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 REPORT TO COMMITTEE
24 APRIL 2007
|
1. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 5 |
Land south of The Chandlers, west
of 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) |
|
|
|
2. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 12 |
Former Dairy Crest Depot, 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 |
|
|
|
3. |
Shanklin |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page19 |
Alverstone House, Removal of condition no. 1 on
TCP/11878/E which states that the use shall be discontinued on or before 31
July 2007 |
|
|
|
4. |
Ventnor |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 30 |
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) |
|
|
|
5. |
Gurnard |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 46 |
Demolition of bungalow; two pairs
of semi-detached houses with alterations to vehicular access; parking and
landscaping (revised scheme) |
|
|
|
6. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 55 |
Land adjacent Little Rosery, Pair of semi-detached houses;
alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) (revised plans) |
|
|
|
7. |
|
Refusal |
|
|
Page 62 |
Outline for chalet bungalow; vehicular
access |
|
|
|
8. |
Wootton |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 67 |
Demolition of bungalow; outline
for two bungalows; alterations to vehicular access (revised plans) |
|
|
|
9. |
Calbourne |
Refusal |
|
|
Page 73 |
Rectory Cottage, Detached chalet bungalow with
parking and alterations to vehicular access, (revised scheme) |
|
|
|
10. |
Gurnard |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 80 |
Demolition of holiday chalet; replacement detached chalet |
|
|
|
1. |
|
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 87 |
Land adjacent Demolition of single storey
extension; detached house with parking and alterations to vehicular access;
vehicular access and parking area for no.11 (revised scheme) |
|
|
|
12. |
Ryde |
Conditional Permission |
|
|
Page 93 |
16 Beatrice Close, Ryde, Demolition of single storey extension; outline for end of terrace house with
parking; vehicular access, (revised
scheme) |
|
|
|
01 |
Reference Number: P/00180/07 - TCP/27077/B Parish/Name: Registration Date: Officer:
Miss S Wilkinson Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr & Mrs D M Rapley 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 & as assessed in the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by
Chilton Acoustics Ltd dated 29 September 2005 & any addendum to that
report & 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) land south of The The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is an amendment to a major application
which proved to be controversial at the time of determination.
1. Details of Application
1.1 This application seeks permission for a
revised access road layout to enable a single point of access to be used by all
traffic entering and leaving the DMR Engineering site. The current permission
provides for separate points of entrance and egress. The northern most access
point of the current permitted scheme would be maintained and lead to a turning
head as opposed to a separate access point.
1.2 The application also seeks consent to
vary condition 13 on TCP/27077, to allow the subdivision of Unit 1, the main
industrial block. Condition 13 on TCP/27077 states that the industrial
processes to take place in Unit 1 shall be as laid out in the applicants’
agents letter dated 8 September 2005 and as addressed in the Noise Impact
Assessment prepared by Chilton Acoustics Limited on 29 September 2005 and any
addendum to that report and no variation or intensification of that shall take
place without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. This letter outlines the work processes of
DMR Engineering, the applicant, and as such restricts the use of this building
solely for the purpose of that company. The application therefore seeks consent
to vary that condition to allow the western end of Unit 1 to be sub divided in
order that it can be rented separately as a starter unit to replace the current
Unit 2 which would be lost due to accommodate the new access road.
1.3 The application also proposes a new door
and window to Unit 3.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The original application related to a
site of 1.1 hectare located on the western side of
2.2 Construction work has commenced in
accordance with the approved scheme with Unit 1 ready for occupation following
the resolution of this application.
2.3 The northern boundary of the wider site
abuts an area of uncultivated land which is to act as a buffer between the
residential development and the industrial development. Work has commenced on
this landscaped area.
3. Relevant History
3.1 TCP/7081/S; An outline application for
residential and commercial (Class B1), land north and west of Love Lane Infant
School, Broadfields Farm with access to Three Gates Road, off Seaview Road
(revised plans), Cowes. Approved
3.2 TCP/7081/T; An outline application –
renewal – for residential and commercial (B1) with access off Three Gates Road
and Seaview Road, land north and west of Love Lane Primary School, Broadfields Farm,
Cowes. Approved
3.3 TCP/7081/U – P/00701/98; An application
for 164 dwellings; 2 numbering 2 storey industrial units (Class B1 and B2),
associated parking, access road off Three Gates Road and Seaview Road and
pedestrian link to Broadfields Avenue, 14 dwellings with access off Love Lane
(Approval of Reserved Matters) (revised scheme residential and commercial areas
accord with outline approval), land north and west of Love Lane Primary School,
Broadfields Farm, Cowes. Approved
3.4 TCP/26094 – P/191/04; An application for
industrial park with associated facilities, parking area, land between Spinlock
Limited and Bookers, Three Gates Road, Cowes. Approved
3.5 TCP/26094/A – P/2634/04; An application
for proposed distribution warehouse with associated parking and landscaping,
land between Spinlock Limited and Bookers, Three Gates Road, Cowes. Approved
3.6 TCP/27077 – P/01018/05; An application
for construction of one industrial units for purposes of storage and machining
of formed metal and 19 started industrial units (use classes B1 and B8) with
parking, landscaping, formation of vehicular access at land south of the
Chandlers, west of Seaview Road off, Three Gates Road, Cowes. Approved January
2006.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 The following Unitary Development Plan
policies are applicable:
|
1.
D1 |
- |
Standards of Design |
|
2.
E5 |
- |
Allocation of
Employment Sites |
|
3.
G10 |
- |
Existing Surrounding
Uses |
|
4.
TR7 |
- |
Highway Considerations
for New Development |
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
The Highway Engineer’s statement is outlined in the
evaluation section.
·
The Council’s Environmental Health Practitioner has recommended
a condition if approved.
5.2 Others
·
Cowes Town Council support the application.
·
Seven letters of objection have been received from local
residents. The contents of which can be summarised as follows:
·
Loss of parking
·
Omission of Unit 2
·
Additional covered storage building
·
Deletion of southern exit
·
Two way traffic using one exit and entrance will lead to
increased traffic noise, vibration and fume omissions
·
Insufficient information in regards to the intended use of
Unit 2 and Unit 13
·
Safety
·
Intrusion into private dwellings
·
Precedent
·
Access road is of insufficient width
·
Creation of a cul-de-sac
6. Evaluation
6.1 The main issue of consideration for this
application are:
·
Nature of amendments
·
Impact on neighbouring properties
·
Highways
6.2 Nature of amendments
The application seeks
consent for the variation of condition 13 of the application under which the
development was approved. This condition restricted the use of the unit 1 for that
of DMR Engineering. The application currently under consideration does not wish
to totally remove that condition and as can be seen from the conditions
attached to the recommendation the restriction of use would be repeated. The
variation of the condition is required so that the currently approved unit 1
can be subdivided to provide a replacement starter unit to compensate for the
loss of unit 2 due to the proposed hammerhead turning area. All other
conditions on the previous consent remain active as this application only seeks
to vary one.
6.3 Objections have been received with regard
to loss of parking and the inclusion of a covered storage building. However,
the storage building to which the comments refer was approved at the time of
the original application with an amended plan that was presented on the night
of the Development Control Sub Committee prior to the decision being made. It
was considered at the time that this building was required in order to ensure
that there was no outside storage which would have had a detrimental impact of
the visual amenity of the site. The
current application does not result in any loss of parking from the scheme
originally granted permission in December 2005.
6.4 The proposal also involves the creation
of a hammerhead turning area to allow for a single ingress and egress into the
site. This requirement has come about as at the time of the original approval
the intension was to provide a joint exit road with the developer of the
neighbouring site and therefore enable a larger developable area. However, the
neighbouring site has still not been sold and the application site is ready for
occupation. Therefore, an alternative exit arrangement is required that would
still ensure that vehicles enter the public highway in a forward gear.
6.5 Additional amendments include the
insertion of an additional door and window into unit 3 as this would now be an
end unit.
6.6 Impact on neighbouring properties
The consideration of the impact
of the development must be based purely on those areas that are being amended
and not the whole of the approved development. In this regard Environmental
Health was consulted as to whether the alterations to the road, resulting in
vehicles both entering and exiting through the one access would have an impact
on the amenities of the nearby residential properties.
6.7 The Councils Environmental Health
Practitioner confirmed no objection however recommended a condition controlling
deliveries and dispatches be placed on the application if approved in order to
protect the amenities of neighbouring properties from the noise of reversing
sirens and engine noise outside standard working hours.
6.8 The removal of condition 13 is also not
considered to have an impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties as it
will be replaced for the retained element of unit 1 and the new unit 2 will be
controlled by a restriction of B1/B8 light industrial usage, the same as that
of the other starter units on site.
6.9 Highways
Comments have been
received in regards to the safety implications of the access and whether it is
suitable to use the one access into the site. The Councils Highway Engineer has
confirmed as follows:
“The constructed access
to the DMR development is compliant with the requirements of Places
Streets and Movements, Manual for Streets adopted April 2007 and Approved
Document B, Building Regulation (Fire Safety).”
The
approved scheme was based on an access and egress arrangement, this was to
enable the developer to maximize the potential land use. The scheme as
constructed with a single access is fully compliant with the presented to
highways was for a single access. The internal carriageway width is 6.2m wide
which will enable two HGV’s to pass with care; 6.2m is the width of
If
this was a new application for industrial units off a 7.5m industrial rd with a
6.2m internal road width and a compliant turn head (as it does) I would have no
reason to refuse the application and would recommend it for approval”
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this
report it is considered that the alterations as proposed and subject to the
appropriate conditions would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or
the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.
8. Recommendation
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 deliveries or dispatches from the premises
shall take place outside the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday,
outside the hours of 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays and at any times on Sundays
or Bank Holidays. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular
sleep disturbance, from the noise emissions from the premises in accordance
with policy G10 (Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The industrial processes to take place in
Unit 1, as amended in drawing no. PJ/05/002 Revision 3, shall be as laid out
in the applicant’s agents letter dated accompanying P/01018/05 dated 8
September 2005 and as assessed in the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by
Chilton Acoustics Limited dated 29 September 2005 and 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. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in
general and adjoining residential properties in particular and to comply with
Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Unit 2, as amended in drawing no.
PJ/05/002 Revision 3, shall not be used for the carrying out of an industrial
process other than one falling within Class B1 or B8 of the Schedule to the
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any provision
equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting
that Order with or without modifications. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and
to comply with Policy E9 (Employment Development Anywhere within Settlements)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
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) any B8 use
of unit 2 shall be restricted to storage purposes only unless otherwise
agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and
to comply with Policy E9 (Employment Development Anywhere within Settlements)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
02 |
Reference Number: P/03014/06 - TCP/00502/X Parish/Name: Registration Date: Officer:
Miss S Wilkinson Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd. Demolition of former Dairy Crest Depot;
2/3 storey block of 46 units of sheltered accommodation for elderly persons;
closure of existing vehicular access & new vehicular access off former Dairy Crest Depot, The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major application that forms
part of a wider allocation and is considered to be of an
1. Details of Application
1.1 Consent is sought on part of the former
dairy site in
1.2 The application also involves the closure
of the existing access and the construction of a new access to serve 14 car
parking spaces.
1.3 The application proposes re-development
of a brownfield site which is allocated for residential development within the
Unitary Development Plan.
1.4 As the proposed development is for
sheltered housing the accommodation, with the exception of the House Managers
accommodation, would be occupied by persons over 60 and in the case of a couple
where one of the occupants is over the age of 60 years and the other is over
the age of 55 years.
1.5 The development of the whole of the Dairy
Crest site will involve the de-culverting of Lukely Brook which currently
bisects the development under consideration as part of this application and the
rest of the Dairy Crest land.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site is located on the corner of
2.2 The application is part of the wider
allocation H3 (18) through which a link road between
2.3 At present the site is occupied by a
disused depot building with hardstanding to the rear.
2.4 The north eastern boundary of the site
itself is bounded by the currently culverted Lukely Brook, which, as discussed
above would be de-culverted as part of this proposal.
2.5 Although the current buildings on site
are of an industrial use the area surrounding the site is generally
characterised by two/three storey terraced housing, of a domestic scale. Most
of the properties in the surrounding area abut the pavement or have very small
front garden areas.
3. Relevant History
3.1 None.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
The following planning
policy statements are applicable:
·
PPS3 – Housing
·
PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk
4.2 The following Strategic Policies within
the Unitary Development Plan are applicable:
|
· S1 |
- |
New Development will be
Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas |
|
· S2 |
- |
Siting of New
Development |
|
· S6 |
- |
All Development will be
Expected to be of a High Standard of Design |
|
· S7 |
- |
Provision of Housing
Units on the |
4.3 The following
Unitary Development Plan Policies are applicable:
|
· G1 |
- |
Development Envelopes |
|
· G4 |
- |
General Locational
Criteria |
|
· G6 |
- |
Areas Liable to
Flooding |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards of Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards of
Development within the Site |
|
· D3 |
- |
Landscaping |
|
· H3 |
- |
Allocated Residential
Sites |
|
· H14 |
- |
Locally Affordable
Housing – Developers Contributions |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway Considerations
for New Development |
|
· TR13 |
- |
Highway Improvements |
|
· TR16 |
- |
Parking Policies and
Guidelines |
|
· L10 |
- |
Open Space in Housing
Developments |
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways have recommended conditional approval.
·
Environmental Health recommend conditions if approved.
·
The Council’s Crime and Design Prevention Advisor has questioned
whether a pedestrian crossing can be placed to assist the safety of residents
wishing to walk into town.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Southern Water’s original concerns have been overcome with
additional information that has been submitted to them and therefore they raise
no objection.
·
The Environment Agency raise an objection on the basis that
no acceptable Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as required by PPS25.
5.3 Others
·
Six letters of objection have been received, the contents of
which can be summarised as follows:
Traffic generation
Loss of parking
Loss of trees (due
to the new link road)
The link road onto
Overdevelopment
Drainage
Insufficient
infrastructure
·
Newport Town Management Committee comment as follows:
“The Committee felt that
the design of the proposed units was sympathetic to the character of the area
in which they would be situated. However, Members were concerned that the
allocated space for parking should be located at the widest section of the
road, whereas at present the space allocated was at the narrowest section,
which could potentially lead to problems of access for emergency vehicles. It
was stated that further problems could arise, as at present vehicles had been
known to abut the highway opposite the proposed access to the parking spaces.”
6. Evaluation
6.1 The main issues relating to the
application are:
·
Impact of the development on the character and amenities of
the area.
·
Highways
·
Drainage
6.2 Impact of the development on the
character and amenities of the area.
The application site
currently makes no contribution to the character of the area and although the site
is not located with the Conservation Area it is adjacent to it and it is
considered that the proposed development would provide a significant
improvement to the street scene and the visual amenity of the site when viewed
from the Conservation Area and its surrounds.
6.3 It is considered by your officers that
the proposal does not represent an overdevelopment of the site as adequate
amenity area has been provided for the proposed use and the development removes
areas of hardstanding and replaces it with open space, which makes a positive
contribution to the amenities of the area.
6.4 Objections have been received in regards
to the loss of trees along Petticoat in order to provide the ‘link road’ with
6.5 Highways
As briefly highlighted
above the application does not include the link road with
6.6 The Traffic Impact Assessment submitted
with the application is based on the development of the Dairy Crest site as a
whole and as such any impact on the traffic infrastructure of
6.7 The application provides 14 car parking
spaces. Objections have been received indicating this number would be
insufficient for the proposed use. However, McCarthy and Stone (the applicants)
manage 32,000 specialised dwellings around the country and have confirmed that
parking in similar schemes is not a high priority for residents. Additionally,
the site is located close to the town centre therefore reducing the need for
residents to own vehicles to access shops and other facilities and the
application involves the extension and modification of the pavement along
6.8 Drainage
Sewage capacity:
Southern Water have
confirmed that there is capacity in the system to serve the development
following a capacity study which demonstrates that the development would lead to
the removal of significant amounts of trade waste needing to be accommodated
within the system. Southern Water have confirmed to the applicants their
agreement to a connection to the system.
