There were 12 planning applications considered by the Plans Committee on Monday night. For those interested, brief details of discussions and decisions below. If you wish to make a formal comment on any of the applications, follow the links. Please note that some consultation periods end tomorrow.
Public Questions
At the beginning of the meeting one member of the public drew the Committee’s attention to a retrospective application for retention of a sun terrace that overlooks his property and urged the Committee to take note of David Booth, Conservation Officer’s recommendations that this application be refused.
Applications
Conservation Area Consent for demolition of St Wilfred’s church – all saw no reason why this burnt out church should not be demolished. Until enough cash has been raised to rebuild the church, the area will be used for outdoor play for the school children at St Wilfred’s Primary School.
Decision: Approved
Comments Due By: 01/08/2008
St Boniface Arms: Listed Building Consent for internal alterations at 1st floor level to provide ensuite facilities to existing bedrooms. Again all agreed they could see no reason to refuse the application.
Decision: Approved
Comments Due By: 01/08/2008
Proposed conservatory for Skerryvore, Whitwell Road. Although there were no plans presented for the committee to view, they all saw no reason to refuse the application – pointing out that many houses alog Whitwell Road already have conservatories.
Decision: Approved
Comments Due By: 01/08/2008
11 Inglewood Park: Proposed 2 single storey extensions to provide additional living accommodation. Plans were viewed and the extensions discussed. Cllr Lucas stated that it was a very discreet extension. Mayor Scoccia questioned how close it was to the neighbouring property, after viewing the site plan it was agree to approve.
Decision: Approved
Comments Due By: 01/08/2008
Cartreff, 9 Inglewood Park: Having been previously refused for lack of information, this revised application now fulfils the requirement. There were mixed views of the design of this modern dwelling. Cllr Mew thought it looked like a ‘cart shed’, but Cllrs Lucas and Robinson stated that it looked like a quality build and perfect for the site.
Most of the committee seemed to agree until just before a decision was to be made, Cllr Milford stated that he felt it was out of character with the other houses in the road, then all of a sudden everyone else except Cllr Lucas and Robinson (and JFB who had declared an interest) agreed to refuse the application.
This is despite hardly any of the property being seen from the road and that a light modern building is far more suitable for this plot given the nature of subsidence in the area.
We were pretty surprised at the decision for refusal.
Decision: Refused
Comments Due By: 25/07/2008
Hadley, Whitwell Road: Retrospective application for enlargement of existing vehicular access. There was much discussion over this application – with a lot fo confusion as to where it actually was. Cllr Lucas stated that another drive would urbanise the area, but eventually all saw no reason to refuse.
Decision: Approved
Comments Due By: 25/07/2008
Flat 5, Vinicombe, 5 Spring Gardens: Another retrospective application, this time for retention of roof terrace and sun deck. JFB declared an interest. Cllr Mew was concerned about the question of overlooking. Cllr Lucas stated that it was for the case officer to stand on the terrace and consider whether there was a case of overlooking and that the design was not unacceptable. It was decided to refuse on the grounds over overlooking.
Decision: Refused
Comments Due By: 18/07/2008
27 High Street, Ventnor (what was Sparkle): Listed building consent for alterations and change of use from A1 to A5 for the provision of sandwiches and hot food to include takeaway service external chimney. Cllr Fitzgerald-Bond kicked off discussion stating that he’d been to look at the rear of the property and that it was a mess and looked as though the applicant was going to tidy this up. He stated that just because there was already another fast food outlet next door (the fish and ship shop) that they couldn’t refuse the application on those ground. He felt that the chimney dealt with the extraction of smells sufficiently and recommended approval. All agreed and saw no reason to refuse.
FYI the proposed opening times will be Mon-Fri 8am-11pm, Sat 10am-11pm, Sun 10am-7pm
Decision: Approved
Comments Due By: 25/07/2008
42 North Street, Ventnor: Proposed 1st floor rear extension to form bedroom and bathroom to include french doors and balustrading on west elevation. Interesting application, Cllrs reported that local residents object to the application due to subsidence problems in that Road, claiming their houses are being held together by bolts. Cllr Mew stated that there had never been a problem with subsidence in that part of the road, however, looking at the letters of objection, Cllr Lawson herself went to great expense underpinning her terrace in North Street at the request of the applicants some time ago, so it appears that the applicant is very much aware of the problem. Another resident claims that there will be substantial loss of light into their study.
Cllrs saw no reason to refuse the application
Decision: Approved
Comments Due By: 18/07/2008
The plans Committee meeting ended with Town Clerk John Farrant stating that the application for HSBC to fit a new ATM machine (at wheelchair height for accessibility) had been refused by the IWCC.
Cllr Fitzgerald Bond pointed out that this hadn’t gone to Planning Committee, yet he hadn’t been asked for approval for it to go to delegated powers. Has someone not been following correct procedure in the Planning Department?
