Isle of Wight classic car enthusiast loses bid to keep garages

The development in Niton is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation

A classic car enthusiast has lost the latest round in his bid to keep two partially-built garages to house his collection of cars and motorbikes.

Martin Cotton had sought retrospective planning permission for the buildings on protected land at Niton on the Isle of Wight.

In its ruling, the council said the garages would have a "significantly harmful impact" on the landscape.

Mr Cotton can appeal otherwise the structures may have to come down.

The site at Niton is part of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

Due to the nature of the area, planning policies say there has to be a specific local need for development.

'Excessive size'

Officers said they noted Mr Cotton's hobby, but the outbuildings would alter the character of the grounds surrounding his property, Bridge Cottage, from domestic to commercial or industrial use.

They observed the design and finish of the garages to appear commercial in nature causing the site to appear out of place, being of "excessive size and scale".

The argument put forward by Mr Cotton for the outbuildings did not outweigh the harm they would cause, the council said.

The council said the buildings would be of excessive size and scale

Previously, the council had been criticised by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for failing to properly assess that the area was a protected site.

The council accepted those findings and apologised.

An ombudsman inspector determined that due to council errors and wrong advice there was more development on the site at Bridge Cottage than might otherwise have occurred, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

Commenting on the ombudsman's report, a council spokesperson said an error with the digital mapping system meant the site was not identified as being within the protected area.

As a result the permitted development rules were misapplied and incorrect advice was given. They said the system had since been corrected.