Land drainage:
The Environment Agency
advises that the site falls within a Flood Zone 3 which is a high risk zone at
risk of fluvial flooding. As the application was not accompanied by an
acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) they have objected to the proposal. The
Agency originally commented that the FRA dated April 2006 was unacceptable. In
response a revised FRA was submitted February 2007, however the Agency have not
accepted its findings due to discrepancies in the survey information and the
hydraulic model.
6.9 It should be noted however that the Agency
accepts the principle of de-culverting Lukely Brook and make the following
comment:
“The development offers a
unique opportunity to bring the Lukely Brook out of a 100m culvert and restore
it as a natural channel. This will deliver gains for landscape, access/recreation,
wildlife and also increase the ability of the channel to convey floodwaters.
This would meet the aspirations of the Newport Rivers Partnership as part of
the Restoring Newport Rivers Project. This is the only enclosed reach of the
river. Having an open watercourse would be invaluable to people and wildlife.”
6.10 Following the comments in February further
discussions have taken place between the applicants and the Agency. These
meetings have concluded that there is a technical solution to the objections
and therefore they are not insurmountable. An updated report is currently being
worked on in line with the requirements set out by the Agency.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to Development Plan Policies and all material considerations referred to in
this report it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Subject to the confirmation by the
Environment Agency that the Flood Risk Assessment can overcome their concerns
in respect of potential flooding it is recommended that conditional approval be
granted.
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 |
Notwithstanding the details on the submitted
plans 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 |
No part of the development hereby permitted
shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority: a desk-top study documenting all previous
and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national
guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report No .CLR 11 “Model
Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination” and BS10175: 2001; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, a site investigation report documenting
the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis
identified as appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175:
2001 – “Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice”;
and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, a remediation scheme to deal with any
contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a
remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall
include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of
decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the
implementation of all remediation. The construction of buildings shall not
commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include
confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in
accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the
verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order
to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future
monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report. Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to
human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an
appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990. |
|
4 |
No development shall take place until the
applicant or their agents has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological
works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been
submitted to and approved by the planning authority in writing To facilitate monitoring of the on-site
archaeological works, notification of the start date and appointed
archaeological contractor should be given in writing to the address below not
less than 14 days before the commencement of any works:- The Planning Archaeologist, Seaclose Offices, Reason: To preserve by record archaeological remains of
local and regional importance in compliance with in Ministerial Circular DOE
11/95 and in PPG 16 and Policy B9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
All construction traffic related to the
approved development will deliver, load and unload at a location, at times
and on a set route to be approved in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. There shall be thereafter no variation from the agreed details,
unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply
with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
03 |
Reference Number: P/00381/07 - TCP/11878/G Parish/Name: Shanklin - Ward/Name: Shanklin South Registration Date: Officer:
Mr D Long Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mrs K D'Costa Removal of condition no. 1 on TCP/11878/E
which states that the use shall be discontinued on or before Alverstone House, The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Previous applications for use of
these premises for educational purposes have proved contentious and there is a
need to consider the current application in conjunction with recent changes to
Government guidance in respect of highway safety considerations.
1. Details of Application
1.1 Application seeks to remove condition 1
on TCP/11878/E, which restricts use of premises as a school to temporary period
expiring
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 Site is located outside the development
boundary in an area considered to be countryside for the purposes of applying
policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Area consists of
variety of land uses including hotels, flats and a range of dwelling types and
styles. Properties are in transitional zone whereby built form becomes less
dense from that of area within neighbouring development boundary creating a
sporadic pattern of development.
2.2 Properties are set back off road frontage
with majority being screened by vegetation or natural stone walls.
2.3 Alverstone Manor is a substantial three storey
detached property within large curtilage. Due to natural topography and
gradient building sits at lower level than that of
2.4 Northern boundary of site is defined by
extensive vegetation of mixed species. Property to north (
2.5 There is no material change to location
and site characteristics since consideration of previous applications. School
has implemented work to create turning facility, involving excavation of bank
and removal of some trees, in accordance with conditions of the temporary
planning permission granted on
3. Relevant History
3.1 TCP/11878/D – Continued use of premises
as a private school; vehicular access and parking. Application refused
·
Development likely to generate significant increase in
traffic entering and leaving public highway to the detriment of highway safety.
·
Development is likely to attract standing vehicles on highway
which will interrupt free flow of traffic and thereby adding to hazards of road
users.
·
Formation and use of additional access to adjoining highway
would add unduly to hazards of highway users by virtue of generated activity
detrimental to the free flow of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
·
Access is unsatisfactory to serve development by reason of
unacceptable visibility.
·
Application not accompanied by a School Travel Plan so Local
Planning Authority is unable to accurately assess issues relating to
sustainability and in the absence of further details it is considered that the
proposal is likely to increase the car usage.
·
Proposal seeks to remove trees which are significant feature
of the local landscape worthy of retention, which appear to be in a sound or
healthy condition.
3.2 TCP/11878/E – Continued use of premises
as a private school; vehicular access and parking. Application approved at
meeting of Development Control Sub Committee held on
The application as submitted
included the formation of a second access roughly centrally in the frontage of
the site to create an in and out arrangement with a one way system through the
site. However, the new driveway to be provided would have been unacceptable by
reason of its gradient and its formation would have given rise to an
unacceptable impact on trees within the site. Therefore, this element was
omitted from the scheme and revised plans submitted showing improvements to the
existing access arrangements, including the creation of a circulatory system
within the site. Notwithstanding these alterations, visibility at the access to
the site still fell below guidelines in force at that time.
Due to an administrative oversight
the reason for taking a decision contrary to officer advice was not formally
minuted, in accordance with adopted procedure. As a result, a report was
considered under Urgent Business at the meeting of the Development Control Sub
Committee held on
·
Members felt that additional information submitted since
earlier meetings and decisions that the officers’ advice met some of their
originally recommended reasons for refusal. Whilst acknowledging that the
access was and would remain substandard in terms of visibility given the
revised scheme within the site and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to further improve the access and enforce the Travel Plan that on
balance the proposal was acceptable for a trial period of two academic years.
During this period the school should be encouraged to look for a more suitable
location.
3.3 TCP/11878/F – Removal of condition no. 1
on TCP/11878/E which restricts use of premises as a school to a temporary
period expiring on
·
The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied on the
evidence available that the continued operation of the school represents a
sustainable use in this location and would therefore be contrary to the aims
and objectives contained within national and local policies.
·
The development generates a significant increase in
vehicular traffic entering and leaving the public highway to the detriment of
highway safety adding unduly to the hazards of highways users.
·
The development attracts standing vehicles on the highway
which interrupt the free-flow of traffic and thereby adds to the hazards of
road users at this point.
·
The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed
development by reason of unacceptable visibility.
3.4 Covering letter was sent with decision
notice informing agent that school has right of appeal. In addition, indication
was given that Local Planning Authority would be happy to enter into
pre-application discussions with respect to finding suitable alternative
premises/sites.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13
(Transport) encourages use of sustainable transport modes, reducing reliance on
the motor vehicle.
4.2 Unitary Development Plan policies to be
considered within the application are as follows:
|
51.
S4 |
- |
Countryside Protected
from Inappropriate Development |
|
52.
G4 |
- |
General Locational
Criteria |
|
53.
G10 |
- |
Potential Conflict
Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses |
|
54.
D1 |
- |
Standards of Design |
|
55.
C1 |
- |
Protection of Landscape
Character |
|
56.
C12 |
- |
Development Affecting
Trees and |
|
57.
P5 |
- |
Reducing the Impact of
Noise |
|
58.
TR3 |
- |
Locating Development to
Minimise the Need to Travel |
|
59.
TR7 |
- |
Highway Considerations
for New Development |
|
60.
TR16 |
- |
Parking Policies and
Guidelines |
|
61.
U8 |
- |
Use of private
dwellings for playgroup/pre-school provision |
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways Engineer submitted comprehensive comments covering
a range of issues including the history of the site, internal vehicle arrangements,
an assessment of the visibility splays at the access to the site, comments on
the school travel plan, the sustainability of the use in this location and the
supporting information which accompanied the submission. Of particular
importance are his comments on the visibility splays at the entrance to the
site which have a direct bearing on the previous reasons for refusal in respect
of highway matters. In considering this issue, he took into account information
submitted in relation to the earlier application, produced by a highway
consultant who previously acted on behalf of the applicants. However, he
concluded that, when considering the proposal against guidelines contained in
Places, Streets and Movements, the visibility splays from the access remain
unacceptable. In reaching this conclusion, he took into account the fact that
the highway in the immediate vicinity of the school is a “20’s plenty” area.
However, he commented that this is an advisory speed limit and that the police
will only prosecute drivers exceeding 30 miles per hour. Therefore, in
calculating the required visibility splays, it is the official speed limit and
known vehicle speeds which must be taken into account.
The Highway Engineer also
considered the visibility splay requirements for this site against guidelines
contained in the Draft Manual for Streets. This document replaces the
guidelines contained in Design Bulletin No. 32 and Places, Streets and
Movements. In considering the proposal against the draft document, relevant
factors included the speed limit on the road, the design speed of the road, the
recorded speed data in this area and the gradient of the road. Having
considered all relevant factors, he concluded that the visibility splays at the
access would comply with the draft guidelines. However, he emphasised that, at
the time of carrying out this assessment, the document was still in draft
format and that the Department for Transport had previously advised that the
guidelines should not be referred to in the determination of planning
applications until it is officially adopted.
At the time of preparing
his comments, and based on the relevant guidelines in force at that time, he
concluded that the Highways Department would maintain an objection of grounds
of generation of traffic, inadequate visibility and that the development has
the potential to attract standing vehicles which would interrupt the free flow
of traffic and thereby add to the hazards of road users. However, he suggested
that Members may wish to consider the arguments put forward by the applicants
of the potential changed position when the new Manual for Streets guidance
takes affect and his conclusions in the section in relation to this document as
to the impact this would have on this issue, should the draft guidance be
implemented, without significant change.
Subsequent to submission
of his initial comments, the Manual for Streets has now been officially
launched and came into force on
CONCLUSION
In view of the revised
guidance the Highway Engineer has confirmed that, in his view, the original three
grounds for refusal now no longer apply and he would therefore raise no highway
objection to the removal of condition 1.
School Travel Plan Advisor advises that the
·
The Environmental Health department raises no additional
comment compared to that of previous applications suggesting that conditions
should be imposed to restrict outside playtimes due to potential disturbance to
neighbouring properties by reason of generated noise and activity.
5.2 External Consultees
NATS raises no safeguarding objection.
3 Third Party Comments
·
The application has attracted a letter of objection from Planning
Aid (South) who has represented a number of third parties who raise concern
over the application. The proposal has also attracted two letters of objection
from the same residents all of which can be summarised as follows:
·
Infrastructure insufficient to accommodate intense use.
·
Road narrow and steep with poor surface
·
No material difference to that previously refused.
·
Adverse parking congestion and traffic problems
·
Insufficient sewage capacity
·
Insufficient highway visibility
·
Cannot enforce a School Travel Plan.
·
Should Members approve application conditions should be
placed on decision notice, restricting outside play times, number of vehicles
visiting site and building being used within term time only. Operation of
school should be between the hours of
·
Application has attracted 149 letters of support at time of
writing this report, some of which have been compiled by same family members.
Their comments can be summarised as follows:
·
·
Sufficient parking within public highway
·
Good educational facility, excellent results both
academically and personally.
·
Poor previous planning decisions
·
Complied with temporary conditions and previous decisions
·
No reasonable impacts to local residents and highway
·
Insufficient risk to outweigh education
·
Sufficient highway visibility
·
No adverse impact from noise
·
Sufficient sewerage capacity
·
Revised highway guidance overcomes reasons for refusal on
past decisions.
·
School not an incongruous land use.
5.4 Parish Council Comments
Shanklin Town Council supports application for continued
use. Education outweighs loss of amenity suffered by local residents.
6. Evaluation
6.1 This application follows a number of
earlier applications on the site, the most recent being refused in December
2006. Therefore, the main factors in reconsidering this matter are considered
to be as follows:
·
The justification for the grant of temporary consent in
September 2005.
·
The reasons for refusal of the previous application.
·
Any changes which have occurred since December which would
justify a different decision.
6.2 It is clear from the planning history of
this site that the principle of using Alverstone House as a school was accepted
by the Local Planning Authority, subject to a number of detailed matters being
addressed. These matters generally relate to the location of the school and
whether this is appropriate in terms of highway implications and impact on
surrounding area. Officers in dealing with earlier applications reached the
conclusion that the detailed matters were unacceptable, particularly with
regard to visibility splays at the entrance to the site, traffic generation and
the fact that the proposal was likely to generate standing vehicles which would
have the potential to interrupt the free flow of traffic. In addition, concerns
were expressed as to whether this was a sustainable location for a school
premises, given the position of the site beyond the boundaries of the defined
settlement and that Luccombe Road is affectively a cul de sac. Consequently,
Officers recommended refusal to the initial application.
6.3 Notwithstanding
the highway concerns expressed by Officers, Members resolved to grant planning
permission for the continued use of the premises as a school for a temporary
period expiring on
“To allow the Local Planning Authority to monitor the
impact of the use on the amenity of the surrounding area and to ensure that
material progress has been made and maintained in the enforcement of the School
Travel Plan submitted to the Local Planning Authority under cover of letter
dated 15 July 2005 from Mr Hepburn, in accordance with Policies S6 (High
Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan.”
6.4 In resolving to grant planning
permission, a number of other conditions were considered appropriate to address
matters including the submission of a monitoring report on the School Travel
Plan, improvements to the visibility at the access, widening of the access over
a distance of ten metres to enable two vehicles to pass, restrictions on the
position of any gates at the access, provision of the parking spaces as shown
on the approved plan and landscaping matters. Of particular relevance, the
condition requiring the formation of visibility splays sought to ensure the
maximum site lines achievable were provided in the interests of highway safety.
However, it should be stressed that this was still not in accordance with the
requirements and guidelines at that time.
6.5 The application to remove the condition
which time limited the permission was refused on four grounds which can be
summarised as follows:
·
Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that continued
operation of the school represents sustainable use in this location.
·
Development likely to generate significant increase in
vehicular traffic entering and leaving public highway to detriment of highway
safety.
·
Development attracts standing vehicles on highway which interrupts
free flow of traffic and thereby adds to hazards of road users.
·
The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed
development by reason of unacceptable visibility.
6.6 It is necessary to consider whether there
has been any change in circumstances since refusal of this previous application
which may overcome these reasons for refusal and, therefore, consideration must
be given as to whether they would be valid reasons for refusal of the current
application. On this point, I shall deal firstly with those issues directly
related to highway matters.
6.7 Since consideration of the previous
application, Manual for Streets has now been formally launched and came into
force on
6.8 Other changes which have occurred since
the original temporary consent was granted include the alterations to the
vehicular access to the site and alterations to arrangements for vehicle
movements within the site by the creation of a circulatory route within the area
in front of the building, referred to in Section 3.2 of this report. This has
obviously resulted in significant improvements for vehicles entering and
leaving the site. Furthermore, the changes in guidelines and these physical
alterations potentially mean that parents dropping children off can enter the
site to drop children of, making use of the circulatory route which has been
created, and thereby overcoming the previous reason for refusal relating to
standing vehicles on the highway.
