Case Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:325548}} ### Considerations {{table:325545}} ### Written Representations {{table:325546}} ### Consultations {{table:325547}}

Officer's Report

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises a triangular piece of land which forms part of the side garden of a detached dwelling known as Kerrowkeil that is located on Patrick Road, St John’s, Patrick. The site fronts onto Patrick Road and its rear boundary is defined by an access lane serving four residential properties.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the erection of a detached dwelling on the application site.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, one of which is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

1. Planning application 10/01632/B sought planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on the application site. This previous planning application was approved on the 22nd December 2010. However, a subsequent appeal against the approval was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 8th June 2011. The two stated reasons for refusal were:

i) The proposed development would lead to a loss of an important tree, without the possibility of suitable replacement planting, and as such would harm the rural character of

the area in conflict with Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan and the aims of the St John's Local Plan.

ii) The proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site in that provision for car parking behind the frontage could not be achieved, thus conflicting with the requirements of Appendix 7 of the Strategic plan.

A copy of the appeal decision for this previous planning application has been placed on the file for the current planning application.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within an area designated as predominantly residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (St John's Local Plan) Order 1999. Planning Circular 6/99, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.

1. Policy RES/P/5 states:

"With the exception of appropriate extensions and alterations to existing property which will generally be acceptable, outside of development areas 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 new residential development will only be approved where this complies with Planning Circulars 1/88, 3/88 and 3/89."

1. Policy RES/P/6 states:

"No residential development will be permitted where this would adversely affect the existing historic setting of Tynwald Hill and its associated open spaces."

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

1. General Policy 2 states:

"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;
• (l) 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."

1. Environment Policy 42 states:

"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."

1. Transport Policy 7 states:

"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

The car parking standard for typical residential development under Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is two spaces per unit with at least one of those being retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.

Representations

1. Patrick Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no comment to make on the planning application.

1. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.

1. The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application. The grounds of their interest does not relate to any material planning consideration.

1. The owners and/or occupants of Kionsleiu, which is located to the north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal unduly harms the rural character of the area, that inadequate parking provision is provided and that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site. They refer to the conclusions of previous planning application 10/01632/B and suggest that the two reasons for refusal of this previous planning application have not been satisfactorily addressed.

1. The owners and/or occupants of Ballavargher Cottages, which is located to the north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal represents overdevelopment harmful to the character of the area and that it will cause consequential parking and highway safety issues.

Assessment

1. The planning application seeks planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on the application site. The proposed development comprises a two-storey dwelling of generally traditional design that is positioned on the site to provide four on-site car parking spaces, two of which are behind the front of the dwelling.

1. Before any assessment of the proposal is made it is appropriate to discuss whether the planning application should be considered given the refusal of previous planning application 10/01632/B earlier this year. Specifically, under the provisions of Article 4. (4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 the Planning Committee can decline to consider a planning application that is considered to be substantially the same as a planning application that has been refused within the previous five years. However, in this instance as the development proposed by the current planning application is materially different to that refused under the previous planning application and changes have been made that specifically attempt to address the two reasons for refusal of the previous planning application it is concluded to be appropriate to consider the planning application.

1. Turning to the assessment of the proposed development it is necessary to first consider the principle of development. If the principle of development is accepted it is then necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on public amenity, private amenity and highway safety.

1. The issue of the principle of the residential development of the application site was specifically discussed by the appointed Planning Inspector in their conclusions on the appeal against previous planning application 10/01632/B. Following discussion of this issue in preceding paragraphs the appointed Planning Inspector stated at paragraph 24 of their report that "I conclude that there should be no outright bar on the development of the site which involves a single dwelling within the development areas of the plan." As there are no material grounds to disagree with this view it

is concluded that the principle of the residential development of the application site is acceptable. It is therefore necessary to consider the site specific impacts of the proposed development.

