4. |
TCP/03513/E P/01995/02 Parish/Name: Shanklin Registration Date: 01/11/2002 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J.
Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Chalet bungalow, garage & formation of
vehicular access (Revised Plan) land rear of 2, Hungerberry Close, Shanklin,
PO37 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report
requested by Team Leader due to recent planning history and nature of
representation.
LOCATION AND
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The
application site is part of the rear garden at 2 Hungerberry Close, Shanklin
which is a chalet bungalow. Within the
garden is a summer house and flat roof double garage. The plot fronts Victoria Avenue with number 46
Victoria Avenue, neighbouring property to the south east being a two storey
dwelling set well back from the road.
The area is of residential character with a mix of properties in the
vicinity. Victoria Avenue is the main
approach road into Shanklin.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
TCP/3513/D -
Bungalow and formation of vehicular access, land rear of 2, Hungerberry Close,
Shanklin, refused August 2002.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
The proposal
is for a detached dwelling, garage and
vehicular access off Victoria Avenue 30
metres east of the junction of Hungerberry Close/Victoria Avenue. The plot measures approximately 16.5 metres
by 14.25 metres with access shown to be
over existing open verge area outside the applicant’s ownership and turning
shown within the site.
The proposed
footprint measures 7 by 9.5 metres with garage measuring 2.9 by 5 metres; external finishes to be agreed. Accommodation to be provided is living
room/dining area, kitchen, utility, cloakroom at ground floor with two bedrooms
and bathroom at 1st floor.
Details of
garage elevations have not been provided but this could be conditioned to be
agreed if application approved.
Further
plans showing details of garage submitted.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
The
application site is within the development envelope for Shanklin and policies
H5 (Infill Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) apply. Determining factors are matters of site
size, visual effect of development, space around building, adequacy of car
parking and access and effect on adjoining properties. The proposal is generally acceptable if it
does not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring property and the surrounding
area.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Following
receipt of revised parking/turning arrangements, Highway Engineer recommends
conditional approval.
Further
correspondence with the Highway Officer who concludes that the potential
conflict is resolvable. A fixed speed
camera in Victoria Avenue to the east of the junction with Hungerberry Close is
part of the approved Hampshire and Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership
operational case for the financial year 2003/04 and is essential to contribute
towards the reduction in personal injury accidents in this area. Highway
Officer has analysed plans showing speed camera and driveway location
indicating camera will be 0.75 metre from the edge of the drive, though the
camera's position could be varied slightly and the driveway by several
metres. Driveway could also be used by
vehicle carrying out maintenance on the camera to save having to construct an
additional parking area especially for it, as has been proposed. Highway Officer is of the view that
potential conflict between driveway and camera site can be overcome by
condition to state: "the precise location of the approved access will be
determined on site before construction commences to take into account a static
speed camera and associated apparatus (programmed to be installed in the Summer
of 2003) in the immediate vicinity."
Tree and
Landscape Officer has inspected site and comments that there are 4 trees on the
adjoining site which would be affected by the proposal: 3 ash and a horse
chestnut. However, none of these is
worth protecting - the ash nearest Victoria Avenue leans substantially to the
west/north west so is not well-shaped; the other two ash and horse chestnut
have been topped at some time in the last 2 - 10 years, leaving them with no
amenity value. No objection therefore
to development on tree grounds.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL
Shanklin
Town Council object on the basis that
not satisfied with the proposed access arrangements.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters
of objection received on grounds of overdevelopment of small plot of land;
inappropriate; adverse effect on appearance of area, unattractive and out of
character in area where properties are older style and well spaced; lack of
garden space.
Dangerous
access, loss of existing pleasant open land,
proximity to bus stop and double yellow lines; inadequate turning,
inadequate visibility, potential hazardous parking on main road and unsightly
parking on verge; noise generation by
parking manoeuvres; garages too close together.
Adverse
affect on views; loss of privacy and light; effect on trees on adjoining
boundary, trees important for preservation of red squirrels, increase in water
retention in an already damp area, loss of public land, larger property than
the one previously refused; disposal of public land without referendum,
devaluation of property, proposal contrary to Policy D1 and TR7 as was the
original application.
Letter of
objection confirming objections still stand.
CRIME AND
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
The
character of this part of Victoria Avenue is of a mix of properties on the main
route to Shanklin. The site is within
the development envelope boundary and there is
no principle objection to residential development. Utilisation of sites such as these, a more
economical use of land by the subdivision of existing curtilages, is in line
with Governmental advice, so long as the resulting development maintains
adequate standard and character of development, consistent with its
location.
In terms of
access, Highway Engineer is satisfied with the proposal subject to
conditions.
The Property
Services section have been consulted on application. It would be necessary for developer to apply to acquire land
outside application site if scheme to be implemented.
With regard
effect on adjoining properties, the main aspect windows, two at ground floor and two dormers front
Victoria Avenue. There is one dormer
window on the rear elevation with a patio door and window at ground floor, no
windows on the eastern elevation and two small ones at ground floor on the
western elevation. Any potential
overlooking from rear dormer window is considered minimum as this serves a
bathroom.
With regard
size of plot and appearance within street scene, main consideration is how it
relates to property to immediate west as the house sited to the south east is
well set back from the road, whether
proposal will represent overdevelopment of site and whether it is of adequate
standard and character consistent with location.
It is
considered that although a limited sized plot, this site can accommodation a
dwelling of proposed size with minimum impact on surrounding area given
characteristics and neighbouring property.
The Tree and
Landscape Officer’s comments that trees on the eastern boundary are of limited
amenity value and therefore a refusal on these grounds would be
unsustainable.
With regard
the previous refusal for a dwelling, the reasons for refusal were additional
access onto Victoria Avenue creating hazards, unsatisfactory access by reason
of inadequate visibility, inadequate and deficient details in respect of
pedestrian and vehicular access to fully consider effects of proposal. In addition, proposal by reason of position,
size and external appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character
with the prevailing pattern of development and have an adverse effect on
neighbouring amenities.
Because of
Highway Engineer comments on previous application, I have sought clarification
on conflicting comments. Confirmation
has been received that subject to satisfactory turning and visibility,
application is acceptable. Revised plan
meets with Highway Engineer's approval.
It is considered that a refusal on highway grounds would not be
sustained if an appeal were to be lodged.
In terms of
design, size and siting compared with the previous scheme, this proposal does
have larger footprint and higher ridge. The current scheme is considered to be more
in keeping in its relationship with the neighbouring property to the west and
area in general. I am of view proposal
is of appropriate scale, design and that previous reasons for refusal have been
overcome.
I consider
that the use of this piece of land for an additional dwelling will be
acceptable subject to conditions
regarding materials, access and parking, boundary treatment and the prevention
of insertion of further windows.
No change to
recommendation, other than to consider condition regarding access.
Siting of
speed camera is a matter for Highway Authority and therefore suggested highway
condition not considered to be reasonable.
Any revised siting of the access would need to be dealt with by amended/revised
planning application.
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 all material considerations referred to in
this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with policies D1 and
H5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
1 |
Time limit - full - A10 |
2 |
Construction of the building hereby permitted shall
not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for
the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in
carrying out the development. Reason:
To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
3 |
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking
and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer
windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be
constructed without the prior written consent of 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. |
4 |
Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order
revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure
permitted by Part 1, Classes (A, B, C, D, E and G) of the 1995 Order, as
amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason:
In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
5 |
No development shall take place until there has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan
indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to
be erected. The boundary treatment
shall be completed before (the use hereby permitted is commenced) (before the
buildings is occupied) (in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with
the Local Planning Authority).
Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the
approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of
the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
6 |
The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or
footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular
crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby
approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway
Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate
to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct
the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of
150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure
adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
7 |
Retention of parking - K08 |