Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01257/B Applicant: Department Of Health Proposal: Erection of additional townhouse units for Student Nurse accommodation with access road and car parking (amendment to approved 16/00094/B Student Nurse accommodation) Site Address: Former Union Mills Football Club Playing Fields Ballamona Estate Braddan Road Strang Douglas Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 23.11.2016 Site Visit: 23.11.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 The current application is the third to be submitted for similar development during this year. The main difference between this current scheme and that for which approval was granted under PA 16/00579/B is in the provision of one additional townhouse to provide seven in total - that is, 56 bedrooms overall across the seven proposed Houses in Multiple Occupation - along with an additional six car parking spaces. - 0.2 There were design alterations between the earliest scheme (PA 16/00094/B) and 16/00579/B, but, although the current application makes reference to the earlier scheme in its description, the building proposed under the current application is more similar in appearance to the later of the two schemes.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The site is a specifically defined area, which, until recently, was unused open land alongside existing hospital-related residential accommodation to the south of the Isle of Man Hospital. Construction is currently underway in respect of the planning approvals discussed above. The site lies outwith the Permitted Development Order for Government-Owned Land and is accessed via the hospital roadways - past the helicopter landing pads and the entrance to Accident and Emergency. - 1.2 The access then heads into an area of car parking associated with the existing hospital housing. The existing, southernmost block of housing is clearly visible as one approaches the site from the A23 Mount Rule Road, although the site as a whole disappears behind the existing roadside vegetation as one gets closer to the site. - 1.3 The site used to be Union Mills Football Club's grounds, along with their clubhouse, and has since been developed for hospital housing: the football club has relocated to new grounds on Ballaoates Road to the north of the hospital.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a building accommodating 56 bedrooms with communal lounge and kitchen facilities on each ground floor, arranged over three floors and across in two buildings connected by a communal stair and storage area and arranged as a terrace
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The other applications already mentioned are clearly material to the assessment here. It is therefore worth noting the (identical) conditions attached to these:
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interests of highway safety.
Reason: to accord with the land use designation and to ensure that the car parking provided is appropriate for the level of traffic to be generated by the development.
3.2 The adjacent residential development was approved under PAs 01/00176/B, 01/01872/B, 02/00338/B and 05/92419/B.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 as Ballamona Hospital. - 4.2 As the development is consistent with that which has been approved and which exists alongside, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is considered relevant:
"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:
"The proposal is to amend PA 16/00579/B by providing an additional block of accommodation in the form of a terraced town house, additional car parking spaces, a refuse collection facility, relocation of the cycle shelter and additional footpath provision.
"The additional accommodation and car parking meet appropriate standards and the provision of additional pedestrian provision is welcomed.
"Highway Services does not oppose this application."
Reason: to ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interests of highway safety.
6.1 The issues in this case are whether or not the proposed development would have any impact on the living conditions of those in the existing adjacent housing, whether or not there is sufficient car parking to service the development, whether or not the means of access is acceptable, and whether or not the development would have an acceptable visual impact on the surrounding area in general. The two recent applications on the site represent a material consideration, and their assessment dealt with a number of these matters. It is therefore worth noting the case officer's assessment of these issues, bearing in mind that "the previous scheme" is PA 16/00094/B:
"The new building will be 20m from the facade of the residential building to the north west and separated by the proposed gardens providing, arguably a better outlook for those in the existing adjacent housing than looking out over a road and car park as it would have in the previous scheme, although this was not considered unacceptable. This provides for the minimum amount of separation required to prevent issues of privacy and amenity being adversely affected. The proposal makes provision for replacement car parking. As such it is not considered that the proposal will adversely affect the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
"The proposal would usually be expected to provide one space per bedroom and the proposal involves fewer than this. However, the applicant has indicated that car usage tends to be lower in this sort of housing as the place of employment is within very convenient walking distance of the housing which is also next to a public transport route. The main town (Douglas) is also within convenient cycling distance. It is relevant that there is no objection to the application from Department of Infrastructure Highway Services.
"The top of the building will be visible as one approaches the site from the west as it will be 2m taller than the existing residential accommodation to the west - very similar to what already has approval under PA 16/00094/B. However, there is no context in which the building is set which would impose a maximum height and just because the building will be taller than its neighbour does not result in an adverse visual impact. The building will contrast with its gable ends compared with the hips of the adjacent building and provide an interesting roofscape. The different elevational materials will add further interest to the group as viewed from closer up.
"The provision of additional living accommodation for those working at the hospital will add to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Island's main hospital and it is considered that there are no adverse impacts as a result and the application is recommended for approval. There are no conditions imposed upon the other units of accommodation alongside to restrict them to occupancy in conjunction with the hospital. However, given that the site is designated as hospital and that there is a reduced level of car parking proposed for the units, on the basis of the proximity of the source of employment of the occupants, and that there may well be further phases of housing development alongside, it is important that the occupation of the housing is restricted to those employed at the hospital in order to ensure that there is sufficient car parking available for those
living on the site and to avoid overspill on to the hospital roads which are required at all times for access by emergency vehicles."
6.2 The current application essentially retains the site layout as approved under 16/00579/B and to which the above assessment relates, and moreover retains the architectural style, finishes and massing of that building. Accordingly, in view of the fact that there have been no changes in the Development Plan or any other circumstances that should warrant a different decision being reached, the main issues for assessment here are whether or not the additional townhouse, six parking spaces and refuse storage area would fundamentally alter that conclusion. - 6.3 The approved building has a neat symmetry to it, and this would be lost under the current scheme. However, the overall form and massing of the building would be retained and there is also the argument that one of the 'blocks' within the body of the building would have its own symmetry. Overall, while the previous scheme is considered to have a more coherent design approach, that which is proposed here is not inappropriate and nor, for the reasons outlined in the previous case officer's assessment, could it be considered out of keeping with the surroundings. - 6.4 The additional six parking spaces would be added to the forecourt that already has approval. While the continual addition to this area of hardstanding might eventually come to have a harmful impact on the character of the area, this could very likely be ameliorated through appropriate planting. As landscaping has previously been identified as key to the scheme's success, it is reasonable to conclude that future applications could address this matter. In any case, the visual impact from the parking spaces is not considered reason enough to refuse the application. - 6.5 There would also be sufficient parking spaces to cater for the additional eight bedrooms, with the additional six being a proportionally larger number than previously applying across the site. The conditions required by Highway Services previously should be again attached on this occasion even if they have not been sought on this occasion. - 6.6 The removal of bin storage from within the proposed building is unfortunate inasmuch as the already approved solution reflects best practice by ensuring that domestic refuse storage is kept as easily accessible to dwellings as possible while also remaining as visually unobtrusive as possible. Moreover, the storage of refuse bins in a single, communal area such as this can result in an unpleasant piece of built environment: dark, damp, and liable to provide unpleasant odours, such areas rarely offer a positive feature to a development scheme. This is particularly true when they are in fairly prominent positions such as is proposed here. However, three trees are shown in front of the proposed refuse shelter, though, and this will certainly soften its appearance. Equally, the success of such shelters are also often down to the quality, material and colour of the finish, and it could well be that that proposed here will be well-considered. As no drawing has been provided showing the shelter, no view can be reached on this now, but despite the concern outlined above it is not considered that this approach is unacceptable in principle. A high quality finish for the refuse shelter is considered necessary in what has been concluded to be a well-designed residential development overall. To this end, a condition is recommended requiring a drawing be provided showing the proposed shelter: it would ideally be formed in materials to match the building or reflect the treed nature of the wider area. - 6.7 The comments of the MUA are noted. They raise no objection to the proposal (and have not commented on either of the previous, similar schemes here), and nor do they request their comments be treated as some requiring a condition, and therefore no such condition is recommended.
7.1 Subject to the condition list as set out at paragraph 3.1 of this report, and the additional condition as set out in paragraph 6.6, it is recommended that the application be approved. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.12.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interests of highway safety.
Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
Reason: To accord with the land use designation and to ensure that the car parking provided is appropriate for the level of traffic to be generated by the development.
Reason: The refuse shelter is located in a prominent position and an inappropriate design could undermine the success of the overall development.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings SC1435/P/00-01, SC1435/P/00-02, SC1435/P/00-10, SC1435/P/10-01, SC1435/P/10-02, SC1435/P/10-10, SC1435/P/10-11, SC1435/P/12-01, SC1435/P/12-02, SC1435/P/12-10 and SC1435/P/12-11, all date-stamped as having been received 9th November 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 13.12.2016 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
