paper b planning meeting june 2015

8/9/2019 Paper B Planning Meeting June 2015

1/216

1

PAPER B

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - TUESDAY, 9 JUNE 2015

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES

WARNING

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

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

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

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

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (TEL:821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANYITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONSCONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

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

Background Papers

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

Members are advised that every application on this report has been consideredagainst a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and,

where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and DisorderFacili tator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior topublication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been consideredagainst a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and,

following advice from the Head of Corporate Governance and Monitoring Officer,in recogni tion of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include asection explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.


2/216

2

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS - REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 9 JUNE 2015

01 P/01485/14 TCP/25098/C Ventnor ConditionalPermission

Page 5 Flowers Brook, Steephill Road, Ventnor,Isle of Wight

Outline for onshore elements for

Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre includingsubstation/control room and associatedparking, cabling and site levelling works(revised details relating to site access;additional information relating to trees,ground conditions, site selectionprocess, means of access andelectro-magnetic fields relating tosub-stations)(additional information andplans relating to the layout and designoptions for the proposed substation and

control room) (further re-advertisedapplication)

02 P/00102/14 TCP/01419/U Whippingham Conditionalpermission

Page 53 Folly Works, Folly Lane, East Cowes,Isle of Wight

Proposed mixed use developmentcomprising hotel and associatedinfrastructure; formation of jetty; creation

of new access road with junction toBeatrice Avenue and works to FollyLane; construction of 14 business units,shop and cafe, river users facilities;ecological enhancement and mitigationworks including works to foreshore;construction of residential developmentcomprising 82 houses and a buildingcontaining 17 apartments (99 dwellingsin total)

Further environmental informationreceived in respect of ecological,heritage and highway matters inaccordance with Regulation 22(1) of theTown and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment)Regulations 2011. Additional and revised informationrelating to: Hotel design and layout;Residential design and layout; Computer

generated images; Response to other

https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29444https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29444https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=28467https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=28467https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=28467https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29444


3/216

3

matters raised following initialconsultation. (Re-advertised application)

03 P/01604/13 TCP/31727 Newport ConditionalPermission

Page 126 Land adjacent to 70 and rear of 97 to103, Alvington Manor View, Newport,Isle of Wight

Proposed construction of 22 dwellingswith parking, landscaping, vehicularaccess and provision of link to cycle path(revised layout, additional informationrelating to site drainage and flood riskand revised information relating toecology) Revised plans relating to thelayout and bedroom numbers forproposed houses, additional informationrelating to ecology and flood risk, details

of surface water drainage (furtherre-advertised application)

04 P/00425/15 TCP/01203/F Ventnor Conditionalpermission

Page 148 Site of former St. Margarets PrimarySchool and part of adjoining industrialestate, Newport Road, Ventnor, Isle ofWight

Demolition of buildings; proposed newsecondary school with associatedlandscaping, parking, fencing and hardand soft play areas (revised plans)

05 P/00187/15 TCP/32118/A Nettlestone andSeaview

ConditionalPermission

Page 172 The Salterns Village Cottages, SalternsRoad, Seaview, Isle of Wight

Retention and completion of works

associated with change of use of gamesroom to a mixed use Class A3 -restaurant/cafe and Class A4 - drinkingestablishment; raised deck area

06 P/01742/11 TCP/07601/G Newport ConditionalPermission

Page 187 Nabab Restaurant, 84 St. James Street,Newport, Isle of Wight

Retention of extraction system ducting

https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29559https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29559https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29551https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29551https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29379https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29379https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24098https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24098https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=24098https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29379https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29551https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29559


4/216

4

and walkway with guardrail (Revisedplans)

07 P/00298/15 TCP/06235/J Bembridge ConditionalPermission

Page 195 33 Foreland Fields Road, Bembridge,Isle of Wight

Retention of replacement decking

08 P/00179/15 TCP/20177/D Sandown ConditionalPermission

Page 202 Sandown Bowling Club, SandhamGrounds, Culver Parade, Sandown, Isleof Wight

Demolition of clubhouse; proposed newclubhouse; construction of 2.4m highboundary fencing; installation of timber

posts to define parking spaces forbowling club (revised plans) (reviseddescription) (re-advertised application)

09 P/01479/14 TCP/24400/F Bembridge ConditionalPermission

Page 210 Former Bembridge C of E School,Steyne Road, Bembridge, Isle of Wight

Demolition of buildings; construction of 5pairs of semi-detached dwellings and

terrace of 3 dwellings; associatedparking and landscaping (applicationconsidered a departure) (revised plans)(re-advertised application)

https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29449https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29449https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29441https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29441https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29170https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29170https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29170https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29441https://www.iwight.com/planning/AppDetails3.aspx?frmId=29449


5/216

01 Reference Number: P/01485/14 - TCP/25098/CParish/Name: Ventnor - Ward/Name: Ventnor WestRegistration Date: 12/12/2014 - Outline Planning PermissionOfficer: Russell Chick Tel: (01983) 823552 Appl icant : Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre Limi ted

Outline for onshore elements for Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre includingsubstation/control room and associated parking, cabling and site levellingworks (revised details relating to site access; additional informationrelating to trees, ground conditions, site selection process, means ofaccess and electro-magnetic fields relating to sub-stations)(additionalinformation and plans relating to the layout and design options for theproposed substation and control room) (further readvertised application)Flowers Brook, Steephi ll Road, Ventnor, Isle of Wight

This application is recommended for approval of planning permission for

options 2, 2a and 2b but refusal for option 1

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Therefore, inaccordance with the Council’s constitution this planning application has been referredto the Planning Committee for consideration.

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

• Principle of the proposed development• Sequential site assessment• Whether the design and appearance of the development would be acceptable in

relation to the character and appearance of the surrounding area• Impact on nearby properties• Ecology and trees• Archaeology• Highway considerations•

Land stability• Flooding and drainage issues• Other matters

1. Details of Application

1.1. Outline planning permission is sought to construct a substation andtemporary construction compound/ site storage area. The developmentwould be used in connection with a proposed offshore renewable energyfacility, which would include up to 60 tidal devices of varying designs

arranged in 6 berths and capable of generating between 0.1 to 6MW peryear. The development would allow the candidate devices to be tested in

5


6/216

‘real world’ conditions so that their operation and marine impacts could beresearched and then be developed. The renewable energy developmentwould generate up to 30MW of electricity per year and this would be exportedto the national grid via the proposed substation. The development wouldhave a 25 year lifespan. The application for the offshore elements of the

development is being considered by the Marine Management Organisation(MMO). As a result, this outline planning application only relates to theonshore elements of the development and so the impacts associated withoffshore works are not to be considered.

1.2 Matters relating to the layout and access for the development are to beconsidered at this stage of the application, with scale, detailed appearanceand landscaping left for the reserved matters stage. The submitted plansshow two potential locations for the development within the site. The firstwould involve placing the substation to the south of an existing SouthernWater pump station and the associated temporary construction compound

either within the area of open space within Flowers Brook or within thecurtilage of the former campsite to the west. The second option would involvelocating the substation within the northern section of the former campsite,adjacent to Steephill Road.

1.3 The submitted plans show three potential design solutions for the sub-station.The first would be a simple rectangular building with a gabled roof. Thesubstation would measure 7m in depth with eaves that would overhang theelevations by 0.7m. The substation would measure 24m in width, 3.6m toeaves level and 6.8m in height to the ridge of the roof. Elevations would befinished with brick and the roof with clay tiles. Elevations would compriselimited fenestration, with simple double doors and windows. The substationwould comprise switch rooms, a control room and staff facilities. Thesubstation would comprise external transformers for both options 1 and 2 andthese would be situated within an enclosed equipment compound. Thelocation and dimensions of the compound and external equipment woulddiffer between the two options and the differences between the two proposedlayouts are explained in detail below.

1.4 The second and third design approaches would relate to option 2. Both wouldcomprise simpler, flat roofed buildings and these are referred to as options

2A and 2B. Option 2A would comprise separate substation and control roomswith a 15.4m wide external equipment compound located between the twobuildings. The substation would measure 16m in width, 7.4m in depth and4.5m in height. The control room would measure 8.9m in width, 7.5m in depthand 3.6m in height. Elevations would be finished with brick. The southern ofthe external equipment compound would be formed by a 5m high brick wallwhile the northern roadside boundary would comprise a mesh fence.

1.5 Option 2B would comprise a similar design solution to option 2A, withseparate flat roofed, brick built substation and control room buildings. Thesubstation building would be a long, narrow rectangular building that would

itself be split into two sections. The first would measure 5.6m in width, 4m indepth and 4.5m in height. The second section would replicate the depth and

6


7/216

height of the first but measure 23m in width. A 5m gap would separate thetwo sections and allow access to the external equipment compound, whichwould be situated behind the substation. The control room would be locatedto the east of the equipment compound and mirror the design and scaleshown for option 2A. All options for the development would be accessed via

an existing gateway that serves the former Flowers Brook campsite.

1.6 Regarding layout, Option 1 shows that the proposed substation would belocated 12m to the south of the existing Southern Water pumping station,40m to the south of Steephill Road and adjacent to the north westernboundary of the Flowers Brook area of open space. The substation would bealigned on an east-west axis with the related equipment compound locatedalongside the northern elevation of the building. The compound wouldmeasure 7m in depth and 24m in width and comprise a range oftransformers, two shipping containers that would house further equipmentand a steel equipment cabinet. The containers would measure 2.4m in depth,

4.2m in width and 2m in height while the steel cabinet would measure 2m indepth, 2.4m in width and 2m in height.

1.7 The submitted plans relating to option 1 show two options for temporaryconstruction compounds. These would be required for the construction phaseof the development, which would take between 12 to 18 months to complete.The first option would be to locate the compound to the west of thesubstation at a point 18m south of Steephill Road within the grounds of theformer Flowers Brook campsite. The second option for the constructioncompound would be located within the northern half of the Flowers Brookarea of open space, 29m south of the Southern Water pumping station. Thedimensions and layout for either of the proposed compounds would beidentical. Each would measure 33m in depth, 25m in width and comprise asite office, staff facilities, a site storage area and a turning area forconstruction vehicles. The first compound would be accessed via an existingservice road that serves the nearby pumping station while the second optionwould require the construction of a temporary extension to the service road,which would lead south east for a length of some 70m, passing to the southof the existing pumping station and through an existing set of gates that leadto the open space.

1.8 The plans also show a possible expansion area for the constructioncompound, which would be located immediately to the south of SteephillRoad and 23m north west of the existing Southern Water pumping station.The compound would measure 9m in depth and 38m width.

1.9 Layout of option 2, this shows that the proposed substations (there are threesub-options as described above) would be located adjacent to the northernboundary of the site, alongside Steephill Road. The larger, rectangularsubstation would be aligned on an offset east-west axis with the mainelevation facing south. The proposed substation would be situated 36m tothe west of the existing Southern Water pumping station and comprise an

external equipment compound that would measure 9m in depth and 13.3m inwidth. The compound would be located alongside the eastern elevation of the

7


8/216

substation, be enclosed by security fencing and comprise a range oftransformers, a shipping container that would house further equipment and asteel equipment cabinet. The container would measure 2.4m in depth, 4.2min width and 2m in height while the steel cabinet would measure 2m in depth,2.4m in width and 2m in height.

1.10 Options 2A and 2B would comprise a larger footprint due to the separation ofthe buildings. The area of the substation, control room and equipmentcompound would measure 45m in width and 9m in depth and this would belocated 23m to the east of the access to the former campsite. The controlroom would be located within Southern Water pump station compound, 7mnorth west of the pump station.

1.11 The temporary construction compound relating to option 2 would be located6m south of the proposed substation. The compound would reflect thedimensions for that shown for option 1 and measure 33m in depth, 25m in

width and comprise a site office, staff facilities, a site storage area and aturning area for construction vehicles. This option would not require anyfurther access roads to be constructed, given that the buildings andcompounds would be located either side of the existing access road thatserves the Southern Water pumping station. Four car parking spaces andtwo LGV parking spaces would be provided to the west of the proposedsubstation, adjacent to the site access.

1.12 The proposed substation would be linked to the offshore renewable energydevelopment via buried cables. The submitted information states that threepotential techniques are being considered for the installation of the proposedcables. The first would be to dig trenches that would run from the proposedsubstation to transition pits that would be located at Castle Cove to the southwest. Two potential routes for the cables have been proposed dependant onwhich of the two proposed substations would be built, however in each casethe cables would terminate at Castle Cove. The trenches would be backfilledand the land restored to its previous state once the cables were completed.The two transition pits would measure 8m in depth and 4m in width and oncecompleted, would be backfilled with only a manhole cover showing at surfacelevel.

1.13 The second technique would be to install the cable into an existing SouthernWater outfall pipe, which runs from the existing Flowers Brook pumpingstation, south, exiting 90m from the shoreline. The proposed cable wouldemerge on the landside adjacent to the proposed substations. The finaltechnique would be Horizontal Direct Drilling (HDD). This technique wouldnot require any trenching and instead, three 0.7m diameter ducts would bedrilled adjacent to the proposed substations and emerge at seabed level atdistances between 200m to 900m from the shoreline.

2. Location and Site Characteris tics

2.1 The application site is located adjacent to an area of the coastline that is 1kmto the west of Ventnor and to the south of Steephill Road. The site extends to

8


9/216

an area of 3.2ha and encompasses the former Flowers Brook campsite, anarea of public open space and a Southern Water pumping station. Theapplication site is located within an area of Ventnor that provides a transitionbetween development to the east and the less developed areas of coastlineand the Undercliff to the west. The area of land to the south of Steephill Road

is characterised by areas of open space and coastal headland with pocketsof low density residential development. Houses tend to be set within largeplots that are well landscaped and that back onto the coastal cliffs. The landundulates but generally slopes to the south and the coastline is formed byhigh cliffs or steep slopes.

2.2 The land to the north of Steephill Road is more residential in character andlaid out in a more rigid pattern. This area once formed the grounds of

Steephill Castle, which were developed in the late 20th Century to compriserows of modern bungalows and houses set within terraced areas of the slopeof the Undercliff. Development aligns the narrow service roads within thearea. Properties generally face south and are located within spacious plotssurrounded by a mix of woodland and landscaping.

2.3 The application site is formed by three distinct components. The first is thewestern most area of the site, which includes the grounds of the formerFlowers Brook campsite. This area of land includes a detached dwelling,which is adjacent to the highway, low level sheds and structures that alignSteephill road and a large curtilage to the south and east that is kept asmown grass. This area of the site slopes gradually south from Steephill Roadbefore rising again towards the coastal cliffs. The boundaries of the site are

enclosed by a mix of scrubby hedges, walls and a high landscaped bankwhich aligns Steephill Road.

2.4 The former campsite adjoins the large area of public open space to the east.This is formed by a triangular depression within the landscape, which slopessteeply from west to east before levelling out. The open space extends to thecoastal slope and a public right of way runs alongside the southern andwestern boundaries. The area is accessed via a steep concrete track thatleads onto Steephill Road. A narrow brook runs alongside the easternboundary of the site, which is aligned by a steep tree lined embankment thatcurves round to the south east. The open space is laid to grass and is highly

attractive, providing relief from the areas of coastal slope and woodland,allowing scenic views of the Undercliff and the English Channel.

2.5 The final section of the site is located to the north of the open space within alevel plateau that is to the east of the former campsite. This area is formed bya rectangular plot of land that sits hard against the highway and below itsembankment. This area is occupied by a Southern Water pump station,which is a rectangular single storey building with a gabled roof. Elevationsare simple and finished with brown brick. The roof is finished with clay tilesand includes timber bargeboards. The building blends into a backdrop oftrees and landscaping and in the foreground is an attractive natural stone

wall, which forms the northern boundary of the open space.

9


10/216

2.6 Immediately to the west of the site is a cluster of residential properties while60m to the east and at an elevated level is a detached chalet bungalow thatoverlooks the open space.

3. Relevant History

3.1. P/00253/56 - Certificate of Lawfulness for continued use of land forpermanent holiday caravans in accordance with planning permissionTCP/7731/D and owners living accommodation in Flowersbrook House

(revised description) – Lawful Development Certificate issued 3rd May 2006

3.2 TCP/7731/L – Building to house pumping station – Granted planning

permission 20th March 1996

4. Development Plan Policy

National Planning Policy

4.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance for localplanning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as amaterial consideration on determining applications. At the heart of the NPPFis a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

4.2 The NPPF includes several sections which are of direct relevance to theapplication. Section 10 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s objectives

for meeting the challenge of climate change, in which the planning systemhas a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energyand associated infrastructure. Paragraph 98 states that:

‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:

• Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate theoverall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognisethat even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cuttinggreenhouse gas emissions.

• Approve the application (unless material considerations indicate

otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.’

4.3 Section 11 of the NPPF sets out the objectives for conserving and enhancingthe natural and local environment. These aims include:

• Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservationinterests and soils.

• Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems.• Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in

biodiversity where possible.

Section 11 also states that great weight should be given to conservinglandscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of

10


11/216

Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection inrelation to landscape and scenic beauty.

4.4 In addition, section 11 states that when determining planning applications,local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by

applying the following principles; including:

• If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided,adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, thenplanning permission should be refused.

• Proposed development on land within or outside a Site of SpecialScientific Interest likely to have an adverse affect on a Site of SpecialScientific Interest (either individually or in combination with otherdevelopments) should be refused.

• Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in theloss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient

woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees outside ancientwoodland unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearlyoutweigh the loss.

Local Planning Policy

4.5 The Island Plan Core Strategy identifies the application site as being locatedwithin the wider rural area but that part of the site is adjacent to thesettlement boundary for the Ventnor Smaller Regeneration Area. The site isadjacent to the Ventnor conservation area, a Site of Importance for NatureConservation (SINC) and 70m north of the South Wight Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The site is located 390m to the east of the RewDown and Compton Chase to Steephill Cove SSSI. The area of the proposedsubstation and construction compounds is 130m east of the AONB and 285meast of the Heritage Coast. The landfall area for the export cables is 41m tothe east of the AONB and 206m from the Heritage Coast. The northernboundary of the site is covered by a Tree Protection Order (TPO).

• SP1 - Spatial Strategy – Defines the area within which developmentshould take place on the Island. Supports development on appropriateland within or immediately adjacent the defined settlement boundariesof the Key Regeneration Areas, Smaller Regeneration Areas and RuralService Centres. Land outside of these areas is within the Wider Rural Area, where development will not be approved unless a specific localneed is identified.

• SP5 - Environment – Supports proposals that protect, conserve and /or enhance the Island’s natural and historic environments, and protectthe integrity of international, national and local designations. Alldevelopment proposals will be expected to take account of theenvironmental capacity of the area to accommodate new development.

Development which has a demonstrable adverse impact on theIsland’s natural, historic and built environments should be avoided.

11


12/216

• SP6 – States that a range of renewable energies will be encouragedacross the Island to meet its target of 100MW installed capacity as theon-shore contribution to becoming self-sufficient in renewable energyproduction. The policy notes that a range of new technologies are likelyto emerge and that these will be considered on their own merits in line

with national planning policy and the policies of the Core Strategy.

• DM2 - Design Quality for New Development – Gives support toproposals for high quality and inclusive design to protect, conserve andenhance the existing environment whilst allowing change to take place.Proposals will be expected to provide an attractive, functional andadaptable built environment, optimise the potential of the site takinginto account constraints, be appropriately landscaped and complimentthe surrounding area.

• DM11 - Historic and Built Environment – Supports proposals that

positively conserve and enhance the special character of the Island’shistoric and built environment. The demolition or substantial harm todesignated heritage assets and their settings which make a positivecontribution to the special character and/or local identity of an area, willbe resisted.

• DM12 – Landscape, Seascape, Biodiversity and Geodiversity: Statesthat the Council will support proposals that conserve, enhance andpromote the landscape, seascape, biodiversity, and geological interestof the Island. Development proposals will be expected to protect theintegrity of international, national and local designations relating tolandscape, seascape, biodiversity and geodiversity.

• DM14 – Flood Risk: States that the Council will expect developmentproposals to reduce the overall local risk of flooding on the Island.

• DM16 – Renewables: States that the Council will in principle supportproposals for the utilisation, distribution and development of renewablesources of energy. The policy outlines the information that will berequired to support applications for renewables.

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

Internal Consultees

5.1 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has concluded that thedevelopment would result in no affect as a result of electro-magnetic fields(EMF). The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection tothe construction phase but has advised that construction hours should berestricted to 08:00 to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 16:00hours on Saturdays. The Environmental Health Officer raised no objection in

relation to operational noise but has advised the submission of a noisemanagement plan.

12


13/216

5.2 The Council’s Archaeology Officer has advised that based on the current

available data there is no known archaeological deposits which wouldpreclude development at the site. The Officer has advised that the applicationcan progress through the outline stage with the archaeological impact being

considered via the reserved matters stage of the application. At that point theapplicant would be required to provide a detailed location of the scheme, witha full archaeological evaluation of the route and an appropriate mitigationstrategy before the scheme commences.

5.3 The Council’s Principal Coastal Engineer has concluded that the submittedground report shows that the applicant understands the issues of landstability that affect the site. The Coastal Engineer has noted that theproposals are in outline and has advised that detailed designs will berequired at the reserved matters stage. However, given the level ofinvestigation and understanding that the developer has shown the Coastal

Engineer has concluded that it is likely that the final designs will addressground stability concerns.

5.4 The Council’s Ecology Officer has raised no objection to the proposedsubstation and temporary construction compounds and has confirmed that allhabitat surveys undertaken in relation to this application are suitable and aida robust assessment of the proposals. In particular, the Ecologist hasconfirmed that bat surveys have enabled the applicant’s ecologist to devisean appropriate construction strategy in order to avoid impacts on foragingand commuting bats and that the applicant’s updated badger report providesa suitable strategy which confirms the functionality of any mitigationmeasures which may be required whilst also providing a reactive strategyshould the status of badgers on-site change between now and workscommencing. The Ecology Officer has advised that whilst the exact details ofthe strategy have not been secured, the current report provides an elementof flexibility in order to ensure that any mitigation strategy implemented is fitfor purpose.

5.5 The Council’s Tree Officer has noted that revised plans have been submittedin order to limit the impact to the high amenity Holm Oak tree. All of the plansshow that the parking areas have been moved out from under the tree to a

differing extent, with the exception of Option 2, drawing 29. This couldincrease the scale of impact to the tree as opposed to limiting it, the reasonfor this being the positioning of the Control Room beneath the canopy. TheTree Officer has reasoned that of the other two options, Option 2B, drawing47 would have the least impact but that it would still be necessary to use acellular confinement system where the parking spaces encroach in to thetrees R.P.A.

The Tree Officer noted that the access road has been moved across from theHolm Oak which would limit impact. However the plans state that the first 15metres of the road will be metalled and where it crosses the R.P.A, a cellular

confinement system will be used and this seems a little ambiguous. Thereason being it is the majority of the 15 metres crosses the R.P.A. In this

13


14/216

area a non-dig methodology will be required and the use of a cellularconfinement system needed. This should be noted in any permission givenand ensured by the use of conditionsExternal Consultees

5.6 The Environment Agency has confirmed no objection to the development andhas confirmed that the proposed works would not affect the tidal defences inthe area. The Agency has confirmed that flood defence consent would berequired for the proposed works to form the cable route.

5.7 The Isle of Wight Gardens Trust has advised that Flowers Brook is part of theformer Steephill Castle landscaped gardens and a local list site. The GardenTrust commented that any proposals that would not serve to enhance thehistoric designated landscape should be avoided and concluded that thedevelopment would result in both temporary and long-term detrimentalimpacts on the site and that they cannot be justified. However, the Garden

Trust advised that option 2 would have a minimal and acceptable impact onthe historic garden.

5.8 Natural England has confirmed no objection to the proposed developmentand concluded that that it would not be likely to result in a significant effect onthe interest features for which the nearby SSSI and SAC sites aredesignated. Natural England has advised that all reasonable precautionsshould be taken to prevent pollutants from entering the adjacent inter-tidalarea and to prevent machinery from being stored within the SAC.

5.9 The Highway Engineer from Island Roads on behalf of the Highway Authority

raised no objection to the development and confirmed that the proposedaccess arrangements would meet the required design standards. TheEngineer also confirmed that sufficient space would exist on site for vehiclesto enter, park and leave the site in a forward gear. The Engineer advised thatthe amount of traffic associated with the development would not result in anegative impact on the highway network.

5.10 The AONB Partnership commented that option 2 would be a preferred option,given the character of the site and surrounding area. The AONB Partnershipreasoned that option 2 would be virtually unseen due to the road level andexisting screening and that when seen from the nearby footpaths, the

development would be set back against a wall and existing buildings.However, the Partnership concluded that the option 1 development would beon rising ground that is further into the site and therefore, prominent andimposing.

Parish/Town Council Comments

5.11 Ventnor Town Council has objected to the proposed development for thefollowing reasons:

• There is a lack of detail relating to the five on-shore options for the

development and why the Flowers Brook site is preferable• The public consultation focussed on the off-shore development and not

14


15/216

the on-shore proposals• Flowers Brook is an environmentally sensitive site and important to

recreation and tourism• Neither option 1 or 2 is acceptable• Option 1 would have a significant visual affect due to the size of the

building and the industrial character of the fencing• Tree planting would not have a mitigating affect until halfway through

the lifetime of the development• Option 2 would be unnecessarily high• If the developer can show that the Flowers Brook site is the only

suitable option then a re-designed building closer to the existingsub-station would be more affectively shielded from the surroundingarea

• If approved, it is essential that a condition is attached requiring thebuilding to be demolished after 20 years

• Options 2a and 2b fail to make the most of screening

Third Party Representations

5.12 The Council has advertised this application on three occasions due to thereceipt of revised plans and additional information. During the firstconsultation the Council received 184 letters of objection and two letters ofsupport, 68 objections and 5 letters of support during the second consultationand 29 letters of objection and 2 letters of support during the finalconsultation. The objections and reasons for support included withincomments can be summarised as follows:

• A further sub-station in this area would destroy the historic, scenic andlandscape character of Flowers Brook/ impact on the adjacent AONBand SSSI

• Impact of light pollution • The area is well used by walkers and tourists and is an important area

of open space • Flowers Brook has only recently been improved• Disturbance caused by noise and construction vehicles• The development would be visible from the coastal footpath • Impact of the proposed development on health •

Impact of noise on nearby properties • Impact of electromagnetic energy and dust particles • The proposed building would appear out of keeping with the residential

character of the area • The impact on the conservation area should be assessed• The Island Plan states that development should enhance the character

and context of an area/ the proposal does not comply with the IslandPlan

• Previous applications for housing on this site have been refused • Impact on trees within the site/ lack of a tree survey• The site hedges would need to be reduced for the access and this

would expose the sub-station• The development would generate additional traffic in an area that is

15


16/216

busy during the tourism season • Precedent for industrial style development on this and other sites • Other sites should be reconsidered/ why not use the existing Ventnor

industrial site • The works to the cliff could result in instability/ Policy DM15 states that

development should not take place where coastal protection is required • Impact on the stability/ integrity of existing coastal defence works at

Castle Cove • Impact on the stability of the highway • Flowers Brook includes the remains of Bronze Age skeletons• Impact on wildlife, fauna and flora • Impact on the local fishing industry • The period for public consultation is too short/ lack of pre-application

consultation• There is a lack of detail to allow a judgement to be made • There is a conflict of interest in the Council determining this application

given its interest in the project • Impact on the slipway at Castlehaven • The existing sub-station provided an essential utility for the area and

cannot be used as a precedent for the current proposal • Option 1 would be visually intrusive • The protruding transformer would be visible from the whole Flowers

Brook area • Damage to the sewer pipe could result in sewage backing up into

gardens • The proposed use could compromise the nearby tourism site • Impact on surfing• Impact of flammable substances/ lack of space between equipment• Unreasonable closure of the public right of way • This is just the beginning of a larger development

5.13 Letter of support/ no objection

• Potential for the Island to be a World leader in renewable technology• Provision of long-term skilled jobs• The proposed cables would be buried and the sub-station camouflaged• Most of the structures would not be visible•

Future generations face an uncertain future unless climate change isaddressed• Renewable energy plays a large part in reducing climate change• The Island has a long history of working with the marine industry• The development would be located next to an existing substation and

the cables would not be visible• The strong currents around St Catherine’s are not found elsewhere on

the Island• The benefits outweigh concerns

16


17/216

6. Evaluation

Principle

6.1 The planning application seeks consent for a substation and export cables thatwould receive power generated by a proposed offshore renewable energydevelopment. In addition, the application seeks consent for temporaryconstruction compounds that would be required while the cables andsubstation are built. The offshore development would be used to test anddevelop tidal sources of renewable energy and any power generated would beexported to the national grid via the proposed substation. Two options havebeen provided for the substation, export cables and construction compounds.

6.2 The Island Plan Core Strategy gives support to new development withindefined settlement boundaries. The Core Strategy sets three key regenerationareas (The Medina Valley, Ryde and the Bay), two smaller regeneration areas

and eleven rural service centres within which new development will beexpected to be directed. Areas outside of regeneration areas and rural servicecentres will be considered to be the wider rural area where development willbe restricted unless a specific local need is demonstrated. While theapplication site is located outside of a defined settlement boundary, thenorthern section (the former camp site and Southern Water pump station) of itis located adjacent to the settlement boundary for the Ventnor SmallerRegeneration Area. The remainder of the site relates to the public open spaceand coastal slopes and this area is outside of the settlement boundary.

6.3 Policy guidance relating to renewables is set out within policies SP6 and DM16of the Island Plan Core Strategy. These policies specifically refer toland-based technologies such as onshore wind, photovoltaics, waste andbiomass although SP6 accepts that a range of technologies will be required tomeet renewable energy targets. The Council’s aim is that 100MW installedcapacity of onshore energy should be provided over the plan period with afurther 50MW delivered through smaller scale and domestic installations.However, policy SP6 recognises that offshore energy could contribute in theregion of 50MW of energy by 2020 and that much of this would be sourcedfrom tidal stream energy, potential from a site to the south of the Island.

6.4 The Island Plans support for renewable sources of energy reflect a keyGovernment objective that cleaner and more secure energy sources aredelivered within the UK. Government advises that there should be significantinvestment in renewables in order to move away from polluting sources ofenergy but also to ensure that infrastructure is in place within the UK to deliverthe UK’s energy requirements. Specifically, the Government has set targets tocut 34 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and at least 80 per centby 2050. In 2010, renewables delivered 3.3 per cent of the UK’s total energyrequirements and 6.7 per cent of the UK’s electricity requirements.

6.5 The submitted plans show that the two substation options and all but one of

the proposed construction compound options would be located within theformer campsite, which is located adjacent to the settlement boundary. As a

17


18/216

result, these elements of the development would take place within a locationthat is considered by the Island Plan to be suitable for additional development,subject to site specific impacts. Therefore, given that both the former campsiteand pump station sites are immediately adjacent to the settlement boundaryand taking into account the local and national policy support given to

renewable sources of energy and associated infrastructure, it is consideredthat the principle of these elements of the application would comply withpolicies SP1, SP6 and DM16 of the Island Plan Core Strategy.

6.6 However, the remainder of the site is outside of the settlement boundary. Thesubmitted plans show that one of the options for a temporary constructioncompound and each option for the proposed export cable routes would passthrough land that is outside of a defined settlement boundary and thereforewithin the Wider Rural Area. Policy SP1 states that unless a specific localneed is identified, development proposals outside of, or not immediatelyadjacent to the defined settlements will not be supported.

6.7 In this case, it is apparent that the proposed development would relate to theinfrastructure required for a renewable energy development that could delivera significant contribution towards renewable energy targets. The applicant’ssubmitted information states that tidal energy is a clean, renewable and highlypredictable source of energy and that the proposals could deliver up to 30MWinstalled capacity of renewable energy per year. This would be equivalent tothe energy needs of approximately 15,700 homes on the Island. It isconsidered that the proposed development could generate a significantproportion of the 50MW of offshore energy referred to within policy DM16 ofthe Island Plan Core Strategy while providing a valuable contribution towardsreducing carbon emissions and the research and development of this sector ofthe renewable energy industry. As a result, it is considered that the proposeddevelopment would comply with the requirements of policies SP1, SP6 andDM16, subject to the applicant’s sequential site assessment and the sitespecific considerations outlined within the remainder of this report.

Sequential site assessment

6.8 Policy SP5 of the Island Plan states that development proposals will beexpected to take account of the environmental capacity of an area to

accommodate new development. Policy SP5 goes onto state that where adevelopment would result in significant harm to the Islands historic and builtenvironments, the Council will need to be satisfied that the developmentcannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in lessor no harm. In this case, the applicants have acknowledged the environmentaldesignations that apply to the Island’s southern coastline and have undertakena detailed sequential assessment of different sites that could potentiallysupport the onshore infrastructure in order balance the constraints for thedevelopment and the environmental sensitivities of differing sites.

18


19/216

6.9 The proposed renewable energy development would be located 2.5km to thesouth of St Catherine’s Point and the applicant’s sequential assessment statesthat it is important that the proposed substation is located as close as possibleto landfall for export cables for the following reasons:

1. To minimise transmission losses2. To reduce the number of cables laid onshore3. To simplify control systems

The Council notes that the greater the distance between the offshoredevelopment and the onshore substation, the less efficient the developmentwould become. According to the submitted information, it is preferable to retaintransition power losses to below 5 per cent in order to ensure the viability ofthe development. In order to keep losses to a minimum it is important totransform exported power to the 33kV level required for the national grid at theearliest opportunity. In this case the proposed cables would export power at a

capacity of either 3-4MW or 6MW. The submitted information states that forevery 1km of additional cable, voltage drops by between approximately 50 to80 volts. It is therefore apparent that the distance between the renewableenergy equipment and the onshore substation would influence the efficiencyand viability of the development. Given the above key requirements it isapparent that the export cables and associated onshore infrastructure wouldneed to be located within the southern coastline of the Island and within closeproximity to the proposed offshore development.

6.10 One of the key issues for the landfall of the export cable is land/ coastalstability. The applicant’s sequential assessment states that cable routes needto avoid reefs, hard rocky strata, unstable cliffs and sensitive coastal habitats.The sequential assessment states that few areas of the southern coast linebetween St Catherine’s Point, Ventnor and Bonchurch would be suitable dueto the above issues. Given the requirements for the cable route, stabilityissues and environmental sensitivities that sequential assessment identifiedfive different sites that were considered to be appropriate for the onshoredevelopment assessment and these are as follows:

1. Ventnor Haven2. West Ventnor (the application site)

3. Niton4. La Falaise Car Park, Ventnor5. Old Park Road, St Lawrence

6.11 The sequential assessment also refers to the potential to provide the onshoresubstation at the existing industrial estate that occupies the former railwaystation and yard at Upper Ventnor. This site is a well-established and screenedindustrial estate. This site includes an existing 11kV/ 33kV substation and it isapparent that it would be a suitable location for industrial style buildings.However, placing the substation in this location would increase the exportcable length by between 1.2 to 1.6km and result in significant losses in

efficiency for the development. Moreover, the export cable routes require a 3mwide trench in order to provide sufficient space between cables in order to

19


20/216

prevent overheating and further loss of power. This would have significantimplications for the highway network given that trenches would be likely tofollow the highway network. As a result, it is considered that the use of theupper Ventnor industrial site would not be practical.

6.12 The five chosen sites have been assessed in order to establish which wouldbe most suitable for the proposed development. Key issues taken into accountduring site selection were environmental designations, the sensitivity of theonshore area (including cultural heritage, other developments, proximity toresidences, amenity value and the AONB), land stability, connection to theelectricity grid, the offshore cable route, the availability of space for thedevelopment and access, particularly for construction vehicles. In order tocompare the suitability of sites a matrix has been provide that apportions ascore of between 1 and 5 for each issue, with 1 being a preferable score.

6.13 Officers consider that the sequential assessment has taken into account a

suitable range of issues and that realistic scores have been apportioned toeach site/ issue. In addition, Officers have undertaken site visits to establishwhether any other suitable alternative sites could be used. However, it isrecognised that the length of the export cable is a key issue and that as aresult, the proposed onshore works would need to be within reasonabledistance of the landfall location for the cables. Officers have not identified anyfurther sites that would be suitable for the development.

6.14 The potential site to receive the least favourable score was at Niton. This sitewould result in landfall at Castlehaven Lane. According to the applicant’sassessment this site would not be suitable due to its location within the AONB,Heritage Coast and a SSSI. In addition, the land within the area was found tobe unstable, there was a lack of space for development, cable routes wouldhave to pass through heavily designated areas and access would be poor.Officers note that the site at Niton would provide the shortest offshore cableroute but that a far longer route would be required for 33kV cables to thenconnect to the national grid. Moreover, the land and cliffs surroundingCastlehaven and Reeth Bay is known to be unstable and there are examplesof houses within this location being badly affected by land movement.Furthermore, construction vehicles would need to gain access via Niton, whichincludes narrow streets whereby housing is hard against the highway.

Therefore, traffic could result in detrimental impacts on properties within Nitonand larger vehicles would be inhibited by the narrow and changing alignmentof the highway. Taking these issues and the environmental sensitivities of thearea into account, Officers therefore agree that this site is not appropriate forthe proposed development.

6.15 The sites at La Falaise and Old Park Road, Ventnor have been rated at 3 and4 respectively and therefore, been considered as less preferable for theproposed development. La Falaise is a Council owned car park and thesequential assessment states that this site is within the conservation area,within very unstable land and that the proposed development would result in a

loss of parking spaces. However, the offshore cable route would be possibleapart from the impact of the unstable land. Access to this location was

20


21/216

considered to be reasonable. In the case of Old Park Road, this area wasmarked down due to its location within the AONB, a SSSI and Heritage Coast.Furthermore, the assessment refers to unstable land, a lack of obviouslocations for the substation and a difficult sub sea route for the export cables.Moreover, access has been assessed as being poor.

6.16 The Officer site inspection showed that the site at La Falaise is narrow anddevoid of space. The site is readily visible from the coastal footpath, whichruns alongside the south of the car park and it is noted that the developmentwould result in a loss of parking spaces. La Falaise is a popular car park forvisitors wishing to visit Ventnor seafront or to walk the coastal footpath and it isconsidered that a loss of parking spaces would not be acceptable. Moreover,Officers are of the opinion that access to the site for construction vehicleswould be poor, given the narrow and elevated nature of the highway network.The site at Old Park Road is considered to be affected by constraints that arecomparable with Castlehaven at Niton. Old Park Road and the open coastal

land to the south is within the AONB and Heritage Coast due to its scenicqualities and the Officer site visits showed that the area lacks suitable sites forthe proposed development due to landscape character. In addition, access tothis area would be difficult due to the alignment of public highways. As a result,Officers agree that these sites would not be suitable for the proposeddevelopment.

6.17 The final two sites considered are at Ventnor Haven and Flowers Brook.Ventnor Haven is a narrow level car parking area to the east of VentnorEsplanade, backed by coastal cliffs. The sequential assessmentacknowledges that this site is outside of the AONB, Heritage Coast and SSSIdesignations but notes that it is within the Ventnor conservation area.Moreover, the assessment reasons that the cliffs close to the site are unstableand could pose a threat to any proposed buildings. This site would require thelongest export cable route and the 33kV cable would need to be directedthrough the centre of Ventnor. The assessment reasons that there would bemultiple options for buildings in the area and that access would be suitable.However, the car park would need to be closed during the construction works,which would take place for a period of 12 to 18 months.

6.18 Officers consider that the existing parking area adjacent to the cliffs could

provide a suitable location for the substation buildings depending on designand scale. The area comprises marine style buildings and a Southern Waterpump station that has been designed to appear as a band stand/ viewpointand this has blended successfully with the nearby Victorian buildings within theconservation area. Officers do not agree that the coastal cliff would representa serious threat to new buildings, particularly as the recently constructedCheetah Marine buildings have been sited successfully close to the cliffs.However, it is considered that closure of the car park could result in a negativeimpact to the nearby esplanade and beach. Furthermore, it is noted that thissite would require the longest subsea export cable route and that trenching theland side cable route through the historic town centre may prove difficult and

disruptive. Therefore, the score attributed to this option is considered to berealistic.

21


22/216

6.19 The application site has been selected because it was considered to be

sequentially preferable to the other four options. Good scores have beenattributed to designations because the site is not within the AONB, SSSI,conservation area or the Heritage Coast. Moreover, the site is within a

relatively stable area of land, comprises an existing substation, comprisesspace for development and would allow several landfall options for the exportcables. Access has been assessed as being good.

6.20 Officers agree that the site is not designated for landscape or biodiversityreasons and that it is not within the conservation area. The site isapproximately 100m west of the AONB but adjacent to the conservation areato the east. Whilst not within a site designated for biodiversity reasons, thecable routes would need to pass through a SINC and SAC when makinglandfall although this is a common requirement for all options due to thedesignated nature of the coastline. However, it is noted that this site would

provide space for development options while being accessed via principalhighways and allowing a relatively short 33kV cable route. Officer site visitshave shown that the parts of the site are less visually intrusive and it isapparent that several options would exist for provide landfall for the exportcables.

6.21 Given the above conclusions, Officers consider that the applicant’s sequentialassessment has been carried out correctly and that suitable weightings havebeen applied to the considerations that have been assessed, apart fromaccess to La Falaise and the impact of closing the public car park to the eastof Ventnor Esplanade. Officers agree that due to landscape designations, landstability issues and the need to limit the distance of subsea cables, theonshore development would need to be carried out in a location withinreasonable distance of the offshore development. Officers are of the opinionthat based on a broadly desk based assessment of designations theapplication site is sequentially preferable to the four alternative sites that havebeen considered and that no suitable alternatives exist. However, it isconsidered that the suitability of the chosen site to support the proposeddevelopment must be assessed in detail. These detailed matters will beassessed within the remainder of this report.

Whether the design and appearance of the development would be acceptablein relation to the character and appearance of the surrounding area

6.22 The application site is located to the west of Ventnor, within an area thatcomprises areas of scenic coastline and low density residential development.The site itself is formed by a large area of public open space and a formercampsite and Southern Water pump station. The key issue relating to thisconsideration is the impact of the development on the landscape character ofthe area.

6.23 To support the planning application, the applicants have carried out a detailed

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), which assesses the impactof the proposed onshore development. The LVIA has been undertaken in

22


23/216

accordance with the relevant national guidance as set out within Guidelines forLandscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA 3). Officers are satisfiedthat the guidance has been followed, that the LVIA for the onshoredevelopment is accurate and that it can be used to assess this planningapplication.

6.24 The submitted LVIA assesses the landscape and visual impacts from identifiedviewpoints and character areas by first assessing the sensitivity of the relevantlandscape area/ viewpoint and then balancing this with the magnitude ofchange created by the development. To do so, the two topics are set out withinthe following matrix:

Magnitude

Sensitivity Substantial

Moderate Slight Negligib le

High Major Major/

moderate

Modera

te

Moderate

/ minorMedium Major/

moderateModerate Modera

teminor

Minor

Low Moderate Moderate/Minor

Minor Minor

Negligible Moderate/Minor

Minor Minor Minor

GLVIA 3 sets out agreed criteria on which the significant of affect should be

judged and the basis of establishing this. GLVIA 3 advises that the sensitivityof a receptor should be established by considering its susceptibility to changeand its value. This is then compared to the magnitude of change/ affectcaused by the development. This is derived by assessing the size/ scale ofaffect, duration and reversibility of affect attributed to the development. Theabove matrix is considered to be in accordance with the GLVIA 3 guidance.

6.25 In this case, two options have been proposed for the location of the substationwith varying sub-options for design of the buildings, the associated cableroutes and temporary construction compounds. Each option will be assessedseparately below. It should be noted that the final design and scale for the

proposed development has been set aside for the reserved matters stage ofthe planning application. As a result, the applicants have provided drawingsthat depict the ‘Realistic Worst Case Scenario’ for the development; that is tosay that the building and related equipment and compounds are shown at theirmaximum height, width and depth.

6.26 Before assessing the proposed options it is important to set out the sensitivityof the landscape surrounding the application site. The application site includesa large area of open space and coastline that is devoid of development but setwithin a backdrop of scenic coastal slopes and low scale development. Thearea of the development is not designated for landscape reasons but is within

100m of the AONB (the landfall location for the export cables would be 41mfrom the AONB). Nevertheless, the open space is attractive and forms an

23


24/216

undeveloped public park. The southern portion of the open space allows widevistas of the coastline towards Ventnor and St Catherine’s and the remainderallows views of the English Channel and the Undercliff. GLVIA 3 advises thatthe value of a landscape receptor will to some degree reflect landscapedesignations but that there should not be over-reliance on designations as the

sole indicator of value. Furthermore, GLVIA states that the fact that alandscape is not designated either nationally or locally does not mean that itdoes not have any value.

6.27 In this case, the open space and coastline to the south west can beconsidered to be in good condition. The open area is well managed and thebrook that aligns the eastern extent has been improved to provide a naturalwater feature. It is considered that the open space has good scenic qualitygiven the vistas of attractive coastlines, the presence of the English Channeland the backdrop of the Undercliff, which while developed, retains a semi-ruralcharacter. Furthermore, the open space comprises archaeological remains

and is of obvious recreational value. The coastline to the south, includingCastle Cove is considered to fall into the same category, given the scenicviews of the coastline balanced with views of existing development and theman-made coastal defences. As a result, Officers are of the opinion that theopen space is of medium sensitivity. This conclusion is consistent with thatcontained within the applicant’s LVIA. This section of the report will firstconsider the landscape and visual impact of the development, then the impactof the proposed cable routes and finally the impact on designated areas.

Landscape and visual impact

Option 1

6.28 The submitted plans show that for option 1 the proposed substation and itsassociated external equipment compound would be located 12m to the southof the existing Southern Water pumping station and 40m to the south ofSteephill Road. Two potential construction compounds have been shown; thefirst would be located within the Flowers Brook area of open space while thesecond would be located within the former campsite to the west. A smalleroptional compound is also shown adjacent to Steephill Road.

6.29 The applicant’s LVIA concludes that the proposed development (Worst CaseScenario) would result in a limited adverse affects on the landscape and thatthese would not be significant because there would be no loss of notablefeatures and due to the substation being a relatively modest sized structurethat would be comparable in size to a dwelling. With respect to visual impact,the LVIA has assessed the development from four specific viewpoints as wellas the nearby highway, coastal path and the settlement of Ventnor. For allareas the LVIA concludes that visual impact would not be significant. Thevisual impact assessment does not distinguish between the two options for thedevelopment and this is considered to be a shortfall, because, as will beoutlined below, it is considered that the two options would result in differing

levels of impact. Furthermore, the LVIA gives little consideration to theproposed temporary construction compounds.

24


25/216

6.30 Turning to landscape impact, it is apparent that the substation and one of thepotential options for the construction compound would occupy areas of thelandscape that would be exposed and readily visible. The submitted plansshow that the substation would be in an area of the site that is alreadyelevated above the boundary shared between the open space and former

campsite. The submitted information states that land levels would be raisedfurther to provide a level building area, which would result in the floor level ofthe substation being 4m above the ground level of the Flowers Brook openspace. It should be noted that the substation shown within the submitted plansis a worst case scenario and that detailed design, scale and micro siting wouldbe reserved matters. However, it is considered that the presence of a buildingin this location, in an area that is clearly visible from the open space andbeyond the general building line for the area, would result in a greater level ofimpact than that apportioned within the applicant’s LVIA.

6.31 Little justification has been given within the LVIA with respect to the

conclusions for landscape impact however, the visual section does refer to thepresence of screening, the domestic scale of the proposed substation and thefact that only a small portion of the view would be affected. While thesubstation would benefit from some of the existing screening that occupies theboundary of the open space and the former campsite, it is noted that tofacilitate the development some of the trees and shrubs would need to beremoved. While mitigation screening could be provided, it is considered thatthe presence of a large-scale building in an elevated and exposed position andin an area that is well beyond the existing pattern of development for the areawould result in an urbanising impact on an area that appears open and scenic.

6.32 While the presence of the Southern Water pump station is noted, this buildingis located further north and benefits from the backdrop of the high, woodedroadside bank which is to the rear of the building. The backdrop of the bankand the presence of screening assisting in reducing the impact of the pumpstation and preventing its form from punctuating ridgelines viewed from theopen space. In contrast, the substation proposed for option 1 would punctuatean elevated ridgeline in an area that is beyond the pattern of development inthis location. As a result, Officers consider that the introduction of a substationand the associated equipment and enclosures would result in a moderate levelof impact within an area of the landscape that is of medium sensitivity to

change. Therefore, it is considered that this proposal would result in asignificant impact that would harm landscape character. Given that theproposed substation would occupy this site for 25 years, this is considered tobe a long-term impact.

6.33 The proposed construction compounds would result in a temporary impact ofbetween 12 to 18 months. One of the construction compounds would belocated within the former campsite and it is considered that this would result ina limited level of landscape impact. Because the former campsite dips awayfrom the open space and coastal slope, the compound would occupy a lowland level and benefit from the screening affects of landscaping and banks in

the foreground. Partial views of the compound would be possible fromSteephill Road, but these would be dappled by existing trees and short in

25


26/216

duration. The compound would comprise a large footprint but structures andequipment within it would be low scale and it is noted that following thecompletion of the construction phase, the land would be returned to its formerstate. Therefore, the landscape impact of this compound would not besignificant.

6.34 Option 1 also shows that a smaller rectangular compound may be providedalongside Steephill Road, within the north western section of the site. Thisarea of the site is partially screened and while the roadside bank is lower inthis location, the presence of screening and the low scale temporary nature ofthe compound would prevent it from being harmful.

6.35 The final location for the construction compound for option 1 is shown to bewithin the public open space. The compound would extend 33m into the openspace and occupy much of its most open and prominent area. This wouldresult in a significant incursion into the open area of landscape and change its

appearance from an attractive area of open space. Officers consider that thelandscape impact of this option would be major and while for a period of 12 to18 months, result in a significant and harmful impact to a key and visualprominent area of the open space. It is considered that given the potential foran alternative and more acceptable location for the construction compound,the use of the open space should be resisted.

Option 2

6.36 The submitted plans for option 2 show three sub-options for the proposedsubstation. However, all three would be located alongside the northernboundary of the site and to the west of the Southern Water Pump Station. Again, the plans depict the worst case scenario for the development and as aresult, it should be noted that the final design and scale for the substation maywell be reduced.

6.37 The Officer site inspection showed that this area of the application site is wellscreened from the open space and from Steephill Road. The presence of thetrees that surround the southern and western boundaries of the SouthernWater pump station would assist in screening the proposed substation fromthe public open space. Furthermore, when seen from the open space, thesubstation would be seen at a greater distance and within the backdrop of the

tree lined bank that forms the northern boundary of the site and in the contextof the existing dwellings within Steephill Road.

6.38 The roadside bank recedes in height to the west, however, at the point of theproposed substation the bank would be of sufficient height to combine withtrees and the 2.4m high roadside hedge to satisfactorily screen the proposedsubstation from Steephill Road and to provide a backdrop into which todevelopment would blend. While in the case of all three options the substationwould be visible, it is considered that the development would blend into thebank while also relating more readily to the existing buildings that alignSteephill Road. In contrast to the site for option 1, this site relates more readily

to the established building line the fronts onto Steephill Road and it is notedthat the existing pump station to the east and house to the west would provide

26


27/216

a developed context within which the proposed substation would be sited. As aresult, the site for option 2 is less exposed and in an area of lower land levels.

6.39 Options 2A and 2B would comprise flat roofed buildings and because thecontrol room would be located within the existing Southern Water compound,

the footprint of the development would be 12m further east than that of thelarger, gabled design option. This would allow the development to be situatedin an area that is aligned by the higher sections of the roadside bank, whichwould provide greater screening. Because buildings would be flat roofed, theywould have a lower visual impact. Officer site inspections have shown that thefloor level of the substation etc shown for options 2A and 2B would bebetween 2m and 3.4m below the adjacent road and given the height of theroadside hedge, it is apparent that the development would be well screened.While these options would be preferable in impact terms, as discussed above,Officers do not object to the larger gabled building that is also proposed. Thiswould be a more aesthetically acceptable design approach that would better

reflect the appearance of the nearby Southern Water building and nearbydwellings.

6.40 The submitted plans for option 2 show a single location for the proposedconstruction compound. This would be located within the former campsite andas stated above in relation to option 1, it is considered that this would result ina limited level of landscape impact. Because the former campsite dips awayfrom the open space and coastal slope, the compound would occupy a lowland level and benefit from the screening affects of landscaping and banks inthe foreground. Partial views of the compound would be possible fromSteephill Road, but these would be dappled by existing trees and short in

duration. The compound would comprise a large footprint but structures andequipment within it would be low scale and it is noted that following thecompletion of the construction phase, the land would be returned to its formerstate. Therefore, the landscape impact of this compound would not besignificant.

The impact of the proposed cable routes

6.41 The submitted information shows that the proposed substation would be linkedto the offshore renewable energy development via buried cables. Threepotential techniques are being considered for the installation of the proposedcables and these would involve trenching, Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)and the use of an existing outfall pipe. A fourth potential option is a mix of theproposed trenching and the use of the outfall pipe.

6.42 The open trench technique would involve excavating either a single 3m widetrench or two 1.5m wide trenches that would measure 1 to 1.5m in depth. Again, it should be noted that these measurements represent a worst casescenario. Two potential routes for the cables have been proposed dependanton which of the two proposed substations would be built, however in eachcase the cables would terminate at Castle Cove. The trenches would be

backfilled and the land restored to its previous state once the cables werecompleted.

27


28/216

6.43 For option 1, the trenches would run south west from the substation, aligningthe route of the public footpath that runs alongside the western boundary ofthe Flowers Brook open space. For option 2, the trenches would run souththrough the grounds of the former camp site and then down the coastal slopeto the transition pits at Castle Cove. Officers consider that the trenches would

have a minimal landscape impact once completed. The only visible elementsof the trenches would be the covers for the transition pits at Castle Cove.These would be located in a triangular area of costal gravel between theconcrete footpath and rock armour. While the pity covers would be visible, theywould be seen within the context of the already engineered coastal defencesin this area and have a minor impact. The land above the remainder of thetrenches would be returned to its former state following completion andtherefore, the impact would be temporary and reversible.

6.44 The submitted information shows that the proposed HDD technique wouldresult in limited landscape and visual impacts. A drilling rig would be provided

within the proposed temporary construction compound and this wouldexcavate three 0.7m diameter ducts that would measure up to 3091m long butbe below ground and result in a limited landscape and visual impact. The keyimpact would arise during the construction phase while the drilling rig wouldoccupy the site. However, once constructed the impact of this technique wouldbe limited to inspection covers close to the substations. As a result, there is noobjection to this technique in respect of landscape and visual impact.

6.45 To utilise the existing Southern Water outfall pipe, limited excavations wouldbe required to link the cables from the proposed substation options to theexisting underground pipe work. The submitted plans show that theexcavations would be limited and once covered over the only evidence of thecable route would be inspection covers. However, these would mirror those ofthe existing Southern Water pump station and have a limited impact.

6.46 It is Officer’s opinion that the landscape and visual impact of the cable routeswould be minimal and temporary. It is apparent the HDD technique and use ofthe existing outfall pipe would result in minor impacts with little excavationrequired. While the proposed trenching technique would result in excavationsbetween the proposed substations and the shoreline at Castle Cove, thephysical impact of the works would be confined to the construction process

and once completed, the land would be returned to its existing condition. As aresult, it is considered that the installation of the cable routes would result inminor landscape impacts that would not harm the character of the area.

The impact of the development on designated areas

6.47 The application site is not within a conservation area nor is it within the AONBor the Heritage Coast. However, the conservation area boundary is adjacent tothe eastern boundary of the site. The area of the proposed substations etc islocated 206m to the east of the AONB and 285m east of the Heritage Coastwhile the landfall location for the export cables is 41m from the AONB and

206m from the Heritage Coast.

28


29/216

6.48 The AONB Partnership has concluded that the proposed development wouldhave little impact upon the AONB due to the topography of intervening landand natural screening. The Officer site inspection showed that the FlowersBrook site occupies a low land level when compared to the developedlocations surrounding it. Because of the development to the west, the natural

screening provided by trees and landscaping and intervening distance, the siteis not readily visible from the AONB. As a result, the proposed substations andconstruction compounds would have no impact on the nearby AONB or theHeritage Coast.

6.49 The Ventnor conservation area boundary aligns the eastern boundary of theFlowers Brook open space. This area of the conservation area forms theCoast and Cliffs character area which is defined by the Council’s conservationarea appraisal as being characterised by a sense of openness with buildingsdominated by the landscape. The appraisal states that the sea is ever presentand that steep cliffs and trees provide green wedges between the developed

terraces.

6.50 It is Officer’s opinion that option 1 of the development would impact on thesetting of the conservation area. The presence of the temporary constructioncompound within the open space would harm an area of open space thatforms part of the views towards the conservation area although the impactwould be temporary and reversible. The proposed substation for option 1would have a less obvious impact on the conservation area. The treescreening and high bank to the east of Flowers Brook would prevent impactson the wider conservation area.

6.51 It is considered that the impact of option 2 on the setting of the conservationarea would be limited. The proposed substation would be located in an area ofthe site that is hard against Steephill Road. The presence of the SouthernWater substation, the screening around it and topography would prevent thesubstation from impacting on the setting of the conservation area. Moreover,the proposed temporary construction compound would occupy a shallow areaof the site that would not be prominent. Given the temporary nature of thisimpact, it is considered that it would not compromise the setting of theconservation area.

6.52 The Flowers Brook open space was once part of the historic Steephill CastleEstate and as a result is locally listed. While it is not formally registered as aHistoric Park or Garden, the Flowers Brook is considered to be a heritageasset given its local listing. The Isle of Wight Gardens Trust has commentedthat any proposals that would not serve to enhance the historic designatedlandscape should be avoided and concluded that the development wouldresult in both temporary and long-term detrimental impacts on the site and thatthey cannot be justified. However, the Garden Trust advised that option 2would have a minimal and acceptable impact on the historic garden.

6.53 Option 1 for the development includes proposals for a temporary site

compound within the Flowers Brook open space with the substation to belocated adjacent to the open space. It is Officer’s opinion that the construction

29


30/216

compound would result in a significant incursion into the open space and harmthe historic character of the locally listed park. It is also considered that theproposed substation for this option would impact on the setting of the park,given its elevated position and proximity to the park. While there are buildingswithin nearby Steephill Road, these are more distant and mitigated by

distance, topography or natural screening. Because the substation would beclose to the western boundary of the park, its open feel would be prejudicedand this would compromise its character.

6.54 However, Officers consider that the proposals for option 2 would notsignificantly alter the setting of the park. This is due to less prominent positionof the proposed substation buildings and construction compound and themitigation offered by existing screening, distance and the backdrop of the bankthat aligns Steephill Road. As a result, the substation and compound would notalter the setting of the park or harm its historic character.

Impact on nearby properties

6.55 The application site is located on the southern side of Steephill Road andadjacent to a low density residential area. There are residential properties tothe north, east and west of the site. Properties to the north align SteephillRoad and are therefore parallel to the northern boundary of the applicationsite. The separation distance between properties parallel to the site and thesubstation for option 1 would range between 60m to 70m and for the option 2substation, between 23m to 36m.

6.56 To the east of the site is a detached bungalow known as Glencliff. Thisproperty is located 92m east of the option 1 substation on a land level that isapproximately 17m higher than the site. The closest property to the west of theproposed development is Flowersbrook, a detached house within the formercampsite. This property is located 20m west of the option 2 substation. It isconsidered that the key impacts on residential amenity would be noise anddisruption caused by the construction works, operational noise associated withthe substation, the electro-magnetic affects of substation equipment and thevisual impact of the development.

6.57 With respect to construction impacts, the submitted information states that thisphase of the development would take between 12 to 18 months to completewith proposed construction hours of 07:00 to 19:00 hours Mondays toSaturdays. It is considered that impacts would relate to the construction of thesubstation buildings and the export cable trenches as well as trafficmovements. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised noobjection to the construction phase but has advised that construction hoursshould be restricted to 08:00 to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to16:00 hours on Saturdays.

6.58 It is considered that the construction of the substations and traffic related to

the development would result in a level of noise and disruption that would becomparable to any typical building scheme. It is considered that provided

30


31/216

hours of construction and traffic movements were restricted to reasonabledaytime hours that such works would not compromise the amenity standardsof nearby dwellings. Officers consider that the applicant’s proposed hours ofconstruction would be excessive and lead to noisy activities taking placeduring quieter periods of the day when background noise levels are lower. As

a result, it is consi

paper b planning meeting june 2015

Documents