REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
|
1. |
TCP/15752/V P/01198/02 Parish/Name: Totland Registration Date: 18/07/2002 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr.
A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Demolition of holiday
chalets; outline for residential
development of 39 dwellings;
alterations to vehicular access Island View Chalets, Fort
Warden Road, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390DA |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is a major submission where there are
a number of significant issues to be resolved.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to holiday chalet site located on
northern side of Fort Warden Road approximately 120 metres to west of its
junction with Colwell Common Road. Site
is bounded on northern side by properties fronting Colwell Chine Road and to
east by properties fronting Colwell Common Road. Western boundary of site is defined by line of poplar trees beyond
which is the Beachside Bungalows site (self-contained holiday units).
Existing holiday chalets within application site,
constructed for most part of faced concrete blocks under flat roofs, are
arranged on terraces as site rises in westerly direction with maximum change in
level of approximately 8 metres between eastern boundary and western
boundary. Site contains a substantial
number of trees, including those on boundaries and individual specimen trees
interspersed amongst the chalets. Area
to north and east of site is predominantly residential in character, whilst to
west is further holiday accommodation and to south is an area of open
unimproved grassland.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/15752R/P553/97 - Outline planning permission for
residential development of 26 dwellings refused June 1997. Reasons for refusal related to location of
site, outside development envelope, contrary to policies of the Structure Plan,
West Wight District Plan and the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan. In addition, application was refused on
grounds that access was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by
reason of inadequate width and construction and that the application was
accompanied by insufficient information regarding impact on trees. Subsequent appeal was dismissed in May 1998.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought for demolition of holiday chalets
and outline planning permission for residential development of 39 dwellings and
alteration to vehicular access. Siting
is not reserved for future approval and letter which accompanies application
provides breakdown of proposal as follows:
Six detached
houses.
Five
detached bungalows.
Ten
semi-detached houses.
Five
terraced houses.
Five two
bedroom flats.
Eight
affordable housing units.
Retention of
open space.
In the accompanying letter agent advises that the
current chalets are becoming structurally unstable and in need of total
reconstruction. He indicates that
various alternatives have been considered and it has been concluded that
reconstruction of self-catering tourist units was found to be uneconomic,
particularly without supporting infrastructure facilities that are demanded on
such sites today. He goes on to advise
that this application provides 'an enablement factor' in promoting tourism and
leisure on the Island by reinvesting money from the sale of the land into the
development of Rookley Country Park, which is also within the ownership of his
client. It is suggested that this
influx of money will assist to provide thirty new jobs at the park including
the transfer of three jobs from Island View.
The cost of this work is estimated at between £1.5m and £1.7m and would
be carried out over a period of three to five years. Applicant's agent sought views from Isle of Wight Tourism in this
respect and copy of letter from the former Head of Tourism Services is attached
to this report as an appendix.
Applicant's agent suggests that use of application
site for tourist purposes is no longer viable or sustainable in the medium
term. In particular, he suggests that
sites like this are not sustainable without the support of facilities such as
swimming pools etc which in this case would be totally unviable.
Proposed scheme would incorporate element of
affordable housing and applicant's agent advises that this will be carried out
in conjunction with the Parchment Housing Group, a registered social landlord,
which works to provide two to three bedroom houses and two bedroom flats for
equity housing, affordable rent, cost rent and key worker provision.
Applicant's agent has submitted further correspondence
providing information in support of proposal, a copy of which is attached to
this report as an appendix.
Further letter recorded in the schedule of additional representations at
the meeting on 25 February wishing Committee to be aware of a draft Section 106
proposal which can deliver the following:
Suggest that points 1, 2 and 4 can be delivered
in the form of a Section 106 so that enablement permission can work and deliver
improvement in future tourism on the Island and also give the opportunity to
show the Rookley Council Member the position.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing sets out the
Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to
the provision of housing. In
particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more
sustainable patterns of development and minimising the amount of green field
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 maximising the reuse of existing buildings. The Guidance Note indicates that national
target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on
previously developed land and through of conversions of existing buildings.
The Guidance Note advises that in identifying sites to
be allocated for housing in Local Plans and UDPs, Local Authorities should
follow a search sequence, starting with the reuse of previously developed land
and buildings within urban areas identified by the Urban Capacity Study, then
urban extensions and finally new development around nodes of good public
transport. Furthermore, the Guidance
Note advises that in identifying sites Local Planning Authorities should assess
their potential and suitability for development against criteria which include
the availability of previously developed sites, their location and
accessibility, capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, ability to
build communities and physical and environmental constraints on development of
land.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 21 provides guidance and
advice on tourism issues. The Guidance
Note acknowledges that despite the continuing growth in tourism in Britain, the
industry faces strong competition from overseas and especially within the
single European market. Guidance Note
advises that, in order to realise its potential and to cater for changing
patterns of tourism, rising standards and expectations, the industry needs to
maintain a continuous programme of investment and reinvestment and constant
improvements in the quality and value for money of the services and facilities
offered.
Site is shown on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan to be outside the development boundary and designated as a permanent
holiday accommodation site. Area to
south of site beyond Fort Warden Road is designated as a Site of Importance for
Nature Conservation (SINC). Relevant
policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:
S1 - New
development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S2 -
Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed
(brown field) rather than undeveloped (green field) sites.
S4 - The
countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.
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
previous approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be
allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and
affordablility.
G1 -
Development envelopes for towns and villages.
G4 - General
locational criteria for development.
G5 -
Development outside defined settlements.
D1 -
Standards of design.
D2 -
Standards for development within the site.
H4 -
Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.
H9 -
Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.
T1 - The
promotion of tourism and the extension of the season.
C1 -
Protection of landscape character.
TR7 -
Highway considerations for new development.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer comments that the highways aspect of
this site were well documented in the previous application for residential
development of the site with 26 dwellings and the main issue at that time was
the inadequacy of access road which is not under applicant's control. He notes that the Inspector dealing with the
subsequent appeal felt that access road issues could be dealt with by
imposition of a Grampian condition and did not uphold their recommendation for
refusal on this point, nor on concerns over increased traffic. However, current proposal for 39 dwellings
is a considerable increase over the previous 26 and Highway Engineer considers
that his objection is more likely to be upheld. Therefore, he recommends refusal to application on grounds of
generation of traffic and inadequate access.
Following recent discussions with Isle of Wight Tourism,
I am advised that they would not wish to add to the comments provided by the
former Head of Tourism directly to the applicant's agent.
Principal Planning Officer (Policy) comments
that site is outside the development envelope boundary for Freshwater and is
therefore 'countryside' for the
purposes of the UDP. In addition, site
is allocated for tourism use under Policy T6 which allows for the upgrading and
expansion of holiday accommodation providing certain criteria are met. He comments that the Council defended this
position at the UDP Public Inquiry and was supported by the Inspector. He considers that it is clear from the
applicant's letter dated 29 January 2003 that they accept their proposal is
contrary to policies contained within the UDP, but feel that other
considerations outweigh any policy objection in this particular case. However, in his view, the material
considerations put forward do not outweigh the wholesale loss of the tourism
facility and he would particularly point to the following comment from the UDP
Inspector in support of the Council's approach at Island View:
"I
place considerable weight on the need to protect tourism sites from the lure of
financial advantage being gained from redevelopment to some more valuable urban
form."
Policy Officer also expresses concerns as to the
impacts and precedence on adjoining tourism uses and the character of the area,
particularly as the Inspector indicated that any change in circumstances at
Island View would have to result in a similar change at Beachside Bungalows and
the development at the end of Colwell Chine.
Tree and Landscape Officer advises that there
are few trees of special landscape merit on the site. The only trees which are considered to be significantly
attractive enough to possibly merit protection by a Tree Preservation Order are
a Scots pine on the southern boundary with Fort Warden Road, a birch tree near
eastern side of site and the hybrid poplars near the western boundary. She considers that it would be necessary to
seek revisions to the layout to allow the retention of the birch tree. Generally, she does not consider there to be
any trees on site which are so significant that they would in themselves
constitute a reason for refusal.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Totland Parish Council support application for
following reasons:
The present
development is of such a poor nature that, although it is designated for
tourism, is not an asset to the tourism infrastructure of Totland and
surrounding area.
To do
nothing with the site is not considered an option.
Provision of
affordable housing within site and the area of Totland can only be beneficial
to the residents and the regeneration of the area.
The
provision of equity housing will assist first-time buyers in the area.
The Council
have been informed that there will be no significant increase in the traffic
flow as a result of the development.
The Parish
Council would prefer to see provision of open space within the development
removed, since there will be adequate open space available on the opposite side
of the road. An open space of the size
suggested can only be a liability to residents, the Parish Council or the Isle
of Wight Council in the future.
Councillors
are aware that the developer is willing to provide funding for the development
of a Heritage Centre in the centre of Totland and welcome this suggestion. This will enhance the tourism facilities
within Totland in a manner that the existing development does not at present. The Council understand that the developer is
willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement.
Parish Council hopes this matter can be
progressed to the benefit of the area both for residents and tourism
infrastructure.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters received from local residents
objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:
Application
no different in principle to that refused in 1997 and subsequently dismissed on
appeal - no change in circumstances, inconsistent to approve current
application.
Concern
expressed regarding adequacy of parking provision.
Totland
already lost most of its holiday accommodation to housing.
Area
designated as holiday accommodation - proposal would have adverse effect on
tourism and local economy.
Residential
development would completely alter aspect of Colwell to its detriment.
Development
served by private road which is substandard and would deteriorate further if
development took place.
Additional
pressure on services.
Block of
flats would intrude into natural beauty of area.
Density of
houses too high placing unwanted pressure on roads and amenities.
Loss of
trees to detriment of character/amenities of area.
No demand
for high density development.
One letter received from resident of adjacent
development raising no objection to proposal and making the following comments:
Residential
development preferable to existing use of site which creates unreasonable noise
late at night - also presents security risk to neighbouring residents.
Houses
adjacent to property would result in overlooking/loss of privacy and would
result in loss of light. Bungalows are
considered to be more appropriate on this part of the site.
Letter was accompanied by petition containing
seven signatures supporting views expressed above.
CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Architectural Liaison Officer initially sought
further information including whether front gardens would be open plan, details
of any fencing/lighting, finish and management of open space etc. Information has been submitted addressing a
number of the issues raised by him.
However, following further discussions with him, it has been
acknowledged that application seeks outline planning permission and a large
proportion of the information sought could be addressed when considering an
application for AORM or detailed consent.
He accepts that the parking area would have good
surveillance and it is understood that the open space would be managed by a
registered social landlord. He
recommends that further discussions should take place with the applicants
regarding the crime and disorder implications.
In considering the appeal against the 1997
refusal of planning permission for 26 residential properties on the site, the
Inspector considered the main issues to be suitability of the site to continue
to provide holiday accommodation, the effect of the proposal on the character
of the area and the adequacy of Fort Warden Road to serve as an access to the
proposed development. I consider that
these issues remain relevant to the determination of the current application
and, additionally, whether there has been any change in circumstances since the
previous refusal and dismissal on appeal which would justify a different
decision.
In determining the appeal, the debate included
issues as to whether site was in the countryside and proposal constituted
small-scale scheme. Inspector
acknowledged that site was outside the development envelope and therefore
excluded from the built-up area of the existing settlement in terms of planning
policy. Therefore, he was of the view
that:
“Since the site was not allocated for residential development and no persuasive evidence of a local need for housing in the area had been produced, including any essential need for agricultural or allied employment, the proposal does not in principle accord with the above policies of the West Wight Local Plan and Isle of Wight Replacement Structure Plan”.
His comments in respect of the three main issues
which he identified are as follows:
Firstly, regarding suitability of site to
continue to provide holiday accommodation, Inspector noted that the Council
placed considerable importance on contribution of short-break self-catering
holidays to the Island's tourist industry.
This view is supported by advice contained in PPG21: Tourism. It was not disputed that large number of
chalets on the site were around thirty years old and reaching end of their
useful life. However, it was suggested
that prudent repairs could extend the life of the chalets which could be
replaced over a period of years with modern equivalents. Whilst applicant acknowledged that it would
be sensible to reconstruct all chalets over a period of a few years, they
suggested that location of the site and its lack of facilities, together with
the type of accommodation offered, would not produce sufficient income to
justify redevelopment.
The Inspector considered the financial
implications of the re-placing of these chalets and evidence put forward by
both the appellant and the Council in this respect. He concluded that complete replacement of the chalets would be
difficult to justify as a sound commercial investment. He also considered that, having regard to size
of site, some limited provision of facilities could be offered, although he accepted
that viability of providing such facilities might be doubtful.
On this issue, the Inspector concluded that:
“Although the site is suitably located for holiday accommodation, the existing chalets have a limited life and their replacement with similar alternative accommodation does not appear to be economically viable. The site therefore has an uncertain future in its existing and allocated use, irrespective of the outcome of this appeal.”
Secondly, in terms of the effect of the proposal
on the character of the area, the Inspector acknowledged that there is a
significant amount of development west of the development boundary and although
some of it is holiday accommodation, much of that development has
appearance of permanent dwellings. He
also noted that the Council had approved other development outside the
boundary, including development of the Fort Warden Holiday Camp. He recognised that this was considered
acceptable as an exception to the Local Plan on the basis that the camp was
closed and the operator intended focusing investment into holiday sites owned
on the Island. Other benefits included
environmental improvement, provision of community facilities and creation of a
new roadway between the site and the public highway. However, he considered there to be few similarities between the
Fort Warden site and the one before him.
In particular, the site was not abandoned and did not include any
substantial community and environmental benefits.
The Inspector considered that a substantial
hedgerow and screen which defined most of the south eastern boundary of the
site form a clear edge to the built-up area and is more physically identifiable
than the development envelope as defined in the Local Plan. Whilst there is development beyond these features,
the Inspector did not consider the envelope to be illogical or out of date as
to justify the appeal site as being suitable for development. He also considered there were few
similarities between the appeal proposal and those previously considered acceptable
as an exception to the Local Plan. He
also referred to an appeal, dismissed in 1987, for the change of use of holiday
units to the northwest of the appeal site to warden assisted residential
accommodation, which was considered tantamount to a major residential
development, wholly at variance with the West Wight Local Plan. Although the site contained fifty chalets,
the Inspector felt it did not have the same visual impact on the surrounding
area as other more permanent development and holiday accommodation. Other land in the vicinity (apart from Fort
Warden) has an open and rural character more akin to the countryside than the
built up area and the area outside the development envelope in Colwell Chine Road. He considered that:
“The dwellings and their associated garages, fences, walls, domestic outbuildings and roads, would result in the site having a more urban character and appearance.”
The reduction in units would be outweighed
by the more intrusive urban character and appearance of permanent residential
development which would also result in the loss of a number of trees, the
replacements for which would not become effective for many years.
He concluded on this issue:
“That the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area …… The proposal is not the type of small scale or infill housing development referred to in policies E2 and H2 of the Structure Plan.”
On the third issue, adequacy of Fort
Warden Road to serve the development, the Inspector understood that the
appellant had verbal consent from the owner of the road to upgrade and improve
it to serve the development and that land was also available within the
appellant's control to increase the width of the road and to provide a
footpath. He acknowledged that
provision had been made for an alternative route to the Fort Warden site and
considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to result in a
significant increase in use of Fort Warden Road. He did not believe that problems over access were insurmountable
physical problems and although concerned about appellant's legal ability to
carry out improvements, he concluded that:
“Subject to
a condition requiring its improvement, Fort Warden is suitable to serve the
proposed development.”
In summary, the Inspector accepted that the
existing use and uncertain future of the site in continuing to provide holiday
accommodation indicate that it could be considered as the type of previously
developed (brown field) land which the Government has suggested should be
favoured for housing development over green field sites. However, he was of the opinion that such a
consideration should be part of the Development Plan process rather than in a
piecemeal fashion by way of appeal decisions, and that the adverse effect on
the character and appearance of the surrounding area which he had identified,
were sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal.
Subsequently, the site was the subject of
an objection to the UDP which was considered at the Examination in Public. The basis of the objection was that the site
should be included within the development envelope. It was contested that the
development envelope does not distinguish between the urban area and the
countryside and it cannot be said that Island View and its neighbours are part
of the countryside. It was again argued
that the chalets had reached the end of their economic life and were rapidly
deteriorating to the point that they would be no longer lettable for holiday
purposes. The UDP Inspector noted the
findings of his colleague regarding the economics of upgrading the
accommodation and concurred with these views.
In this respect, it was argued on behalf of the objector that if the
chalets deteriorated to a point where the site becomes abandoned, it should be
allowed to be developed for housing.
In considering the merits of changing the development envelope, the Inspector placed considerable weight on the need to protect tourism sites from the lure of financial advantage to be gained from redevelopment to some more valuable form. The Inspector considered that the area to be included within the amended development envelope serves the tourist industry and deserves protection. He concluded that this is a part of Freshwater where the distinction on the ground between that which should certainly be within the urban envelope and that which should be outside is indistinct. He acknowledged that there is ordinary housing development immediately outside but adjoining the development envelope and there is an argument for taking the boundary around this housing. However, he considered that there was a perceptible change in density from one side of the line to the other and considered that it is the policy reasoning behind the delineation which is important, ie to define the general built-up area wherein development will be permitted and that land beyond the boundary over which a restrictive policy will apply.
He concluded that irrespective of the
difficulties of the deteriorating chalets on Island View and the economics of
the tourism operation, there should be no modification made to
the development envelope in this vicinity.
He commented that an earlier decision to allow development on the Fort
Warden site demonstrates that individual circumstances can be taken into
account. He also commented that the
Island View Chalet Park is in a much more favourable location immediately
adjoining the development envelope than the Fort Warden site which is clearly
isolated from the urban area by a strip of open land which is the subject of a
protective policy as a wild bird sanctuary, adjoins a Site of Special
Scientific Interest and is immediately behind the beach. Having considered that the matter, he recommended
that no modifications should be made in response to the objection.
Since dismissal of the previous appeal, the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan has been formally adopted and policies which seek to protect the tourist accommodation in this area remain in force. I do not consider that there have been any significant changes in site conditions other than the further deterioration of a number of the chalets. Whilst reinvestment of funds derived from the development of this site was not a factor in determining the previous application and subsequent appeal, applicant in respect of current proposal has indicated his intention to reinvest funds from the development in the Rookley Country Park, which is also within his ownership. In addition, funds would also be made available to Totland Parish Council for regeneration purposes in connection with tourist and community facilities in the area. Applicant's agent indicates that reinvestment of funds in the Rookley Country Park would facilitate provision of 28 new caravans and hardstanding, for which planning permission has already been granted. This would allow for the creation of 30 new jobs of a permanent and temporary nature and facilities for 14,000 additional holiday visitors per year to the Island, compared with Island View which currently brings 3,000-3,500 visitors per year. The additional facilities will also broaden the period during which visitors would come to the Island between March and November. Applicant's agent also points out that scheme would provide eight affordable housing units within the Totland area for which there is a requirement. Other benefits to the development are detailed in the letter from the applicant's agent which is attached as an appendix to this report.
The proposal is that these “off site”
benefits would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement between the Council,
the applicant and, presumably, the Parish Council. Government guidance regarding the appropriateness of benefits to
be obtained through such planning obligations is contained in Circular 1/97. Annex B to the Circular contains the
following advice:
“Properly used, planning obligations may enhance the quality of development and enable proposals to go ahead which might otherwise be refused. They should, however, be relevant to planning and directly related to the proposed development if they are to influence a decision on a planning application. In addition, they should only be sought where they are necessary to make a proposal acceptable in land use planning terms….. Planning obligations may relate to matters other than those covered by a planning permission, provided that there is a direct relationship between the planning obligation and the planning permission. But they should not be sought where this connection does not exist or is considered too remote…. The tests to apply for their use are that they should be necessary, relevant to planning, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects.”
Whilst noting that applicant intends to reinvest
funds from site in the Rookley Country Park and make available funds for
regeneration in the Totland area, it is therefore necessary to consider
how relevant these factors are to the development proposed. Applicant's agent has indicated that his
client would be willing to enter into a legal agreement regarding the
reinvestment and provision of funds to Totland Parish Council. However, following consultations with the
Legal Services Department, it is understood that delivery of these benefits by
way of a Section 106 Agreement would present a number of problems. In accordance with the Circular, in
order to determine whether these factors could be adequately addressed by a
Section 106 Agreement, it is necessary to consider whether what is being
offered is needed to enable the development to go ahead, necessary from a
planning point of view and directly related to the development. In the case of the current proposal, advice
from Legal Services confirms that benefits on offer do not satisfy these
criteria.
In my view, it is quite apparent that
benefits at Rookley Country Park are not necessary to make this proposal,
contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan, acceptable. They are not directly related to the
proposed development and cannot be said to be necessary to make the proposal
acceptable in land use planning terms.
The offer to provide community facilities in Totland again, in my view
does not spring directly from the land use planning needs of this site. There appears no direct relationship between
the benefits offered through planning obligation and the land use issues
arising from the proposal under consideration.
Benefits which might reasonably be relevant to the development could be,
for example, improvements to specific highways or other infrastructure
facilities which might otherwise be inadequate to cope with extra demands
placed on them by the development proposed.
Therefore, improvements to access roads might be considered acceptable
for inclusion within a planning obligation, but not unrelated facilities
elsewhere.
In conclusion on this point, I agree
with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services that the “benefits” offered by
way of Section 106 Agreement do not bear upon the policy or land use planning
issues raised by this proposal and should not carry weight in the decision as
to whether or not to allow the proposed residential development, outside the
development envelope on a site allocated in the UDP for tourism purposes. This view is
supported by case law in the House of Lords in which it was held that:
"An
offered planning obligation which had nothing to do with the proposed
development, apart from the fact that it was offered by the developer, would
plainly not be a material consideration and could be regarded only as an
attempt to buy a planning permission".
The case law indicates that obligations should
have some direct connection with the development which is not de minimis.
Existing chalets within the site are single
storey flat roofed buildings which, by reason of their low level nature have
limited impact in the landscape. The
proposal involves introduction of two storey accommodation and it is considered
that this will significantly alter the appearance of the site and character of
the area. In particular, proposal
involves construction of two storey development on one of the highest parts of
the site which is presently undeveloped.
I therefore express concerns regarding the
layout submitted, particularly bearing in mind that siting of buildings is not
reserved for future approval.
Discussions have taken place with the applicants on this matter and
issues could be addressed by the submission of revised plans. However, having regard to the recommended
reasons for refusal relating to policy and access, I consider it unreasonable
to require the preparation and submission of further plans on this matter and
an additional reason for refusal is recommended.
The Inspector dealing with the appeal also expressed
view that development of site for residential purposes would alter appearance
of site and I consider that such a change would be detrimental to the character
and amenities of the locality.
Furthermore, whilst the Inspector considered that this site could be
considered as a brownfield site, it remains outside the development boundary
and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that site should be developed
in advance of sites within the defined settlement, in accordance with the
sequential approach recommended in PPG3.
Whilst noting the views of the Inspector in
respect of the appeal against refusal of planning permission, the Highway
Engineer expressed his view that proposal would result in an increased number
of vehicle movements and that, having regard to the increase in the number of
dwellings proposed from 26 to 39, the grounds for objection raised by him are
more likely to be upheld.
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 impact this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other
third parties has 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
Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to all material considerations referred to in this report, I do not consider
that there has been any change in circumstances since the previous refusal of
planning permission and dismissal of appeal which would justify approval of
current proposal. In particular, I
consider that had the Inspector in determining the objection to the UDP considered
the site was suitable for residential development, it would have been within
his power to modify the development boundary.
Whilst it has been suggested that the proposal represents the
development of a brown field site, the land remains outside the development
boundary and is designated for tourism purposes. Having regard to these factors, I consider that proposal
continues to be contrary to policies of the UDP and I am not satisfied that the
reinvestment of funds from the development elsewhere on the Island as suggested
are directly relevant to the development proposed or are sufficient to outweigh
the policy objections. Whilst the
Inspector into the UDP indicated that development of the Fort Warden site
demonstrates that individual circumstances can be taken into account, in this
instance, I do not consider that sufficient grounds have been established to
justify approval.
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The site lies outside the designated development
boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of
development, would be prejudicial to the character and amenities of the area
and therefore contrary to Strategic Policies S1 and S4 and Policies G1
(Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G4 (General Locational
Criteria for Development) and G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The site lies outside the defined development
boundary and no justification has been established to show why the proposal
should be permitted as acceptable development in the countryside as defined
in Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and is therefore
contrary to Strategic Policies S1 and Policies G1 (Development Envelopes for
Towns and Villages), H4 (Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted
to Defined Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development
Boundaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
In the
opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the layout proposed and the
disposition and nature of buildings on the site would result in unacceptable
impact on the visual amenities of the area, contrary to policies D1
(Standards of Design) and D2 (Standards for Development Within the Site) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The application site is designated as a permanent
holiday accommodation site and the proposal to develop the site for
residential purposes would result in the loss of tourism facilities contrary
to Policy T1 (The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The
proposed development would generate a significant increase in vehicular
traffic entering and leaving the public highway to the detriment of highway
safety and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations
for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Fort
Warden Road is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of
inadequate width and construction and would therefore be contrary to Policy
TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |