PAPER B · 2013. 4. 12. · Paper B - 2 LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REPORT TO COMMITTEE -...

Paper B - 1

PAPER B ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - TUESDAY, 24 MARCH 2009 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES WARNING

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

PLANNING 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

AND NEIGHBOURHOODS (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.

Background Papers

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.

Paper B - 2

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 24/03/2009 01 P/01784/07 TCP/17909/U Bembridge Refusal Page 6 Bembridge Marina car park, Embankment

Road, Bembridge, Isle of Wight Demolition of w.c's, showers and office; construction of 4 storey 69 bedroom hotel to include conference/breakfast facilities, restaurant, splash pool and roof top bar; public w.c's and showers for harbour use; parking and alterations to vehicular access (readvertised application)

02 P/01919/07 TCP/27927/A Lake Conditional

Permission Page 16 Land north of Whitecross House including

part of Whitecross Lane/Newport Road and part of Merrie Gardens Farm, Newport Road, Sandown, Isle of Wight Outline for industrial/business and residential development and alterations to vehicular access to include provision of a roundabout at Newport Road junction (additional information) (readvertised application)

03 P/00856/08 TCP/27560/B Bembridge Refusal Page 29 Bembridge Harbour, Embankment Road,

Bembridge, Isle of Wight Installation of piles and sewage system for 33 houseboats; provision of a boardwalk and repairs to the embankment (revised scheme)

04 P/01195/08 TCP/23248/B Nettlestone &

Seaview Split decision

Page 39 Land between Yellow Sands and Commodores Court, Duver Road, Seaview, Isle of Wight Construction of 15 beach huts with car and dinghy park; vehicular access (revised scheme)

http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=15591http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=17627http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=17244http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=17525

Paper B - 3

05 P/02417/08 TCP/25113/H Cowes Conditional

Permission Page 51 Bridge House, Baring Road, Cowes, Isle of

Wight, PO31 8DB Demolition of existing property; pair of semi-detached houses with parking, (revised scheme)

06 P/02418/08 CAC/25113/G Cowes Conditional

Permission Page 75 Bridge House, Baring Road, Cowes, Isle of

Wight, PO31 8DB Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing property; pair of semi-detached houses with parking, (revised scheme)

07 P/02658/08 TCP/17383/D Shorwell Conditional

Permission Page 77 New Barn Farm, Newbarn Lane, Shorwell,

Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 3JJ Demolition of redundant farm buildings; part conversion, part new build proposal to create accommodation and support facilities for use as seasonal shooting lodge and tourism accommodation; construction of new farm building; courtyard parking (revised description) (readvertised application)

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 25/03/2009 08 P/02599/08 TCP/26116/C Ryde Conditional

Permission Page 93 Land between Node Close and Rotary

Court and north of Southfield Gardens, Ryde, Isle of Wight Residential development comprising 4 terraces of three houses and one detached bungalow (13 in total) with parking and access road (aorm) (further revised scheme)


Paper B - 4

09 P/00049/09 TCPL/27471/H Ryde Conditional Permission

Page 105 Ryde School, 7 Queens Road, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 3BE Demolition of no's 11 and 15 Queens Road; proposed construction of 2 storey building to provide additional school facilities; internal alterations to Westmont; alterations and rear extension to Art and CDT building; new access road off Queens Road, car park and additional parking bays; landscaping (revised scheme)

10 P/00054/09 LBC/27471/G Ryde Conditional

Permission Page 130 Ryde School, 7 Queens Road, Ryde, Isle of

Wight, PO33 3BE LBC for demolition of no's 11 and 15 Queens Road; proposed construction of 2 storey building to provide additional school facilities; internal alterations to Westmont; alterations and rear extension to Art and CDT building; new access road off Queens Road, car park and additional parking bays; landscaping (revised scheme).

11 P/02114/08 LBC/28174/N Ryde Conditional

Permission Page 134 The Roundhouse, 61 George Street, Ryde,

Isle of Wight, PO33 2EN LBC for removal of part of winderstair between 1st & 2nd floors and replacement landing and retention of internal alterations relating to flats 6 and 7 layouts; replacement railings and gate and restoration of wall (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

12 P/02567/08 TCP/01003/C Nettlestone &

Seaview Refusal

Page 149 Kings Reach, Duver Road, Seaview, Isle of Wight Alterations and 1st floor extension to provide additional living accommodation


Paper B - 5

13 P/02593/08 TCP/00886/L Wootton Conditional

Permission Page 156 Land at and rear of 25 and 27 High Street,

Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 3LJ Pair of semi-detached houses with parking, (revised scheme)

http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=18616

Paper B - 6

01 Reference Number: P/01784/07 - TCP/17909/U Parish/Name: Bembridge - Ward/Name: Bembridge North Registration Date: 20/07/2007 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Maritime & Leisure Investments Ltd. Demolition of w.c's, showers and office; construction of 4 storey 69 bedroom hotelto include conference/breakfast facilities, restaurant, splash pool and roof top bar;public w.c's and showers for harbour use; parking and alterations to vehicularaccess (readvertised application) Bembridge Marina car park, Embankment Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO35 The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION This is a major application, particularly controversial with conflicting policy and other considerations. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The main considerations relevant to the determination of this application are considered to be:

• Principle of the development of a hotel on this site and in this location. • Tourism considerations and the possible contribution the development would

make towards the quality of the tourism offer. • Whether the proposals have satisfied the Sequential Test due to the site’s

location within a Flood Zone. • Possible impacts on the surrounding area with specific reference to nature

conservation and the scheduling of adjoining land. • The scale, mass, height and character of the development in this context. • Impacts on adjoining properties and land uses. • Matters relating to access and parking. • Pollution and drainage considerations.

1. Details of Application 1.1 This is a full application with all matters included for consideration and an application which

has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement. 1.2 The proposal seeks to demolish the existing building and erect a hotel comprising 69

bedrooms, conference and breakfasts rooms and to incorporate public toilets and showers for continued use by the Harbour users at ground floor with a rooftop restaurant, bar and open air splash pool.

1.3 In plan form the site layout shows the building would have overall dimensions of 50m x 19m

and situated approximately parallel to the river at a distance of approximately 11.5m from the concrete edged quayside and approximately 3m back from the front boundary of the site onto Embankment Road.

1.4 The submitted plans show:

http://www.iwight.com/council/committees/Planning%20Committee/24-3-09/Maps/P%2001784%2007.mht

Paper B - 7

• Ground floor to include nineteen guest bedrooms, breakfast/conference room

facilities and an office forming part of the reception and entrance lobby situated in the south-east corner of the building.

• First floor includes 23 bedrooms of which three are shown as family rooms and all of which contain en-suite facilities.

• Second floor shows 25 guest bedrooms, again three of which are family rooms and all of which contain en-suite facilities.

• Third floor contains an outdoor splash pool (1.2m deep) and a restaurant with approximately 92 covers and associated facilities including a bar, kitchen, stores, and toilets.

• Fourth floor plan is essentially a roof terrace incorporating an additional 24 covers and is restricted to the southern half of the building within a fully glazed curtain wall, oval in plan form enclosing that additional facility.

1.5 Essentially the building has five floor levels but with the upper two floors restricted to the

southern half of the building in an oval plan form. The overall height above existing ground level would be 14.5m at its highest point, the majority of the building being no higher than 10.7m above existing ground level.

1.6 This is a modern, contemporary design, steel-framed and clad mostly in glass but with

vertical panels through the elevations finished in white cladding with each floor level depicted with feature courses running horizontally throughout the whole of the elevations, corresponding also with balcony levels. Each bedroom incorporates curved balconies, the balustrading of which is shown in glazed panels with stainless steel handrails and uprights and the building incorporates a number of significant design features including a ground floor to roof height obscured glass block wall at the entrance on the south-eastern elevation and a curved glass feature wall at the north-eastern end reminiscent of the stern of a ship. The entrance feature, from ground floor to roof level, is topped by a mono-pitched and curved green roof of lightweight appearance and the same form is used for the upper terraced area above the restaurant.

1.7 Access to the site is proposed to be from Embankment Road at the extreme south-eastern

end of the site, approximately opposite the existing access used for the maintenance vehicles connected with the sluice gates to the Yar Bridge located just to the south-west of the site.

1.8 Access is also available off Latimer Road at its south-eastern extent adjacent to development

known as North Quay and a new bridge link adjacent to the existing pedestrian bridge over the river. This vehicular bridge is intended for emergency access.

1.9 Car parking is proposed to be in two areas, one on each side of the Harbour. From a

southern side the area between existing residential development fronting Embankment Road and the Harbour providing space for a total of 43 vehicles with a further 27 spaces (making a total of 70) on the North Quay section of the site between the water and the apartments known as Selwyn Court.

2. Location and Site Characteristics 2.1 The site has an overall area of approximately 0.5ha and forms a complex shape, essentially

in two tracts, one located on each side of the river where it joins the limit of the Harbour. 2.2 The southerly section is ‘T’ shaped with overall dimensions of approximately 125m x 60m and

which is currently mostly gravelled finish but accommodating a single, detached building located in the north-western part of the site, the former Harbour office but which now is used

Paper B - 8

for an office use unconnected with the Harbour. However, the building still incorporates toilet and shower facilities for yachtsmen at ground floor level. It is a timber finished building, two storeys in height, with a substantial pitched roof.

2.3 The northerly section of the site is very roughly ‘U’ shaped with overall dimensions of

approximately 95m x 40m with an access onto Latimer Road at its western end and wrapping round Selwyn Court to the east. This area is of a gravel finish and the two are linked currently by a pedestrian bridge.

2.4 The site has a frontage to Embankment Road of approximately 25m and separates South

Quay, three blocks of three storey houses fronting the embankment from Embankment Road. To the west of the site and to the north of the site are three storey buildings of modern but varying appearance, some with mono-pitched roofs, some with traditional gabled roofs and, beyond, development three storeys in height under flat roofs whilst on the southern side of Embankment Road the land is entirely undeveloped, open countryside. South Quay has planning permission for an additional storey and pitched roof.

2.5 The site is currently used by the office but essentially for car parking in connection with the

Marina and also provides access to the adjoining residential development to the east.

3. Relevant History None relevant. 4. Development Plan Policy 4.1 National Planning Policy

4.1.1 Good Planning Guide on Planning for Tourism – supports the establishment of high quality accommodation in order to diversify holiday types and to extend the holiday season.

4.1.2 PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk – sets out the criteria for determining location

for development in terms of flood risk, the emphasis being on avoidance of sites but in the event that a Sequential Test shows no other sites available for the proposed development seeks to establish an exceptions test subject to proposals to mitigate flood risk.

4.1.3 PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – sets out the criteria for

determining impacts on sites of varying nature conservation importance and the need to protect such areas from adverse effects of development.

4.1.4 PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control – draws attention to the need for seeking

developments which eliminate or minimise pollution potential, dealing with contamination and impacts on areas and adjoining development from excessive levels of noise and light pollution.

4.2 Regional Planning Policy None specific to this proposal. 4.3 Local Planning Policy

Paper B - 9

4.3.1 Unitary Development Plan/Island Plan

• G1: Development Envelopes • G4: General Locational Criteria • G5: Development Outside Defined Settlements • G11: Coastal Development • D1: Standards of Design • D14: Light Spillage • E3: Change of use of Employment Land • C11: Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation • TR7: Highway Considerations for New Development • TR16: Parking Policies and Guidelines

4.3.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance

Not applicable.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

The Highway Engineer is satisfied with the proposed means of access and egress from the site and with arrangements for emergency vehicles and is satisfied with parking arrangements.

5.1.2 The Assistant Director of Economic Development, Tourism and Partnerships supports the

concept of the proposed hotel providing it achieves a minimum of three stars and is targeted at private rather than group tourism.

5.2 External Consultees

5.2.1 Southern Water confirms that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local sewerage system but that off-site works would be required to provide adequate capacity for the development. Accordingly recommends conditions to require a scheme to be designed and approved before works commence and preclude occupancy until an agreed scheme is operational.

5.2.2 Environment Agency – objections were originally received from the Environment

Agency relating to pollution but moreover relating to development within the flood plane and vulnerable use within a Flood Risk Area and, in addition, raising concerns over means of escape in the event of a flood occurrence. The Agency points out that, despite the steps taken to raise the ground floor to a height above ordnance datum newlyn and to provide a safe means of escape to the north over the bridge towards Latimer Road, that the building would be liable to flooding in the year 2060 due to sea level rise and climate change. Following receipt of further information the Environment Agency has removed its objection on grounds of pollution subject to certain safeguards including the imposition of planning conditions in the event approval is granted. However, the Agency retains its objection on the latter issue. The issue of pollution can be adequately covered by conditions.

5.2.3 Natural England objects to the development considering it is likely to have a

significant effect on the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar site alone and in combination with other plans or projects. NE confirms that an Appropriate

Paper B - 10

Assessment is required to be carried out on the grounds of potential pollution sources, disturbance to waders and waterfowl and that inadequate information has been brought forward to enable an Appropriate Assessment to be made taking this and other projects into account. In addition the nearby Duver which is SSSI may be adversely affected due to disturbance.

5.3 Parish/Town Council Comments St Helens Parish Council objects to the proposals on grounds of an intrusive development which would have a serious and adverse effect on neighbouring properties; that increased traffic would create additional highway hazards, particularly in Latimer Road, and that the impact of the proposal would be seriously detrimental to the environment and surrounding areas.

5.4 Third Party Representations

5.4.1 A petition of 231 signatories objecting to the proposed development on grounds of

adverse visual effect on the natural beauty of the area and the increase in traffic on the surrounding roads has been received.

5.4.2 330 letters of objection from local and Island residents and from writers with mainland

addresses have been received. 6. Evaluation

6.1 Principle

6.1.1 The site is outside of the designated development envelope adjoining the south-eastern boundary of St Helens settlement, however Policies G4 and G5 of the UDP relating to General Locational Criteria and Development outside Defined Settlements respectively allow for appropriate developments outside defined development envelopes and, particularly, appropriate rural tourism development is expressed in Policy G5. This current application seeks to redevelop a ‘brownfield’ site, a site hitherto used for car parking, for Harbour related activities including the former Harbour Office for Harbour related accommodation in the form of a Harbour hotel. It is a development which is very closely associated with the Harbour and sited close to existing built development, mostly residential uses which are of a compatible description.

6.1.2 This is a development which seeks to provide high quality tourist accommodation

specifically in an area where recreation (i.e. boating) takes place in a desirable tourist area with links to the Harbour and recreation as well as the very substantial RSPB Nature Reserve situated to the south and in an area with good communications including the highway network, footpaths and other activities. The Council’s Tourism Futures Document as well as the Good Tourism Guide both seek to provide high quality accommodation rather than purely the maximum amount of bed spaces.

