Loading document...
20/00523
1274 4.2.1 V.1.1 MAY 2020
A Schedule of Drawings
| 1.0 | Introduction | 2 |
| 2.0 | Compliance | 2 |
| 3.0.0 | Change: Extents of Second Floor Level | 4 |
| 3.1.0 | Proposed Change | 4 |
| 3.2.0 | Reasons for Change | 4 |
| 3.3.0 | Magnitude of Change | 4 |
0.0 Minor Changes Application: Demolition of Redundant Gas Works and Construction of Twenty Dwellings With Associated Roadways and Drainage, Including Siting, Design, External Appearance, Internal Layout, Means of Access and Landscaping
Gas Works Site Adjacent To Port St Mary Railway Station, Port St Mary, Isle Of Man, IM9 5LF
1.1 This Statement has been prepared by Haven Homes Limited (HH / the Applicant) in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of the Town And Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 (SD No 2019/0423 / the 2019 DPO), in particular, §21(2)(b). It is intended be read and considered in conjunction with all associated submissions lodged by the Applicant in support of a minor changes application (MCH).
1.2 The MCH referred to is made without prejudice to any existing statutory consents, licenses or other provisions in respect of the land, whether wholly or partly contained within the site.
2.1 With reference to the respective subsections of DPO 2019 §21: (1) The MCH is made in respect of PA 15/00870/B (the parent approval) and no prior MCH in respect of the parent approval has been made. (2)(a) The parent approval grants, inter alia, the “construction of twenty No dwellings”; this MCH is made in respect of buildings. (2)(b) The changes sought are set forth at §3 of this Statement and represented on the drawings listed at Appendix A.
(2)(c) The MCH does not:- (2)(c)(i) seek to increase the quantity of dwellings or buildings already granted under the parent approval; (2)(c)(ii) seek to increase to the net external footprint already granted under the parent approval; (2)(c)(iii) alter the site boundaries as previously delineated and edged red under the parent approval; (2)(c)(iv) seek any alteration to the vehicle access arrangements already granted under the parent approval; or (2)(c)(v) seek any variation of any condition to the parent approval.
(2)(d) With regards to PA 15/00870/B:- (2)(d)(i) It is over 21 days since the decision notice regarding the parent approval was given; (2)(d)(ii) the parent approval is not the subject of an appeal; and (2)(d)(iii) the parent approval remains extant and is not exhausted through limitation.
2.2
The MCH bundle accords with the requirements set out at §22 and relevant subsections of DPO 2019 Schedule 1.
2.3
With reference to the respective subsections of 2019 DPO §23:
(1)(a)
The MCH does not seek to significantly increase the size or scale of the development granted under the parent approval.
(1)(b)
The MCH does not seek to change the nature of the development granted under the parent approval.
(1)(c)
The MCH, if implemented, would not cause the parent approval to cease to comply with any applicable Development Plan, National Policy Directive or Planning Policy Statement. Those documents since adopted or of material consideration are referred to at §2.4 of this Statement.
(1)(d)
This MCH, if implemented, would not result in new or increased impacts on neighbouring properties or the environment, when measured against the parent approval.
(1)(e)
With no statutory definition as to what constitutes a minor change, the Applicant avers that all changes sought herein, whether considered individually or collectively, are not of a magnitude to warrant a new application parallel to the parent approval.
(1)(f)
This MCH would not fundamentally change the basis or bases upon which the parent approval was granted.
2.4
The Following documents have come into effect since the date of the parent approval:-
(a) Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 ... April 2016 (i) Since the preceding document of 2007, Housing Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 11 have revised the provision for additional dwellings downwards from 6,000 to 5,100; Housing Policy 3 has revised the provision for the South downwards from 1,300 to 1,120. The MCH proposes no change to the quantity of units. (ii) Whereas the Area Plan for the South (APS) previously superseded the Strategic Plan of 2007, the Strategic Plan now supersedes the APS. There are no consequences arising, as the bases upon which the parent approval was granted remain the same.
b) Affordable Housing Standards ... 2016 (i) the MCH seeks no alteration to approved affordable homes. (ii) The changes proposed under the MCH will not be to the detriment of those affordable homes approved under the parent approval.
c) Manual for Manx Roads ... May 2017 As stated, the MCH seeks no alteration to access arrangements.
d) Residential Design Guidance ... March 2019 (i) No proposed changes would affect local distinctiveness (§2.2), approved uses (§2.3), transport issues (§2.4), private and public thresholds (§2.5), public open space (§2.5) or the efficient use of land (§2.6) when measured against the parent approval.
It is proposed that the rear elevation of plots 6 to 11 inclusive and also plots 12 to 20 inclusive (all those plots shown as either Type A or Type B) be extended at second floor level to the same construction line as the ground floor rear elevation. The second floor level would thereby extend over the rear balconies of the floor below. The balcony areas would be incorporated into the internal floor area of the first floor, their bi-fold doors repositioned accordingly as inwards opening with juliet balconies. The effect of this change is as demonstrated on the drawings referred to in Appendix A and can be compared with the respective plans of the parent approval.
The principal reason for the proposed changes is as a result of post-occupancy feedback (RIBA Plan of Work 2020 Stage 7) from residents of similar dwellings to those in question, developed by Haven Homes and found at plots 1—10, North Shore, Ramsey.
With enclosure of the floor area of the balconies, each would benefit from improved useability, by entirely eliminating exposure to the outside elements during inclement weather.
The rear balconies as approved have side walls standing 1500mm above first floor level, providing acceptable privacy by reducing lateral overlooking between balconies on the same plane, but not entirely from second floor windows. With full enclosure, oblique overlooking of the first floor will be entirely eliminated and privacy greatly improved.
Enlarging the accommodation at the second floor level would lessen spatial constraints and thereby increase the internal adaptability of the dwellings to the owners’ individual future requirements. It is an established principle that dwellings with greater flexibility have prolonged viability, avoiding any otherwise hastened future redevelopment and thereby reducing any potential environmental impact by helping to preserve energy that was embodied during the buildings’ construction.
In these terms, the MCH would enhance the parent application with regards to the core objective of the Strategic Plan, particularly the citation of the World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 given as the basis for the plan’s subtitle “Towards a Sustainable Island”, at §2.7: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
The case officer’s report regarding PA 15/00870/B, at §5.2, refers to an inspector’s considerations of PA 14/00357/A:- “[...] He considered the density of 23 dwellings on the site, which also included the car park associated with Ballaghreiney, was acceptable on the basis of
the visualisations provided by the applicant that included modulated profiles creating a linked cluster of buildings comprising a variety of dwellings rather than four homogenous blocks. They would as such appear subordinate and somewhat separate from the more dominant buildings of the railway station and hotel."
The report continues at §6.1:-
"[...] A number of issues relating to the residential development of this site have already been addressed in detail in the previous application: [...] the general density and design of the dwellings [...] have all been found to be acceptable and what is now proposed, whilst slightly different to what was shown in the approval in principle, still accords with these conclusions."
PA 15/00870/B was lodged as a Reserved Matters application to the preceding approval in principal; the conclusions relating to the design of the dwellings were drawn from the considerations of PA 14/00357/A and were not substantive matters in the assessment and determination of PA 15/00870/B itself. In any case, the MCH cannot be said to fundamentally change the basis upon which the grant of the parent approval was made, nor the preceding approval in principle that gave rise to it. Consequently, §23(1)(f) of the 2019 Procedures is inapplicable.
3.3.2
The case officer's report to PA 15/00870/B refers to the form of the Type A and Type B houses at §2.6, in part:-
"[...] three storey dwellings in [...] pairs arranged such that their roofs are taller than those alongside, resulting in a stepped roofline with each ridge running at right-angles to the front elevations.[...] the rear elevations have balconies which project out from the rear elevation by 1.7m with dividing privacy walls between each."
It was the original architectural intention to arrange the roofs, as described by the case officer, to break up the visual form of the buildings and minimise their visual impact. As the ridges are at right angles to the rear elevations, increasing the second floor depth will have no effect on the height of the ridges, which will remain at the approved heights. Ridges will increase only in length and only so far as to extend over the balconies below. Consequently, §23(1)(a) and (e) of the 2019 Procedures are inapplicable.
3.3.3
Comparative photomontages were provided to assist in the determination of PA 15/00870/B. When viewing these it is evident that public views towards the rear elevations in question, across the open land to the south from the Howe Road or Truggan Road, will be close to parallel with the direction of the ridge lines. Given both the direction and considerable distance of these principal views towards the rear elevations, the effect of extending the second floor would be virtually imperceivable in terms of visual impact. Consequently, §23(1)(d) of the 2019 Procedures is inapplicable.
Schedule of drawings submitted in support of the Application
| Author | Reference | Drawing Title |
|---|---|---|
| Haven Homes | 1274-000-X | Location Plan |
| Haven Homes | 1274-043-X | Plans Plots 06 to 11 |
| Haven Homes | 1274-044-X | Plans Plots 12 to 20 |
| Haven Homes | 1274-045-X | Elevations Plots 06 to 11 |
| Haven Homes | 1274-046-X | Elevations Plots 12 to 20 |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
