Loading document...
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
5.9 Access: there is no submission from the Highways Authority and as such, no recommendations can be made regarding the satisfactory nature or otherwise of the proposed means of access.
5.9 In support of the application, the removal of the gas containers and associated buildings will generally result in a significant and positive benefit to the landscape of the area. However, it is considered that the density of development is too great, taking into account the impact on trees, the layout of the public open space and the visual impact of the development. It is recommended that the site is considered suitable for residential development but at a significantly lower density - perhaps three large dwellings, well designed to reflect the attractive and important historical and architectural elements of the Railway Station and the Station Hotel.
7.1 The local authority, Port St. Mary Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
7.3 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture and Department of Social Care are statutory authorities which raises material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status under Article 6(4)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013.
7.4 Manx Utilities Authority does not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this case.
If the application is recommended for approval, the following conditions are recommended to be attached to any decision:
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
It should be noted that in cases where certain elements of the development - in this case affordable housing and public open space - are to be secured by legal agreement, it is usual for this agreement to be in place prior to the issue of any approval.
5.6 The proposal will provide a maximum of 1186 sq m of Public Open Space, under half of the required provision. The applicant has indicated that the development can provide more than the required amount of amenity and children's play space (although the layout seems to indicate that all of the space is in very close proximity to each other and is likely to be all used as play space rather than amenity space which would usually be found in smaller areas within the built development, breaking up the built form and adding visually to the character and appearance of the development). They also indicate that there are formal play facilities in the village in the form of Port St. Mary primary school, the bowling green, Rushen Primary School (most of which, including the buildings is in Rushen, not Port St. Mary) which they feel more than meets the requirement for Formal Open Space.
5.7 It is the case, however that these facilities could be used by every developer of new housing in the area to avoid the provision of additional public open space, and whilst there are limited opportunities for further development in the local area, it is nevertheless relevant to consider whether there is currently sufficient formal open space facilities serving Port St. Mary. No evidence is provided by the applicant, but considering the population of Port St. Mary as somewhere in the region of 2,000 people, the requirement for formal open space is somewhere in the region of 35,000 sq m. In the APS there is a list of community facilities and in the case of Port St. Mary there are the following:
5.8 These areas, excluding the golf course but including the space at Scoill Phurt Le Moirrey, amount to around 48,000 sq m but does include areas which are supposed to be included. As such, it is not considered that the lack of provision of the full amount of public open space in this case would warrant refusal of the application. It is relevant to consider the appropriateness of the open space and it is considered that the close proximity of the open space to the proposed houses is likely to result in nuisance and a potential lack of privacy for those dwellings alongside the public open space and as such the provision of public open space is not considered to be adequate to satisfactorily serve the development.
5.8 The development will retain the majority of trees on the site but it should be noted that the houses on plots 10-23 will have existing trees within metres of their rear elevation, in some cases with the canopies actually touching the rear of the buildings. This is likely not only to impact on the outlook and amenities of those properties but also the future request from occupiers of these buildings, to remove the trees. In this respect it is considered that the plans submitted have not demonstrated satisfactorily that 23 dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site whilst retaining trees of amenity value.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