1. In terms of impact on public amenity it is inevitable that the construction of a dwelling on the application site will change the character of the existing street scene. However, it is considered that the change in street scene resulting from the proposal would not cause a level of adverse harm that would warrant refusal of the planning application on such basis. One of the two reasons for refusal of previous planning application 10/01632/B related to the then proposed removal of tree and the harmful effect this would have on the character of the area. The layout of the development proposed by the current planning application has been revised so that the tree is no longer removed as part of the development. The only development proposed within immediate proximity of the main stem of this tree is hardstanding forming part of the on-site car parking provision. As confirmed by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's Forestry Directorate (see Peter Kennan's email of 16th September 2011 on application file) this element of proposed development should not adversely affect the health of the tree as there should be minimal excavation (i.e. no foundations). Whilst there may be a need to prune or limb this tree in the future it has to be borne in mind that as the tree is not Registered any such pruning or limbing would not require prior approval. Taking this into account it is concluded that the planning application addresses this previous reason for refusal. Overall, the proposed dwelling will appear as a detached dwelling within an existing group of detached dwelling, the overall general appearance and character does not unacceptably change. It is appropriate to impose a condition relating to the provision of appropriate protection measures for the tree during construction of the development.

1. With regards to impact on private amenity it can be seen that the closest existing dwelling to the proposed dwelling would be Kerrowkeil. The separation distance between the two dwellings is 4.5 metres, which represents an increase of 0.5 metres on the separation distance proposed under previous planning application 10/01632/B. As the distance between these two dwellings was not specifically raised as an issue within the overall assessment of the previous planning application and that the proposed dwelling contains no windows within this respective elevation it is considered that such arrangement is acceptable. The distance between the proposed dwelling and other existing dwellings within the surrounding area is sufficient to ensure that respective private amenity is not unduly harmed. As with the previous planning application the proposed dwelling has been designed to have a shallow pitch roof and has no first floor windows to its rear elevation. The roof lights within the rear roof slope, which provide light to en-suite bathrooms and dressing rooms, do not raise any reasonable overlooking issues. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development does not unacceptably harm the private amenity of existing dwellings within the surrounding area.

1. As for impact on highway safety the two main considerations are the provisions of adequate on-site car parking provision and the effect on the adjacent highway. In terms of this development, under the provisions of Transport Policy 7 and associated Appendix 7 the relevant car parking standard is a minimum of two spaces with at least one of those being retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. The planning application proposes four on-site car parking spaces, two of which are located behind the front of the dwelling. The proposal therefore meets the relevant requirement and in doing so addresses the second reason for refusal of the previous planning application. It is noted that an objection to the planning application has been made on the basis that the width of the spaces is substandard. This objection is not accepted as the width of the spaces meets the minimum standard of 2.4 metres normally accepted by the Planning Authority and Highway Authority. Whilst wider spaces may be preferable it would be unreasonable to refuse the planning application on the basis of simply preferring wider spaces when the minimum accepted standard has been met. As for the effect of the proposed development the adjacent highway it is concluded that the provided visibility is acceptable, a stance that is supported by the representation from the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division.

1. The proposal is not considered to affect any other obvious material planning consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

1. It is recommended that the planning application be approved.

PARTY STATUS

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

Patrick Parish Commissioners (automatic status as local authority); The owners and/or occupants of Kionsleiu (close enough to be potentially unduly affected by proposal); and The owners and/or occupants of Ballavargher Cottages (close enough to be potentially unduly affected by proposal).

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:

The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division (same department as Planning Authority); and The Manx Electricity Authority (none material planning consideration).

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.09.2011

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

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval relates to drawing no.s 01, 02 and 03 date stamped the 24th August 2011.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the dwelling the existing Ash tree located on the southern boundary of the application site must be protected by appropriate fencing to protect against damage during the course of construction. The means of fencing and subsequent protection should follow the recommendations contained within British Standard 5837:2005 - Trees and Construction.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 23.09.2011

Signed: Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate

Signed: Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager