Planning Committee Paper B[4]

8/3/2019 Planning Committee Paper B[4]

1/66

1

PAPER B

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - MONDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2012

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES

WARNING

1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSESONLY.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATEDABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of anitem may be deferred to a later meeting).

3. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THEPLANNING COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT

OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTEDTO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMY ANDENVIRONMENT (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HASBEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THERECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5. THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THECONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THERECOMMENDATIONS.

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report inrespect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been consideredagainst a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and,where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and DisorderFacilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior topublication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been consideredagainst a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and,following advice from the Deputy Director of Resources (Corporate Governance),in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include asection explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.


2/66

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO COMMITTEE 27 FEBRUARY 2012

01 P/01561/11 TCP/16118/Y Sandown RefusalPage 4 Wight City Leisure Centre, 37 Culver Parade,

Sandown, Isle of Wight.

Demolition of building; outline for 63 apartments,restaurant/bar, commercial/retail units; external andundercroft parking; associated landscaping and binstores; vehicular access off Fort Street.

02 P/01502/11 TCPL/22278/M Lake ConditionalPermission

Page 19 Merrie Gardens Farm, Newport Road, Sandown, Isleof Wight.

Demolition of barn and outbuilding; partial demolition

of cottage; construction of pub/restaurant withassociated amenity/play area, outside seating area,parking, landscaping, vehicular access and highwayimprovements; conversion of barn to form toilets andstore for pub; internal and external alterations tocottage to form staff flat and managersaccommodation.

03 P/01503/11 LBC/22278/L Lake ConditionalPermission

Page 36 Merrie Gardens Farm, Newport Road, Sandown, Isle

of Wight.

LBC for demolition of barn and outbuilding; partialdemolition of cottage; construction of pub/restaurantwith associated amenity/play area, outside seatingarea, parking, landscaping, vehicular access andhighway improvements; conversion of barn to formtoilets and store for pub; internal and externalalterations to cottage to form staff flat and managersaccommodation.

04 P/01059/11 TCPL/13288/E Cowes ConditionalPermission

Page 38 62 High Street, Cowes, Isle of Wight.

Alterations and change of use from Class A1 (retail)to Class A3 (restaurant and cafe)(revisedplans)(additional extraction and filtration informationreceived - including noise assessment).

2
http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24030http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23838http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23853http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23781http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23781http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23853http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23838http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24030


3/66

05 P/01060/11 LBC/13288/D Cowes ConditionalPermission

Page 49 62 High Street, Cowes, Isle of Wight.

LBC for alterations and change of use from Class A1

(retail) to Class A3 (restaurant and cafe) (revisedplans)(additional extraction and filtration informationreceived - including noise assessment).

06 P/01825/11 TCP/30842 NettlestoneandSeaview

ConditionalPermission

Page 51 Upton View, Nettlestone Green, Seaview, Isle ofWight.

Change of use of premises to form a separate

dwelling.

07 P/01862/11 TCP/30848 Newport ConditionalPermission

Page 61 6 Redstart Close, Newport, Isle of Wight.

Proposed single storey side extension (reviseddescription).

3
http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23782http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24136http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24185http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24185http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24136http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=23782


4/66

01 Reference Number: P/01561/11 - TCP/16118/Y

Parish/Name: Sandown - Ward/Name: Sandown NorthRegistration Date: 24/11/2011 - Outline Planning PermissionOfficer: Sarah WilkinsonTel: (01983) 823552Applicant: Wight City Leisure Plc

Demolition of building; outline for 63 apartments, restaurant/bar,commercial/retail units; external and undercroft parking; associatedlandscaping and bin stores; vehicular access off Fort StreetWight City Leisure Centre, 37 Culver Parade, Sandown, Isle of Wight.

The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Ward Member has requested that this application is considered by the Planning

Committee.

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of loss of the existing building and facilities

The impact on the character of the area as a result of the layout, scale and mass ofthe proposed development

The impact on the neighbouring residential properties Flood Risk Highway Considerations

1. Details of Application

1.1 The proposal requires the demolition of the existing building on site and seeks outlineconsent for the redevelopment of the site with access, layout and scale to beconsidered.

1.2 The existing building consists of a cafeteria, public house/bar and restaurant,amusement arcade on the ground floor, a nightclub in the basement and 34 holidayresidential apartments at first and second floor.

1.3 The proposed redevelopment would include approximately 965 square metres ofcommercial floor space at ground floor level comprising a replacement bar/restaurant(705m2) and two commercial units proposed as A1, A2, A5 or B1. The applicant hasrequested consent for different use classes so that they could respond to marketdemand. The upper floors would provide 63 units of flatted accommodation, rangingfrom studios to three bedroom duplex units.

1.4 The proposed development would be separated into two buildings ranging from threeto five storeys. Block A providing 47 units located at an angle to Culver Parade setback from the road. The area to the front of block A would provide a terrace for theresultant restaurant Block B would incorporate the remaining 16 units and would be

located off Fort Street.

1.5 The footprint of Building A would accommodate 54 car parking spaces within a lowerground floor undercroft. A further 29 spaces would be provided within external car

4


5/66

parking areas, resulting in a total of 83 spaces. Provision is also made on site for 72cycle parking spaces. All car parking would be accessed from Fort Street.

1.6 Although the specific design of the development is reserved, the scale and layout areto be considered at this stage and therefore the design ethos is considered to berelevant to the current considerations, as the layout and scale would dictate elementsof the design. The proposed plans illustrate a contemporary design constructed of

red/orange brick panels, white render and mirror reflective frameless glass curtainwalling under a flat roof. The design also includes a buff stone plinth to accommodatethe level change on site.

1.7 Block B and 6 units in block A are proposed as affordable housing for the site.

1.8 The site is within flood zones 1, 2 and 3 but the buildings themselves have beenlocated out of the flood zones.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The application site is located on the north east outskirts of Sandown, approximately0.7 km north of Sandown town centre. The surrounding area has a mixed character.To the south west of the site are areas of dense residential development, made up ofterraces and pairs of semi-detached dwellings that date from the Victorian era. Theimmediate southern boundary of the site is a row of former coast guard cottages, therear elevations of which face onto the south western section of the application site. Thewider area to the south, Culver Parade, is characterised by two and three storey hotelsset back from the highway and including front gardens and seating areas. The hotelsdate from the late Victorian period and front elevations typically include sun loungesand bay windows that overlook the English Channel. To the east is the beach andpromenade. Directly to the north the pattern of development becomes far more sparse,with a large public park beyond which is a golf course and former boating lake.

2.2 The application site is currently occupied by a three storey building with its mainfrontage aspecting onto Culver Parade. The building dates from the 1970s andcomprises a modern frontage that steps back from the highway. The ground floor ofthe building comprises a cafe, amusement arcade, bar and various other outlets, withtwo storeys of holiday apartments above. The north-west section of the building frontsonto Fort Street, steeping down as levels change. The north elevation contains a nightclub, and this facade of the building is more simple, lacking fenestration. The rearelevation of the building has a service like appearance and somewhat dominates thestreet scene when looking east. To the west is a large gravelled car park, beyondwhich are residential properties and a hotel.

3. Relevant History

3.1 TCP/1434/K: Redevelopment of site including shop, restaurant, discotheque bar andadditional 18 chalet units approved November 1970

3.2 P/00937/10 TCP/16118/X: Demolition of three storey block; outline for 79 apartmentswithin five separate blocks to include undercroft parking, associated landscaping andbin stores; commercial element of 4 commercial/retail units and bar/restaurant; twovehicular accesses off Fort Street refused October 2010

4. Development Plan Policy

National Planning Policy

4.1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development emphasises that

5


6/66

Planning Authorities should create more sustainable communities. One of thesuggested ways of dealing with this is through the effective use of design. Theemphasis of PPS1 in terms of design is that of a shift away from the traditionalassessment of demonstrable harm and a move towards enhancement andimprovement. Good design should contribute positively to making places better forpeople. Design which is inappropriate in its context or which fails to take theopportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it

functions, should not be accepted.There are also links to promoting and reinforcinglocal distinctivenessand responding to local character and context. Design whichfails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of anarea should not be accepted.This statement clearly defines the shift in emphasis withregards to design, away from levels of demonstrable harm, towards enhancement andimprovement.

4.2 Planning Policy Statement 1: Planning and Climate Change, supplement to PPS1(outlined above) sets out how planning should contribute to reducing the emissionsand stabilising climate change and take into account the unavoidable consequences ofdevelopment.

4.3 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing stresses the importance of achieving highquality housing, as well as the need for a mix of housing in suitable and accessiblelocations, which offer a good range of community facilities. New housing developmentshould be well integrated with and complimentary of neighbouring buildings and thelocal area ore generally in terms of scale, density, layout and access.

4.4 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: the keyprinciples of this statement are to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity ofEnglands wildlife and geology whilst also encouraging sustainable development.

4.5 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport provides strategic guidance on matters

of transportation with aims that discourages dispersed rural development where therewould be high dependency on the private car and encourages development withinsettlement boundaries, where the use of local centres, community facilities andcommerce can be sustainably accessed.

4.6 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control requires that anyconsideration of the quality of land, air or water and the potential impacts arising fromdevelopment, possibly leading to an impact on health, is capable of being a materialplanning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from any land use.

4.7 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk aims to ensure that floodrisk is taken into account at all stages of the planning process to avoid inappropriate

development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas athighest risk. Where in exceptional circumstances new development is necessary insuch areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere andwhere possible, reducing flood risk overall.

Local Planning Policy

4.8 Unitary Development Plan

G1: Development Envelopes notes that the site falls within the Sandown settlementboundary where in principle development will be expected to be located.

G4: General Locational Criteria: offers criteria (a-l) which development mustcomply with in order for it to be considered appropriate. This includes matters oflandscaping, transportation, nature conservation, topography, views, setting of

6


7/66

prominent buildings and landmarks and respecting sites of historic interest.

D1: Standards of Design: requires development to maintain, or wherever possibleenhance, the quality and character of the built environment. It goes on to note thatPlanning applications will be expected to show a good quality of designand offerscriteria for the assessment of proposals. These include scale, massing, form, siting,layout and detailing.

C11: Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation: outlines the Councilsstance in respect of the protection, retention and management of areas of Localecological importance.

TR7: Highway Considerations for New Development: offers two limbs to besatisfied in order for new development to be considered appropriate. Firstlydevelopment must provide safe movement within the site and secondly, it mustdeliver safe new junctions and access to the existing highway network.

TR16: Parking Policies and Guidelines: seeks to reduce dependency on the private

car and makes it possible for development to reduce car parking to the operationalminimum. Appendix G notes that one assigned car parking space per four units forvisitors is allowed as a maximum. The site falls within a Zone 2 settlement wherebetween 0% and 50% of the maximum non-operational parking standards apply.

R1: Existing Town Centres: states that planning proposals that protect andmaintain and/ or enhance the retail function of defined town centres as a whole,will be acceptable in principle.

R2: New Retail Development: advises that new retail development should belocated within existing town centres.

4.9 Island Plan

The Inspectors report into the public examination of the Island Plan Core Strategy hasnow been published and the Inspector has found it to be sound, subject torecommendations on some changes. In the intervening period between the publicationof the report and formal adoption by the Council, the development plan for the Islandremains the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) along with national planning policies, butsignificant weight may now be applied to the sound Core Strategy policies.

4.10 The following policies from the Core Strategy are considered to be relevant to theconsideration of this application, although the weight to be attached relative to theadopted policies of the UDP will be discussed in the evaluation section of this report:

SP1: Spatial Strategy

SP2: Housing SP3: Economy SP5: Environment AAP3: The Bay DM1: Sustainable Build Criteria for New Development DM2: Design Quality for New Development

DM3: Balanced Mix of Housing DM4: Locally Affordable Housing DM8: Economic Development DM12:Landscape, Seascape, Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM17: Sustainable Travel

7


8/66

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

External Consultees

5.1 Natural England raise no objection to the application on the grounds of impact ondesignated sites but recommend that consideration is standing advice regardingprotected species.

5.2 Southern Water have highlighted that a public sewer crosses the site. It would bepossible to divert the public sewer, providing this would not result in a loss of hydrauliccapacity, and work is carried out at the developers expense.

5.3 Southern Water also state that there is inadequate capacity in the local network toprovide foul and surface water sewage disposal to service the proposed development.However, the public system is a combined system, receiving both foul and surfaceflows, and no flows greater than currently received can be accommodated in thissystem. It is possible that, by removing some of the existing surface water entering thesewer, additional foul flows could be accommodated, i.e. no net increase in flows.Alternatively, additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers can beprovided to service the development.

5.4 The Environment Agency have commented that, if the LPA are satisfied that theSequential Test has adequately been undertaken the development would only beacceptable if the measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted withthis application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition.

Internal Consultees

5.5 The Councils Ecology Officer has confirmed that the submitted phase 1 EcologySurvey and Bat Survey have found no significant ecological features or evidence of

bats and therefore no objection is raised in this regard.

5.6 The Councils Environmental Health Officer has no objection to the application on thegrounds of odour but recommend conditions in order to control the potential noise fromany future required extraction system or outdoor seating in association with therestaurant use.

Parish/Town Council Comments

5.7 Sandown Town Council raise no objection to the application, outlining that it is nice tosee a stylish scheme for Sandown

Third Party Representations

5.8 9 letters of objection have been received from local residents raising issues that can besummarised as follows:

Overlooking/loss of privacy

Materials are out of character Oversized Style does not reflect Sandown architecture Alleyway between the Coastguard Cottages and the site is a private right of way Flood Risk from run off and to neighbouring properties

Drainage Position of bin store and associated impact of smell and vermin Loss of holiday accommodation

8


9/66

Loss of car parking Height Out of keeping/out of character Shadow (over-dominance) Increase in conflict between bar/hotel/leisure and residential Lack of toilet facilities in the main commercial building

Design Impact on the skyline

5.9 Comments have also been received with regards to; consideration of the DisabilityDiscrimination Act and Changing Places toilets and property values. These issues arehowever not material planning considerations. A letter also raises concerns on theimpact of construction on subsidence and land slip. However, as the site is not withinan area of known ground instability this would be a civil matter.

6. Evaluation

Principle of loss of the existing building and facilities and the replacement with the

proposed uses.

6.1 The proposed development would result in the demolition of the existing building onsite. The building in its current form was constructed in the 1970s and thereforereflects the architecture of the time. The site is not within the Conservation Area ofSandown and the existing building appears in a poor state of repair. Officers raise noobjection to the demolition.

6.2 The proposed application raises three principle issues in respect of; the location ofresidential development, the principle of retail related development in a location that isoutside of a defined town centre boundary and loss of tourism accommodation. Eachissue will be considered in turn, below:

The principle of residential development

6.3 The submitted plans show that the application site is located within the developmentenvelope, forming a previously developed plot of land within an area that does includeresidential development. Therefore the principle of the development is considered tobe in accordance with national and local policy, subject to the remaining policyconsiderations in respect of the loss of tourism accommodation, development withindefined flood zones and detailed site specific criteria laid out within the remainder ofthis report.

The proposed retail/ commercial development

6.4 Paragraph 7 of PPS 4 confirms that retail premises and restaurants fall within thedefinition of 'economic development' and that town centre policies should be applied tosuch uses. The application site lies outside of the defined town centre boundary forSandown.

6.5 The application site lies in an edge of centre location, outside of the defined towncentre boundary for Sandown and therefore the provision of additional retail floorspace would be contrary to the principle of planning policy. PPS 4 provides thenational policy guidance relating to town centres and policy EC5 (Site Selection andLand Assembly for Main Town Centre Uses) makes it clear that Local Planning

Authorities should undertake a sequential approach for retail site selection with the aimof providing new development within existing town centres where possible, edge oftown centre locations where there are not suitable sites. This approach is aimed atpreserving and enhancing the competitiveness and vitality of town centres, whilst

9


10/66

aiming to ensure that development is sustainable. In consequence, an application foradditional retail floor space in this location would have to demonstrate that it could notbe located within an existing town centre site.

6.6 The approach to retail development outlined within PPS 4 is reflected in policies R1(Existing Town Centres) and R2 (New Retail Development) of the Isle of Wight UnitaryDevelopment Plan (UDP), which seek to protect and maintain and/or enhance the

retail function of defined town centres and only allow new retail development outside ofthese centres if they;

a) serve a local need only; orb) are located within existing village settlements, or are ancillary to a tourism orfarming operation, or are associated with an existing service station.

6.7 The applicant's design and access statement provides a justification in respect of theproposed commercial uses to be located within the ground floor of Block A. It detailsthat the current Wight City Leisure building, which includes an amusement arcade,cafe, nightclub and public house serving food, includes retail/ commercial floor spacethat totals 2363 square metres of floorspace and that the floor space for the proposedcommercial units and restaurant/ cafe would total 965 square metres. As a result, theCouncil agrees with the applicant's suggestion, that a sequential test as outlined byPPS 4 is not required for this application.

6.8 The Council notes that Culver Parade is an established commercial area that caters fortourists and enhances the attraction of Sandown as a resort. As a result, the Council issatisfied that the proposed restaurant and commercial uses would contribute to thetourism function of the area and not harm the viability of the town centre.

The loss of tourism accommodation

6.9 Several comments have been received from local residents raising concerns withregards to the loss of the tourist apartments that currently occupy the upper floors ofthe existing building. It should be noted that the application site is not located within adesignated hotel policy area and as a result there are not specific policies within thedevelopment plan that discourage the loss of the current tourism accommodation.

6.10 Additionally, it should be noted that when planning permission was granted for theconstruction of a three storey building to include shop, restaurant, bar and holiday unitsin 1970 (TCP1434/K) no conditions were attached to restrict the units to tourismpurposes. Furthermore, the description did not describe the site as being used as ahotel or guest house and as a result, for the purposes of planning legislation theexisting units fall within Class C3 (Dwellinghouses) as defined by the Use Classes

Order. As a result, planning permission would not be required to use the currentchalets for non-tourist domestic use and therefore objecting to their loss would beunreasonable.

Impact on the character of the area

6.11 The application seeks outline consent with appearance reserved for laterdetermination. However, as layout and scale are to be examined at this stage it isconsidered that the design would be dictated to a degree by the other factors andtherefore is relevant to the current considerations, although could be subject to changewithin any later reserved matters application.

6.12 The proposed development would be accommodated within two blocks, Block A,fronting Culver Parade would provide 47 units within a building of between three andfive storeys. Block B of 16 units would front Fort Street.

10


11/66

6.13 It is accepted by Officers that the existing building is not of any significant architectural

merit and therefore the principle of the redevelopment of the site is accepted.Nonetheless, the design concept of the existing building should be noted as the threestorey height is mitigated by the stepping of the front elevation with recessedbalconies, reducing the impact on the esplanade. The curved corner also provides astrong design detail, although is now looking aged.

6.14 The proposed development however, although angled to the road, would providevertical five storeys onto the esplanade creating both an overshadowing and a feelingof enclosure, with an element of the building being only 1 metre from the road. This inturn would have a direct impact on the character of the area which is currentlytransitional between the open space to the north-east and the cottages to the south-west. The angle of the building in itself is considered to have an impact on the contextof the seafront with all other properties following the alignment of the road. Theproposed development follows an opposing angle, being out of character.

6.15 The existing building is considered to have an impact on the setting of theneighbouring cottages, on Culver Parade, due to the forward position of the existingbuilding and the variation in height. However, the design of the building, with thestepped elevation reduces the visual dominance of the front elevation when viewedfrom the esplanade and beach. Although these cottages may be uncharacteristic of therest of the seafront, they play an important role in the history of this area and representthe immediate context of the site. The proposed development has considered thesecottages within the design, with the height at this point being of three storeys and thelayout being stepped to reduce any specific amenity impact. However, when viewingthe development as a whole from the seascape the proposed development over-dominates these cottages and out of context having a significant impact on thecharacter of the area.

6.16 To the front of the site, on the beach sits Driftwood Caf. The caf is single storey fromthe beach with only the roof visible from Culver Parade. The proposals would visuallydominant the Caf when viewed from the beach and off shore.

6.17 The proposed terrace to the front of block A has attempted to mitigate the impact of theincrease in height but the closest part of the building would be only 1 metre fromCulver Parade and as discussed above the terrace is created by the angle of thebuilding, which is in itself considered to be out of context with the setting of the site. Aselements of the proposed buildings would be so close to the road, the set back is notconsidered to adequately mitigate the impact of the excessive height.

6.18 The scale and bulk of block A would dominate the views of the seafront from higher

ground, including Shanklin cliff path and Brading Down. Views from Brading Downwould be across an AONB. The proposed building would be five storeys within thecentral element reducing to three adjacent to the neighbouring properties. The closestbuildings to the site being single and two storeys. This dominance would beexacerbated by the contemporary approach and indicative materials which would beout of character with the area as a whole. In turn the proposals would fail to relate to itssurroundings contrary to policy G4 (General Location Criteria).

6.19 The dinosaur museum, known as Dinosaur Isle is located to the north-east of the site.This building is noted due to its contemporary design approach, which appears fromhigher ground as a soaring dinosaur. However, the building is only single storey andtherefore from distance views appears of interest rather than dominating the vista.

Additionally, this is a tourist attraction and as such is designed to be different and eyecatching. The museum is the only building within the vicinity of the site which adopts acontemporary approach and sits 320 metres from the application site, therefore does

11


12/66

not form part of its immediate context but wider views.

6.20 The existing building is visually distinguishable from higher land, especially the whiteside elevation. It is considered that the proposed development would be significantlymore visible due to the proposed height, scale and materials. The building wouldvisually dominate these views and detract from the character of the area.

6.21 The area is generally characterised by Victorian architecture to Culver Parade and1950/60s architecture to Fort Street. It is considered by Officers that the proposeddevelopment has incorporated no features that are typical or characteristic of the areaand as such the development would appear as anywhere architecture with no links toSandown or the immediate street scenes. Although Officers accept that PPS1 statesthat Local Planning Authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles orparticular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative throughrequirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It also states thatGood design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Designwhich is inappropriate in its context or which fails to take the opportunities available forimproving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not beaccepted.There are also links to promoting and reinforcing local distinctivenessandresponding to local character and context. Design which fails to take theopportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not beaccepted. Additionally the aims of PPS 1 are further reinforced by PPS3 which statesthat design should be well integrated with, and compliment, the neighbouring buildingsand the local area more generally in terms of scale, density, layout and accessandenhances a distinctive character that relates well to the surroundings. The proposeddevelopment is therefore considered to be contrary to the aims of both PPS1 andPPS3.

6.22 The proposed block design is out of character with the neighbouring residential scaleterraces and the generally traditionally Victorian seafront. The submitted

documentation draws comparisons with the development known as NapoleonsLanding. This is a large flatted development of between three and ten storeys alongthe Esplanade. However, Officers do not consider that this would set any precedent tomaking development of this scale acceptable, as not only is this located 820 metresfrom the site and therefore does not represent the immediate context or character ofthe site, it is located to the front of a cliff and therefore forms part of the back drop tothe development, in turn the scale has no impact on properties to the rear and thestreet scene was previously dominated by the height of the cliff. The proposed sitebacks onto two storey residential properties and therefore the impact is not only on thestreet scene but residential amenity.

6.23 The design has incorporated two projections into the footprint and balconies to add

interest to the front elevation but the rear incorporates a continuous elevation of 43metres with only balconies to provide alleviation. The proposed building from this viewappears as an office block with no residential scale in relation to the context of the site.This elevation would sit between 6.2 metres and 19.4 metres from Fort Street. Thebuilding has been set back this distance from Fort Street due to the need to keep allresidential accommodation out of the flood zone.

6.24 Block B sits closer to Fort Street than the maximum distance above being between11.7 and 13.8 metres from the road. Block B would appear as two identical wings threestorey connected by a mirrored glazing feature projecting for an additional storey. Theproposed building would sit 7.2 metres from the neighbouring two storey property (no.46 Fort Street). Although this distance is sometimes more than sufficient for properties

of similar proportions, the existing neighbouring property has a ridge height of 4.5metres, while the ridge height of block B would 9.8 metres, increasing to 13.2 metres.This increase in height is such that the proposed development would over-dominate

12


13/66

no. 46 within the street scene.

6.25 The lower section of Fort Street, within which the site is located is currentlycharacterised by open areas of car parking and Sandham Pleasure Gardens. Thecharacter than alters to single and two storey residential. Fort Street is therefore openin nature with low scale development. Although the rear of the existing building doesnot add anything to the quality of the area, the proposed development would dominate

and completely alter the existing character of this area from one of low scaletransitional to high density and urban. The submitted documentation suggests thatThe lack of development on the rear of the site means that it lacks definition on theFort Street frontages... Officers consider that this is not a lack of definition but animportant open aspect, adding to the apparent density of the area. Additionally, due tothe need to position development out of the flood zone the layout does not result in abuilding which would be in context with the prevailing existing build street scene, whichsees units running parallel with the roads edge.

Impact on neighbouring properties

6.26 The proposed building would have an impact on three neighbouring property groups;the cottages within Culver Parade, the Hotel Sands Hotel and the properties frontingFort Street. These shall be considered in turn below:

6.27 The cottages on Culver Parade sit directly next to the building on the south-westernboundary of the site. The existing building has an impact on the amenities of theseunits providing a level of shading to the front although the rear of the properties followsapproximately the same building line. The impact on the amenities of the residentsfront elevations and gardens would be relatively unchanged and potentially slightlyimproved with the building being proposed approximately 2.5 metres further away.However, this intercepting land would be utilised as footpath between the twoproperties, which would have the potential of causing significant disturbance if it was to

be open to patrons of the pub/restaurant.

6.28 The three storey element of the proposed development on the boundary provides aprojection with the proposed height increasing to five storeys behind. This elementwould tower over the cottages and their rear gardens. Additionally, the five storeyelement of the building would include a balcony on every floor and the top floor wouldbe a mirrored glass curtain wall. This would result in excessive direct overlooking intothe gardens of the cottages, with potentially a greater perception of overlooking andenclosure. It is not considered mitigation screening would be appropriate in thisinstance due to the continued perception and over-dominance that would exist. It isalso considered that the presence of such screens would be detrimental to theamenities of the future occupiers of the units as a result of the enclosure that would be

created and the resultant impact on outlook from these properties.

6.29 Block B would be situated a minimum of 12 metres from the rear boundary wall of thecottages and would be three storeys in height, with a fourth storey set further back.The first and second floors of the proposed units would include balconies, rearwindows and two glazed corner panels, again resulting in excessive overlooking.Although the side of these balconies could potentially be screened this would not goanyway to mitigate the impact which would be from the length of these balconies.Trees are proposed on the boundary of the site but the submitted information indicatesthat this screening would take 10 years to take effect and therefore the immediateimpact would be significant.

6.30 There is currently no built form in the position of block B on site as this area is car park.Therefore the dominance of the building and the level of overlooking would represent asignificant change to the amenities currently enjoyed by the existing residents. The

13


14/66

proposed development would therefore have an unacceptable impact on the amenitiesof the cottages fronting Culver Parade.

6.31 The hotel known as Sands Hotel follows the boundary of Crescent Road with anentrance off Culver Parade. The rear elevation of the Hotel faces into the existing carpark of the site off Fort Street. The building is two storeys in height with the elementclosest to the site incorporating a roof terrace above the rear ground floor single storey

element of the building. Block B of the proposed development would be positioned aminimum of 25.4 metres from the Hotel. There would be a level of mutual overlookingbetween the two premises, however, due to the open nature of the rear of the site,from the existing car park officers considered that this would be no greater thatcurrently exists.

6.32 The distances between the buildings together with the angle of their footprints is suchthe Officers do not consider that there would be an unacceptable impact from thedevelopment on the hotel.

6.33 The site is also bounded by properties which front Fort Street. Block B would beclosest to these. There are currently no buildings within the site on this sharedboundary. As outlined above the proposed development would measure a height of 9.8metres, increasing to 13.2 metres, 9.1 metres back from the side elevation facing theneighbouring property, comparative to the 4.5 metre eaves height of no. 46 Fort Street.This height increase would not only have an impact on the street scene, but also theamenities of the residents of the neighbouring property. The set back, to ensure thedevelopment would not be in the flood zone would result in the building running alongthe primary amenity area of the rear garden of no. 46.

6.34 The proposed building would be between 5.2 and 19.4 metres from the side boundary.The design has been amended to include balcony screens and incorporate high levelwindows to overcome any potential overlooking, although overcoming this issue

officers still considered that the proposed block B would result in excessive dominanceto the amenities of no. 46.

6.35 Taking all the above matters into account, it is considered that the proposeddevelopment would have an unacceptable impact on surrounding properties from bothover-dominance and over-looking. In consequence, the proposal is contrary to PolicyD1 which states that new development should not detract from the reasonable use andenjoyment of adjoining buildings.

Flood Risk

6.36 The proposed development has been set back from Fort Street in order to ensure that

the building itself would be outside of Flood Zones 2 and 3, in which residentialdevelopment is not considered to be acceptable. Additionally, a pedestrian route toland outside of these Zones has been incorporated into the scheme for safe exit in aflood event. As a result the Environment Agency have raised no objection to theapplication, although they outline that the Council should be satisfied that anappropriate sequential test has been undertaken.

6.37 A sequential test would normally be required to examine other sites within the areawhich could accommodate the uses proposed. The submitted Flood Risk Assessmenthas included a sequential assessment of the positioning of the buildings on the siteitself and an exception test which justifies that, as the site is previously developed andthe proposed development would result in a regeneration scheme, the proposals would

comply with the requirements of PPS25. Officers concur with this position andconsidered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of flood risk.

14


15/66


16/66

considered to be acceptable for the residential element of the scheme.

6.45 The applicant has provided information determined utilising the TRICS database whichindicates that the sites existing use of an arcade, caf, bar, nightclub, and holiday flatsis likely to generate circa 1056 vehicular movements per day, as an average of theyear. The proposed usage of residential, retail, and bar restaurant is projected togenerate circa 729 vehicular movements per day, which equates to a reduction of

31%. It is quite possible that a percentage of the vehicles associated with the retailunits may already be travelling on the local highway network around the site, or parkedin local hotel and public car parks, thus the traffic generated by this element of thescheme may well be slightly less than the TRICS database predicts. It is thereforeconsidered that the development could be acceptably accommodated within the localroad network.

6.46 Where Fort Street joins Avenue Road there are existing safety issues with this junction, namely substandard visibility looking to the south. As this development isunlikely to (taking into account the 150 space car park) result in an increased numberof vehicle movements though it would be unreasonable for me to seek contributionsfrom the developer to implement improvements here.

6.47 In conclusion it is considered that the site is in an accessible location and would resultin improvements to the existing visibility splays and a reduction in traffic generation.However, the proposed level of parking on site for the commercial element of thescheme is considered to represent an under-provision and an HGV space has notbeen provided, which could potentially led to standing vehicles on the highway,interrupting the free flow of traffic. However, this is the current situation and thereforenot considered sufficient to warrant refusal. It is therefore considered that a parkingprovision assessment should be submitted to justify that the under provision of spacesfor the commercial element could be accommodated within local car parks, within thetourist season, when also taking into consideration the additional numbers generated

by the loss of the on site car park. In the absence of this information the Council cannot establish whether the generation from the development would be accommodatedwithin the local parking infrastructure.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 Giving due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred toabove Officers consider that the proposal would represent an over-development of thesite, that would over-dominate the street scene having a detrimental impact on thecharacter of the area, as well as being out of context with the prevailing pattern ofdevelopment in respect of orientation, scale, mass and design.

7.2 The proposals would also result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and over-dominance to neighbouring properties having an adverse effect on the amenitiesenjoyed by existing residents.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1 The proposal by reason of its alignment, position, scale, mass and indicativeexternal appearance, would be an intrusive development, out of scale and context

with the surrounding development, in turn having an adverse impact on thecharacter of the area when viewed from both the seafront and surrounding higherground. Additionally, the development would result in an unacceptable sense of

16


17/66

enclosure along this stretch of the seafront resulting in an over-dominant impact onthe street scene contrary to Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria forDevelopment) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight UnitaryDevelopment Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering SustainableDevelopment.

2 The proposal by reason of its layout, scale and mass would result in development

which would be over-dominant to neighbouring residential properties having adetrimental impact on the current level of amenity to an unacceptable degreedetracting from the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighbouring propertiescontrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

3 The proposed windows and balconies to the south and west elevations of theproposed development would give rise to overlooking of adjacent properties to thedetriment of the amenities of occupiers of those properties and would therefore becontrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight UnitaryDevelopment Plan.

4 The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detailin respect of lack of a Parking Provision Assessment (PPA), so the Local PlanningAuthority is unable to consider fully the effects of the level of parking proposed tofacilitate the commercial element of the proposed development contrary to PolicyTR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary DevelopmentPlan.

17


18/66

460100E

460200

E

460300E

460400E

460500E

46060

0E

460700E

84400N

84400N

84500N

84500N

84600N

84600N

84700N

84700N

Scale1:2500

P/01561/11-TCP/16118/Y

WightCityLeisureCentre,

37CulverParade,

Sando

wn,

P

O368AT

18


19/66

02 Reference Number: P/01502/11 - TCPL/22278/M

Parish/Name: Lake - Ward/Name: Lake SouthRegistration Date: 18/10/2011 - Full Planning PermissionOfficer: Sarah WilkinsonTel: (01983) 823552Applicant: Marston's Inns and Taverns

Demolition of barn and outbuilding; partial demolition of cottage;construction of pub/restaurant with associated amenity/play area, outsideseating area, parking, landscaping, vehicular access and highwayimprovements; conversion of barn to form toilets and store for pub; internaland external alterations to cottage to form staff flat and managersaccommodationMerrie Gardens Farm, Newport Road, Sandown, Isle of Wight.

The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application raises sensitivities of potential impacts on a Listed Building andalterations to a junction on a classified A road.

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

The principle of the use of the site as a pub/restaurant, which is allocated foremployment uses.

The impact on the character of the surrounding area.

The impact on the listed building, including renovation works and setting. The impact on surrounding residential amenity. Consideration of the proposed highway works to facilitate the development,

including a new roundabout on the Newport Road junction. Ecology considerations, including the potential impact on bats within the existing

buildings.

1. Details of Application

1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of a barn and outbuildings within

the curtilage of the listed building at Merrie Gardens Farm, and the removal of laterextensions to the Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building. A new roundabout is alsoproposed to provide access. This is a joint report for both Planning Permission andListed Building Consent.

1.2 The proposals include the following elements:

The demolition of out-buildings. The conversion of the only original outbuilding, which currently forms part of the

front boundary of the site and screens the farmyard from the road, into toilets forthe proposed development, which would be attached to the new build element viaa glazed link.

The proposed renovation and refurbishment of the listed building itself to providemanagers/staff accommodation, with the front of the property providing a fourbedroom house and the rear gabled extension providing a staff flat.

19


20/66

The provision of associated car parking to be provided partially within the formerfarmyard area and partially within the field to the north of the site. A total of 58 carparking spaces and 12 bicycle spaces would be provided for patrons and staff.

The provision of a new roundabout on Newport Road also serving WhitecrossLane to provide an access to the proposed pub, renovated listed building and theland to the rear of the site, which has outline consent for industrial development. Aroundabout in this location was previously approved in 2009 in conjunction withthe redevelopment of the land to the rear of the site. The current proposedroundabout would be slightly larger to ensure that it could accommodate trafficfrom the proposed development as well as the consented industrial development.

1.3 The proposed new build element of the building includes the provision of apub/restaurant of a net floorspace of 663 square metres. The building would be locatedbetween 3.2 metres and 8.4 metres to the west of the existing farmhouse within thearea of the former farmyard and removed barn/outbuildings. The proposed buildinghas been designed to have the appearance of a converted agricultural barn, takingcues from the original outbuilding which forms part of the front boundary of the site. Itwould have a maximum ridge height of 7.1 metres although the majority of the building

would be no more than 6.7 metres in height. It would be constructed of red brick undera slate roof with a glazed link joining the building to the existing outbuilding.

1.4 The proposed alterations to the listed building would include the removal of anextension to the eastern elevation measuring approximately 43.5 square metres and alean-to on the western elevation of 4.1 square metres. These elements of the building

are 20th Century additions to the original building. Works would include for somepartitions and the removal of a secondary stair which is not considered to be of specialsignificance. Any historic doors would be retained and either upgraded or relocatedwithin the building.

1.5 The provision of the roundabout would require the removal of the existing trees on the

corner of Whitecross Lane and Newport Road and those that currently screen thefarmhouse from the road and the repositioning of the boundary wall, a curtilage listedstructure. Separate listed building consent for the relocation of the boundary wall hasbeen approved in conjunction was the historic road works consent, although theexisting application also includes for the relocation of this wall, in line with the route ofthe new access to regularise matters.

1.6 There is currently a change in levels on site between the house and the farmyard ofapproximately 0.45 metres. A block wall currently forms the retaining structurebetween these two levels. This wall would be replaced with a more sympathetic wallstructure of brick. The proposed development would utilise this level difference byproviding a sunken terrace to the front of the proposed new build for outside seating.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The site is located on the northern side of Newport Road, Lake, mid way betweenMorrisons supermarket and the former Lake Middle School and opposite SpitheadBusiness Park.

2.2 The area surrounding the site is a mix of commercial and residential uses withagricultural land to the north, separating the site from the Sandown Airport. The area tothe east is generally characterised by residential housing estates, with the area to thewest is, in the main, a commercial area straddling Newport Road comprising the

Spithead Industrial Estate, Lake Industrial Estate, Morrisons foodstore and a Car Saleslot.

20


21/66

2.3 The rear boundary is undefined, leading to open grassland. The front boundary isdefined with a stone and blockwork wall and the side boundaries are mainly delineatedwith vegetation.

2.4 The existing building in the centre of the site is a Grade II Listed Farmhouse, stoneclad under a thatched roof. There are a number of outbuildings within the formerfarmyard which are all considered to be curtilage listed structures.

2.5 The existing building is in a poor state of repair. A fire has resulted in many of theoriginal features within the building being lost. The roof has been replaced relativelyrecently and the windows boarded up in order that the building remained water tight.

3. Relevant History

3.1 P/01817/04: Listed Building Consent for repairs to fire & water damaged property toinclude reconstruction & re-thatching of roof was approved in October 2004.

Although not directly relating to this site/building the following applications haveinvolved around the site and the area of the proposed car park.

3.2 P/01919/07: Outline for industrial/business and residential development and alterationsto vehicular access to include provision of a roundabout at Newport Road junction(additional information) (readvertised application) at land north of Whitecross Houseincluding part of Whitecross Lane/Newport Road and part of Merrie Gardens Farm,Newport Road, Sandown was approved in March 2009.

3.3 P/00930/11: Removal of condition no. 4 on P/01919/07 - TCP/27927/A which requiresa section 106 be entered into regarding highway works; variation of condition no: 10which requires an Ecology Report to be submitted and condition no. 13 which requiresconfirmation that all necessary land required for the highway works has been secured

and is in control of the developer at land north of Whitecross House including part ofWhitecross Lane/Newport Road and part of Merrie Gardens Farm, Newport Road,Sandown was refused August 2011.

3.4 P/01811/11: Replacement of planning permission (P/1919/07-TCP/27927/A: outline forindustrial/business and residential development and alterations to vehicular access toinclude provision of a roundabout at Newport Road junction) in order to extend the timelimit for implementation at land north of Whitecross House including part of WhitecrossLane/Newport Road and part of Merrie Gardens Farm, Newport Road, Sandown iscurrently under consideration.

4. Development Plan Policy

National Planning Policy

4.1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development emphasises thatPlanning Authorities should create more sustainable communities. One of thesuggested ways of dealing with this is through the effective use of design. Theemphasis of PPS1 in terms of design is that of a shift away from the traditionalassessment of demonstrable harm and a move towards enhancement andimprovement. Good design should contribute positively to making places better forpeople. Design which is inappropriate in its context or which fails to take theopportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way itfunctions, should not be accepted.There are also links to promoting and reinforcing

local distinctivenessand responding to local character and context. Design whichfails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of anarea should not be accepted.This statement clearly defines the shift in emphasis with

21


22/66

regards to design, away from levels of demonstrable harm, towards enhancement andimprovement.

4.2 Planning Policy Statement 1: Planning and Climate Change, supplement to PPS1(outlined above) sets out how planning should contribute to reducing the emissionsand stabilising climate change and take into account the unavoidable consequences ofdevelopment.

4.3 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth outlines theneed to positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters ornetworks of knowledge driven by high technology industries. Local Planning Authoritiesshould adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications foreconomic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economicgrowth should be treated favourably. In addition, there are references to ensuring thatin planning for sustainable economic growth, Local Planning Authorities are advised toreassess existing employment sites and allocations against the requirements of PPS 4particularly if they are for single or restricted uses.

4.4 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment outlines theimportance of Heritage assets and the need for the impact upon them to be carefullyconsidered in order to achieve sustainable development. Policy HE 7 is primarilyconcerned with Development Management and outlines the need for all impacts to beassessed (and mitigated where necessary) as well as ensuring that new developmentproposals contribute to and enhance the existing distinctiveness and character ofareas.

4.5 In addition to PPS5 the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings andConservation Areas) Act 1990 outlines that, in considering whether to grant planningpermission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the localplanning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special

regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features ofspecial architectural or historic interest which it possesses. (section 66).

4.6 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: the keyprinciples of this statement are to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity ofEnglands wildlife and geology whilst also encouraging sustainable development.

4.7 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport provides strategic guidance on mattersof transportation with aims that discourages dispersed rural development where therewould be high dependency on the private car and encourages development withinsettlement boundaries, where the use of local centres, community facilities andcommerce can be sustainably accessed.

4.8 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control requires that anyconsideration of the quality of land, air or water and the potential impacts arising fromdevelopment, possibly leading to an impact on health, is capable of being a materialplanning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from any land use.

Local Planning Policy

4.9 Unitary Development Plan

G1: Development Envelopes notes that the site falls within the Sandownsettlement boundary where the principle of development will be expected.

G4: General Locational Criteria: offers criteria (a-l) which development mustcomply with in order for it to be considered appropriate. This includes matters of

22


23/66

landscaping, transportation, nature conservation, topography, views, setting ofprominent buildings and landmarks and respecting sites of historic interest.

D1: Standards of Design: requires development to maintain, or wherever possibleenhance, the quality and character of the built environment. It goes on to note thatPlanning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design andoffers criteria for the assessment of proposals. These include scale, massing,form, siting, layout and detailing.

D14: Light Spillage states that planning applications for development whichincludes or requires external lighting, when approved, will be subject to conditionsto ensure that the lighting scheme is the minimum required for the task; lightspillage is minimised; there will be no dazzling or distraction to drivers; and it isdesigned so as not to unreasonably affect neighbouring property.

C11: Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation: outlines the Councilsstance in respect of the protection, retention and management of areas of Localecological importance.

C12: Development Affecting Trees and Woodland outlines that developmentwhich would result in loss or damage to trees, forest or woodland of individualimportance or which contributes to the character or amenity of the area will not beapproved, unless the Council is satisfied that there is an overriding need for thedevelopment and appropriate replacement planting is undertaken on the site.

TR7: Highway Considerations for New Development: offers two limbs to besatisfied in order for new development to be considered appropriate. Firstlydevelopment must provide safe movement within the site and secondly, it mustdeliver safe new junctions and access to the existing highway network.

TR16: Parking Policies and Guidelines: seeks to reduce dependency on theprivate car and makes it possible for development to reduce car parking to theoperational minimum. Appendix G notes that one assigned car parking space perfour units for visitors is allowed as a maximum. The site falls within a Zone 2settlement where between 0% and 50% of the maximum non-operational parkingstandards apply.

4.10 Island Plan

The Inspectors report into the public examination of the Island Plan Core Strategy hasnow been published and the Inspector has found it to be sound, subject torecommendations on some changes. In the intervening period between the publicationof the report and formal adoption by the Council, the development plan for the Islandremains the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) along with national planning policies, butsignificant weight may now be applied to the sound Core Strategy policies.

4.11 The following policies from the Core Strategy are considered to be relevant to theconsideration of this application, although the weight to be attached relative to theadopted policies of the UDP will be discussed in the evaluation section of this report:

SP1: Spatial Strategy SP3: Economy SP5: Environment

DM1: Sustainable Build Criteria for New Development DM2: Design Quality for New Development DM8: Economic Development

23


24/66

DM11: Historic and Built Environment DM12: Landscape, Seascape, Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM14: Flood Risk DM17: Sustainable Travel

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

External Consultees

5.1 Southern Water has highlighted the position of the public sewers and has requestedthat an informative is included should consent be granted highlighting the need toapply to Southern Water to connect to the public sewerage system.

Internal Consultees

5.2 Environmental Health Officers have recommended conditions to ensure that thesubmitted acoustic design report is adhered to.

5.3 The Councils Highway Engineer has assessed the submitted information in support ofthe new proposed roundabout and raising no objection to the proposed development.Conditions are should the application be approved. Detailed comments with regards tothe different highway considerations are summarised in the evaluation of this report.

5.4 The Councils Licensing Sergeant confirms that there is no objection in principle to apub premises on this site, but have suggested a number of operating conditions toprevent crime and disorder, nuisance etc.

5.5 The Councils Ecology Officer recommends that conditions be attached to ensure thatprotected species are not affected by the proposed development, in accordance withthe submitted ecology report.

5.6 The Councils Tree Officer has previously accepted the loss of the trees to the front ofthe site and those required to be removed to facilitate the roundabout visibility splaysdue to the condition of the trees and the comprehensive landscaping plan that hasbeen submitted.

Parish/Town Council Comments

5.7 Lake Parish Council supports the application but asks that a condition be attachedrequiring the completion of the road works before building work is permitted to start.

Third Party Representations

5.8 13 letters of objection have been received raising issues that can be summarised asfollows:

Bat and Owl Survey should be done before the application is considered (as amatter of note a bat survey was submitted with the application)

Due consideration should be given to the Disability Discrimination Act Increased traffic would make it hazardous to cross the road for pedestrians Traffic generation

Development not necessary Unruly behaviour

Increase in levels of noise pollution Increased vehicle pollutants Light pollution

24


25/66

Listed building should be full protected and restored to its original condition Council should have regard for the impact of any late night entertainment Should be a pub and not a nightclub

5.9 2 letters of support have been received providing the following comments:

Much needed facility in the area Roundabout would enhance traffic flows in the area New jobs would be generated for Lake and the Island

Mastons are an asset to any community Facility would be an enhancement to the area

6. Evaluation

Principle of the use of the site, an allocated employment site, for pub/restaurantand drinking establishment.

6.1 The proposed development is located on an employment allocation within the Unitary

Development Plan. The allocation includes the existing buildings, the neighbouring carsales lot and an area of land to the rear of the house, totalling an area of 1.7 hectares.

6.2 The proposed pub/restaurant development would generate an anticipated 10 full timejobs and 40 part-time jobs. Whilst these would not be traditional industrial jobs, there isnevertheless an economic benefit. The scheme would also achieve the new access tothe remaining current allocated employment site. Additionally, the proposeddevelopment would see the reuse of a listed building and previously development landwhile also ensuring a use of the site which would ensure capital to protect the futuremaintenance of the listed building.

6.3 Whist the specific allocation of this site for employment uses has not been carried

forward in the Core Strategy, the principle and emphasis for economic regeneration isan underlying objective. This is a previously developed site within the KeyRegeneration Area of The Bay. As such, the proposals are in line with the regenerationobjectives of the Core Strategy.

6.4 The site of the proposed development is surrounded, in the main, by commercialactivity, as such the use of the site for a commercial purpose is considered to be themost appropriate.

6.5 The proposed use of the existing building for managers and staff accommodationwould provide a future use for the building without the need for extensive internalalterations. An unrestricted residential use of the building to the rear of the beer gardenand the east of the public house would potentially result in disturbance to futureoccupiers. Therefore, as it is Marstons policy to have a member of senior staff on siteat all times for security, the building provides an important management facility.Officers accept this use linked to the development and propose conditions limitingoccupation accordingly.

6.6 Letters have been received from local residents raising concerns with regards to theneed for a public house in this location, when considering other facilities in the area. Incontrast, other letters have been received in support of the application due to the needfor such facilities. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable EconomicGrowth has deleted historical requirements to justify the need (Needs Assessment) for

certain forms of economic development, so with this in mind and also recognising thatthe proposed location of the pub is considered to be acceptable on merit, it is theopinion of Officers that whether there is a need or not is a matter of market demandand is not an issue that the Local Planning authority can judge upon in this instance.

25


26/66

6.7 The proposed development is considered to be located within a sustainable location,

on a main bus route and in walking distance of residential properties.

6.8 A licence has been granted for the proposed premises and therefore consideration hasalready been given, by the Council, to the acceptability in licensing terms of theproposed facility in this location.

6.9 It is considered therefore that the current proposal would accord with the existingpolicies of the Unitary Development Plan. The suitability of the scheme in policiesterms is further supported by the emerging Core Strategy. The site should beconsidered, in emerging policy terms as, a previously developed site within thedevelopment envelope and within the Key Regeneration Area of The Bay for economicdevelopment. Officers are of the view that the proposed use does accord with theemerging policies.

Impact on the setting of the listed building and the building itself

6.10 The proposal involves the demolition of some outbuildings and extensions to thefarmhouse. The outbuildings are later modern buildings constructed of concrete blockand timber with corrugated iron cladding. These are considered to have no historicinterest and are currently detracting from the setting of the listed building consideringtheir materials and dilapidated condition. Officers raise no objection to the removal ofthese buildings.

6.11 The extensions to the farmhouse are located on the west and east (side) elevationsand are not original to the building. They are constructed of artificial stone and brickwith a clay tile roof, unlike the natural stone and brick of the main building. Theremoval of these elements would restore the building to its original appearance fromthe front elevation resulting in an improvement to the existing heritage asset.

6.12 There are few remaining original features of interest within the farmhouse, followingthe fire but, those that have remained would not be affected by the proposedconversion works required to accommodate the proposed house and flat alterations.As outlined above these works include the removal of existing later partitions and thecreation of new ones in other positions. The new partitions would be designed toensure they would not be placed in areas which would divide existing important largerooms, with the majority of works within the extension at the rear, which although old isnot original. A secondary stair would be removed, which is not considered to be ofspecial significance. Any historic doors would be retained and either upgraded orrelocated within the building. The proposed alterations are therefore considered to beminimally intrusive and would not have an unacceptable impact on the listed building

itself.

6.13 To accommodate the sub-division of the property non-original openings would beinfilled following the natural plan form and evolution of the building.

6.14 The renovation works would include the repair of the existing windows behind theboarding.

6.15 The proposed development also includes the renovation of the barn along the frontboundary of the site. These works would include insulation, dry lining and underpinningof the external walls, strengthening of upper floors and a new concrete floor slab. Anumber of the existing openings would also been blocked up to allow the use of the

building for toilets. Details have been submitted of the way in which this blocking wouldbe undertaken, including recessed brickwork and shutters.

26


27/66

6.16 The proposals would see the new build element adopt the character of a convertedbarn, being of similar style and materials to the original outbuilding at the front of thesite. The building would have a subservient character to the main farmhouse, being setat a lower land level and only single storey. It is considered by Officers that theproposed building would not result in a detrimental impact on the setting of the listedbuilding and potentially enhance the character of the area.

6.17 The setting of the Farmhouse has changed significantly over time, due todevelopments that have been undertaken around it. It is likely that the setting willchange further with the site location within a Key Regeneration Area. The proposed carpark has been positioned to the rear of the new build element and the existingfarmhouse. This would protect the setting of the existing listed building when viewingthe site from the main road and the front elevation, which is considered to be the mostimportant as it contains the most original appearance. The car park would be visiblefrom the side and rear of the building, but, this is not considered to have anunacceptable impact on the setting of the farmhouse due to the existing impact fromthe neighbouring car sales lot. The land to the rear of the site also has consent forIndustrial buildings and therefore the car park would not back onto open grassland, asis currently the situation.

6.18 Planning Policy Statement 5 states that Change, including development, can sustain,enhance or better reveal the significance of an asset as well as detract from it or leaveit unalteredIt is considered by Officers that the removal of the trees to the from of thesite would enhance the setting of the building by increasing its visual prominence inthe area, the removal of the existing extension and dilapidated outbuildings wouldretain the front elevation of the building to its original form and the proposeddevelopment would sit alongside the building, complementing its form and appearingsubservient as well as giving the existing building a use and sympatric renovationworks. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to accord with PPS5 as itwould sustain, enhance and better reveal the existing building, while also improving

the quality of its setting.

Impact on residential amenity

6.19 The area surrounding the site is generally characterised by commercial activity butthere is a residential property close to both the side boundaries of the site, one formingthe eastern boundary of the proposed new access road.

6.20 The proposed new build element of the development would be located at a distance of47 metres and 67 metres from these buildings. Therefore, considering this distanceand the single storey nature of the proposed building the built form itself is notconsidered to be of a scale which would have an over-dominant impacting on the

amenities of these properties and therefore the consideration of the impact onneighbouring properties is concentrated on the proposed use of the site. Thisconsideration relates to both properties neighbouring the site and general residentialamenity in the area. A number of the letters received from local residents raise thepotential impact on the pub changing to a nightclub and the subsequent impact of thaton their existing amenities in relation to noise and night time disturbance.

6.21 Since 2010 the Use Classes Order created a separate use category for nightclubs andas such any change of emphasis within the premises from public house to nightclubwould require planning permission.

6.22 Officers have consulted with the Councils Licensing Sergeant who has confirmed that

there is no objection to the principle of the proposed pub/restaurant use in this location.

6.23 The Councils Licensing Sub Committee has considered an application for the use of

27


28/66

this site as a pub/restaurant. The license was granted in January 2012 allowing thefollowing hours and activities:

Films, indoor sporting events, live and recorded music, performances of dance.Facilities for making music and dancing. Late night refreshment and alcohol

From 10:00 am until midnight Monday to Thursday

From 10:00 am until 01:00 Friday and SaturdayAnd from 11:00 am until midnight Sunday

Recorded music must cease at 23:00 hours outside of the premises, and that doorsand windows are shut during all live music.

6.24 These above conditions have been agreed between the applicant and the police andform part of the licence. Officers consider that these terms suitably protect theamenities of local residents from disturbance as a result of activities within the buildingand therefore it would not be necessary to control these issues through the planningpermission. However, a condition is recommended in relation to the limit on activitiesoutside of the premises in the event that any potential future changes in licensingcontrol removes this element of the current activities.

Proposed Highway Works

6.25 The application has been submitted with a transport assessment which takes intoconsideration the combined effect this proposal the residential development consentedunder application P/01919/07 TCP/27927/A would have on the junction betweenA3056 Newport Road, Whitecross Lane and the new access road.

6.26 As the application site is currently vacant, no existing traffic movement allowanceshave been made. Manual junction counts were taken in February 2011and Automatic

Traffic Counter survey results for Newport Road were taken in May 2010 and ATCsurvey results for Whitecross Lane were taken in October 2007. These have all beenused, compared and appropriately adjusted resultant figures have been used due to anumber of factors with the individual sets of data.

6.27 One particular factor is that currently there is a traffic regulation order on the junction ofWhitecross Lane with Newport Road which restricts drivers from turning right. As aresult vehicles must utilise the existing roundabout to the west which serves theMorrisons access in order to travel east towards Lake and Sandown. A percentagesplit has been applied to the data in order to gain right turn figures.

6.28 Using the available TRICS data (a nationally recognised database) the proposed traffic

generation has been calculated for the development. The predicted movements in thepeak hours are 18 in the AM peak hour and 73 in the PM peak hour.

6.29 The proposed figures for this development have been incorporated with the basefigures calculated for the existing traffic movements and 2011 & 2016 forecasts havebeen generated. In all cases the junctions will run within their optimum design capacityand therefore the proposed development is not deemed to have a detrimental effect onthe highway network.

6.30 It is worth noting that the information used in the evaluation has been calculated as aworst case scenario which results in a robust traffic assessment.

6.31 The application proposes a roundabout which has been checked in accordance withthe Geometric Design of Roundabouts TD 16/07 of the Design Manual for Roads andBridges. Concerns were originally raised by the Councils Highway Engineer as the

28


29/66

visibility splays fell outside of the red line. However, the land in which they crossed wasowned by the owner of the site and therefore has now been included within the red lineand notice served.

6.32 Revised drawings have now been submitted by the applicant demonstrating that theland required in order to achieve the visibility standards required falls within theapplicants control.

6.33 Submitted drawings now include for adequate control over land required to ensure thatwhen a driver is approaching the junction from within the site objects of a heightbetween 0.26m and 2.0m on the full width of the circulatory carriageway are visiblefrom a distance of 15m back from the give way line of the junction in accordance withthe Geometric Design of Roundabouts TD 16/07 of the Design Manual for Roads andBridges and a SDD of 70.0m can be achieved when approaching the junction fromWhitecross Lane again in order to ensure that this design is in compliance with theGeometric Design of Roundabouts TD 16/07 of the Design Manual for Roads andBridges. Therefore, the layout shown on drawing no. I/WSLAKE/05 Rev B, subject toabove design elements being incorporated is now deemed to be acceptable.

6.34 The geometry of the roundabout has been designed in accordance with the traffic flowdata included within the TA taking into consideration seasonal fluctuations in trafficmovements and those trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed developmentand that brought about by the previously consented scheme on this site.

6.35 The proposed new access road would be 7.3m wide. This is considered adequate toaccommodate the vehicles intended to use it as demonstrated on the vehicle trackingdrawing 11423:SK1A. 2.0m wide footways would be provided along either side of theaccess road and in order to provide onward connectivity an uncontrolled tactilecrossing point has been recommended by the Councils Highway Engineer to beinstalled across the access into the car park.

6.36 The new access serving the car park requires visibility splays of 2.4m by 43m in eitherdirection. This can be achieved when looking south if an area of the landscapingacross the site frontage is maintained below 1.0m in height. The splay will not be ableto be achieved to the north at the present time as it does not fall within the area underthe control of the applicant; however the access road terminates 10m north of theaccess and therefore the visibility splay is not required at this stage.

6.37 The parking bays meet the required standards. There are fifty five 2.4m by 4.8m baysand three 3.6m by 6.0m disabled bays. A minimum of 6.0m has been left behind allbays to enable vehicles to access them. Parking bay 1 is positioned only 7.6m awayfrom the junction with the access road; however if the landscaping on the site frontage

is maintained below 1.0m in height the forward visibility would be adequate to enablemotorists to see vehicles accessing the bay. Highways consider that the proposed 58spaces would be suitable for the use proposed. In addition to parking for motorisedvehicles the development should provide parking for cyclists. The developmentproposes to provide 12 cycle spaces, which is in excess of the UDP guidelines and istherefore an acceptable provision.

6.38 A new 4.1m wide access is proposed to serve the existing property The Cottage off ofthe new access road. The access would benefit from adequate vehicular andpedestrian visibility splays and provides an improvement on the existing access whichserves the property directly off of Newport Road.

6.39 The layout drawing 2904-P104 rev.Gand vehicle tracking drawing 11423:SK1A bothshow that an articulated lorry can be accommodated within the site and the appropriateturning space is available. Emergency vehicles would also be able to access and turn

29


30/66

within the site.

6.40 There are public footways providing links to the site for pedestrians from the south(Whitecross Avenue), the east (Lake), and the west (Spithead Industrial Estate &Morrisions). A controlled pedestrian crossing point is currently available to the east ofthe site to enable pedestrians to cross Newport Road. There are also footpath links inthe form of a public right of way 80m to the east of the site which provides a link to

Sandown Airport and the properties in Lake. Approximately 300m to the west there is apublic bridleway which provides adequate access for cyclists forming a link toShanklin. Therefore the site is considered to have adequate accessibility by foot.

6.41 There are a number of bus stops within 250m of the site which serve regular busservices. It is also worth noting that Lake Railway Station is also within 1.1 miles of thesite, which provides a link between Shanklin and Ryde and therefore alternative formsof transport are available.

Ecology

6.42 The application has been accompanied by an Ecological Survey of the site and a BatSurvey. The Ecological Survey found evidence of nesting birds using the outbuildingsand scrub, some evidence of badger activity and evidence of a low population of slowworms on site. These are all protected species.

6.43 The Ecological Report makes recommendations as to how the site can be developedto ensure works comply with wildlife legislation by limited timings of work to outside ofthe nesting season and under the supervision of a suitable qualified person.

6.44 As a result of the proposed development there would be a net loss of habitat and sitesused by protected species. However, the development itself could provideopportunities to enhance biodiversity by appropriate landscaping and the provision of

nesting boxes etc. This would be in line with the requirement of PPS9 and therefore acondition has been recommended to ensure these measures are implemented.

Planning Committee Paper B[4]

Documents

Transcript of Planning Committee Paper B[4]