PAPER A
MINUTES OF RYDE TOWN COUNCIL’S PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND
REGENERATION COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2021 AT 4.00PM VIA
THE ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE MEETING FACILITY
STREAMED LIVE VIA YOUTUBE
Members Present:
Cllr Diana Conyers (Chair), Cllr Henry Adams, Cllr Adrian Axford, Cllr
Charles Chapman, Cllr Michael Lilley, Cllr Phil Jordan, Cllr Malcolm
Ross and Cllr Ian Stephens
Also in Attendance: Jon Baker (Committees Coordinator) and Chris Turvey (Planning Clerk)
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
No questions were received.
20/21
APOLOGIES
None received.
21/21
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None declared.
22/21
REQUESTS FOR DISPENSATIONS
None requested.
23/21
MINUTES
The minutes to the previous meetings held on 13 January 2021 (extra-ordinary
meeting) and 19 January 2021 (ordinary meeting) were reviewed.
RESOLVED:
THAT the minutes held on 13 January 2021 and 19 January 2021 were
approved as a true and accurate record and would be signed off by the Chair
following the meeting
24/21
MEMBER QUESTIONS
Cllr Jordan asked for clarification on whether any submission sent to the Local
Planning Authority (LPA) should be confined to material considerations. Members
were advised that whilst Ryde Town Council could submit anything they wished, the
LPA would have to base its decision on material considerations.
A - 1
Cllr Lilley asked in light of the numerous road works that were being carried out in
Ryde by various agencies and was a cause of much consternation with residents
and visitors to the town alike, who was responsible for authorising them and what
was their rationale on coordinating the works that were causing so much disruption
in the town.
Members were advised that Island Roads, contracted by the Highways Authority
(the Isle of Wight Council - IWC) were the body responsible for permitting any works,
although any emergency works such as gas or water, could be decided by the
relevant utility companies. Clarity on the issues of responsibility would be sought by
officers and reported back to members as soon as possible.
25/21
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The following Planning Applications were then considered by all members of the
committee:
i.
Parish(es): Ryde Ward(s): Ryde East
Location: Land Known As Pennyfeathers Land To The South Of Smallbrook
Lane And To The West Of Brading Road, Ryde
Proposal: Reserved Matters Application relating to P/01456/14 :
904 residential units, school; community centre; commercial buildings;
relocation of Westridge Garage; community energy centre; sports building and
changing rooms; structural landscaping; play areas and associated highway
improvements
Following a recent consultation meeting with invited members of the public on 4
February 2021, where the application was discussed in detail and concerns
were raised by the public and elected members of Ryde Town Council (RTC),
the Reserved Matters application was formally considered by the committee.
Four members of the public, all from the Ryde Society attended the consultation
meeting and their concerns included the following:
• Continued lack of an adopted Infrastructure Plan
• The new Pennyfeathers Master Plan dated 21 November 2020 contains
numerous alterations to the plan approved in September 2015.
• A reduction in the amount of green space within the development.
• The relocation of the proposed school to a less suitable site with regards
transport links and the quality of the land with regards land drainage
• The large attenuation ponds presented a threat to child safety
• There was no report dealing with the implications of the IWC being
bestowed Biosphere Status and what it may have on the development.
Many concerns were raised by committee members and these would all be
included in the submissions to the IWC (the Local Planning Authority - LPA), as
detailed in the resolution to this application.
One of the main areas that continued to raise concerns with RTC was the
continued lack of an Infrastructure Plan. This had been promised for submission
many times by the IWC, but as yet it had still not been released.
A - 2
Members also raised concerns around the proposed school. Along with its
relocation, which did not appear to be aligned to any public transport links,
members questioned whether a primary school was a suitable option as
opposed to catering for the possible need for more secondary places in Ryde.
It was therefore noted that the current head teacher of Ryde Academy should
be included as a consultee to evaluate what educational needs were required
for the additional children generated as a result of the Pennyfeathers
development.
There was also some concerns raised that the roads within the development
might not form part of the managed highways network and as such would be
defined as unadopted with residents of Pennyfeathers responsible for any
maintenance and management costs.
Members also agreed that the Covid 19 Global Pandemic and any subsequent
implications of it, should be taken into account with this and any future major
developments.
Following a lengthy debate where many aspects of the application was
discussed, it was:
RESOLVED:
THAT the Council’s Planning Clerk would, in consultation with the Chair,
formulate and submit a response to the IWC that took account of all points
discussed by the committee.
Subsequent to the meeting, the following response was submitted to the IWC:
Ryde Town Council (RTC) welcomes the submission of a Reserved
Matters Application for this development. However, the Council is unable
to support the application in its current form and objects on the following
grounds:
1. General Concerns
a) There were three general concerns regarding the proposals as a
whole:
I. Inadequate information makes it difficult to comment in detail on
many of the proposals.
II. The proposals take insufficient account of changes in the external
environment since the submission of the original outline
application. RTC is particularly concerned that they fail to take
account of issues related to the environment and climate change
and the lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic for the
design of future settlements.
A - 3
III. It is not possible to consider these proposals in isolation from
related developments in the Ryde East area. RTC maintains that
the Isle of Wight Council (IWC) should, in consultation with RTC,
prepare an integrated plan for the development of the area, as
indicated para. 3.62 of the Draft Island Planning Strategy, before
making decisions about this development.
b) Examples of the specific impact of the above, together with other
concerns, were as follows.
2. Highway Infrastructure
I.
There are no details of traffic movements and highway capacity
either prior to or after the highway improvements are in place.
II. RTC shares Island Roads’ concerns about lack of coordination,
and in some cases contradiction, with highway proposals related
to other developments in the area. RTC maintains that no decision
should be made on these proposals until the results of Island
Roads’ study of all the junctions in the area available
III. The improvements proposed for Westridge Cross should not be
delayed to Phase 7. RTC maintains that they should be brought
forward to Phase 2, since development in phases 1 and 2 will have
an impact on this junction.
IV. There is insufficient information on the relocation of the garage at
Westridge Cross, given the refusal of an earlier application to
relocate it. This could jeopardise the feasibility of the proposals
for the improvement of this junction.
3. Community Infrastructure
I. The new site proposed for the school and community centre would
be less accessible than the previous one, particularly for people
from neighbouring areas.
II. There is insufficient information regarding the geophysical
suitability of the new site, particularly the possible need for
measures to address surface water drainage issues given its
proximity to the stream.
III. There is no information about the size and type of school that will
be required, or even if a school is actually needed. RTC maintains
that there should be a comprehensive survey of future educational
need in the area, taking account of both existing and possible future
housing development, before a decision is made.
4. Housing Design
I. RTC is concerned about the small size of gardens in some parts of
the development. The Covid-19 pandemic has emphasised the
importance of private outdoor space.
A - 4
II. RTC is also concerned that, although the proposals meet minimum
standards in terms of parking spaces, the relatively high densities
in some parts of the development may result in undesirable street
parking.
5. Affordable Housing
I. There is no information on the distribution of affordable housing
between phases. RTC maintains that each phase should include the
required
35% of affordable housing, including the required
proportion of social housing for rent.
II. The definition of affordable housing is based on the standard 80%
figure. However, according to the 2018 Housing Needs Assessment,
the actual affordable level in the Ryde area is only
60%. This has now been accepted by the government, in that
housing associations are now eligible for the Social Housing Grant.
III. There is no information on the proposed management of the social
rented housing. RTC is not aware of any approaches that have been
made to existing housing associations.
6. Environmental Concerns
I. It is still proposed that the Energy Centre be powered by gas,
despite the recent government announcement that from 2025 all
new houses will be banned from installing gas-powered heating.
II. There is no mention of the Island’s new status as a Biosphere
Reserve and the possible implications of this for the development.
III. There is no mention of the implications of the development on light
pollution and possible mitigating measures.
IV. It is not clear whether the area of public open space in the western
part of the development will be open to the general public or just to
residents of the development. RTC maintains that it should be open
to the general public and that adequate facilities for visitors (e.g.
parking spaces) should be provided.
V. RTC has concerns about access to bus stops and cycling / walking
infrastructure, particularly for those without their own vehicles. The
relocation of the school to what is considered a less suitable site
would also have a negative impact in terms of poor transport links.
7. Management Responsibility and Costs
I. There is insufficient information about the future management of
the development, including the maintenance of roads and public
green space and the possible implications of this in terms of service
charges. RTC is concerned that residents may have to pay high
service charges, which would have a negative impact on occupants
of social rented housing.
A - 5
II. RTC insist that, should the development be approved, all new roads
within the development be adopted into the highways network as
they form a major part of the necessary highway infrastructure work
required to accommodate the extra pressure placed on the local
road network.
8. Section 106 Agreement
I.
RTC considers that Section
106 monies raised from the
development to mitigate its effects should be spent in the local Ryde
area.
II.
In particular, RTC maintains that, if the education needs assessment
proposed above indicates that a school is not needed on this site,
any monies identified for the provision of primary education in the
legal agreement should be ring fenced for education facilities
elsewhere in Ryde.
ii.
Parish(es): Nettlestone and Seaview
Ryde Ward(s): Nettlestone and Seaview, Ryde East
Location: Former Harcourt Sands Holiday Park, Puckpool Hill, PO33 1PJ
Proposal: Variation of condition 3 on P/00573/15 to allow alterations to road and
plot layout
Members initially welcomed the fact that the site which had been in a dormant
state for some time was now being progressed.
However, there were some concerns raised over the suitability of the proposed
dwellings as well as their effect on the seascape. Members also raised
apprehension over any possible negative implications the development may
have on the public use of the seafront and beach.
With regard to the application being described as a variation, members were of
the opinion that it differed significantly from the original application and as such
it should have been treated as a new submission.
Whilst there was no provision of affordable housing on site, the Committee
agreed that a contribution should be made by the developer for such housing
and that the money should be ring-fenced to ensure it was allocated for the
benefit of Ryde residents.
It was also noted that since the loss of the holiday parks that originally occupied
the site, Ryde had lost a large amount of footfall which provided much needed
tourism and income for the town.
RESOLVED:
THAT Ryde Town Council whilst appreciating the need for the site to be
developed, objects to the application on the following grounds:
A - 6
a) Concerns over the appropriateness of the design of the proposed
buildings and their effect on the seascape.
b) The possible implications of the use of the adjacent seafront
c) There is no onsite provision for affordable housing but a contribution
is being made by the developer to affordable housing elsewhere. RTC
believe that this money should be ringfenced for affordable housing
provision in the Ryde area.
d) RTC have concerns about the amount of deviation this proposal has
from the approved plans and suggest that this proposal will need a
fresh application.
iii.
Parish(es): Ryde Ward(s): Havenstreet, Ashey And Haylands
Location: Part OS Parcels 1238, 0135 And 0952 Land Between Weeks Road
and Ashey Road, Ryde
Proposal: Three/four/five storey building to provide retirement apartments with
associated communal facilities and parking; proposed mixture of bungalows and
houses with parking (176 units in total) (amendments to previously approved
Members noted that the application was for the lower part of the development,
the rest of which had already been approved and developed as affordable
housing. Whilst the site was welcomed in the way it had addressed affordable
housing needs in Ryde, there was some concern over the entrance to the north
east part from Pig Leg Lane. At present much work was needed to clear the
area of mud and make it suitable for pedestrian access.
Members also noted that Island Roads had, through their report, requested that
a revised plan should be provided to ensure that the proposals were reflective
of the existing highway layout. They also made various other requests in order
to improve highway safety and site user access.
RESOLVED:
THAT Ryde Town Council has no objection to the application, subject to
the requests and comments in the Island Roads report being observed
and that access to the site from Pig Leg Lane is made fully suitable for
pedestrian use.
The following applications were considered under delegated powers by the Chair
and Planning Clerk and they proposed no objections:
Parish(es): Ryde Ward(s): Ryde East
Location: 112 Great Preston Road, Ryde, PO33 1DD
Proposal: Proposed single storey rear extension; proposed raised patio (revised
plans)(readvertised application)
A - 7
ii.
Parish(es): Ryde Ward(s): Ryde North East
Location:51 George Street, Ryde, PO33 2EW
Proposal: Demolition of chimney stack
iii.
Parish(es): Ryde Ward(s): Ryde North West
Location: Abingdon Lodge, 19 - 20 West Street, Ryde, PO33 2QQ
Proposal: Proposed balconies on West Street and Green Street elevations
iv.
Parish(es): Ryde Ward(s): Ryde East
Location: 46 St Johns Wood Road, Ryde, PO33 1HL
Proposal: Demolition of conservatory; proposed two storey rear extension
v.
Parish(es): Ryde Ward(s): Havenstreet, Ashey And Haylands
Location: 2 Ashey Place, Ryde, PO33 2WA
Proposal: Proposed single storey flat roofed extension; replacement garden
outbuilding (revised scheme)
RESOLVED:
THAT the above five applications were agreed with no objections.
26/21
DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL
Members noted the following decisions taken by the Isle of Wight Council’s Planning
Department.
PLANNING DECISIONS
1. APPLICATIONS APPROVED
Location: Walled Garden Bullen Road, Ryde
Proposal: Extension, alterations and conversion of agricultural building to
form a single residential dwelling
Parish: Ryde Ward: Ryde East
Decision Date: 11/01/2021
Ryde Town Council objected to the application on the following grounds:
a) The site has an existing Class Q permission for a smaller development
occupying the footprint of the existing farm buildings. This scheme seeks to
enlarge that building footprint and height by around a third. This will not be
covered by Class Q. The developer believes that because he has an
existing residential approval on the original site as his fallback position this
larger development should be allowed. When evaluating Class Q
applications it is not necessary to consider such things as settlement
boundaries and other normal material planning considerations.
A - 8
b) It is just a case of whether the proposal meets the criteria for Class Q or not.
For comparison, 2 applications to replace the adjacent greenhouse with
residential have failed because they were outside of the settlement
boundary.
ii.
Location: Ryde Pier Head Railway Station, Ryde Pier, Ryde, PO33 2HF
Proposal: Listed Building Consent for installation of lightweight platform
overlay of No.1 Road platform only for level access boarding to class 484 and
installation of a barrier/handrail at the back edge of overlay.
Parish: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East
Decision Date: 20/01/2021
Ryde Town Council raised no objection to this application
iii.
Location: Ryde Esplanade Railway Station, Esplanade, Ryde, PO33 2HE
Proposal: Listed Building Consent for installation of lightweight platform
overlay of No.1 platform only for level access boarding and associated works
Parish: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East
Decision Date: 20/01/2021
Ryde Town Council raised no objection to this application
iv.
Location: 142 Binstead Lodge Road, Binstead, Ryde, PO33 3UP
Proposal: The ash tree situated as detailed in the application is to be felled to
near ground level.
Parish: Ryde Ward: Binstead And Fishbourne
Decision Date: 21/01/2021
Tree Decision
v.
Location: Corneila Heights, 93 George Street, Ryde, PO33 2JE
Proposal: Change of use from care home to serviced short-term visitor
accommodation (use class C1)(revised plans)(revised description)
Parish: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East
Decision Date: 18/01/2021
Ryde Town Council raised no objection to this application
vi.
Location: Barsby Lodge, St Georges Road, Ryde, PO33 3AS
Proposal: Alterations/upgrade to rear extension and veranda to include terrace
over; extension to ground floor decking; proposed external spiral staircase to
form access to 1st floor terrace; alterations to include replacement windows
and air conditioning unit on north façade; replacement porch
(revised
description and revised plans for north and east elevations)
Parish: Ryde Ward: Ryde North West
Decision Date: 22/01/2021
Ryde Town Council raised no objection to this application
A - 9
Location: Land Adjacent Barnsley Cottage, Brading Road, Ryde
Proposal: Proposed Agricultural Barn
Parish: Ryde Ward: Ryde East
Decision Date: 26/01/2021
Ryde Town Council raises no objection to the application, subject to the
conditions raised by Island Roads being observed
Location: Beachwood, Quarr Road, Binstead, Ryde, PO33 4EL
Proposal: Single storey side extension to provide additional living space and
bedroom accommodation. (revised plans)(readvertised application)
Parish: Ryde Ward: Binstead And Fishbourne
Decision Date: 28/01/2021
Ryde Town Council objected to the application, due to the findings of the Tree
Officer. However, should the tree officer later be satisfied that a solution to their
concerns are identified, then Ryde Town Council would subsequently support
the application.
2. APPLICATIONS REFUSED
None taken.
RESOLVED:
THAT the decisions taken by the Isle of Wight Council since the last meeting
be noted.
27/21 HIGH STREET HERITAGE ACTION ZONE (HSHAZ) UPDATE
The Chair of the HSHAZ advised on various issues which included the following:
i. Shop Front Design Code
Work was ongoing although it was anticipated that the Design Code work would
be completed by June / July 2021
ii. High Street Pedestrianisation Zone - Road Barrier / Road Surfacing
Members were advised that in order to establish the road barrier and prevent any
unauthorized traffic using the pedestrian zone, there were various legal issues
which needed addressing before a decision could be taken as to what type of
barrier would be installed. A further update on the installation would be provided
as soon as possible.
With regard to resurfacing the road, the committee was advised that a contractor
had not yet been identified, but the process could take up to 18 months.
iii. New HSHAZ Website
This had been created and tested and was awaiting its launch.
A - 10
iv.
HSHAZ Shop
This was still being finalised and an update would be provided when there was
more information available.
v.
Visitor Insight Report
A report looking at footfall in Ryde in November and December 2020 was
presented at the Steering Group Meeting on 20 January 2021 with some
interesting and surprising results revealed.
vi.
St Thomas’s Church
The Historic England (HE) assisted grant from the Architectural Heritage Fund
was supporting the roof repairs, security measures and possible fencing on the
site
vii.
Ryde Town Hall / Theatre
HE was also funding through grants the securing of the building such as boarding
up windows as well as creating reports that would assist in establishing suitable
insurance.
viii.
Former Packs Building - Cross Street
The former shop would be eligible for a shop-front improvement grant, prior to the
Design Code being completed and subject to conservation input from the IWC. A
dialogue with Shademakers, a lessee of the former Packs store had also been
opened.
28/21 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
RESOLVED:
THAT the next meeting of the Planning, Regeneration and Environment
Committee will be held on Tuesday, 2 March 2021 via the Zoom Video
Conference Meeting facility, at 4.00pm.
A - 11
