Planning Officer Report 09/00821/A

undertaken, to ensure that a soak away system would be possible on this site. This has yet to be done and consequently the matter is being reported again to re-assess the application. ## Site The site represents the existing residential curtilage of St Olaves House, Bowring Road, Ramsey, located south of St Olaves House and to the west of Bowring Road. ### Land Use Zoing / Planning Policies The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'predominately residential use' under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area. This planning application is being reported to the Planning Committee as a result of the objection from Ramsey Town Commissioners. The following policies are therefore considered relevant in the consideration of this application: - Ramsey local Plan 1998 - Planning Circular 2/99; - The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) ### Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." ### General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (1) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14." Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." Ramsey Local Plan - Policy R/R/P3: Infill/Backland Sites:- "Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such sites should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to the submission of any application." PLANNING HISTORY The application site has been the subject of one previous planning application that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:- Approval in principle to erect a detached dwelling - 09/00455/A - Part Of Garden At St Olaves House - APPROVED Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - 06/01416/A - Part Of Garden At St Olaves House - APPROVED PROPOSAL The application seeks approval for the approval in principle to erect a dwelling south of St Olaves House. ## Representations The Ramsey Commissioners have objected on the following grounds:- "As the area of land presently occupied by St Olaves House is subject to an ongoing planning application for another dwelling to the east of the existing property, it is considered that this application is premature. This proposal is deemed to be a tandem development utilising an existing driveway and vehicular access onto Bowring Road which is considered to be in a hazardous situation being near to the Jurby Road junction. Concerns have previously been expressed in terms of the land stabilisation to the west of the site which may have a detrimental effect on the site of this proposed dwelling. This proposal would constitute an over intensive use of the site and would reduce considerably the private amenity space to St Olaves House." The Strategic Plan on Policies 1, 2 Strategic Policies 1 & 2 and on Housing Policy 4 directs new housing development towards existing towns and settlements. The site is joined for residential development in the Railway local Plan, therefore there is a presumption in favour of development. Policy R/R 183 seeks to protect from development sites which provide natural breeding spaces between buildings. These sites often include trees, mature landfills, or simply green space. The impact of any development on neighbour amenities, amenities for public occupier and parent/highway items should also be considered. Highways Division do not oppose subject to the following conditions:- "Existing access is to be used for this proposal. This becomes a shared surface; drive will need to be 4.1 metres for the first 6 metres from its junction with a major road. Off street parking arrangements in accordance with IOM Strategic Plan. This can be achieved within land owned by the applicant." The Drainage Division makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice. The Manx Electric Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice. The owner/occupier of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Ballaveare, Braddan, has commented to the application which can be summarised as; the site is within predominately residential use, however might be regarded as backland development, contrary to Environmental Policy 42. ASSESSMENT Dealing with the principle of residential development the site is zoned as predominately residential under the Ramsey Local Plan, therefore the use of the site as residential in principle is acceptable. Regarding policy, the Ramsey Local Plan - Policy R/R/P3: Infill/Backland sites, deals with development within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential use, there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Environmental Policy 42 also deals with "backland development" which has similar concerns to Policy R/R/P3. Whether this site could be regarded as being an attractive natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings, is questionable, given it is overgrown and does not seemed to have had a particular use. Also the site is between residential properties and a woodland, therefore not between two or more residential properties. When deciding whether the proposal is contrary to this policy it is important to consider the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as it has elsewhere within Ramsey, that since the adoption of the Ramsey Local Plan (1st Dec 1998), the Isle of Man Strategic Plan has been adopted (20th June 2007). The Strategic Plan states that new housing development should be provided within existing towns and settlements where zoned for such us (Strategic Policy 1 & 2 & Housing Policy 4). It therefore could be argued that given the site is zoned as predominately residential and is within a town centre that the scheme could be approved under such strategic policies. However, before a decision can be adequately made, it would be appropriate first to consider potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities, amenities for future occupiers and parking/highway issues (General Policy 2), and therefore whether such as site should be regard as backland/infill development as indicated within to Policy R/R/P3 and Environmental Policy 42 and therefore inappropriate for development. As the application is only approval in principle and the indicative plan only shows a footprint, it is not possible to make a full assessment of how the proposal would impact upon the neighbouring properties. The illustrative scheme does indicate that the northern part of the dwelling would be single storey, whilst the southern section would be two storeys, which would take into account the fall of the ground level, to form a lower storey. The properties the proposal could potentially affect are St Olaves House, 53, 51, 49 and 47 Bowring Road. Some consideration also needs to be taken, given permission has also been given in principle for a single dwelling to the northeast of the application site, still within the curtilage of St Olaves House. However, at this stage the siting of the dwelling is indicated to be positioned 30+ metres from the rear elevation of 53 Bowring Road and the proposed northern single storey aspect (probably garage) would be the closest part of the dwelling to St Olaves House. These are considered to be the main aspects for potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities at this stage. However, it is judged that a dwelling could be designed that would have limited impact upon the neighbouring properties given the size of the site and the distance from the neighbouring dwellings. It is also considered that adequate parking and an acceptable amount of external amenity for future occupiers could be provided. Added to this, it is considered St Olaves House will still retain the majority of is rear garden/amenity space, especially as the application site is not currently used as a garden, as it is currently overgrown and unused. Reserved matters would be required to show driveway alterations to comply with the standards indicated by the Highway Division; however, this can be accommodated within the curtilage of the site. The proposal will increase disturbance to the occupiers of St Olaves House and to the proposed new dwelling, given additional vehicular traffic too and from the site and general noises associated with residential properties. However, given the proposal is for only a single dwelling and not a number of dwellings, it is not considered the proposal would result in a significant disturbance upon residential amenities to the neighbouring properties. The Forestry Division have visited the site on a number of occasions and discussed the application with the owner. The Forestry Division see no reason to be concerned over the trees on the site(s) with only a minimal amount of judicial remedial pruning on a couple sycamores and removal of some cypresses which are of little value. During his discussion, the owner has confirmed his intentions are to retain all tree specimens to provide/retain a degree of privacy to the proposed houses. The current position of the buildings will result in minimal root damage; but if the footprint of the proposed buildings alter then another visit and assessment will be required. The Forster would only insist that the applicants comply with the British Standard publication "Trees in Relation to Construction" (BS 5837). A condition at a reserved matters stage could require the applicant to discuss with the Forestry Division safeguard the trees during construction. It is therefore considered that at this stage the proposed siting is appropriate, although a condition should be attached requiring a full tree survey to be undertaken and submitted with any future Reserved Matters application. The Commissioners believe that additional vehicular traffic at the access onto Jurby Road would cause a hazardous situation. The proposal would result in an additional single dwelling and therefore give the potential of three dwellings using the entrance. The Highway Division have not objected to these grounds, but have indicated that the first six metres of the driveway (measured form the junction) should be widened to 4.1 so that two cars can pass, and therefore prevent a vehicle waiting on the public highway, for a car existing the site at the same time. It is considered with such a condition in place and as the traffic generated (even with a possibility of three dwellings using the entrance) would be limited, there would not be a significant impact upon highway safety. The Commissioners also raised concerns of the land stabilisation to the west of the site which may have a detrimental effect on the site of this proposed dwelling. This is a valid issue, given the nearby site to the north, which has permission for a number of new apartments, has had issues with the stability of the bank/slope. It is therefore appropriate that a condition requiring a structural report on the stability of the bank be taken and included at a reserved matters application. The Commissioners also raise the issue of a percolation test being undertaken to ensure that a soak away system would be possible on this site. The Planning Authority has sent a number of correspondence requiring the percolation test results, but as of yet, has not received any. The applicant has had since October 2009 to provide such details. General Policy 2 (j) states that any development would be acceptable providing the site "can be provided with all necessary services". It is considered as the requested percolation test has not been submitted to the Planning Authority, it cannot be determined at this stage that a soak away system would be an acceptable for this proposed dwelling. Therefore the scheme would be contrary to General Policy 2 (j) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION Overall, it is considered given no evidence has been submitted to support the proposed soak away system on this site the proposal is contrary to the relevant planning policy. Consequently, the application is recommended for a refusal. PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status: - Ramsey Commissioners - The Drainage Division (Water and Sewerage Authority) It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status: - The Manx Electric Authority The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposal would be contrary to general Policy 2 (j) which seeks to ensure all development can be provided with all necessary servicing. In this case, with no submitted percolation test, the Planning Authority is unable to determine whether the site is capable of development providing the necessary services.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :

Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO