Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01854/A Applicant: Mr David Corris Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of two blocks of six apartments to replace existing dwelling Site Address: 16 & 16A Marathon Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4HL Considerations Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer Written Representations Clarecourt Marathon Road Douglas Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Inglenook Marathon Road Douglas Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal 52 Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4HQ Objects to the proposal Chapel House Marathon Road Douglas Objects to the proposal 56 Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4HQ Objects to the proposal Consultations Consultee: Manx Electricity Authority Notes: Comments received Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Comments received Consultee: Douglas Corporation Notes: 31 January 2011 10/01854/A Page 1 of 9 Consultee : Department Of Social Care - Housing Notes: Affordable Housing Memo sent 24.12.10 PT
The application site represents the residential curtilage of 16 and 16A Marathon Road, which located on the south eastern side of Marathon Road. The application site is zoned as predominantly residential in the Douglas Local Plan 1998. To the southwest of the application site is the residential property of Clarecourt and to the northeast is the residential property of The Chapel House. To the southeast of the application site is the public highway of Victoria Road. The ground level of the application site falls substantially from Marathon Road to Victoria Road.
The application is seeking an approval in principle for the erection of two blocks of six apartments to replace the existing dwellings. The application is not proposing to discharge any reserved matters; however, an indicative plan has been provided showing the potential layout of the development.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2, Housing Policies 5 and 6, Recreation Policy 3 and 4, Transport Policies 1, 4 and 7
Housing Policy 5 states that "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."
Housing Policy 6 states that "Development of land which zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
Recreation Policy 3 states that "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."
Recreation Policy 4 states that "Open space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport."
Transport Policy 4 states that "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to 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 that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
There are previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
05/92258 /B - Alterations, erection of a first floor extension over existing bedroom to provide additional bedroom and bathroom and enlarge existing vehicular access - granted 16th February 2006
97/00918/A - Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling, site to rear of 16 and 18 Marathon Road - refused at review on 8th October 1997
Douglas Corporation have not commented on the application. Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure have made the following comments: "Although this is an approval in principle, the Division has to be satisfied that the development can be safely accessed from the public highway and that the required parking standards can be met. Design guidance is available in the DoI document Manx Roads." "The existing access is not suitable for the increased traffic flow that will result from the application. The application has not demonstrated that a suitable access with the required visibility can be achieved. This site has an inclined access to the highway and there is no information with the application to establish the extent of this incline and its effect on the visibility attainable. A scaled plan is requited showing vertical and horizontal visibility achievable." "Depending on the size of the apartments there is a requirement for between 12 and 24 car parking spaces along with access for service vehicles. The application has not demonstrated that the site can accommodate the required car parking and servicing." "The Division request that the application is deferred until the relevant information is provided" "If the application is to be approved the following conditions should be included:
The occupier of 56 Victoria Road has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) overdevelopment of the site; 2) concerned that a similar development could occur with Clarecourt if planning permission is granted for a vehicular access onto Victoria Road.
The occupiers of Inglenook, Marathon Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Increased parking within the area; 2) The character of the area will also be considerably changed by these developments, as the area is suburban and not an area of high-density housing; 3) Views from all the properities on the west side of Marathon Road will presumably suffer substantial loss of sea views and probably light from more blocks of flats; 4) Blocks of flats springing up will presumably lower the market values of the houses around; 5) There can surely be no need for more blocks of flats in Douglas?
The occupier of Clarecourt, Marathon Road has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Insufficient information to allow proper appraisal, particularly with regard to parking and access provisions; 2) Loss of privacy; 3) No proper consideration has been given to protect boundary trees; 4) There has been no consultation with them as adjoining landowner.
The occupier of The Chapel House has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) The scale of the development is totally out of character with the current properties on the street; 2) loss of property value; 3) Loss of views; 4) Loss of light; 5) Increased on-street parking.
The occupiers of No. 52 Victoria Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the site is too small to build two blocks housing 6 apartments, 2) Three storeys plus roof would tower
and shadow over their property, 3) Loss of light and privacy, 4) bring to the attention of the Committee that the application began clearing the site of trees and bushes some time last year and the opening of an access has caused severe problem for traffic flow on Victoria Road.
