|
Application:
|
TCP/27077/B
|
|
Details:
|
Land south of The Chandlers, west of Seaview Road off Three Gates Road, Cowes, Isle of Wight,
Variation
of condition no. 13 on TCP/27077 which states that the industrial processes
to take place within Unit 1 shall be as laid out in the applicants' agent's
letter dated 8 September 2005 and as assessed in the Noise Impact Assessment
prepared by Chilton Acoustics Ltd dated 29 September 2005 & any addendum
to that report and no variation or intensification of that use shall take
place without prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority;
alterations to access to provide hammerhead turning area; new door and window
to Unit 3 (revised description) (readvertised application) Construction of 10
holiday units with areas for aircraft parking.
|
|
Site Visits:
|
The
site was visited by Members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April
2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr Wisdom (Objector)
|
|
Additional
Representations:
|
A letter had been received from the Ward
Councillor who had sympathy with those living near the development in the
light of the proposals to amend the access and egress arrangements for the
DMR site on Seaview Road
at Cowes. The Ward Member was concerned, following
correspondence from SEEDA that demonstrated that the previous access
arrangements required land within a different ownership from the DMR
site. There was concern, therefore,
that the application as placed before the Development Control Committee on 20
December 2005 was misleading since the applicant did not have control over
the adjacent property required for the then proposed access arrangements.
Further correspondence has been received from a
resident of Seaview Road
that raised concerns on the following issues:
- The Committee Report on the current
application states that there was no loss of parking from the scheme originally
granted permission in December 2005.
He questioned whether this was the case since the amendment to
the original planning application reduced the parking from 92 to 70
spaces. As such there was a
reduction in parking spaces.
Residents had therefore requested that a new application be
submitted to vary the condition to reduce the parking provision. Residents would then have an
opportunity to comment and object.
- The proposed new layout created a hammerhead
and cul-de-sac road and as such in contrary to paragraph 5 of 2.5.9 of
the Isle of Wight Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled Design for
Community Safety. This stated
that new development should not create a cul-de-sac environment that
reduced potential passive surveillance which increased opportunities for
vandalism and theft.
- Concern was expressed at the alterations
that had been made to the original scheme that had not been subject to
further public consultation.
These included amendment to the proposals received by the
Authority days before the Development Control Committee of 20 December
2005 at which the original permission was granted, and a discharge of
other conditions seeking the approval of the Local Planning Authority on
detailed matters.
|
|
Comment:
|
The
Local Member, Cllr John Effemey spoke on this item.
Officers
were satisfied that had the proposed access arrangements been submitted with
the original planning application their recommendation would have been the
same. However, an additional condition
was proposed to be included with those set out in the report which sought a
minimum number of car parking spaces.
|
|
Decision:
|
The
Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the
recommendation as set out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation
of the report and resolved:
Conditional
Planning Permission, subject to the conditions set out in the Part II
Register.
|
|
Conditions:
|
Additional
conditions as follows :
THAT
a condition be added which enabled better security by means of gating;
THAT
a condition be added indicating the natural growth around the visibility
splays to be kept to 900 mls;
The following condition 6
to be added:
None
of the units shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site
and drained and surfaced for the parking of a minimum of 70 cars. The spaces shall not thereafter be used for
any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
As per report (Item 1)
|
|
Application:
|
TCP/00502/X
|
|
Details:
|
Former Dairy Crest Depot, Westminster Lane, Newport,
Isle of Wight
Demolition of former
Dairy Crest Depot; 2/3 storey block of 46 units of sheltered accommodation
for elderly persons; closure of existing vehicular access and new vehicular
access off Westminster Lane;
parking and landscaping.
|
|
Site Visit:
|
The site was visited by
Members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mrs Maxine Francis
(Objector)
Mr Child (Agent)
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
Additional conditions
requested by the Highways Engineer.
|
|
Comment:
|
A
condition requiring a Section 106 Agreement had not been incorporated into
the decision as it was intended that the Agreement be signed prior to any
decision being issued . Terms are as follows:
- Housing
- £265,000
- Open space -
£13,340
- Transport
infrastructure - £34,500
The
Agreement would also stipulate that all dwellings are occupied as private
residences for elderly persons over 60 years and/or their survivors being over
55 years unless otherwise agreed by the Council.
|
|
Decision:
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
That, subject to the
confirmation by the Environment Agency that the Flood Risk Assessment could
overcome their concerns in respect of potential flooding, Conditional
Planning Permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the Part
II Register.
|
|
Conditions:
|
The following Conditions to be added :
Condition 6.
No construction traffic related to the approved development will enter
the public highway unless their wheels and chassis have been washed to prevent
material being deposited on the highway.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan.
Condition 7.
J31 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 IW Unitary Development
Plan.
Condition 8.
K01 The building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space
has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with
details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority in writing for 14 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so
that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not
thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance
with this condition.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan.
Condition 9.
No
dwelling shall be occupied until two dropped crossings have been constructed
on Westminster Lane
in a position to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a safe crossing point is provided and to comply with Policy
TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan.
Condition 10.
J11 No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service
roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in
accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway
and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
As per report (Item 2)
|
|
Cllr Muriel Miller left
the Council Chamber and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon the
following item of business.
|
|
Application:
|
TCP/11878/G
|
|
Details:
|
Alverstone House, 32 Luccombe Road, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, PO37 6RR
Removal of condition no.
1 on TCP/11878/E which states that the use shall be discontinued on or before
31 July 2007
|
|
Site Visit:
|
The site was visited by
Members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr Edmund Matyjaszek
(Supporter)
Mr Boyden (Supporter)
Mr Button (Supporter)
Mr Ian Thomas (Objector)
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
Letter
received from solicitor acting on behalf of applicants and an email from parent
of child attending school raising a number of queries regarding the
recommended conditions. In particular, the solicitor expresses a view that
the conditions do not satisfy the tests of Circular 11/95. He makes reference
to the relevant sections of the circular and the fact that a condition should
not be imposed unless there is a definite need for it and that condition
should be tailored to tackle specific problems, rather than impose
unjustified controls. He considers that some of the conditions, as originally
drafted are over restrictive, unjustified and unreasonable.
|
|
Comment:
|
The Local Member, Cllr
David Pugh, spoke on this item.
The amended conditions
replaced those which appeared in the Committee report.
There was a need to
consider the current application in conjunction with recent changes to
Government guidance in respect of highway safety considerations.
The Highway Engineer had
confirmed that, in his view, the original three grounds for refusal now no
longer applied.
The completion of the
double yellow lines in the vicinity of the school would be undertaken
shortly.
|
|
Decision:
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the
amended conditions as listed below, that were set out in the Members update.
|
|
Conditions:
|
1.
The premises shall only be used as an educational establishment for a
maximum of 40 weeks during a calendar year.
Reason: In the interests of protecting
the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties, in particular and to
comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The premises shall not be used as a school except between the hours of
0800 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday.
With the exception of Governors/PTA meetings, parents’ evenings,
school productions and the school fete, school detention periods and revision
classes the premises shall not be used outside of the permitted hours unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of protecting
the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties, in particular and to
comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of
Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3.
The use of the grounds for breaks between lessons shall not exceed a
total of 90 minutes in any school day.
Structured lessons may take place within the grounds at any time
during the school day as defined by Condition 1 above.
Reason: In the interests of protecting
the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties, in particular and to
comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of
Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4.
No PA or amplification equipment shall be used on the site except
within the building unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: In the interests of protecting
the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties, in particular and to
comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of
Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
INFORMATIVES
TO BE ADDED TO THE PERMISSION
i.
For the purposes of Condition 1 educational establishment does not
preclude the use of the premises by teaching staff in the absence of pupils.
ii.
The use of amplification equipment for emergency situations such as
fire drills or other unforeseen evacuations is not subject to Condition 4 of
this permission.
As per Update report
(Item 3)
|
|
Cllr Muriel Miller and
Cllr David Whittaker entered the Council Chamber
|
|
Application:
|
TCP/14875/L
|
|
Details:
|
Adjacent to east side of pumping station,
Esplanade, Ventnor
Proposed building for
marine industry, office and sales area to include mezzanine floor, cafe, boat
storage area, detached storage building and alterations to access roadway
(revised plans) (readvertised application)
|
|
Site Visit:
|
The site was visited by
Members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Prof Dennis Russell
(Objector)
Mr Steven Holmes
(Objector)
Mrs Sylvia Somes
(Objector)
Mr Sean Strevens
(Applicant)
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
Additional
information had been received from the applicants with regard to traffic
movements and the size of vehicles involved.
- Size of boats
that are moved and will continue to be moved down from the industrial
site range from 6.2 and 9.9 metres.
- Currently,
the company manufactures 20 boats per year but this to be increased to
25 therefore generating approximately two boat movements per month.
- The trailers
are six wheel nine metres long towed by a Toyota 4 x 4 Land Cruiser.
- With regard
to deliveries there would be two to four per week generally in standard
or long wheeled based transit vans.
- When boats
are completed, the smaller vessels will be towed away for delivery by road
whilst the larger vessels will be delivered by sea. The split is about
50/50. Those boats to be delivered by road will be towed by a Toyota 4 x 4.
- It should be
understood that currently boats constructed on the industrial estate in
upper Ventnor are all taken to The Haven to be launched for sea trials
and then taken back to the existing building for finishing prior to
either delivery by road or taken back down to the harbour to be launched
for delivery by sea. There is likely therefore, to be a reduction in
traffic movements through the town due to the fact that completion after
sea trials will be carried out at the Esplanade site.
Three
additional comments have been received one in support and two objecting to
the proposal which include comments from CPRE.
Letter
in support:
- Given
applicants information cannot see any reason why proposed development
should not go ahead.
- Haven become
increasingly popular in the past two years and need someone with the
knowledge and capabilities of Cheetah Marine to ensure continuation/safe
operation.
- Added
facilities proposed will not only compliment the harbour but ensure its
success well into the future.
- Wonderful
that a small local business has grown to produce an internationally
recognised produce but at the same time still wishes to remain and
invest locally.
- I am heavily
involved within the tourism sector running a farm near Whitwell which
has diversified to offer high quality self-catering holiday apartments.
Majority of our clients are families most of which have young children
and they frequently comment on how much children enjoy watching every
day working at the farm, believe the same theory can be applied to the
proposed development.
- Somewhat
disheartened by actions of small groups within community which are very
much against the development. Ventnor improved over the last five years
and unfortunately people are failing to see the opportunity provided by
this investment.
Two
letters of objection:
- Proposal
would be total eye sore and increase car traffic up and down the
seafront as well as being noisy in an area where holiday makers and
residents wish to relax and enjoy Ventnor’s unique status.
- This type of
development should be kept well away from the beach.
- Tourists come
here to enjoy the unique seafront but this will reduce tourism which is
the main income for the Island.
- Very
concerned about the highway implications, there appears to be a
contradiction between the dimensions shown on plans, those referred to
in the report and the actual measurements on the ground.
- Plans show
roadway five metres wide but the report refers to a roadway six metres
wide.
- Distance from
edge of children’s pool to The Haven guard rail reads as 6.7 metres,
small foot hold on edge of pool inside guard rail of 0.4 metres a
roadway six metres and a footway two metres wide. These dimensions do
not add up.
- According to
drawing, pinch point will reduce road width to three metres and question
whether a Cheetah Marine boat on a trailer will negotiate this limited
width. Also question whether emergency services can negotiate the pinch
point.
- One reason
for Cheetah Marine locating at this site is said to be their ability to
launch boats into The Haven from the slipway. Slipway now runs straight
into the jetty supporting the fish processing building and would suggest
a maneuver to launch a boat well nigh impossible except at high spring
tides.
- Concern over
traffic fumes on children using paddling pool.
- Report
suggests design can be covered by a planning condition but believe
design should be right before Committee consideration. Suggest this is
dangerous approach as there does not appear to be an obvious solution in
mind.
- Consider
highway issue here is crucial; mix of cars, commercial vehicles,
pedestrians, shoppers at the fish plant and children using the pool, is
not something which the Local Planning Authority should be
contemplating. The Manual for Streets draws attention to the needs for
pedestrian priority.
- Apart from
the inconsistencies between the measurements stated in report, on the
drawings and taken on the ground we believe proposal does not comply
with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and this
sufficient reason on its own to reject the application.
|
|
Comment:
|
The Local Member, Cllr
Jonathan Fitzgerald-Bond spoke on this item.
|
|
Decision:
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
i.
THAT the Planning Committee expressed support for the Council to play
its part in the enhancement of the Eastern Esplanade through appropriate
investment in the public realm area;
ii.
Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the conditions set out in
the Part II Register.
|
|
Conditions:
|
Condition 15 to be re-worded as follows:
The
buildings hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the access roadway, footway
and means of separating vehicles and pedestrians has been realigned to the
south of the proposed building and such realignment shall make provision for
continued vehicle access to the fish processing building, with full details
which have been submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The agreed traffic calming measures and vehicle containment
facilities to the north side of the access road in the vicinity of the
children’s paddling pool shall be provide before the first occupation of the
buildings. The details to be provided shall include the surface treatment of
the roadway at its junction with the Cascade to a point adjacent to the
public slipway entrance.
Reason: To
ensure that satisfactory public vehicle and pedestrian access is maintained
along Ventnor eastern esplanade and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
The Section 106 Agreement
to include that the buildings to be maintained for marine use only, in
perpetuity.
As per report (Item 4)
|
|
Application:
|
TCP/07778/G
|
|
Details:
|
17
Albert Road, Cowes, Isle of Wight, PO31 8JU
Demolition of bungalow;
two pairs of semi-detached houses with alterations to vehicular access; parking
and landscaping (revised scheme)
|
|
Site Visit:
|
The site was visited by
Members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr John Smythers
(Objector)
Mr Colin Broomhead
(Objector)
Mr Brian Salter (On behalf
of the Parish Council)
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
None
|
|
Comment:
|
The Local Member, Cllr
John Hobart, spoke on this item.
|
|
Decision:
|
The application was
refused contrary to officer recommendation because of the over intensive use of
the land.
In compliance with the
Council’s Constitution a named vote was taken as the decision was contrary to
officer recommendation.
For (8)
Cllrs
Henry Adams, Wendy Arnold,
George Cameron, Charles
Chapman, Gill Kennett, Muriel Miller, David Whittaker,
David Williams
Against (5)
Cllrs Ivan
Bulwer, Mike Cunningham, Lady Pigot, Susan Scoccia, Arthur Taylor
|
|
Reasons:
|
The proposed layout and
design for two pairs of semi-detached houses together with alterations to
vehicular access would constitute over development of the site and the
potential volume of car parking would effect the amenity impact and the
character of the area contrary to Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and H5
(Infill Development), of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
(Item 5)
|
|
Cllr John Hobart left the
Council Chamber prior to consideration of the following item of business.
|
|
Application:
|
TCP/18890/J
|
|
Details:
|
Land adjacent Little Rosery, Westfield Road, St. Helens, Ryde, Isle of Wight
Pair of semi-detached
houses; alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) (revised plans)
|
|
Site Visit:
|
The site was visited by
Members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr Bell (Objector)
Mr John Taylor
(Applicant)
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
Parish
Council had confirmed that they did not have any additional comments on this
revised application other than those made in respect of the previously submitted
withdrawn application, in that they would prefer to see just one house on
this plot rather than the proposed two which they considered an over
development.
|
|
Comment:
|
The Local Member, Cllr
Patrick Joyce, spoke on this item.
|
|
Decision:
|
The application was
refused contrary to officer recommendation because of the over development of
the site leading to an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring property.
In compliance with the Council’s
Constitution a named vote was taken as the decision was contrary to officer
recommendation.
For (11)
Cllrs Henry
Adams, Wendy Arnold, George Cameron, Charles Chapman, Mike
Cunningham, Gill Kennet, Muriel Miller, Lady Pigot, Susan Scoccia, David Whittaker, David Williams
Against (2)
Cllrs Ivan
Bulwer, Arthur Taylor
|
|
Reasons:
|
The proposal represented overdevelopment of
the site resulting in loss of light and loss of privacy and increased
disturbance given the proposed access arrangements, thereby having a
seriously detrimental impact on the amenities and living conditions of the
adjoining residential occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to
policies D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development Within the
Site), and H5 (Infill Development) of the adopted Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan.
(Item 6)
|
|
Application:
|
TCP/280203
|
|
Details :
|
Santos, Hilbre Road, St. Helens, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 1TJ
Outline for chalet bungalow; vehicular access
|
|
Site Visit:
|
The site was visited by
Members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr Simon Craddock (Agent)
|
|
Additional Representations :
|
Further
letter of objection has been received from adjoining owner/occupier who makes
the following comments:
- Application
has attracted two letters of objection and not one as stated in report.
- No indication
that dwelling will provide affordable housing unit
- Proposal
fails to meet guidance contained within SPG particularly regarding
minimum distances of rear gardens.
- Local Members
concern regarding inconsistency is not supported by relevant examples or
references.
- Whilst making
no particular comment on other schemes in locality, this proposal is
different from others given that application relates to rear garden of
existing property; other developments are entirely different in
character and in one case involves replacement of existing building on
site.
Additional
letter of objection received which can be summarised as follows:
- Proposed building will be visual in position and intrusion in
area.
- Loss of privacy particularly in respect of rear gardens.
- Plot size is too small compared to local development pattern.
- Inadequate access with site served by small lane.
- Unsuitable tandem development.
- Setting of precedent.
- Increased density represents over development.
|
|
Comment:
|
The Local Member, Cllr
Patrick Joyce, spoke on this item.
In response to a Member’s
question the Head of Planning Services agreed to present a report to a future
meeting of the Planning Committee on the current guidance on affordability.
|
|
Decision :
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
Refusal of Planning Permission, for the reasons
set out in the Part II Register.
|
|
Conditions :
|
As per report (Item 7)
|
|
Cllr Muriel Miller was
not present for the whole of this item and therefore took no part in the
debate or decision thereon.
|
|
Application :
|
TCP/27013/B
|
|
Details :
|
24
Beechcroft Drive, Wootton
Bridge, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 4NB
Demolition of bungalow;
outline for two bungalows; alterations to vehicular access (revised plans)
|
|
Site Visit:
|
The site was visited by members of the Planning
Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr Eric Heber (Objector)
|
|
Additional Representations :
|
Area
Building Inspector had advised ground conditions in this area should be
suitable for soakaways as the geological map suggests gravel sub-strata.
However, until any excavations were undertaken it was not possible to accurately
assess ground conditions.
|
|
Comment :
|
The Local Member, Cllr Barry Abraham spoke on
this item.
|
|
Decision :
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the
conditions set out in the Part II Register.
As per report (Item 8)
|
|
Application :
|
TCP/10043/D
|
|
Details:
|
Rectory Cottage,
School Lane,
Calbourne, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 4JD
Detached chalet bungalow
with parking and alterations to vehicular access, (revised scheme)
|
|
Site Visit :
|
The site was visited by members of the Planning
Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants :
|
Mrs Daphne Birkwood (Parish Councillor)
Mr Simon Craddock (Agent)
|
|
Additional Representations :
|
None
|
|
Comment :
|
The Local Member, Cllr Colin West spoke on this
item.
|
|
Decision :
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
Refusal of Planning Permission, for the reasons
set out in the Part II Register.
As per report (Item 9)
|
|
Application :
|
TCP/27529/A
|
|
Details :
|
Land adjacent 11 Hampshire Crescent, Newport,
Isle of Wight
Demolition of single
storey extension; detached house with parking and alterations to vehicular
access; vehicular access and parking area for no.11 (revised scheme)
|
|
Site Visit :
|
The site was visited by
members of the Planning Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants :
|
Mr Peter Harris (Agent)
|
|
Additional Representations :
|
An additional condition was proposed to ensure
that the open space between the site and Sherwood Road remained open.
|
|
Comment :
|
In light of the absence of the Local Member,
officers were instructed to write to all Members advising that if they request
an application to be determined by the Planning Committee they would be
expected to attend the meeting.
|
|
Decision :
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the
conditions set out in the Part II Register.
As per report (Item 11)
|
|
Conditions :
|
The following condition to be added:
Condition 8
: 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) no development within Class E of Part 1
or Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out (other
than that expressly authorised by this permission) between the northern
boundary fence/hedging as shown on drawing No. 02-06.7 Rev. 1.14 and the
pavement fronting Sherwood Road.
Reason: In the interest of the character and amenities of the area and to
comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan.
|
|
During discussion thereon
of the following item of business, Cllr Arthur Taylor declared a person interest
as he knew the objector, Mr Malcolm Weston.
|
|
Application :
|
TCP/27992/A
|
|
Details :
|
16 Beatrice Close, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 3PB
Demolition of single
storey extension; outline for end of
terrace house with parking; vehicular
access, (revised scheme)
|
|
Site Visit :
|
The site was visited by members of the Planning
Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants :
|
Mr Malcolm Weston
(Objector)
Mrs Gemma Ricketts
(Applicant)
|
|
Additional Representations :
|
None
|
|
Comment :
|
The Local Member, Cllr
Ian Stephens spoke on this item.
|
|
Decision :
|
The application was refused contrary to officer
recommendation because of over development of a relatively small plot and the
adverse impact it would have on the street scene.
In compliance with the Council’s Constitution a
named vote was taken as the decision was contrary to officer recommendation.
For (9)
Cllrs Henry
Adams , Wendy Arnold
, Ivan Bulwer , George Cameron, Gill Kennett,
Muriel Miller, Susan Scoccia, Arthur Taylor, David Whittaker
Against (3)
Cllrs Charles Chapman,
Mike Cunningham, Lady Pigot
Abstentions (1)
Cllr Ivan Bulwer
|
|
Reasons :
|
Having regard to the limited area of the
site and its relationship with existing residential properties, the proposal
represented inappropriately scaled development having a cramped appearance
resulting in the loss of space about the building which would be prejudicial
to the distinctive pattern and character of residential development in the
immediate locality. The proposal was therefore contrary to policies D1
(Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development Within the Site), and H5
(Infill Development) of the adopted Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
and advice contained within adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance
'residential Infill' (section 6).
(Item 12)
|
|
Cllrs Henry Adams and
Muriel Miller left the Council Chamber and took no part in the discussion or
voting of the following item of business.
|
|
Application :
|
TCP/27025/B
|
|
Details :
|
11 Shore Road, Cowes, Isle of Wight, PO31 8LD
Demolition of holiday
chalet; replacement detached chalet
|
|
Site Visit :
|
The site was visited by members of the Planning
Committee on Monday, 23 April 2007.
|
|
Public Participants :
|
None
|
|
Additional Representations :
|
Letter
received from applicant making the following points:
- I believe Gurnard
should be a proper living community rather than full of second homes. To
this end, seeking a property that we can live in all year round.
- Family are
active in local community, son attends primary school, one parent a
helper and governor and all part of Gurnard Sailing Club.
- Plot is very
small and to provide a two bedroom home need to use the space currently
occupied by car port.
- In its
present state, the car port is too small to use and whilst a car can fit
in, can only open doors on one side. In reality, use car port for
hanging out the washing and we park on the road.
- Members will
have seen during their site visit, car port is right on a three way
junction where it is difficult and dangerous to see traffic and
pedestrians.
- Taking away
car port would actually add a road side space and remove dangers of
reversing onto a main road.
- Issue of car
port only recently been raised and was not mentioned in previous
application. As car port is not in use now nothing really changed.
- Just want to
build house for family to live in, I trust application will be looked
upon favourably.
|
|
Comment :
|
None
|
|
Decision :
|
The Committee had taken
into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set
out under paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report
and resolved:
Conditional Planning Permission, subject to the
conditions set out in the Part II Register.
As per report (Item 10)
|
