PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 8 OCTOBER 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

                                                                 WARNING

1.  THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2.  THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3.  THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4.  YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF DEVELOPMENT (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5.  THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Legal Services Manager, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 8 OCTOBER 2002

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

www.iow.gov.uk/council/committees/developmentcontrol/8-10-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 8 OCTOBER 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 8 OCTOBER 2002

(a)       TCP/1081V                Hazel Green Holiday Village, New Road                   WOOTTON

(b)       TCP/20059J               Fair Oaks Farm, Lower Woodside Road                   WOOTTON

(c)       TCP/22046A              Part OS 7982,Westside Lane                                   CHALE

(d)       E/22305D, E & F        The Sun Inn                                                               HULVERSTONE

PART II

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where the issue of affordable housing provision needs to be resolved.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to former Springfield Court and associated ground situated south of Springvale Road behind residential properties fronting both Springvale Road itself and Oakhill Road to east. Site contains remains of former building, which was substantially damaged by fire, served by a tarmac road from Springvale Road which runs along tree lined driveway up to main premises. Site is heavily treed and forms remnants of former landscaped gardens which fronted and surrounded main building.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/10633L, outline for forty two flats, refused (1989).

TCP/10633M, outline for block of twenty four flats, approved subject to Legal Agreement restricting further development on site and ensuring future maintenance of grounds. Legal Agreement not entered into and as a result a decision notice not formally issued.

TCP/10633N, outline for twenty five flats, approved subject to Legal Agreement, however, as with the previous scheme Legal Agreement not entered into and application subsequently treated as withdrawn.

TCP/10633P, outline for nine apartments and four houses, approved subject to a Planning Obligation to ensure reinstatement and future maintenance of grounds. Legal Agreement entered into and decision notice issued August 2001.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is full application seeking consent for total demolition of building and construction of two/three storey block of fourteen apartments and four cottages.

When comparing recent approval on this site current proposal shows slight increase in footprint of building and additional accommodation in roof of main three storey block. In all other respects proposal is very similar to previous scheme with regards location of garaging, refurbishment of tennis courts and swimming pool and use of existing driveway. Greater building mass has increased accommodation from thirteen units to incorporate fourteen flats in main three storey element and four terraced cottages to rear (south).

This full submission replicates to large extent illustrative plans submitted with previous scheme to show high quality building having significant architectural features and detailing, similar comments applying to the attached terrace of houses. Plans show fourteen two bedroomed apartments, each terraced housing unit comprising three bedroomed accommodation.

Parking will be provided for in south western corner of site by provision of curved block of detached garages, whilst scheme also provides for small detached groundsman's store in southern corner of site.

Application is accompanied by a Landscape Management Plan.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

· PPG3 (Housing), particularly with reference to affordable housing provision.

· PPG7 - The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development 

· The following Development Plan policies are considered applicable:

G1 (Development Envelopes).

G2 (Consolidation Outside Development Envelopes).

G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements).

D1 (Standards of Design).

C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodlands).

H1 (New Development Within Main Island Towns).

H9 (Outside Development Boundaries).

H14 (Locally Affordable Housing).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions including access restriction to site from Springfield Road only should consent be granted.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment to make.

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None at time of preparing report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters have been received from local residents raising concern/objection to proposal on following grounds:

Increased traffic hazard, particularly by additional use of driveway and speed of traffic using Springvale Road, together with poor visibility for drivers leaving site.

Setting of precedent.

Potential loss/impact on trees.

Adequacy of land drainage.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

As with previous scheme main planning considerations relate to Development Plan policy, previous decisions and specific history on site, and issue of affordable housing.

In policy terms, site lies outside defined development envelope boundaries and is therefore countryside for planning and policy purposes. Whilst policy G5 excludes new residential development outside defined settlements, policy H9 does allow for replacement buildings of similar scale and mass. Existence of building on site is therefore material consideration as is planning history.

Members will note from relevant history section that two outline applications for flatted development have been approved in principle on this site and when considering these applications the report to Members of former Borough Planning Committee advised that it had been generally understood that development of former building for residential or residentially related scheme would be likely to be received favourably. Members accepted this argument and considered development of site with twenty five units reasonable and unlikely to generate significant increases in amounts of vehicular traffic entering and leaving site from when former premises was in hotel use. Were this a greenfield site there would be strong policy objections to residential development in this location, however, as outlined in previous paragraph, Council has, by previous decisions on site, looked favourably on residential schemes. Existence of significant part of former hotel and staff accommodation block and fact that submission seeks to build on approximately same footprint can be seen as justifying support of this scheme on site which would not normally be considered for new development.

As with previous scheme, it should be noted that advice contained within PPG7 does, in exceptional circumstances, allow for isolated development in countryside if that development is of highest quality and is significant in terms of its architectural and landscape design and would significantly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings. It is considered this scheme meets those tests laid down within PPG7.

Therefore, given planning history of this site and in particular recent decision, I do not consider that in principle a slightly larger building raises new issues, however, given that proposal now involves more intensive development of eighteen units I consider the point has been reached where policy H14 of UDP should apply and development of this scale should be expected to make provision for affordable housing. Policy advises that Council is seeking to achieve 20% of housing on appropriate sites to be developed and handed over to a registered social landlord at a discounted price. Policy also notes that on suitable sites where Council considers it preferable to provide affordable housing it may be prepared to accept an appropriate contribution of service land which may also include built affordable housing units and/or a financial contribution sufficient to enable a housing association to provide the agreed number of units either by new building or the purchase of existing stock.

Current proposal should provide four affordable units if it is to comply with this particular policy.

Agents have been advised of the need to address this issue and in seeking to justify their position that it is inappropriate to provide affordable housing, make the following comments.

First and foremost they advise purchasers of each new property will have to fully fund the not inconsiderable costs associated with the maintenance of the seven acres of ground and the swimming pool. A full time groundsman will be required along with storage facilities for the tractor mower and other maintenance equipment. Furthermore "Seaview will be provided with a magnificent building (largely to the original designs prepared by Robert Gray) located within a wonderful parkland setting. However, to achieve this, the number of dwelling units and market values will have to be sufficiently high to ensure that the development is viable."

They go on to state that build costs are significantly higher and construction of classical late Georgian architectural features and detailing together with timber vertical sliding sash windows and french doorsets will add considerably to construction costs. In addition, their client will have to fully fund construction and servicing of new development and hard landscaping before any units can be occupied. Site is in relatively remote position and not ideally suited for working people on low incomes requiring good transport links. For the scheme to progress it must be directed at the top end of the market with suitably high quality fit out and consequently high market values. For these reasons they believe site is inappropriate for affordable housing.

With regards affordable housing, PPG3 advises that such provision is a material consideration and where there is a strong demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local needs UDP policy should cover such issues. Decisions about amount and type of affordable housing to be provided in individual proposals should reflect local housing need and individual site suitability and be a matter for agreement between parties. Circular on affordable housing (6/98) advises that it may be desirable in planning terms for new housing development of a substantial scale to incorporate a reasonable mix and balance of housing types and sizes to cater for a range of housing needs, therefore, where a requirement for an element of affordable housing is appropriate it should be provided as part of the proposed development. The release of a site where a Local Planning Authority has decided that an element of affordable housing should be pursued without ensuring the provision of that housing on the land in question may undermine the objectives of the policy. However, circular goes on to state that "If the Local Planning Authority and the developer both consider that, on particular sites where a requirement for an element of affordable housing would be appropriate, it is nonetheless preferable that a financial or other contribution should be made towards provision of the elements of affordable housing on another site in the Local Authority's area, they should ensure that such arrangements would actually result in the provision of affordable housing (whether new build or conversion), that would not otherwise be provided in the Local Planning Authority's area." The circular does state that these arrangements should not be used in respect of application sites which are inherently unsuitable for the provision of an element of affordable housing, such as those below the site threshold criteria.

The following additional criteria should be taken into account, namely site size, suitability and economics and provision, proximity of local services and facilities and access to public transport, whether there would be particular costs associated with development of site and whether provision of affordable housing would prejudice the realisation of other planning objectives that need to be given priority in development of site. Where this approach is agreed planning obligations should be drafted so that they allow developer to make contribution towards costs in providing affordable housing on a different site only on signing of contracts to provide the affordable housing element or include a covenant to the effect that a sum or sums paid by the developer for the purpose of meeting or contributing towards the cost of affordable housing on a different site shall be repaid to the developer on or by a specific date if such sums have not been used for that purpose.

Members may consider that given site's characteristics, its relatively remote location and type of accommodation proposed, it would not be appropriate to seek provision of affordable housing on site either within proposed building itself or new build within grounds, which itself would raise policy issues. Such additional building would not represent replacement building. Council's Head of Housing recognises difficulties in providing such an element of housing on site and it is suggested that provision is made elsewhere off site in alternative rural location to meet identified need or to seek financial contribution. Members will appreciate that latter course of action inevitably presents difficulties in agreeing such a figure and it would normally be the case that any planning application is accompanied by Heads of Agreement in respect of any such obligation identifying the various issues before the application is determined by them.

Whilst appreciating that deliverability is crucial and whilst appreciating on-site provision is the preferred option I consider in this case there are exceptional circumstances which require an alternative approach being made in this particular instance.

In view of the above comments the application is recommended for approval subject to applicant entering into planning obligation to ensure provision of four affordable housing units off-site and/or financial contribution for the purpose of meeting or contributing towards the costs of providing four affordable units.

HUMAN RIGHTS

It is not considered that there are any Human Rights implications in connection with this particular application.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section of this report I am of the opinion that the proposed residential development on the site of this former hotel can be supported in terms of policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan providing an opportunity to enhance locality and wider surroundings by reinstatement of landscape gardens meeting spirit of exceptions as allowed for in PPG7. However, as application incorporates more intensive development it is considered reasonable to make provision for affordable housing and application is recommended subject to applicants entering into planning obligation firstly to ensure provision for affordable units at appropriate off-site location and/or agreed financial contribution and secondly, as with previous scheme a Landscape Management Plan.

               RECOMMENDATION -     APPROVAL (Subject to applicants entering into a planning obligation with the Planning Authority to (i) make provisions for four affordable housing units either by suitable off-site provision and/or payment of agreed commuted financial contribution and (ii) to enter into a Landscape Management Plan)

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Whilst not particularly contentious, application follows previous submission for similar proposal which was withdrawn and resulted in negotiations to overcome objections to the scheme.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to rectangular site located on eastern side of Copse Lane, immediately adjacent junction with Farm Lane which runs along northern boundary of site and provides access to proposed development.

Site is relatively level and is enclosed by hedgerows with several fruit trees scattered across site. Area is residential in character with built-up frontage to Copse Lane and open agricultural land to east of application site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for demolition of the existing dwelling within the site and construction of two pairs of semi-detached houses fronting Copse Lane with terrace of four houses towards rear of site. Parking area with access from Farm Lane and two blocks of garages would be located in the area between the dwellings.

Seven of the dwellings would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen and w.c. at ground floor with three bedrooms and bathroom/w.c. at first floor and one dwelling in the block at the rear of the site would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, utility room, garage and w.c. at ground floor level with four bedrooms (one with en-suite facilities) and bathroom/w.c. at first floor level.

Proposal also involves provision of footway across Copse Lane frontage of site and widening of Farm Lane to 4.8 metres between its junction with Copse Lane and access to the site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing, sets out 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 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 maximising the re-use of previously developed land and the conversion and re-use of existing buildings.

Strategic Policy S7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan identifies a need for at least 8,000 housing units over the plan period, the demand for which will, in addition to previously identified sites and new land allocated in the plan, be satisfied by developing currently unidentified sites. Such sites are referred to in PPG3 as windfall sites. The current proposal involves development of a site which is considered to fall into this category.

Site is located within development boundary 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.

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

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway engineer recommends that first 6 metres of Farm Lane should be widened to provide a carriageway of at least 4.8 metres and beyond that to at least 4.1 metres to the proposed access. With regard to parking layout, he considered that arrangements were very tight and made recommendations regarding the positioning of the garages.

Following discussions with applicants agent, further plans have been received amending scheme in accordance with Highway Engineers recommendations. Any further comments received from Highway Engineer will be incorporated in the late representations schedule or will be reported at the meeting.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council object to application on grounds of overdevelopment of site and that buildings would be totally out of keeping with the surrounding properties. They also comment that access would be onto farm track and via a blind bend onto a dangerous road.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received from local resident objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Overdevelopment of site.

Access to site too narrow.

Increase in traffic movements.

Inadequate parking - Garages unlikely to be used for parking of cars resulting in vehicles parked on roads causing traffic congestion.

Loss of hedgerows.

Poor visibility at junction of Farm Lane and Copse Lane.

Development will result in loss of existing orchard.

One letter was endorsed with signatures of 7 other local residents.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment, but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether proposal would detract from character of locality and amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Following withdrawal of a previous application involving residential development on site, negotiations and discussions took place with the applicants and their agents in order to secure a development which was considered to be more in keeping with the surroundings. As a result of these negotiations, proposal has been submitted involving a reduction from nine dwellings to eight dwellings and which includes two styles of accommodation. The four houses fronting Copse Lane would be arranged as two pairs of semi-detached houses with each pair having double gabled roof facing road with central valley, reflecting the style and design of other dwellings in Copse Lane. In contrast, the four dwellings to the rear of the site, arranged as a terrace, would be more rural in character having the general appearance of a converted barn thereby providing a transition between the more urban development towards the front of the site and the open countryside to the east. First floor accommodation within block of four houses to rear of site would be provided partially within roof space with light and ventilation to bedroom and bathroom accommodation on western side of block provided by velux rooflights. I consider that this would avoid conflict between the units at the rear of the site and the proposed dwellings to the front of the site and neighbouring properties which may otherwise arise from a more conventional two storey design with windows within the first floor elevations. The rear (eastern) elevation of the terrace would incorporate two full height glazed gable features which may typically be found in a converted barn.

Comments were received from Highway Engineer in respect of previous submission recommending that first six metres of lane ought to be widened to at least 4.8 metres and beyond that at least 4.1 metres as far as the entrance to the site. He also made comments with regard to the parking layout and indicated that, should these issues be resolved and the development go ahead, he would wish to see a footway constructed along the Copse Lane frontage, to match in with that further along. Comments of the Highway Engineer have been taken into account in the revised submission and proposal now includes provision of a footway across frontage of site and widening of Farm Lane in accordance with his recommendations. Parking on development would now be provided within garages, the majority of which would be accessed from a courtyard area between the two rows of dwellings with two accessed directly from Farm Lane.

Whilst proposal would result in loss of the orchard, I do not consider that these trees are of significant merit or that their loss would detract from the character of the area or provide a sustainable reason for refusal of the application. Furthermore, whilst proposal would necessitate removal of hedgerow to Copse Lane and majority of Farm Lane frontage, I consider that it should be possible to retain hedgerow along eastern and southern boundaries and recommend a condition in this respect, should members be minded to approve the application. Furthermore, I consider that any new planting to be carried out as part of a landscaping scheme could include some replacement hedgerow along the Farm Lane frontage.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in the Articles 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 have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the like 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, I consider that proposal represents an acceptable form of development making more efficient use of what is considered to be a brownfield site within the development boundary, as required by PPG3.

             RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member owns property adjacent application site and, therefore, would be unable to deal with application under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land extending to approximately 3.9 hectares located at northern end of Gaggerhill Lane which is a narrow unmade track rising in northerly direction from Hunnyhill.

Area of land was previously used for agricultural purposes. Buildings within site include barns, stables, animal shelters and dwelling which is subject to agricultural occupancy restriction. Dwelling is located close to southern boundary on highest part of site and ground falls away to north into valley. The site is located on outskirts of Brighstone in area which is rural in character.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/8146A/RD/4390W - Outline planning permission for agricultural workers dwelling and formation of means of access conditionally approved in May 1964. Conditions included agricultural occupancy restriction.

TCP/8146C/RD/4588W - Full planning permission for agricultural workers cottage conditionally approved November 1964. Permission was subject to agricultural occupancy restriction.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for continued use of land for the keeping of horses, the grazing of stock and as an animal sanctuary. In addition permission is sought to vary agricultural occupancy restriction which applies to dwelling to permit occupation in connection with agriculture or in connection with use of land for keeping of horses and running of the animal sanctuary.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal. Applicants agent suggests that the holding, at just under 4 hectares, can no longer be run as a viable agricultural unit without an intensive use taking place which may not be in the best interests of the area as a whole. He advises that the current stocking on the land consists of horses, cows, sheep and pigs, numbers of which vary, and that his client has operated the enterprise since May 1999 involving use of land predominantly for grazing purposes. The agent suggests that it could be argued that there has not been a change of use from agriculture although the application has been submitted in an attempt to clarify the situation for the future. He also advises that enterprises worked predominantly by his client, with an additional worker employed 2-3 days per week.

Following discussions with the applicant, it is understood that she presently has 27 animals, and would generally limit the number kept on the land to 28. I am advised by her that the animals kept on the land are generally those which were unwanted by their previous owners. She has also confirmed that there is no intention to open the sanctuary to members of the public.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be outside development boundary for Brighstone and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that, provided the sanctuary is not attracting visitors, he raises no objection. He further comments that access to the farm is on narrow lanes and this is not a suitable location for a tourist attraction.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Brighstone Parish Council consider there is insufficient detail in the reasons for the change of use application and question whether agricultural occupancy condition is to be deleted or kept along with the new use and for what purpose owner wants an animal sanctuary. They comment that animal sanctuaries are a charity seeking financial support from public and question if this is owners intention. They also suggest that animal sanctuaries are sometimes open to the public and question if this is the intention. If so, they do not consider Gaggerhill Lane is appropriate access for this purpose.

Parish Council also indicate that owner has created a sand area at the end of a field and question the purpose of this. They also comment that several field shelters have been erected without permission, and two of which cannot be moved as they are enclosed by fencing and trees. The Parish Council feel that there is no excuse for permission for a change of use not to have been obtained before acquiring animals. Therefore, they object strongly to the application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

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

No indication by applicant of scope and extent of intended activities - what purpose is sanctuary to provide for.

Increased traffic movements along Gaggerhill Lane which is a public footpath would cause conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.

Concern expressed that site may be used in future as riding school, animal farm or theme park etc.

Field shelters erected on land within AONB without planning permission - not shown on plans.

Agricultural occupancy restriction clearly being broken and never been complied with by present owner - owner spends time on mainland in connection with her business interests.

Area of sand formed in open field for no apparent purpose.

One letter received from local resident indicating that he accepts situation as it is at present but any further expansion should be ruled out. Furthermore, he accepts that, since Gaggerhill Farm was split up by former owner, what remains is no longer viable as a farm and that it should remain in some related industry, such as horticulture. He comments that previous use of site led to horse boxes blocking Gaggerhill Lane and he would not wish to see this repeated. It is suggested that enterprise is not worked by owner who spends most of her time on mainland and concern is expressed as to who will look after animal sanctuary. He comments that grazing area is limited and any increase in animal population at site may result in need for feed deliveries thereby increasing traffic movements further on Gaggerhill Lane causing damage to lane and banks. Concern is also expressed that four field shelters have appeared at site showing disregard for planning regulations.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether use of land for keeping of animals in connection with running of an animal sanctuary is acceptable and whether the need to live on site in connection with the operation of the enterprise justifies the variation of the agricultural occupancy restriction.

Having regard to the limited area of land involved, I would agree that it is unlikely that it could support a viable agricultural enterprise, unless this involves an intensive activity. However, access to site is poor and I do not consider that this would be suitable to service an intensive activity. Change in agricultural practices over a number years has resulted in use of land for alternative purposes, including keeping of horses. Such use is generally considered acceptable, subject to the visual impact of stable buildings in the landscape. In this instance, Stables are provided within buildings which form part of the original agricultural complex. Other buildings on the land include a barn, which also formed part of the original holding, and several field shelters placed on the land by the applicant. These field shelters have been the subject of investigations by the Enforcement Officer.

In accordance with the definition in the Town and Country Planning Act, agriculture includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow lane, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes. Whilst current proposal includes use of the land for grazing purposes, the animals are not kept for food production and includes the keeping of horses, not used in connection with working an agricultural holding. Therefore, I do not consider that its use could be described entirely as an agricultural use. Nevertheless, I consider that this operation provides an acceptable alternative use for the land and former farm buildings. However, having regard to the poor means of access to the property, I would be concerned if the animal sanctuary were to be opened to members of the public. Applicants have confirmed that there is no intention to open the site to visiting members of the public and, should members be minded to approve application, I consider that permission should be subject to a condition in this respect.

Following discussion with applicant, I am advised that area of sand formed within site, which has been referred to by the objectors, is used as a winter refuge for the animals and there is no intention to use this as a sand school for training horses etc. Applicant has also confirmed that there is no intention to operate any equestrian business, including leisure rides, from the site. I am advised that the sole intention of the sanctuary is to provide home for unwanted animals which presently include several horses, cows, sheep and pigs. I am further advised by applicant that number of animals at site presently totals 27 with an intended maximum at any time of 28. Whilst these animals are not kept for agricultural purposes, i.e. for food production, I am satisfied that there is a functional need to live on site in order to look after the animals. In this respect, it is understood that whilst applicant has business interests elsewhere which require her attention 2 days a week the holding is looked after predominantly by herself with additional assistance 2-3 days each week.

In the majority of cases, the authority would resist the removal of agricultural occupancy restriction unless it can be demonstrated that the dwelling is no longer required to serve this purpose. However, in this instance, the applicant is merely seeking to vary the condition to permit occupation in connection with the keeping of animals on the land and the operation of the animal sanctuary thereby retaining the option for the dwelling to be occupied by an agricultural worker. Therefore, should members be minded to approve application, I consider that consent should be granted on a personal basis and when the applicant ceases to occupy the premises, the original agricultural occupancy restriction would prevail.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission, consideration has been given to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular Article 8 (Right to Respect for Family Life and Property) and Article 1 of the first protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions). In this instance, having regard to the previous use of the land for agricultural purposes and the nature of the current use, I do not consider that application has significant implications in terms of interference with the rights of owners / occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties. However, there is clearly a human right implication in terms of the applicants right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the keeping of animals on the land, the subject of this application, and the operation of an animal sanctuary from the site represents an acceptable alternative use which, subject to appropriate restrictions, will not detract from amenities of locality or adjoining/nearby residential properties. Furthermore, I am satisfied that there is a functional need to live on the site in connection with this operation.

       RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application raises a number of important planning issues which require consideration by Members.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site which currently forms curtilage to Wootton House lies on western side of Station Road between its junctions with Glendale Close and Gravel Pit Road.

Site is well treed and contains remnants of old Coach House and appears to have benefit of old access onto Station Road which has not been used for some time.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/10176 - Outline applications for six dwellings fronting Station Road, approved (1964).

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is full application seeking consent for five detached houses on this L-shaped site which has highway frontage onto Station Road. Application seeks to utilise former access points onto Station Road to provide central roadway servicing five detached residential units.

Proposed dwellings which, in general terms, are located around boundary of site comprise four bedroom units, each served by detached double garage.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

·    Members will be aware of provisions of PPG3 (Housing) which encourages, where appropriate, more intensive development of sites within urban areas.

·    Following a request to include land within development envelope boundary and following recommendation of Inspector at UDP enquiry land has been incorporated within development envelope boundary for Wootton. Inspector, in his conclusion, was of the opinion that site appeared to be part of urban area and he considered that it should lie within development envelope. Any proposal for development site would be considered against all policies of Unitary Development Plan as well as TPO implications.

·    Following policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered relevant in this case:

G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages).

H4 (Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements).

H5 (Infill Development).

D1 (Standards of Design).

C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration).

C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland).

TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development).

·    Wootton Bridge Village Design Statement.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Following negotiation seeking to resolve conflict between requirement for visibility splays and need to protect habitat for dormice in respect of hedge fronting highway and following submission of revised plans Highway Engineer now recommends standard conditions being imposed on any consent. In particular, he requires a 2.4 by 90 metre visibility splay onto Station Road.

Given claims of protected species on site English Nature have been consulted on proposal. Their initial observation was that there are no major grounds for objecting to this application, however, they do make some observations about issues which they would prefer to see addressed prior to application being determined. Firstly, their main concern is with provision of mitigation for bats following demolition of Coach House, and whilst there is no evidence of current bat activity, presence of droppings means that law regards Coach House as a bat roost. Transient nature of these animals mean that they may not use building as a roost for several years but does not mean that they will never return. In respect of dormice, given limited evidence of dormouse activity identified, dormouse survey has concluded that the development will have little direct effect on dormice using vicinity. English Nature support recommendation for hedgerow corridor to provide access for dormice along southern boundary of application site.

Further consultation has been carried out with English Nature who agree that reasonable survey effort has been undertaken on site in respect of bats and concur that a DEFRA licence will be required for demolition of Coach House. They recommend condition be placed on planning consent for inclusion of bat access points, bricks or tiles in new building, also erection of bat boxes prior to demolition to provide alternative accommodation for bats during demolition and construction work.

As site forms part of larger ancient woodland, Forestry Commission were consulted and they refer to Government policies which highlight importance which they place on preventing further loss of semi-natural woodland. Whilst two plots will be located in an area of orchard, the northern most plot would result in loss of trees which are all associated with area of ancient and semi-natural woodland. If consent were given for plots 2 - 5, retention of trees and undergrowth in area of plot 1 would form useful landscape feature retaining ecological interest and link to larger parts of extant ancient woodland to west.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Original comments of Wootton Bridge Parish Council were to raise objection to proposal on grounds that development results in loss of visual amenity caused by removal of greenery at this site. They consider proposal needs to be more sensitive to area and suggest reduction in number of houses proposed. They also refer to guidance within Wootton Bridge Village Design Statement, particularly concerning preservation of rural character of village, retention of current undeveloped land and importance of trees and woodland. Concern is also expressed regarding loss of trees and shrubs and impact on existing red squirrel and dormice populations.

They also express concern that proposal results in overdevelopment of site, particularly given size of properties and lack of amenity space. Again, reference is made to Village Design Statement which states that extensions/alterations of new buildings should strictly respect inherent scale of setting. Third point of objection are fact that proximity of plots 3 and 4 to southern boundary results in loss of privacy and are detrimental to amenities of adjoining properties in Glendale Close. Parish Council is of view that green buffer is needed between proposal and adjoining properties. Final point is that concerns are voiced over new vehicular access onto Station Road, which itself carries fast and busy highway traffic, particularly given proximity of access to Glendale Close.

Following submission of revised plans, Parish Council were again consulted and subsequently raised no objection to application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Wight Squirrel Project requests that care is taken to preserve trees on site as they are used by red squirrels and also point out that dormice are also known to be in this vicinity.

Isle of Wight Animal Preservation and Action Group comment that larger garden where new buildings are to take place is known habitat for many birds, badgers and foxes. They also refer to red squirrel interest within site.

Eight individual letters have been received objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Detrimental effect on protected species and wildlife in general.

Fact that site has been included within development envelope as a result of UDP process.

Loss of woodland and effect on ancient woodland itself.

Additional traffic hazard in respect of new junction onto Station Road.

Development is too close to residential boundaries to site.

Adverse impact on visual amenities.

Loss of privacy and overlooking.

Proposal represents overdevelopment of site.

Concern is raised as regard to drainage system to be installed.

Fact that site is covered by Tree Preservation Order.

Concern is raised over future boundary treatment.

Following revision and readvertisement and following reconsultation, five further letters were received, again objecting to proposal. Writers repeat their previous objections summarised above with additional comment that proposal would threaten pedestrian safety in immediate locality.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations to this application relate to fact that site is now included within development envelope following UDP enquiry and therefore there is no objection in principle to development of the site for residential purposes. Main detailed considerations relate therefore to density of development, design and siting of buildings and implications of development on trees and woodland within site, issues relating to protected species and highway matters.

With regards the tree issue, whilst application site forms part of larger ancient woodland designation, UDP shows land rear (west) of application site comprising part of Quarrels Copse which is identified as Site of Importance for Nature Conservation in respect of woodland and species. Small areas at two corners of site are protected by woodland TPO with other TPO trees lying outside boundary of application site but within curtilage of Wootton House itself. Revised plan shows retention of several mature trees around site, however, development will result in loss of former orchard trees and a number of conifers.

Whilst density of development does not meet recommendations contained within PPG3, due consideration needs to be given to constraints on site, particularly those relating to tree cover and nature conservation interests.

In respect of protected species, dormouse survey has been carried out and results indicate presence of dormice and report recommends leaving hazel hedge which borders Station Road to allow animals to either continue living there undisturbed or travel back to copse. In addition, continuous link must be left along border with Glendale Close.

In addition, bat survey has been carried out which indicates that loft space of Coach House is used occasionally by small number of bats, however, indications are that there is no significant breeding roost within building. DEFRA licence will be required to allow demolition of building and any such licence will need to include details of mitigation and compensation measures which aim to avoid harming bats and to maintain population. English Nature confirm that reasonable survey effort has been undertaken at site and concur that a DEFRA licence will be required. As previously mentioned they recommend conditions be attached to planning consent covering main findings of survey.

Highway Engineer requirements in respect of visibility splay results in loss of significant length of existing roadside hedge which has obvious implications for dormice habitat. Following negotiation and detailed survey by agent, revised plans have been submitted showing that whilst section of hedge is to be removed to provide visibility splay, additional native hedging will be planted behind remainder of hedge and visibility splay to allow reinstatement of 1.8 metre wide hedgerow along entire site frontage. These measures have been agreed by English Nature provided such additional native hedge planting is required as a condition to any planning consent. In addition, existing hedgerow corridor along southern boundary of site is shown to be retained and strengthened with additional planting.

Proposal will result in loss of orchard trees and several significant trees throughout site, however, attempts have been made in revised proposal to retain as many mature trees as possible and it should be noted the Council's Tree Officer does not consider there are any trees worth protecting within south eastern corner of grounds as these are predominantly fruit trees and not significantly noticeable from Station Road. Other trees, notably conifers and poplar are not considered particularly appropriate for site. However, eight trees within north eastern part of curtilage of Wootton House are considered to be worth protecting and Order issued accordingly. These trees plus small woodland area which appears to be relic of Quarrels Copse lie outside current application site.

Again, following negotiation, siting of two dwellings nearest southern boundary of site have been repositioned slightly northwards to increase distance to common boundary thereby minimising impact on adjoining residential occupiers whilst providing further space for additional planting along southern hedgerow corridor link. As previously mentioned, whilst proposal will involve loss of several unprotected trees, design of proposal will result in retention of several mature species and it is considered represents reasonable compromise in seeking to protect privacy and amenities of surrounding residential occupiers whilst minimising impact on nature conservation interests.

HUMAN RIGHTS

It is not considered there are any Human Rights implications in connection with this particular application.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I am of the opinion that development of application site represents appropriate development of land located within development envelope at appropriate density whilst protecting and enhancing site's habitat value for protected species. The development is therefore considered to be in compliance with relevant policies and I recommend accordingly.

               RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, as she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under delegated procedure.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site lies within the town centre boundary for Ventnor. The area is comprised of predominantly retail uses along with some A2 (Office) and A3 (Food and Drink) uses. 15 High Street is the former Lloyds Bank and is currently occupied by a ground floor shop with a three bedroom flat above, spread over two floors.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/12426/A – Change of use from shop to wine bar/restaurant, 15 High Street, Ventnor, approved 21 April 1981.

TCP/12426/B - Change of use of wine bar to Class A2 for use as a sub-branch, at ground floor, 15 High Street, Ventnor, approved 5 August 1988.

TCP/12426/C – Conversion of former wine bar to banking branch (revised plans), 15 High Street, Ventnor, conditional approval 25 August 1989.

TCP/12426/E - Change of use of ground floor to educational use, 15 High Street, Ventnor, approved 19 August 2002 under delegation scheme.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The property consists of a substantial three storey brick building with bay windows at second and third floor levels. There is a shop front at ground floor level with a separate access adjacent to the shop leading to the residential accommodation. The application by Island Volunteers seeks to use the whole building for educational purposes, providing reception, office and teaching areas on the ground floor and five separate classrooms on the first and second floors. Planning permission has recently been granted for the change of use of the ground floor only, to an educational use.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

The application site lies within Ventnor Conservation Area, within the town centre boundary, but outside the retail only frontage. Policies R8 ‘Residential Use of Upper Floors in Town Centres’ and H8 ‘Loss of Dwellings’ of the Unitary Development Plan are relevant to this application. Policy R8 seeks to encourage the provision of residential uses in the upper floors of buildings within town centre locations in order to promote a mix of uses in such locations. Policy H8 seeks to avoid the loss of residential stock particularly where the dwelling involved is considered to be affordable to local residents. If an essential development is proposed then replacement housing should be provided elsewhere.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer – no comments

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council – no objection

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from a local resident, lending support to the project.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

EVALUATION

A separate application for change of use of the ground floor only has already been approved and so the main issue under consideration is the loss of a small residential unit within the town centre of Ventnor. Policy H8 is clear that housing stock should be maintained unless there are exceptional circumstances. Island Volunteers have provided no supporting information accompanying the application explaining either the purpose of the educational use or any indication that the residential unit is redundant. Therefore, I have no alternative but to recommend refusal on grounds of conflict with the relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

HUMAN RIGHTS

It is not considered that there are any human rights implications in connection with this particular application.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and considerations outlined in this report, it is considered that the application is contrary to policies H8 and R8 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

           Recommendation     –          Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member as she is not prepared to agree to application being deal with under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land located on north eastern side of Laceys Lane, approximately 25 metres south east of its junction with Newport Road. Site is presently occupied by stone barn under corrugated iron roof which runs at right angles to the road. Site forms part of larger area within control of applicant which also includes existing two storey dwelling fronting Laceys Lane and area of open fields to rear of site.

The site is located within an area which is residential in character, surrounded by buildings of varying styles and designs with development to south of site comprising predominantly bungalows while to north, and particularly along Newport Road, dwellings are a more traditional cottage style. Ground in immediate locality generally falls in a south easterly direction.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/14737/RD/7966 - Conversion of barn and stable to one dwelling conditionally approved in May 1973.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for construction of house on northeast side of barn with covered way forming link between dwelling and the existing barn. Access to property would be over driveway to adjacent properties, thereby creating shared access.

It is believed that the original barn within the site dates back to approximately 1650 which was extended at later date to northern end. This later addition would be demolished, returning barn to simple gable ended building. Proposal also involved demolition of part of existing stable building and relocation of stables. Area to rear of existing dwelling would be retained for use by future occupants of that property.

Submitted plans indicate that proposed dwelling would be constructed in natural stone with brick quoin's and dressing under a slate roof. Dwelling would provide two storey accommodation with rooms at first floor partially within roof space.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application site is located within development boundary for Niton as defined on 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 - 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.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

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

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Environmental Health Department raises no comment.

Following inspection of the site by the Ecology Officer I am advised that the barn has some old roof timbers and appears suitable for bats. However, he could find no evidence of bat use of the building and an inspection of the timber joints revealed that they were all heavily covered by cobwebs. From his inspection, he concluded that the barn is not currently used as a maternity roost for bats. However, he pointed out that there is a swallow nest in the barn and it is important that this is not disturbed. He recommended as follows:

1.  Any work to the barn roof (new slate roof, timber treatments etc.) should be carried out outside the nesting season, i.e. May to September.

2.  Open access to the barn should be maintained. This could be achieved by keeping open the two gable end windows and ensuring there is a small gap at the top of any new barn doors.

In their initial correspondence, English Nature advised that the possible impacts upon the protected species, in particular bats and barn owls, on the site should be evaluated. They pointed out that protected species are a material consideration under PPG9 when Local Planning Authority is considering development proposals and if a protected species is suspected or present at the proposed development site, additional information should be requested from applicant before the application can be determined. In this instance, they suggested that an appropriate survey is undertaken to gather the required information, upon receipt of which they would be in a position to comment further. English Nature were subsequently advised of the findings of the Council's Ecology Officer. They concurred with his advice regarding the swallows nest and advised that, subject to timing of works, they wish to raise no objection to the proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend refusal to application of following grounds:

Overdevelopment.

Back land development.

Building will dominate surrounding area where there are bungalows and small cottage buildings.

Entrance is too narrow.

Access onto Laceys Lane is at very dangerous and narrow part of the lane.

Proposed building is 6 foot higher than the existing barn.

Bats are in the barn.

Parish Council requested that a site inspection is carried out. Letter from local resident received by the Parish Council was forwarded onto Council offices. Resident also submitted virtually identical letter direct to the Council.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Seven letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Overdevelopment.

House of proposed dimensions on high ground would detract from character of the countryside.

Dwelling not in keeping with existing properties in area, bungalow would be more in keeping.

Development in area limited to single storey only since 1970.

Roof and chimney would tower above existing barn.

Overlooking/loss of privacy to adjacent properties.

Rusting barn roof should be re-tiled as a priority.

Alterations to barn would disturb bats.

Plans do not show correctly adjacent properties - therefore no evidence to suggest that impact on adjacent properties properly taken into account.

Method of disposal of foul sewage is questioned.

Connection of dwelling to septic tank may result in effluent contaminating stream feeding River Yar.

Access to site would be narrow and would present problems for horse boxes, trailers and emergency vehicles.

Several objectors indicate that they do not object in principle to dwelling on this site but are opposed to current proposals. One objector has submitted further letter reiterating their objection to the proposal and suggesting that proposal represents "back garden development" which will set precedent for similar proposals. Letter was also signed by owners/occupiers of six other households who had previously submitted letters of representation in respect of proposal.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether proposed dwelling is of an appropriate size, scale and design or would detract from the character of the locality and amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

I am satisfied that site is of adequate proportions to accommodate development of standard compatible with surroundings and, having regard to location of site within the development boundary for Niton, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to development of site for residential purposes.

Number of factors and site conditions impose constraints on location of any proposed dwelling. Firstly, an electricity sub station is located roughly centrally on site frontage and this, together with lack of pavement between site and junction of Laceys Lane and Newport Road dictates position of any access. In order to resolve this situation, application involves use of existing access to adjacent property, within the control of applicant, creating shared access. The existing barn is located at right angle to Laceys Lane within approximately 9 metres of the roadside boundary. It is understood that consideration was initially given to conversion of this building to form dwelling but this was discounted due to the condition of the building which would presently make its conversion uneconomical. Whilst the barn is not a listed building it is considered to be an attractive feature, forming part of the original farm complex, and its retention and use in connection with the existing or the proposed dwelling is considered to be desirable. In this respect, the design statement which accompanied the application contains the following entry:

"The existing stone barn which presents a gable onto Laceys Lane is an important feature in the street scene of Laceys Lane and our proposal seeks to maintain this building for hay storage / workshop etc. in connection with the new dwelling. The applicants intend to replace the existing tin roof of the barn with a new slate roof to the match the roof of the proposed dwelling."

The desire to retain the barn was identified at an early stage during pre application discussions with the applicants agent and, with this in mind, it was suggested that the design of the proposed dwelling should be such as to compliment this building.

In order to protect the privacy and amenity of the adjacent properties, the proposed dwelling has been designed with no first floor windows in the two flank wall elevations. Therefore with the exception of one window at ground floor level in each flank elevation, all other windows serving accommodation within the dwelling are within the front elevation, facing in a westerly direction looking onto the barn and proposed parking area, and in the rear elevation overlooking open countryside to the east of the application site. In addition, applicants agent also indicates that existing Leylandi hedge, with height of approximately 4 metres, on southern boundary of site would be maintained. However, I do not consider that its retention would be essential to prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties or that it makes a contribution to the landscape character of the locality. Therefore, should members be minded to approve application, I do not consider that it would be necessary to impose a condition on any consent requiring its retention.

Existing development to south of application site comprises, for most part, modern bungalows whilst, in contrast, the older properties in the area, particularly those along Newport Road to west and north of site comprise for most part two storey cottage style properties. In particular, applicants existing property, immediately adjacent application site, is a two storey farm house constructed of natural stone under a clay plain tile roof. Having regard to this mix of dwelling styles, I do not consider proposed dwelling to be out of keeping and that it reflects the design and appearance of more traditional dwellings in the locality.

With regard to the impact of the development on the landscape character of the area, particularly when viewed from the east/south east across adjoining fields/farm land, it should be noted that, due to topography of area, ground levels and properties to north west of application site are generally at a higher level. Therefore, I do not consider that proposed dwelling would be visually intrusive or detract from landscape character of the locality.

Presence of electricity sub station on frontage of site prevents formation of access directly onto Laceys Lane and, therefore, it is proposed to gain access to site over existing driveway which serves adjacent property, thereby creating a shared access. Whilst noting concerns of residents regarding adequacy of access, I do not consider that its use to serve one additional dwelling will result in a significant increase in vehicle movements. In the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer, I do not consider that this factor would provide a sustainable reason for refusal of the application.

Whilst it has been suggested that the barn is used by bats, I would draw members attention to the comments of the Council's Ecologist contained in the representations section of this report. Having given regard to his comments, I do not consider that proposal represents threat to protected species or their habitat. However, I consider that, should members be minded to approve application, applicants attention should be drawn to Ecology Officers comments regarding the swallow nest in the barn.

Following discussions with applicants agent, revised location and site plans have been received which include adjacent property not previously shown on the plans which accompanied the original submission. In addition, he has confirmed that the intention is to connect foul drainage from the application site into the existing foul drainage system of the adjacent property which discharges into the existing 175 mm diameter sewer in Laceys Lane. Surface water would be disposed of to soakaways within the applicants land.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission, consideration has been given to the Articles 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 these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicants 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 freedoms 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, I am satisfied that proposal represents an acceptable form of development and that construction of dwelling as proposed will not detract from character of locality or amenities of neighbouring properties.

       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under delegated procedure.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Tideways Cottage is a former railway level crossing keeper’s property which is located on the northern side of the Causeway, immediately beyond the eastern end of the stone bridge crossing the River Yar. On its northern and western sides it abuts the former railway line, which is now used as a cycle track. To the east, part of the boundary adjoins Afton Thatch.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP17105/B - Alterations & extension to form living room, utility room, w.c. & boiler room; retention of relocated shed – Conditional approval, 9 March 2000.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The property consists of a single story cottage of painted brick with a clay tiled roof, it has been previously extended (TCP17105/B). The proposal involves an entrance porch on the south east elevation of the property, matching the style of the existing building. Additionally, an area of decking is proposed measuring 18.6 square metres on the north eastern elevation of the building and edged in part by a balustrade one metre in height above ground level. The north west boundary running parallel to the cycle track consists of a low informal boundary partly bounded by grass, reeds and picket fencing and there are clear views into the rear garden from the cycle track and when approaching the property from the west along the Causeway. The rear garden contains a number of raised beds edged with railway sleepers and filled with planting, and an area of trellis screening edged by a paved area and with associated planting.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within the Area of Outstanding of Natural Beauty (AONB), whilst the adjoining estuary is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and has both RAMSAR and Special Protection Area designations.

Relevant policies are as follows; C1 ‘Protection of Landscape Character’, C2 ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ where development which will have a detrimental effect on the landscape will not be permitted and D1 ‘Standards of Design’ which seeks to permit development only where it maintains or enhances the quality or character of the built environment.

The site is adjacent the boundary for the Western Yar Estuary Management Plan; these plans originated from PPG20 ‘Coastal Planning’ which supported the need for the integrated management of the coastal zone and endorsed the preparation of EMPs as a non-statutory management plan. The Management Plan is not supplementary planning guidance and is not intended to replace nor undermine the existing decision making process, but when implemented, it will seek to influence the policies and activities of the statutory authorities.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The AONB officer objects to the application on the grounds that ‘it will have a detrimental impact on the AONB designation and therefore contrary to the policy C2 of the UDP. This is due to the scale and increase in the footprint of the building and the design and scale of the decking which is not a common feature of properties in the area.’ He also expresses concern at the incremental impact the development is having on local character.

Estuaries Officer - awaited.

Environment Agency have no comments.

English Nature advise ‘ that the application site lies adjacent to, but out-with the designated boundary of the above SSSI. The nature conservation interest of the above SSSI are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposal’.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council have no objection to the application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters objecting on the following grounds:

Development is extensive and is appropriate for the AONB

‘Less in keeping with the rural location and would be extremely intrusive in an otherwise peaceful and unspoilt setting.’

Proposal contrary to Policy C2 of Unitary Development Plan ‘proposals will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape’.

Proposal contrary to G6 of Unitary Development Plan ‘Development in Areas Liable to Flooding’.

‘The cumulative damage to the site made by the current owner is considerable without this current application.’

Proposal contrary to contents of Yar Estuary Management Plan;

Key Policy Area 4: Landscape. Aim: to enhance the beauty of the estuary both in terms of natural features and historic buildings by ensuring that future development reflects the local character of the area.

Key Policy Area 3: Encouraging a strong local economy. Aim: To encourage a strong economy, in Yarmouth, the Harbour and the estuary hinterland, commercial activities being located within the specified Commercial Areas 1 and 2.

Key Policy Area 1: Maintaining the “Status Quo”. Aim: To recognise that the Yar is generally in good condition and that most things should stay the same.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment, but no observation received.

EVALUATION

The proposed porch is to be sited on the south east elevation of the property and only the south west elevation of it will be visible from the Causeway. Its appearance and materials reflect those of the existing cottage, and the increase in building footprint of the porch is some 4.65%.

The decking projects a total of five metres from the back of the property and forms an irregular ‘backwards S’ shape, filling in the gap between the existing raised beds. The decking is proposed to be a maximum of 200mm above ground. When viewed from outside the site, the decking will be largely obscured by planting within the beds. The proposed balustrading is to enclose much of the decking and will be one metre high. Again, existing planting will screen this railing; when approaching along the cycle track from the north east, the balustrade will be seen against the backdrop of the cottage, while from the north west, when approaching from the Causeway, the backdrop of existing planting will soften its appearance.

Whilst recognising the AONB Officer's opinion, it must be recognised that the works are proposed to, and within the garden of, a domestic dwelling house, and their impact must be assessed in this context. Overall, I do not believe that these additions compromise the character of the AONB sufficiently to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

HUMAN RIGHTS

It is not considered that there are any human rights implications in connection with this particular application.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

It is considered that the proposed porch meets policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan and reflects the style of the cottage. The proposed decking is to be positioned a maximum of 200mm above the ground and is this is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the AONB. The balustrading will be one metre above ground level and viewed either against the existing cottage or the surrounding planting and as such, it is not considered that this will have a detrimental impact on the character of the AONB.

           Recommendation – Approval (subject to the views of the Estuaries Officer)

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application raises issues in respect of drainage which require consideration by Members.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to irregular shaped area of land currently forming part of substantial curtilage of Ashdown House and is situated on eastern side of Ashlake Farm Lane which itself is a cul-de-sac leading off north side of Kite Hill. Application site is located some 200 metres north of junction with main road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/13883S - House and double garage, approved (1986).

TCP/13883X - Outline for two dwellings on land south of Ashdown House, approved (1996).

TCP/13883Y - Detached house and garage (AORM), approved (1999).

TCP/23221- House and double garage, approved (1999).

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is outline application with siting and access to be considered at this stage.

Submitted plan indicates centrally located dwelling house set back some 40 metres from Ashlake Farm Lane utilising new access onto that highway. Furthermore, building is sited so as to avoid mature trees which are located around the site's boundary.

In view of identified localised problems relating to drainage, agent was advised to investigate this matter and address impact of development on existing drainage arrangements.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

·    PPG3 (Housing) advises of the need to make best use of urban land.

·    Site located within development envelope as shown on adopted Unitary Development Plan.

·    Relevant policies of UDP are considered to be G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), D1 (Standards of Design) and H5 (Infill Development).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

Southern Water initially advise that there are a number of properties in vicinity of proposed development that suffer flooding from sewers. All these properties drain to Kite Hill pumping station and there is a scheme in the current capital programme to improve the pumping station at this location. Following further revision to the proposal, Southern Water have advised applicant that scheme as revised appears to be of benefit all round.

Contaminated Land Officer requests standard condition requiring investigation to assess any contamination on site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four individual letters have been received objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Potential difficulties of ground movement; expressing concern regarding use of soakaways; overloading of sewerage system; increased surface water runoff problems; unsuitability of access onto main road; and adverse impact on preserved trees.

Several writers also refer to potential damage to private road and issues relating to ownership, however, Members will be aware that these matters are not themselves planning considerations.

Ashlake Farm Lane Residents Association object to application on grounds that further development will exacerbate problems relating to both foul and surface water problems experienced in the locality.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No observations received.

EVALUATION

Given site's location within development envelope and previous approvals in the locality I do not consider there is a planning objection to further development within the curtilage of Ashdown House. The plot size is considered adequate and dwelling is sited sufficient distance away from boundaries. Proposal should also have no adverse impact on trees which abound site, apart from perhaps minor work to overhanging branches where they abut the proposed access way.

Main considerations relate to existing drainage problems experienced within locality and whether or not proposed development will exacerbate problems.

Revised plans have been submitted which show alterations/modifications to the drainage system. These involve storm water drainage from Ashdown House to be disconnected from the existing foul sewer and to discharge into new surface water drain together with surface water drainage from the proposed dwelling. The existing storm water drain discharging to Wootton Creek is to be repaired/replaced to accept road drainage and storm water drainage from proposed dwelling and Ashdown House itself.

Southern Water have advised that they are prepared to consider proposals to reduce amount of surface water entering foul sewers and in letter to agent have advised that it would be advantageous if client would be prepared to undertake refurbishment of the surface water drain. Connecting roof water from existing house to surface water drain will be a direct benefit. If an additional road gully is repaired this may also prevent flooding that could enter foul sewer by overland flow. If these improvements are undertaken Southern Water does not object to additional house being constructed as long as roof water from new property does not drain into foul sewer. They obviously require some commitment to ensure such works will be undertaken and completed prior to new house being constructed.

As drains in question lie within ownership of applicant such works can be made condition of planning consent.

HUMAN RIGHTS

It is not considered that there are any Human Rights implications.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

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 represents suitable infill plot and scheme, as revised, is unlikely to increase drainage problems experienced in the locality and may well help alleviate current problems experienced. Development is therefore in compliance with relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

               RECOMMENDATION    - Approval (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is located on the north side of Hillway Road 27 metres east of the junction with Common Wood Lane. This is outside the Bembridge development envelope boundary, not within an AONB although the AONB boundary runs along the southern side of Hillway Road.

Adjoining the site to the east and west are detached bungalows. Further west on the Common Wood Lane / Hillway Road junction is a two storey dwelling.

The site is approximately 20 metres deep and 18 metres wide. The existing bungalow appears to have been uninhabited for a considerable period of time, is set well to the rear of the site and screened from adjoining highway by hedging and trees. The site is flat with a field to the rear.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/24880 - Demolition of timber bungalow; construction of chalet bungalow, alterations to vehicular access - Refused July 2002. Proposal had a floor space of 144.39 m2 whereas the original bungalow is only 57.04 m2.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The proposed chalet bungalow is to be of brick under pitched tiled roof with dormer windows in the rear elevation. It comprises lounge/dining, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms at ground floor with additional two bedrooms in roof. There is existing vehicular access and the proposal shows provision for turning within the site. The proposal has a footprint of 84 m2 with an additional 36 m2 floor space in the roof totalling 120 m2. The new bungalow will be sited further forward to the road than the existing building but only 1.1 metre further forward than the forward most part of Woodclose to the east. The roof is 1.5 metres higher than this neighbouring property.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), D1 (Standards of Design), H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) are considered relevant.

In particular policy H9 states that development outside the development boundaries of defined settlements will only be permitted if they are for a replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer suggests conditions be imposed should application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval stating "Although the site is outside the development area, it approximates to the footprint of the building proposed to be demolished. The Committee repeats its cautionary comments over the instability of the ground in the immediate vicinity of the site."

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Local Councillor has objections which relate to size and mass of proposed dwelling which will be out of context with adjacent dwellings and the site's semi-rural setting. Concerned proposal therefore conflicts with policy H9 a and policy Dc and being a two storey building is not of a compatible height with adjacent properties.

Two letters of objection from neighbouring properties on grounds of building line too far forward, introduction of accommodation at first floor, proposal not in keeping with properties around and will tower above them.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 Relevant officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Following refusal for redevelopment of this site this application presents revised scheme with reduction in footprint. Although a significant increase in accommodation compared to the original it is relevant that a dwelling of the same size as the original is not likely to provide a practical unit by today's standards. Given limitations of plot size, it is not considered unreasonable to have some accommodation at first floor level to enable development and allow adequate amenity space around property. Objectors concern relate to size and height of proposal rather than any potential impact on neighbouring privacy. Proposal has been assessed on site from both neighbouring properties and is considered to present minimal impact due to its siting.

In terms of impact on the street scene and countryside location in general, proposal projects minimal amount forward of neighbouring property and increase in height of roof is not considered alien. In any event the street scene indicates fairly individual property and locality rather than an obvious street scene pattern.

With regard comments relating to ground conditions, this would be dealt with at Building Regulations stage. If there is any likelihood of trees being lost this can be dealt with by way of planning condition for boundary treatment/screening allowing replacement species if appropriate.

Reasons for refusal on previous application have, in my opinion, been overcome by a reduction in size of the bungalow, re-arrangement of accommodation and revised turning area being included to satisfy highway requirements.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights implications have been considered in proportionality to proposal and it is not considered there are any human rights implications in respect of this application.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I am of view that proposal represents a suitable replacement to the existing dwelling and is of acceptable design and siting.

       RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

PART IV REPORTS – ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/1081/V       Unauthorised erection of four advertisement boards, Hazel Green Holiday Village, New Road, Wootton

Officer: Mr S Cornwell        Tel: (01983) 823592

This report was due for consideration at 17 September 2002 Development Control Committee meeting. However, Officers requested that consideration be deferred to enable the views of the Council’s Solicitor to be obtained on the merits of a possible prosecution for the display of the unauthorised signs and for this to be incorporated into the report.

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the adverts

Background

During June 2001 a report was received alleging the following breach of planning control

1. That four large advertisements had been erected

An enforcement officer visited the site and noted that four new advertisements were being displayed, two at the entrance, one, approximately two metres in from the entrance and the final sign approximately ten metres in from the entrance. The signs are all 1.22 m by 2.44m and all advertise the site which is a holiday park.

Although the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 permit the display of a certain quantity of signage at the park, the signs referred to above exceed the allowance.

The Enforcement Officer met with the Manager of the site and explained that the adverts required consent, the Manager indicated that they would submit an application.

In August 2001 a letter arrived at the office along with the relevant fee for an application for advert consent, there was no application enclosed. To this date both the Enforcement Officer and the Registration section of the planning office have written to the Manager to request an application, the Manager has never responded to the letter and an application has not been forthcoming, the office is still in receipt of the fee.

The following Unitary Development Plan policy is considered to apply in the circumstance.

Policy D7      Advertisements in the Countryside

Hazel Green Holiday Village is situated on a quiet road, running alongside Wootton Creek, traffic has to travel at a slow pace due to the poor condition of the road and speed restricting humps. The only vehicles using the road are those visiting the adjacent holiday activity centre and properties in Lower Woodside. Having assessed the characteristics of the adverts and the nature of the highway I consider that the adverts do not cause any highway safety concerns and that they are in keeping with the surrounding area.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1.       To initiate a prosecution for the illegal display of the adverts.

2.       To advise the operator that the continued display of the signs in the absence of any formal consent is illegal which could result in a prosecution. That the Local Planning Authority, expressing its frustration that the operator has failed to remedy the breach but given the circumstances, has decided not to take the matter further.

Conclusion.

The signs displayed require the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority. In the absence of any consent then the signs are illegal and could render the operator liable to a prosecution. Although an attempt to make an application has been made this was invalidated and no further detail has been submitted. Having assessed the potential impact of the signs on highway safety and the amenities of the locality, I believe that were a retrospective application to be submitted, the adverts meet the qualifying criteria to be granted permission.

The views of the Council’s Solicitor have been sought with regards to this situation and the following comment has been received:

“The advertisements are clearly in breach of the Advertisement Regulations and are such, should a prosecution be brought, the Legal Department is of the view that a conviction would be obtained. However, prior to commencing proceedings consideration must be given as to whether such a step would be in the public interest. Amongst the matters to consider are whether the offence was a genuine mistake/understanding, whether the offence was serious and will result in a severe penalty, is the offence stale, is there a previous history of offending, was the offence premeditated, is the offender willing to prevent a reoccurrence, is the offence widespread in the area, is the case likely to establish a precedent, has the offender put right any wrong etc. It is the view of the Solicitor that as Officers have taken the view that the signs are not obtrusive and if an application had been made then it would have been recommended for approval, it is doubtful whether the criteria for prosecution have been met in this particular case.”

Given the circumstances outlined above which includes the advice from the Council’s Solicitor I believe that were an application made then it is likely to be supported and under those circumstances, whilst the continued display of the signs remains unauthorised and consequently illegal rendering the operator liable to a prosecution, the Council’s Solicitor has confirmed that there would be little merit in initiating such an action. Whilst not wishing to condone the breach of planning regulations which has occurred I consider the most appropriate response is to take no further action regarding this particular matter.

Recommendation

To advise the operator that the continued display of the signs in the absence of any formal consent is illegal which could result in a prosecution. That the Local Planning Authority, expressing its frustration that the operator has failed to remedy the breach but given the circumstances, has decided not to take the matter further.

(b)         TCP/20059J

Repair works to barn, Fair Oaks Farm, Lower Woodside Road, Wootton

Officer: Mr S CornwellTel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider whether the degree of works which the landowner considers to be a repair that have been undertaken to a building have resulted in its reconstruction to the degree that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority should have been obtained.

Background

Members may recall this site which was the subject of a report on 14 May 2002 regarding the formation of a chicken enclosure. Fair Oaks Farm comprises of an area of land some 1 hectare in size together with a range of buildings and which is located on the northern side of Lower Woodside Road some 200 metres further on the road than Wootton Holiday Centre. The buildings lie close to Lower Woodside Road with the land sloping away to the north. Beyond the northern boundary are a number of properties.

When considering the unauthorised chicken enclosure at 14 May 2002 Development Control Committee meeting as well as authorising the Enforcement Notice against that structure a request was also made that an officer visit the site to ascertain if any unauthorised building works had taken place. For Members information, the chicken enclosure was removed shortly after the committee meeting thereby removing the need for the service of any Enforcement Notice.

A meeting was held with the owner on site on 27 May 2002 at which time it was indicated that no building works had taken place on site other than what he termed to be repair to the north eastern end of a building close to the mobile home which functions as a day shelter. The owner indicated that the original tree timber frame had been kept and that he had simply attached to this new walls and a new roof. The actual size of the building was no larger than the one which was originally there.

A letter was sent to the owner on 2 July 2002 expressing the view that the degree of works undertaken to the building exceeded those which could reasonably be termed as a repair and that what had actually occurred was the construction of a replacement building. Accordingly, the owner was advised that the works required formal consent and invited (without prejudice) to submit a retrospective planning application.

For Members information during previous discussions with the landowner works to other buildings on site have been discussed. Old plans show buildings on site and in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary I have felt obligated to accept his interpretation of events.

The landowner engaged the services of a planning consultant and a meeting followed by several items of correspondence have been exchanged. To summarise, the consultants have requested that the planning authority reconsider its interpretation of the works undertaken at Fair Oaks Farm and whether these require the submission of a retrospective planning application. The following points are taken from the consultants letters:

·    Suggest works undertaken to building are not of such scale that they warrant a planning application but are in fact repair works.

·    When site used a piggery in 1950’s a number of barns and sheds erected at that time including buildings on the site of the barn to which this letter relates.

·    Attach photograph which shows the building taken when landowner acquired property in 2001. Also attach photograph of current building suggesting that this is actually an improvement to its appearance.

·    To make building secure and watertight for storage purposes landowner replaced flat corrugated roof with a flat felt roof and replaced timber boarding. Internal timbers remain in place and provide main support for the walls and roof.

·    Building largely obscured form outside the boundaries and is not considered because of its size and scale to have an adverse visual impact on AONB.

·    Having regard to the fact that works undertaken were to replace outer walls and roof of building around existing frame request reconsideration of previous advice that application required.

When considering the planning merits of any building works on this site I consider that the following Unitary Development Plan Policies are relevant:

Strategic Policies

S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

S10 – In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historical landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

Detailed Policies

G5 – Development outside defined settlements.

D1 – Standards of design.

C1 – Protection of landscape character.

C2 – Areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1.  To advise the landowner that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the degree of works undertaken to the building go beyond those normally expected to be associated with a repair and have resulted in the replacement of the building for which the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority should have been sought. To invite (without prejudice to the final decision) an application with a request that this is submitted within 28 days of the date of this letter.

2.  To note the information put forward by the landowner and on balance resolve to accept the interpretation that the works undertaken to the building could be accepted as a repair and as such, to withdraw the advice that the works required formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Conclusion

The point at which repair turns into replacement is a matter of fact and degree and as such, there is some flexibility in the interpretation. I accept that a building of the same size was in this position and was less attractive than the current replacement. Furthermore, I continue to hold the view that if an application were made then I believe that assessed against the policy context outlined above planning permission is likely to be approved. Taking all these factors into account I believe it would not be inappropriate to revise the interpretation of the works and accept that this particular case they could be interpreted as repair rather than wholesale replacement.

Recommendation

To note the information put forward by the landowner and on balance resolve to accept the interpretation that the works undertaken to the building could be accepted as a repair and as such, to withdraw the advice that the works required formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.

(c)  TCP(E)22046A    Unauthorised siting of mobile home for residential purposes on part OS 7982, Westside Lane, Chale, Isle of Wight.

Officer: Mr P Barker   Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of residential use, if this has commenced, and removal of the mobile home from the land.

Background

On 9 September 2002 the West Area Enforcement Officer received a complaint that a mobile home had been sited on the land at the above location.

On 10 September 2002, the Enforcement Officer visited the venue and on a track alongside the edge of the field he first came to a white Ford van, and then a small flat bed truck. Just beyond this was a Leven 34 mobile home. Two men were present kneeling down beside the mobile home, and appeared to be still in the process of installing it. One of the men, who refused his name, spoke with the Enforcement Officer and informed him that he had only been on the site since the previous Friday (which was 6 September 2002). The man informed the Enforcement Officer that he was a friend of the landowner who was doing him a favour in letting him site the mobile home on the land as he was about to become homeless within the next two weeks. The man was reluctant to tell the Enforcement Officer who owned the land but eventually he did name the landowner. He also admitted that he knew that what he was doing required the benefit of planning permission but was aware that an application would be unlikely to receive consent.

The following day the landowner telephoned the Enforcement Officer and said that the mobile home would be removed when he sold his house. The landowner was informed that he should remove the mobile home forthwith and not allow it to be used for residential purposes, this information was confirmed in writing the next day. The indication from the landowner was that he was going ahead and will be allowing residential use in this mobile home allegedly on a temporary basis.

A letter has been received from the owner of Westside Farmhouse dated 24 September 2002 containing the following points:

·   Inhabitants of caravan only there because the property they lived in was put on the market due to the owner dying unexpectedly and so they had to leave. Whilst living there they acquired an array of livestock which makes it difficult for them to find suitable premises.

·   I offered them a temporary site within my field until my property is sold (which is now subject to contract).

·   I have already located another property and expect to become resident there by November.

·   Problem regarding the mobile home will therefore be short lived as we intend to allow its temporary inhabitants to relocate with us within one month of our departure.

·   Hope letter can show unnecessary to proceed with enforcement and that things can remain amicable in the meantime.

·   Not our intention to flout planning law but action was purely to help out some friends who found themselves in untenable position.

·   Request Council does nothing and allows matter to correct itself within approximately 60 days of this letter.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1.  To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the mobile home from the land – time for compliance three months.

2.  To take no further action regarding the mobile home at present and wait to see whether it is sited on a temporary basis.

Conclusion

The site lies within the open countryside and inside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The siting of a mobile home on this site is contrary to the following Unitary Development Plan policies:

Strategic Policies

S1 (New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas).

S4 (The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development).

Detailed Policies

G1 (Development Envelope for Towns and Villages).

G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development).

G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements).

D1 (Standards of Design).

H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries).

H12 (Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans).

C1 (Protection of Landscape Character).

C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

Given the policy background outlined above, I do not consider that the retention of the mobile home could be supported.

I note the reference that the need for the mobile home has arisen because of an individual’s accommodation difficulties and this does raise the implications with regards to Human Rights. It is appreciated that this proposed enforcement action requires consideration to be 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. Whilst it is accepted that if enforcement action is undertaken it may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the person resident in the mobile home and the landowner, this has to be balanced with the same rights and freedoms of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights and freedoms of those mentioned above, this is considered proportionate when considered against the wider public interest as exhibited through the policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

I note the information contained in the landowner’s letter indicating that this is only a temporary problem which will resolve itself within two months. Whilst I have no particular information that would lead me to question this information, I would not wish to see the Local Planning Authority faced with an ongoing situation in several months time due to some unforeseen event. I believe the presence of any pending enforcement action can be suitably explained to a prospective purchaser of the land, and if the property owner is genuine, then they would have vacated in sufficient time to comply with any notice.

Given the circumstances as outlined above, I believe that the only appropriate response to the breach of planning control is the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the mobile home from the land. On the basis that the occupant has, by his own admission, indicated the mobile home would only be there for a temporary period I believe it appropriate in this instance to set a time limit for compliance of three months.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the mobile home from the land – time for compliance three months.

(d)   E/22305/D, E & F   Enforcement notices relating to siting of mobile home for residential use, fencing panels and timber shed at The Sun Inn, Hulverstone

Officer: Mrs J Kendall          Tel: (01983) 823572

Summary

To consider extending the period of compliance for the cessation of the residential use of the mobile home and the dismantling and removal of all the items from the site.

Background

Members will be aware that enforcement notices and a corresponding listed building enforcement notice were served on 27 May 2002. The period of compliance specified on the notices is three months.

All three notices have now been appealed and the period of compliance is effectively suspended until the appeals are determined. The appeals are proceeding to a hearing, provisionally scheduled for 25 February 2003. It is unlikely, therefore, that these appeals will be determined before the middle of April 2003.

Members will recall that planning permission was granted on 8 January 2002 for a single storey extension to form a kitchen, dining area, WCs, ancillary living accommodation and an office. The appellant has submitted his appeal on the grounds that he is seeking to retain the mobile home and shed and associated fencing until the approved extension is completed. He has indicated that construction works are planned to commence after the Christmas and New Year holiday which would seem reasonable given that they would take place over the winter months when trade is at its quietest.

Members should be aware that the appeal gives rise to a deemed planning application (and associated listing building consent) for retention of the works and it is open to the Inspector to grant planning permission, either as a full consent or temporary. Members should also be aware that even if the appeal is unsuccessful and the requirements of the notice upheld the compliance date will run from the date of the appeal decision and the Inspector has the powers to extend the period of compliance. In his grounds of appeal, the appellant is seeking to extend the period of compliance from three months to twelve months.

Discussions with the appellant’s solicitor has resulted in a suggestion that if Members were minded to extend the period of compliance the appeal would not be necessary. This has led to a specific request from the appellant’s solicitor that if Members were minded to extend the period of compliance to expire on 1 August 2003 the appeal would be withdrawn.

Financial Implications

The costs of preparing the appeal cases for the Hearing in February.

Options

1.    To advise the appellant that the Council is prepared to extend the period of compliance with the requirements of the Notices to expire on 1 August 2003 on the condition that all the appeals are withdrawn.

2.    To advise the appellant that the Council is not prepared to extend the period of compliance and will continue to defend its position throughout the appeal process.

Conclusion

If the appeal proceeds to its present provisional timetable, the earliest date the appeal will be determined will be mid April 2003. Based on this timetable, if the appeal is unsuccessful and the enforcement notices are upheld without variation, the earliest date the compliance date will expire would be the middle of July. The appellant will be asking the Inspector to extend the period of compliance to twelve months and if the Inspector is mined to grant this request the compliance date would not expire until mid April 2004. In any event, the Inspector has the powers to vary the period of compliance and even if the appeals were dismissed the Inspector could still extend the period of compliance to beyond the1 August 2003.

The date requested by the appellant is only a matter of weeks beyond the earliest compliance date which would result from the Inspector upholding the notices without any variation. Under these circumstances I do not believe that extending the time period for compliance would be contrary to the proper planning of the area and I consider there is some merit in agreeing to the appellant’s request if this results in the appeal being withdrawn.

Recommendation

To advise the appellant that the Council is prepared to extend the period of compliance with the requirements of the Notices to expire on 1 August 2003 on the condition that all the appeals are withdrawn forthwith.

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services