6.2 Flooding

6.2.1 The site is in an area which is currently not susceptible to flooding from tidal or fluvial

sources but is identified as being within the flood level anticipated for the year 2060. It is usually the case that in such areas the Environment Agency and local planning authorities practice in respect of development in Flood Zone 3 areas is a policy of avoidance, especially for more vulnerable uses. However, if uses are justifiable in the

Paper B - 11

Flood Zone then a Sequential Test is carried out to see where possible alternative sites exist which might be safer and less at risk from flooding either in the short or long term.

6.2.2 A Sequential Test has been carried out by the agent and submitted as part of the

information for consideration. The principle of this Sequential Test is that it seeks to justify the choice of the application site for a Harbour-side hotel, a use directly connected with the Bembridge Harbour. As such, sites which are distant from the Harbour would not fulfil the primary purpose and so the Sequential Test has been restricted to areas around the Harbour within easy reach. Sites around the periphery of the Harbour are extremely restricted and it is fair to say that they would be limited to either end of the embankment since the land on either side of the embankment is either Harbour or low lying land already flooded or under nature conservation designations. The Sequential Test whilst restricted to the Harbour environments concludes that there is not another site upon which such a development could occur.

6.2.3 This Sequential Test has been carried out as previously stated, restricted to the

Harbour environs rather than a much wider scope since such a hotel would not be Harbour related if significantly divorced by distance from the Harbour facility. Officers consider that the Sequential Test is satisfied.

6.2.4 Having established the principle of the use of the site via the Sequential Test the

applicants continue to justify the development under an Exceptions Test and in so doing point out that:

• Land levels and accesses would be raised well above the 50 year

SLR predicted heights to bring the hotel above the vulnerable flood levels.

• The operational lifespan of the hotel would be time limited to 2057 via a condition or 106 legal agreement.

• The site is the closest viable site to higher ground (Flood Zone 1) escape in the event of flood emergency.

• Flood emergency procedures would provide extra safety should an event occur. This plan and the team implementing it would actually improve safety in the event of flooding for nearby residents in the adjoining South Quay and people using houseboats.

• The adjacent Harbour-side embankment road dwellings would have emergency flood egress, where currently there is none.

• Compliance with the Exception Test criteria could be built into planning conditions.

• The proposed development would not adversely affect land drainage or coastal flood defences or water courses.

6.2.5 Whilst a hotel use is a form of residential use, it is not considered as vulnerable as

individual dwellings since a management protocol can be instigated and, uniquely, a time limited permission is advocated by the applicants such that if sea level rise occurs as predicted, in 50-60 years the use of the hotel would cease. This does not occur for residential uses since they are not commercial businesses which can discount investment over a period of time which a hotel can.

6.3 Natural environment consideration

6.3.1 The site is not within but does abut the following designations:

• The Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC.

Paper B - 12

• Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Rawsar site. • SSSI. • RSPB’s Brading Marshes Reserve.

Concerns have been raised by Natural England regarding impacts of the development on the sensitive areas adjoining, essentially through disturbance. This concern culminates in the need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in parallel with the determination of the planning proposal, both of which investigate the potential impacts and potential mitigation sufficient to offset adverse impacts.

6.4 Scale, mass and character

6.4.1 The proposed building would be essentially on four floors but there are two areas of the proposed building which reach five storeys. The detached building would be of contemporary design having little in common with the surrounding development except for the form which it takes. The character of the area is mixed without a common design theme but it contains mostly terraces of building blocks of significant length and height. To the east of the proposed hotel site are two terraces of three storey houses under flat roofs; however westernmost block of these and the closest block to the proposed hotel has planning permission for an additional storey and roof. This building is approximately 9m away at its closest point but sited in a right-angles relationship on an access running south-west to north-east. The residential development situated on the west and north sides of the river which mark the edge of the designated development envelope and situated on ground at a similar level are situated between 30 and approximately 100m distant. The design of these properties is also mixed with some flat roofed, three storey properties, some two and three storey mono-pitched contemporary designed dwellings and terraces of three storey, traditional ridged roof units situated on the north side of the river. This would be a uniquely designed building and is not of residential character but clearly a commercial character building, one which would dominate the location due to its unique design and scale. However, that being said, due to the distances involved the scale and massing of the building are not considered to be out of keeping with this area and in terms of consolidation this development is not beyond the limits of existing residential development since the properties known as South Quay extend some distance along Embankment Road adjoining the Harbour and well outside the designated development envelope.

6.5 Design and visual impact

6.5.1 This would be a contemporary designed building with echoes of a maritime character. The adjoining buildings were, when constructed, considered to be of a contemporary design and, therefore, it is felt that this proposed building is one of ‘its time’. The design is unique and incorporates curved features in terms of balconies and curtain walls, a modern building making its own statement. However, as it is proposed to be constructed on a gap site between existing buildings, albeit outside the development envelope, it could be seen as being within the built environment rather than in an isolated position in an open landscape. This is a proposed four/five storey building on a site of low lying and flat land and it is inevitable that development on this site would be visible for some considerable distance especially distant views from the Harbour and from a southerly direction over Brading Marshes and Bembridge Down. However, contained within the existing built form the hotel would be seen as consolidating development rather than extending it.

6.6 Impact on adjacent uses

Paper B - 13

6.6.1 The nearest buildings are located on Embankment Road and, at the closest point, a distance of 8m is shown on the plan from the easternmost part of the proposed hotel to the western end of the terrace of properties known as South Quay. The main aspects to these properties are facing north and south and there are no main windows in the gable end fronting the site. Distances of between 30-100m exist to those properties to the west and north, distances which are considered to prevent overlooking or overshadowing. In terms of noise emanating from the building the only likely source of this is from the rooftop restaurant and terrace together with the splash pool. It is considered that this aspect could be adequately covered by conditions controlling the use of the splash pool to acceptable hours of the day, restricting live or recorded music or other broadcasts within the hotel and controlling light pollution, also by way of a condition. Concerns have also been raised over cooking smells from the kitchens and the exhaust of extracted fumes etc. at roof level and, again, conditions are considered to be appropriate in order to control any such emissions ensuring nuisance does not occur. That being said, the prevailing wind from a south-westerly direction is likely to blow fumes towards the Harbour and the Solent.

6.7 Access and parking

6.7.1 A vehicular access to the site, which is predominantly gravelled finish, already exists off Embankment Road and it is from this direction which the main access remains. However, as part of the scheme it is intended to install a new bridge from South Quay to North Quay over the canalised river, adequate for both patrons’ vehicles and emergency vehicles and there is already vehicular access off Latimer Road to the site. The plans show a total of 70 car parking spaces, 43 on the South Quay side of the Harbour with a further 27 on the northern side of the Harbour between the Harbour and Selwyn Court, the residential development facing onto the Harbour. The Highway Engineer considers the access provision in terms of visibility to be satisfactory and the level of car parking also to be adequate.

6.8 Pollution and drainage

6.8.1 A Contamination Report was provided with the application and being a ‘brownfield’ site with previous dockside uses but which has been capped with hardsurfacing for many years and the fact that much of the site remains hardsurfaced, the Environment Agency considers the pollution issue to have been adequately dealt with and could be controlled by conditions to deal with any pollutants or contaminants found during the construction process.

6.8.2 Surface water drainage can be dealt with satisfactorily by drainage into the river so

long as interceptors are used as needed to ensure no pollution from car parking areas occurs and attenuation to ensure that surface water run-off is not concentrated in any sensitive positions. Conditions can be imposed to ensure a satisfactory scheme is both possible and implemented.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation 7.1 The establishment of a new hotel, described as a Harbour-side hotel, in a location such as

proposed is considered acceptable in principle and current UDP policy supports such provision and is further supported by the Council’s desire to improve the quality of tourist product and to encourage accommodation of a high standard. The design of this contemporary building is suggested to be in character with the maritime connections of the location and bearing in mind the existing, adjoining residential developments is not felt out of keeping. In terms of visual impact the site is adjoined by residential development of a similar

form i.e. terraces of three storey buildings and bearing in mind the adjoining building to the east has a valid permission for an increase in height of another floor and roof the visual impact is not considered great bearing in mind its siting close to the envelope of St Helens.

7.2 The two main determining factors are the issue of flood risk and the possible impacts on

matters relating to nature conservation potentially generated by disturbance due to the operation of a hotel in the location proposed. The proposal addresses the flooding issue by proposing raising ground floor level to that which would be safe until the year 2057 (according to predicted sea level rise) and by limiting the permission voluntarily to that temporary period of approximately 50 years. In addition, satisfactory means of escape are proposed by the replacement of the bridge with a vehicular bridge which would also provide a means of escape for existing properties currently without such provision.

7.4 In terms of nature conservation implications, Natural England has acknowledged that the site

itself is not within the sensitive, designated areas but adjoining and is concerned that disturbance may occur due to increased levels of activity at the site. However Natural England is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been put forward to conclude that an Appropriate Assessment would conclude that the development as proposed would not result in significant adverse effects on the sensitive sites the Council is not in a position to grant planning permission. Therefore the proposals are recommended for refusal.

8. Recommendation 8.1 Refusal. 1 The site lies nearby a Classified Special Protection Area under Directive 79/409 on the

Conservation of Wild Birds adopted on 2 April 1979 and of Wild Fauna and Flora adopted on 21 May 1992 and a RAMSAR site listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat 1973] and the development as proposed, without adequate and substantiated mitigation to offset the perceived significant impacts, would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the International Nature Conservation Site and would be contrary to Policy CP 7 Landscape, Biodiversity and Geodiversity of the Submission Core Strategy of the Emerging Island Plan and contrary to PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

Paper B - 14

02 Reference Number: P/01919/07 - TCP/27927/A

Parish/Name: Lake - Ward/Name: Lake South Registration Date: 07/08/2007 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Miss S Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: W S Group Outline for industrial/business and residential development and alterations tovehicular access to include provision of a roundabout at Newport Road junction(additional information) (readvertised application) land north of Whitecross House including part of Whitecross Lane/Newport Roadand part of Merrie Gardens Farm, Newport Road, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO36 The application is recommended for Conditional Permission

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The main considerations relevant to the determination of this application are:

• Policy implications resulting from the change of use of employment land to residential use.

• Impact on the character of the area, which is one of a range of uses. • Impact on neighbouring properties, specifically Whitecross House, The Cottage and

Blackpan House. • Suitability of highway access and the free flow of traffic on the A3056 Newport Road.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION This is a major application of Island-wide significance.

1. Details of Application 1.1 The application comprises three separate proposals which are inextricably linked. The

proposals seek outline consent for an industrial or business use development, a residential development comprising approximately fourteen units, and proposed alterations to the highway incorporating a new roundabout at the junction between Newport Road and Whitecross Lane. All matters would be dealt with in detail as part of future reserved matters applications.

1.2 The proposed residential element of this scheme is intended to enable and bring forward the industrial development on a parcel of land to the rear of Merrie Gardens Farm on the north side of Newport Road. This parcel of land is allocated for employment in the Unitary Development Plan but has as yet not been developed due to complexities with the current access arrangements.

1.3 The third and final element of the scheme incorporates a roundabout at the junction of Whitecross Lane and Newport Road which seeks to overcome the previous highway objections to accessing of this allocated site.

1.4 The development has been submitted as a single outline application. It is intended to establish the principle of allowing the partial development of an employment allocation for

Paper B - 15


Paper B - 16

housing in order to achieve the industrial proposals. The applicants have sought to provide the case for the housing based on the need for extensive highway works required in order to access the site.

2. Location and Site Characteristics 2.1 The two parcels of land to which the application relates are bisected by Newport Road, with

the entrance to the proposed industrial land adjacent to the existing Whitecross Lane. 2.2 The proposed residential element of the scheme would be located on a parcel of land on the

west side of Whitecross Lane adjacent to the existing Spithead Business Park. This site is currently a parcel of unkempt grassland of approximately 0.30ha with a frontage of approximately 85m adjacent to Whitecross Lane, approximately 100m south of the junction with Newport Road. The land is currently allocated for employment use.

2.3 The proposed industrial development is located on the northern side of Newport Road to the rear of Merrie Gardens Farm Cottage, a Listed Building. The eastern boundary is shared with the Coachhouse, Greenfields and Black Plan Cottage.

2.4 The existing area is a mix of industrial and residential development with Whitecross Lane representing a transition line between the existing residential estate to the east and Spithead Business Park to the west. The land to the north of Newport Road is currently a mix of employment land, retail in the form of Morrison’s Supermarket, and open countryside.

3. Relevant History 3.1 P/00804/97–TCP/22253: An application seeking outline consent for four houses with access

off Whitehouse Lane was refused in September 1997 and dismissed at appeal. The reasons for refusal related to loss of employment land and the policy objections.

3.2 P/01615/99–TCP/22253/A: An outline application for a residential unit was withdrawn on land adjacent Whitecross House, Whitecross Lane, Sandown.

3.3 P/00526/01-TCP/22253/B: An application for the erection of four industrial units to form a total of nine units with associated parking, 1.3m high fencing and landscaping on the parcel of land on the east side of Whitecross Lane was approved in June 2001.

4. Development Plan Policy 4.1 National Planning Policy The following National Policy Guidance and Statements are considered relevant.

4.1.1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development emphasises that Planning Authorities should create more sustainable communities. One of the suggested ways of dealing with this is through the effective use of design. The emphasis of PPS1 in terms of design is that of a shift away from the traditional assessment of “demonstrable harm” and a move towards “enhancement and improvement”. “Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context or which fails to take the opportunities 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

Paper B - 17

reinforcing local distinctiveness” and “responding to local character and context”. “Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.” This statement clearly defines the shift in emphasis with regards to design, away from levels of demonstrable harm, towards enhancement and improvement.

4.1.2 PPS3: Housing

4.1.3 Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4) emphasises that economic growth and high quality environment have to be pursued together; the importance of locational factors with particular emphasis on raw materials and suppliers’ links with other businesses, the workforce catchment area and various transport considerations.

4.1.4 Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment provides

guidance for the identification and protection of historic building, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment.

4.2 Regional Planning Policy

4.2.1 Regional Planning Guidance 9: South - East encourages economic success throughout the region, through improving the quality of the environment, management of natural resources, and providing opportunity and equity for the regions population.

4.2 Local Planning Policy Unitary Development Plan/Island Plan

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable in this case:

• G4: General Locational Criteria: offers criteria (a-l) which development must comply with in order for it to be considered appropriate. This includes matters of landscaping, transportation, nature conservation, topography, views, setting of prominent buildings and landmarks and respecting sites of historic interest.

• D1: Standards of Design: requires development to “maintain, or wherever

possible enhance, the quality and character of the built environment”. It goes on to note that “Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design” and offers criteria for the assessment of proposals. These include scale, massing, form, siting, layout and detailing.

• E3: Resist the Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses: states

that planning applications which protect or enhance the employment use of existing and allocated employment land and premises will be approved. The policy also outlines instances where changes of use may be exceptionally permitted.

• TR7: Highway Considerations for New Development: offers two limbs to be

satisfied in order for new development to be considered appropriate. Firstly development must provide safe movement within the site and secondly, it must deliver 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 operational minimum. Appendix G notes that one assigned car parking space per

Paper B - 18

four units for visitors is allowed as a maximum. The site falls within a Zone 4 settlement where between 0% and 100% of the maximum non-operational parking standards apply.

4.3 Island Plan Core Strategy (Submission) – December 2008

• SS1: Spatial Strategy: the overall strategic development strategy is for economic led regeneration which focuses the majority of development within and around the Key Regeneration Areas and smaller Regeneration Areas, creating strong, sustainable, cohesive and inclusive mixed communities.

• SS2: Locational Strategy: the main focus for locational strategy is economic-led regeneration and the creation of sustainable communities. The location strategy for the Island will concentrate development in the Key Regeneration Areas of the Medina Valley, Ryde and The Bay, with smaller proportion of development in the smaller Regeneration Areas of West Wight (Freshwater and Totland) and Ventnor. Priority will be given to the re-use of ‘brownfield’ land.

• SS3: Spatial Strategy for the Medina Valley: The Medina Valley Key Regeneration Area includes the triangle of settlements and land between Newport, Cowes and East Cowes. Through this policy the Council and its partners aim to provide employment development on the strategic allocations at Kingston, and Osborne Works, in East Cowes, Pan, in Newport and Three Gates Road, Cowes

• SS7: Employment Development: In addition to the currently available employment allocations, at least 10ha of additional land will be allocated and brought forward in the period up to 2011, with an additional 15ha allocated and brought forward 2011-2026, in line with Policy SS2 – Locational Strategy. At least 10ha of the additional land allocated and brought forward will be to provide office and general workspace developments. Proposals that bring forward the currently available employment allocations for employment use will be supported.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees 5.1.1 The Council’s Policy Team has confirmed that although policies highlighted the need

to protect allocated employment plan, there are current implementation problems with the allocation of Merrie Gardens industrial development due to the limitations of the current road network, and therefore the proposed development, although seeing a loss of employment land, would ensure that other allocated land can be brought forward.

5.1.2 The Highway Engineer is satisfied with the outline details of the proposed junction

arrangement and has recommended conditions should the application be approved. Additional comments are outlined within the evaluation of this report.

5.1.3 The Council’s Crime Design Prevention Adviser confirms that the principles of the

development are acceptable and that the roundabout will improve road safety, although they would not normally comment in any greater detail on outline applications.

5.1.4 Conservation and Design is satisfied that the principle of development is acceptable

to the setting of the Listed Building, Merrie Gardens Farmhouse and the design of any

Paper B - 19

any reserved matters would be a key consideration to the setting of the Listed Building.

5.1.5 In order to gain the required visibility for the access to the site a section of the

boundary wall to the listed building would need to be reduced in height. These works are subject to a separate listed building consent.

5.1.6 The Council’s Ecology Officer highlights issues which will need to be taken into

consideration in any layout at reserved matters stage. These issues include the need for a survey of protected species and the location and protection of a stream and native tree belt at the north-west boundary of the site.

5.2 External Consultees

Southern Water has outlined the position of a public sewer close to the boundary of the site and highlight that at reserved matters stages they would require capacity studies.

5.3 Parish/Town Council Comments

Lake Parish Council objects to the proposal on grounds that can be summarised as follows:

• Contrary to policy. • Drainage has not been fully addressed. • No details of the cost of the electrical sub-stations or siting of same. • Roundabout has not been environmentally assessed in line with Policy TR8 (The

Environmental Impact of New Infrastructure Schemes).

5.4 Third Party Representations

Eight letters of objection have been received from local residents, the issues raised within which can be summarised as follows:

• Precedent of developing on an employment site. • Road improvements are not considered sufficient to cope with increased volume of

traffic. • Detrimental impact on environment and residents of the area. • Increase in traffic levels. • Increase in vehicle emissions. • Increase in industrial pollutants and noise. • Increased factors of risk in road safety. • Further delays and congestion. • Increased pressure on drainage and sewage networks. • Impact on the quality of life. • Contrary to policy. • Questions over the need for further housing. • Consideration of Listed Building. • Living conditions for future occupants. • Possible loss of school crossing patrol. • Access to housing from Whitecross Lane. • Development of ‘greenfield’ land. • Need for additional car parking due to distance from town centre. • A possible further decline in wildlife and birds. • Badgers. • Trees.

Paper B - 20

• Pedestrian safety. • Proposed industrial development should be housing. • Impact on current balance between housing and industrial land. • If it is not economically viable to bring forward the industrial land then it should not

be developed. 6. Evaluation 6.1 The determining factors in considering this proposal are considered to be as follows:

• Policy implications. • Impact on the character of the area. • Impact on neighbouring properties. • Highways.

6.2 Policy Implications

6.2.1 The proposed residential element of the application is located on a parcel of land that

has been the subject of other similar applications, which have been previously refused. However, the site has never been previously linked with the industrial development to the rear of Merrie Gardens Farm. The site is allocated for employment uses but remains undeveloped due to the high cost of the road improvements. The applicant has put forward both a financial justification as to why development of the industrial land would be unviable without the residential element of the scheme. This documentation has been examined by the Council’s own quantity surveyors who have confirmed that the calculations put forward are accurate with relation to the likely costing for the site.

6.2.2 An Employment Land Demand Study was undertaken as a background document to

the Core Strategy. This report concluded that:

“All allocated and non-allocated employment site should be safeguarded for employment sites on the Island….

A total of 20ha to 25ha of additional employment land should be allocated. Of this 1/3 should be suitable for office use. Around 10ha of newly allocated employment land should be readily available for development.”

However due to the current access restrictions to the Merrie Gardens site due to necessary highway works and junction improvements the site can not currently come forward without considerable capital outlay.

6.2.3 PPS3: Housing highlights the acceptability of alternative uses of employment land if

they are not required. Although the land to which the housing relates could meet some of the demand and is therefore ‘need’, the loss of such land to allow the opening up of a larger site area that could see a more holistic development of the northern side of Newport Road.

6.2.4 Policy E3 highlights that the change of use of employment land will not be permitted

unless it would not prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs. It is considered that as the loss of the parcel of land off Whitecross Lane would allow a larger area of employment land to come forward, which would otherwise remain undeveloped, due to the restrictive nature of the current highway access. Therefore,

Paper B - 21

the loss would not prejudice the ability to meet the need in the area as without the road improvement the larger site would remain undeveloped.

6.3 Impact on the character of the area

6.3.1 The sites are located within a mixed use area of retail, employment and residential.

The application seeks outline consent only and therefore the design, scale and massing of both the residential and the industrial units are reserved for later determination. The land to the rear of Merrie Gardens is allocated for employment uses and therefore the principle of this use is established. It is considered that this would not impact upon the character of the area, subject to design details.

6.3.2 The proposed residential site is on the west side of Whitecross Lane. This would be a

continuation of residential use of this side of Whitecross Lane which comprises four dwellings. The remainder of the western side is commercial use dominated by Spithead Business Centre. The eastern side of the Lane is solely residential use. Although the design and siting of the units would be a key consideration at reserved matters stage, it is considered that the residential use of this parcel of land would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

6.3.3 The area is currently mixed uses; an industrial estate, housing and Superstore. The

area is considered to be urban in character and as such the proposed road improvements would be in context of the area.

6.4 Impact on neighbouring properties

6.4.1 The use of the parcel of land accessed off Whitecross Lane for residential development would be more harmonious with the neighbouring properties than development of this site for industrial purposes. The design and layout of this site would need to ensure that no overlooking or overdominance results from the development.

6.4.2 Concerns were raised in the previous application for residential development of this

site and the relationship with the Spithead Business Centre and the possible implications that the existing use would have on the proposed residential properties. However, as the applicant owns Spithead and the current uses of the units along this boundary are B1 (light industrial), which are not compatible with residential areas, he would be satisfied with a legal agreement to regularise uses to ensure residential amenity is protected. The Spithead Business Centre currently has no restrictive conditions. This could improve the circumstances for existing residents, as currently an alternative occupant of the units could undertake a more antisocial use on the site.

6.4.3 The industrial units to the rear of Merrie Gardens are proposed to be used for light

industrial purposes and therefore should not impact upon the amenities of any neighbouring residential properties. A carefully designed layout and landscaping scheme could reduce the risk of impact.

6.4.4 Merrie Gardens Farmhouse currently sits to the front of the proposed industrial land and is itself allocated for employment use. Although the scheme does not incorporate the existing building, it would allow for an improved access, which would in turn result in potential use and therefore its possible restoration. The development itself could be designed and landscaped in order to keep any impact on the listed property minor. The proposed access road would pass alongside the building, but it is not considered that this would have a significantly detrimental impact upon its setting.

Paper B - 22

6.5 Highways

6.5.1 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6 section 2 part 3, TD16/07 describes the “General Principles” of a roundabout as follows;

“The principle objective of roundabout design is to minimise delay for vehicles whilst maintaining the safe passage of all road users through the junction. This is achieved by a combination of geometric layout features that ideally matched to the flows in the traffic streams, their speed and to any local topographical or other constraints such as land availability that apply. Location constraints are often the dominating factor when designing improvements to an existing junction particularly in urban areas. “

The design of the proposed 32m ICD four arm roundabout will comply with the requirement of TD16/07, TSR&GD 2002 and Isle of Wight Council Engineering Services Standard detail regarding street lighting, drainage, and footway and carriageway construction.

6.5.2 The applicant’s consulting engineers Mayer Brown evaluated both junction

signalisation and roundabout options taking into account the projected and existing traffic flows using design tools such as, for roundabouts ARCADY (Assessment of Roundabout Capacity and Delay) and for signalised junctions Oscady Pro (Optimised Signal Capacity & Delay). Having carefully analysed the junction capacity and the proposed use of the Merrie Gardens site the 32m ICD four arm roundabout has been proposed.

6.5.3 The proposed installation of the four arm roundabout (32m diameter) at the junction

of Newport Road and Whitecross Lane has been evaluated by the Highways Engineering section of Mayer Brown and supported by Highways Officers from both Engineering Services and Planning Services and is considered to be the best option to allow the free flow of traffic along Newport Road and allows for the reinstatement off the right turn from Whitecross Lane on to Newport Road and allows access and egress to the land to the north of Newport Road known as Merrie Gardens Farm, Appendix B E5 (17)Island Development Plan.

6.5.4 The Southern arm of the proposed roundabout will connect directly on to Whitecross

Lane which will allow for the future removal of the existing e traffic regulation order banning right turns onto Newport Road. This will in turn reduce the “U” turning traffic onto the “Morrison” roundabout freeing capacity at peak times.

6.5.5 As part of the proposed works the carriageway on Whitecross Lane will be widened to

7.2m in width and a new 1.8m wide (minimum) footway constructed along side from the existing 7.2 m wide section of Whitecross Lane adjacent to Merrie Gardens down to the proposed 32m ICD four arm roundabout. The provision of the footway will allow of a continuous link along the Western side of Whitecross Lane leading onto Newport Road.

6.5.6 The carriageway widening to 7.2m will tie into road widening works already

undertaken by the Isle of Wight Council Engineering Services and will allow for the future removal of existing 6ft 6ins traffic restriction. The removal of the restriction would reduce the number commercial vehicle having to use the Lake Road /Sandown Road/ Newport Road signalised junction and would free up capacity at this busy junction.

6.5.7 The existing junction from Whitecross Lane to Newport Road has a no right turn TRO.

Paper B - 23

This TRO would be able to be revoked and the associated signage removed. The ability of traffic to make a right using the proposed roundabout circulatory will in turn reduce the amount of traffic having to use the “Morrison” roundabout which suffers from a perception of both overcapacity and of being dangerous.

6.5.8 An analysis of recorded accident data as shown that the “Morrison “roundabout has

had no personal accident injuries recorded in the past three years which substantiates that while there is a perception of danger is it unfounded. The removal of “U-turning” traffic due to the introduction of the roundabout will only go to improve this situation.

6.5.9 The junction of Newport Road and Whitecross Lane shows one slight injury due to the

crossing patrol operator being struck by a car mirror as being the only recorded injury within the past three years.

6.5.10 The proposed housing will front Whitecross lane with fourteen car parking spaces and

a turning area being proposed at the rear. A dropped crossing will be provided at the access to the housing linking to the new section of footpath with a pedestrian refuse at the junction with Newport Road to provide a pedestrian crossing point. The proposed parking area is served off the existing Spithead Business access, this access is compliant with the requirement of DMR&B Volume 6 TD42/95 table 7/1 which is a higher standard than Manual for Streets.

6.5.11 Along with the submission of the detailed design drawings for written highway

approval there will be a road safety plan in accordance with the Isle of Wight Council’s Road Safety Plan, Road Safety Audit Policy & Procedures Appendix 3.

6.5.12 A Section 278 Agreement will be entered into for all works to be carried out on the

adopted highway details of the agreement and procedure to be provided by Engineering services, Isle of Wight Council.

6.5.13 The vertical and horizontal alignment will be in accordance with the requirements of

Design Manual Road & Bridges Volume 6 Roundabout Geometry TD 16/07 & TA 78/97, road markings and traffic signs will be in accordance with Traffic Signs & General Directions 2002.

6.5.14 The carriageway and footway construction and materials will in accordance with the

Isle of Wight Council Standard Construction Detail, and will be subject to a Section 278 Agreement for the works on the highway and a Section 38 Agreement for off site works to be adopted by the Isle of Wight Council.

6.5.15 Before any work commences on site a pre-contract meeting in accordance with

Construction Design & Management Regulations 2007 will be held between the developers and appointed Council Officers to review and approve Works Programme, Traffic Management Plan ,Health and Safety Plan & Utilities Plant Diversions.

7. Conclusion and Justification 7.1 A condition has been recommended requiring the entering into of a Section 106 Agreement

to:

• Regularise the use of the units along the eastern boundary of the adjoining Spithead Business Park to B1 (Light Industrial) use.

• Completion of a Section 278 agreement for roundabout and access points.

Paper B - 24

• A phasing programme to ensure the housing development at the same time as the road improvements to ensure suitable access is achieved into the industrial land.

The recommendation is put forward on balance and is based on the ‘enabling’ justification for the employment land to be brought forward. It is essential that all three elements of the proposal are linked to ensure the industrial land is brought forward.

7.2 Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that by allowing a small area of land to be lost to residential, it will allow for the more significant employment site to come forward which would otherwise remain vacant.

8. Recommendation Conditional Permission Conditions/Reasons: 1 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning

Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two 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 layout, scale, appearance, access 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 Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Paper B - 25

4 Development permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking of material operations as defined in Section 56 (4) a-d of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development until planning obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said obligation shall stipulate a development programme to ensure that all aspects of the development are undertaken and bought forward and details of those units within Spithead that shall be used for B1 (Light Industrial) and B8 (Warehouse/Storage) only. Reason: In order to ensure that the development of the employment element and highway improvement of the scheme is undertaken in accordance with Policy E3 (Change of Use of Employment Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

5 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 PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control and PPG25: Development and Flood Risk

6 The development hereby permitted shall not begin until a flow analysis has been submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

7 Development shall not begin until details of the design, 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 therefrom 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

8 No building shall be occupied until the means of access thereto for [pedestrians and/or cyclists] has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

9 No building shall be occupied until the means of vehicular access thereto has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Paper B - 26

10 Any reserved matters application shall be submitted with an Ecology Report undertaken by a suitably qualified person to assess the impacts of the development and any necessary mitigation to protect any protected species and natural features on site.

Reason: In the interest of nature conservation and the character of the area and to comply with PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

03 Reference Number: P/00856/08 - TCP/27560/B

Parish/Name: Bembridge - Ward/Name: Bembridge North Registration Date: 22/04/2008 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823552 Applicant: Bembridge Harbour Improvements Co. Ltd Installation of piles and sewage system for 33 houseboats; provision of aboardwalk and repairs to the embankment (revised scheme) Bembridge Harbour, Embankment Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO35 The application is recommended for Refusal

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION This is a major application and particularly contentious, involving several conflicting policy considerations and the need for the Council to carry out an Appropriate Assessment as the competent Authority. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The main considerations relevant to the determination of this application are as follows:

• The principle of perpetuating and increasing the numbers of houseboats. • The susceptibility of the site to flooding. • The sensitivity of the site and the proposed development in terms of nature

conservation and impact on the sites of importance. • The visual impact of the proposed engineering works, additional houseboats and the

raised walkway. • Pollution implications of the proposals. • Matters relating to access and parking.

1. Details of application 1.1 There are four main elements involved in this scheme, namely:

• The installation of piles for the mooring of 33 houseboats which amounts to an additional seven in the location close to the existing.

• The provision of a boardwalk to run parallel to the existing pavement to provide a means of escape in the event of a flood.

• Engineering operations to the embankment. • The installation of a new foul sewage system to serve the 33 houseboats.

1.2 The plan shows 37 Oak piles to be driven into the foreshore in positions between 3m and

36m from the water’s edge in positions to enable the secure mooring of 33 houseboats of which currently there are 26 located between a concrete slipway at the western extent of the site and a landing stage on the east, a stretch approximately 400m apart, situated at the sharp bend in the Embankment.

Paper B - 27


Paper B - 28

1.3 The proposed boardwalk would be approximately 225m in length stretching from the western

extent eastwards coincident with the lowest length of the pavement and roadway and would be constructed in timber approximately 1.5m in width overall; timber posts driven into the ground, connected by horizontal rails and decking boards with a single three railed balustrade on the sea side, the top rail being a maximum of 1.1m above the deck level. Deck level is proposed to be 3.4m above ordnance datum and due to existing pavement, road and embankment levels, and the height of the deck above varies from 0 - 0.35m. The balustrading on the northern side would be punctuated by gated pedestrian accesses only coinciding with the entrances to the houseboats. The stated purpose for the raised walkway is to facilitate emergency pedestrian escape in the event of flooding, the height of 3.4m being set by the anticipated 1 in 200 flood event.

1.4 The engineering operations proposed are intended to fill the gaps between parts of the

existing sea wall where weak or eroded embankment exists. These engineering operations relate to six lengths as follows:

• Area 1 is 10m in length located at the extreme western end of the site currently

comprises a 1.4m high concrete ‘sandbag’ wall which is currently eroding. The proposal is to excavate 1.3m from the wall and fill with ‘no fines’ concrete and set large rocks at a level of 30 degrees.

• Area 2 is shown as a length of 22.5m near the western end, currently an unprotected length of grass verge and embankment falling into the foreshore and the proposal is to excavate and lay gabions to a height similar to the existing pavement and to backfill with selected material capped by turf.

• Area 3 is shown as a 6m open length of wall which is currently unstable and the proposal is to remove the wall and replace with gabions, backfill soil and turf the area behind bringing the level graded up to pavement level.

• Area 4 is shown to be 13.2m of unprotected embankment and verge replaced with gabions to just below pavement height, backfilled and finished with soil and turf.

• Area 5, situated towards the eastern end, is shown to be a 13.5m long section of unprotected bank and is proposed to be excavated with gabions installed and the area behind backfilled again with selected materials and topped with soil and turf.

• Area 6 is shown on the plan to be at the easternmost end of the site, a length of 60m of currently unprotected embankment wherein it is proposed to excavate and lay gabions with a backfill of selected material finished in soil and turf.

1.5 The proposed engineering works are intended to prevent continued erosion of the

embankment but with permeable materials to allow saline permeation into brackish lagoons on the southern side of the embankment.

1.6 The installation of a foul sewage system comprising a link to each of the houseboats

culminating in a pumping station situated approximately midway in the run of houseboats, pumping foul sewage to a mains sewer located to the north close to Bembridge Sailing Club, a distance of approximately 700m overall.

2. Location and Site Characteristics 2.1 The application relates to a length of foreshore of approximately 400m situated around the

bend at the southern extent of Bembridge Harbour. Within this length of foreshore there are currently 22 houseboats of various sizes and types and the majority of which are buoyant although it is acknowledged that some do not float. The lowest part of the pavement is shown as 3.05m above ordnance datum at a point directly opposite the junction of Embankment Road with the private road entering Embankment Road on its southern side at the apex to the

Paper B - 29

bend. Road levels are slightly below pavement level with the lowest point being 2.92m above ordnance datum.

2.2 The Embankment forms the road connection between St Helens and Bembridge and also the

sea defence, separating Bembridge Harbour from Brading Marshes. There is sporadic development on the southern side of Embankment Road with large gaps between developments which are mostly employment and marine related uses.

3. Relevant History 3.1 A Lawful Development Certificate for 34 houseboats refused in March 2006 on grounds of

insufficient evidence. 3.2 Lawful Development Certificate for one specific houseboat (Bryher) issued in May 2008. 4. Development Plan Policy 4.1 National Planning Policy

4.1.1 PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

4.1.2 PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control

4.1.3 PPS25 – Planning and Flood Risk 4.2 Regional Planning Policy None specific to this proposal. 4.3 Local Planning Policy

4.3.1 Unitary Development Plan/Island Plan policies

• G5: Development Outside Defined Settlements • G11: Coastal Development • D1: Standards of Design • H9: Outside Development Boundaries • TR7: Highway Considerations for New Development

4.3.2 Core Strategy Policies

• CP 6: Sustainable Development • CP 9: Flood Risk

4.3.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance None.

4.4 Other Council Strategies

East Yar Coastal and Fluvial Strategy – advocates ‘hold the line’ approach to be adopted in the Bembridge Harbour vicinity.

Paper B - 30

5. Consultee & Third Party Comments 5.1 Internal Consultees

5.1.1 Council’s Ecologist recognises that Natural England’s objection to the scheme would trigger the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment as NE considers the proposed development may have a significant effect on the Solent & Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar alone and is likely to have a significant impact in combination with other plans or projects. This advice triggers the requirement for the Planning Authority, as a Competent Authority, to carry out an Appropriate Assessment as required by Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations 1994, in accordance with the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).

The purpose of the Appropriate Assessment is to ascertain whether or not the project would have an adverse effect upon the European nature conservation site, in which case the development could not legally proceed.

This is a complicated process, further complicated by the need to take into account the ‘in combination’ impacts of the many other completed and proposed projects within Bembridge harbour. The process has to be carried out in consultation with Natural England and should reach a conclusion which they find acceptable.

Work on the Appropriate Assessment has been progressing with Natural England when a final formal response to the application was received from the Environment Agency on 09 January 2009 maintaining their objection as detailed below. Accordingly an Appropriate Assessment has not been concluded.

5.1.2 Highway Engineer considers there to be no implications. 5.1.3 Environmental Health Officer offers no adverse comment. 5.2 External Consultees 5.2.1 Natural England (NE) objects to the application pending the result of an Appropriate

Assessment. NE considers that the development may have a significant effect on the Solent and Southampton water SPA/Ramsar alone and is likely to have a significant effect in combination with other developments. Accordingly points out that before Planning Permission can be granted an Appropriate Assessment must be carried out.

5.2.2 RSPB raises serious concerns due to potential impact on the Solent and

Southampton water SPA and Ramsar. 5.2.3 Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust also objects supporting Natural England’s

position. 5.2.4 Southern Water raises no objection but wishes confirmation that the disposal will be

to a private waste water treatment works or septic tank. 5.2.5 Environment Agency objects to the application on grounds that the works involve

building over a flood defence/sea wall which would restrict essential maintenance and emergency access to the sea wall. However, EA points out that if the applicants entered into a legal agreement to enable the EA to remove the works as and when necessary to effect repairs etc. without compensation then EA would accept such an agreement advising of the imposition of planning conditions on any consent.

Paper B - 31

5.3 Parish Council comments No Parish Council comments received at the time of writing. 5.4 Third Party representations

5.4.1 Chairman of Bembridge Harbour Trust supports the installation of proper sewage disposal but suggests that such an installation should not be dependent upon any increase in houseboats and does not support the increase. More houseboats will reduce safety and amenity; that the houseboat sizes are uncontrolled which has an adverse effect on Harbour birdlife and visual intrusion. Additional houseboats would generate more parking and traffic.

5.4.2 A letter from the Secretary of Bembridge Harbour Users Group objects to the

increased number of houseboats; doubts the practicality of the scheme and its timescale. The letter argues that some of the moorings being offered as mitigation have not been used for some years. Argues that previous permissions for parking provision have not been implemented and an increase in houseboats would mean an increase in ad hoc parking and associated highway hazards. Summarises by supporting the installation of a sewage system but objects to the complication and reliance on its installation on additional houseboats being provided and accordingly urges refusal.

5.4.3 Three letters of objection have been received from local residents arguing that:

• The proposal should be in three separate applications. • Possible adverse effect on Special Protection Areas and Conservation

Areas. • Inadequate information on possible impacts to species of interest.

The letters argue that there have never been 34 houseboats in the Harbour and that

until the mid-1950s there were only sixteen and that an additional ten have been introduced since 1990 totalling 26, six of which have been introduced in the last three years. Point out that ten of the houseboats currently are not buoyant, that some are nearly derelict and are unsightly. That currently the drainage regime is a serious health hazard, also suggesting that their replacement with new houseboats should be postponed until the sewage system has been implemented.

6. Evaluation 6.1 The works proposed would have significant have implications regarding nature conservation

due to the perceived effects of the insertion of piles the mooring of additional house boats, gabion boxes (which in effect reclaim a cumulative area of intertidal mud) and disturbance to feeding waders and Members are reminded that an Appropriate Assessment needs to be carried out as part of any planning process in parallel with the Planning Application. The principles of the four elements of this application are quite different and are separated for clarity.

6.1.1 The application seeks to increase the numbers of houseboats by seven as it appears

that there are either 26 houseboats or potential moorings in existence. For clarification, planning permission is not required to moor houseboats but planning permission is required to install the facilities for mooring, such as piles, piers, etc. In addition the application seeks consent for a time limited period of 60 years by which

Paper B - 32

time it is anticipated that, in practical terms, due to rising sea levels the mooring of houseboats would not be a practical proposition.

6.1.2 The boardwalk is proposed to be timber structure comprising timber posts driven into

the ground with an overall height to the handrail of a maximum of 1.45m above ground level. This would account for the standard height of the handrail and the maximum height of the deck above ground level of 0.35m. The principle of providing this 1.5m wide boardwalk is to enable safe escape during a flood event and bearing in mind its height and position, its appearance would be consistent with a roadside fence or hedge. The reason for its requirement is considered acceptable in principle.

6.1.3 The various engineering operations including the installation of stone gabions is

intended not to reclaim land but to halt continued erosion in selected areas where such tidal action is taking place. None of the works are above ground level and although infilling behind the gabions is proposed, the land is only proposed to be raised sufficiently to accord with existing ground level. The results of such proposed engineering operations would form a continuous but permeable structure marking the edge of the foreshore and embankment and, in principle, is acceptable.

6.1.4 Improvements to the foul drainage system involve the connection of all of the

houseboats, both existing and proposed, to a central pumping station which would run north-easterly to a connection with the mains and situated beneath the raised walkway and latterly below ground level to a connection. An improvement in drainage is considered appropriate in principle.

6.2 Flooding

6.2.1 Apart from twelve of the existing houseboats which are non-buoyant, the flooding issue does not affect houseboats as they will ride on the tide open flow and with the provision of the raised walkway to a height of 3.4m above ordnance datum a means of escape will be available until approximately 2068 although it is acknowledged that leases enable the mooring of houseboats until 2104. Accordingly, in terms of flood risk, the time limited permission for houseboats/moorings is acceptable provided the necessary means of escape is installed and retained. Conditions attached to a planning permission could effect additional control over the houseboats and any replacement vessels.

6.2.2 The purpose of the boardwalk is to ensure a satisfactory form of escape during a

flooding event so the flooding implications are nil. 6.2.3 As previously described the engineering operations proposed are aimed at those

areas where there is currently inadequate tidal defence which results in erosion of the embankment caused by tidal influences within the Harbour. The installation of gabions in those susceptible areas will ensure that up to a given date, erosion and possible breach of the embankment will be countered whilst maintaining a satisfactory form and levels in relation to the surrounding land.

6.3 Nature Conservation issues

6.3.1 The proposed piles, 38 in number, are proposed to be 350mm square and therefore, even cumulatively, the loss of foreshore in terms of its area is very low. That being said, mitigation of this loss is proposed to be offset by the removal of a number of timber piles elsewhere in the Harbour in order to ensure inter-tidal mud flats are not lost as a result. In addition, it should be borne in mind that in approving additional piles for moorings, effectively seven additional houseboats could be provided, the

Paper B - 33

size of which is not controllable but the areas of inter-tidal mud sterilised will be significantly increased. Further mitigation is offered in the Design and Access Statement to offset this loss but as the Appropriate Assessment has not been concluded, it is not possible to judge if this is adequate.

6.3.2 The raised boardwalk refers only to approximately 225m of the embankment varying

in height from 0 – 0.35m and is proposed to be constructed using comparatively minor building works, timber posts driven into the existing bank, currently dry land rather than foreshore and is thought to have no significant nature conservation implications. The boardwalk runs parallel to the existing pavement and thus will not generate additional levels of pedestrian traffic and adjoins that land occupied by the houseboats, and although closer to the foreshore than the pavement, is unlikely to generate a significant lev

PAPER B · 2013. 4. 12. · Paper B - 2 LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REPORT TO COMMITTEE -...

Documents

Transcript of PAPER B · 2013. 4. 12. · Paper B - 2 LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REPORT TO COMMITTEE -...