Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS PREVIOUS RELEVANT APPLICATIONS FOR THIS SITE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.
1.1 The application seeks approval of a reserved matters application for the erection of a dwelling in a residential area. The application follows the approval in principle planning application which was granted approval under PA 12/00771/A in 2012.
2.1 The application site is the south eastern half of the curtilage of a property called Clarecourt, Marathon Road, Douglas. The site has a frontage onto Victoria Road, mature trees along its side boundaries and is currently open onto the remainder of the rear garden of Clarecourt.
3.1 The application seeks approval of the reserved matters for the erection of a dwelling. The dwelling would be two storey in height with a single storey attached garage.
3.2 The dwelling would have a pitched roof and would directly face onto the highway which the garage set 5 metres in front of the front building line. Also proposed is the erection of an attached garage to the rear elevation of the property with a detached garage and greenhouse to the northwest part of the garden.
3.3 The proposed dwelling would be finished in a painted sand/cement render with slate tiles to the roof and timber framed windows throughout. The main windows would be in the front and rear elevations, with limited windows in the south west elevation and no windows in the north east elevation.
3.4 There would be an area of hard standing to the front of the property for parking and manoeuvring.
4.1 The following applications are considered relevant to the determination of this proposal:
4.1.1 PA 12/00771/A: Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling. This previous planning application was approved subject to conditions including one that required the reserved matters to demonstrate how the trees to be retained should be protected.
4.1.2 PA 10/00003/B - Creation of hard standing and vehicular access onto Victoria Road. This application was refused by the Planning Committee and this decision was upheld on appeal for the following reason:
"The proposed vehicular access would be contrary to General Policy 2, Transport Policy 4 and 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that:
1) the proposed vehicular access provides for no visibility of the adjacent footpath and would therefore present a serious risk of harm to pedestrian safety; and
2) the proposed vehicular access would result in vehicles overhanging the footway and main carriageway, which will result in vehicles that use Victoria Road having to manoeuvre around the vehicle entering and exiting the site, which will be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic."
4.1.3 PA 10/01277/B - Creation of hard standing and vehicular access onto Victoria Road. This application was refused by the Planning Committee for the following reasons:
"Whilst the access is designed to meet highway standards, due to its location on a busy road, with cars parked directly opposite, the proposal would be likely to give rise to increased conflicts for highway users and thereby greater interruption to the safe and free flow of traffic.
"The proposed works required to create the access, being a reduction in the height of the wall and the gap created in an otherwise continuous frontage, would be harmful to visual amenities and detrimental to the character of the area."
However, this decision was overturned on appeal and the application was approved. The Inspector presiding over the appeal made the following comments:
"My colleague [the Inspector who considered the appeal for 10/00003/B] considered the principle of access at this point and did not find any objection, provided the shortcomings of that design were addressed. Amendments have been made to the satisfaction of the Highways Division. The Planning Committee has however refused permission on highway grounds but has provided no evidence or witness at the inquiry to support their view. That is unreasonable, and gives no reason to refuse permission in this case.
With regard to the impact of the proposal on the street scene, the alterations would not be a break in a continuous wall, but a change to a walled frontage of varying heights and finishes, with breaks in it at various points. I agree that the access would make a change in character, since it requires the gate to be set back. Bearing in mind that this locality has no special protection, I am not convinced that the appeal proposal would be a harmful change to the street scene."
4.1.4 PA11/01484/A - Approval in principle for the erection of two semi detached dwellings with attached garages and one detached dwelling with an integral garage, 16 & 16A Marathon Road, Douglas (this is the site to the immediate north of the application site). This application was refused for the following reasons:
"The proposal would represent inappropriate backland development which would result in a poor standard of amenity for the proposed properties, contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
"The proposed layout would have an unacceptable impact upon the streetscene of Marathon Road in that in order to provide an access to the property to the rear, the proposed semi-detached houses would have to be orientated so as to be gable end on to the highway. This would fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, specifically parts (b) and (c)."
"The development would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of Clarecourt due to the proximity of the proposed semi-detached dwellings to the south eastern boundary of the site. As such the proposal would fail to comply with General Policy 2 part (g)."
"As far as it can be ascertained from the information submitted, it would not be possible to provide the required visibility sprays at the proposed access and as such the development would prejudice highway safety contrary to Transport Policy 4."
5.1 The application site is located within an area that is designated as being Predominantly Residential use by the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 Map No. 2 (South).
5.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains seven policies that are considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
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."
Strategic Policy 5 states: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
General Policy 2:
23 September 2013 13/00755/REM Page 3 of 8
"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:
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:
Transport Policy 4:
"The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
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." Appendix 7 sets out the parking standards for different types of development. For typical residential: "2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the current planning application. 23 September 2013 13/00755/REM Page 4 of 8
6.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have no objection.
6.3 The Isle of Man Water & Sewerage (WASA) have no objection to the planning application subject to the proposed dwelling must be connected to the public sewers and there must be no discharge of surface water from this proposed development to any foul drainage system.
6.4 The Manx Electricity Authority (MEA) request that the M.E.A. Planning Department are contacted to discuss the electricity supply for this application.
7.1 The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) were contacted regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the trees within the immediate vicinity and in relation to Condition 5 of the approval of PA 12/00771/A. DEFA have confirmed that the trees will be afforded sufficient protection and should the application be approved, a condition placed on the approval stating that the trees are to be protected according to Drawing no. 5/558/4 (B).
8.1 The site has an extant planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling. This application seeks approval for the reserved matters which is the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building, internal layout, and means of access and landscaping of the site.
8.2 The proposed dwelling would be two storey in height and would stretch the width of the application site. There is a mixture of properties within the locality of different form, design and appearance. Adjacent to the site are two 2 and 2.5 storey apartment buildings with a three storey residential home located 12+ metres opposite the application site.
8.3 The neighbouring site has approval for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling with a new access onto Victoria Road which would adjoin the proposed access for the new dwelling to rear of Clarecourt. The approved dwelling under PA 13/00304/B would have a maximum roof ridge height of 7.8 metres, the dwelling proposed under this scheme would have a maximum roof ridge height of 9.5 metres and would be erected directly on the boundary to the boundary of the previously approved dwelling.
8.4 Drawing Number 5/558/4(B) would suggest that the only boundary treatment between the application site and land to the rear of 16 & 16A Marathon Road would be a 2 metre high timber fence to the north west of the site protruding from the proposed conservatory and wailing to the south protruding from the front elevation of the proposed dwelling. It would therefore be suggested that the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling would form the boundary to the adjacent site to the south east. Therefore, given the proposed height and depth of the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling, the development would appear as an overbearing feature to the residents of the approved dwelling that would be sited 2.1 metres from the proposed dwelling and would consequently have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the future residents of the neighbouring property.
8.5 With regards to the neighbouring apartment block to the south west of the application site, the proposed windows in the south west elevation would look onto the existing tree boundary and would therefore not impact on the residential amenity of those residing in the immediate adjacent apartments.
6.6 With regards to the impact of the proposed development on the street scene of Victoria Road, the proposed dwelling would be wholly visible from a public thoroughfare and would be in a very prominent position along Victoria Road. Paragraph 18 of the Case Officers report for PA 12/00771/A read, "The development of the site with a dwelling would change the appearance of the street scene. The impact of such change has been raised as a concern by objectors. The adjacent site has approval for a development of apartments and further up Victoria Road is an apartment block which sits relatively close to the road. It is judged that whilst the proposal would change the appearance of the street scene, it would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area so as to warrant refusal." However, at this stage details of the overall design of the dwelling would not have been submitted and therefore the overall scale and form of development would not have been anticipated.
8.7 Whilst it could be argued that there is a mix of dwellings and buildings in the area one must regard the development within its immediate setting. This proposed development is for a dwelling within an individual plot and therefore must respect the plot it is within and layout and characteristics of existing detached dwellings within the locality which this proposal fails to do so, by reason of i) its layout within the plot and positioning forward of the neighbouring property, and ii) the poor design (proportions, fenestration, height of the ridge line) of the front elevation
8.8 In addition, the massing and scale of the proposed dwelling on the land to the rear of Clarecourt would result in an incongruous form of development and not sympathetic with the locality. The area is characterised by dwellings centrally placed within their individual plot. Under this scheme the proposed dwelling would stretch from the south west to north east boundary and would not follow this existing layout common with the area.
8.9 The access would be created by removing part of the existing walling and vegetation to achieve sufficient visibility sprays. The area of hard standing to the front of the dwelling would be sufficient to provide off road parking for two vehicles and therefore complies with the parking standards set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which requires two parking spaces per residential unit. Access to the site is a matter which has been discussed previously by the Planning Committee and at appeal. The most recent decision which permitted the creation of an access and hardstanding into the site from Victoria Road took into account highway safety and found this to be acceptable. The Highways Division does not object to this application and in light of this it is considered that there are no sustainable grounds to refuse this application on the basis of highway safety. The site is large enough to provide a sufficient amount of off-street car parking.
8.10 With regards to the loss of trees, in principle the loss of trees was not considered a detriment. The Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture stated in PA 12/00771/A stated that whilst the trees afford some visual amenity, the loss of seven trees to this area seems insufficient to prevent the development. An additional drawing has been submitted detailing the mitigation procedures in place to protect the trees which has been examined by DEFA. DEFA have stated that the trees will be afforded sufficient protection
8.11 One should also note the comments received from the Senior Biodiversity officer for previous planning application 12/00771/A who has identified that the proposed development would not represent unwarranted harm to a wildlife corridor.
9.1 Whilst the principle of residential development on this site is acceptable, the scale, form and design of the dwelling proposed is unacceptable and is not considered to respect the site or immediate locality or add positive contribution to the area.
9.2 In addition, the proposed new dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the dwelling to be erected to the rear of 16 & 16A Marathon Road given the proximity and level of development on the north eastern boundary.
9.3 For the above reasons set out above the application is not considered to comply with the provisions set out Strategic Policy 5 or General Policy (b, c and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
10.0 RECOMMENDATION 10.1 It is recommended that the planning application be refused. 11.0 PARTY STATUS
11.1 The local authority, Douglas Borough Council, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
11.2 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.
11.3 It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority The Manx Electricity Authority
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.09.2013 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. By reason of its poor design and layout the proposed development would have a detrimental appearance and a negative impact on the character of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal fails to satisfactorily accord with the provisions of Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2.
The proposed dwelling would cause an unacceptable impact to the residential amenity of the approved proposed dwelling to the rear of 16 - 16A Marathon Road contrary to General Policy part (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of appearing as overbearing given the proximity of siting of the proposed dwelling.
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: [Handwritten: "Issued"] Committee Meeting Date: [Handwritten: "April 2007"]:
Signed: [Handwritten: "R. M. Smith"] Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate.
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