Mrs. B. Cannell MHK has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the development would dominate the site and tower above Victoria Road and neighbouring properties, 2) overintensive use of the site and inappropriate for the area and would seriously damage the general street scene of Victoria Road.
Standard comments have been received from the Manx Electricity Authority.
The principal issues in assessing this application are a) Land use, b) Highway issues and parking provision, c) Living conditions for the future occupiers and the neighbouring properties d) Amenity space and open space provision, e) Affordable Housing and f) Visual impact. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail.
The development is compatible with the land use zoning of the area, which is predominantly residential within the Douglas Local Plan. It is considered the principle of developing the site for residential to be acceptable in this locality; however, there are other material considerations to be taken into account in order to determine whether the proposed development is acceptable.
In respect of the car parking provision for the new apartments, the indicative plans do not show how many parking spaces will be provided on site. However, from calculating how many spaces could be accommodated within the space provided, it is considered the parking area would be able to provide a maximum of 6 car parking spaces. It is important to consider the requirements of Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." Any new apartments have to be assessed against a standard of 1 space for 1 bedroom apartments and 2 spaces for 2 or more bedroom apartments. This application does not provide any indication of how many bedrooms will be provided within the development. However, it is still possible to estimate the minimum number of spaces for a development of this scale. If all of the apartments were to be one bedroom apartments, then 12 car parking spaces would need to be provided. However, if all the apartments were to be two bedroom apartments, the maximum number of car parking spaces for the development would be 24 spaces. Based on this assessment, there would be a shortfall of between 6 - 18 car parking spaces, which would have to be accommodated somewhere else. This would most likely be the public highway of Marathon Road.
On that basis, it is considered the proposed development would not be able to provide a satisfactory level of car parking within the development. Therefore, the future occupiers of the buildings would have to rely on parking on the public highway which will lead to an increased demand for on-street spaces and will lead to increased noise and general disturbance to the existing residents of Marathon Road.
In respect of the access arrangement, the Highways Division have indicated that "The existing access is not suitable for the increased traffic flow that will result from the application. The application has not demonstrated that a suitable access with the required visibility can be achieved. This site has an inclined access to the highway and there is no information with the application to establish the extent of this incline and its effect on the visibility attainable."
The Highway Division has also commented that if the application is approved the following condition should be applied "The access onto the public highway will be 4.5 m wide with a maximum gradient of . There will be visibility in both directions of with kerbed radii of 6 m ."
Based on the indicative plans, the visibility splay suggested could not be physically possible as it would with require the demolition of a dwellinghouse at The Chapel House, the demolition of an entire front stone wall to the site and require the assistance of the neighbouring property of Clarecourt. It is judged that the proposed access on the indicative plans is unacceptable. If the access was moved more centrally on the Marathon Road frontage, the visibility splay suggested by the Highways Division would still not be achievable for the above reasons.
The indicative plans provide a layout for the proposed development. Although not an approved standard, the rule of thumb is to maintain a minimum of 20 m between the walls of properties. The illustrative layout shows the blocks of apartments would be set approximately 18.5 m away from each other. It should be noted that the land falls from Marathon Road to Victoria Road and therefore the separation distance between the blocks would need to be much greater than the minimum distance of 20 m . The relationship between the two buildings is unsatisfactory and would lead to future occupiers of the residential units overlooking each other, which would in turn result in a poorer residential environment for the future occupiers of development.
In respect of the impact on Clarecourt, the application site is set to the northeast of the neighbouring property. The neighbouring property has a number of windows on the side elevation of the dwelling which face towards the application site. A number of the windows are obscure glazed; however, a couple of the windows are normal glazed and provide the only source of light into the rooms. The proposed building would be set 4 m away from these windows and will be three storeys in height and will project 5 m beyond the rear elevation of Clarecourt. Due to the close proximity of the building to the neighbouring property, the proposed building would be overbearing and visually intrusive when viewed from within the dwellinghouse and from the garden. Moreover the positioning of the building would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking within the garden of Clarecourt.
Furthermore, the prominence of the buildings will be appreciated more from the rear garden of the neighbouring property. This would be more so for the proposed building nearest to Victoria Road as the development may result in the loss of trees from the boundary. The applicants agent acknowledges there are trees along the boundary but has stated "As this application is for 'approval in princple' the implications for the trees will be discussed at 'approval for development' should this 'approval in principle' be successful. This approach is wholly unacceptable. The implication on the trees needs to be assessed at this stage. The indicative plans show the proposed buildings are set approximately 2 m off the boundary. This may lead to pressure that the trees need to be removed and thus introduce views of a very prominent development from the neighbouring property.
Overall, it is considered the proposed building would adversely affect the residential environment of Clarecourt in that the development would be overbearing and visually intrusive.
In respect of the impact on The Chapel House, the application site is set to the southwest of the neighbouring property. The neighbouring property has a number of windows on the side elevation of the dwelling which face towards the application site. These windows are normal glazed and provide the only source of light into the rooms or act as a secondary source of light. The proposed building would be set 5.5 m away from these windows and will be three storeys in height and will project 5 m beyond the rear elevation of The Chapel House and 1.5 m beyond the rear conservatory. Due to the close proximity of the building to the neighbouring property and the potential height, the proposed building would result in overshadowing, loss of light and; would be overbearing and visually intrusive when viewed from within the dwellinghouse and from the garden.
The introduction of car parking in the rear gardens of properties would adversely affect the living conditions of the existing residents of Clarecourt and The Chapel House, in terms of noise and general disturbance from the coming and going of vehicles.
In respect of the impact on the residential environment of No's 50, 50a, 50b and 52 Victoria Road, the application site is set to the north west of these properties. The proposed apartment block nearest to them would be set approximately 16 m from the front elevation of the properties on Victoria Road. Due to the site being to the north west of these properties, it is considered the proposal would not result in any significant harm to their residential environment in terms of loss of light and overshadowing; however, if the development proposes to install windows facing towards Victoria Road then to the separation distance being 20 m which is less than the 20 m separation distance, it is considered the proposal would result in overlooking and loss of privacy.
In assessing the open space provision, Recreation Policy 3 states that "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity area as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 of the Plan."
It should be noted that Paragraph A.6.1.1 states that "The exact open space requirement will depend on the individual circumstances and nature of each planning application. Applicants are asked to note that all new residential development must provide adequate standards of residential amenity, including private open space such as gardens or shared amenity spaces for apartments and bin storage areas. Meeting the open space requirement in this Appendix does not exempt applicants from providing adequate private open space."
This application proposes to erect 12 apartments, which technically requires open space to be provided; however, the proposal is to replace 2 dwellings that currently occupy the site. It is considered appropriate to assess the open space requirement on the net increase. This proposal would be a net increase of 10 units, which exceeds the threshold set out in Recreation Policy 3 and therefore the proposal should provide additional open space as part of the proposal.
In assessing the open space provision, the provision depends on the number of bedrooms within the dwelling. However, the application does provide the number of dwellings to be provided in the development but it does not indicate how many bedrooms will be provided in this development. It is not possible to assess how much open space would need to be provided in accordance with Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan.
The indicative plans do not show how the open space provision could be provided. It is considered reasonable to expect that the proposal demonstrates how the open space requirement could be met and there are real doubts that a satisfactory solution could be arrived at based on the indicative plans. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be refused due to the failure to demonstrate adequate open space provision.
The indicative plans only show the potential siting of the apartment block with a car parking area. There appears to be no attempt to have any amenity areas for the new development. This is considered to be unacceptable for a residential environment and would result in the creation of poor living conditions for future occupiers of the residential units. Furthermore, it is not desirable on design grounds as it would be visually poor in appearance.
In conclusion, the proposal seeks approval in principle only, so few details of the scheme are known. It is not therefore possible to consider in any detail whether the development would provide satisfactory amenity standards. However, as the effect of the approval of this application would be to confirm the site's suitability in principle for the proposed end use, it is considered reasonable at this stage to expect the applicant to have demonstrated how the site could provide adequate standards of amenity for future occupiers. Based on the information supplied to date it is not considered that the applicant has met that expectation.
Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that of provision should be made of affordable housing. This policy will apply to development of 8 dwellings or more."
This application proposes to erect 12 apartments, which technically requires provision for affordable housing to be provided; however, the proposal is to replace 2 dwellings that currently occupy the site. It is considered appropriate to assess the affordable housing requirement on the net increase. This proposal would be a net increase of 10 units, which exceeds the threshold set out in Housing Policy 5 and therefore the proposal should provide some form of affordable housing within the scheme. The application does not indicate whether affordable housing would be provided within the scheme. It is therefore assumed the applicant is not providing any affordable housing within the scheme which is contrary to Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
It is very difficult to comment on whether the proposal will impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area, as the detailed design is not subject of this application; however, general observations can be made from statements made by the applicants agent.
In respect of the visual amenities of Marathon Road, it should be noted that there are different heights of building on this southeastern side of Marathon Road range from 3-4 storey buildings to 2 storey building. On either side of the application site are two storey properties. The erection of a three storey building between them would look out of scale with the adjoining properties and would harm the visual amenities of the streetscene.
In respect of the visual amenities of Victoria Road, it should be noted that Clarecourt and the application site have long rectangular gardens. The indicative plans show that one of the three storey buildings will be set 3 m back from the boundary with Victoria Road. The building would be closer to the public highway than the two storey building of Victoria Court. The boundary frontage has no landscaping features to obscure the proposed development. A three storey building in the suggested location would be very imposing on the streetscene and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene.
The notes suggested by consultees are not material planning considerations and for that reason are not attached to the report, as part of the recommendation.
It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
The local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupiers of Clarecourt and The Chapel House on Marathon House are adjoining landowners and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupiers of Inglenook, Marathon Road are not adjoining landowners; however, they have commented on planning matters in relation ot traffic and parking issues and as such should be afforded party status
The occupier of 56 Victoria Road does not have sufficient interest in the site as they are set approximately 20 m away from the application site and as such should not be afforded party status.
The occupier of 52Victoria Road are directly opposite the application site and would be affected by the proposed development as such they should be afforded party status.
It is established policy of the Department that MHK's do not automatically have party status and in this instance it is no different and therefore Mrs. B. Cannell MHK should not be afforded party status.
The Manx Electricity Authority has commented on non-planning matters and as such should not be afforded party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 25.01.2011
The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that
1) the proposed development would not be able to provide a satisfactory level of car parking within the development. Therefore, the future occupiers of the development would have to rely on parking on the public highway which will lead to an increased demand for on-street spaces and will lead to increased noise and general disturbance to the existing residents of Marathon Road, and; 2) The application does not provide a suitable access with the required visibility splays for a development of this scale, which would be detrimental to highway safety.
The indicative layout would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that:
1) the development does not provide adequate amenity space and open space provision within the proposed layout. In the absence of details showing how the required level of on-site open space could be provided, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development could accommodate the required level of open space along with any amenity space; and 2) it proposes a hardstanding area between the apartment blocks, which would create a poor residential environment for future occupiers of the residential units and would result in a poor form of development to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
The indicative layout would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that its siting, design and layout would result in an unsatisfactory living environment for the future occupiers of the apartments as the separation distance between the two apartment blocks would allow overlooking and loss of privacy to occur.
R 4.
The indicative layout would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of is siting and design in that it would result in
1) harm to the residential environment of Clarecourt in terms of loss of privacy and the development being overbearing and visual intrusive;
2) harm to the residential environment of The Chapel House in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of light, being overbearing and visual intrusive;
3) harm to the residential environment of No's 50, 50a, 50b and 52 Victoria Road in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy; and
4) the introduction of an incongruous and unsympathetic development in the street scene which would detract from the character of the area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
R 5. The proposed development would be contrary to Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the applicant makes no provision for any affordable housing within the scheme.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date : 31/11/11 Signed : 31/11/11 Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
