REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 9 JANUARY 2004

1.

TCP/25373/A P/01060/03 Parish/Name: Northwood Registration Date: 19/09/2003 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Outline for residential development of 12 dwellings & access road, (revised scheme) land rear of 5-15 Pallance Road with access off, Selman Gardens, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which has proved particularly contentious, raising a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application which will have taken just over twelve weeks to determine if a decision is made this evening; within the BVPI target of thirteen weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to an amalgamation of rear areas of back gardens to five properties numbers 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Pallance Road on the south eastern side of Pallance Road. The site's south eastern boundary forms the rear boundary to those properties with that boundary also abutting in part the access to and the curtilage of property no. 16 Nodes Road which is a detached property set in a backland situation. The remaining part of the south eastern boundary abuts the curtilage of a semi-detached single storey dwelling no. 8 Selman Gardens with the road Selman Gardens being open-ended terminating on the south eastern boundary of the site. The south eastern boundary in the form of a mixture of hedging and fencing. The site contains trees within its south eastern corner, some conifers within the party boundary between 15 and 11 Pallance Road. There is an existing substantial sycamore tree abutting but overhanging the site within the curtilage of no. 16 Nodes Road. The cul-de-sac Selman Gardens forms part of the Cranleigh Gardens development which has a junction off Nodes Road to the northeast.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This site was subject of an outline application for fourteen dwellings with access road submitted in January 2003. The application raised a number of important issues relating to density, failure to provide diversity of dwelling types, smallness of plot sizes in the case of three plots and inadequate information in respect of drainage. Application withdrawn in March 2003.

The Cranleigh Gardens development was granted consent in June 1990 and comprises 37 bungalows with garages with access road / estate roads. For information this site was subject of an appeal following a refusal of an application for forty dwellings dismissed in June 1989. Significantly, however, the Inspector at that time considered that

"A facility should be provided for the extension of the new road system into adjoining backland area to the northwest ...."

was an important consideration. Consequently when the revised application of the lesser density was approved it indicated the open-ended cul-de-sac to achieve the above, now known as Selman Gardens.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks outline consent to develop the land to the northwest of Selman Gardens using the cul-de-sac for access purposes. Application seeks access and siting to be considered at the same time with the submitted plan indicating a layout of a total of twelve dwellings (three single storey and nine two storey dwellings) with the first floor accommodation being within the roofspace i.e. in the form of chalet bungalow style dwellings.

Proposal consists of six semi-detached, three detached, and three terraced dwellings.

Access is in the form of a kerbed access extension of Selman Gardens with a cul-de-sac head in the north eastern area of the overall site (rear of properties 5 and 7 Pallance Road). Layout indicates the loss of the conifer trees and a group of trees in the south western corner.

Each unit is provided with a single parking space either set within the curtilage of individual plots, or, in the case of two plots (5 and 6), in the form of a lay-by to run parallel to the road. Proposal also provides for a private access drive off the new access road to serve no. 15 Pallance Road with further allowance for vehicular access to nos. 5 and 7 Pallance Road off the proposed cul-de-sac head. Dwellings on plots 8 and 9 being those closest to the existing sycamore tree as previously mentioned are a minimum distance of approximately four metres off the crown edge of that tree. Proposal also provides for elements of new tree and hedge planting with there being a relatively small area of open space forming part of the cul-de-sac head within the north western and south eastern area.

In terms of accommodation, proposal provides for eight two bedroom units, two one bedroom units and two three bedroom units.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows:

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressure off development of greenfield sites.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport, jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty units to fifty units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Local Plan Policies

Site situated within development envelope boundary for Northwood as defined in the Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant local plan policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate. Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

D3 - Landscaping.

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

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

L10 - Open Spaces in Housing Development.

Reference is also made to the Housing Needs Survey which identifies among other needs a demand for two and three bedroom homes.

The site is located within the Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum of 0 - 75% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Members are reminded that Zone 3 location does not trigger a requirement for Transport Infrastructure Payments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval covering submission of details of drainage, estate roads, satisfactory provision of visibility and sight lines, means of vehicular access and timing of occupation.

