PAPER C1

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

1. NEW APPEALS LODGED

TCP/24939 Mr P N Norris against refusal for provision of roadway security fencing at Marine Works, Embankment Road, Bembridge.

TCP/25388 Mr & Mrs M Price against refusal for two storey extension at 26 Oxford Street, Northwood, Cowes.

2. APPEALS WITHDRAWN

TCP/2180/C Dr J Cloke against refusal of demolition of building and construction of pair of semi-detached bungalows and pair of town houses at D G Laundry Services, 65-67 New Street, Newport.

3. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

TCP/12442/K Mr & Mrs I Beynon against refusal of removal of agricultural occupancy condition at Greenfields, Merstone Lane, Merstone, Newport. Hearing to take place on 27 August 2003.

4. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

(a) TCP/24692 Ms Griffin and Mr Scott against refusal for two storey extension to provide additional living accommodation at 44 Kings Road, East Cowes.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 8 May 2002.

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 5 March 2003.

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

$ The effect on the living conditions of the occupants of number 42 Kings Road in terms of overbearing and loss of light.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ Two of the properties in the terrace have rear extensions which have changed the character and appearance of this end of the terrace.

$ Another two storey extension would not cause significant harm.

$ The proposed extension would lead to an increase in floor space of less than 25% which would be appropriate in terms of size and scale in relation to the existing modest property.

$ The extension would not seriously harm the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to policies D1 or H7.

$ The extension would affect the light received by the windows in the rear elevation of the neighbouring property at number 42 but this would be within acceptable limits.

$ The downstairs window of number 42 is already affected by the existing lean-to extensions of both sides and the use of a light coloured finish on the southern elevation of the proposed extension would improve the situation.

$ There would only be a small loss of sunlight in late evening around midsummer.

$ The outlook from the upstairs windows would be affected towards the northwest but not to a degree so as to cause serious harm.

............ ...........................................................................................................................................

(b) TCP/10198/B Mr & Mrs McLoughlin against refusal for two storey extension to form additional accommodation at 23 Ventnor Road, Apse Heath, Sandown.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 18 July 2002.

Appeal Decisions: Dismissed - 6 March 2003.

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

$ The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the adjoining properties.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ The property is one of a ribbon of development of similar styles with substantial gaps between.

$ This layout, close to the open countryside, contributes to the spacious environment.

$ The proposed extension would represent a considerable intrusion into the gap between numbers 23 and 25 and would harm the visual integrity of the area.

$ Although set back from the building line, the extension would have the affect of virtually doubling the size of the existing dwelling.

$ The proposal would convert a modest semi-detached house into a much more substantial dwelling which would be inappropriate in size and scale.

$ The development would unbalance the building as a whole and would be out of character with other semi-detached properties in Ventnor Road.

$ The proposed extension would appear overbearing from number 21 and would cause some loss of sunlight to the windows in the rear elevation of number 21.

$ The proposed balcony would create conditions of overlooking.

$ The extension would be situated only approximately 1 metre from the boundary with number 25 and would have an overbearing affect on the occupants of this property.

$ There would be harm to the living conditions of the adjoining properties.

.....................................................................................................................................................

(c) TCP/24743 Fairholme Estates (Holdings) Limited against failure to determine application within the prescribed period for the demolition of units 15 and 16; change of use of units 9 and 10 from warehouse to retail and unit 11 from storage to retail; alterations and single storey extension to form new entrance; alterations to vehicular access and associated parked at units 9-16 Hurstake Road, Newport.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: (Had committee been determining application) Refusal (Part 1).

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 11 March 2003.

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ The suitability of the site as a location for additional retail development given prevailing local and national policies.

$ The likely implications of the proposal in terms of the need to travel and additional traffic on the local highway network.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ The site lies outside the defined town centre of Newport and is properly described as being Aout of centre@.

$ The site is not in an area where local and national policies encourage new retail development.

$ There is no compelling evidence that the sites in policy R3 or indeed other land within the town centre could not satisfy Newport=s likely qualitative and/or quantitative retail needs for the foreseeable future.

$ There would be little likelihood of linked trips and a clear possibility that the appeal proposal would divert retail development that might otherwise locate within the town centre itself.

$ The proposal itself could damage the vitality of the town centre.

$ The proposal is clearly car orientated and would not support the aim to minimise journeys by private car.

$ The levels of proposed car parking is well in excess of the Council=s latest parking standards.

$ The building would enhance the appearance of the site to the advantage of the locality but this is not an overriding consideration.

.....................................................................................................................................................

(d) TCP/23207/C Mr A Button against condition imposed on planning permission for a dwelling on land adjoining Merrilea, Hamstead Road, Cranmore. The condition in dispute removed permitted development rights for any extension building or structure within the curtilage of the site without the prior permission of the LPA.

Officer Recommendation: Approval with the imposition of the condition.

Committee Decision: Approval with the imposition of the condition - 6 August 2002.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 11 March 2003.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ The effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area of removing the disputed condition.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ The approved dwelling is appreciably larger than the small wooden dwelling originally on site.

$ The new dwelling stretches the intention of policy H9 by permitting a house larger than its neighbours.

$ The permission has already incorporated the increase in volume which the exercise of permitted development rights would have yielded from the previously extant consent for a replacement dwelling.

$ The exceptional circumstances for the imposition of the disputed condition are justified in the interests of maintaining a height and mass compatible with adjoining buildings and preventing any adverse impact on the rural character of the area in the AONB.

$ It is important that the SINC should be protected from inappropriate domestic development normally allowed under permitted development rights.

$ In the exceptional circumstances of the site being designated as a SINC the condition is justified in the interests of preventing inappropriate development.

$ Environmentally sensitive areas require a buffer zone around them in order to be adequately protected.

....................................................................................................................................................

(e) TCP/24404/A Mr R Scoble against refusal for two detached houses with garages and access off York Avenue, plots 5 and 6, land rear of 131-135a York Avenue, East Cowes.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 29 April 2002.

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 11 March 2003.

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ Whether the proposed dwellings would be overbearing and likely to lead to undue overlooking of adjacent properties.

$ Whether the proposed dwellings would lead to the loss of a significant number of mature trees.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ The suitability of the site for residential development is not in dispute.

$ The site already has consent for a single dwelling.

$ The proposed plot 5 dwelling would be sited slightly closer to Kent Avenue than the approved single dwelling but would not be unduly overbearing.

$ The impact would be mitigated to a degree by the intervening fence and several trees.

$ The gable end of the plot 5 dwelling does not contain any windows at first floor level and should not lead to any undue overlooking of the Kent Avenue dwellings.

$ Similarly the plot 6 dwelling would not be unduly overbearing or likely to lead to undue overlooking and is well apart from the properties in York Avenue and at a lower level.

$ Of the 10 trees covered by the recent TPO, only 2 may be at risk but neither would need to be removed to accommodate the respective dwellings.

$ If the highway works are undertaken with care it might be possible to retain both trees although the survival of the T7 ash tree is uncertain as it stands close to the common driveway.

$ The possible loss of T7 does not justify the refusal of 2 dwellings given the same driveway is a feature of the permitted single dwelling scheme.

.....................................................................................................................................................

(f) E/12450/N The Scott Community Limited trading as Christian Respite Centre, 35 Carter Street, Sandown against Enforcement Notice relating to the change of use of hotel accommodation to multiple occupancy at The Christian Respite Centre, 35 Carter Street, Sandown.

Officer Recommendation: Enforcement Action to cease the use of the premises as multiple occupancy.

Committee Decision: Enforcement Action - 27 November 2001.

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 17 March 2003.

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ Whether the use would result in the loss of holiday accommodation which the development plan seeks to retain.

$ Whether the use materially harms the living conditions of the adjoining residential occupiers through noise and disturbance.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ The development conflicts with T5 and should not be allowed to continue unless there are material considerations that outweigh the harm to the objective of the policy of retaining holiday accommodation.

$ The appeal site is no longer in a defined hotel policy area and no evidence was put forward of an upturn in the tourism industry on the Isle of Wight since 1999 or a need for further bed space in Sandown.

$ The property has deteriorated to such a degree that unless there were to be a considerable upturn in the tourist trade it would be unlikely anyone would invest the sums required to bring the property up to the standard holiday makers now seek.

$ During the 3 years of temporary consent there has been no attempt made or promoted by the Council to try to get the property to revert to some form of holiday accommodation.

$ The Council=s Housing department supports the retention of the use and states there is a need within the locality.

$ The Council has not stated there is a shortage of accommodation but only refer to the need to safeguard hotel bed spaces with no time limit or supporting strategy.

$ The Council was perfectly entitled to look again at the issue of harm to the adjoining residential occupiers.

$ Whilst there were claims of crime this was really a fear of crime.

$ Use as a hotel would lead to a greater traffic generation to and from the premises and the potential for noise disturbance would be similar which ever of the two uses was taking place.

$ The type of nuisance/noise disturbance referred to by local residents is not likely to be any different to any urban situation where there is a mix of uses.

$ The use would not significantly harm the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers.

Application for Costs Against Isle of Wight Council

Case for the Appellants

$ The Council had not correctly implemented advice in circular 11/95 regarding temporary conditions and had not taken into account the matters that two previous appeal inspectors had concluded were not sufficient to substantiate dismissing the appeals.

$ The Council had not produced any evidence to support the retention of bed spaces and had allowed its decision to be guided by subjective observations from neighbours.

Council=s Response

$ The application had been submitted for a permanent position and was considered on that basis.

$ The temporary consent granted on appeal was a material consideration.

$ The representations received were based on sound planning arguments and the Council had a duty to consider and take them into account in reaching its decision.

Inspector=s Conclusions

$ The appellant had taken a too simplistic view of the previous appeal decision.

$ There was no evidence of an upturn in the tourist market but the Council had the views of its tourism specialist and had reached a decision on that issue.

$ The representations of interested persons were based on experiences during the period following the grant of temporary planning permission and it was incumbent upon the Council to take these representations into account and they came to a different conclusion about noise, disturbance and general amenity issues from the previous inspectors.

Inspector=s Decision

$ The appellant had not been involved in any unnecessary expense in dealing with the appeal and there was no unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council.

$ Costs were accordingly refused.

.....................................................................................................................................................

(g) TCP/24766 Mr & Mrs A G Anthony against refusal of outline for a dwelling, land adjacent 13 Forest Road, Winford, Sandown.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1a) - 20 May 2002.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 20 March 2003.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ Whether the proposal would undermine the development plan policies relating to the countryside.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ PPG7 seeks to protect the countryside from development which does not need a countryside location.

$ No need for the proposed dwelling has been demonstrated.

$ The appeal site does not represent infilling of a small gap in a built up frontage.

$ To allow the appeal would lead to the consolidation of the low density development in the area and would undermine development plan policies and national planning policy relating to the countryside.

.....................................................................................................................................................

(h) TCP/15627/A Mr & Mrs P Hewison against refusal for two storey extension at Bramley Cottage, Newport Road, Sandown.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 21 May 2002.

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 19 March 2003.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing property and its setting in the surrounding countryside.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ The visual impact of the proposed extension would be lessened by its setting back from the front elevation and by ensuring its width is less than the front elevation of the existing dwelling.

$ The proposal would be an improvement to the rear of the property which is currently marred by a large flat roofed kitchen extension.

$ The proposed extension and garage have been designed and sited to respect the appearance of the existing property.

$ The width, height and depth of the extension and the siting of the garage would not appear excessive when the property is viewed within its countryside setting.

$ The extended dwelling would sit comfortably within its plot.

$ There would be no harm to the character and appearance of the existing property and the setting of surrounding countryside.

$ The proposal would accord with UDP policies.

.....................................................................................................................................................

(i) TCP/6962/B Mr K Vickery against refusal for a pair of semi-detached houses, land to the rear of 17-22 Clifford Street, Newport.

Officer Recommendation: Approval.

Committee Decision: Refusal - 24 May 2002.

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 20 March 2003.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

$ The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with particular reference to parking congestion, privacy and visual impact.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

$ The contents of Appendix G to the UDP is of prime importance as policy TR16 requires compliance with these guidelines.

$ The guidelines require 0%-50%of parking provision on site and recognises on street parking is constrained and development without parking is unlikely to cause additional congestion.

$ The site is within easy walking distance of the town centre and bus routes with realistic alternatives to reliance on the private car for the proposed occupiers.

$ There is a realistic prospect that the small size of the dwellings would attract non car owning households.

$ In the event of occupiers being car owning, the marginal increase in on-street parking in the surrounding area would not add materially to congestion.

$ The 0% provision of car parking is acceptable.

$ The proposed houses have been designed and sited sensitively to reduce their visual impact and would not be visually intrusive.

$ There would be no material loss of privacy to existing and future residents.

....................................................................................................................................................

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members= Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.