PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/24506/D

Mr M Lawton against refusal for retention of stable block comprising three loose boxes, store and grass banking to form a screen with vehicular access at Part OS Parcels 7400 and 0003 south side of Burnt House Lane, Alverstone.

 

 

TCP/15162/A

Mr V Jolliffe and Mr S Kennedy against refusal for outline for detached house and formation of vehicular access and parking space on land at 28 School Lane, Carisbrooke.

 

 

TCP/14040/E

Mr & Mrs Brett against refusal for bungalow on land between Church Cottage and St Swithan’s Church, Main Road, Thorley, Yarmouth.

 

 

TCP/4989/R

Mr K Newbery against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for detached house and garage with formation of vehicular access on land adjacent Nab Wood, Cupresses Avenue, Winford, Sandown.

 

 

TCP/19799/A

Village Developments against refusal for the demolition of dwelling and the construction of a three storey building to form six flats with alterations of vehicular access and formation of parking area, 1 Mayfield Road, East Cowes.

 

 

 

2.

 

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

No new dates to report.

 

 

 

3.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

(a)

TCP/1813/N

Rybarn Limited against refusal for the demolition of building and the construction of a two storey building and a two/three storey building to form fourteen flats with parking on land at Clifton, Broadway, Totland Bay.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal – 30 January 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision

Allowed – 1 November 2004.

 

 

Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The effect of the proposal on highway safety with particular regard to visibility.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          Broadway has a speed limit of 30 mph with limited waiting permitted for a short distance to the south of the site entrance.

·          Parked vehicles limit the visibility to the south to a degree but vehicles approaching from this direction are already slowing down for the junction.

 

·          The main concerns relate to visibility to the north towards the mini roundabout for vehicles emerging from the site.

·          The speed of vehicles emerging from the mini roundabout is sufficiently constrained to justify a reduced visibility distance consistent with the findings of the traffic survey.

·          Vehicles approaching the roundabout from Colwell Common Road could be seen for an adequate distance beyond the roundabout and those turning from the Avenue into Broadway could be seen leaving the junction at low speed.

·         Whilst acknowledging the concerns of the local residents and the Council with regard to traffic issues, the development would not have an adverse effect on the highway safety and would not conflict with TR7

 

 

 

(b)

TCP/7209/E

Mr R Gardner against refusal of outline for a bungalow on land rear of 184 Baring Road and fronting Crossfield Avenue, Cowes.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 20 January 2004

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 3 November 2004.

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          Whether the development would appear cramped in the street scene and out of character with the area.

·          The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the existing dwelling and adjoining properties.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The proposed dwelling would appear close and cramped in its relationship to the existing bungalow which would be left with an uncharacteristically short rear garden.

·          The position of the proposed dwelling would appear cramped in the streetscene and out of character with the area contrary to D1, G4 and H5.

·          An area of concern was the proximity of the proposal to the adjoining dwellings which have relatively short rear gardens.

·          These properties are bungalows and would be separated from the development by screen fences and the proposal would not intrude into the outlook from these properties or lead to overlooking.

·          At such a distance between the properties there would be no loss of light.

·          There would be no adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the existing dwelling and adjoining properties and therefore no conflict with D1 and H5 in this regard.

·          The cramped appearance in the streetscene outweighs the fact that there would be no adverse effect on the living condition of the occupiers of adjoining and neighbouring properties.

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services