Application has been accompanied by input by Southern Water who confirm that there is foul sewerage capacity although this would involve off-site works in order for foul drainage to be accommodated. In terms of surface water drainage, Southern Water indicate that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate additional surface water flows although surface water could be accommodated within a system south of the development site providing the flow was restricted to five litres per second. Southern Water suggest the alternative would be to dispose of surface water flows via soakaways or any local drainage watercourses subject to interested parties' approval.

Council's Ecology Officer comments as follows:

Currently the site is an open green space with trees surrounded by housing. Such areas invariably attract wildlife which is the source of pleasure and enjoyment to occupants of surrounding properties. It is very likely that some garden birds will be using trees and hedges on or adjacent to the site for nesting. Red squirrels have been reported using the site.

Regarding nesting birds, any scrub clearance or removal of woody species should only take place between the months of August and February, inclusive, to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.

Regarding red squirrels, although they will occasionally use this site it cannot be argued that this is a key site for this species being completely surrounded by housing. I would advise that any planting scheme should incorporate some species suitable for red squirrels so that in the longer term they will continue to be able to visit this site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of thirteen letters of objection, five from Cranleigh Gardens, four from Nodes Road, three from Wyatts Lane and one from Selman Gardens. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Cul-de-sac Selman Gardens regularly used as play area for children, therefore, concern expressed that the additional traffic and extension of this road would create safety implications.

Concern that existing road system, i.e. Cranleigh Gardens and Selman Gardens are inadequate to accept additional traffic caused by this development.

Concern that the proposal does not provide for sufficient parking and would therefore put pressures on parking in the surrounding roads.

Many objectors consider the proposal represents overdevelopment, out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area, referring to the site's semi-rural location.

Intensity of development will likely result in loss of privacy and overlooking in respect of adjoining properties. Property owner who adjoins the south eastern boundary raises particular concern in respect of plots 6 and 7 in terms of their close proximity to that boundary and if approved consideration should be given to boundary treatments to overcome any potential overlooking.

Removal of trees will affect the wildlife habitat which is extensively referred to in letters of objection, with the whole site being considered as a particularly important environmental area for wildlife, with reference to birds, red squirrels etc.

Concern expressed regarding inadequacy of drainage systems in the area to accommodate discharge from this new development.

Adjoining property owner to the southeast makes specific reference to the need to retain and protect the existing sycamore tree and other trees along this boundary.

One objector suggests developer provides traffic calming to the existing road system and provide a specific footpath link to Pallance Road if the scheme is approved.

Comments received from Northwood Residents Association which are summarised as follows:

Consider that the density of 43 dwellings per hectare is excessive given the rural location of the site. They consider that density should be at the lower end of the 30-50 dwellings per hectare advised in PPG3.

Could the Council in partnership with a local developer investigate a planning gain of a footpath link from the development of Pallance Road, thus enhancing pedestrian accessibility to bus stop but also to post office and other local facilities.

Further letter received from local Councillor Roger Mazillius confirming opposition to the proposal and supporting issues raised above, but also making point that Selman Gardens is almost pedestrianised with no pavement and suggesting that if approval is granted this proposal would double the number of units accessing this cul-de-sac.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

Principle

Whilst recognising the concerns being expressed by local residents it would be very difficult to resist the principle of development on this site as it clearly represents an ideal brownfield area of land for development being situated within the development envelope boundary and ensuring a more than reasonable amount of garden still remains for the five existing dwellings. Therefore the principle for developing this land is acceptable in general planning policy terms and I can see no sustainable reason to refuse the application.

Finally, in terms of principle, the fact that the cul-de-sac Selman Gardens was left open-ended was a clear pointer to its potential to be extended into land to the northwest, a provision which was fully supported by an Inspector in June 1989. (See planning history).

Density

Main issue therefore is the appropriateness of the density of development indicated in relation to the site's location and general characteristics of the area. It is important to appreciate that this is a suburban site within an area of particularly low density. A repeat of such low density would be entirely unacceptable under current planning policy guidelines. I would suggest therefore that an average density between the figures of 30 - 50 units per hectare would represent a reasonable compromise and fulfill the aims of PPG3 to make efficient use of urban land. Members will note that the twelve units represents a reduction by two from that on the previous withdrawn application and the resultant density of 43 units per hectare is considered to be acceptable. For information, the density of Cranleigh Gardens is 26.5 units per hectare which would be deemed to be under development under current day density standards.

The question of whether or not a proposal represents overdevelopment is not necessarily related to a specific density but more related to the quality of the development and whether or not the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationships between dwellings and in relation to affect on adjoining properties.

Resulting from the previous withdrawn application the applicant has now introduced an acceptable range of dwelling types, with there being a predominance of two bedroom units. Such a range of dwelling types assists in widening the range of income groups who will be able to afford the units. It is important to appreciate that development of this type will assist in contributing to the local economy.

Concerns relating to density noted but important to stress the proposal seeks consent for single storey and chalet-style dwellings which sit in relatively small plots but are themselves small in footprint. This fully respects the pattern of development in the area but in the form of smaller units and hence the apparent excess in density.

Arrangement of Dwellings

Applicants have taken on board the criticisms in respect of the previous withdrawn scheme, not only by varying the range of dwellings but also locating those dwellings within plot sizes which reflect the level of accommodation. Also, the general aspect of each unit within each plot has been carefully considered dependant upon the plot's location relative to the new access road. I am now satisfied that the layout has been more carefully considered to take maximum advantage of the site's shape and should result in a reasonably good quality development.

Impact of Neighbours

It is important to appreciate that although nine of the dwellings will have some first floor accommodation, in every case that first floor accommodation is internally facing with specific avoidance of dormer windows directly overlooking any adjoining gardens. This could also be controlled by condition. In terms of plots 6 and 7 it is appreciated that effectively their rear elevations are very close to the south eastern boundary, however, again careful internal planning of those units along with provision of screen boundary treatment should not result in any overlooking at all in that direction. Essentially, it is important to appreciate that these units are low profile properties reflecting the type of development in the area.

Therefore, whilst accepting that any development on this site, whether it be twelve units or even less, would have an inevitable impact on the environment currently enjoyed by local residents. However, I do not consider that this proposal will have any greater impact than the Cranleigh Gardens/Selman Gardens development had on the existing environment some ten to twelve years ago.

The major difference with this proposal is the slightly higher density and therefore the smaller gardens. With regard to plot sizes generally, Members' attention is drawn to a recent allowance of an appeal where the Inspector stated that the need to achieve high densities will inevitably result in smaller plots and therefore it is simply unrealistic to expect the very low density developments which surround this site to be repeated. Unfortunately smaller plots mean the dwellings are therefore closer to adjoining properties and it is the careful attention to the internal layouts, height and mass of those dwellings which reduces undue impact.

Access/Parking - Traffic Implications

I have already referred to the status of Selman Gardens being open-ended and I would also refer to the Highway Engineer recommending conditions which suggests that he considers that the layout of Cranleigh Gardens, not surprisingly, is capable of accepting additional development without creating hazards to highway users. Selman Gardens itself is a short cul-de-sac serving no more than seven to eight units and has a relatively narrow traffic calmed carriageway width and therefore traffic speeds are likely to be minimal. The new access road to serve the twelve units is similarly designed being curved in its alignment and again relatively narrow to continue the traffic calmed theme.

In terms of parking, parking provision is well within the 75% of guidelines required under Zone 3 policy with each unit being provided with at least one parking space. Whilst there are no guarantees this level of parking provision should not result in any additional pressures for on-street parking, particularly in respect of Selman Gardens or Cranleigh Gardens. It is extremely unlikely that any overflow parking would take place in either of those roads.

It has been suggested that a definitive pedestrian route be considered linking the new cul-de-sac through Selman Gardens through to Cranleigh Gardens. Whilst this would need to be an issue to discuss in detail with the Highway Engineer I suggest a holding condition covering this matter be applied with the appropriateness of the condition being discussed and further reported upon prior to Members' consideration of the application on 9 January 2004.

Ecology Issues

Concern being expressed regarding impact of this proposal on wildlife habitat with particular reference to loss of trees are noted. A former Council Tree and Landscape Officer confirms my own view that the conifer trees were not particularly good specimens nor are the other trees to be removed in the south western corner. It is accepted however that these trees could well provide some wildlife habitat, with particular reference to red squirrels. The existence of red squirrels on the site should not necessarily prevent development. The proposal itself makes provision for new tree planting which would be likely to exceed the number of trees that exist on the site. Providing the correct species are chosen these trees, along with any further hedgerows and shrub planting, should also provide potential wildlife habitat.

The most important tree from a visual point of view is the large sycamore tree and the applicants have recognised this importance by putting a greater practical distance from the crown edge of that tree than was indicated on the previous withdrawn scheme. In general it is important that Members appreciate that the site is in the form of domestic garden areas with some being overgrown and others being better managed, with one area being in the form of a paddock. As such they cannot be deemed to be special areas and whilst wildlife habitat may occupy these areas it would not be deemed to be sufficient to warrant a resistance to the principle of development on the site, a view supported by the Council's Ecology Officer.

Drainage

Applicants have now provided drainage information and indeed have indicated in some detail the route that the foul drainage will take in order to discharge into a sewer with sufficient capacity. Surface water drainage is less clear although Southern Water has referred to a discharge point to the south which would provide capacity. Applicants, however, are suggesting discharging surface water into the ground by way of a soakaway system which would be in compliance with the SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) which are being strongly recommended by the Environment Agency as a method of putting surface water back into the ground as opposed to discharging it through pipes. Such a system would be dependant upon percolation tests and would need to be carefully designed by a hydro engineer. Given that the application is in outline form I suggest that this matter can be dealt with by condition and should not prevent the approval of the application in principle.

Boundary Treatments

Concerns expressed by neighbouring property owners regarding potential for overlooking are duly noted and in this regard I would suggest a condition both requiring erection of suitable screen fencing, but also retention of and reinforcement of existing hedgerows where they exist and provide suitable screening.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that the numerous issues have been addressed in this outline application and that the proposal represents appropriate development on this important brownfield site. The potential for development on this land was recognised as long ago as the early 1990s by the open-ended nature of Selman Gardens and the proposal before Members is merely complying with current day policies which encourage higher densities and more efficient use of the land to take pressures off greenfield sites. The range of dwelling types are considered to be appropriate along with the type of bungalow or chalet bungalow which should reduce impact on neighbouring properties. I therefore consider that the proposals are acceptable and do not conflict with policies contained within the UDP and therefore I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the buildings, and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of surface water disposal. Any such agreed surface water disposal system shall indicate connection at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of storm water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Details of the design and construction of the new access road and car parking areas together with details of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall allow for a minimum carriageway width of 4.8 metres. Reason: In compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	The premises shall not be occupied until the access and/or visibility splays as shown on the approved plan have been provided. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until the existing sycamore tree which abuts the south eastern boundary shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier around the crown edge of that tree where it overhangs the application site. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: 1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or storage of material; (b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c) No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of bonfires. (e) No physical damage to bark or branches. (f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g) No changes in ground levels. (h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	The existing hedgerow along the south eastern boundary shall be retained and shall be protected from damage for the duration of the works on site by the erection of a 1.2 metre minimum height chestnut paling fencing. Any parts of the hedgerow removed without the consent of the Local Planning Authority or which become in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practical and in any case by not later than the end of the first available planting season with plants of such sizes and species and in such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by the existing hedge in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	The pair of dwellings on plots 1 and 2 shall have no first floor windows facing south westerly direction and the dwellings on plots 6, 7, 8 and 9 shall have no first floor windows facing south easterly direction. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Any scrub clearance or removal of woody species shall only take place between the months of August and February and at no other time. Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the width and alignment of a definitive footpath route within the proposed cul-de-sac through to the junction of Selman Gardens with Cranleigh Gardens shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed definitive footpath has been provided. Reason: In the interests of highway safety to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services