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
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 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 ENVIRONMENT
SERVICES (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.
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 Head of Legal and Democratic Services, 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 PLANNING
APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 21 MAY 2007
|
1. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 4 |
Sainsbury's and land adjacent Extension of the existing store to
provide additional retail floorspace, ancillary works and decked car park to
provide additional car parking spaces, (revised scheme) |
|
|
|
2. |
Shanklin |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 19 |
Land at Change of use of land for siting of 12 holiday lodge caravans
(revised scheme) |
|
|
|
3. |
Ryde |
Refusal |
|
|
Page 26 |
Alterations; ground and 1st
floor extensions to form 9 additional en-suite bedrooms, en-suite facilities
for existing bedrooms, extend dining room, laundry room and staff room; extend garden area |
|
|
|
4. |
Ryde |
Refusal |
|
|
Page 35 |
LBC for alterations; ground and 1st floor extensions to form 9
additional en-suite bedrooms, en-suite facilities for existing bedrooms,
extend dining room, laundry room and staff room; extend garden area |
|
|
|
5. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 37 |
land between 82/84 and, Single/3 storey block of 2 flats, vehicular access and parking
(revised scheme) |
|
|
|
6. |
Nettlestone & Seaview |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 44 |
Westridge Centre, Alterations and change of use of restaurant to Ryde Carnival Centre |
|
|
|
7. |
Wootton |
Refusal |
|
|
Page 48 |
Outlook, Construction of piled jetty, (revised scheme) |
|
|
|
01 |
Reference Number: P/00136/07 -
TCP/21952/G Parish/Name: Registration Date: Officer:
Mr J Mackenzie Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Extension of the existing store to
provide additional retail floorspace, ancillary works & decked car park
to provide additional car parking spaces, (revised scheme) Sainsbury's and land adjacent, Foxes
Road, Newport, PO30 The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application and contentious by reason of
various policy issues.
1. Details of Application
1.1 This is a full application with all
matters to be considered at this stage.
1.2 The proposal comprises
and extension to the existing Sainsbury’s supermarket, an extension providing
approximately 1266 sq metres of general merchandising plus a further 327 sq
metres of floor space for ‘shop front’ sales.
1.3 Overall the dimensions of the extension
are 63 metres in depth by 30 metres in width, it is situated on the southern
end of the existing building in a position presently occupied by the existing
delivery yard and parking area within the confines of the existing site plus a
small amount of land to be acquired on the southern side of the footpath link
from Foxes Road to Sycamore Gardens. It is proposed to restore an alternative
service yard to the southwest of the existing on land which, in the main, is
already hard surfaced and to access it by an extension of Foxes Road in a south
westerly direction which, in due course, may form a further link with future
residential development to the west known as the Dairy Crest Site.
1.4 The proposed extension is designed to
match the existing building in terms of scale, proportions, design and
materials and involves the relocation of the entrance to the store a few metres
to the south in part of the new frontage.
1.5 The existing building has a curved roof
feature over its front elevation which essentially is asymmetric. The proposed
extension would complete the curve of this feature through to the eaves of the
southern extent of the building, the feature finished in similar manner to that
existing.
1.6 The new service yard is proposed to be
accessed by the extension of Foxes Road by about 110 metres leading into a
service yard achieved by substantial excavation of the ground to result in a
level compatible with the floor level of the service area to a maximum depth of
three metres, the ground being supported by retaining walls and bounded by
fences. The service yard extends some 30 metres to the west of the rear of the
existing building into an area which is presently disused and derelict land and
this projection results in the necessary diversion of the public footpath which
presently links
1.7 The extension of
1.8 The proposal also involves an increase in
car parking at the site, proposed to be achieved by the erection of a deck over
part of the existing car park to provide 100 spaces, accessed via a ramp
situated at the eastern end of the site within the car park located to the
eastern side of the existing access onto Foxes Road. The overall height of the
deck is shown to be 4.4 metres, stepping up slightly from the eastern extent
towards the main building consistent with ground level which rises gently up to
the store. In the south western corner of the deck there is a lift and
stairwell and a raised section with an overall height of 6.2 metres above
existing car park level with a footprint of 6.4 metres by 3.5 metres. The deck
has overall dimensions of 32 metres in width and 73 metres in length and is
sited towards the northern extent of the car park with the north western corner
of the deck abutting the north boundary of the existing site over the crib wall
which abuts
1.9 Accompanying the application is a Design
and Access Statement detailing the reason how the scheme submitted has evolved,
together with a Site Investigation Report investigating ground conditions and
ground contamination which, essentially indicates that parts of the site are
made ground, especially that area presently occupied by the car park and that
there is no appreciable level of contamination which would be harmful.
1.10 A Highway Statement also accompanies the
application which, essentially, states that the 25% increase in customer
numbers anticipated, with the increase of car parking spaces from 293 to 356
(63 extra) despite the 43% increase in floor area would result in a less than
5% increase in the existing traffic levels and Hunnyhill/Hunnycross Way
signalised junction. These figures are based on the calculations for the Friday
and Saturday peak hours.
1.11 The Traffic Assessment suggests that the
extension proposed would require a maximum demand of 332 spaces (356 to be
provided) on the basis that the car park also provides facilities for town
centre visitors. The applicants conclude that, accordingly, the proposed
development would not result in an adverse highway impact and that permission
should not be withheld on highway related reasons.
1.12 The Bat Survey accompanying the application
indicates that trees which are to be felled in order to implement the scheme
may contain bat roosts.
2. Location
and Site Characteristics
2.1 Site has an area of approximately 1.67
hectares located to the west of the junction of
2.2 Site comprises an existing building with
a footprint of 5,400 sq metres, the remaining part of the site used for
parking, delivery and peripheral landscaping.
2.3 Access to the site is off
2.4 The existing building is steel framed and
clad in a white finished metal cladding. The front of the building, the east
elevation, is dominated by a “wing” feature at roof level whilst the remaining
roof of the building is low pitched and also clad in white finished metal
sheeting.
3. Relevant
History
3.1 Outline planning permission was granted
for a supermarket and ancillary restaurant with car parking and for a new road
off Vicarage Walk; for the petrol filling station and for the new Red Cross
Headquarters and for new road between Riverway and Hunnyhill 28 August 1998.
3.2 Reserved Matters relating to external
appearance, design and landscaping for both the supermarket and for the new Red
Cross Headquarters and for car parking was formally approved on
4. Development
Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPS1 – Delivering
Sustainable Development
PPS6 – Planning for Town
Centres
PPG13 – Transport
4.2 The following Unitary Development Plan
Policies are considered to be relevant:
·
G1 – Development Envelopes
·
G4 – General Locational Criteria
·
G6 – Areas Liable to Flooding
·
G7 – Unstable Land
·
G10 – Existing Surrounding Uses
·
D1 – Standards of Design
·
D2 – Standards of Development within the Site
·
D3 – Landscaping
·
D4 –
·
D14 – Light Spillage
·
B5 – Criteria for Conservation Area
·
B9 – Protection of Archeological Heritage
·
E1 – Promotion of New Employment Uses
·
P1 – Pollution and Development
·
P2 – Minimising Contamination from Development
·
P5 – Reducing the Impact of Noise
·
TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development
·
TR13 – Highway Improvements
·
TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines
·
TR14 – Town Centre Traffic Management
·
R1 – Existing Town Centres
·
R2 – New Retail Development
·
R3 – Sites for Retail Development
4.3 Strategic Policy S14 – New Retail
Development
5. Consultee
and Third Party Comments
5.1
Internal Consultees
·
Highway Engineer considers that following careful
examination of the Highways Statement, submitted with the application that on
the basis of the information submitted the impact on the traffic system of the
information submitted the impact on the traffic system is at an acceptable
level. In addition, the developer is prepared to make a substantial financial
contribution towards future improvement to traffic infrastructure in the area
the ability to address future problems in the wider area is welcomed.
·
Rights of Way Section point out that Gatehouse Cottage has a
vehicular right of way over Petticoat Lane, that Council vehicles also require
access to the path therefore better turning facilities should be provided and
good visibility will be necessary; the vehicle gate provide to prevent
unauthorised vehicle use will need to be relocated. Recommends that
contributions be made by the applicants in the event that planning permission
is granted for the upgrade of Petticoat Lane into a proper urban footpath and
cycle path and for signage of the Carisbrooke Park and stride scheme; points out
that Petticoat Lane is part of the historic highway grid of Newport and
questions its diversion.
·
Transport Policy Team echo Rights of Way Officer’s
observations but adds that the footpath/cycle way should be lit for security
reasons.
·
·
Tree Officer recommends refusal unless proper tree
constraint, survey and plan are produced.
·
Environmental Health Officer recommends a condition to
control hours of delivery vehicles accessing the site.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Environment Agency formerly objected to the proposal
asserting that the proposal may present a significant flood risk from the
generation of surface water run off but
the application is not accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. However EA has
withdrawn its objection following further consideration but subject to a
condition regarding disposal of surface water.
·
Southern Water comment that the application does not include
details of how foul drainage will be dealt with suggesting that a condition
should be attached to any permission requiring details to be submitted to an
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and a further condition
requiring that details of surface water disposal should be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site.
5.3 Town and Parish Council comments – Not
applicable.
5.4 Neighbours
·
16 letters of objection from local and nearby residents on
grounds of:
o
Adverse effect on traffic and pedestrian safety.
o
Congestion at the junction of
o
Objects to re-routing of
o
Generation of greater levels of traffic including construction
traffic.
o
Inadequate road network to cater for further vehicular use.
o
Visual impact of the car deck.
o
Creation of a rat run if the highway is connected to a
further development beyond.
o
Conflict between vehicles and pedestrians accessing the car park
o
Poor access arrangements.
o
Lack of additional cycle parking and location.
o
Generation of noise both day and night from vehicles and, at
night, delivery vehicles.
o
Loss of trees.
o
Suggesting replacement planting if approved.
o
Possible abuse of car park out of hours by skateboarders.
o
Proposes controls on hours of working.
o
Objection to increased parking creating increased traffic.
o
Loss of historic lane.
o
Objections to link road.
o
Loss of security.
5.5 Others
·
CPRE recommend refusal, questioning the policy position
encouraging further retail developments within
6. Evaluation
6.1 The
main issues relating to this application are considered to be:
·
Policy and principle including
implications of the
·
Highway, traffic and parking
issues.
·
Matters relating to design,
materials and appearance of the development including its scale, mass etc.
·
The visual impact of the
development bearing in mind its setting and proximity to adjoining uses.
·
Tree implications.
·
Flooding implications and lack of
flood risk assessment.
·
Effect on adjoining properties.
·
The relocation of the service yard
and implications.
6.2 Policy, principle and
shopping floorspace.
Policies
R1 and R2 relate to existing town centres and to new retail development and it
will be seen from existing policy document for Newport town centre that the
site is within the town centre boundary and was a scheduled site for retail
development in that plan. Therefore in policy terms the extension to the
existing store is consistent with current policy.
In
terms of the ‘headroom’ exercise it is clear that there is sufficient
flexibility and capacity to enable the increase in floor space to be accepted
bearing in mind the existing and potential floor spaces elsewhere on the
Highways and Traffic
6.3 The proposed increase in floorspace
will inevitably lead to the increase in vehicular flow both in terms of
customers and deliveries. This parking increase is proposed to be accommodated
by the erection of a deck over approximately one third of the car parking area
raising the number of car parking spaces from 293 to 356, a net increase of 63
spaces. The deck is proposed as a solution to the problem of finding additional
car parking area as there are no areas left on the site which could be used for
additional car parking. Trading hours of the supermarket are currently
displayed as being from
6.4 According to the Traffic
Impact Assessment submitted with the application the peak hours of trading are
on Friday between 16.30 to 17.30 hours and on Saturdays between 11.15 to 12.15.
The TIA claims that the 25% increase in sales area would increase the Friday
and Saturday peak hours by very roughly 50 vehicles within those stated hours
on each day but that this increase would amount to less than 5% of the traffic
using the Hunnycross junction.
6.5 It will be seen from the
Highway Engineer’s comments in the representation section above that the
anticipated percentage of traffic increase is supported. However, the recently
commissioned traffic model for
6.6 The Highway Engineer and
Traffic Engineers conclude that the proposed increases will be acceptable
despite the recently commissioned Traffic Model and recommend that, in
principle, from a traffic viewpoint the development is acceptable.
Despite
the Engineer’s concurrence with the findings of the Traffic Impact Assessment
conclusions, the Developers have agreed to pay a sum of £100,000 towards
traffic and transportation initiatives in order to assist with offsetting
traffic impacts in the vicinity of the site. Bearing in mind the continuing
impacts of development and the potential changing nature of the evolving
traffic regime over the next few years in this area, the financial
consideration mentioned above is felt entirely appropriate and justified,
reflecting the importance of the highway issues in the area where further
development proposals are anticipated.
6.7 Design
The
design of the building has been undertaken taking account of the existing
scale, mass, height and footprint together with the materials and the design
features which prevail in the existing building. It could be argued that the
extension “finishes off “ the design as it adds mass to the structure without
increasing the height giving an appearance of symmetry especially to the roof
feature incorporated in the original design. It would be inappropriate for any
extension to be constructed in different materials and essentially the design
theme is a continuation of the existing. The extension is of similar scale,
similar materials and incorporates similar design feature such that it
concludes the development of this site.
6.8 Visual Impact
As
stated above the proposal seeks to extend the building in a similar height and
similar character to that existing and from the north and west the extension
would not be seen. The visual impact would be most obvious as one approaches
the site either from the east, Hunnycross junction or from
6.9 The
nearest buildings are the now disused Jehovah’s Witness Hall and the former
Dairy Crest building to the south and, slightly further away, Homewight House,
an elderly persons’ complex which is about 50 metres away but it is felt that
the visual impact from the main residential areas to the north and west would
not be significant due, in part, to the significant differences in land levels
to the west.
6.10 Trees
The
access to the new service area, achievable by the extension of
In
addition the County Ecology Officer has identified that these trees may contain
the roosts of bat species and in the event that permission is given for their
removal, that they are only felled following careful inspection to ascertain
whether or not bat roosts are in existence and in the event that bat roosts are
found that mitigation measures are taken and that the trees are only felled
during a specific period of the year. These issues can be covered by a planning
condition. If consent is granted there is no alternative to removal of the
trees as there is no alternative route for the access to the service yard.
6.11 Flooding
The
Environment Agency initially raised an objection to the development based on
the fact that no flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application
and at that as the site is over one hectare it can generate significant volumes
of surface water and that the impact and risks posed by this will vary
according to the characteristics of both the development and the catchment. The
Agency has borne in mind that the proposed development includes a deck over an
existing surfaced area, a substantial increase in footprint of the building but
that the area to be extended is already hard surfaced and that the replacement
service area is also largely hard surfaced but still maintains its objection to
the development on the basis of an unknown flood risk.
Following
further consideration the Agency has withdrawn its objections as most of the
site is already hard surfaced and the further development would not increase
surface water falling on the site, the means of disposal is the issue to be
solved and attenuation of the run off from the site can be dealt with by
condition.
6.12 Effect
on Adjoining Properties.
The
proposed extension situated on the southern side of the existing Sainsbury’s
store projecting approximately 30 metres. To the east of the existing building
is the Sainsbury’s car park whilst to the north and west is residential
development. It is felt that the extension will not impose on those areas and
effect on the residential properties to the north or west would result.
However, there are residential properties situated to the south, the nearest
being Homewight House, situated at a distance of approximately 50 metres to the
south east of the nearest part of the new extension. Buildings to the south
form parts of the Dairy Crest site which are likely to be redeveloped.
6.13 The
nearest properties to the west are in Sycamore Gardens, bungalows situated
approximately 30 metres from the existing building but due to the depth of the
extension which might be visible from the nearest property would be some 45
metres away and would be unlikely to an adverse impact due to the distance and
the trees on the intervening land.
6.14 Service
Yard and Extension to
The
proposed extension is shown on the plans to occupy that area presently used as
the service and delivery yard to the Sainsbury store which is located on the
south side of the building. In order to provide adequate delivery facilities to
the extended store, the service yard is proposed to be replaced to the south
west of the existing building in an area which is currently used for storage
and distribution, utilized as part of the Dairy Crest operation with buildings
and hard surfacing and shielded from the residential development by land levels
and an intervening piece of open space upon which there is substantial natural
growth. The proposal is to excavate and level the land to provide an
alternative service area but in order to access the service area
For
security and operational reasons this also entails the diversion of
However,
delivery vehicles are considerably higher than the 2 metres retaining walls and
steps would need to be taken by way of the inclusion of an acoustic fence along
the north and west sides of the yard to ensure noise impacts are kept to a
minimum so as not to disturb neighbouring properties by service vehicles
manoeuvering in and out of the service yard. In addition, in the event that
planning permission is given, it would be necessary to control the hours of
deliveries with the interest of the local residents in mind. These issues can
be adequately covered by conditions attached to any permission granted,
requiring details of acoustic fencing to be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.
6.15
Parking Deck
The
parking deck is proposed to be located to the north of the car park with
overall dimensions of 73 metres by 32 metres and to be accessed by a single
ramp located in a north eastern extent onto the small car park on the right of
the access into the site, close to the junction of Sylvan Drive with Foxes
Road. The deck runs with the contours of the car park at an overall height of
4.5 metres to its railing around the top there is a clearance beneath of 2.5
metres and therefore, effectively sterilizes a comparatively large area of the
car park from access by higher vehicles such as the bus which visits and other
commercial type vehicles. Having said that it still allows the passage of
vehicles of a greater height through to the northern part of the car park but
it does mean that those vehicles would need to turn and exit the site by the main
route through the car park. Clearly this is the reason for the chosen position
since if the deck were to be sited further away from the northern boundary a
larger area of car park would be sterilised.
The
deck incorporates lifts and stairs in its south western corner, the closest
point to the entry and exit from the store. Deck level is approximately 3.5
metres above the car park and this reinforced concrete structure is proposed to
be clad in materials similar to that of the store, i.e. white coloured metal
cladding with perforated mesh panels and metal ballustrading for safety around
the periphery of the car park. No details of lighting have been submitted and
clearly with a raised deck, raised lighting would also be necessary. However,
it is proposed to control strictly the hours of operation the deck is used,
such that lighting will not be so necessary. During the summer months the store
will be closed after dusk but during the winter months it remains operational
after dark, however the deck would not be open to new access after a certain
time and therefore lighting will also be controllable. It would, however, be
necessary to impose conditions to enable the proper accessing and lighting
controls to be imposed and to be operational by the management of the store to
minimise light pollution and, in addition, the scheme of lighting would need to
be submitted with such a scheme minimising the amount of spill lighting in
order to prevent light pollution. It will also be necessary to impose
conditions to require a means of security for this area such that it did not
enable its inappropriate use especially out of hours.
7. Conclusion
and Justification for Recommendation
7.1
Essentially this application seeks to enlarge an existing retail outlet which
is shown to be within the town centre boundary and the recent retail study
shows there to be sufficient capacity to support the additional retail
floorspace proposed and accordingly it is felt, that in principle, the
development is consistent with policy. There are however issues which will need
careful consideration regarding conditions attached to any permission regarding
lighting, hours of delivery, landscaping, including off site planting in
mitigation for the impact of development and so far as the service yard is
concerned additional conditions to require the installation of acoustic fencing
to reduce noise impacts to nearby residential properties.
However, the overriding determining factor
in considering this application must be the implications of highways and
traffic and the resultant impact on the existing and overloaded highway network
in the vicinity. The Traffic Impact Assessment accompanying the application
claims that minimal impact will result at the controlled junction of Hunnycross
with Hunnyhill. The Council’s Highway and Traffic Engineers consider any
significant increase in vehicular use of this junction is likely to result in
significant traffic difficulties and further congestion in the near vicinity.
The added complications of other impending developments in the vicinity would,
cumulatively, gridlock these junctions at times as exacerbating traffic
difficulties in
7.2 The
Environment Agency originally considered that a Flood Risk Assessment should
accompany the proposals and without such information recommended refusal. However,
upon further consideration are prepared to accept the development subject to
conditions requiring full details of how surface water run off will be dealt
with before work starts. An assessment of the value of the trees proposed to be
lost by the extension of the store and the extension of
8. Recommendation
8.1
Approval. (Subject to a S.106 Agreement to require the
contribution of £100,000 towards highway and transport initiatives in the
locality and to ensure the adoption of the access road.)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The development hereby permitted shall be
begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
No development shall take place until
details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external
surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The existing building and the extension
hereby permitted shall have a net sales floor space of not more than 4,500 sq
metres. Not more than 30% of that floor space shall be used for the sale of
durable goods, defined as books, clothing and footwear, electrical items,
audio visual equipment, soft furnishings and textiles, hardware and
recreational goods unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written
consent to any variation. Reason: To maintain control over
the level of floorspace available for the sale of all goods and to comply
with Policy R1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
No deliveries shall be taken at or
dispatched from the site outside the hours of: 0700 to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays 0800 to 1300 hours Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or
Public Holidays Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential
property and to comply with policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Prior to the car parking deck being
brought into use a management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The management plan shall include details of
operation including hours of operation and controls on entry and
comprehensive details of the lighting of the deck including hours of lighting
and technical details of how light spillage shall be minimised. Thereafter
the management plan and lighting scheme shall be implemented and maintained
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason : In the
interests of the amenities of the area and of the neighbouring properties in particular
and to comply with Policy |
|
6 |
Prior to the commencement of development
details of off site landscaping in mitigation for the loss of trees at the
site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The
agreed scheme of mitigation shall be implemented prior to the extension of
the store hereby approved being brought into use. the scheme shall include
measures for maintenance of a period of five years and any trees or shrubs
planted shall be replaced with examples of similar species and maturity and
in such numbers as required by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to
comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
No development shall take place until
details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment
to be erected around the proposed service yard. The boundary treatment shall be completed
[before the use hereby permitted is commenced/before the building(s) hereby
permitted (is/are) occupied/in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing
with the Local Planning Authority].
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the
interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with
policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Prior to the store extension hereby
approved being brought into use Reason: To ensure adequate access for pedestrians and
disabled persons and to comply with Policies D12 (Access for People with
Disabilities) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
No customers shall be permitted on the
premises outside the following times: 0800 to 2200 Mondays to Saturdays 1000 to 1600 Sundays and on Bank or Public Holidays No variation to the hours shall be
permitted other than with the prior written consent of the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: To protect
the amenities of nearby residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No development shall take place until
drainage details, incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an
assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development
have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
thereafter the scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the
approved details before the premises are brought into use. Reason: To ensure that surface water run off is satisfactorily
accommodated and to comply with Policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to
Flooding) and G7 (Development on |
|
11 |
No deliveries or dispatches from the premises
shall take place outside the hours of 07.00 to 23.00 Mondays to Saturdays or
outside the hours of 08.00 to 23.00 on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular
sleep disturbance, from noise emissions from the premises and to comply with
Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
The developer shall afford access at all
reasonable times to any archaeologists nominated by the Local Planning
Authority and shall allow them to observe all groundwork and to record
[items/features] of archaeological significance and finds. Notification of the opening up and
information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site shall be given
in writing to the address below (or to any alternative address notified to
the developer by the Local Planning Authority) not less than 14 days before
the commencement of any work: County Archaeological Centre Carisbrooke PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to
ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and
to comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10
(Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
13 |
No trees within the site, the subject of
this permission, shown on the approved plans for removal shall be felled
until examined for the presence of bats and their roosts. Should bats, evidence
of bats or the roosts be found, the felling of that tree shall only be
undertaken in accordance with a scheme and timetable agreed in advance with
the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the ecological value of the
habitat and in accordance with Policy C8, C9 and C10 of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
14 |
No trees within the site, the subject of
this permission, shown on the approved plans for the removal shall be felled
until examined for the presence of nesting birds. Should evidence of active
birds nests (including nests under construction, eggs or dependant young) be
found, the felling of that tree, shall not only be undertaken in accordance
with a scheme and timetable agreed in advance with the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: In the interests of the ecological value of the
habitat and in accordance with Policies C8, C9 and C10 of the IW Unitary
Development. |
|
15 |
Prior to the commencement of the development
hereby approved a scheme for the provision of an acoustic fence abutting the
site of the service yard shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and completed
prior to the service yard being brought into use. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining
residential property and in accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
02 |
Reference Number: P/00233/07 -
TCP/22738/G Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin Central Registration Date: Officer:
Miss S Wilkinson Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Park Resorts Group Ltd. Change of use of land for siting of 12
holiday lodge caravans (revised scheme) Land at The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local Member requests the application be determined by the
Planning Committee for the following reasons:-
Proposal would still result in the loss of an area of open
space which provides an important buffer zone between the
1. Details of Application
1.1 The proposed development is for the
change of use of the land currently used as open amenity space for the siting
of twelve holiday lodges.
1.2 The site is a parcel of land within the
allocated holiday site of
1.3 The proposal seeks consent for wooden
lodge style units to move away from the existing caravan development on site,
improving the quality, variety and style of accommodation available.
1.4 The proposed lodges provide 2 and 3
bedroom accommodation within the same footprint and designed units.
2. Location
and Site Characteristics
2.1 The current holiday park is accessed off
2.2 The site of the proposed development is
on the northern side of
2.3 The site slopes very slightly in an
easterly direction with two plateaus.
One area is currently occupied by tennis courts with the second plateau
providing open recreational space.
2.4 The boundary to the site is a mix of
hedgerow, fencing and some dense mature tree coverage.
2.5 The site has residential development on
three sides (east, south and west) with properties accessed off Lower Hyde
Estate and the approved development to the rear of the Lidl’s supermarket
building.
3. Relevant
History
3.1 P/01774/06 – TCP/22738/F: an application
for change of use of the land for siting of 15 holiday lodge caravans was
refused October 2006.
4. Development
Plan Policy
4.1 The following strategic policies within
the Unitary Development Plan are applicable:
·
S4 Countryside
·
S6 All development will be expected to be of a high standard
of design
4.2 The following Unitary Development Plan
policies are applicable:
·
G4 General Locational Criteria for Development
·
G5 Development Outside Defined Settlements
·
D1 Standards of Design
·
T3 Criteria for the Development of
·
T6 Permanent Accommodation Sites (Other than Hotels)
·
TR6 Cycling and Walking
·
·
TR16 Parking Policies and Guidelines
5. Consultee
and Third Party Comments
5.1
Internal Consultees
·
The Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Southern Water confirms that they have no comments on the
application.
5.3 Others
·
Local Member, Councillor David Pugh, comments as follows:
o
After considering this most recent application, I am of the view that
this revised proposal would still “result in the loss of an area of open space
which provides an important buffer zone between the holiday park and
neighbouring residential properties”, which was outlined in the reasons for
refusal of the initial application.
o
Whilst a buffer zone is proposed, I am minded to agree with
the local residents that this is not sufficient – particularly as the reasons
for refusal refer to the whole of this existing open space as a buffer zone
between the existing park. The proposal
would significantly reduce the buffer zone and bring the proposed chalets
unnecessarily close to the residential properties, and result in loss of
amenity to the residents. As such, I
believe that “consequently the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the
amenities currently enjoyed by existing residents and as such is contrary to
policies G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing
Uses) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan.”
·
Ten letters of objection have been received from local
residents. The contents of which can be
summarised as follows:-
o
Loss of play area and open space
o
Maintenance of
surrounding land
o
Maintenance of road
o
Unregulated holiday occupancy could lead to permanent
accommodation site
o
Noise/disturbance
o
Amendment does not overcome reasons for refusal of previous
application
o
Impact of outside music
o
Houses would be surrounded by holiday homes
o
Planting would reduce natural light
6. Evaluation
6.1
The main issues relating to this
application are:
·
Previous reason for refusal
·
Impact on neighbouring properties
·
Highways
6.2
Previous Reasons for Refusal
As
detailed in Section 3 of this report an application for a similar development
on this site was refused in 2006 for the following reason:
The proposed change of use would result in the loss of an area of open
space, which provides an important buffer zone between the
It
is considered that the placing of a landscape buffer area between the proposed
holiday chalets and the residential properties would distance the development
and reduce the impact on neighbouring residential properties.
6.3 The
application reflects a distance of between 23 metres and 38 metres between the
chalets on the southern boundary of the site to the residential properties of
Lower Hyde Estate. This distance
combined with the sound barrier that this landscaped area would provide is
considered to overcome the previous reason for refusal.
6.4 Although
the reason related to the importance of the open space as a buffer area it was not
considered that the loss of the open space in principle would impact on the
successful running of the holiday park as this is an internal issue for the
park itself and there are other areas of open space and recreation facilities
within the wider site boundary.
6.5 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
The
existing parcel of land to which the application relates is used as open green
space, recreation and contains a tennis court.
This area is unrestricted and therefore there is currently some
disturbance to the local residential properties from the holiday site. It is not considered that the application
would significantly increase this disturbance.
The chalets are proposed to be located at a greater distance away from
residential properties than the previous refused application. There would be no public access to the
landscape buffer when currently this area can be fully used by visiting
holidaymakers. Comments have been received
that other units on site see the congregation of people outside late into the
evening. This could, however, be said of
any residential use and as discussed it is considered that the landscape buffer
would provide a sound barrier as well as the park detailing that they will
manage any potential disturbance from visitors and are prepared to enforce by a
condition restricting the hours to which any music can be played outside of the
units. This condition has not been
incorporated as it was not seen as necessary by officers, however Committee may
wish to see this included if they were minded to approve the application.
6.6 Highways
The
Council’s Highway Engineer has examined the application and raises no concerns
in regard to the traffic generation of the proposed development and its impact
on the condition of the access road. He
notes that the addition of twelve units with parking has potential for twelve
extra cars, which in turn would be an increase of only 2.7% which should not be
considered a material increase.
Therefore, conditions have been applied in relation to highway safety
and pedestrian access.
7. Conclusion
and Justification for Recommendation
7.1
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations
referred to in this report it is considered that the application has overcome
previous reasons for refusal and therefore is now acceptable.
8. Recommendation
Conditional
permission.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The development hereby permitted shall be
begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply
with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
None of the chalets hereby approved shall
be used other than as holiday accommodation and no occupant shall use any of
the units hereby approved as a sole or main residence. Reason: To ensure
that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with policies
T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No development shall take place until
details of the materials and colour treatment to be used in the construction
of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order
revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the exterior
of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be painted or coloured other
than as expressly authorised by this permission. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with
policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
No development shall take place until there
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing
trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together
with measures for their protection in the course of development. Reason: To ensure
the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy
D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan |
|
6 |
All hard and soft landscape works shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the
occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme
agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests
of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with policy D3
(Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
A landscape management plan, including
long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules
for all landscape areas, other than privately owned, domestic gardens, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is
the sooner. The landscape management
plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure
long-term maintenance of the landscaping of the [site/ development] and to
comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
A comprehensive occupancy register of the
chalets hereby approved shall be maintained to include names and home
addresses of all occupants and said register shall be made available to the
Local Planning Authority with a minimum of 48 hours notice. Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday
purposes and to comply with policy T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday
Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Steps, including the installation and use
of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be taken to
prevent material being deposited on the highway as a result of any operation
on the site. Any deposit of material
from the site on the highway shall be removed as soon as practicable by the
site operator. Reason: In the
interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust from getting on the
highway and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No building shall be occupied until the
means of access thereto for pedestrians has been constructed in accordance
with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate
safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain
access to the site and to comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
03 |
Reference Number: P/00172/07 - TCPL/18162/M Joint Report with P/00173/07 – LBC/18162/L Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North East Registration Date: Officer:
Mr C Hougham Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Cornelia Care Homes Alterations; ground & 1st floor extensions to form 9
additional en-suite bedrooms, en-suite facilities for existing bedrooms,
extend dining room, laundry room & staff room; extend garden area 93 George Street, Ryde,
Isle Of Wight, PO332JE These applications are recommended for
Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Officers intended to deal with this application under the
delegated procedure. However, the applicants and agent requested a meeting involving
the Chairman of the Planning Committee. The meeting was also attended by the
Development Control Manager and the Case Officer. Council representatives were
not deflected from their view that this was an inappropriate form of
development but following a request from the applicant’s agent the Chairman
agreed that the application should be determined by the Committee.
1. Details
of Application
1.1 Applications
seek planning permission and listed building consent.
1.2 Proposed
development involves partial demolition of later additions and substantial
internal/external alterations and extensions to the building to increase and
improve the level of accommodation resulting in a total of 29 residents’ rooms.
1.3 Demolition,
alterations and extensions to the premises are exclusively at the rear of the
building.
·
Demolition
involves the removal of various later poorly designed elements but does include
part of the original building.
·
Extensive
internal alterations.
·
Relatively
modest two storey rear extension adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.
·
Substantial
addition to an existing single storey addition along the northern boundary of
the site which will involve the provision of a first floor and an additional
single storey element towards the eastern (rear) boundary of the site.
1.4 Overall result of these
alterations/extensions, if approved, would be the creation of nine additional
en suite bedrooms; provision of new en suite facilities for existing rooms;
provision of extended dining room and laundry, a staff room and an extended
garden area by utilising land which presently forms part of the rear garden of
the neighbouring property (No. 95).
1.5 Applicant's agent has produced a
relatively detailed design and access statement in support of the proposed
development which, in my view, provides an accurate assessment of the present
situation and the overall proposals in terms of the background, location, the
existing building and the proposed development. The remainder of the statement
is devoted to a justification for the proposed development and addressing the
specific design issues relevant to the proposal, the listed status of the
building and its location within a designated Conservation Area.
1.6 Agent claims that his clients need to
substantially improve the existing facilities for residents to meet current
standard requirements and because "the existing home is really too small
to be viable in the long term." He fears
that if this project does not proceed that the care home is likely to close. He
comments:
“.......options
available for extending the size of the home are extremely limited due to the
relatively small site area and the need to respect the
This will be
"compensated" by inclusion of part of the neighbour’s garden within
the curtilage of the site as an extended garden.”
1.7 In terms of the design issues the agent's
argument on behalf of his client can be summarised in the following terms:
·
Overarching
objective is to minimise impact of development on the listed building and local
amenities.
·
Proposed
alterations/extension are not visible from
·
From a
contextual aspect he identifies a number of large(er) buildings in the
vicinity; arguing that this is justification for supporting a scheme which is
larger than would normally be permitted for residential use.
·
Believes
that there will be no significant impact on the current level of
privacy/amenity enjoyed by owners/occupiers of neighbouring properties.
1.8 Concluding part of the Design and Access
Statement focuses on the relevant planning policy (U9), sustainability and
consultations. Statement is supported with photographic evidence focusing on
the rear of the building.
1.9 Following the meeting with the Chairman
the applicant’s agent has been advised to provide any supporting information
not already included in the statement accompanying the application.
2. Location
and Site Characteristics
2.1 Premises
is situated on the eastern side of
2.1 This is an area of mixed development on the
edge of the town centre. the building is Listed and within the designated
Conservation Area. The listing indicates that the building was constructed in
circa 1830.
3. Relevant
History
3.1 Most
recent submissions are as follows:
·
Alterations
and extensions to provide six additional bedrooms in an extension at the rear
of the property approved in June 1991.
·
Extension
as first floor level to form additional bedroom approved in February 1996.
3.2 There have been discussions and
pre-submission negotiations at various times where the applicants (or their
agents) have been consistently advised that they were unlikely to obtain
planning permission (and Listed Building Consent) for any further substantial
alterations and/or extensions to this listed property.
4. Development
Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPS1
PPS3
PPG13
PPG15
4.2 The property is within the development
envelope as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The property
is a Grade II Listed Building and is located within the designated Conservation
Area. Relevant policies of the UDP are as follows:
|
S1 |
Siting of new
development |
|
S2 |
Siting of new
development |
|
S5 |
Proposal of overall
benefit to |
|
S6 |
Design |
|
S10 |
Designated areas |
|
G4 |
General Locational
Criteria of Development |
|
D1 |
Standards of Design |
|
D2 |
Standards for
Development within the Site |
|
D11 |
Crime and Design |
|
D12 |
Access |
|
D14 |
Light Spillage |
|
B1 |
Alterations and Extensions
to Listed Buildings |
|
B6 |
Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas |
|
H6 |
High Density
Residential Development |
|
H7 |
Extension and
Alteration of Existing Properties |
|
H11 |
Houses in Multiple
Occupation |
|
TR3 |
Locating Development to
Minimise the Need to Travel |
|
TR7 |
Highway Considerations
for New Development |
|
U9 |
Residential Care and
Nursing Home Accommodation |
5. Consultee
and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
As
part of our standard procedure when dealing with this type of application the
Commission Social Care Inspection (SCI) (Isle of Wight Area Office) and the
Director of Social Services. Following a meeting with the agent and his clients
which was attended by a representative of the Community Services Directorate we
have now obtained a consultative response from the latter which offers
background information which can be summarised in the following terms.
·
Draft
Strategy identifies the need to develop a broader range of services to enable
people to live in their own homes for longer. Over 80% of people aged over 65
plus own their homes and the intention is to develop supported accommodation
options that reflect this ten year profile and enable older people to remain
home owners even if they have care needs.
·
Overall
there is a need to reduce the total number of units over the next five year
period although there is an intention to increase the proportion of residential
provision that is available to support older people with mental health needs,
particularly dementia…….. ….. It is
not clear whether the application is intended to respond to this identified
need.
Concluding remarks relate to improvements
to the accommodation offering the following advice.
There
is a Government initiative to improve dignity in care for older people in
institutional settings. A capital grant is being made available to local
authorities this year to support improvements to residential and nursing homes
in this respect. We are waiting learn if IWC has been successful in its bid
…………..intended to support improvements across over 30 residential and nursing
homes on the Island.
…..plans
for 93 George Street were welcomed in respect of the recognition of the
existing accommodation needs to be improved and create a better environment for
residents – particularly those who are more dependant.
There
is also support for the need to improve and meet Commission for Social Care
Improvements regulations and recommendations – particularly in respect of
en-suite accommodation and room sizes.
Area Highway Engineer raises no objections to the
proposed development.
Conservation and Design
Team have made detailed observations on the proposed development which can be
summarised in the following terms:
·
Scale of development conflicts with the
·
Design and Access Statement does not fulfill the
requirements in terms of examining the impact that it will have on the historic
character of the building.
·
Notwithstanding previous alterations and extensions the
historic fabric of the building will be adversely affected by the proposed
development.
·
Partial removal of existing bay window in west (rear) facing
elevation is again contrary to Policy B1.
·
Failure to justify why the necessary work is desirable or
necessary as any kind of financial justification is not sufficient; does not
secure the longevity of architectural/historic asset rather than lengthen the
time it is used as a care home.
Conclusion is that the
proposed development is in conflict with national policy (PPG15) and local
planning policies B1 and B2 and permission/consent should be refused.
5.2 External Consultees
None.
5.3 Others
·
Island Watch object to application on grounds that the existing
extension is already excessively larger in relation to the original structure
and the extra floor would result in extension totally dominating the listed
building, contrary to requirements of PPG15/
·
Three letters were received from owners/occupiers of
neighbouring properties objecting to the proposal on grounds which can be
summarised as follows:
o
Existing extension already intrusive.
o
Concern over whether existing services would cope with
additional demand. There have already been incidents when drainage system has
overflowed.
o
Such a large extension not appropriate in this area.
o
Existing amenity area not very large.
o
Intrusive development adversely impacting on outlook from
adjacent properties.
o
Not right place for more elderly people with disturbance
from the Foyer.
·
E-mail received via Newport Help Centre providing comments
which appear to be made in support of proposal, although there is no indication
of nature of persons interested in this property. In general, they feel that
objection on grounds of impact on Conservation Area is not justified,
particularly given other development which has taken place in the area,
including the Foyer building and the loss of buildings on the Sommerfield site.
They also comment that frontage of this building is not being altered and that
the residential home is one of the best.
6. Evaluation
6.1 Main issues in
considering this proposal is to balance the accepted need on the
·
Premises is an established care home.
·
Site is within the development boundary in a sustainable location,
close to the town centre and public transport facilities.
·
This is a mixed use area close to the town centre although
the predominant use on the eastern side of the upper section of
·
This is a listed building within a designated Conservation
Area (see below).
6.2 Essentially,
this means that in terms of broad principle there is no objection to further
development in the locality and therefore these applications need to be judged
against a background of the overarching policy/guidance contained in PPG15 and
the relevant strategic policies and, in detailed terms, the relevant local
planning policies which are largely criteria based. (see Development Plan
Policy)
6.3 In terms of
the background into this case (see relevant history).
·
Planning permission and listed building consent was given
for substantial alterations and extensions to the rear of this Listed Building
over a period of about fifteen or so years ago, which included the sizeable
single storey extension which sits on the northern boundary of the site.
Development of national/strategic and local planning policies since that time
would suggest that if these applications came forward today they would be
unlikely to be approved.
·
In more recent times enquiries about further development on
this site have been handled in a consistent manner and rejected.
6.4 Accommodation
which is developed to meet the needs of elderly persons or those requiring
mental care will have more stringent design and site requirement than normal
housing accommodation. In particular, there is a need to ensure effective
operation of the facilities and that access to the wider community and its
facilities is made as practical and easy as possible. Policy U9 (Residential Care
and Nursing Home Accommodation) is a criteria based policy which deals with new
or extensions to elderly persons accommodation, nursing homes and mental care
homes. This proposal largely satisfies the various criteria because of its
sustainable location, but fails to satisfy the criteria that states that they
(i.e. the new home or extension to the home) are of "a size which can be
assimilated into the locality" for the reasons set out below.
6.5 Notwithstanding
the above, the submitted scheme fails on a number of grounds:
·
Serious overdevelopment of the site in terms of overall
footprint and, more importantly, scale, mass and height of the extended
building in its submitted form.
·
Extension and alterations have a serious detrimental effect on
the listed building and the failure of the applicants agent to provide an
adequate degree of justification as required by PPG15, relying instead on a
business case argument about viability and threatened closure if permission is
not granted.
·
Extensions/alterations do not retain original fabric and
features and are not in accordance with the period, style, scale and detail of
the building.
·
Potential adverse effect on the current level of
privacy/amenity currently enjoyed by owners/occupiers of neighbouring
properties.
·
Loss of reasonably mature trees and shrubs close to the rear
boundary of the site, absence of a tree report and any meaningful landscaping
proposals and/or boundary treatment.
6.6 It is
considered that the proposals conflict with large elements of the criteria
based policies G4, D1, D2 and B1 as well as conflicting with policy B6.
Furthermore, it is apparent that the (extended) building is of a size which
cannot be ‘assimilated into the locality’, which means the application
conflicts with Policy U9 (Residential Care and Nursing Home Accommodation)
6.7 There is no
doubt that the premises would benefit from what could be loosely described as a
"makeover" by the removal of poorly designed additions/extensions in
combination with extensive alterations to the external fabric of the original
building, particularly to the rear, to restore the building back to something
approaching its original condition.
This, of course, would result in a reduction in the overall level of
accommodation which would conflict with the applicants/agents aspirations for
the business. Consequently, despite representations by the applicants agent
based on the financial viability of the home and the need to maintain/improve
this type of (residential) accommodation there is no basis for any negotiations
and therefore both applications should be refused permission/consent without
any further delay.
6.8 PPG15
(Planning and the Historic Environment) when discussing use of listed buildings
states:
Generally the best way of securing the up keep of historic buildings
and areas is to keep them in active use. For the great majority this must mean
economically viable uses if they are to survive, and new and even continuing,
uses will often necessitate some degree of adaptation.
It requires balancing the economic viability of possible
uses against the effect of any changes they entail in the special architectural
and historic interest to the building or area in question. In principle the aim
should be to identify the optimum viable use that is compatible with the
fabric, interior and setting of the historic building. This may not necessarily
be the most profitable use if that would entail more destructive alterations
than other viable uses.
6.9 The above adequately outlines the criteria,
encapsulated in our own local planning policies, in terms of alterations and
extensions to listed buildings and in this particular case potentially further
unsympathetic alterations/extensions in terms of scale and appearance when
compared with the original building or the former dwellinghouse at the time
that it would have been listed. This aspect has to be combined with the various
considerations relating to over development of the site and the likely impact
on the current level of amenity enjoyed by owner/occupiers of neighbouring and
nearby properties. While it is accepted that the level of overlooking from
upper floor level windows can be minimised and there is no specific objection
from the owners/occupier of the property immediately to the south of the site,
who have agreed to sell part of their garden to the applicant to increase the
amenity space area for the care home, this is not sufficient to sustain a
favourable recommendation.
6.10 There is
unlikely to be a negotiated solution to this matter that will meet with the
objectives and aims of planning and listed building control and the aspirations
of the care home proprietor who needs to comply with modern regulations and
maintain a viable business.
6.11 Applicant and
agent have both been advised that officers are more than prepared to consider
appropriate alterations/improvements to the existing home; possible alternative
uses for the property; the possibility of relocating the business to another
property which can provide increased and better accommodation for the residence
and/or the possibility of annexed accommodation in connection with the existing
home.
7. Conclusion
and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 By
way of a conclusion it is important to note that the existing (listed) building
in terms of the main façade onto George Street makes a positive contribution to
the character and appearance of the area and it is also recognised that if the
premises is to continue as a care home that its future viability as a business
should guarantee a high quality level of maintenance which will ensure that
this contribution will continue in future years.
7.2 However,
it has already been outlined above that these factors cannot outweigh the fact
that the building has already been over extended with unsympathetic alterations
and additions in the last 10/15 years or more and that this scheme, although
providing improved internal accommodation, will only exacerbate the situation,
leading to a serious overdevelopment of the site and adversely affecting the
general amenities of the area and specifically the owner/occupiers of
neighbouring and nearby properties. In lay terms the view is taken that the
building in combination with the limited curtilage and the local pattern of
development is no longer fit for purpose.
8. Recommendation
8.1
First recommendation (P/00172/07)
Refuse
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The proposals would represent an
over-development of this site resulting in a building of substantial scale and
footprint which in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to
overlooking, loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment
of prospective occupants of this development and neighbouring properties as
well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of the development
in the surrounding area and is contrary to Policy S6 (To Be of A High
Standard of Design), Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D2 (Standards for
Development within the Site) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The proposal by reason of its position,
size, design and external appearance, would be overdevelopment of the site
and an intrusive development, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern
of development in the locality as well as having a serious and adverse effect
on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring property, and would be
contrary to Policy S6 (To Be Of A High Standard Of Design), Policy D1
(Standards of Design) and D2 (Standards for Development within the Site) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
3 |
The proposed rear extension, by reason of
its excessive depth and position close to the boundaries of the site, would
be an intrusive and unneighbourly addition, out of scale and character with
this and surrounding dwellings, as well as having a serious and adverse
effect on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring property causing
loss of light and outlook, and would be contrary to Policy S6 (Be of A High
Standard of Design) and Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and H7 (Extension
and Alteration of Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The information accompanying this application
is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of a Tree Report prepared by
a competent person, landscaping and boundary treatment so that the Local
Planning Authority is able to consider fully the effects of the proposal on
existing and prospective occupants of the care home and neighbouring
properties and in the absence of further details it is considered that the
proposal may have an adverse effect on the existing vegetation on the site
while also making inadequate provision for (additional) landscaping and
boundary treatment which would have a detrimental effect on the character and
amenity of the locality and would be contrary to Policies S6 (To be of a High
Standard of Design), D2 (Standards for Development within the Site) and D3
(Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
04 |
Reference Number: P/00173/07 -
LBC/18162/L Joint Report with P/00172/07 – TCPL/18162/M Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde North East Registration Date: 22/01/2007
- Listed Building Consent Officer:
Mr C Hougham Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Cornelia Care Homes LBC for alterations; ground & 1st
floor extensions to form 9 additional en-suite bedrooms, en-suite facilities
for existing bedrooms, extend dining room, laundry room and staff room;
extend garden area 93 George Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332JE These applications are recommended for
Refusal |
RECOMMENDATION
8.2 Second
recommendation (P/00173/07)
Refuse
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
UR1 |
The proposal by reason
of its position, size, design and external appearance would be an intrusive
development, out of keeping with the existing building, out of scale and
character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality,
contrary to Policy S6 (To be of a High Standard of Design) and D1 (Standards
of Design) and would also compromise the character and quality of the Listed
Building contrary to S10 (If it will Conserve or Enhance the Features of
Special Character of these Areas) and Policies B1 (Alterations and Extensions
to Listed Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
05 |
Reference Number: P/00250/07 -
TCP/12801/E Parish/Name: Registration Date: 20/02/2007
- Full Planning Permission Officer:
Mr S Wiltshire Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: FW Developments (IW) Ltd Single/3 storey block of 2 flats,
vehicular access & parking (revised scheme) land between 82/84 and, The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Local Member has requested that this application is
referred to the Development Control Committee for consideration since she is of
the opinion that the proposed development would adversely affect light into
neighbouring properties and also provides inadequate off-street car parking.
1. Details
of Application
1.1 This is an application for full planning permission
for the erection of a detached 3 storey building comprising 2 flats on land
between
1.2 The submitted plans show a three storey
building with gabled roof fronting onto
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The application site comprises a
rectangular strip of land 35.5 metres deep within a width of 7.0 metres
situated between
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/02217/05 - Demolition of stores, 3
storey building to provide 3 flats, refused – 13.12.2005 for reasons which can
be summarised as follows:
·
Size, scale and massing of building would have overbearing
impact and would result in loss of light and outlook to windows in side of
adjacent properties.
·
Proposal would result in overlooking and loss if privacy to
No. 86 Mill Hill Road.
·
Inadequate and conflicting information in respect of
alterations to access.
3.2 P/03066/06 – Demolition of stores, 3
storey building to provide 2 flats, withdraw
4. Development Plan Policy
National Policy Guidance
4.1 Planning
Policy Statement 1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” emphasises the need
for good design to ensure attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places,
contributing positively to making places better for people. Good design should:
·
Be integrated into the existing urban form and natural built
environment.
·
Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate
development.
·
Respond to local context and create and enforce local
distinctiveness.
·
Be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and
appropriate landscaping.
4.2 Planning
Policy Statement 3: “Housing” supports the efficient use of land within
development envelopes, particularly brownfield sites. It stresses the
importance of achieving high quality housing, as well as the need for a mix of
housing in suitable and accessible locations, which offer a good range of
community facilities. New housing development should be well integrated with
and complimentary of neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally
in terms of scale, density, layout and access.
4.3 The Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan (UDP) identifies the application site as being within the Development
Envelope boundary for
4.4 The
relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as
follows:
·
S1 – Siting of new
development
·
S6 – Be of a high standard
of design
·
S7 – Provision of new
housing
·
D1 - Standards of design
·
D2 - Standards of
development within the site
·
G1 – Development envelopes
for towns and villages
·
G4 - General locational
criteria
·
H4 – Unallocated
residential development
·
H5 – Infill development
·
TR7 - Highway
considerations for new development
·
TR16 – Parking policies and
guidelines
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways Engineer – No objection, subject to the imposition
of conditions.
5.2 External Consultees
·
None
5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments
·
5.4 Third Party Representations
·
Three letters of representation have been received objecting
to the proposal on the following grounds;
·
Inadequate parking provision
·
Cramped development
·
Loss of light into adjacent property
·
Overlooking
·
Inadequate amenity space
·
Design out of keeping with the area.
6.
Evaluation
6.1 Main factors relevant to
the determination of this application are considered to be as follows:
·
Principle of development
·
Impact on amenity of neighbouring
properties
·
Design and general appearance in
streetscene
·
Access and parking
6.2 Principle of Development - The
Unitary Development Plan identifies the application site as being within the
Development Envelope for
6.3 Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers – The flats at
6.4
6.5 The proposed flats would be situated
approx. 31 metres from the rear of dwellings in
6.6 Design – The street scene
comprises a mix of 2 and 3 storey buildings, detached and semi-detached
dwellings as well as a variety of hipped roofs and front gables. The proposed 3 storey building would be
situated between a 3 and a 2 storey building.
The street slopes down towards the north-east, and the building would be
viewed as stepping down from Nos. 82/84 to No. 86. In general the plots are quite narrow, with
small gaps between the properties.
Although relatively tall and narrow it is considered that the proposed
building would be visually acceptable within the
6.7 A Design and Access Statement has been
submitted in support of the application which justifies the design solution in
terms of visually fitting in with the street scene, whilst respecting the
amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.
6.8 Highways and Parking – The proposal would lead
to the creation of 2 x 2 bedroom flats.
The application site is situated within Parking Zone 2 where 0 – 50% of
the maximum non-operational vehicle provision will be allowed on site, giving a
requirement for 2 spaces. However, it
should be noted that the application would result in a partial loss of car
parking to serve the adjacent 4 flats and this is in part replaced by the
creation of two parking spaces in front of the existing building.
6.9 The Highway Engineer has no objection to
the scheme subject to conditions relating to the height of the boundary wall
and the provision of the parking area as submitted.
6.10 The proposal provides 4 spaces to serve 6
flats in a zone 2 location. Having
assessed a previous scheme providing 6 spaces along the site frontage it was
considered that this would result in an unbroken mass of car parking and hard
landscaping which would be visually detrimental to the street scene, and not
allow satisfactory pedestrian access to the development. In addition, it is noted that a development
of 10 flats currently under construction at
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations set
out in this report, it is considered that the development of the site for residential
purposes is acceptable in principle. The
siting and design of the proposed building would be visually acceptable within
the street scene and the stepping down of the building to the rear would have
an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring properties. The Highways Engineer has no objection to the
development and it is considered that a refusal on a lack of off-street parking
provision could not be sustained at appeal, given the Zone 2 location,
proximity to the Town Centre, availability of on-street parking and the recent
Inspector’s appeal decision. On this
basis the application has been recommended for conditional approval.
8. Recommendations
8.1 Conditional permission.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The development hereby permitted shall be
begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply
with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
No development shall take place until
samples of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces
of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
All materials excavated as a result of the
general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or
the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area
identified in red on the submitted plans.
The material shall be removed from site prior to occupation of the
dwelling hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area in general and the neighbouring residential properties, and to comply
with Policy D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
4 |
No development shall take place until
full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be
carried out as approved. These details
shall include; means of enclosure; hard surfacing materials; and areas for
soft landscaping. Reason: To ensure
the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy
D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
All hard and soft landscape works shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the
occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme
agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with
policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The first floor kitchen window proposed
in the south-eastern side elevation of the development hereby approved shall
be a top hung light construction and fitted with obscure glass with a glass
panel which has been rendered obscure as part of its manufacturing process to
Pilkington glass classification 5 (or equivalent of glass supplied by an alternative
manufacturer) and shall be retained to this specification. Reason: In the interests of the
privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
Notwithstanding the provisions of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any
Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no
addition or alteration to the roof of the dwelling hereby approved (including
the addition of windows) shall be made. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and
neighbouring occupiers, and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of design) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
The development shall brought into use
until the car parking areas shown on the approved drawing number 05-033-01
revision B have been provided and thereafter retained for the use by
occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approve. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and
to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway considerations) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
No part of any boundary wall or fence
erected on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or
alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at anytime be permitted to
be more than 1.0 metres above the level of the carriageway and the resultant
visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and
to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway considerations) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
06 |
Reference Number: P/00290/07 -
TCP/25830/C Parish/Name: Nettlestone & Seaview - Ward/Name:
Seaview & Nettlestone Registration Date: 31/01/2007
- Full Planning Permission Officer:
Mr C Hougham Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Alterations and change of use of
restaurant to Ryde Carnival Centre Westridge Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, Isle
Of Wight, PO331QS The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This application has been submitted by the Authority and
is a departure from the approved development plan. Procedure requires that the application
is determined by elected Members instead of under our delegated procedure.
1. Details of Application
1.1 Alterations
and improvements to part of the building previously used as a restaurant and
last used as a nightclub to provide office accommodation for the Carnival
Centre in addition to a small external compound to the side/rear of the
building.
1.2 The
application is supported by a detailed and lengthy design and access statement
which goes well beyond what would be reasonably required as supporting
documentation with a planning application of this nature. However, it
identifies the location of the site and alleges that based on the present
allocation in the UDP the use of this part of the building as a Carnival Centre
should be acceptable. Statement itemizes all the external/internal alterations
in connection with the change of use and also itemises a ‘breakdown’ of the
different users that will make up the Carnival Centre.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 Westridge
Centre is a relatively modern building situated off a purpose built access road
to the northeast of the Tescos store on the outskirts of Ryde off
2.2 Application
relates to part of the premises previously used as a restaurant and more recently
as a nightclub.
3. Relevant
History
3.1 None relevant to this particular
submission.
4. Development
Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPS1
|
G4 |
General Locational Criteria of
Development |
|
D1 |
Standards of Design |
|
D2 |
Standards for Development within the Site |
|
E4 |
Mixed Uses to Promote Employment
Development |
|
T2 |
Tourism-Related Development (other than
accommodation) |
|
TR7 |
Highway Considerations for New
Development |
|
TR16 |
Parking Policies and Guidelines |
5. Consultee
and Third Party Comments
5.1
Others
·
There
are number of letters of support for the application.
6. Evaluation
6.1 There is no sustainable objection to either the change of use or the
alterations/improvements to the building including the provision of a small
external compound.
6.2 Members
should appreciate that this is a departure from the approved development plan
as in the Unitary Development Plan the site is allocated for Tourist Development.
It may be argued that there is a tenuous link between this particular
designation and the proposed use but the important factor is that the use as a
Carnival Centre will not prejudice any possible tourist related future use of
this part of the premises or the remainder of the premises at this moment in
time.
6.3 This
is largely a procedural matter due to the fact that the application has been
submitted by the Council and was judged, at the time of submission, to be a
departure from the approved development plan which precipitated a consultation
with GOSE who did not respond within the requisite period.
6.4 In
this context reference should be made to the Town and Country Planning
(Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 (Circular No.
07/99). Under Annex 1, Paragraph 3(b) there is a requirement, that a Local
Planning Authority who do not propose to refuse permission, to refer any
application submitted by the same Council to the Secretary of State prior to
the grant of permission.
7. Conclusion
and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Proposal
represents opportunity to bring back into active use part of the building
within a tourist allocated site that was previously used as a restaurant/night
club. Given that previous uses themselves were not directly related to a
tourist activity and in the light of the fact that the proposal involves a
change of use which would allow reversion back to tourism/recreational use, it
is not considered inappropriate to support alternative community/educational
use in a reasonably sustainable location. In the circumstances it is
recommended that the Government Office for the South East be advised that the
Local Planning Authority is minded to approve this application subject to the
following conditions.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Approval – (subject to reference to GOSE)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The development hereby permitted shall be
begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
The materials to be used in the external
alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reason: In the interests
of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
07 |
Reference Number: P/00869/07 -
TCP/27502/C Parish/Name: Wootton - Ward/Name: Wootton Registration Date: 03/04/2007
- Full Planning Permission Officer:
Miss L Scovell Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr P Davies Construction of piled jetty, (revised
scheme) Outlook, The application is recommended for
Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local Member, Councillor Abraham, is concerned that in
view of the presence of a number of other jetties/pontoons in Wootton Creek and
the recent grant of planning permission for alterations to a nearby shingle
spit, the previous decisions to refuse planning permission for a jetty at this
site would appear to be inconsistent. He has therefore requested that the
application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration.
1. Details of Application
1.1 The application seeks permission for a
piled jetty to serve a residential dwelling.
1.2 Submitted plans show jetty having length
of approximately 17 metres comprising a series of timber piles supporting a
timber slatted decking approximately 900mm wide with handrails and a vertical
access ladder on the end of the structure. Plans also indicate that the
existing timber steps leading from the garden down to the foreshore would be repaired
or re-built. The proposed jetty would project beyond the mean high water mark.
2. Location
and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site is located on the western side
of and at mouth of Wootton Creek. The site currently comprises part of the
foreshore and curtilage to a residential property located on the western side
of Wootton Creek. The locality is relatively undeveloped at this point in the
creek, although the Fishbourne ferry terminal is located opposite the
application site on the eastern side of the creek where facilities have been
provided in connection with the ferry terminal and there are a number of other
jetties and pontoons. The
3. Relevant
History
3.1 P/00247/06 – Proposed jetty was refused
in March 2006 on the basis of its damage to inter-tidal habitats of the SSSI
and the species they support and would set a precedent for similar proposals on
adjacent sites, the cumulative impact of which would be likely to have an
adverse impact on the nature conservation value of the area.
3.2 P/01323/06 – Proposed jetty (revised
scheme) was refused in August 2006 for the same reasons as set out in 3.1
above.
3.3 P/02060/06 – Proposal for a piled jetty
was refused in October 2006 for the same reasons as set out in 3.1 above.
3.4 Members will note that there have been
three previous applications on this site and the last application at paragraph
3.3 was accompanied by a report from a Marine Biologist. However, this
information was not sufficient to outweigh previous objections. It was
considered that as there had to be no significant changes from the previous
refusals, Natural England and the Environment Agency objections still applied.
4. Development
Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable
Development seeks the effective protection of the environment.
PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and
geological diversity are conservation through the planning system. Governments’
objectives are to “promote sustainable development by ensuring biological and
geological conserved and enhanced as an integral part of social, environmental
and economic development, so that policies and decisions about the development
and use of land integrate biodiversity and geological diversity as a
consideration.”
Paragraph 1 states that
Local Planning Authority should ensure that “appropriate weight” is attached to
designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected
species; to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment.
It also states that the
aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and
geological conservation interests and that if significant harm cannot be
prevented or adequately mitigated against or compensated for then planning
permission should be refused.
With specific regard to
SSSI’s, policy states that where proposed development is on land within or
outside a SSSI and is likely to have an adverse effect on the SSSI then
planning permission should not normally be granted. It states that only in
exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of development clearly outweigh
both impact that it is likely to have on the features of the site and any broad
impacts on the national network, should permission be granted.
In terms of species
protection the policy states that planning authorities should refuse permission
where harm to the species or their habitats would result unless the need for
and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm.
4.2 In terms of Unitary Development Plan
policies the application site is located outside the development envelope of
Relevant policies of the
Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:
|
S1 |
New development will be
concentrated within existing urban areas |
|
S4 |
Countryside will be
protected from inappropriate development |
|
S6 |
Will be expected to be
of a high standard of design |
|
S10 |
Only if it will conserve
or enhance the features of special character of these areas |
|
G4 |
General Locational
Criteria |
|
D1 |
Standards of Design |
|
C8 |
Nature Conservation as
a material consideration |
|
C9 |
Sites of International
Importance for Nature Conservation |
|
C10 |
Sites of Local
Importance for Nature Conservation |
|
C12 |
Development Affecting
Trees and |
|
L8 |
Jetties, Pontoons and
Slipways |
5. Consultee
and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Councils’ Ecology Officer recommends that application is
refused on grounds of unacceptable impacts upon Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek
SSSI under advice from Natural England. He also advises on the need for the
Local Planning Authority to carry out an appropriate assessment under Section
48 of the Habitats Regulations should Members be minded to approve the
application. He also advises that in addition to planning consent the
application will also require land drainage consent from the Environment Agency
and a FEPA licence from Marine Consents and Environment Unit of DEFRA, which
will also be required to carry out an appropriate assessment. The Environment
Agency comments received in respect of earlier applications have advised that
they consider the development is likely to have a significant effect upon the
interest features of the European site and that consent from the Agency may not
be forthcoming.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Natural
6. Evaluation
6.1 The principal matter in the determination
of this application is considered to be the potential impact of the development
on the ecology of the area, which falls within a number of local, National and
European designations. Due to the biodiversity and geological conservation
designations of the site, the proposal falls to be determined in accordance
with the provisions of Section 48 of Habitat Regulations, which requires that
an appropriate assessment be carried out for the proposed development where the
authority is minded to grant permission. Additionally, a FEPA licence would be
required from the Marine Consent and Environment Unit of DEFRA and land
drainage consent would also be required from the Environment Agency. Finally,
in terms of national statutory provision, section 28g of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 requires that all reasonable steps are taken by the Local
Planning Authority to further the conservation enhancement of the SSSI. Section
28(i) of the 1981 Act places a duty on the Local Planning Authority to notify
Natural England of the date and terms of permission granted in these areas and
how it has taken account of Natural England’s consultation advice.
6.2 Members
will note that this proposal has been submitted and refused three times since 2006.
The Local Planning Authority has taken a consistent approach in line with
advice from the Environment Agency and Natural England.
6.3 In
terms of the proposed impact on the special designations of the site, concern
is raised as to the impact of development along this part of the creek and its
impact on the special features of the site which the designation seeks to
protect. There are clear statutory restrictions on development in these areas
as covered by European Legislation contained in section 48 of the Habitats
Regulation
6.4 Additionally,
under Section 28(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, development which
is considered to be contrary to policy and, subsequently upon the production of
an appropriate assessment, is considered inappropriate development likely to
have a significant effect on the designations of this site would in fact result
in a contravention of European and National legislation.
6.5 If
Members are minded to approve the application, the Local Authority have a duty,
as the competent authority, to carry out the appropriate assessment under
Section 48 of the Habitat Regulations due to the potential for precedent
setting of similar structures in the local area within the Solent and
Southampton waters SPA/Ramsar site. The Local Planning Authority would seek
advice from Natural England as to those matters which it feels are relevant to
the appropriate assessment and should the assessment conclude that there would
be an adverse impact on the European site, then under the Habitat Regulations,
planning consent could not be lawfully issued.
6.6 The
covering letter with the current submission sought to justify the proposal by
stating that there are currently 58 existing jetties within Wootton creek and in
the locality of the site therefore precedent should not be an issue in
considering the application. However, the majority of jetties and pontoon
development is located at the southern most end of the creek and not within the
immediate locality of the application site. In this respect, a consistent
approach has been adopted when dealing with this type of development within
Wootton Creek and approval granted in the past have generally involved
replacement of or upgrading of jetties. Consequently, there has been no loss of
intertidal habitat.
6.7 Similarly
the planning permission for attenuation to the shingle spit adjacent
6.8 Under
National and Local policies, the protection of specially designated areas is
considered imperative in ensuring the longevity of biodiversity and geological
conservation. Accordingly, there is a presumption against development within
these sites unless the adverse impact can be appropriately mitigated or
compensated for. Policy L8(b) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
specifically states that applications of this nature will only be approved
where they do no result in unacceptable impacts upon the ecological, geological
and archaeological value of the site. As submitted, the proposal is considered
to be likely to result in significant adverse impact in this regard and is not
of a nature that would have an overriding social, environment or economic
benefit to outweigh its negative impacts.
7. Conclusion
and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred
to in this report and to the relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan, national policy (PPS1 and PPS9) and other submissions and
comments relating to the proposal, it is considered that the proposal fails to
comply with the relevant policies and the requirements of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act resulting in an unacceptable form of development in this
location.
8. Recommendation
8.1
Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The construction and use of the proposed
jetty will cause damage to the inter-tidal habitats of the Ryde Sands and Wootton
Creek SSSI and the species they support. The proposal is therefore contrary
to policy C10 (Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The proposal would create an undesirable
precedent which would make it difficult for the Local Planning Authority to
resist further similar proposals in this area, the cumulative effect of which
would create conditions likely to adversely impact upon the area specially
designated for their natural conservation value. The proposal is therefore
contrary to policy C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature
Conservation) and C10 (Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
Bill Murphy
HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES