lane, Newport

Newport

Conditional Approval

12.

TCP/26419 P/01215/04

Pair of semi-detached houses

Land rear of 32, St. Johns Road,

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/01272/F P/02019/04 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge North

Registration Date: 06/10/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: B B Developments

Demolition of dwelling; outline for 11 houses and formation of vehicular access

Clematis Cottage and land rear of Avalon and Berrylands, Heathfield Road, Bembridge, PO35

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved and the planning history of the site has been particularly contentious.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at the 7 December meeting will have been determined within the 13 week period allowed for major submissions.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site has an area of 0.29 hectares with an irregular shape comprising the whole site of a single dwelling on the south east side of Heathfield Road and sections of the rear gardens of both adjoining properties. Over all the site has dimensions of 93 metres in depth and 44 metres in width and presently, the existing dwelling is a moderate sized residential property within a fairly rigid building line fronting the south east side of Heathfield Road.

The surrounding area is characterized by moderate sized properties in fairly extensive gardens, mostly detached properties served off the unmade roads of Heathfield Close and Preston Road. The site is part of a very large tract of land in many ownerships, comprising the rear gardens of properties fronting Heathfield Road, Preston Road and Steyne Road, created by the siting of the properties close to their respective highway frontages. Much of the site is overgrown is low lying but relatively flat with a slight fall from northwest to southeast.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Development involves the demolition of the existing building, the installation of a service road and the erection of eleven properties. Means of access only is to be considered and therefore the layout of the site submitted for guidance purposes is indicative of what could result at a reserved matters stage. Plan shows high density of development from that surrounding; computing at 39 dwellings per hectare spurs off the access road both to the northeast and southwest which would enable the continuation of development into the adjoining land but, in the meantime, enabling the turning of large vehicles. The access point in Heathfield Road is shown to be just over 29 metres from the right angled bend which links with Pelham Close. No details of dwellings have been submitted but the plans indicate nine detached properties and one pair of semi detached, footprints of approximately 60 square metres down to 99 square metres.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In April 2003 application for the demolition of dwellings and outline planning permission for 10 houses including the formation of an access road and parking was refused on grounds of over development, inadequate access and prematurity, having taken no account of ensuring a continuation of a comprehensive development for the area.

A subsequent development seeking consent again for the demolition of two dwellings, for outline permission for nine houses and the formation of access and vehicular parking was approved in February 2004 subject to, amongst others, a condition requiring the provision of two affordable housing units within the development.

A further application seeking consent for the removal of that condition was considered by Members of the Development Control Committee on 13 July 2004. The application was refused for the following reason:

“The removal of the condition would result in the development of a first phase of a continuing development which cumulatively would fail to provide an element of low cost housing for rent thus depriving a section of the community access to housing and would therefore be contrary to Policy H14 (Locally Affordable Housing as an element of Housing Schemes) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan and the Government’s objector for facilitating houses for the whole of the community within PPG 3 – Housing”

That refusal of permission is now the subject of an appeal and is not anticipated that a result on that appeal will be known until probably next August.

The boundaries of the historical sites vary from the current application site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within the designated development envelope of Bembridge but is not under any specific designation. The site is not within an area of outstanding natural beauty nor a conservation area.

PPG3 – Housing (Best use of urban land) is applicable.

Policy H4 – Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

Policy H5 – Infill development.

Policy H14 – Locally Affordable Housing as an element housing schemes.

Policy H14 is subject to certain thresholds dependent upon where the site is. The explanatory text in the UDP under the title Locally Affordable Housing recognizes, in settlements of less than 3,000 population, a threshold figure of 10 units is felt applicable and that in settlements greater than 3,000 a threshold of 15 units or 0.5 of a hectare should be applicable. Bembridge does not fall within the list of settlements listed in the UDP as being in excess of 3,000 but the population of Bembridge is nearly 4,000 and clearly falls within that category rather than a settlement of less than 3,000.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Housing Officer considers insufficient information has been submitted to evaluate the exceptional costs in development and seeks further detail, and greater justification for the lower level of affordable housing.

PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommends approval.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Seven letters of objection from local residents on ground of inadequate access stating that Heathfield Road is unmade and further damage could occur to the highway; light pollution and noise pollution from vehicles and activity in rear gardens; increased traffic resulting in dangers to pedestrians using the highway; change of character of development; excessive density; inadequate drainage and problems with ground water levels; ground instability and increased traffic and congestion; damage to the existing drainage system through increased use of Heathfield Road.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. However, it is not anticipated there will be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Members will recall the two previous applications relating to this land as detailed in the relevant history section above and the latter of the two sought consent for the removal of the condition requiring the provision of social housing on the site. Two units of accommodation were required and the subsequent application to remove the condition was refused in July of this year.

The applicant’s case turned around the fact that the total number of units being developed was less than the 15 dwelling threshold and therefore policy H14 did not apply. The Committee’s view, which I support, was that the then proposed development is most likely to form the first phase of a continuing and greater development, a development which was likely, when concluded, to exceed 15 dwellings. This phased approach to development is by no means unusual and it is my view that if no affordable housing was achieved at this first stage, it would be more difficult to justify any provision at a later stage in phased development.

Whilst this scheme involves slightly more land and a different configuration of site, omitting the property immediately adjoining known as Berrylands and including a piece of land, to the north, behind Avalon. The development now involves the retention of the property know as Berrylands, where as before it was intended to be demolished, the demolition of Clematis Cottage, as before and the erection of a total of 11 units where as before a total of nine units was proposed previously.

Part of the applicant’s case in an attempting to set aside the affordable homes requirement was that the development would have been made economically unviable, especially as a substantial property (Berrylands) was to be demolished.

The applicant claims that there are substantial costs in development of this land including the making up of the first part of Heathfield Road, the installation of a substantial access road, the provision of a new drainage system, and other matters required by conditions of the permission.

In support of the application the agent points out that due to the initial infrastructure expenditure the scheme for eleven new dwellings includes the demolition of an existing building (Clematis Cottage) but offers one dwelling for social housing. He also points out that a substantial financial payment has already been made for educational purposes.

Determination of this application turns on matters of policy and principle, means of access, general density and affect on adjoining properties in addition to the factor of social housing.

The site is within the development envelope and planning history shows that the site is considered satisfactory for residential development, so long as whatever scheme is carried out on this land, does not sterilize adjoining land for future development. The density of the proposal computes at 39 dwellings per hectare, within the recommend range and although towards the bottom end, physical constraints of the site probably would not facilitate an increase in numbers of dwellings.

This is an outline application seeking consent in principle for residential development of eleven units with means of access to be determined at this stage, therefore, a little flexibility with the layout but it is clear that the layout would enable the continuation of development into the adjoining land due to both the northeast and southwest and, via the north easterly route to land to the southwest of the site.

This leaves the issue of affordable housing to be determined and in real terms, whether or not the Council’s previous decision to require two units of accommodation is mitigated or weighed against the applicant’s claim that the installation of infrastructure at this stage makes the provision of more than the one housing unit offered unviable economically.

Members have accepted my contention that this development will form part of an eventual continuation of development into adjoining land which will breach the threshold of 15 units in this are and have accepted the principle of obtaining social housing on this site is an important factor in the continuing consideration of future development. If no social housing is achieved at this stage it will be more difficult to justify social housing on subsequent phases and therefore the principle is set by accepting a single dwelling being set aside for social housing purposes. Despite the fact that only one unit is offered whereas two previously were required by Members for social housing, the infrastructure costs which the agent points out are substantial, including the making up of part of Heathfield Road back to Pelham Close and the installation of a comprehensive drainage system to serve at least the current application site.

Bearing in mind the above I consider that the development should be approved and that Members should accept the current offer of one single dwelling for social housing provision in order to set the principle so that continuing development, when it occurs, can contribute to the social housing stock.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

The principle of residential development of this land has been established in the previous grant of permission. The main determining issue is that of the level of social housing which is to be achieved. Bearing in mind the history of the site and the need to obtain affordable housing, the development of the site for eleven dwellings with one social housing unit is considered acceptable is consistent with current UDP policy and Planning Policy Guidance Note 3.

RECOMMENDATION – Approval.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

3	Approval of reserved matters - A03

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type boundary treatment to be erected of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5	Drainage - development restriction - G07

No dwelling erected pursuant to this permission shall be occupied until the highway between the entrance to the site and the metalled section of Pelham Close has been constructed and/or resurfaced and drained in accordance with a full specification submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

One of the eleven dwellings hereby approved shall be built and handed over to a registered Social Landlord at a discounted premium (50% market value) and shall be used for the purpose or providing housing accommodation for rent to meet the objectives of a registered landlord (except where tenants exercise their right to purchase property under the Purchase Grant Scheme included in the Housing Act 1996 and except also that the conditions are not binding or enforceable against any mortgage or chargee (or person deriving title from such mortgagee or chargee which is in possession of these plots (or either of them) pursuant to any mortgagee or chargee and which mortgagee or chargee in exercising the power of sale).

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for affordable housing.

Details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and approved by, and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Development.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses, car parking areas together with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and approved by, and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for cars to be parked at a minimum ratio of one space per dwelling and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to the commencement of any works authorised by this consent, a condition survey of Heathfield Road between the site and its junction with Steyne Road, shall be carried out under parameters agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority and, prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, a further condition survey shall be undertaken and any damage to the road attributable to construction traffic in connection with the approved development shall be rectified by the developer in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that an adequate standard of access to the properties is maintained, in accordance with Policy TR7 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc. exceeding 1 metre in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

Reason: To ensure that an adequate standard of access to the properties is maintained, in accordance with Policy TR7 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/03886/V P/00752/04 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Binstead

Registration Date: 02/06/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mrs A Pudan

Detached house with integral garage; split level bungalow with integral garage (revised scheme)

land north east of Pintiles, Binstead Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Fox, because of the general interest expressed by local residents and planning history pertaining to this site.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 27 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning application because of protracted negotiations, officer workload and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an irregular shaped site to the north east of, and forming part of, the rear garden to a property known as ‘Pintiles’, which itself is situated immediately behind and accessed through Binstead Garage. Immediately east of site is a Scout Hall with a new residential development to the north west at ‘Pitts Haven’ which is separated from application site by a brook.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/3886J/197 – Outline for two bungalows and garages. Consent granted 28 February 1986.

TCP/3886/K/M/6451 – Two bungalows with integral garages. Consent granted 18 July 1989.

TCP/3886/L/MB/1870 – Renewal: two bungalows with integral garages. Consent granted 8 March 1994.

TCP/3886/M – P/00142/99 – Renewal: two bungalows with integral garages. Consent granted 3 March 1999.

TCP/3886/N – P/1898/00 – Outline for two pairs of semi-detached houses, two bungalows and five detached houses. Refused 28 May 2002 on grounds of traffic generation, unsatisfactory access and no provision for affordable housing.

TCP/3886/T – P/2332/03 – Renewal: two bungalows with integral garages. Consent granted by Development Control Committee 2 March 2004.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

It will be seen from the above history that consent has been granted on numerous occasions for two identical bungalows on land to the rear of Pintiles.

The application before Members relates to the same site area but seeks consent for two dwellings that differ from the extant consent. Both of the proposed dwellings would roughly occupy the same position as the approved bungalows, although slightly reconfigured. The most significant change relates to the overall scale and design of each dwelling.

Plot 1, which would be located at the northern section of the site, is shown to be a five bedroom detached house with a single storey garage attached to one side and a conservatory attached to the rear. Revised plans have been submitted showing dwelling to be slightly reoriented in a clockwise direction in an attempt to minimise conflict with adjoining properties, particularly the new dwelling on the opposite side of the brook.

Plot 2, is shown to be situated within the southern section of the site, approximately 7 metres north of the common boundary shared with ‘The Quarry’. Dwelling is shown to comprise of a three bedroom split level property, being part two storey at its northern face and single storey to the rear.

Both dwellings are different in terms of overall scale, but would complement each other in terms of detailing and proposed materials.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing) encourages efficient use of land in urban areas by promoting higher densities while also stressing the need for good design in new housing developments in order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people would choose to live.

The site is situated within the development envelope of Ryde as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are as follows:

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

S6 – All developments will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G4 – General locational criteria for development.

D1 – Standards of design.

D2 – Standards for development within the site.

H4 – Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

H5 – Infill development.

C8 – Nature conservation as a material consideration.

TR7 – Highway considerations for new developments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Environment Agency repeats the comment it made in respect of the extant consent that being no objection subject to a condition in respect of surface water drainage.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Five letters received, four from local residents and one from Binstead Garage, objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Impact on wildlife.
Larger and closer to adjoining properties compared with extant permission.
Does not comply with highways criteria.
Overlooking and loss of privacy. Impossible to remedy owing to lower level of adjoining property, ‘Brook Edge’.
Mutual overlooking between proposed dwellings.
Proposed gardens appear disproportionate to host properties.
Surface water drainage.
Proximity to scout hall.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope and has been the subject of numerous consents for residential development, the most recent of which renewed full consent for two bungalows in March of this year. With this in mind, the principle of development on this site cannot be disputed. The main consideration therefore is whether the alternative dwelling types proposed by this application, mainly the increase in scale, would impact significantly on adjoining property occupiers or the area in general.

The larger of the two proposed dwellings has been designed to more or less reflect the new development on the other side of the brook. There can be no objection in principle to houses as opposed to bungalows on this site, subject to dwellings being orientated and designed as not to impact significantly upon adjoining properties, properties which currently enjoy a high degree of privacy and open aspect.

Careful consideration has been given to plot 1 (house) in terms of its orientation relative to adjoining properties, particularly a new house on the other side of the brook. Revised plans show that dwelling has been slightly turned in a clockwise direction to ensure that line of vision from first floor windows would not directly overlook private amenity space of property at Pitts Haven. In terms of properties to south and east, namely The Quarry and Brook Edge respectively, proposed dwelling would, in my opinion, maintain an acceptable spatial relationship with these properties by retaining a distance of some 30 metres to the southern boundary and some 24 metres to the eastern boundary.

In terms of plot 2 (split-level dwelling), it is proposed to make use of changes in ground levels whereby the dwelling would be single storey to the rear and two storey at the front. Such an arrangement would, in my opinion, minimise the impact on neighbouring property to the south (The Quarry) and would have minimal impact upon Brook Edge owing to the intervening Scout Hall. Most likely impact would arise between the proposed dwellings as they are shown to face each other with a distance of only some 14 metres in between. However, whilst this level of separation is not as great as some dwellings in the immediate area, I believe that sufficient space would be retained about buildings so that future occupants can enjoy a reasonable open aspect.

Taking the above points into consideration together with level of vegetation that exists along north-east and southern boundaries, I am of the opinion that proposal, in its revised form, would harmonise with its surroundings in terms of scale and design, as well as being sympathetic in scale and layout. Accordingly, proposed development would have acceptable relationship with adjoining properties and not detract from the prevailing pattern of development. Therefore, proposal accords with locational policy G4, design policies D1 and D2 and infill development policy H5.

In terms of objections relating to wildlife, drainage and access, there is no reason to believe why the proposed development would have a much greater impact in either respect compared with the scheme recently approved. Drainage and access were considered and suitably covered by conditions following consultations with Environment Agency and Highway Engineer. Concerns relating to wildlife were considered by the Council’s Ecologist who confirms that no specific ecological features have been identified on the application site which would be directly affected by this development. However, to safeguard any potential badger activity, a suitable condition is recommended should Members be minded to grant consent.

To summarise, the principle of development has long been established on this site and indeed were it not for inadequate highway visibility splays, the site would be a candidate for development involving higher residential density. Whilst the proposed dwellings are larger than the approved bungalows, I am of the opinion that the site is of a sufficient size and is suitably screened to accommodate these larger properties without impacting excessively on adjoining property occupiers or the character of the area in general. Accordingly, proposed development accords with policies contained in the UDP.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to balanced with the right of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the application site is capable of accommodating larger dwellings as proposed without impacting significantly upon neighbouring properties or the character of the area in general. Proposal is therefore consistent with policies S6, G1, G4, D1, D2, H5 and TR7 of the UDP.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until samples of materials/details to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for 5 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

5	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01

No trees on the site at the date of this permission shall be felled, topped, lopped, uprooted or destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until an investigation relating to badger activity has been carried out by a suitably qualified and competent person and a report submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In order to avoid disturbance to a protected species and to comply with Policy C8 (Nature Conservations as a Material Consideration) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works, supported by detailed calculations, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted and retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To minimise any flooding that would result from the development of the site and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed in the south or west elevation of plot 2 or at first floor level in plot 1 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/09052/C P/02530/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard

Registration Date: 17/12/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mrs J Stuart

Outline for terrace of 3 houses with parking; alterations to & construction of new vehicular access, (further revised scheme) (readvertised application)

land adjacent 51, Albert Road, Cowes, PO31

This application was first considered by the Development Control Committee at the meeting held on 20 April 2004. It was resolved to defer consideration so that Officers could carry out further consultations in respect of drainage and access for fire appliances. Members also expressed concern regarding the level of parking to be provided in connection with the development and potential ground stability implications. Since this item was deferred, additional consultations have taken place and negotiations undertaken with the agent. This application, including additional information and consultee responses is therefore before Members for due consideration. The additions to the original report are reproduced in bold type.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Mundy, who opposes this application on grounds of inadequate parking, congestion and overdevelopment. Accordingly, he is not prepared to agree that this application should be approved under the delegated powers procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 51 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications because this application was deferred by Committee so that additional and extensive consultations could take place and officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a rectangular shaped site measuring 25 metres by 19 metres, being situated on the inside of a right-angled bend at the western end of Albert Road. Site currently serves as a side garden to No. 51, comprising of a relatively level area of lawn and borders.

This is a mixed residential area, containing a mixture of dwelling types, mostly two storey but including terraced, detached and semi-detached. Most dwellings in the immediate locality have a building line close to the back edge of the pavement.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/9052A/C/7855 - Two houses. Consent refused 4 May 1972.

TCP/9052B/P/2172/02 - Outline for a detached house and garage and a pair of semi-detached houses; vehicular access. Consent refused 14 January 2003 on grounds that proposal would represent over-development of the site, leading to a cramped appearance in the street scene which would be detrimental to the visual amenities and spatial character of the area, and the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks outline consent, with all matters reserved for subsequent consideration, for a terrace of 3 dwellings. Illustrative plans show a terrace fronting north side of Albert Road, immediately east of right-angle bend. Dwellings are shown to have two bedrooms and bathroom upstairs, living room, kitchen and wc downstairs. Terrace is shown to be stepped back from corner of site to align with 45 Albert Road to east and with private garden areas to rear. Western plot would have vehicular access from narrow part of Albert Road adjacent the access to existing bungalow at No. 51. The other proposed dwellings would have parking fronting onto Albert Road adjacent No. 45.

Although means of access is not a matter to be considered at this stage, agent has taken the opportunity of submitting a revised ‘illustrative’ plan demonstrating that the site could provide two parking spaces per dwelling in order to overcome concern in respect of inadequate parking provision.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is situated within the development envelope and Parking Zone 3 as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are as follows:

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

G1 - Development envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

H5 - Infill Development.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Further comments of the Highway Engineer were requested shortly after this item was deferred, but had still not been received at the time of preparing this report.

Building Control Manager has inspected a copy of the submitted drawings and confirms that no problems are expected with the development of this site. He comments that the slope is fairly gentle at this property, and that foundations recently excavated for a site opposite were in compact gravel. Accordingly, there is not considered to be any ground instability implications associated with this proposal.

Fire Safety Officer comments as follows:

“I can confirm no written or verbal complaint about emergency vehicle access/egress has been received with reference to Albert Road, Gurnard. However, if concerns have been raised by Members, I would recommend yellow traffic lines to be installed to restrict the amount of parking, which in turn would facilitate access/egress for a fire appliance.”

Environment Agency confirms that it has no objection to the proposed development as submitted.

Southern Water comment as follows:

“I have looked at the development and our records of sewerage incidents in the area. There is one incident of flooding near to the site when there was a blockage reported during a period of heavy rain. As the sewers in this area are designated as combined I am not surprised that this occurred. The other incident involving flooding from the public sewerage was when the rising main burst in Marsh Road. With only these two incidents recorded, I would not object to the FOUL discharge from the new development connecting to the public sewer. Although the sewers are designated as combined, to limit the risk of flooding, I would ask for the surface water to be disposed of other than to the sewer. The applicant has suggested that surface water be disposed of to soakaways if no surface water sewer is available.”

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurnard Parish Council object on grounds that the proposal still amounts to over-development of the site but comment that two may be more acceptable. Also concerned that existing sewerage problems would be exacerbated.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor Mundy maintains his objection to the application as it would impinge on the safety of both motorists and pedestrians.

Local Member objects on grounds that Albert Road is extremely congested and that further on-street parking may create difficulties for emergency vehicle access. Also concerned that proposal constitutes over-development.

Three letters received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Excessive density.

Traffic congestion/generation.

Previous application rejected as sewerage system is inadequate and overloads Gurnard Luck.

Ground is known for instability problems and insurance companies will not insure lower part of Albert Road for subsidence reasons.

Will affect light and privacy.

Since the application was readvertised to account for the revised parking arrangement (illustrative) nine further letters have been received from local residents raising the following additional points:

Additional spaces shown for proposed development would not compensate for the on-street spaces that would be lost to facilitate new access points.

Additional on site parking as shown could result in greater disturbance to neighbouring property.

Greater parking provision would reduce size of gardens to new properties.

Would reduce permeable area.

Proximity to blind corner.

Many of the objectors have also taken the opportunity of repeating earlier objections that were summarised in the original report (see above).

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Cowes and therefore, in general terms, is considered acceptable for residential development. The main consideration is whether the site can accommodate 3 dwellings without appearing cramped in the street scene or detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers.

Immediately to the east of the application site is a terrace of 8 dwellings with frontage onto Albert Road of some 30 metres. Although the depth of application site is substantially less than the neighbouring terrace, its frontage of 22 metres does compare favourably and would, in my opinion, allow for three dwellings to be developed as shown without appearing cramped in the street scene, whilst also retaining sufficient space about buildings. Whilst recognising that plot depth is almost half that of the adjoining terrace, illustrative plans do show that each property would have a rear garden measuring no less than 7 metres in length. This is considered acceptable and, together with adequate road frontage, would overcome the previous reason for refusing consent.

Adjoining property to the east does have windows overlooking the application site. The illustrative layout plan indicates that the proposed terrace would be some 6 metres away from this dwelling. This is considered to be an adequate gap in terms of potential light and dominance issues, with window arrangement to be considered at reserve matters stage. I therefore consider that any adverse effect on the adjacent property would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of this application.

The highway issues raised are recognised, but the access arrangements are similar to those previously put forward, to which the Highway Engineer did not object, and the new footpath shown on the illustrative plan would improve the current situation. Members are advised that the Highway Engineer did not object to the application for three houses refused in January 2003, instead he recommended conditions in the event of consent being granted. As the scheme now under consideration indicates that access arrangements would be similar, if not arguably better, than the layout considered by the Highway Engineer in 2003, it is my opinion that the use of the proposed access points would not add unduly to the hazards of other highway users. Accordingly, proposal is consistent with the requirements of Policy TR7.

Members expressed concern in respect of parking provision when this application was first considered in April. The agent has since submitted a revised 'illustrative' layout plan showing that the site could accommodate two spaces per dwelling which, bearing in mind the site is within Zone 3 as shown on the parking guidelines, is the maximum likely to be permitted under Policy TR16. Such provision is considered to be more than adequate for this site meaning that a reason relating to inadequate parking could not be sustained. Neither would concern regarding displacement of two existing on-street spaces justify reason for refusing permission bearing in mind that residents do not have the legal right of parking on the public highway.

Concern was also expressed in respect of access for fire appliances, particularly if cars are parked on both sides of Albert Road. Fire Safety Officer confirms that no written or verbal complaints have been received in respect of Albert Road. Also confirms that powers do exist under the Isle of Wight Act to paint double yellow lines along one side of the road if general concern is expressed. Main issue for consideration in this instance is whether additional residential properties as proposed would increase risk to life owing to concerns that have been raised. Site sits approximately 60 metres south of Albert Road junction onto Solent View Road. It is my understanding that this length of Albert Road is not as heavily parked as the longer stretch that runs east to west and is therefore likely to offer a more accessible route to the site if the other stretch of Albert Road is for whatever reason obstructed. Bearing in mind the comments of the Fire Safety Officer together with the proximity of the site to the Solent View Road junction, I am of the opinion that the provision of three houses on this site would not add significantly to any risk that may already exist.

In terms of drainage, Southern Water confirms that the sewers in this area are combined systems. Whilst recognising that two incidents of flooding have been reported following periods of heavy rainfall, Southern Water do not object to this development subject to foul sewage only be disposed of into the existing combined system, with surface water being disposed by alternative means. The applicant has suggested that surface water be disposed of to soakaways if no surface water sewer is available. Obviously a surface water sewer would be preferred, although it is likely that soakaways would be acceptable bearing in mind the comments of the Building Control Manager in respect of ground conditions. In any event, I am satisfied that a suitable drainage condition would be sufficient bearing in mind that this is an outline application. Therefore, bearing in mind the comments of Southern Water and the suggested condition I see no reason to refuse development on drainage grounds.

Previous application was not refused on inadequacy of sewerage as claimed by one objector. Building Control will need to be satisfied that development can be adequately served by a drainage system. Southern Water will also have to be consulted should the developer wish to connect to the public system. I therefore see no reason why this latest application should be refused on drainage grounds.

Ground stability not identified as an issue in previous refusal. Site is not identified in Cowes to Gurnard Ground Stability Study as an area of potential movement and there is no evidence of subsidence affecting existing properties. Although site is not within the recognised study area, it was deemed appropriate to consult with the Council’s Building Control Manager. He is familiar with the ground conditions in this part of Gurnard as a dwelling has recently been constructed opposite application site. Bearing in mind the ground conditions, the relatively gentle slope and the fact that site is outside of the Cowes to Gurnard study area, I am of the opinion that the site would not pose any serious difficulties, if any, as far as ground conditions are concerned, and therefore advise Members that a reason for refusal could not be sustained in this respect.

To conclude, it is considered that the previous reason relating to over-development has been satisfactorily overcome, as it is considered that the proposed development would not appear cramped or intrusive owing to sufficient space being retained between buildings. It is therefore my opinion that three houses on this plot would not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring properties or the surrounding area in general. I am therefore satisfied that this latest proposal is acceptable and complies with Development Plan policy, specifically D1, D2, H5, TR7 and TR16.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as discussed in this report, I am of the opinion that the scheme under consideration has satisfactorily overcome the previous reasons for refusing consent and that the principle of a terrace of three dwellings on this site could be accepted.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

3	Approval of reserved matters - A03

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of surface water disposal. Any such agreed surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system that adequate capacity exists, including any reasonable repairs which may be required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such systems have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/13425/D P/00984/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 06/05/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr P Dodds & Mr T Chatfield

Demolition of bungalow; outline for 8 dwellings

50 Gunville Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305LF

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor Mrs Foster, has requested that this application is determined by the Development Control Committee on the basis that the site has been the subject of previous applications which were particularly contentious and she is aware that the current submission has attracted a number of letters of representation.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications due to the negotiations over siting of dwellings and layout, case officer workload and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to site, presently forming relatively large curtilage to a detached bungalow located on eastern side of Gunville Road approximately 80 metres south of its junction with Taylor Road. Site has frontage to Gunville Road of approximately 13 metres with maximum width of approximately 30 metres and a depth of some 49 metres.

The properties adjoining part of southern boundary and to east of site were constructed in recent years, forming part of the Carisbrooke Park Estate. Roadway (Kestrel Way) which serves properties to south of application site terminates immediately adjacent south eastern corner of the site.

Application site falls gently in easterly direction away from road, and is presently the large and mature garden to the existing bungalow within the site. The immediate area is characterized by a mix of dwelling types with longer established properties fronting Gunville Road and the more recent and higher density development to the east, including terraced properties two and three storeys in height.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/13425/C – P/00802/03 – Application for demolition of dwelling and outline for 8 dwellings, garages, parking and alterations to vehicular access onto Gunville Road refused July 2003 on grounds that the proposed access was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable visibility therefore adding unduly to hazards to highway users. In addition, it was considered that the proposed courtyard area represented an undesirable arrangement of parking, garages and maneuvering area likely to result in uncontrolled intensification of parking in excess of that indicated on the plan and therefore contrary to Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks permission for demolition of the bungalow within the site and outline consent for 8 dwellings, comprising 6 houses and 2 flats. Submitted plans show 2 flats in a 2 storey building fronting Gunville Road with 3 pairs of semi-detached dwellings to rear with 8 parking places, 1 for each unit, and access road off Kestrel Way. This proposal does not involve formation of vehicular access directly onto Gunville Road.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) – Housing, sets out Government’s policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular it emphasizes that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimizing the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximizing the reuse of existing buildings. Guidance note indicates that national target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversion of existing buildings. In terms of making best use of land, guidance note advises that local planning authorities should consider range of measure, including seeking greater intensity of development, particularly in areas with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres and around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.

Proposal is considered to represent development of a brownfield site which is located the development envelope as defined in the IOW Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 – New developments will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S2 – Developments will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites) rather than undeveloped (Greenfield) sites.

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 meet 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 – Standard for Development within the site

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be restricted to defined settlements

H6 – High Density Residential Development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Comments of the Council's Ecology Officer have been sought in response to suggestion that newts and bats are present within this site. He comments that there is no pond on site, although newts will use areas of rough ground at times during the year. However, he advises that the site is extremely unlikely to harbour Great Crested Newts, which are the only protected species, and consequently this is not a legitimate planning constraint. With regard to the possible presence of bats, he advises that many species will roost in buildings and Pipistrelle Bats, the most frequent species in built up areas, will roost in bungalows. All bats are protected under United Kingdom and European legislation and presence or otherwise of bats in a building proposed for demolition cannot be ruled out and is a material consideration.

The Ecology Officer advises that, ideally, the property should be checked for the presence of a bat roost prior to determination of the application. However, in this instance, the applicant does not occupy the dwelling and he advises that if access to the property proves to be impossible, then a planning condition should be imposed requiring a bat survey to be carried out by an licensed consultant prior to demolition. In the event of a bat roost being found, a licence will be required from DEFRA.

Southern Water advise that the sewer which serves this site runs to the north and their records indicate a considerable number sewer incidents in this section of the road, some of which include flooding. However, they are all referred to as being caused by blockages on the system and not due to the sewers being overloaded by the flow. There is a separate surface water sewer available in Gunville Road which should limit the amount of surface water entering the foul sewer which Southern Water would want to eliminate completely on redevelopment of any site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted 12 letters from local residents objecting to proposal and/or expressing concern with regard to the following issues:

Over development of site resulting in properties with insufficient garden area and play space.

Increase noise levels from activity of residents and vehicle movements.

Traffic generation creating highway hazard and danger to children playing in Kestrel Way.

Proposal will lead to more vehicles parked in Gunville Road and will exacerbate parking problems in area.

Kestrel Way too narrow for large vehicles/emergency vehicles and is often congested with parked cars.

Several residents comment that proposal does not allow access to Gunville Road although others consider this to be of benefit.

Existing access road (Kestrel Way) shared by both vehicles and pedestrians – separate safe footpath should be provided.

Parking bays adjacent access to site inappropriately placed as maneuvering vehicles create hazard to pedestrians.

Site has history of refusal for development.

Loss of trees and adverse impact on wildlife.

Hedge surrounding site should be retained to protect privacy of neighbouring properties.

Adequacy and means of drainage questioned – inadequate room for soakaways.

Submitted plans contain no finished floor levels.

Plans submitted with application misleading – streetscene does not include existing bungalow.

The right of access over Kestrel Way and, in particular an area of land at the end of the road has been questioned. Matters relating to rights of way are not relevant to the consideration of a planning application. However, in this instance, Members are advised that Kestrel Way is an adopted highway with the exception of the turning area adjacent the application site which has been retained in private ownership. In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, an applicant is required to serve notice on all parties who are owners of any part of the land to which the application relates. In this instance, the applicants have served notice on the owners of the bungalow and the person who has retained ownership of the turning area in Kestrel Way. This issue has been clarified further with the applicants agent and I am satisfied that the correct procedures have been carried out.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in consider application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether development of site as proposed would represent overdevelopment in a form which does not reflect the prevailing pattern of development in the area or is likely to give rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring properties such as overlooking.

Site presently forms generous curtilage to an existing detached bungalow, demolition of which forms part of the current submission. Therefore, I consider that site, by definition, is a brownfield site. Furthermore, site is located within the development boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Therefore, redevelopment of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle.

Site is located immediately adjacent to and would be accessed from Carisbrooke Park Estate, an area characterizes by relatively high density development comprising a mix of housing types ranging from single to three storeys in height. Longer established development fronting Gunville Road is of lower density generally comprising detached and semi detached properties in large gardens. The proposed development would be of similar density to the more modern housing development to the east and, although current application seeks outline consent only, information accompanying the submission indicates that building fronting Gunville Road itself would be two storeys in height providing two flats and of similar scale to neighbouring buildings. Footprint of buildings shown on the submitted plans would suggest that the development will provide two/three bedroomed units. I consider that the layout, density and style of development proposed is compatible with the surrounding area and, in particular, the more modern development immediately adjacent site on the Carisbrooke Park Estate. Given character of the area, I do not consider that proposal can be considered as overdevelopment of this site.

Previous application for redevelopment of site also included provision of 8 units of accommodation, garages, parking and alterations to vehicular access. This particular proposal involved access directly onto Gunville Road. It is important to note that this application was refused solely on grounds relating to highway and parking matters. In particular, the proposed access was considered to be unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable visibility, thereby adding to hazards of highway users and it was also considered that the courtyard layout would represent an undesirable arrangement of parking/garaging and maneuvering likely to result in uncontrolled intensification of parking in excess of the adopted guidelines. Current proposal does not involve vehicular access directly onto Gunville Road and the development would be served via an access from an estate road from within the neighbouring development.

Concern has been expressed by local residents regarding the traffic likely to be generated by this proposal, the potential adverse impact on highway safety in the area, parking congestion and the adequacy of Kestrel Way to serve the development. Notwithstanding the possibility of vehicles parked on the highway, Kestrel Way is of adequate width to enable two cars to pass and to accommodate emergency and service vehicles. Kestrel Way presently serves 42 properties and varies in width along its length. The main section of Kestrel Way off Fieldfare Road has a carriageway width of approximately 5 metres whilst the section which would give access to the application site is approximately 4.5 metres wide. The advice contained in Design Bulletin 32 and the companion guide Places, Streets and Movements, suggests that a road with a width of 4.8 metres would be suitable to serve up to 50 dwellings and a road of 4.1 metres in width would be suitable for up to and around 25 dwellings. The number of dwellings to be provided on the application site together with the existing dwellings accessed from that section of Kestrel Way over which the application site would be approached would not exceed the number specified in DB32.

The access road within the site itself is shown on the submitted plans to be for the most part approximately 3 metres wide, although given the limited length of this section of road and number of dwellings it serves, this is not necessarily considered to be inadequate. However, the roadway could be increased in width if this is considered necessary and I am satisfied that this matter can be addressed when dealing with a subsequent application for approval of reserved matters or full planning permission. With regard to level of parking, site is located within Zone 3 for the purpose of applying the Council’s parking guidelines and I am satisfied that the level of parking to be provided is appropriate for this location. In the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer, I do not consider that refusal of application on grounds relating to level of parking and/or highway safety would be sustainable. Having regard to these factors, it is considered that the current proposal overcomes the reasons for refusal of the previous application.

Site is enclosed in part by hedgerows and contains several trees. Whilst proposal would necessitate removal of the trees within the site, these are considered to be of limited merit and amenity value and I do not consider that their loss would justify refusal of planning permission. The natural growth along the eastern boundary of the site does provide a degree of screening, although this does not form the common boundary with gardens of neighbouring properties and provision of appropriate boundary treatment can be addressed when considering a subsequent application for approval of reserved matters or full planning permission. Furthermore, at such time careful consideration can also be given to the design of the buildings and positioning of windows in order to minimize potential for overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. In this respect, although current submission seeks outline planning permission, siting is to be considered at this stage and I am satisfied that the layout of the development is such that unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy is unlikely to occur.

Whilst reference has been made in letters of representation to the level of information and/or inaccuracies in the submitted plans, Members are reminded that this is an outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, with the exception of siting and means of access. Should Members be minded to approve the application, details accompanying any subsequent submission for approval of reserved matters or full planning permission will be expected to be accompanied by full details of the proposal, including finished floor levels.

With regard to issues relating to impact on wildlife and drainage, I would draw Members attention to comments of the relevant consultees detailed in the Consultee Responses section of this report.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. Furthermore, I am satisfied that proposal makes efficient use of a brownfield site within the defined settlement and, in particular, that site is of adequate size to accommodate number of dwelling proposed in a form compatible with neighbouring development and without having excessive or unacceptable impact on the amenities of the area in general and neighbouring residential occupiers in particular.

RECOMMENDATION – Approval

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4	Vehicular access - J30

5	Timing of occupation - J11

No building/dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surface in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for 8 cars to be parked and for vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system that adequate capacity exists, including any reasonable repairs which may be required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such systems have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No work in respect of the demolition of the dwelling within the site shall commence until such time as a survey has been carried out by a competent licensed consultant to ascertain whether bats are present within the building. Thereafter, a report on the results of the survey shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and to comply with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 2 - That a letter is sent to the applicant drawing attention to the requirements of Condition 8 and advising that, in the event of bats being present within the building, it will be necessary to obtain a licence from DEFRA prior to demolition of the building.

TCP/13798/C P/01572/04 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 02/09/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Kingcross Ltd

Demolition of shops & flats; 3/4 storey building to form retail store (class A1) with 9 flats over; vehicular access & basement parking (revised plans) (readvertised application)

Island Furnishing, 52-58 High Street, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381LT

This is a joint report with the next item on the Agenda – CAC/13798/D

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

These applications represent a major submission where there are a significant number of issues to be resolved.

PERFOMANCE INFORMATION

These applications, if determined at 7 December meeting will have taken 14 weeks to process, the delay being due to protracted negotiations in respect of design issues.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site comprises shops on ground floor with residential uses above; the site adjoining western side of the Central Hotel, which, in turn is situated on the south side of High Street and on the western side of its junction with Market Street in Ventnor. The site has an area of approximately 0.048 hectares and the four shops currently run as one entity although clearly, certainly above fascia height visually comprises three separate building blocks.

These shops form the eastern extent of the parade of shops on the south side of High Street, with the Central Hotel to its east. To the south is the former and now disused Hole in the Wall pub and the Council’s car park, both with the frontage onto Pound Lane. The existing buildings, in the main, are two and three storeys in height, some incorporating accommodation within their roof space but the respective elements of the building are at different scales and incorporate different features including bay windows, arched headed windows, and parapet walls.

DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS

The proposal is to seek Conservation Area Consent to demolish the buildings on site and redevelop the three/four storey building to form a retail store (Class A1) on ground floor with nine flats on the floors above.

Plans show the ground floor to comprise a single retail unit of approximately 280 square metres with approximately 93 square metres of service area including a corridor along the eastern side of the building to the front elevation onto the High Street. The whole of the ground floor over an underground car parking area comprising ten spaces, one for each of the flats plus one visitor space also incorporating a store plant room, refuse area and lift and storage well at the bottom of the stair well to upper floors. The car parking area will be accessed off the rear site known as The Hole in the Wall where a right of access was maintained to the site.

First floor plan shows four residential units comprising two bedrooms, living/dining/kitchen areas and two bathrooms ranging between 56.3 square metres and 70.6 square metres in floor area. Second floor plan is virtually a repeat of the first floor comprising four flats but, on the third floor, contained partially within the roof space is a further, two bedroomed flat comprising a floor area of approximately 96 square metres. This roof top unit also incorporates two roof terraces and the scheme also incorporates an atrium situated approximately centrally in the block, reaching from roof level to first floor level lighting the stair and hall ways and ventilating bathrooms and kitchens.

The third floor flat is incorporated only within part of the overall structure and therefore only part of the building reaches four storeys in height.

The proposed front elevation indicates that the height of the building would exceed the height of the highest part of the existing by about 1.5 metres but it shifts the higher part to the western side of the site where the adjoining building is already of a similar height but the eastern end of the development is reduced by approximately 0.7 of a metre from the existing making the transition from the Central Hotel to the new building of lesser contrast.

The new front elevation shows the new structure to be divided into three elements with unequal width incorporating three separate shop fronts and the roof scape of similar proportions and similar features to those existing in the area. The front elevational treatment incorporates fenestration of a vertical emphasis with two bay windows, features which appear in many of the buildings in the High Street and the description of materials to be used include facing brickwork to some of the main elevations with another in a cream coloured render, reconstituted stone sills but with the central on a rendered elevation incorporating rendered window surrounds and the divisions between the units in projecting brick columns.

At the rear of the building the shape and the proportions mirror that of the front revealing ornate wrought iron balconies at first and second floors to the living rooms of four of the flats. There is a flat roofed projection of the building beyond the rear adjoining buildings of approximately 8.5 metres which incorporates the service area to the ground floor shop and part of the shop, over the basement parking area. No access is intended to this flat roofed area, the balconies on first floor being about 0.9 of a metre above that roof level.

The side elevations reveal the extent of that projection more clearly, the 8.5 metre projection at the rear of the building being at about 6 metres in height, due to the general fall of ground levels from north down to the south. This will immediately abut the western boundary of the garden of the Central Hotel and of the adjoining properties to the west; the elevations incorporate three dummy windows in each side.

In addition the plans show intention to create a delivery lay-by in front of the site by realigning the carriageway and widening the footway and reducing the size of the traffic island at the bottom of Spring Hill.

The High Street is one way and the works envisaged would direct west to east flowing traffic to the northern side of the carriageway and with a pedestrian crossing at the point where Market Street meets the High Street where the footpath would again be widened on the southern side, outside the Central Hotel to facilitate the formation of the eastern end of the delivery lay-by and a pedestrian crossing.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the town centre within the designated development envelope; within the designated conservation area but it is not within a retail only frontage.

In this instance it is considered that the following UDP policies apply:

R1 – Existing Town Centres

R2 – New Retail Development

B2 – Settings of Listed Buildings

B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

B7 – Demolition of Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas

D5 – Shop Fronts and Signs

H10- Residential Development above ground floor level in town centres

PPG6 – Town Centres and Retail Developments

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineers comments not received at the time of writing.

Environmental Health Officer considers that unconditional approval may cause disamentity to neighbouring land uses from noise, fumes, odour and smoke suggesting that the application contains insufficient information properly to assess these environmental implications. Accordingly recommends condition if approved.

Conservation Area Team comments that following extensive negotiations regarding design and massing, the resultant scheme is now considered acceptable in principle but so long as the removal of existing building is justified. Suggests that greater detailing would need to be submitted as part of the condition process regarding doors, windows, parapets, balconies, fascias, shop fronts and other details. Furthermore, details of delivery arrangements would need to be examined bearing in mind the effect on the Conservation Area.

PARISHTOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council sees no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect of this proposal.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATION

National air traffic services – no objection.

Three letters of objection from local residents, whilst supporting redevelopment, object to the projection to the rear of the building, raising concerns regarding stability of the adjoining buildings during construction works, the fact that the building is very high and the full width of the site, especially at the rear, overshadowing, loss of light and overlooking resulting in an adverse effect of the adjoining properties.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. However, it is not anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

The principle of this redevelopment involves the question of whether the demolition of buildings within the conservation area and their replacement will result in a development which will enhance the conservation area and whether the buildings which are to be removed are of sufficient merit to resist demolition.

An application for Conservation Area Consent has also been submitted and is also to be considered within this report and it is appropriate to report that, at this time, a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act has been issued regarding the condition of the building in visual terms and, under the Public Health Act, a dangerous structure notice has also been served due to the poor and failing structural condition of the buildings. It is felt that the buildings contribute little to the streetscene, they are unlisted and in their present condition are of little individual merit and therefore the application for Conservation Area Consent for demolition must turn on the suitability of the replacement buildings as described in the planning application.

In principle, the redevelopment of the site is considered acceptable; it forms the fourth of a series of applications in this particular vicinity which contribute overall to the regeneration of Ventnor town centre. These sites include the redevelopment of the Clarendon Press building, the redevelopment of the former public house the Hole in the Wall and the redevelopment of the depot site further to the west in Pound Lane. This particular development will rely on the redevelopment of the former Hole in the Wall site as access is required through that site to service the private parking area beneath the proposed building at basement level and which is easily accessible due to the difference in levels to the High Street and Pound Lane.

Currently this site is used for retail purposes on ground floor with residential accommodation above. The redevelopment of the site will result in a greater floor area of retail on ground floor with residential property over, entirely consistent with Policy H10 which supports development of residential accommodation above shops within town centres.

Policies R1 and R2 seek to protect and maintain or enhance the retail function of the defined town centre by supporting new or improved retail developments in the defined town centre boundaries. As these premises are already in the same uses as currently proposed, there is felt to be no objection to the improvement of the facilities in such a location.

Policy B2 seeks to prevent development which adversely affects the appearance of listed buildings and Policy B6 seeks to achieve development which preserve and enhance the conservation areas. In my view the redevelopment of this site will enhance the conservation area and will not adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building, the adjoining Central Hotel. However, it is pointed out that in order to achieve increased densities and the best use of urban land increased mass or height or site coverage can only take place if this is to be achieved.

Policy D5 seeks to achieve a high standard of design relating to new shop fronts and I believe this can be achieved in the current scheme since although the development of the site is being carried out as one, the façade of the building is clearly in three elements which will retain the small unit character of the High Street of Ventnor, thus maintaining narrow but tall elements.

Turning to design, extensive negotiations have taken place in order to achieve a finished development which will blend with the adjoining buildings and the street scene as a whole the elevation introduces a building of similar character incorporating elements typically found within the street scene adjoining. Subject to the correct choice and combination of materials and careful detailing the development is likely to enhance the southern side of High Street.

Turning to the highways aspect of the development, these fall into two main categories namely the access to the undercroft parking at basement level beneath the building accessed from the Hole in the Wall site to the south and, secondly, the highway improvements and alterations to the High Street to form a delivery bay right outside of the site.

The former of the two, provides for ten car parking spaces including one visitor space within the basement area beneath the building accessed off and through the car park serving the Hole in the Wall site. When permission was granted for that particular development a right of way was retained through the site and in this town centre location, the car parking of one space per residential unit is considered quite appropriate. It is pointed out that the Hole in the Wall redevelopment included a similar parking ratio, whereas the redevelopment of the Clarendon Press building resulted in considerably fewer car parking spaces for those flats. The additional use of the access onto Pound Lane to serve this development at the scale envisaged is considered acceptable.

The second element of the highways consideration involves the formation of two areas of pavement extended one at the junction of Market Street with High Street and the other opposite the bottom of Spring Hill, coupled with the reduction in the size of the traffic island at the bottom of Spring Hill, effectively displacing the carriageway to the left hand side of High Street and forming a substantial delivery lay-by. This scheme has been developed with the involvement of the highway engineers who have also required the installation of pedestrian crossing at the pinch point located at the junction of Market Street and High Street.

At present, the south side of High Street is a continuous terrace of buildings of individual appearance immediately abutting the rear of the footpath. Therefore, the only properties likely to be affected by this development are those adjoining at the rear, possibly affected by the projection of the building towards the south, behind the rear line of buildings. As previously mentioned the only way of increasing densities and to make the best use of urban land is to increase site coverage or to increase height but as height in this conservation area is of particular relevance in the street scene, the extension of the rear of the building is felt inevitable. Overlooking is also inevitable in any urban situation where densities are high development becomes more intimate, however since the development at the rear is not yet commenced (ie. the redevelopment of the Hole in the Wall site) and is likely to be carried out by the same developer as the current proposal it is not felt the effect on each other is likely to be such that resistance is warranted.

So the effect on adjoining properties by overlooking of the rear gardens is the issue which needs to be addressed. As stated previously, overlooking in urban areas is a factor of increased densities and best use of urban land but I do not consider the development to have sufficient dominance so as to warrant refusal. Indeed the negotiations which have taken place to achieve the current scheme have resulted in the reduction in the mass of building at the rear, the removal of an external staircase for access and fire escape and the only section of the building which now projects the eight metres referred to earlier is the ground floor which houses part of the retail unit and its service areas.

While facing south, although of substantial height due to ground levels falling away to the south, loss of light is unlikely to be sufficient to warrant refusal.

Drainage, land stability and land contamination have all featured in the other three developments in the near vicinity and the scheme now before Members differs little in location and principle from those three previous schemes.

The geotechnical report submitted with the application, carried out as an extension of the study implemented on the other three sites confirms that pile foundations to a substantial depth (12 metres) will be the appropriate method of redevelopment and confirms limited levels of contaminants. Drainage issues are the same for this site as the other sites but as the site is already in use for retail and residential uses above, the intensity of the use compared with the existing will be the determining factor regarding drainage. It is felt appropriate that the development, if approved, should be conditioned to ensure the submission of a scheme of storm water and foul water drainage is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development of the site. Foundation design to deal with any land instability issues will be dealt with at the building regulation stage but it seems clear that the results of the geotechnical survey confirm what was expected, that the construction of the building is quite possible taking appropriate foundation design into account.

In summary, the redevelopment of this site as a replacement of the existing retail and residential with a more intensive retail and residential scheme is appropriate and that the design and impact on the conservation area and adjoining properties is satisfactory, based upon the latest revised plans. Approval is recommended.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the determination factors as described in the evaluation section above, the redevelopment of the site for retail and residential purposes is considered consistent with retail and housing policies and the design of the scheme is felt to be consistent with the status of the area as one designated as a conservation area and its location close to the adjoining list building. Accordingly, the development is considered to be consistent with Policies R1, R2, D5, B2, B6 and H10 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – Approval (both applications)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme of all surface finishes and detailing of the buildings hereby approved has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include drawings to show detailing of windows, doors, parapets, balconies, fascia and shop front together with all materials, colours and finishes. Thereafter the construction of the building shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) and policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The use hereby permitted shall not commence until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for 10 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the windows and doors, fascias and barge boards included on this development shall be constructed in timber in accordance with the approved drawings.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas liable to flooding) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until it has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

a) A desk top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the side and adjacent land in connection with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175;2001, and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site incorporating chemical and gas analysis to identify as appropriate by the desk top study in accordance with BS10175;2001 - Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice, and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

c) Remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include the sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of the decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediations.

The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report which shall include the confirmation of all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To protect the environment and human health ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part 11A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

9	Details of provision for refuse - G31

Prior to the use hereby authorised commencing of the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended business hours of the premises. The use shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance in particular sleep disturbance from noise emission from the premises.

Before the development hereby commences a scheme shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The provisions of this scheme shall include physical controls, operational restrictions and administrative controls, where appropriate.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emission from the premises.

The retail development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the delivery bay, including the alterations to the pavement at the junction of Market Street with High Street and at the western end of the site opposite the junction of Spring Hill, the traffic island at the bottom of Spring Hill has been reduced and the pedestrian crossing has been provided together with all necessary road markings and street furniture in accordance with a detailed specification to be submitted to, approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy TR7 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

CAC/13798/C P/01960/04 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 27/09/2004 - Conservation Area Consent

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: King Cross Ltd

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of buildings

Island Furnishing, 52-58 High Street, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381LT

Joint Report with TCP/13798/C

Conditions relating to this report, see below:

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Listed building consent or Conservation - P06

2	Timing demolition/rebuilding (contract) - P05

TCP/17828/S P/01932/04 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Binstead

Registration Date: 13/09/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. C. Hougham Tel: (01983) 823576

Applicant: Mr P Legg

Outline for retail unit with parking (revised scheme)

Brickfields, Newnham Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 3TH

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is being reported at the request of the Head of Planning Services and by the local Member, Councillor Fox, at the time of submission.

Application was due to be considered at the last meeting of the Committee (16/11) but was deferred, prior to consideration, when Members heard that the application had been unable to register in time to speak at that meeting; he was taking advice from the Head of Tourism and he was concerned that the Local Ward Member would not be in attendance at that meeting.

The decision to defer consideration was taken contrary to advice given by the Development Control Manager who reminded Members that the application is a resubmission of an earlier identical proposal which was refused and there was not sufficient justification to delay the determination of an application which is clearly contrary to local planning policies.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This major application, if determined at the Development Control Committee on 7 December will have been determined within the thirteen week period.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is located approximately 500 metres south of the end of the residential development of Newnham Road, Binstead and approximately one kilometre north east of Havenstreet.

The site has an overall area of approximately 2 hectares and comprises a series of buildings of mixed designs, styles and materials, some agricultural in character and used for various purposes within the equestrian centre. Site has a frontage to Newnham Road of approximately 200 metres and, overall, a depth of approximately 150 metres. There are two vehicular accesses in that frontage although, the northerly access is not the main access to the site for the public.

Site is used for equestrian purposes and the existing buildings comprise a small shop, museum of carriages and other artifacts of considerable age, stabling and the main, largest building on the site contains an arena, restaurant and bar and small gift and accessory shop. There is a large car parking area approximately mid way in the frontage.

The surrounding area is an open, rural aspect on the outskirts of the Ryde and Binstead area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various applications for development at the equestrian centre dating back to 1982 when an indoor riding ménage was approved. The site had already been established as a centre related to horses including a blacksmiths shop, tack and food shop, stables for livery purposes and an outdoor ménage.

A change of use of approved viewing gallery to ancillary shop, snack bar, lounge bar, indoor ménage was approved in January 1983 whilst in August 1985 and exhibition centre/museum and toilet facilities were approved. In July 1986 a temporary consent was granted for a one year period to allow for the additional use of the premises for discos and live groups (maximum of twelve events). A further consent was granted for that same use in August 1987 expiring in September 1990 but limiting the use to a maximum of six occasions per year.

A single storey extension and alterations were approved in April 1990 to provide a small extension to the shop area and in September 1990, further consent for the use of the premises for discos and live groups was approved, expiring in September 1995 with a maximum of six occasions annually. In 1995 a permanent consent was granted for the additional use of the premises for discos and live groups, again with a maximum of six occasions per year.

The shop, following the permission described above had a floor area of 90 m².

In April of this year an outline planning application for a retail unit with parking was refused on the following grounds of: -

The proposal represents the introduction of a substantial retail use, disproportionate to the existing establishment and located outside of any town or village centre which would be contrary to policy R2 (New Retail Development) and Strategic Policy S14 (New retail development will be expected to locate within existing town centres) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

That proposal showed a freestanding building to be sited on the south east side of the ménage building close the south eastern boundary of the site. The building was shown to comprise 222 m²of warehousing; 60 m²of staff facility; 932m² of retail; 264 m² under a canopy with a compound area of 883 m².

Although in outline form, extensive detail showed the building to be steel framed, brickwork to a height of approximately 2.5 metres with composite wall cladding panels under a profile box section roof. Overall height of 7 metres to the ridge and 5.3 metres to eaves.

It was proposed to include in the product list for sale, agricultural goods including animal feed; fencing and gates; animal health products; vermin control products; hardware; garden machinery; equestrian products; heating fuel; pet foods; harvesting products; field sports and hunting equipment; work clothing; domestic products and gardening products.

In summary it was considered that the proposals formed the establishment of a very substantial retail outlet in an out of town location; that there was no justification to set aside normal policy regarding the establishment of new retail uses and that such a retail outlet would be more appropriately sited within a town centre or edge of centre location where it would enhance the retail function of that town.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application is a resubmission of that previously refused and again seeks outline permission with all matters reserved for future consideration but including the extensive details for guidance purposes. The proposal is as before seeking consent for 222 m² of warehousing; 60 m² of staff facility; 932 m² of retail floor space with an external canopy area enclosing 264 m²and a compound of 883 m². The aggregated retail floor space within the proposed building, the covered area and the open compound totals 2,079 m² which equates to almost 22,400 square feet.

Prior to the last meeting a local agent presented a statement on behalf of the applicant in support of the application which states:

..... application is for an extension to our existing business which we have run for 29 years and attracts over 100,000 visitors. It is a diversification of a core agricultural activity and meets national planning guidelines as given in PPS7.

The proposed extension is not new stand alone retail but a very necessary addition to our future plans as an equestrian evening centre which employs upwards of 50 people and meets the stated aims of the Council's tourism strategy which are to encourage growth in the areas which we operate.

We note that not far from us, a national retailer (Tesco) is planning to enlarge an existing out of town store, probably introducing more non-food lines.

We have to provide a range of new opportunities to visitors at our equestrian centre and the aspect of equestrian and field sports equipment for sale on site is part of that growth opportunity, our customers expect that facility to be on site and not in a town centre site.

Green tourism. farm and equestrian related holidays have become very popular nationally and we on the Isle of Wight should take advantage of this market. To do this we have to appreciate the developments in this area will have by nature to take place in the countryside.

At Brickfields we have an established tourism related business which has operated for over 29 years in conjunction with the farm of 300 acres. As the supporting letter from the NFU states "diversification to support core agricultural activities in line with national policy."

We respectfully ask Members to approve this application from a well established local business that employs local labour, is a training education centre and a working farm and business that need to be able to compete to survive.

The proposed product list includes agricultural products including animal feeds; fencing and gates; animal health products; vermin control products; hardware; equestrian products; pet foods; harvesting products; field sports and hunting equipment; work clothing; and gardening products. The only products which have been omitted from the list of those proposed in the previous application are domestic products, heating fuel and garden machinery.

Although submitted for guidance purposes the layout is as before with the proposed new building sited to the south east of the existing ménage and close to the south eastern boundary of the site, with a substantial car parking area in front comprising of 66 spaces plus 4 disabled. Access to the site would be again off the south western most access onto Newnham Road as existing.

Elevations are, again, as previously submitted, brickwork to a height of 2.5 metres between the steel columns with composite panels to eaves and a roof of profiled, box section roofing sheets, both in a white finish.

Building is shown to have overall dimensions of 32 metres by 41 metres, 5.3 metres to eaves and 7 metres to ridge.

Following deferment at the last meeting and following preparation of this amended report, a further set of revised plans have been received. These are still for guidance purposes only and show the size of the store to be reduced, the overall size of the building to be 32m x 31m which equates to a gross floor area of 992m² with a canopy area of 20m x 13m, 260m². Of the 992m², 435m² would be retail, 418m² as warehousing, the remainder for toilets, office and holding areas. This represents a gross floor area of 1252m² (or 13,475 sq ft). This reduction has been achieved by reducing the building from 41m to 31m in width.

Despite the reduction in the floorspace of the building by a approximately a third, no reference is made in these revisions to the former 'compound' of 883m², either to be reduced or omitted. However, Members are reminded that plans submitted are for guidance purposes only.

Copies of the latest submitted drawings are attached to this report for Members information.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside of the designated development envelope as shown on the Ryde inset of the Unitary Development Plan but is under no other notation. The site is not in the Conservation Area and not in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Policies applicable to this application are: -

G2 – Consolidation Outside Development Envelopes

G4 – General Locational Criteria

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

D2 – Standards of Development Within a Site

E1 – Promotion of New Employment Uses

C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

C15 – Appropriate Agricultural Diversification

C24 – Commercial Riding Establishments

TR3 – Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel

R2 – New Retail development

R2 - Planning proposals for new retain development will be acceptable in principle provided they take place within defined town centre shopping areas. Outside of the defined shopping areas, planning permission for small shops will be approved providing they:

a) serve a local need only;

b) are located within existing village settlements, or are ancillary to a tourism or farming operation, or are associated with an existing service station.

A prime objective of the shopping strategy is the continued promotion and enhancement of the town centres in order to ensure their viability and vitality.

Central Government advice now is to ensure that new retail development promotes existing town centres and that development plans should provide for required shopping growth over the planned period.

PPG6 – Town Centres and Retail Developments

Raises the issue of retailing (or shopping) in rural areas and under Paragraph 3.21 states:

..."shops ancillary to other uses, such as farm shops, can also serve a vital function in rural areas, by helping to meet demand for fresh produce and providing new sources of jobs and services, so contributing to the diversity of economic activity in rural areas. In assessing such proposal local planning authorities should take account of:

· The desirability for the farm of providing a service throughout the year;

· Potential impact on nearby village shops;

· The likely impact of traffic generated, access and parking arrangements.

PPG6 advises local planning authorities to adopt a positive, plan-led approach to handling planning applications involving new retail development. It advises that when preparing planning strategies and policies to consider the need for new retail development in the plan area over the lifetime of the plan and having established that such need exists, local planning authorities should then adopt a sequential approach to identify suitable sites. If there is no need for further developments, there will be no requirement to identify additional sites.

Proposals for new retail development which accord with an up to date plan strategy or are proposed on sites within an existing centre, should not be required to demonstrate that they satisfy the test of need because this should have been taken into account in the development plan. However, proposals which would be located at an edge of centre or out of centre location which are not in accordance with the up to date development plan strategy should be required to demonstrate both the need for additional facilities and that a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the location or the site.

In summary, applicants must:

· demonstrate that there is a need for the development;

· having established that such a need exists, adopt a sequential approach to site location;

· consider the impact on nearby centres;

· and provide evidence on the site's accessibility by a choice of means of transport, as demonstrated by a transport assessment, the likely changes in travel patterns over the relevant catchment area and any significant environmental impacts.

Very similar advice is incorporated in the consultation draft of the updated PPS6 which was released in late 2003 and is likely to be approved in the coming months.

PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) was published just a few months ago replacing PPG7. In terms of key principles this new document refers to PPS1 and relevant to this particular case, states:

· Good quality, carefully sited accessible development within existing towns and villages should be allowed where it benefits the local economy and/or community; maintains or enhances the local environment; and does not conflict with other planning policies.

· Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions. Most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips would be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling in line with policies set out in PPG13 (Transport).

· New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscape, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.

It is clear that planning has an important role in supporting and facilitating development and land uses which enable those who earn a living from, and help to maintain and manage the countryside, to continue to do so. In this context, local planning authorities should support development that delivers diverse and sustainable farming enterprises; and support other country based enterprises and activities which contribute to rural economies.

Recognising that diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital to the continuing viability of many farm enterprises, local planning authorities should be supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that contribute to sustainable development objectives and help to sustain the agricultural enterprise and are consistent in their scale with their rural locations. This applies equally to farm diversification scheme around the fringes of urban areas.

The provision of essential facilities for tourist visitors is vital for the development of the tourism industry in rural areas. Local planning authorities should plan for and support the provision of general tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres. Where new or additional facilities are required, these should normally be provided in, or close to, existing centres or villages. Government also encourages the provision of appropriate facilities need to enhance visitors' enjoyment and/or improve the financial viability of a particular countryside feature or attraction, providing they will not detract from the attractiveness or importance of the feature, or the surrounding countryside.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Planning Policy Manager considers the proposal to be inappropriate due to its size, nature of goods for sale, the fact that it is neither small nor ancillary. The proposal could be a 'stand alone' use, not relying on the primary use and become the dominant use of the site.

Following the decision to refuse the initial application and prior to the submission of the second application now under consideration, the Planning Policy Team Leader (David Moore) made the following observation when he was asked to comment on the proposed development.

It strikes me that a retail use and store layout of shelving as proposed, even on a reduced scale, could attract visitors and shoppers in its own right and not be ancillary to the primary use. It appears that it is to be run as a Countrywide Store, an independent operator, not as part of the equestrian centre. It may well be that on the scale proposed originally, or as a smaller unit this might become the dominant use of the site in terms of individual visitors and/or the primary business on the site. This would result in the establishment of a significant out of town retailing operation. The purpose of the proposed development (as stated in a letter from the applicant in April 2004) is to compete with other rival sites. This apparently relates to the supply of goods rather than rival equestrian centres.

It is clear in my mind that the basis for the development proposed is to secure an out of town retail business, albeit with a rural customer target, rather than provide a limited facilities which the tourist and visitor could expect as ancillary to the primary farming and equestrian business. As such it is clearly in breach of the Council's policy for the location of retail uses.

Highway Engineer recommend conditions if approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Prior to the last meeting the Local Ward Member submitted a letter to the Chairman of the Committee he asked for the matter be brought before the Committee because there was considerable local interest. He also said:

Brickfields is one of the very few employers in the Binstead area so that any employment gains from the new development would be very welcome as would any planning gains that might be obtained by requiring improvements to the road geometry and access to the new and indeed existing site.

As the Local Member I am not able to make a recommendation but I wonder if any Member not clear on the suitability of the site or the options open would care to propose a site visit and so allow Member to have a better understanding of the likely impact of this application.

Letter from National Farmers Union (NFU) in support of the planning application confirming that the applicant has run an existing retail operation for 29 years in conjunction with the farming business of approximately 300 acres. States that diversification to underpin the core agricultural activities in line with current national guidance. Points out that the proposal is not for a new project on greenfield site and that it is to enhance an existing retail business which is necessary to ensure its future in a keenly competitive sector. Points out that for almost three decades it has contributed to the rural economy, proved employment and other activities and that refusal would threaten the viability.

CPRE object on grounds of excessive size of shop in an out of town location; generation of excessive levels of traffic; development contrary to policy; noise and light pollution and precedent for further, similar consolidating developments.

Two letters of objection from local residents of generation of traffic, congestion and parking; poor quality of highway and inadequate access in the widest sense.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. However, no crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This is a resubmission of the application previously refused on the grounds that this very substantial retail floor space was not ancillary to an existing activity and that it was in a location well outside of the town centre or edge of centre, being in a comparatively isolated, rural area. Notwithstanding the claim made by the local Member that there is 'considerable interest' about this application it would seem from the evidence based on the number of representations received that this may not necessarily be correct. Since the application is clear conflict with approved policy the professional view is that it should have been dealt with under the delegated procedure as was the case with the first application. Nevertheless the request by the local Member was agreed in the interests of the openness and transparency of the system.

Despite the comprehensive detail submitted with the application describing the appearance of the building, the application seeks the principle of development and retains all matters for future consideration. However, as indicative plans have been submitted, it is clear the nature and scale of the building envisaged if the application is successful.

The application stands to be determined on policy and principle and strategic policy S14 and policy R2 assumes that substantial retail development will be expected to be located within town centres. This is reinforced by policies G1 and G2 which also expects that development would be located within settlements rather than outside of designated development envelopes. Policy G2 seeks to prevent consolidation of scattered dispersed or low density development in the countryside. Policy G5 allows for some exceptions to rural development restraint but subject to that development being of benefit to the rural economy, well designed and landscaped, of an appropriate scale and appropriate to an existing agricultural, tourism or other activity. Although policy E1 seeks to encourage development which would provide employment uses, these should be in appropriate locations and policies D2 and C1 seek to minimise the affect on the amenities of the area, specifically the countryside in this instance.

Policy C15 supports appropriate agricultural diversification and it could be argued that, in principle, the proposed activity is a diversification. However, the scale of this proposal is disproportionate with the other activities on site and would, in fact, dominate the overall use for the site.

Whilst policy C24 refers to commercial riding establishments, which the primary use of this site presently relates, the establishment of a substantial retail outlet is not supported by the policy.

Policy TR3 seeks to locate developments to minimise the need to travel. If a substantial retail floor space such as that proposed were justifiable, this is not the site upon which is should be located due to the site’s isolation and inability to be accessed by public transport or by foot.

Probably the most important policy in determining this application is R2 which seeks to steer new retail development to town centres unless they are small shops which would serve a local need or are located within an existing village settlement or ancillary to a tourism or farming operation. The existing shop on site has a floor area of approximately 90 m^². The current application seeks to establish a retail floor space of more than 10 times than area and, in addition, an open canopy area of a further 264 m^² of open retail area with additional open air areas of 883 m^². This combined floor area for retailing could not be described as ancillary or small and would, in fact, dominate the other uses on site establishing a very substantial retail outlet in an out of town location.

It is important for Members to fully understand and appreciate the scale of the proposed development and in order to put the matter into perspective and ensure that Members are fully informed, I would advise that the estimated retail floor space of the proposed development if you include the outdoor sales areas, some of which are covered, amounts to almost 22,400 square feet (reduced to 13475 sq ft in the latest revised plans) which can then be compared with the new Sainsbury’s store off Towngate Bridge/Sylvan Drive in Newport which is 27,000 square feet. Taking the revised plans into account this equates to a store half the floor space of Sainsbury’s and almost exactly the same as the proposed Lidl store at Shanklin.

Hopefully, Members will appreciate that any reference to the proposed development being ancillary to the existing equestrian centre is not a true reflection or a sustainable argument.

Bearing in mind the list of goods proposed to be retailed, many of these products are already found within town centre retail outlets and in small, ancillary retail outlets associated with other activities. Few need to be retailed in a rural location and retailing from this site will rely on a majority of its customers accessing the site by car although it is acknowledged that some may be accessing the site for the other facilities on the site as well.

The establishment of this substantial retail outlet is overtly contrary to several of the detailed policies in the UDP as well as strategic policies S14, S1 and S4. Accordingly I consider the development to be inappropriate in principle.

This report now includes further information particularly in relation to both national and local planning policies as well as quoting the views of the Planning Policy Team Leader (see Consultee Responses) in addition to illustrating in relatively simple terms the scale of this proposed development and why it conflicts with numerous strategies and policies which include PPG6 (and the draft PPS6), PPG7, strategic and local policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. Consequently this report concludes with a very strong recommendation to refuse planning permission.

The application is clearly in direct conflict with policies relating to out of centre retail development and in terms of the arguments advanced by the applicant and his agents about diversification it is my opinion that these are not sustainable since the very establishment of the equestrian centre represented an early case of diversification almost thirty years ago and the addition of such a large retail unit housed in an industrial building on the site is not diversification, since any argument that it is ancillary to either the equestrian use or the agricultural use on the rest of the land in the control of the applicant is not sustainable. Clearly such a retail outlet, even with restricted sales, would quickly become the dominant use on the site. Hopefully Members will agree that the application should be refused and any retail outlet on this site should be ancillary to the existing equestrian centre and the applicant should be invited to negotiate with professional officers within this context with a view to possibly providing an improved ancillary retail outlet in a suitably designed building, or by converting an existing building, which would give him a slight increase in retail floor space which goes beyond his present facility which I freely admit is quite limited.

Turning to the details submitted, these are submitted for guidance purposes but the style and appearance of the building is, in my view, inappropriate in this rural location due to its design, materials and colours which are more consistent with an industrial building.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

The proposal seeks to establish a very substantial retail outlet in the countryside, well divorced from a town centre and could not be described as being one which is edge of centre. The scale of the building and the purpose to which it is proposed to be put are not ancillary to an existing, established use as it is felt that it would dominate and become the primary use of the site. Accordingly the development is contrary to policies R2 (New Retail Development) and policies S14, S1 and S4.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposals represent the introduction of a substantial retail use, disproportionate to the existing establishment and located outside any town or village centre which would be contrary to Policy R2 (New Retail Development) and strategic policy S14 (New retail development would be expected to locate within existing town centres) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/21037/D P/01624/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 30/07/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Robertson

Outline for house with access off Nodgham Lane (revised scheme)

Land adjoining 110 Clatterford Road and fronting, Nodgham Lane, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

When consulted under the delegated procedure the Local Member, Councillor Mrs Foster, requested that the application is considered by the Committee due to contentious history on the site. In addition she raises concerns that the site is not large enough to accommodate a dwelling, traffic generation and highway hazard due to proximity of site to a dangerous corner. She also considers that consideration by the Committee will provide an opportunity for objectors to be heard.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 22 weeks to date and has gone the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications due to case officer work load and the request from the Local Member for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposal is set within the rear garden amenity area of 110 Clatterford Road which forms a corner plot on east side of Nodgham Lane and north of Clatterford Road. Application site is currently accessed via steps due to the difference in ground levels. Western boundary is well screened from Nodgham Lane by well established hedgerow and eastern boundary is defined by existing hedgerow which diminishes leading up to the boundary between 45 Nodgham Lane and the site. Area is of mixed low density residential designs on the outskirts of Carisbrooke, adjacent to Carisbrooke Conservation Area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21037/B – Outline application for house and garage with access off Nodgham Lane was refused September 2002 as proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site and would create conditions likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and an overbearing nature detrimental to prospective and existing occupiers. Proposal by reason of its access, siting and external appearance would be an intrusive development to the detriment of the visual amenity of the street scene adjacent to the Carisbrooke Conservation Area and access to the site from Nodgham Lane was considered to be unsatisfactory by reason of unacceptable visibility.

TCP/21037/C – Outline application for house and garage was refused in November 2004 on similar grounds to those detailed above.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline consent is sought for development of house with access off Nodgham Lane (revised scheme) with siting, design, external appearance and means of access to be considered and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval. Design of proposal is proportionate to a cottage style with half style dormer windows projecting through eaves level. This two bedroom property would be accessed via Nodgham Lane with gravelled driveway.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within the development envelope, as defined on the Unitary Development Plan, is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent the designated Conservation Area. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 – New Development will be Concentrated within Existing Areas.

S6 – All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design.

S7 – There is a need to provide for development of at least 8000 housing units over the plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or are 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.

S10 - Areas of Designated or Defined Landscape.

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 – Standards of Design.

D2 – Standards for Development within the Site.

B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

H5 – Infill Development.

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer raises no objections and requests a visibility and sight line condition is imposed should Members be minded to approve this application.

Conservation Officer advises that proposal appears to be much more sympathetic to the area and of a more modest scale.

AONB Officer makes no comments on this application.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Seven letters were received from local residents objecting to the application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Size of plot is not suitable for a house of this size.

Building out of character.

Access inadequate and unsafe.

Loss of privacy.

Large driveway will cause noise and disturbance.

Removal of hedge will affect wildlife.

Natural beauty will be destroyed.

Proposal will block out light.

Block plan has not been drawn accurately in relation to proposal and the property at 42 Nodgham Lane.

Discrepancy on levels when comparing finished floor level of proposal and the street scene/section.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principal and whether the site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings.

Site is located within development boundary and proposal is considered acceptable in principal. With regard to suggestions that size of plot is not suitable for a house of this size and would block out light, I am satisfied that the site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings, without appearing cramped or detracting from amenities of the area or neighbouring properties.

Proposal refused in June 2002 involved a dwelling with a three storey element when viewed from the south east elevation and two storey from the south west incorporating a integral garage at lower ground level. The development represented over development, appearing intrusive and Highways Engineer recommended refusal due to unacceptable access by reason of visibility

Applicant re-submitted a slightly modified proposal which was refused in November 2003. In this application the applicant had once again fully utilised the change in ground levels by offering accommodation over three floors, resulting in three storey at one end and two at the other. The Case Officer dealing with this application at the time had issues relating to position, scale and mass of the building together with window arrangement and its impact on the character of the area. Again a recommendation for refusal was received from Highways Department on inadequate visibility.

Subsequent negotiations took place, with particular regard to the scale and proportion of the dwelling, which would benefit from a reduction in size and in particular the omission of the basement accommodation. In this respect, it was considered that a modest two storey cottage style dwelling with low eaves and ridge would be more in keeping with the surrounding area and would have less of an impact on adjoining neighbours.

These negotiations culminated in the submission of the current proposal which also involves re-positioning the proposed dwelling which now runs parallel to Nodgham Lane and I am of the opinion is more appropriately located. Design of the proposal has been simplified and has eliminated the basement accommodation. There is a reduction in the number of firstfloor windows/dormer windows and the overall footprint has been reduced by approximately 20 metres squared.

Site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and concerns were raised on the possible impact on the area. However, after consulting with the relevant officer no objections were raised by him in this respect. As proposal adjoins the Conservation Area, the Conservation Officer was also consulted and is of the opinion that proposal is more sympathetic to the area and more modest in terms of scale.

With regard to concerns raised over loss of privacy, it should be noted that no windows are located at first floor level on the North or East elevation which faces onto neighbouring properties. The southern elevation window, which serves the master bedroom, is approximately 18m away from 110 Clatterford Road. Therefore I do not consider proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy or will detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

With regard to the large driveway causing noise and disturbance I do not consider that level of traffic generated by a single dwelling would be significant or cause excessive disturbance particularly when taking into account the noise generated from Nodgham Lane and Clatterford Road.

Objections were received on the removal of hedgerow and the potential affect this would have on wildlife. Whilst a section of hedgerow will need to be removed to allow for the vehicular access, I consider this to be a minimal loss and would not have a significant or detrimental effect on the wildlife. In any event, this hedgerow does not benefit from any protection under the Hedgerow Regulations and I do not consider that the issue would be sufficient to sustain refusal of the application.

Concerns have also been raised over the accuracy of the block plan and the levels shown. However after viewing an Ordnance Survey map of the area, submitted plans and previous plans and after taking various measurements, I am satisfied that the plans are not misleading and are representative of the changes in level through the site. Also third party representations were made on possible discrepancy in levels and after studying the plans I do not share these concerns.

Taking all issues into consideration I am of the opinion that proposal sits comfortably within the plot without appearing cramped or intrusive and taking into account the mixture of architectural designs in close proximity I consider proposal is acceptable.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development within the development envelope without having excessive or unacceptable impact on the environment or neighbouring properties and would not detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above I am satisfied that the proposal does not conflict with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building hereby permitted is occupied. Development shall be carried out and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development shall not be occupied until the 2 metre x 33 metre sight lines have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain the visibility splay shown in the approved sight lines.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/21374/L P/02086/04 Parish/Name: Arreton Ward: Central Rural

Registration Date: 01/10/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: The Bike Shed

Renewal: continued use of barn for wholesale, internet trading & retail of cycles & spare parts

The Bike Shed, Perreton Farm, East Lane, Merstone, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The nature of this application and complex site history warrants committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 10 weeks to date. It has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications owing to the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to part of the Perreton Farm complex, which is located approximately 300 metres east of East Lane at Merstone, being accessed via a narrow gravel access track. The use in question takes place from part of “The Old Barn”, which is a Grade II Listed Building and is situated at the western side of the farm complex.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21374A/P/36/00 – refused in April 2000 on grounds that retail use in this location is contrary to policies restricting new retail uses to town and local centres. Subsequently dismissed on appeal in September 2000. Although this application did not relate to the building now under consideration, it is fair to say that the issues considered and discounted by the Inspector are almost identical to those now under consideration.

TCP/21374E/P/245/01 – continued use of premises for preparation of flower arrangements and associated storage and distribution. Approved subject to conditions in July 2001. This is the building previously used by 'The Bike Shed' for retailing of cycles.

TCP/21374F/P/344/01 – change of use of barn (The Old Barn) for the wholesale, internet trading and retail of cycles and spare parts. Approved contrary to officer’s recommendation in July 2001. This approval was subject to the condition that the use shall be carried out only by the company trading as 'The Bike Shed' and for a limited period expiring on 30 September 2004.

The decision notice was accompanied by a letter signed by the Development Control Manager. The purpose of this letter was to advise the applicant that any subsequent application to renew the temporary consent would be likely to conflict with the relevant policies restricting retail development in the countryside. Accordingly, applicant was strongly advised to pursue alternative premises.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought to continue using part of “The Old Barn” for wholesale, internet trading and retail of cycles and spare parts. It is claimed by the agent that since the granting of temporary permission, there has been a change of circumstances which can only be met by the continued use of the old farm buildings. In support of his application, applicant has submitted a letter explaining how his business has developed since temporary consent was granted in July 2001. A copy is attached to this report as Appendix A.

In addition to The Old Barn, submitted plans also show a small shed which provides office accommodation and a test track meandering through the farmyard. The test track is only delineated by cones when in use.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Developments) discusses that retailing is generally a function of recognised town centres. Shopping in rural areas is only permitted where it is deemed essential to the economic and social wellbeing of village life, specifically referring to village shops and shops ancillary to other uses such as farm shops and rural petrol stations.

Draft PPS6 confirms the plan led approach and whilst giving advice on larger schemes and effects on town centres and suggests applicants demonstrate need, that there are no more central sites and that the location is accessible i.e. by various modes of transport.

PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) aims to promote more sustainable patterns of development, focusing most development in, or next to, existing towns and villages. Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions. Most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips should be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling in line with policy set out in PPG 13 (Transport). Development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the governments overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.

PPG13 (Transport) states that retail policies should seek to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres, which should be the preferred location for new retail development. At the local level, preference should be given to town centre sites, followed by edge of centre, and only then, out of centre sites in locations which are well served by public transport. Where there is a clearly established need for such development and it cannot be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres it may be appropriate to combine the proposal with existing out of centre developments.

Application site is within open countryside, well outside of any development envelope boundary as shown on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

Relevant policies are 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

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 the development of an effective, efficient and integrated transport network

S14 - New retail development will be expected to locate within existing town centres

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages

G4 - General locational criteria for development

G5 - Development outside defined settlements

D1 - Standards of design

B1 - Alterations and extensions to listed buildings

B2 - Settings of listed buildings

B3 - Change of use of listed buildings

C1 - Protection of landscape character

C17 - Conversion of barns and other rural buildings

TR3- Locating development to minimise the need to travel

TR6- Cycling and walking

TR7- Highway considerations for new development

R1 - Existing town centres

R2 - New retail development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer confirms no objection.

The Councils' Transport Policy Team Leader comments as follows:

“Although this use is very laudable in many ways, I’m still convinced that the sale of cycles at this site will ultimately only attract car borne shoppers and is therefore unacceptable in this rural location. This use will be far more acceptable in an 'in town' location where access is possible by sustainable means. Operating a bike shop does not require an out of town location and as far I am aware all of the other bike shops operate acceptably within their town centre locations. I can see no reason why this use should not be treated in the same way.”

Councils Conservation Officer raises no objection on listed building grounds.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Arreton Parish Council have requested further information which has now been provided, but confirm that it has no objection in principle to this application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The main issue in this respect is whether the retention of a cycle shop under the name of “The Bike Shed” is justified in this location, bearing in mind the strict controls on development in the open countryside.

The thrust of both central government advice and development plan policy is to promote and encourage sustainable patterns of development, whereby uses that attract visiting public are sited in the most sustainable location to minimise both travelling distances and reliance on the private motor car. In terms of retailing, shopping is regarded as a town centre function where it is seen as contributing to the vitality and viability of such areas. Only in exceptional circumstances should retailing be permitted in rural locations, such circumstances being in the case of a village shop or where it would be ancillary to an existing operation.

The Bike Shed has been trading from this location since 1999. It originally traded from a smaller corrugated iron building, where consent was refused and dismissed on appeal in 2000, before moving to the current barn at the beginning of 2001. Although the appeal related to a different building, the issue now at hand (retailing in the countryside) is identical to that considered by the Inspector. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector considered the main issue to be whether the retention of the cycle shop was justified bearing in mind strict controls on development in the countryside. He concluded that the primary use of the building was a retail outlet for cycles and associated equipment supported by a servicing facility. Whilst the Island is promoted as a centre for cycle holidays he expected residents as opposed to tourists to be the main source of the appellants business and that accordingly the proposed use was not ancillary to tourism, but in fact primarily retail. He found that it could not be described as a recreational or employment use and therefore fell outside the scope of any permissible exception to the general policy of restraint on development in the countryside. He also felt that having considered PPG 7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development), the sale and servicing of cycles was not a necessary activity to sustain economic and social activities in rural communities and does not require a countryside location, concluding that the retention of the cycle shop was not justified on this site and that the development conflicted with development plan policies. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.

It can be seen from the attached letter that the proprietor of 'The Bike Shed' does offer more than a traditional cycle shop. He is actively supporting the BOOST Scheme (a partnership with employers to subsidise bike purchases), maximizing links with the nearby cycle path and working closely with the Councils' Cycle Promotion Officer. The essence of the business remains much the same though, that being the retailing of cycles and accessories and also the capacity of hiring as well. He is currently selling approximately 1,500 cycles per annum and has around 80 cycles available for hire. The barn he is now operating from is also larger than the building subject of the dismissed appeal. Therefore, whilst the applicant may argue that initiatives undertaken since temporary consent was granted may now justify permanent consent being granted, it is my opinion that these changes and initiatives do not demand a rural location and should not affect policy considerations.

The applicant also stresses the importance of having a trial area within the farm complex and that a town centre location could not make provision for this. Whilst this service is valuable to some customers, it is clearly not essential and does not provide justification to grant consent for this retail outlet in the countryside. Such argument could easily be repeated by other retailers who are keen to allow their goods to be tested away from the traffic and bustle of built up areas, therefore undermining attempts to safeguard the countryside form unnecessary development. Above all, I do not consider that the case put forward by the applicant warrants a different decision to that taken previously by the Inspector. In fact, the increased scale of operation since the appeal was dismissed and also since temporary consent was granted offers justification for a more central location within an urban area where the majority of customers would be based or find it more convenient to access.

The applicant was advised at the time of issuing the temporary consent in 2001 that he should pursue alternative premises as any future application to renew temporary consent would be likely to conflict with UDP policies in respect of rural retailing. The applicant has confirmed verbally that he did express keen interest in four Newport premises, three of which though have been occupied by national chains. I am far from convinced that there are not suitable premises either within or on the edge of a town centre, and in this respect note that a cycle shop in the centre of Newport is about to become vacant. Members are advised that the applicant's failure to find alternative suitable premises is not justification to grant a further temporary consent as, in my view, applicant has had sufficient time to identify and relocate to a suitable outlet. Overall, I see no reason whatsoever why the circumstances put forward by the applicant outweigh the serious policy objections to the application which, to a large extent, have been considered at appeal stage in respect of the adjacent building in 2000.

To conclude there is no underlying need for a cycle shop to operate from this rural locationaI believe that the operator has maximised the benefits of this location, rather than the nature of the business demanding this location. I believe that a retail use in this open countryside location is contrary to the ethos of the current land use planning system, a system that demands compliance with the principles of sustainable development. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to strategic policies S4 and S14 which seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and concentrate retail development within existing town centres. Furthermore, the proposal is contrary to general locational policies contained at G1, G4 and G5 as well as R2 which only permits new retail development outside of defined shopping areas in certain circumstances, circumstances that do not apply in this instance. Taking the above into consideration and in accordance with Section S4A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, I have no alternative other than to recommend refusal of this application with a second recommendation in respect of enforcement action.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I do not consider that the business in question requires a rural location and that the circumstances are barely different to those considered by the inspector in 2000. In fact, I would suggest that the scale of operation is now greater than what is was at that date and therefore the case for refusal is now even stronger than what it was. Furthermore the agent was advised in 2001 that temporary consent was an opportunity to investigate more suitable premises and that renewal of that consent would be likely to receive a recommendation for refusal. The applicant has not been successful in his search for new premises, but that is not a justification for consent to be granted, particularly bearing in mind the advice that was given to him in a covering letter issued with the decision notice. Accordingly, the proposal is clearly to contrary to policies contained in the UDP. Members are therefore urged to refuse consent and authorise appropriate enforcement action.

RECOMMENDATION 1 – REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The use of the site for retail purposes represents the establishment of a retail use in an isolated rural area contrary to strategic policies S4 (The Countryside will be protected from Inappropriate Development) and S14 (New Retail Developments will be expected to locate within existing town centres) and policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G5 (Development outside Defined Settlements) and R2 (New retail development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2	The use of the building for retail purposes represents the establishment of an inappropriate use of a disused rural building which would therefore be contrary to policy C17 (Conversion) of barns and other rural buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The development in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority results in a significant number of journeys to and from the site by private car contrary to the provisions of PPG13 (Transport) and Policies S11 (Reduce Reliance on Car) and TR3 (Minimise Need to Travel) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 2

That enforcement action is instigated to secure cessation of the unauthorised use with a 6 month period for compliance.

10.

TCP/23485/C P/01909/04 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 08/09/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mr J Wheeler

Change of use of summerhouse to bed & breakfast accommodation for a maximum of 2 persons

Tamarisk, Love Lane, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local member, Councillor Bartlett who supports the provision of additional tourism accommodation and has indicated that the applicant requires this change of use in order to diversify his fishing business and as such believes the application constitutes appropriate diversification.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 13 weeks to the date of the committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning application due to officer caseload and the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Tamarisk is located at the top of Love Lane, off Steephill Road, Ventnor. Love Lane is a private road of limited width, access via which is purely for the properties located on the lane and associated garages. Love Lane runs parallel to the cricket ground and neighbouring Ventnor Botanical Gardens and sits above the western cliffs and Steephill Cove within an area of outstanding natural beauty. The application relates to a summer house within the side garden area of the property with the main dwelling of Tamarisk – a timber clad bungalow, within a predominantly residential area. The summer house is presently positioned on the site and the application seeks consent to change the use from purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house to use as bed and breakfast accommodation.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/23485 - Am application for a timber clad bungalow was approved in May 2000 following a number of refusals on the same site in 1974, 1976, and in 1978, later dismissed at appeal and an outline application again refused in 1979.

TCP/23485/B – An application for a summerhouse was approved in May 2003 for a summerhouse.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the change of use of the summerhouse to bed and breakfast accommodation for a maximum of two persons. The summerhouse has been located on the site since its approval in 2003 at which time a condition was placed on the application that the building should only be used for the purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and shall not be used for any business, commercial or industrial purposes whatsoever. This was put in place in order to protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

There is presently no tourism accommodation provided at this site. The application was accompanied by supporting information which indicates that the use of the summerhouse as bed and breakfast accommodation is required to provide additional income for the owner of the property who is a local fisherman. This information also indicates the summerhouse would provide accommodation for a maximum of 2 people and breakfast for visitors would be prepared in the kitchen of the dwelling. A copy of the supporting information is attached to this request as an appendix.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside the development envelope as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 - The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development.

G4 – General Locational Criteria

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 – Standards of Design

T3 – Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation

T9 – Small Scale Rural Tourism Development

C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

TR7 - Highways Consideration for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer does not consider there to be an highway implications.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership comment that they recognize the importance of tourism to economic and social wellbeing of local communities. However they believe that this should be balanced against potential impact on the environment, particularly the outstanding beauty of the island. In this regard they did have some concerns that the proposal does not strictly meet the criteria set within the policies. Additionally they have concerns over the possible a precedent which would be set by this proposal for the change of use of summerhouses into tourist accommodation.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council recommends refusal on the grounds that this is an inappropriate development of an existing property and access is inadequate.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters were received from the Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce and a local business supporting the application on grounds that there is a need for tourist accommodation in the locality.

One letter was received from a local resident objecting on grounds which can be summarized as follows:

Quality of the road, traffic generation and parking problems
Access for emergency vehicles

· Present dangers to walkers having to weave through parked cars

Suggestion that improvement in site line or the installation of traffic lights at the junction between Love Lane and Steephill Road.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering this application are whether the proposal conforms with the Unitary Development Plan Policies with regard to provision of tourist accommodation or whether the need for tourist accommodation outweighs any policy objection.

The summer house lies within the side garden of Tamarisk accessed via Love Lane, a narrow one car width unadopted road. Love Lane serves a number of properties and garages. The road has a number of signs indicating that it is private with no through route, which it is understood are displayed due to problems with turning at the top of the road.

The dwelling of Tamarisk was approved by the committee in 2000 following a number of previous refusals for a dwelling on the site. The summerhouse was later approved in 2003 subject to a condition that it was only used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and not for any business, commercial or industrial purposes whatsoever. This restriction was imposed in order to protect the amenities of the area.

Policy T3 (Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation) and Policy T9 (Small Scale Rural Tourism Development) are particularly relevant to current proposal and clearly indicate that the development of holiday accommodation will only be acceptable in principle where, in summary it is associated with another established accommodation use, extending the holiday season or the use is ancillary to an existing agricultural activity. Although the applicant is involved in the fishing industry, this would not be classified as farm diversification as there is no active agricultural use on the site. Within Policy T9 (C) allowance is made for the change of use of suitable residential properties in the countryside to hotels, restaurants or hostels. However this generally relates to the change of use of dwellings to provide bed and breakfast/serviced accommodation and I do not consider a summer house represents a suitable residential property, or that this complies with the policy.

When considering all relevant polices within the Unitary Development Plan and fully assessing the impact of a change of use of this nature, I consider that it would set an undesirable precedent, with the possibility of many people wanting to change the use of garden buildings into holiday use or site additional buildings for each use, leading to scattered development. The application is unacceptable as there is a fundamental policy objection and approval would seriously undermine the Policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the previous condition imposed only a year ago and considered necessary as a commercial use on the site would not be appropriate due to the character of the area and access to the site.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material consideration referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that, due to the absence of any tourist accommodation or commercial activity on the site, the provision of tourist accommodation at this property would conflict with policies of the Unitary Development Plan and approval of such a facility within a summer house in this location would set a precedent for similar conversion and development in the locality, the cumulative effect of which would greatly impact on the amenities of the area, neighbouring properties and the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Whilst acknowledging the contribution tourism makes to the economy of the island, I do not consider that, in this instance, this outweighs the fundamental policy objection to this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which involves the provision of tourist accommodation within the curtilage of residential property would conflict with the aims of the Local Planning Authority regarding such provision and would be contrary to policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), T3 (Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation), and T9 (small Scale Rural Tourism Development) of The Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal would create an undesirable precedent which would make it difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist future applications of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would create conditions likely to adversely effect the character of the area, particularly in areas of high landscape value such as the area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and would be contrary to Policy S6 (Be of A High Standard of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCP/26039/B P/01107/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Mount Joy

Registration Date: 21/05/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr M W Cave

Pair of semi-detached houses with access & lay-by parking (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

land rear of 91 & 93 Elm Grove, fronting, Whitepit Lane, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Cllr Mrs Smart, has requested that the application is reported to Committee as she is concerned about possible increase in parking and highway problems in the area. Furthermore, she is aware that the Highways Authority is currently considering a number of proposals to address these problems and considers that this proposal should be considered in light of any potential changes.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications due to protracted negotiations with applicant and a heavy workload being dealt with by Development Control officers.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to rectangular site located on north side of Whitepit Lane, immediately to rear of properties fronting Elm Grove. Site was formerly part of garden area to property fronting Elm Grove but is now in separate ownership. The site is enclosed to roadside boundary by 1.8 metre high close boarded fence with gated vehicular access in south east corner. Site slopes in northerly direction and submitted plans indicate that ground adjacent rear boundary of site is approximately 1.5 metres lower that forward part of site. Road immediately abuts boundary of site, together with side boundary of property to west and frontage of two properties to east with narrow pavement commencing across frontage of properties beyond.

Site is located in area characterised by mix of dwelling types, styles and ages. Property immediately to east of site is a modern detached dwelling while those fronting Elm Grove are longer established semi detached properties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/26039/ - P/02480/03 – Full planning permission for 2/3 storey building to provide 5 flats refused in February 2004 on grounds that proposal would result in over-development of site at an excessive density which would create conditions likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to detriment of the amenities of neighbouring properties as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area. This proposal did not make provision for off-road parking and did not attract any objection from the Highway Engineer.

TCP/26039/A – P/00574/04 – Full planning permission for terrace of three two storey houses with additional accommodation in roof space refused April 2004 on grounds that the proposal, by reason of its size, position and mass would be intrusive development, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area, as well as representing overdevelopment of the site which would create conditions likely to have detrimental impact on amenities of neighbouring properties.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The original submission sought full planning permission for a terrace with three dwellings with no off street parking. The eastern most and central dwellings were shown to have appearance of two storey buildings, although accommodation was to be arranged on three floors, including bedrooms in roof space, and western most dwelling was shown to have appearance of a chalet bungalow.

Following negotiations with applicants, the number of dwellings to be provided was reduced to two and further plans submitted showing a pair of semi-detached properties, each providing accommodation comprising lounge and kitchen/dining room on ground floor with three bedrooms and bathroom/w.c. at first floor level. Submitted plans indicate that parking would be provided in form of layby across frontage of site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application site is located within development envelope as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S2 Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites), rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites. Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brownfield site exists.

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 Development

G7 Development on Unstable Land

D1 Standards of Design

D2 Standards for Development within the Site

H1 New Residential Development to be Located Within the Main Island Towns

H4 Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 Infill Development

TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 Parking Policies and Guidelines

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer objected to original submission on grounds that the proposed development would be likely to attract standing vehicles on the highway which would interrupt the free flow of traffic and thereby add to hazards of road users.

Subsequent to the submission of revised plans, a Highway Engineer has reviewed the history of this site and the comments submitted in respect of previous applications. In particular, he noted that on a previous application for a two storey building to form five flats, his department recommended approval, subject to conditions. However, on subsequent application for a terrace of three houses, Highway Engineer recommended refusal on grounds that proposal did not provide any parking and, while this was within the requirement of the Unitary Development Plan, he could not support the proposal due to the location and heavy on street parking. Given the previous comments, he questions whether this would be sustainable should the applicant appeal against the refusal of the permission.

With regards to the latest proposal, he comments that development of site with two three bedroom dwellings, each with a single parking space, would clearly reduce the potential vehicular traffic when compared with the previous scheme for five flats. However, he questions the suitability and safety of the parking arrangements shown on the submitted plans and advises that an inspection of the site revealed that the roadside boundary consists of a close boarded fence approximately 1.8 metres in height immediately adjacent to the back edge of carriageway. In addition, within this fence line is a gated vehicular access which provides not set back, limited visibility and no provision for on site turning. Therefore, given the existing vehicular access and previous recommendations, he does not consider that it would be sustainable to refuse current proposal. Nevertheless, he requested that the proposed parking arrangements were revised to give provision for a single parking space only in a layby formation to the following criteria;

· Minimum bay depth of 2.4 metres taken from back edge of carriageway.

· Maximum depth of 3 metres to avoid the likelihood of nose in parking.

· Clear parking bay length of 8 metres, a taper may be required at each end of the bay.

· Visibility splays in line with design bulletin 32 taken at an x distance of 1.5 metres from back edge of carriageway.

· Visibility splays are to be taken at a height of 1.05 metres above the level of the existing carriageway.

· Full road side boundary of the site to be lowered to a maximum height of 1 metre.

· Bay to be positioned at the western end of the site to maximise lead traffic visibility.

He acknowledges that visibility splays in line with DB32 are not fully achievable and an on site turning area cannot be provided. However, given the existing access arrangements, proposal will result in a substantial improvement in terms of highway safety. He recommends conditions should the application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Original submission attracted five letters from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds of which can be summarised as follows:

Overdevelopment

Proximity of buildings to boundary and over dominance

Loss of light

Disturbance from future occupants

Intrusive development out of character with surrounding area

Loss of outlook

Loss of privacy

Increased traffic movements and lack of parking in area already congested - traffic flows have increased along Whitepit Lane since work was carried out at Trafalgar Road

Congestion would cause problems for emergency vehicles

No pavement outside site thereby creating danger for pedestrians

Following publication of revised plans, a further four letters were received raising similar concerns to those detailed above together with the following additional issue:

Proposed layby parking will inevitably be abused making section of road even narrower.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether current proposal represents over development of site likely to prejudice the amenities of the area in general and neighbouring residential occupiers in particular. In addition, consideration will need to be given to the level of parking and means of access and whether this is appropriate in this location.

Application relates to site within the development boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I am therefore satisfied that its redevelopment for residential purposes is acceptable in principle.

Area is characterised by mix of property styles and designs including detached and semi-detached properties in varying plot sizes. The longer established properties tend to occupy larger plots particularly the semi-detached properties to the west of Elm Grove with long narrow rear gardens. More recent additions to area include detached properties to east of application site occupying plot not dissimilar in frontage and depth to the site, the subject of the current submission. Site to west is occupied by pair of longer established semi-detached properties with limited amenity space, particularly dwelling occupying plot on corner of White Pit Lane and Elm Grove.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) Housing, sets out governments policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasizes that the government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimizing the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas making more efficient use of land. In addition the guidance note advises that local planning authorities should consider range of measures, including seeking greater intensity of development particularly in areas of good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres and around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.

While original submission, involving terrace of three dwellings arguably satisfying requirements of PPG 3, it was considered that proposal represented over development of the site having an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. In particular, permission has previously been refused on this site for terrace of three dwellings on grounds which included the proximity of the buildings to the boundary and the likely over dominant impact such development would have. Current proposal for two dwellings has resulted in greater space to be maintained between the buildings and neighbouring boundaries and to provide more space about the buildings. It is considered that the current proposal has overcome previous concerns regarding impact on neighbouring properties whilst making efficient use of site and providing dwellings with reasonable degree of private amenity space.

The local Member Councillor Mrs Smart has expressed concern that development of site may conflict with proposals presently being considered by the Highway Authority for improvements to Whitepit Lane. It is understood that schemes currently under consideration include the introduction of a one way traffic flow within Whitepit Lane from its junction with Shide Cross Roundabout to its junction with Elm Grove prohibiting traffic from travelling in an easterly direction. Alternative schemes under consideration involve the introduction of a 6 foot 6 inch width restriction within Whitepit Lane from its junction with Shide Cross roundabout to its junction with Elm Grove. Following discussion with Highways Officers, it is understood that these proposals are purely at a consultation stage. However, he does not consider that current proposal and provision of layby parking across frontage of site would prejudice either of the proposed traffic schemes or that the parking arrangement proposed would be inappropriate if either of these schemes are implemented.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in article 8 (Rights to Privacy) and article 1 of the 1^st Protocol (Rights to peoples enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered.

Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s unitary development plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that current proposal for pair of semi detached houses represent acceptable form of development which will not have excessive or adverse impact on amenities of the area in general or neighbouring residential properties in particular. Furthermore, whilst it is acknowledged that there may be some congestion problems in this area, I do not consider that refusal of application on grounds of insufficient parking would be sustainable in this instance.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

5	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03

Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, the development shall not begin until details of the construction and drainage of the layby parking area has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing] for 1 cars to be parked in layby formation adjacent to the back edge of carriageway at the western end of the site frontage. The layby parking area shall be constructed to a length of 8 metres and have a maximum depth of 3 metres. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this conditions.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No structure, erection or natural growth, plant, shrubs etc exceeding 1.05 metres in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 ( Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

12.

TCP/26419 P/01215/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport South

Registration Date: 25/06/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mr G Drysdale & Miss C Taylor

Pair of semi-detached houses

land rear of 32, St. Johns Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local member Councillor Mr Cunningham due to reason of local opposition, shortage of parking in the area and that he is of the opinion that this is the wrong type of development for the area.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 24 weeks and four days to the date of this committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the 8-week period for the determination of planning applications due to negotiations with applicant's agent, the need for committee consideration and officer caseload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

No 32 is located to the lower half of St John' Road at the junction with Drake Road. The site is located to the rear of No 32 alongside the recently re-developed site formerly occupied by the Building Centre. The application site is bounded on three sides by gardens to neighbouring properties and faces the new flat development from which the site will be accessed and car parking provided. The area is of mixed residential with the new three storey development to the south, 1930s style properties to the east fronting on to St John's Road, with a 1960s chalet bungalow to the north.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for a pair of semi detached houses with two parking bays. The dwellings will be accessed from the south of the site via the newly constructed entrance off St John's Road to access the development recently constructed on site of former Building Centre.

Car parking area to the adjacent development is at higher level to application site, being roughly level with first floor of the proposed dwelliing. Therefore, from the car park, building would have the appearance of single storey structure.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development envelope, as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S6 Development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

S7 Provision of housing units on the Isle of Wight

G1 Development envelopes for towns and villages

G4 General locational criteria

D1 Standards of design

D2 Standards of design within the site

H5 Infill development

TR7 Highway considerations for the new development

TR16 Parking policies and guidelines

CONSULTEE RESPONSEES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Environmental Health, recommends conditions if approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATION

Six letters were received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Site too small to accommodate development

Access for emergency vehicles

Proposed removal of waste and storm water/drainage

Parking and traffic generation

Obstruction of light

Precedent

Noise/pollution

Overdevelopment

Impact on wildlife habitats

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering this application are whether the site is an adequate size to accommodate the development proposed or whether the application constitutes over development.

The site is located within the development envelope of Newport and is therefore considered acceptable in principle as set out in policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Town and Villages) and H4 (Unallocated Residential Development).

The proposal involves development of a rear garden area to property fronting St Johns Road. However, site would have frontage onto parking area of and would appear as part of the new development on the site of the former Building Centre development. Dwelling has been designed to appear single storey from the southern (front) elevation in order to make the best use of the changes in ground level and will be two storeys from the rear, thus entering the site at first floor level with bedrooms below.

With regards to concerns that the site is too small and the proposal represents over development, when examining the design it would not give rise to any overlooking as windows at first floor level to the rear are to service bathrooms and can be obscure glazed and windows to the front would face into a communal area. The proposal provides adequate amenity space to the rear for a two bedroomed dwelling and due to the distance between buildings would not in my opinion appear over dominant thus complying with strategic Policy S6 (Development will be expected to be of a high standard of design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design).

As the access to the adjacent development has already been constructed to an acceptable standard and the proposed dwelling would be accessed over this area, I am satisfied that issues such as access for emergency vehicles have been satisfactorily addressed. The parking bays are also provided via the shared access. The application has been amended in order to include a parking space for each dwelling. This will not result in under provision of parking on the site as each unit retains parking and the flatted development complies with the condition for parking on site and Policy TR16 (Paring Provision and Guidelines).

Information provided on the application forms indicates that surface water would be disposed of to soakaways within the site and that foul drainage would be pumped to the existing system which serves 32 St Johns Road. This issue would of course be examined at Building Regulation stage. However, I would recommend that this issue is the subject of a condition, should members be minded to approve the application, in relation to a capacity check to ensure the present system can accommodate the additional load.

Due to the individual nature of the plot and the ability to front the adjacent development, the proposal would not lead to a precedent being set as other sites do not have the individual characteristics that make the development of this site possible.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal for the development of a pair of semi-detached dwellings would make efficient use of urban land within the development envelope of Newport without having excessive or unacceptable impact on the environment or neighbouring properties and would not detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above I am satisfied that the proposal does not conflict with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until samples of materials and finishes, including mortar colour to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

All materials excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area indicated in red on the submitted plans. The materials shall be removed from the site prior to the construction of the dwelling preceeding beyond damp proof course level or such other timescales as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The windows to be constructed in the (first floor windows in the north elevation) shall be non-opening and obscure glazed, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for cars to be parked at a ratio of 1 space per dwelling and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detail scheme including calculations and a capacity studies, have been submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system that adequate capacity exist, including any reasonable repairs which may be required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such system has been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul water drainage is provided for development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

8	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

9	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03