6.9 Other changes which have occurred since
the consideration of the last application involve the imposition of parking
restrictions in the general locality of the school. Previously, parking
restrictions (double yellow lines) applied along virtually the entire length of
Popham Road on northern side, short section on southern side at eastern end of
the road, along the entire northern side of Priory Road with limited
restrictions on southern side, including short length of double yellow lines at
junction of Priory Road and Luccombe Road and a short length of double yellow
lines on eastern side of Luccombe Road, directly adjacent junction with Priory
Road. As a result of a recent traffic order, these parking restrictions have
been extended and double yellow lines now run along significant length of
6.10 Members will be aware that
6.11 In considering whether the location of the
school is sustainable, I consider it is relevant to take into account how other
schools on the
6.12 Concern has been expressed by local
residents that the drainage system is inadequate to cope with the flows
generated by use of the premises as a school Officers have been advised that
drains have previously become blocked and on clearing the blockage, items such
as sweet wrappers were found. Following an occasion when flooding occurred from
the drains, consultations were carried out with Southern Water who advised that
the incident was caused by a blockage in the sewer and was not due to lack of
capacity. Consequently, in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the
drainage system is unable to cope with foul flows from the premises, this would
not justify withholding planning permission.
6.13
A letter has been submitted by solicitor acting on behalf of
the school suggesting that the basis of the last decision was not in accordance
with Government Circular 11/95 with respect to reasoning behind temporary
consent. Solicitor quotes that:
“…... the Circular goes on to advise that temporary
permission will only be appropriate when either the applicant only proposed
temporary development or where a trial run is needed. Clearly in this case, the
first reason is not applicable as it follows, therefore, the only reason for
imposing the temporary condition in 2005 was in order to assess the adequacy of
the School Travel Plan by way of a trial run.”
More recently, the solicitor acting on behalf of the
applicants has submitted a further letter, responding to comments submitted by
Planning Aid, which largely focuses on a discussion around Case Law and it is
not intended to go into this matter in any details. However, Members will note
that the letter submitted by Planning Aid, on behalf of a number of residents
in the area, suggests conditions/restrictions which should be applied in the
event that the application is approved. In this respect, the solicitor acting
on behalf of the applicant expresses a view that it would not be appropriate to
impose any additional conditions which were not part of the original temporary
consent, unless it can be shown that there has been a material change from the
previous permission to now warrant the additional conditions and that the
Council must assess whether such conditions meet the tests in Circular 11/95.
He suggests that, to do otherwise, would be unreasonable.
6.14 Whilst noting the comments of the solicitor
acting on behalf of the applicants, it is considered that, should Members be
minded to approve this application, it is appropriate to apply additional
conditions to safeguard the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties.
Removal of the condition restricting the use to a temporary period has the
effect of making the use of the premises as a school permanent. The reason for
the temporary consent was, in part, to assess the impact of the use on the
area. In this respect, I understand that, during the period that the school has
occupied the premises, at least one complaint has been logged with
Environmental Health on grounds of noise disturbance. Environmental Health Officers
have previously advised that noise levels at the school do not constitute a
statutory nuisance by virtue of the short duration of each break and limited
number of days and disturbances which could occur. Therefore, whilst raising no
objection to this application, they have suggested that, should Members be
minded to approve application, conditions should be imposed to restrict outside
playtimes in order to minimise disturbance to neighbouring properties. In
addition, they consider that it would be appropriate to impose restrictions on
the operating times of the school. This matter has been discussed with the
school in order to avoid over restrictive controls which would impact on the
operation of the school.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 There have clearly been a number of changes since rejection of the previous application which have significant implications for the earlier reasons for refusal. Therefore, having given due regard and appropriate weight to these changes and other material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that on balance, there have been sufficient changes to warrant a different recommendation. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval.
8. Recommendation
Conditional Approval
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The premises shall not be used as a
school except between the hours of 08.00 hrs and 18.00 hrs Monday to Friday.
With the exception of governors/PTA meetings, parents evenings, school productions
and the school fete, 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. |
|
2 |
Use of the grounds for activities associated
with the school shall be limited to one hour each day Monday to Friday,
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 |
No PA or amplification equipment shall be
used on the site except within the building. 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 |
Within one month of the date of this permission,
details of the dates of the standard school terms shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for its approval. Thereafter, the premises shall not
be used as a school outside of the approved term times except with the prior
written approval of 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. |
|
04 |
Reference Number: P/02013/06 - TCP/14875/L Parish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor West Registration Date: Officer:
Mr S Wiltshire Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Cheetah Marine Proposed building for marine industry,
office & sales area to include mezzanine floor, cafe, boat storage area,
detached storage building & alterations to access roadway (revised plans)
(readvertised application) adjacent to east side of, pumping station,
Esplanade, Ventnor, PO38 The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This planning application involves the development of Council owned land and under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation it is required to be referred to the Development Control Committee for consideration.
1. Details of Application
1.1 The applicant seeks full planning permission
for the erection of a building principally for boat construction (fitting out)
with ancillary accommodation to provide an office/chandlery and a
café/kiosk. An area to the east of the
building is proposed for outside boat storage, with a detached storage building
forming the eastern boundary.
1.2 The submitted plans as originally
submitted showed a part two storey/part single storey building having
dimensions of 27.7 metres by 17.0 metres divided into 4 bays, with a gabled
roof with east/west ridgeline at an overall height of 9.5 metres. Boat work would be concentrated in the
eastern 3 bays of the building served by 2 roller shutter doors in the southern
elevation and a higher roller shutter door in the western elevation. The westernmost bay would be split level with
a harbour master’s office to serve the adjacent Ventnor Haven, associated
chandlery retail area and a small café/kiosk in the north-eastern corner of the
building, with an industrial storage area on a mezzanine floor above.
1.3 Following negotiations with the applicant
a revised scheme has been submitted, which was the subject of a further period
of consultation and re-advertisement. It is the revised scheme which Members
are asked to consider at this time.
1.4 The revised plans show a part two
storey/part single storey building with a length of 44.6 metres and width of
18.6 metres (maximum dimensions) divided into 6 bays. The roof has an east/west ridgeline, which
steps up in height from 8.3 metres, to a maximum height of 9.5 metres in the
middle section, with gables to each end and above the 2 main boat access doors
in the southern elevation. The design incorporates a canopy above a balcony
area to the western elevation. Boat work
and storage would be concentrated in the eastern 5 bays, with the westernmost
bay split level with a harbour master’s office to serve the adjacent Ventnor
Haven, associated chandlery retail area and a café in the north-eastern corner
of the building, with an industrial storage area on a mezzanine floor
above. Shower and toilet facilities for
harbour users would be accessed from a separate door to the north of the
building.
1.5 The revised application also proposes a
detached building to the east of the main building which would be used for
storing haven equipment. This building
would have dimensions of 10 metres by 10 metres incorporating a hipped with
small gabled features and feature “cupola” to a height of 8.2 metres.
1.6 The proposed buildings would be
constructed of horizontal boarding above a reconstituted stone plinth. The main building would have full height
glazing in the south-western corner, with steel columns supporting the corners
of the building and canopy/balcony feature.
It is proposed that the roof would be standing seam steel sheet
incorporate a number of roof lights in the south roof-slope. The storage building would have a slate roof.
1.7 Information submitted indicates that
hulls would be brought down to the new building by trailer. They would also be
maneuvered on a trailer along the access roadway to the slipway to be launched
for testing and trials when ready for delivery to the customer by road or by
sea.
1.8 The location of the proposed building is
partially on the existing access road along the eastern Esplanade, thus this
road would require to be realigned to enable access to the building and the
public car park beyond. The Council is
in control of the land over which a realigned road would be located. The Council’s Engineering Services department
has thus supplied plans and a road safety audit detailing proposed revisions to
the access road and car parking area.
These plans show the access to the main Esplanade widened, with a 6
metre wide access road and footway running adjacent to the seawall. A “pinch point” to incorporate a priority
flow and speed cushions features as a traffic calming arrangement would be
provide adjacent to the children’s paddling pool, with alterations to the
positions of vehicle parking bays in the main parking area.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The application site comprises a level
area utilised as a public car park and open space on Ventnor’s eastern
Esplanade, adjacent to Ventnor Haven harbour and the approved fish processing
building which is now open. To the rear
of the application site the ground rises steeply up to Ventnor Winter
Gardens. Ventnor Cascade area and the
Isle of Wight Paddling Pool are situated adjacent to the western elevation of
the proposed building.
2.2 In the absence of any immediate
surrounding buildings the site is seen as somewhat isolated although there are
clear views across it from the Esplanade and the pedestrian walk on the harbour
wall.
3. Relevant History
3.1 The following applications are relevant
to the consideration of this application;
|
P/02400/05 |
Construction of
single/2 storey industrial building with accommodation within roofspace for
marine related industry to include owners living accommodation and unit of holiday
accommodation; balconies and dormer windows (revised scheme) |
Withdrawn 12.1.2006 |
|
P/02541/04 |
Erection of 2/3 storey
industrial building for marine related industry to include owners living
accommodation and unit of holiday accommodation. |
Withdrawn 11.10.2005 |
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National
Policy Guidance
·
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.
·
Planning
Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment advises that
high priority should be paid to the objective of preserving or enhancing the
character or appearance of Conservation Areas.
·
Planning
Policy Guidance Note 20: Coastal Planning highlights the need to reconcile
development requirements with the need to protect, conserve and improve the landscape,
environmental quality, wildlife habitats and recreational opportunities of the
coast.
·
Planning
Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise gives advice on the considerations
to be taken into account in developments which are likely to generate noise or
be exposed to existing noise sources.
·
Planning
Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk seeks to avoid inappropriate
development in areas at risk of flooding from river, sea and other sources, and
to ensure that new developments in flood risk areas are appropriately flood
resilient.
4.2 Relevant policies of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:
·
S6 – All development will be expected to be of a high
standard of design
·
S10 – Conserve or enhance the features of special character
of these areas
·
B6 – Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas
·
D1 - Standards of Design
·
D2 - Standards of Development within the site
·
E1 – Promote suitably locate new employment uses
·
E7 – Employment sites with deep water frontage
·
G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages
·
G4 - General Locational Criteria
·
G7 – Development on unstable land
·
G10 – Potential conflict between proposed development and
existing surrounding uses
·
R2 – New Retail Development
·
T1 – Promotion of tourism and the extension of the season
·
T2 – Tourism related development (other than accommodation)
·
TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development
·
TR16 – Parking policies and guidelines
·
TR17 – Public rights of way
4.3 The application site is within Ventnor
Eastern Esplanade. This area is the
subject of a Planning and Development Brief that was adopted as Supplementary
Planning Guidance by the Council in July 2002.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
The Highway Engineer has commented that he is in agreement
with the conclusions of the Road Safety Audit. Concern is raised relating to
the location of the ‘pinch-point’, vehicle containment barriers and depth of
the parking spaces.
·
Conservation and Design Officer; (to original scheme) – The
revised proposals have improved the proportions and design of the building and
the design is now acceptable in principle, subject to appropriate conditions
relating to the detailing and use of materials.
The provision of the storage building would provide a focal point and
help to screen the open boat storage area.
Concern is expressed about how the development would interact with the
public realm open space in this important location; although it is noted only
some elements are in control of the applicant.
·
Environmental Health Officer – No objection to the proposal,
subject to the imposition of conditions.
·
Coastal Manager – Confirmed that the proposal is
satisfactory with regard to the issue of ground stability.
·
Ecology Officer – No objection in relation to ecological
issues.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Environment Agency – Has no objection to the principle of
the development.
·
Natural
·
NATS – Has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.
5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments
·
Ventnor Town Council (to originally submitted scheme)
– The Local Planning Authority be recommended to refuse planning consent in
respect of the following planning application for the reasons listed below:
(a) The industrial design of the building and the
proposed security fencing is not in keeping with the area and is detrimental to
the surrounding landscape;
(b) The original Planning Brief for development of
the area declared that all development should comprise mixed development and
the proposal fails to meet this standard;
(c) All development on The Esplanade should be designed
to enhance the overall appearance and not detract from the attractiveness of a
most important asset to the town and seafront;
(d) Particular attention should be given to the
roof design which is important as it is viewed from the public areas above and
this application does not satisfactorily deal with this requirement.
·
Ventnor Town Council (to revised scheme) – See no
reason why planning consent should not be issued.
5.4 Third Party Representations:
·
Originally submitted scheme - A total of 57 letters of
representation were received from residents, CPRE and Island Watch. Of these letters 53 raise objections to the
proposal in relation to the following planning issues:
·
Site is inappropriate for industrial development
·
Design of the building is out of keeping with the
surrounding area and Conservation Area
·
Proposal is detrimental to tourism in Ventnor
·
Contrary to the East Esplanade Development Brief
·
Security fencing unsympathetic addition
·
Loss of public car park and disabled parking
·
Access by heavy goods vehicles inappropriate
·
Conflict between traffic and pedestrians
·
Potential for noise/smell disturbance
·
Impact on children’s paddling pool
·
Impact on the ecology of the area
·
Lack of certainty over Harbour Master’s facilities
·
Suitability of the slipway
·
Café/kiosk unsatisfactory as a tourist facility
·
Four letters were received which support the proposal on
grounds that it would:
·
Provide employment for Ventnor
·
Provide facilities for the maintenance and storage of boats
·
Support marine related industry and the Haven
·
Revised scheme – A total of 81 letters of representation have been
received to the proposed development. Of
these letters 47 object to the proposal, many of which make reference to the
objections set out in their original letter.
In summary objections are made on the following planning grounds:
·
Site is inappropriate for industrial development
·
Design of the building is out of keeping with the
surrounding area and Conservation Area
·
Proposal is detrimental to tourism in Ventnor and the local
economy.
·
Contrary to the East Esplanade Development Brief
·
Security fencing unsympathetic addition
·
Loss of public car park and disabled parking
·
Access by heavy goods vehicles inappropriate
·
Conflict between traffic and pedestrians
·
Potential for noise / smell disturbance
·
Impact on children’s paddling pool
·
Impact on the ecology of the area
·
Lack of certainty over Harbour Master’s facilities
·
Suitability of the slipway
·
Café unsatisfactory as a tourist facility
·
Amendments do not make the scheme acceptable
·
Lack of details of toilet facilities
·
Site at Collins Point more suitable
·
Ground stability
·
Additional storage building does not relate to main
building.
·
Positioning of café in relation to paddling pool
·
Conflicts with public access along Esplanade
·
Harbour facilities should be provided separately
35 letters have been
received which support the application on the following grounds:
·
Would support the Haven and marine related facilities
·
Design of the building would enhance the area
·
Provide all year round local employment opportunities
·
Assist in the regeneration of Ventnor
6. Evaluation
6.1 The principal considerations in the
determination of this application are whether;
·
The proposed mix of uses is acceptable and compatible with
the neighbouring land uses and the aims of the Ventnor Eastern Esplanade
Development Brief
·
The siting and design of the buildings and boat storage area
would protect and enhance Ventnor Conservation Area.
·
The proposal would satisfactorily promote tourism.
·
The Highway implications arising from the proposal are
acceptable
·
The representations have raised any issues not covered
above.
6.2 Principle of Development - The
Unitary Development Plan (UDP) identifies the application site as being within
the Development Envelope boundary for Ventnor, and within Ventnor Conservation
Area. The principle of new built
development in this location accords with the aims of Policies S1, G1 and E1 of
the UDP, and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (Ventnor Eastern Esplanade
– Planning and Development Brief), subject to the criteria set out within these
policies, and other considerations as set out below;
6.3 Mix Use Development – The application
site is an important focal point for tourists accessing the Western Esplanade
and town. The recently developed Ventnor
Haven has created a harbour facility, and the seafood processing building
approved several years ago has now been built and is operational. In order to complement the tourism potential
of this site, the Development Brief considered that “the site would
be acceptable for a mix-use development which could include
commercial/tourism/leisure and community facilities, provided these enhance,
complement and do not compete with public access and domain of the esplanade
area.”
6.4 The application proposes an industrial
unit to be used for the final fitting out of craft manufactured at Cheetah
Marine’s industrial unit situated on Ventnor Industrial Estate, with an
external boat storage facility and storage building to the eastern side of the
main building. The ground floor of the
western quarter of the building is proposed for occupation as a Harbour
Master’s office in association with the adjoining Haven, an ancillary retail
facility to provide a chandlery, and a café.
Shower and toilet facilities for use by visiting yachtsmen would be
located to the rear of the main building, accessed through a security gate.
6.5 The Eastern Esplanade is the prime
undeveloped area on Ventnor seafront, currently under utilised as a car park,
which has considerable potential to promote and develop tourism and employment
related uses within the area which would assist with the regeneration of
Ventnor. This potential is acknowledged
in the Council’s Ventnor Eastern Esplanade Development Brief
6.6 The usage of the proposed development
would be dominated by the Cheetah Marine boat fitting out and storage
facilities with other tourist and harbour facilities within the western end of
the building. It is understood that the
lack of on shore facilities at the Haven currently acts as a deterrent to
visiting craft, thus the provision of shower/toilet facilities, a harbour
masters office, chandlery and boat repair facility would potentially increase
the use of the Haven by boats. The
applicant has also stated that the office would also be used to increase the
scope of tourist activities through the provision of boat and fishing trips. In
this respect the proposal would be compatible with the SPG aspiration for
providing mixed commercial/tourism uses.
6.7 The Information accompanying the planning
provides details that the development would provide a total of 6 jobs, of which
4 would be industrial and 2 office based.
6.8 The objectives of the UDP and Development
Brief for this area support the provision of mixed use development to increase
tourism and employment facilities within the area. It is accepted that the scheme does fulfill
these objectives to some degree. Through the Development Brief and marketing of
the site the development currently under consideration, along with the fish
processing building, are the only proposal to come forward. In light of the history to this site, it is
considered that the development would provide facilities that would enhance the
use of the Haven, as well as providing local employment opportunities for
marine related development. The
proposal, if approved, would provide a mixed use development and could act as a
catalyst for future mixed use development in the area.
6.9 Siting and Design – The submitted
plans show a part single storey/part two storey building situated approximately
2 metres from the base of the cliff. A
pedestrian area with a width of 3 metres would separate the building from a
realigned vehicular access to the retained public car parking area to the east
of the application site.
6.10 The submitted plans show a six bay
building, which has been visually divided to form three distinct elements. The western-most bay, incorporating the
chandlery / café, is of yacht club style of design with a gabled roof
projecting out as a canopy over a first floor balcony area supported by steel
columns. The western elevation incorporates “porthole” style windows to the first
floor, with full height glazing at ground floor which wraps around the
south-western corner. The roof then
steps up to the middle boat fitting bays, which comprise two projecting
openings into the unit with gabled roofs above.
The building then steps down to the easternmost two bays, incorporating
porthole windows in the southern elevation, and a main door in the eastern
elevation. The plans indicate that the
elevations would be constructed in horizontal boarding, with render panels,
over a reconstituted stone plinth, with a standing seam coated steel roofing
panels.
6.11 A detached storage building for Haven
equipment is proposed to be located 13.8 metres to the east of the main building,
which incorporates a hipped main roof with small feature gables and cupola at
the apex. The area between the two
buildings is proposed as a boat storage area, enclosed by fencing.
6.12 The main public elevation of this building
is from a westerly direction along Ventnor Esplanade. This western elevation has been designed to
incorporate a main central entrance feature with balanced fenestration elements
to each side. Overall it is considered
that the design of this elevation would complement views along the
Esplanade. From the east the main bulk
of the boat fitting-out building would be broken up by the provision of a
detached storage building, which would provide a focal point to this end of the
development. Important views of the
building are also available from the Winter Gardens above, as well as from the
sea. Again it is considered that the
design of the building would have an acceptable visual impact from these
viewpoints, although careful consideration will need to be given to the security
fence to the boat storage area to avoid this becoming a harsh urban feature.
6.13 The link between the application site and
the public realm open space around the building forms an important visual
aspect to this proposal. Consideration
of this aspect is complicated by the fact that the majority of this area is,
and will remain, in the control of the Council.
The Coastal Protection Manager has confirmed that this area, as well as
the road and car parking areas, will be subject to future upgrading. It is important that the Council recognises
its role in enhancing the public realm to raise the attractiveness of this
area.
6.14 In conclusion, it is considered that the
design of these buildings is of a high standard for their purposes that they
would have an acceptable visual impact
within the area, and therefore would protect the amenity of Ventnor
Conservation Area.
6.15 Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
– The application proposes that the building would primarily be used for
industrial purposes involving the final fitting out of craft manufactured at
Cheetah Marine’s premise on Ventnor Industrial Estate. It is stated that the fitting out would not
involve the use of resins, solvents or other toxic materials and the type of
works would include fitting stainless steel stanchions, guardrails and boat
electronics. No details have been
provided as to the types of equipment which would be used in the building,
although it could be anticipated that this would involve the use of power
tools.
6.16 A seafood processing unit has been
completed on a jetty within the Haven area.
The land is otherwise used for car parking and as public open
space. Provided that the types of activities
undertaken within the proposed unit are strictly controlled though a condition
relating, the compatibility of boat fitting-out activities with tourism and
leisure pursuits on the esplanade should be satisfactory.
6.17 The Environmental Health Officer has
commented on the proposal in terms of its potential impact on the amenity of
surrounding use from noise and odour disturbance. In terms of odour, the Environmental Health
Officer considers that, subject to the imposition of a condition restricting
the use of odorous chemicals, there is unlikely to be a loss of amenity from
the boat fitting out activities. In
addition, details of the type of ventilation/extraction system for the proposed
café would need to be supplied, or alternatively a restriction to low
odour/grease food preparation. Likewise
noise impact from the proposed development is likely to be acceptable, subject
to restrictions on types of activities and details of any ventilation
systems.
6.18 Many of the letters of representation
received refer to the relationship between the proposed development and the
adjacent children’s paddling pool. That
part of the proposed building closest to the paddling pool would be utilized as
a Harbour Master’s office, chandlery and café, the nearest boat building
activities within a building some 35 metres away. In principle, it is considered that the
relationship with the paddling pool and adjacent uses is acceptable, and use of
the café and office could be seen as provided enhanced visual supervision over
this area. The consideration of traffic movements associated with the facility
on the public will be considered in paragraphs 6.20 - 6.27. The area of concern
which remains to be resolved is the provision of details showing the proposed
landscaping treatment, and its relationship with the public realm open space,
such as hardsurfacing area, railings and other street furniture. It should be noted that the paddling pool and
access road are in the ownership of the Council. The Coastal Protection Manager has commented
that provision of new railings segregating the paddling pool from the access
road will be provided in the near future, with general improvements taking
place to the public areas when budgets allow.
6.19 Tourism – Ventnor Esplanade is an
area of high tourism potential and any proposal should demonstrate the
development of tourist activity within this area. The application proposes the
development of a harbour master’s office, chandlery, café and toilet/shower
facilities for harbour users as part of the proposal. Whilst this are has more
potential to develop tourism facilities in the area, this proposal may provide
the impetus to kick-start tourism usage of the Haven, and could potentially
assist in attracting further investment into this area. On the basis of the facilities that are
offered it is considered that this element of the proposal should be supported.
6.20 Highway Implications - The
application site is currently used as a public car parking area, with
pedestrian access through the site towards Wheeler’s Bay and Bonchurch. The proposed siting of the building will
require the relocation of the existing access road to a position closer to the
Haven, with subsequent reinstatement of the existing roadway as public open
space. A public footpath would remain immediately alongside the edge of the
seawall.
6.21 The Council’s Engineering Services
department has thus supplied plans and a road safety audit detailing proposed
revisions to the access road and car parking area. These plans show the access to the main
Esplanade widened, with a 6 metre wide access road and footway running adjacent
to the seawall. A “pinch point” to
incorporate a priority flow and speed cushions features as a traffic calming
arrangement would be provide adjacent to the children’s paddling pool, with
alterations to the positions of vehicle parking bays in the main parking area.
6.22 The siting of the proposed building would
result in the loss of an existing area of public car park totalling 27
spaces. It should be noted that an
additional area of car parking providing 26 spaces was provided at the eastern
end of the Esplanade in Spring 2006 by the Council’s Coastal Management section
as a precursor to the Council’s proposed disposal of this land.
6.23 The proposed realignment of the access road
and footway to a position adjacent to the sea wall would require the
reconfiguration of parking bays within the existing parking area. The submitted plans show that 3 spaces
reserved for disabled persons along with a further 55 spaces for cars and a
motorcycle area would be provided in the area to the east of the application
site. The existing car park in this area
currently contains 3 disabled spaces and 74 car spaces. Thus a loss of 19 car parking spaces would
arise from the highway scheme.
6.24 The submitted plans indicate the erection
of new vehicle containment barriers between the children’s paddling pool and
the realigned roadway, as well as along the seawall. The design of these barriers shows a steel
frame with mesh infill, which is considered to be inappropriate for this
location. However, this part of the
proposal is outside the application site and forms part of the Council’s public
realm works, and therefore will be dealt with through the appropriate internal
channels
6.25 The Highway Engineer has commented that he
is in agreement with the points that are contained within the road safety audit
in terms of the Highway safety issues.
However, concern is expressed about the proposed relocation of the
“pinch-point” adjacent to the children’ paddling pool, the form of the vehicle
restraint barriers and the 4.2 m depth of the parking bays. In relation to the latter point it is
understood that there is a sufficient degree of overhang at the base of the
northern slope to allow the full 4.8 m depth requirement.
6.26 On the basis of the submitted highway
plans, it has been demonstrated that there is a Highway solution to provide
access to the proposed building and maintain public access to the car park
beyond. However, I have some concerns
that the provision of a 6 metre carriageway appears to be an over-engineered
solution in a visually sensitive area where vehicle speeds are generally
low. The road design is not in
accordance with the Eastern Esplanade Development Brief which states that
consideration should be given to shared surfaces particularly alongside the
quayside/revetment, and that the area should be designed as a pedestrian
priority area.
6.27 The Government’s recently published highway
design guidance “Manual for Streets” stresses the importance of placing people
at the heart of the design process by applying a user hierarchy to the design
process which places pedestrians at the top.
The building of streets primarily designed to meet the needs of motor traffic
that are bland and unattractive is positively discouraged. In conclusion it is considered that the
proposed highway design as currently proposed does not put forward a solution
which is of a satisfactory urban design or in line with advice contained within
the Development Brief or guidance contained within Manual for Streets. However,
I believe that a better design could be achieved and that this issue can be
satisfactorily addressed by imposition of an appropriate condition.
6.28 Ground Stability – The application
site is within an area where ground stability problems may exist and a ground
stability report prepared by D F McCallum and Assoc. has been submitted in
support of the proposal, although it is noted that this ground stability report
was prepared in February 2005 in relation to a previous application. A subsequent letter dated
6.29 The Council’s Coastal Protection Manager
has confirmed he is satisfied with the issue of ground stability in relation to
this application.
6.30 Flooding – The application site lies
partly within an area at risk from flooding. The Environment Agency has been
supplied with information to assess the flood risk potential of this
development and they have confirmed that they have no objection to the
principle of the proposal, along with informative advice to the applicants. The
Coastal Protection Manager has also confirmed that since the construction of
the rock revetment in front of the seawall has taken place, wave overtopping no
longer takes place and this flood risk is not seen as a problem in this
location.
6.31 Ecology – The cliff area to the
north of the application site is identified as an area of special scientific
interest for ecological reasons. Natural
6.32 A number of the letters of representation
refer to the presence of wall lizards on the cliff area at the rear of the
site. The Ecology Officer has confirmed that whilst there may be wall lizards
in the area, these are not a protected species, and would be unlikely to be
affected by the proposal as it does not directly impact on the cliff. As such there is no objection to the proposal
on ecological grounds.
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 mix of uses proposed which includes marine related employment, harbour facilities and tourist facilities reflects the requirements of the adopted Ventnor Eastern Esplanade Development Brief. The proposed buildings are considered to be of a satisfactory design which will protect and enhance Ventnor Conservation Area and the Esplanade in general. The application promotes marine based employment in association with Ventnor Haven, and whilst it is considered that a more comprehensive scheme for the development of the whole Eastern Esplanade area could be a more favourable development option, such a scheme is highly unlikely to come forward and on balance the benefits of this proposal may attract further investment to the area and thus can be seen as being beneficial to the Ventnor area.
7.2 For this development to achieve the impetus referred to above there is a strong need for the Council to play its part by applying resources to the treatment of the public realm and it is proposed that support for this be sent to the appropriate department.
7.3 A design for the realigned access road
way has been received which satisfies a road safety audit. However, this solution appears to be an
over-engineered design primarily designed to meet the needs of motor traffic. A
design which places pedestrians at the top of the user hierarchy utilising
shared surfacing areas would be a better solution to the design of the public
realm area in this location. It is suggested
that further liaison is undertaken with Engineering Services to achieve a
better road design and that this could be required by a planning condition.
7.4 Accordingly it is considered that the proposal is in compliance with the aims of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance “Ventnor Eastern Esplanade – Planning and Development Brief, and has been recommended for approval.
8. Recommendation
8.1 That Members of the Committee express
their support for the Council to play its part in the enhancement of the
Eastern Esplanade through appropriate investment in the public realm area.
8.2 This application is recommend for
approval of planning permission; subject to the following conditions:
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 |
Those parts of the buildings
as shown on drawing numbers 03:1369:102 and 03:1369:103A, shall only be used
for boat fitting out activities and associated storage uses and
notwithstanding the provisions of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning
(Use Classes) Order 1987 and shall not be used for any other industrial uses. Reason: To ensure that the use
of the building is compatible with the general character of the area and to
protect the general amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D1
(Standards of design) and the Ventnor Eastern Esplanade Development Brief. |
|
3 |
No development shall take place until
samples of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces (including
walls, roof, columns, balcony, rooflights, windows and doors) 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. |
|
4 |
No development shall take place until full
details of hard 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 street furniture. 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 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 |
Notwithstanding the details shown on the
approved plans, details of the security fencing along the frontage of the
boat storage area shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details before the building is
first occupied and retained thereafter. 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. |
|
7 |
No outside storage of materials or other
equipment shall take place, other than boats/marine craft, within the
designated boat storage area shown on the approved drawings. 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. |
|
8 |
Boat fitting out operations shall only be
carried out within the easternmost 5 bays of the main building hereby
approved. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and neighbouring uses and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Before any boat fitting out commences
within the building hereby approved, a written statement shall be submitted
to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority setting out the
materials, tools and processes involved and also specifying measures to be
taken to control noise, odour, fumes and dust associated with any boat
fitting activities. The use of this
building shall then be undertaken in accordance with the agreed scheme and
any variation shall take place only following the agreement in writing with
the Local Planning Authority. Reason – To protect and safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential
property in accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No development shall take place until
full details of the proposed ventilation / extraction systems shall be submitted
to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This system shall be integrated into the
fabric of the building. Development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and fully
installed before the building is first brought into use. 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. |
|
11 |
The development hereby permitted shall
not be brought into use until the detached storage building has been
constructed in accordance with the approved plans. 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. |
|
12 |
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
buildings hereby approved. 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. |
|
13 |
No external lighting of any kind shall be
installed within the site without having first been agreed in advance with
the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the general character of the surrounding
area and in accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
The development
permitted by this planning permission shall not commence on site until a
planning obligation pursuant to S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 as been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local
Planning Authority has agreed in writing that the planning obligation is
acceptable. The said planning
obligation will keep open the elements of community facilities (shower /
toilet facilities for Haven users, harbour master’s facilities and café)
provided as part of this planning application which shall be retained in
perpetuity within these uses, and with regard to the toilet / shower
facilities shall secure the methodology by which Haven users gain access to
these facilities. Reason: To ensure that the
community benefits of this scheme are retained in perpetuity and to comply
with the Ventnor Eastern Esplanade Development Brief. |
|
15 |
The buildings hereby permitted
shall not be commenced until the access roadway, footway and means of
separating vehicle and pedestrians as been realigned to the south of the
building in accordance with details which shall be submitted and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The agreed traffic calming measures and the vehicle containment
facilities to the north side of the access road in the vicinity of the
children’s paddling pool shall be provided before the first occupation of
these buildings. The details to be
provided shall include the surface treatment the roadway at its junction with
the Cascade to a point adjacent to the public slipway entrance. Reason - To ensure that
satisfactory public vehicular and pedestrian access is maintained along
Ventnor Eastern Esplanade and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
considerations for new development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
16 |
Prior to the first use of the building
hereby permitted, the proposed opening hours of the proposed opening hours of
the each of the uses within the approved buildings shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties and that of the area in general and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
17 |
Prior to the first use of the buildings
hereby permitted, a scheme detailing the control of noise emissions from the
buildings shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This scheme shall ensure
that the “rating level” of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the
background level plus 5dB(A) at any time, in accordance with the methodology
set out in BS 4142. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers
of neighbouring properties and that of the area in general and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
05 |
Reference Number: P/00010/07 - TCP/07778/G Parish/Name: Gurnard - Ward/Name: Gurnard Registration Date: Officer:
Mr A White Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr W Button Demolition of bungalow; two pairs of
semi-detached houses with alterations to vehicular access; parking &
landscaping (revised scheme) The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local Member, Councillor J
Hobart, is not prepared for this application to be determined under the
delegated powers procedure given the level of local opposition. He considers that
proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site and also expresses
concern regarding the cumulative impact of housing development in the Gurnard
area and the parking difficulties that this can pose.
1. Details of Application
1.1 Full permission is sought to demolish an
existing 1960s style bungalow and replace with two pairs of semi-detached
houses. The existing property is constructed of artificial stone blocks under a
tiled roof and is not considered to be of any particular architectural merit.
1.2 Each pair of the proposed houses would
measure some 7.4 metres across its front elevation with a one metre gap in
between. The proposed houses would be situated one metre away from the
south-west boundary shared with
1.3 Submitted drawings indicate that all
dwellings would be of brick construction under a hipped pitched roof. The roofs
would incorporate a valley running parallel with
1.4 Each property would be provided with a
single parking space, front garden and enclosed rear gardens. The proposed
layout plan indicates that the parking spaces would be arranged as two pairs
with strips of landscaping in between.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 Application site is rectangular in shape,
with frontage onto
2.2 Albert Road is a street of mixed
residential character, exhibiting bungalows, chalets bungalows and houses of
different ages and designs. An assortment of detached, pairs and terraces of
properties are evident with little continuity in terms of gaps between
buildings. There is also diversity in terms of roofscape, with examples of both
hipped and gabled roofs fronting onto the highway. The existing bungalow is
bounded by a pair of semi-detached houses to the west and a detached chalet
bungalow to the east with pairs of narrow fronted houses directly opposite.
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/02526/03 – Demolition of bungalow;
construction of two detached houses; alterations to vehicular access and
formation of parking/turning area – approved subject to conditions
3.2 P/00157/05 – Demolition of bungalow;
construction of two detached houses; alterations to vehicular access and formation
of parking/turning area (revised scheme) – approved
3.3 P/00444/06 – Demolition of bungalow;
proposed terrace of four houses with alterations to vehicular access; parking
and landscaping – refused
3.4 P/01846/06 – Demolition of bungalow; two
pairs of semi-detached houses with alterations to vehicular access; parking and
landscaping (revised scheme) – withdrawn
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) emphasises
the need for good design to ensure attractive, useable, 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.
PPS3 (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.
4.2 Strategic Policies
The following strategic policies
of the Unitary Development Plan apply:
|
· S1 |
- |
Siting of New
Development |
|
· S2 |
- |
Development will be
Encouraged on Brownfield Sites |
|
· S6 |
- |
Design |
|
· S7 |
- |
Need to Provide for the
Development of at least 8000 Units. |
4.3 Local Planning Policies
Site is within the
development envelope boundary as identified on the
|
· G1 |
- |
Development Envelopes for
Towns and Villages |
|
· G4 |
- |
General Locational
Criteria for Development |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards of Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards for
Development within the site |
|
· D3 |
- |
Landscaping |
|
· H4 |
- |
Unallocated Residential
Development |
|
· H5 |
- |
Infill Development |
|
· H6 |
- |
High Density
Residential Development |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway Considerations
for New Development |
|
· TR16 |
- |
Parking Policies and
Guidelines |
|
· U11 |
- |
Infrastructure and
Services Provision |
Reference is also made to the Housing Needs Survey which
identifies, among other needs, a demand for smaller two bedroom homes that
could appeal to people at the lower end of the housing market.
4.4 Site is located within Parking Zone 3 of
the UDP where parking provision is 0-75% of the non-operational requirement.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
Highway Engineer recommends conditional
permission.
5.2 Parish Council comments
Gurnard Parish Council object on grounds that proposal
would amount to overdevelopment as density is too high and out of character
with the local environment, that local drainage (in particular sewerage
infrastructure) is unable to cope with additional demand. Concern also
expressed regarding parking within an already congested road. Proposal would be
unsympathetic to existing building line and has little regard to recognised
ground stability problems within the area. In summary, Parish Council feel that
proposal would be excessively cramped and of a poor design, contravening all
aspects of policy D1 of the UDP as well as being detrimental to the amenities
currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers.
5.3 Neighbours
Nine letters received from local residents objecting on
grounds that can be summarised as follows:
·
Overdevelopment.
·
Would appear cramped and intrusive in the streetscene.
·
Out of character with ambience of
·
Exacerbate existing parking problems and local congestion.
·
Would place additional strain on services and
infrastructure.
·
Would not provide adequate access for disabled.
·
Ground stability.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The determining factors in respect of
this application are as follows:
·
Principle
·
Density
·
Appearance of development in the streetscene
·
Impact on adjoining property occupiers
·
Parking
·
Drainage
6.2 Site is within the development envelope
boundary for
6.3 Regarding density, attention is drawn to
government advice that encourages efficient use of brownfield sites with
suggested density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare and even higher
where public transport and local facilities are available and easily
accessible. The proposal amounts to some 61 dwellings to the hectare, which
constitutes quite an intensive use of the application site. Gurnard does,
however, offer local amenities for its residents including shops, pubs and a
school as well as being on a bus route and reasonably accessible to Cowes and
the many amenities that it has to offer. Accordingly, Officers are of the
opinion that the application site has the locational attributes of being a
suitable candidate for high density residential development as discussed in
PPS3 and Policy H6 of the UDP. Arguably, the main gauge in assessing density is
whether the scale of buildings required to accommodate the four houses proposed
is acceptable in this context, both in terms of its appearance in the
streetscene and likely impact on neighbouring property occupiers.
6.4 At this point, it is appropriate to
summarise events that preceded the submission of this latest application.
Members were due to consider a very similar application last November, but the
application was withdrawn on the day of the Development Control Sub Committee
owing to a discrepancy on the submitted drawing whereby the plans showed the
width of the site to be oversized by 1.2 metres. This has been rectified
through the submission of this latest application and the houses reduced in
width to suit the revised dimensions. The gaps between buildings and boundaries
remain much as they were on the withdrawn scheme, which Members will recall had
an Officer recommendation of conditional permission. Given that the withdrawn scheme
for two pairs of semi-detached houses was recommended for conditional
permission, the main issue for consideration in this particular case is whether
the corrected plot width is capable of accommodating the proposed development
without appearing cramped and/or overbearing in so far as the streetscene and
neighbours are concerned.
6.5 In terms of streetscene,
6.6 One of the main concerns in respect of
the recently refused terrace was the monotony of the design and the heavily
engineered solution to the front of the site in order to achieve the required
parking. It was felt that the combination of these issues would have resulted
in an unnecessary urbanisation appearance that would have appeared
unsympathetic in this village environment. The scheme under consideration is
considered to be acceptable in design terms as discussed above. It also allows
for a more acceptable parking arrangement to the front by reason of planted
areas in between parking bays therefore softening the impact of hard paving.
6.7 Regarding impact on neighbouring property
occupiers, proposed dwellings would be situated at a lower level to and approximately
14 metres from the occupiers of a chalet bungalow at No.15. Accordingly,
proposal would have minimal impact on the said neighbour owing to the
significant distance involved. Proposal would be far closer and at a slightly
higher level to the neighbour to the west (No.23), as well as projecting
approximately 3 metres beyond its rear wall. There would, however, be a gap of
some 3.5 metres between respective flank walls which is not an uncommon
arrangement along
6.8 Concerning parking, proposed scheme
allows for one parking space per dwelling (4 in total). Given that the proposed
dwellings would only offer two bedrooms each, the maximum level of parking
allowed under policy would be six spaces. Whilst the site could arguably
accommodate six spaces and therefore satisfy the maximum requirement, this
would entail placing hardstanding across much of the site frontage which is an
arrangement that Officers consider to be undesirable owing to the visual impact
that would arise. Whereas one parking space per dwelling would not only accord
with the spirit and requirements of local policies in respect of parking, but
it would also allow for an element of landscaping to be incorporated into the
scheme in order to help soften the overall impact of this development.
Accordingly, it is felt that the provision of four parking spaces is the
optimum level of parking in this instance and is therefore compliant with the
requirement of policy TR16.
6.9 Regarding the issue of drainage, Members
are advised that planning permission already exists for two 3 bedroom detached
houses on this site. The drainage output from the proposed scheme is not likely
to be significantly higher than the scheme already approved but will
nevertheless be considered in greater detail at the Building Control stage. It
is suggested, however, that a condition is imposed regarding drainage to ensure
that sufficient capacity does exist before work commences. With this in mind,
it is felt that proposal is compliant with policy U11 of the UDP.
6.10 Concern has been expressed that site is
situated within an area that is vulnerable to ground movement. Members are
advised that the site is outside of the
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 site – as corrected in response to the identified
discrepancy - is of sufficient size to accommodate two pairs of semi-detached
house in such a way that would accord with the prevailing pattern and
appearance of housing development along Albert Road. Essentially, it is felt
that proposal strikes the balance of making efficient use of this brownfield
site without compromising the character and appearance of the surrounding area
or the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers. The
level of parking proposed is also considered to be acceptable in the context of
national and local parking policies.
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 |
No development shall take place until samples
of 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 |
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. The boundary treatment
shall be completed before the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied.
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. |
|
4 |
All materials consequent upon the
demolition of the existing dwelling, and those 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 materials shall be removed from site prior
to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in
general and the neighbouring residential properties in particular and to
comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
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 proposed finished levels means of enclosure; car parking
layouts; hard surfacing materials. 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 |
No development shall take place until a
detailed scheme including calculations and a capacity study, have been
submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating
the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and
surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system
that adequate capacity exists, including any reasonable repairs which may be
required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional
flows do not cause flooding or over load the existing system. No unit shall
be occupied until such system has been completed in accordance with the
approved details. Reason: To ensure and adequate system of foul water drainage
is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure
and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
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 first
floor windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this
permission) shall be constructed in the side elevations of the eastern and
western most units unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities and privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and
to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
9 |
The first floor bathroom and en suite
shower room windows as shown on drawing number 2006/01.12 shall be 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 if glass supplied by an alternative manufacturer)and shall be
retained to the specification as obscure glazed thereafter. Reason: In the interests of privacy and amenities of the neighbouring
property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No part of any boundary wall or fence
adjacent to the site frontage, nor any hedge, shrubs or vegetation planted adjacent
to that boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence shall at any
time be permitted to be more than 1 metre above the level of the highway
footway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply
with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
No dwelling 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 4 cars (1 space per dwelling) to be
parked. 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. |
|
06 |
Reference Number: P/00228/07 - TCP/18890/J Parish/Name: St. Helens - Ward/Name: Brading and Registration Date: Officer:
Miss L Scovell Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr J Taylor Pair of semi-detached houses; alterations
to vehicular access (revised scheme) (revised plans) land adjacent, Little
Rosery, Westfield Road, St. Helens, Ryde, The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Councillor Joyce feels that the
Local Planning Authority is taking an inconsistent approach with regard to
infill development of this type and would like the Committee to consider the
application based on other infill applications within the immediate locality
and elsewhere in the Ward.
1. Details of Application
1.1 Full consent is sought for a pair of
semi-detached houses and alterations to the existing vehicular access.
1.2 Proposal comprises 2 two bedroom
properties one of the bedrooms in each of the property will be en-suite with
other separate bath and toilet facilities, a kitchen/diner, lounge and
conservatory.
1.3 The application shows parking of one
space per dwelling, nose-in off
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site is located within the
development envelope of
2.2 The pattern of development in the locality
is quite dense along the
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/00801/05 - outline consent granted for
a bungalow, considering the principle and means of access only.
3.2 P/02713/06 - proposal for a pair of
semi-detached dwellings withdrawn following officer advice
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPG3 – Housing
Sets out the Government’s
objective and states that new housing and residential environments should be
well designed and should make a significant contribution, promoting urban
renaissance and improving the quality of life. Local Authorities are expected
to promote good design and new housing developments in order to create
attractive, high quality living environments. Document expects good quality
design and encourages an efficient use of land without compromising the quality
of the environment. Finally, it advises that new housing development should not
be viewed in isolation but should have regard to the immediate buildings and
the wider locality.
4.2 PPS3 (
4.3 Local Planning Policies
|
·
S1 |
Siting of new
development |
|
·
S6 |
Design |
|
·
S7 |
8,000 Housing Units |
|
·
G1 |
Development Envelopes
for Towns and Villages |
|
·
G4 |
General Locational
Criteria of Development |
|
·
D1 |
Standards of Design |
|
·
D2 |
Standards for
Development within the Site |
|
·
H4 |
Unallocated Residential
Development |
|
·
H5 |
Infill Development |
|
·
B6 |
Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas |
|
·
TR7 |
Highway Considerations
for New Development |
|
·
TR16 |
Parking Policies and
Guidelines |
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Conservation Officer is satisfied that the proposal is
unlikely to impact upon the designated Conservation Area and feels that
materials will be an important consideration which can be conditioned.
·
Highway Engineer - recommends conditions
5.2 Neighbours
Six letters of objection
have been received on the following grounds:
·
Overdevelopment
·
Loss of light to Little Rosery
·
Parking/visibility/traffic generation
6. Evaluation
6.1 The application site is located within the
development envelope of
6.2 This application seeks to address
concerns from the Case Officer raised in respect of the previous scheme which
was withdrawn. The concerns highlighted were as to the width and height of the
pair in relation to the bungalow known as Little Rosery. Additionally, concern
was raised as to the window proportions and design of the conservatories which
were considered to impact on the Conservation Area. Following pre-application
discussions, the agent and applicant took on board the comments in favour of
the current submission.
6.3 The current submission presents a better
layout and position in relation to Little Rosery and as such is considered that
it is unlikely to result in any significant impact upon that property. Due to
the orientation of the dwellings, there is unlikely to be any loss of light to
Little Rosery as suggested by letters of representation received by the Local
Planning Authority. In terms of the space between the proposal and Little
Rosery, it is considered appropriate and consistent with other spatial
relationships in the locality.
6.4 The design of the pair is considered
traditional and appropriate for a site adjacent the existing Conservation Area.
Additionally, along this road frontage, the design is varied in terms of
housing types with the pair adjacent the application site known Neula and
Amaryllis whilst Little Rosery and other properties comprise large detached
bungalows. The submitted plans show that the pair will be dug into the ground
lower than the existing ground level of Little Rosery. The roof design has been
altered from the previous submitted application to present a better
transitional relationship between the two sites therefore is considered the
proposal presents little impact on the existing streetscene, or over dominance
on Little Rosery
6.5 The layout of rooms within the proposal
have resulted in the majority of windows on the front and rear elevations. The
rooms to the rear consist of lounges at ground floor which are unlikely to
result in any significant impact on adjoining occupiers. The rooms at first
floor level consist of bedrooms which, due to the siting of the proposal which
is located a sufficient distance away from adjoining properties to result in
any significant overlooking. Additionally, the bedrooms are not considered
principle living areas. On the side elevations, there is one small window
serving an en-suite bathroom facing the access drive to West Green House. On
the elevation facing Little Rosery, there is one window to the landing offering
light to the property at first floor level and an obscure glazed window serving
the en-suite bathroom. There is also, at ground floor, the front door to this
unit. Given that there is only one window on the flank elevation to Little
Rosery, it is considered that there is unlikely to be any significant impact in
terms of overlooking. Additionally, the siting of the proposed pair is further
back than the existing building line thus reducing any potential overshadowing
to that existing window. Furthermore, conditions can be imposed ensuring that
no additional windows are constructed without the prior written consent of the
Local Planning Authority.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations it is considered that the proposal represents the provision of an appropriate additional unit of accommodation which would not be unduly intrusive either in the streetscene or on residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers. The revised scheme is in compliance with relevant UDP policies and overcomes previous planning objections to development of this site.
8. Recommendation
Conditional Approval (Revised plans)
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 and finishes, including mortar colour] 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 |
No dwelling 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 a maximum four cars (minimum one
space per property) to be parked. 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. |
|
4 |
Prior to commencement of the development
hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a
maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole
frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1
metre. Reason: In the
interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Development shall not begin until details
of the sight lines to be provided at the junction between the access of the
proposal and the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be occupied until
those sight lines have been provided in accordance with the approved
details. Nothing that may cause an
obstruction to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain
within the visibility splay shown in the approved sight lines. Reason: In the
interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
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. The boundary treatment
shall be completed before the buildings hereby permitted are occupied. 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. |
|
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
development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall
be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this permission]. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
neighbouring residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
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
windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this
permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
neighbouring residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
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 neighbouring residential
properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No development shall take place until a
scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5
years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. All hard and soft landscape
works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. 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: To ensure
the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of
landscape in accordance with the approved design and to comply with policy D3
(Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
07 |
Reference Number: P/00186/07 - TCP/28203 Parish/Name: St. Helens - Ward/Name: Brading and Registration Date: Officer:
Miss L Scovell Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mrs L Bowes Outline for chalet bungalow; vehicular
access Santos, Hilbre Road, St. Helens, Ryde, The application is recommended for
Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Councillor Joyce feels that the Local
Planning Authority is taking an inconsistent approach with regard to infill
development of this type and would like the Committee to consider the
application based on other infill applications within the immediate locality
and elsewhere in the Ward.
1. Details of Application
1.1 Outline consent with only access to be
considered at this stage, is sought for a chalet bungalow and vehicular access.
1.2 The submitted plans indicate illustrative
drawings of the proposal and indicate a large chalet bungalow comprising two
bedrooms in the roof space with sitting, dining room, kitchen, w.c. and utility
room at ground floor level.
1.3 The application shows parking for one
space, nose-in off Daish’s Lane (also known as
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 Application
site consists of rear amenity to an existing detached house (
2.3 The pattern of development in
3. Relevant History
3.1 None on this particular plot. Outline consent
on an adjoining plot (which has been built out) was approved in 2002.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPG3 – Housing.
Sets out the Government’s
objective and paragraph 1 states that new housing and residential environments
should be well designed and should make a significant contribution promoting
urban renaissance and improving the quality of life. Paragraph 1 expects local
planning authorities to promote good design in new housing developments in
order to create attractive, high quality living environments. Paragraph 22
confirms the Government’s commitment in maximising the use of previously
developed land. Paragraph 54 expects good quality design and encourages
efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment.
Finally, paragraph 56 emphasises that new housing development should not be
viewed in isolation but should have regard to the immediate buildings and the
wider locality.
4.2 PPS3 (
4.3 Local Planning Policies
|
S1 |
Siting of new
development |
|
S6 |
Design |
|
S7 |
8,000 Housing Units |
|
G1 |
Development Envelopes
for Towns and Villages |
|
G4 |
General Locational
Criteria of Development |
|
D1 |
Standards of Design |
|
D2 |
Standards for
Development within the Site |
|
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
·
Highway Engineer - recommends refusal as he is concerned
regarding the acceptability of arrangements for emergency vehicles. He does not
feel able to sustain an objection in terms of an additional single parking
space being accessed from
5.2 Neighbours
·
Seven letters of support have been received on the following
grounds:
·
Size of plot sufficient to accommodate a dwelling.
·
Other developments in the locality and
·
·
Design of property is good.
·
One letter of objection has been received on the following
grounds:
·
Contrary to
·
Loss of privacy and amenity
·
Proposal fails to comply with UDP and Adopted Supplementary
Planning Guidance 'Residential Infill'
·
Impact upon character and quality of the Local Environment
·
Density
·
Highways/Access
·
Precedent
·
St Helens Parish Council object on the grounds of:
·
Over development
·
Access to the site
·
Precedent
6. Evaluation
6.1 Whilst the application site is located
within the development envelope, consideration must be given to the pattern of development
in the locality, impact upon the neighbouring properties and access for all
users..
6.2 In terms of the
pattern of development within the immediate locality of the application site,
density is low compared to the surrounding streets as mentioned above. The
adjoining plots consist of large detached properties with large rear amenity
areas which front
6.3 In terms of the impact upon the neighbouring properties, it is considered that the development of this plot would result in a loss of amenity to the adjoining properties. Whilst the illustrative drawings show that no windows will be constructed in the rear and side elevations at first floor level, the resultant building itself is likely to result in an adverse impact due to its proximity to the adjoining boundaries.
6.4 The illustrative siting on the submitted plans shows that the proposal does not comply with the SPG entitled 'Residential Infill' as to the suggested distances between properties and the suggested depths of garden space. The proposal shows a distance of roughly 13 metres between properties which falls short of the 21 metres in the SPG. In terms of the depth of garden left for the host property (a house) the plans show roughly 7 metres which falls short of the 10 metres in the SPG. Likewise, the proposed garden depth of the proposal is roughly 6 metres which falls short of the 7 metres for a bungalow in the SPG.
6.5 Additionally concern
is raised in terms of fire access to the site. The Highway Engineer is not
satisfied that the applicant has proven that emergency vehicles are able to
access the site and have room to work within
6.6 Some letters of representation and the
submitted design and access statement makes reference to the previous infill
development known as Daish's Cottage. This was originally refused under
TCP/24607 in 2002 on the basis of insufficient access and precedent. In the
course of post application negotiations a further application was submitted
showing land to be given over for highway use to improve access to Hilbre Road
at the bottom and a passing place in Attrill's Lane and thus on this basis the
LPA gave favourable consideration to this application as a one-off development
(Ref: TCP/24607/A). Other material differences were a larger plot size and more
comfortable relationship with the existing adjoining dwelling.
6.7 Finally, concern is raised by the Local
Planning Authority that if the principle of development is accepted on this
site, then this would give rise to other sites along
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Giving due regard and appropriate weight to submitted details in conjunction with National and Local policies, and taking into account comments received upon the application, it is considered that the proposed development for the reasons stated above fails to comply with the relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is therefore considered unacceptable.
8. Recommendation
Refuse.
Reasons:
|
1 |
The proposal by reason of its position and
relationship with adjoining properties, size, design and external appearance,
would be 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 Policy H5 (Infill Development)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained within
adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled 'Residential Infill'. |
|
2 |
The proposal would create an undesirable precedent which would make
it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist further similar
proposals, the cumulative effect of which would create conditions likely to
adversely affect the character of the area which suffers from limited access
and would be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New
Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The information accompanying this
application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of the ability
of the emergency services to adequately service the site so that the Local Planning
Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on Hilbre
Road and Attrills Lane and in the absence of further details it is considered
that the proposal may represent a hazard to highway users by virtue of
inadequate radii, access width and turning to allow adequate access by the
fire services thus constituting a hazard to highway users contrary to
Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and G4c (General
Locational Criteria) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
08 |
Reference Number: P/03050/06 - TCP/27013/B Parish/Name: Wootton - Ward/Name: Wootton Registration Date: Officer:
Miss L Scovell Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mrs J Staton Demolition of bungalow; outline for two
bungalows; alterations to vehicular access (revised plans) The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The local Member, Councillor
Abraham, has requested that the application be considered before the
Development Control Sub Committee as he is not satisfied with the Officer recommendation
to approve the proposal. He is of the opinion that the application is contrary
to Policies H5 and in particular the supporting guidance note at paragraph 7.33
which refers to town cramming which is of particular importance in villages
where infill development may damage the character of the local environment and
D1 particularly sub paras (e), (f) and (g) which relate to providing adequate
day light, sun light etc. to the development and adjoining uses, respective
historic street and footpath patterns and overdevelopment of sites leading to
cramped appearance and obtrusiveness by not respecting spacing between
properties. Additionally, the local Member is concerned that the proposal will
result in an undesirable streetscene and that by building further back in the
site, will result in overlooking to Nos. 22 and
1. Details of Application
1.1 The application seeks consideration for
the demolition of existing bungalow; outline for two bungalows and alterations
to existing vehicular access. The matters at this outline stage to be
considered are that of siting and means of access however, the plans submitted
illustrate the appearance and design of the proposed dwellings.
1.2 Based upon the submitted illustrative
drawings, the proposed dwellings will accommodate two bedrooms with one
comprising of en-suite facilities, lounge, kitchen and bathroom facilities and
integral garage. The level of accommodation proposed is consistent with the
existing property to be demolished
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site is
located off the hammer head at the northern end of
2.2 In terms of the Unitary Development Plan
policies, the application site is located within the development envelope of
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/00856/05 - demolition of bungalow; outline
for 4 bungalows with access off
3.2 P/01846/05 -
demolition of bungalow; outline for 3 bungalows with access off Beechcroft Drive
- refused in October 2005 on grounds of over-development resulting in a
detrimental impact on the amenities of the prospective and neighbouring
residential occupiers and impact on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area.
3.3 This application
was appealed and was dismissed by the Inspector in May 2006. The Inspector
commented that the proposal would appear cramped detracting from the appearance
and character of the street scene. The Inspector was not concerned about the
impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking as this could be
minimised through the layout of the dwellings and boundary treatment. However
concern was raised as to the proximity of the proposals to the boundary which
would be overbearing and intrusive upon the amenities of the neighbouring
properties.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPG3 – Housing
Sets out the Government’s objectives and at paragraph 1,
states that new housing and residential environments should be well designed
and should make a significant contribution to promoting urban renaissance and
improving quality of life. Paragraph 2 expects local planning authorities to
make good design in housing developments in order to create attractive, high
quality living environments. Paragraph 22 confirms the Government’s commitment
to maximizing the use of previously developed land. Paragraph 54 expects good
quality design and encourages efficient use of land without compromising the
quality of the environment. Finally, paragraph 56 advises that new housing
development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to the
immediate buildings in the wider locality.
PPS3 – ‘Housing’ -
Came into effect on
4.2 Local Planning Policies
|
S1 |
Siting of new
development |
|
S6 |
Design |
|
S7 |
8,000 Housing Units |
|
G1 |
Development Envelopes
for Towns and Villages |
|
G4 |
General Locational
Criteria of Development |
|
D1 |
Standards of Design |
|
D2 |
Standards for
Development within the Site |
|
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
·
Highway Engineer - requested revised plans detailing the
proposed access road and parking arrangements on the basis that the submitted
scheme may result in the parking and turning areas being blocked. Following
receipt of these plans, he recommends conditions.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Southern Water - has commented in respect of the proposed
soakaway and foul drainage arrangements. Provided that the surface water would be
disposed of via the soakaway, Southern Water was satisfied that the foul
drainage for one extra dwelling could be accommodated in the existing system.
5.3 Others
One petition and nine
letters of objection have been received in including that of the Parish
Councilor the following grounds:
·
Traffic generation
·
Precedent
·
Construction traffic
·
Impact upon character of the locality
·
Privacy
·
Drainage
·
Trees
·
Loss of light
·
Overdevelopment
6. Evaluation
6.1 Following extensive negotiations regarding
the development of this site, the applicant has submitted a scheme for two
dwellings, taking account of the previous reasons for refusal and subsequent
Appeal Inspectors comments as referenced above.
6.2 In terms of layout and design, it is understood
that the proposal respects the character and layout of the original estate
development and is unlikely to cause any adverse impact in this regard. The
proposed is unlikely to significantly impact upon the street scene. Obviously
at this stage the only considerations are siting and means of access, however
given the illustrative plans submitted, they would not present any undue
concern at the reserved matters stage.
6.3 In terms of the impact on the adjoining
properties, the proposed scheme has been designed to build away from the
immediate boundaries so as to reduce any adverse impact and as the inspector
highlighted in her comments, the existing boundary treatment is now sufficient
to prevent any direct overlooking. Additional boundary treatment can be
conditioned to replace any trees that may be lost as a result of the
development.
6.4 In terms of the drainage issue, Southern
Water has commented that provided the surface water would be disposed of via
the soakaway, it was satisfied that the foul drainage for one extra dwelling
could be accommodated in the existing system. Conditions can be imposed for the
use of soakaways in this regard.
6.5 Finally in terms of the highways issues,
the Highway Engineer is satisfied that the proposed arrangements will not
impact upon highway safety and the level of parking proposed complies with the
relevant policies of the UDP.
6.6 The current proposal overcomes the
concerns of the Inspector when she considered the appeal in respect of three
bungalows on this site, namely the cramped relationship and the effect on
living conditions of adjoining neighbours by the proximity of the dwellings to
common boundaries. She was not concerned in respect of the level of amenity
space or small increase in traffic movements on the locality or adjoining
residents.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Giving due regard to the relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and National policy PPG3 and PPS3 – Housing, and other submissions and comments relating to the proposal, it is considered that the proposal complies with the above policies as detailed in the evaluation representing an appropriate form of development in this location.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Conditional
Permission (Revised Plans)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Application for approval of the reserved
matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration
of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. The development hereby permitted
shall be begun before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of
the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on
different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended) and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning
permissions. |
|
2 |
Before any works or development hereby
approved is commenced on site details relating to the scale, appearance and
landscaping of the site shall be submitted to, and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the ‘reserved matters’ and
shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in condition 1
above before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in
detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (as amended). |
|
3 |
No development shall take place until a detailed
scheme (including calculations of capacity studies) for foul and surface
water drainage from the site have been submitted to and agreed with the Local
Planning Authority in writing. Any such agreed foul and surface water
disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where
adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flow should not cause
flooding or over load the existing system, if necessary on alternative system
for the disposal of surface water shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface
water drainage is provided for the development incompliance with Policy U11
(Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
4 |
No dwelling hereby permitted shall be
occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with
drawing number 67-2004.2 Rev F Feb 2007 for four cars to be parked (including
garages) 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. |
|
5 |
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 details which have been submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 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. |
|
6 |
Development shall not begin until details
of the design, gradient, surfacing and construction of any new roads,
footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means
of disposal of surface water drainage there from 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: To ensure an
adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and
to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
09 |
Reference Number: P/00109/07 - TCP/10043/D Parish/Name: Calbourne - Ward/Name: Brighstone and
Calbourne Registration Date: Officer:
Mr S Wiltshire Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Fentum Detached chalet bungalow with parking
& alterations to vehicular access, (revised scheme) Rectory Cottage, The application is recommended for
Refusal |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Local Member has requested
that this application is referred to the Development Control Committee for consideration
since he is of the opinion that the site is large enough to accommodate a
dwelling which would fit in with the area, and that there has not been a
history of accidents at this junction.
1. Details of Application
1.1 This is an application for full planning
permission for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow on land adjacent to
Rectory Cottage,
1.2 The submitted plans show a chalet
bungalow style dwelling with gabled roof edged with parapet walling and
incorporating two dormers in the front roof slope. The dwelling would provide two bedrooms and
bathroom to the first floor, with lounge, kitchen/diner, utility and w.c. to
the ground floor. Two off-street parking
spaces would be provided on a hardstanding arrangement to the side of the
property, one for Rectory Cottage and one for the proposed dwelling, with
access via
1.3 Plans show dwelling located three metres
in from boundary to lane in an attempt to maximise distance from canopy of tree
in
1.4 Proposed dwelling to have rear and side
gardens 5-6 metres deep. Host property to retain garden of some 60 sq. metres.
1.5 Access is to be taken off
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The application site is approximately
square in plan form and currently constitutes the rear garden area to Rectory
Cottage, a two storey dwelling located to the east of the proposed
dwelling. A garden area to Seymore is
situated to the rear of the site, with Green Wickets, a detached bungalow to
the west. Residential dwellings are also located on the southern side of
2.2 General character of Conservation Area is
one of properties with generous gardens which providing a spacious feel to
area.
3. Relevant History
3.1 The following application is relevant to
the consideration of this proposal;
|
P/01172/06 |
Detached chalet bungalow
with vehicular access and parking |
Refused - 3.7.2006 |
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 The
4.2 The relevant policies of the Unitary
Development Plan are considered to be as follows:
·
S1 – Siting of new development
·
S4 - The Countryside will be protected from inappropriate
development
·
S10 – Conserve or enhance the features of special character
of these areas
·
B6 – Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas
·
C1 – Protection of landscape character
·
C2 - Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
·
C12 – Development affecting trees and woodland
·
D1 - Standards of Design
·
D2 - Standards of Development within the site
·
G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages
·
G2 – Consolidation outside development envelopes
·
G4 - General Locational Criteria
·
G5 – Development outside defined envelopes
·
H7 – Extensions and alterations
·
TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development
·
TR16 – Parking policies and guidelines
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways Engineer – Recommends refusal of the application.
·
AONB Partnership – Raise no objection to the development.
·
Conservation and Design – Object to the proposal.
·
Tree Officer – No objection, subject to the imposition of
conditions
5.2 External Consultees
·
None
5.3 Town or Parish Council Comments
·
Calbourne Parish Council – Support the application.
5.4 Third Party Representations
·
22 letters of representation have been received commenting
on this application. Of these letters, 7
state no objection to the development and 14 support the proposal on the
following grounds:
·
Proposal will provide an affordable family home
·
Design appropriate for the street scene
·
Garden area is satisfactory
·
No highway problems in area
·
In addition one letter has been received which objects to
the development on the following grounds;
·
In adequate garden space
·
Inadequate parking provision
·
Adverse impact on character of village
·
Adverse impact on ash tree
·
Inappropriate design
6. Evaluation
6.1 Principle of Development -The
Unitary Development Plan identifies the application site as being outside the
Development Envelope boundaries and within an area where the Countryside
policies of the UDP apply. Within such
areas residential development will only be permitted in exceptional cases,
where the requirements of Policy H9 are satisfied. In this instance the criterion is Policy H9
(f), the acceptable infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage
or group of houses, and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance;
Residential Infill.
6.2 Residential Infill - The
application site has a 19 metre frontage to
6.3 Amenity for Neighbouring Occupiers
– There are two ground floor windows in the flank elevation of Rectory Cottage
which faces the gable end of the proposed dwelling at a distance of ten
metres. This separation distance between
the properties is considered to be acceptable in terms of overbearing
impact. The first floor bedroom window
in the side elevation of the previous scheme which overlooked the private amenity
area serving Rectory Cottage has been removed from this revised proposal. It is noted that the proposed dwelling and
parking area would take up much of the existing garden area for Rectory
Cottage, resulting in limited amenity space for occupiers of this dwelling.
6.4 The proposed dwelling would be located 8
metres from Green Wickets. There are
windows serving a lounge in the front and side elevation of this bungalow,
however the siting of the proposed dwelling is such that it would not result in
the loss of light, or have an overbearing impact for the occupiers of this
dwelling. The window in the side
elevation would overlook the front garden area.
It is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable relationship
with this dwelling.
6.5 The proposed dwelling would have no first
floor windows in the rear elevation, thus would not overlook the private garden
area serving Seymore.
6.6 Siting, Design and Conservation Area
- The proposed dwelling would be positioned on a site which is restricted in
size and significantly smaller than the surrounding pattern of
development. The proposal would result
in a cramped form of development, with limited amenity space for the occupiers
of the existing and proposed dwellings.
The dwelling would be positioned approximately three metres from the edge
of the highway, which is in general alignment with Rectory Cottage, although
would step forward of Green Wickets and appear visually intrusive in the street
scene. It is noted that there is a
garage / workshop serving Stone Cottage opposite the application site, however
this is an ancillary structure rather than a separate dwelling.
6.7 The design of the proposed dwelling shows
a detached chalet bungalow picking up traditional features of the area, and
provides 2 small dormers within the front roof slope. The design and access
statement refers to the use of red brick however, this would not be in keeping
with the neighbouring developments. The use of appropriate materials for the
proposed dwelling could be controlled through a planning condition.
6.8 The Conservation and Design Officer has
commented that the spaces and gardens are an important aspect of this rural
conservation area and has expressed concern about the limited size of the plot
resulting in height and prominence of the roof and location of the building
being dominant and intrusive, thus having a detrimental impact on the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In addition, it is noted that the Conservation and Design Officer has
concerns about the lack of detail in the submitted drawings.
6.9 A Design and Access Statement has been
submitted in support of the application which seeks to justify the proposal in
terms of size, design and affordability.
The application is largely as originally submitted and does not overcome
the previous concerns with the proposal.
6.10 Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty –
The application site is within the Isle of Wight Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. The AONB Partnership has
confirmed that it has no objection to the proposal.
6.11 Trees – There is an ash tree
situated adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, which is within the
garden area of Seymore. A tree report
has been submitted in support of the application. The Tree Officer has commented that the
impact on the tree will be limited, however, there is potential for root
compaction within the root protection area which could be overcome by placing
appropriate conditions any permission granted.
6.12 Highways and Parking – The proposed
dwelling is situated within parking zone 4 where 0 – 100% of the maximum
non-operational off-street parking applies.
The proposal shows one off-street parking space as a hardstanding area
for each of the existing and proposed dwellings.
6.13 The Highways Engineer has recommended
refusal on the basis of that the proposal would be likely to lead to the
increased use of the
6.14 The Highways Engineer’s objections to the
previous application in terms of inadequate visibility from the altered access
have been overcome by the proposed removal of the existing hedge and stone wall
fronting Rectory Cottage. However, it
should be noted that the Conservation and Design Officer has objected to this
aspect of the proposal as the removal of these features would have an adverse
visual impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.15 Affordable Housing – In their
supporting statement, the applicants makes reference to the proposal providing
affordable housing for Calbourne. The
application provides no information as to the involvement of a Registered
Social Landlord, or alternative arrangements to ensure that the dwelling would
be retained as affordable in the long term.
The proposal is therefore for a private market dwelling which does not
fall to be considered as affordable housing. Accordingly, Members should give
little weight to this aspect.
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 this revised application does not overcome the reasons for
refusal given in the previous application relating to the unsatisfactory
cramped appearance of the development, failure to preserve and enhance
Calbourne Conservation Area, and the Highway concerns. In addition, the
proposed removal of the hedge and stone walling fronting
8. Recommendations
8.1 Refusal.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The erection of a detached chalet
bungalow on land to the west of Rectory Cottage, |
|
2 |
The erection of a detached chalet
bungalow on land to the west of Rectory Cottage, |
|
3 |
The proposed removal of the existing
hedgerow and stone wall along the |
|
4 |
The proposed development would be likely
to lead to increased use of the existing |
|
10 |
Reference Number: P/02771/06 - TCP/27025/B Parish/Name: Gurnard - Ward/Name: Gurnard Registration Date: Officer:
Miss S Gooch Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Tomlinson Demolition of holiday chalet; replacement detached chalet The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This proposal raises a question
whether the existing dwelling has a car parking space available and if so set
within the Planning Policy context whether a replacement space should be
required as part of the new dwelling. This matter has been discussed with the
Local Member for the area and agreed that matter should be considered by the
Development Control Sub Committee for final determination.
1. Details of Application
1.1 Proposed development is for the demolition
and replacement of the existing chalet building which presently offers single
storey accommodation under a pitched roof.
1.2 The proposed replacement would consists
of a property with accommodation at both ground floor and within the roofspace.
At ground floor plans show two bedrooms, kitchen/diner, shower room, bathroom
and a hallway leading up to a living room occupying space within an
asymmetrical roof. At ground floor level plans show doors opening out onto a
decking area from the kitchen/diner with the result that this and the footprint
to the building occupy 100% of the site area. Within the roofspace plans show
intention to introduce a significant element of glazing in the northwest
elevation together with two balcony areas, one in the southwest elevation and
the other in the northeast elevation.
1.3 Plans show the proposed dwelling to be
constructed with a yellow brick plinth with the main elevation in boarding
(resin fibre pastel shade) and with the roof constructed in zinc.
1.4 A Geotechnical Investigation report has
been submitted given the concern over general ground conditions within the
locality.
1.5 It is not proposed as part of the
proposal to provide any off street parking provision. Letters from applicant
and agent make point that space under car port is too small and difficult to
use with added complications of manoeuvering out onto a sharp bend on a steep
road.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The site is located on the western side
of Shore Road approximately 160m up the hill from Gurnard Sailing Club at point
where road splits with one section running down towards the sea and main
carriageway turning eastward towards Princes Esplanade.
2.2 The building has what appears to be a
small extension on the eastern side whilst on the southern side is a lean to
consisting of a roof supported by a number of posts. The existing buildings
cover approximately 75% of the plot with an open amenity area lying on the
western side of the building. A floor plan shows a single bedroom, with a
kitchen, living room, bathroom and w.c.
2.3 The existing building is typical of many
in the immediate locality and abuts numbers 13, 15 and
2.4 A number of the older chalets in the
locality have been redeveloped but the area still retains a certain charm and
characteristic.
3. Relevant History
3.1 TCP/27025/A - P/00781/05 - Refusal issued
on demolition of dwelling and construction of detached house as the information
accompanying this application was inadequate and deficient in detail in respect
of sections, detailed levels, window positions within the adjoining properties and
street scape illustrations so that the Local Planning Authority was unable to
consider fully the effects of the proposal on the living conditions of the
neighbouring properties. Application was
also inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of a report on, and analysis
of, a full topographical survey of the area surrounding the application site so
that the Local Planning Authority was unable to consider fully the effects of
the proposal on land stability
3.2 TCP/27025/A – P/00122/06 – Refusal issued
on demolition of dwelling; construction of detached house – insufficient
information submitted to adequately determine slope stability within this
locality and by reason of dwellings position. Size, design and external
appearance would be an intrusive development, out of scale and character.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 The following Unitary Development Plan
Policies are applicable.
|
S1 |
Siting of new
development |
|
S6 |
Design |
|
S7 |
8,000 Housing Units |
|
G1 |
Development Envelopes
for Towns and Villages |
|
G4 |
General Locational
Criteria of Development |
|
G7 |
Development on Unstable
Land |
|
D1 |
Standards of Design |
|
D2 |
Standards for
Development within the Site |
|
H4 |
Unallocated Residential
Development |
|
H5 |
Infill Development |
|
TR7 |
Highway Considerations
for New Development |
|
TR16 |
Parking Policies and
Guidelines |
|
U11 |
Infrastructure and
Services Provision |
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways recommend refusal as proposal provides insufficient
parking provision.
·
Further comment states that there is one off street parking
space accessible without any undue danger at present.
5.2 External Consultees
·
Geotechnical Engineer - whilst the information falls short
of the standard expected from PPG14 is satisfied that a dwelling could be
constructed on this site, which will not adversely affect the stability of
neighbouring sites. A condition will be
required on foundation design and should be completed and approved before
commencement and that a topographic section should accompany the design drawn
though
5.3 3 letters of objection have been received
and can be summarized as follows
·
Concern on possible disruption of the drainage system
·
Concern on resultant height of property – out of scale
·
Balcony and decking will overlook
·
Approval should not be granted with no off street parking
5.4 Parish Council
Gurnard Parish Council
object to this application on the grounds that the proposals are out of
character with the surrounding dwellings, that there would be a significant
loss of amenity to the neighbouring dwellings and that there would be a
precedent set to change the character of the existing locality.
6. Evaluation
6.1 Consent is sought for demolition of
dwelling and construction of detached house on a site which is located within
the development envelope. Accordingly, the basic principle of a replacement is acceptable
subject to satisfying a number of other considerations. These have been
identified as firstly, ground stability, secondly adequacy of drainage
infrastructure, thirdly impact on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area, fourthly the impact on amenities enjoyed by neighbouring
property occupiers and finally highway implications.
6.2 With regard to ground stability this was
resolved in March 2006 nevertheless current application has been accompanied by
another letter from Tari Willis Associates which confirms the geo-technical
investigations conclude that: -
·
This site is stable and free from active movement
·
The soil testing and computer slope stability analysis has shown
adequate factor of safety for the replacement foundations and structure
·
The proposed design of foundations and method of
construction will not be a threat by unstable slopes on or adjacent to the site
- condition will be imposed
This information has been assessed by the Council’s
Geotechnical Engineer who considers that it is acceptable subject to the
imposition of conditions.
6.3 In terms of drainage existing house
drains in to the main sewer located jus outside the property in the road which
is a combined system and it is my opinion that a replacement dwelling would not
add significantly to the current flow.
6.4 Regarding setting within locality,
development appears to sit comfortably within the plot and due to the
topography of
6.5 Concerning the question of overlooking,
consideration has been given as to whether the introduction of the first floor
window and balcony areas on the northwest elevation would result in any
significant overlooking issues to adjoining properties. The assessment has
indicated that no major overlooking would result.
6.6 With reference to the highway issues the
major factory to be addressed is whether or not replacement dwelling should be
expected to make some provision for off street parking. Present property owners
do not use the car port that is located on the south side of the property but
parks on the roadside. An exercise was undertaken whereby the owner got their
existing vehicle into the parking area admittedly with the help of two people
one holding down an aerial that would have caught the roof and a second guiding
the person into the space. The nature of the space is such that a vehicle could
only enter in forward gear which gives space for the driver’s door to be opened
towards the building. It would not be possible for someone to get out of the
passenger side. Having been present during this exercise the Highway Engineer
has reaffirmed his view that the proposal should accommodate a single parking
space. To do so would require a total redesign of the submitted scheme and the
applicants have requested that the application be determined as submitted.
6.7 Whilst I would suggest that regular use
of the space would result in a greater level of confidence for a driver to
manoeuver into the space on their own without needing direction, I believe
there are a number of factors which should also be taken into account. Firstly,
it would not be possible for anyone to get out of the passenger side as the
vehicle would be tight up to that side and a lower retaining wall would stop
any doors being opened. Secondly, the reversing manoeuver to get out of the
space would occur at a point where there is effectively a ‘T’ junction and I am
concerned over the traffic safety implications. Finally, to utilise the off
road space would require giving up what is essentially one on street space.
Taking all these factors into consideration whilst I note the Highway
Engineer’s objection I believe on balance a case could be made to argue that an
off road space should not be provided as part of the development.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 This application follows several refusals of planning permission and is now accompanied by satisfactory information with regards to the questions over ground stability whilst the height of the building has been reduce to the degree that it is considered it would sit more comfortably within the streetscene. Although the proposal incorporates balcony areas these are not considered to significantly impact on the amenities of adjoining properties.
7.2 It is the opinion of the Officers that the main consideration is the question over the provision of a parking space. The Highway Engineer is maintaining his view supported in the representations received that an off street space should be provided. It is considered that there are a number of matters that should be taken into account in assessing the weight to be given to the existing space which include practical difficulties of using the space both in terms of getting in and out of a vehicle, the dangers of manoeuvering a vehicle out of the space and also the loss of one on street space to provide the access point. Having weighed all these considerations, I believe that a case can be made to show why the Council should accept a zero parking solution in this instance. Making this judgement I recognise that the issues are finally balanced. However, the application is recommended for conditional approval.
8. Recommendation
Approval.
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 |
Notwitstanding details submitted on drg.
no. 20425 P5 A 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 |
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
development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall
be carried out [other than that expressly authorised by this permission]. Reason: To ensure sufficient
amount of amenity space in maintained in the interests of the visual
amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
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
windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this
permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests
of the amenities and privacy of neighbouring properties and to comply with
policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
All materials excavated as a result of general
ground works including site levelling, installation of services or digging of
foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on
the submitted plans. The materials shall be removed from the site prior to
construction of the dwelling proceeding beyond damp proof course level or
such other timescales as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and
adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Reference Number: P/00283/07 - TCP/27529/A Parish/Name: Registration Date: Officer:
Miss L Frood Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Platinum Property Holdings Ltd Demolition of single storey extension;
detached house with parking and alterations to vehicular access; vehicular
access and parking area for no.11 (revised scheme) land adjacent, 11
Hampshire Crescent, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Local Member, Councillor G Price, has requested that this application
is considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reasons:
A detached dwelling is inappropriate development in respect of the
form/type of accommodation.
Out of keeping with character of area.
Undesirable precedent for similar development.
1. Details of Application
1.1 Full planning permission is sought for
the demolition of a single storey extension on the north elevation of no. 11
Hampshire Crescent and the construction of a detached two storey dwelling set 1
meter to the north, and set 1.5 meters back, from the front elevation of no. 11
Hampshire Crescent. The dwelling will comprise of sitting/dining room, kitchen,
hall and w.c at ground floor with three bedrooms, bathroom and en suite at
first floor.
1.2 The bulk, scale, and mass of the proposed
dwelling mirrors the adjacent existing semi-detached house, with a depth of 7
meters, a width of 7.2 meters and hipped roof to a height of 6.6 meters. The only addition being a porch feature on
the east elevation. Window arrangements have also been designed to mimic
properties within the immediate locality.
1.3 The existing parking area will be
retained for the new dwelling and a replacement parking area will be provided
to the front of
1.4 Revised plans have been submitted which
has changed the height and line of the boundary treatment to the north of the
site. The proposal under determination therefore includes 0.6 metre high
hedging/fencing which is proposed to run on the northeast boundary of the site
from the edge of the proposed drop kerb to the front north-east corner of the
proposed dwelling and a 1.8 meter high boundary fence to extend from the rear
north-west corner of the dwelling to the rear of the site. These revisions to
the boundary of the site, retain a open grass strip along the frontage to
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 The
site is located in a residential estate that lies immediately to the south of
Albany Prison. The estate was constructed in the 1960's and comprises of
semi-detached and terraced properties.
2.2 Application
site is situated on the corner plot at the junction of
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/00382/06 - Demolition of single storey
extension; end of terrace house - approved April 2006.
3.2 The above application approved an
identical (bar siting), three bed end of terrace adjoined to no.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
PPG3 – Housing
4.2 The Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
(UDP) identifies the application site as being within the development envelope
for
Relevant UDP policies are as follows:
·
S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing
urban areas.
·
S6 – All development will be expected to be of a high
standard of design.
·
G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
·
G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development
·
D1 - Standards of Design
·
D2 - Standards for Development within the Site
·
H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to
Define Settlements
·
H5 - Infill Development
·
TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development
·
TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines
·
U11 - Infrastructure and Services
4.3 The application site is within Parking
Zone 3 of the UDP where parking provision is 0-75% of the non-operational
requirement. The maximum requirement in respect of residential development is
one space per bedroom.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways - recommends approval with conditions relating to
the provision of turning and parking areas in accordance with the submitted
plans, and visibility and sightlines.
5.2 External
Consultees
·
·
Southern Water - Is satisfied for the proposal to be
conditioned per the previous approval (P/00382/06) relating to drainage.
5.3 Third
Party/Neighbours
One letter of objection received raising the
following issues:
·
Deeds state that property has exclusion against blocking air
and light against any additional building.
·
Drains and sewage will become overloaded causing more floods
in properties.
·
Electricity supply to estate is already overloaded
·
This corner to Sherwood Drive Road is already a black spot
where several accidents have occurred.
·
Building work will cause difficulty for disabled access to
no. 23 Sherwood Road.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The application site is within the
development envelope for
6.2 The
relocation of the dwelling 1m to the north of that position already approved is
sought to retain external access to the rear garden of
6.3 I am satisfied that the site is of
adequate size to accommodate a detached dwelling without detracting from the
amenities of the area or of neighbouring properties, whilst also providing
adequate amenity space for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling itself.
6.4 I note the introduction of this detached
dwelling will differ from the predominant semi-detached and terraced property,
pattern of development and also bring the building line closer to the northern
boundary. However with the revisions made to the siting of the boundary
features, to retain a grass strip along the frontage to
6.5 With the distance between the proposed
property and number
6.6 In relation to drainage Southern Water have
raised no objection to the proposal and with the drainage condition proposed it
is considered to adequately deal with drainage related issues.
6.7 In relation to electricity supplies, no evidence
has been submitted by the objector to substantiate any electricity problems in
the area and one additional dwelling is not considered would present an issue
in this respect.
6.8 New parking will be provided to the front
of
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations outlined in this report, it is considered that the application site is of sufficient size to accommodate a detached dwelling without being of detriment to the amenities or privacy of neighbouring or future occupiers. The siting, scale, mass and design of the proposed dwelling is considered appropriate with satisfactory off street parking provision and would not detrimentally conflict with the character of the area and be visually acceptable within the street scene. The proposal is therefore consistent with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8. Recommendation
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 |
Notwithstanding details submitted on Drawing
No. 02-06.9 Rev. 1.14, the materials to be used in the construction of the
external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted shall match those of the
adjacent property ( 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. |
|
3 |
Notwithstanding details submitted on
Drawing No. 02-06.7 Rev. 1.14 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. The boundary treatment
shall be completed before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied.
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. |
|
4 |
All materials excavated as a result of general
ground works, including site leveling, installation of services or the
digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the areas identified
in red and blue on the submitted plans. The materials shall be removed from
the site prior to the construction of the building proceeding beyond damp
proof course level or such other timescale to be agreed with the Local
Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to
comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
The dwelling hereby permitted shall not
be occupied until the means of vehicular access, and parking area has been
laid out within the site in accordance with drawing No 02-06.7 rev 1.14 for cars
to be parked. The space shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose
other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: To ensure adequate access and parking for the
proposed development and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The dwelling shall not be occupied until
the sight lines have been provided in accordance with drawings no 02-06.7 rev
1.14. Nothing that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall at any time
be placed or be permitted to remain within that visibility splay. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply
with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
No development shall be undertaken
without the submission and agreement in writing with the Local Planning
Authority of the proposed means of disposal for foul and surface water
generated by the development. The surface water proposals shall also
accommodate the surface water run off from the existing property (no. 11
Hampshire Crescent). The approved scheme shall be implemented before the
dwelling hereby approved is first occupied. Reason: To ensure adequate system of foul and surface water disposal for the
development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services
Provisions) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
Reference Number: P/00301/07 - TCP/27992/A Parish/Name: Ryde - Ward/Name: Ryde South West Registration Date: Officer:
Mr D Long Tel:
(01983) 823552 Applicant: Mr B Hamilton Demolition of single storey
extension; outline for end of terrace
house with parking; vehicular access,
(revised scheme) 16 Beatrice Close, Ryde, The application is recommended for
Conditional Permission |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Councillor Stevens recommends
that proposed development will adversely affect the streetscene. The size, mass
and footprint will affect the original estate layout and designed concept.
1. Details of Application
1.1 This is an outline application
considering external appearance, siting and means of access. Design and
landscaping are to be considered at a later date.
1.2 Proposal involves the demolition of
single storey extension and construction of end of terrace house with parking
and vehicular access at 16 Beatrice Close, Ryde. Proposal will provide two
bedrooms, living room and kitchen/diner.
1.3 Proposal is in southeast corner of
Beatrice Close attached to a pair of semi-detached properties utilising land to
east of existing house. Designed approach aims to provide ancillary and
subservient extension to the main dwelling. A shared communal driveway will
provide parking for existing and potential occupants. External facing materials
and windows are to match that of host property. First floor windows face front
to back except first floor bathroom window to side elevation. Existing rear
garden is halved, providing 90 square metres of private garden to potential and
existing occupants. However, a single storey rear extension forming part of the
kitchen/diner utilizes some of this rear garden.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
2.1 Site is of a reasonable level topography
but does rise in an easterly direction through the curtilage of No. 15 Beatrice
Close. Beatrice Close is a typical cul-de-sac accommodating regimented sets of
semi-detached houses terminating with a terrace block at the hammerhead.
2.2 Each semi-detached block has set spacing
which is a definitive character being regimented within design. Some houses
however have variation in roof either being gabled or hipped.
2.3 Houses set with good defensible space off
highway. The site is located in south east corner of Beatrice Close being
attached to a semi-detached pair. Site is bounded by residential curtilage of
houses within Beatrice Close or along
3. Relevant History
3.1 P/02372/06 - Demolition of single storey
extension; outline for end of terrace dwelling with parking; alterations to
vehicular access. Application refused
·
Proposal would result in significant loss of space about the
building to the detriment of the visual amenity and spatial characteristics of
the streetscene, leading to a cramped appearance.
·
The proposed parking arrangement by reason of its position in
relationship with existing properties would create conditions likely to
adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by those residents.
·
The proposal would form an undesirable precedent for future
applications of a similar nature, the cumulative affect leading to an adverse
impact on the streetsene.
4. Development Plan Policy
4.1 National Policy Guidance
The following strategic
policies within the Unitary Development Plan are applicable:
|
· S1 |
- |
Siting of New
Development |
|
· S6 |
- |
All Development will be
Expected to be of a High Standard of Design |
|
· S7 |
- |
Provision of Housing
Units on the |
4.2 The following
Unitary Development Plan Policies are applicable:
|
· G1 |
- |
Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages |
|
· G4 |
- |
General Locational Criteria of Development |
|
· D1 |
- |
Standards of Design |
|
· D2 |
- |
Standards for
Development within the site |
|
· H5 |
- |
Infill Development |
|
· TR7 |
- |
Highway Considerations for
New Development |
|
· H7 |
- |
Extensions and
Alterations pf Existing Properties |
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments
5.1 Internal Consultees
·
Highways Engineer recommends conditional permission as there
are no highway implications envisaged.
5.2 External Consultees
·
None received to date.
5.3 Others
·
The application has attracted one letter of objection (to
date) which can be summarised as follows:
·
Contrary to original estate layout.
·
Sets undesirable precedent
·
Cramped internal design and poor arrangement.
6. Evaluation
6.1 The main issues in considering this
proposal are:
·
Planning history
·
Principle of development
·
Scale, mass and design
·
Impact on third parties
·
Highway considerations
6.2 Initial application (P/02372/06) was
refused as it was considered proposal would result in a significant loss of
space about the building to the detriment of the visual amenity and spatial
characteristics of the street scene, leading to a cramped appearance. There was
concern with respect to precedent, layout and arrangement of parking.
6.3 The above-mentioned refusal contained
insufficient information to judge the scale, mass and designed concept against
that of the original estate layout. However, on judging overall footprint it
was the officers opinion that it would adversely affect designed concept of
estate layout leading to a significant loss of space about the building giving
a cramped appearance.
6.4 Revisions to current application have
produced a scheme for part policy determination under H7 (Extensions and
Alterations) although being a new dwelling within a separate defined curtilage.
Proposal would fall within parameters of policy H7 as it is viewed as an
ancillary extension being subservient to the existing house. The front
elevation has been set back off the main host frontage and is appropriately
tied at roof level. When viewing proposal from streetscene, it will be viewed
as domestic extension to the main dwelling (no. 16). By reason of the
relationship proposal has with estate layout, being tucked in the south east
corner it is sheltered and isolated from the dominant streetscene protecting
the spatial distribution and concept of wider estate layout. The access to the
dwelling is to the side elevation thus retaining front facade as an extension
no. 16. Windows face front to back following general context giving rise to no
excessive levels of overlooking or loss of privacy in comparison to existing
prevailing views. Amenities of no. 15 are safeguarded retaining reasonable
living conditions.
6.5 Original application was partly refused
due to a precedent issue. The Local Planning Authority was concerned that
should the scheme be allowed, further applications would be forthcoming within
Beatrice Close. There was concern that this would erode the importance of the
estate layout as noted. On inspection of site and its wider locality it would
seem that it would be difficult for other properties to develop in similar
fashion as various constraints would not allow them to do so. The benefit of
current proposal is that it is isolated with south-east corner and is located
on a parcel of land that is significantly larger than that of neighbouring
properties. No other property within Beatrice close has the benefit of such
width to side curtilage. Some properties have width but are constrained by
existing houses, public view points, estate layout or topographical change. It
is the Local Planning Authority’s opinion that proposal is unlikely to create a
precedent for future applications of a similar nature.
6.6 Proportions of windows, fenestration and
external appearance is acceptable, thus harmonizing with No 16. Applicant has
demonstrated that parking arrangement is suitable and will not adversely affect
the amenities of adjoining neighbours.
7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation
7.1 Having given due regard to all material considerations and on balance the application is considered to be in accordance with policies contained within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and overcoming previous reasons for refusal. Proposal will not adversely affect the streetscene or the original estate layout and utilises a parcel of land which is significantly larger than that of neighbouring dwellings. Proposal falls under criteria of Policy H7 (Extensions and alterations) although creating a new residential dwelling. Sufficient conditions have been applied to the recommended decision to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties, estate layout and original design concept.
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 |
The materials to be used in the construction
of the external surfaces of the extension 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. |
|
3 |
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
development within Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be
carried out other than that expressly authorised by this permission. Reason: To protect
the design of the dwelling unit, to stop accumulative spread and enlargement
of proposal 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 and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer
windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be
constructed. Reason: To protect
the reasonable privacy of neighbouring properties, to protect the design of
the property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
No dwelling hereby permitted shall be
occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with
drawing number 2006-01 P1 A for three cars to be parked. 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. |
Derek Rowell
STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
& REGENERATION