Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01892/B Applicant: Mr Len Chatel Proposal: Erection of two dwellings with integral garages and associated visitor parking Site Address: Land In Front Of Bay View Hotel Between Shore Road Underway And High Street Port St. Mary Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: No adverse Traffic Impacts Consultee : Port St Mary Commissioners Notes: Comments received. 24.3.11 further comments received. 28.03.11 further comments added. Consultee : Mr B J Boyle Notes: Comments received Consultee : Drainage Division Notes: no objection subject to the following:- Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes: see note 2
THIS APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF LOCAL OBJECTIONS AND THE OBJECTION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
The site represents a piece of undeveloped land which lies between Bay View Road, opposite the Bay View Hotel, and Shore Road between the garden of remembrance/War Memorial and Willow Cottage. The site has a frontage to Bay View Road of 32 m and a depth of 18 m . To the immediate north of the site is a set of public steps giving access from Shore Road Underway to Bay View Road. The site has vegetation on it at present including a large elm tree which is plotted on the proposed site plan. Also within the site is a piece of land on the shore-side of the road, to a depth of between 4.3 m and 1.8 m and along a length of 24.5 m . A piece of land alongside Bay View Road is shown in blue and indicated "existing garden area to be retained".
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Predominantly Residential Use. The draft Port St. Mary Area Plan proposed the designation of the site as Public Open Space which stretched across the whole of the space between the rear of Beacon View and 30, High Street to the public steps to the north of the application site. The draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 reiterates this, identifying both the garden of remembrance and the application site as Public Open Space.
The modified draft plan issued in January, 2011 shows the site as part of the wider Residential Area. In section 3 - Southern Identity and Spatial Vision, it is stated that "There are key views across the bay with a distant sense of enclosure" (paragraph 3.13 ii) and Landscape Proposal 7 states: "The site in front of the Bay View Hotel on Bay View Road creates an importance [sic] space between the buildings allowing for views across the bay and beyond. To ensure the continuation of this view, no building on the Shore Road will be permitted to exceed the existing road level". This reflects one of the reasons for refusal for PA 08/2321 - "The proposed building by virtue of its height in relation to Bay View Road would obscure and adversely affect public views of the sea contrary to General Policy
2e and obscure public views of the harbour contrary to the interests of public amenity and the charm and character of Port St. Mary."
Planning permission was sought and refused for the principle of the erection of a two bedroomed dwelling on the site under PA 87/0277. The reasons for refusal are unknown as the microfiche of the file is missing from the system. Planning permission was more recently submitted, PA 08/2321 for the erection of three dwellings on the site with access from Bay View Road and was refused for the following reasons: "R 1. Whilst the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and therefore there should be a presumption in favour of residential development in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, in this case, the proposal would not respect the scale, form or landscaping of the buildings around the site as the building stretches from Bay View Road to Shore Road with an incongruous access and parking area alongside Bay View Road and a very tall frontage immediately alongside Shore Road, neither of which is sympathetic to the form of development in the vicinity. As such the proposal would not accord with General Policy 2b or 2c.
R 2 . The proposed building by virtue of its height in relation to Bay View Road would obscure and adversely affect public views of the sea contrary to General Policy 2e and obscure public views of the harbour contrary to the interests of public amenity and the charm and character of Port St. Mary.
R 3 . The provisions for car parking are inadequate in terms of numbers of spaces and it has not been demonstrated that the lack of sufficient parking would not result in an adverse impact on car parking within the vicinity, as required by Appendix Seven sub paragraph d of the Strategic Plan. In any case, the parking spaces are not sufficiently spaced to enable a full sized vehicle to be able to manoeuvre in and out within the site, exacerbating the deficiency in the number of spaces referred to above. Furthermore, insofar as it may be determined from the drawings, the provisions for access do not include satisfactory visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the site as the parking area and access are below the level of the road and the inclusion of the boundary wall will obscure drivers' visibility. The proposal therefore fails to comply with General Policy 2 h and 2 i .
R 4 . The proposal contains no information about either the stability of the site or measures to be taken to ensure that the site can withstand the proposed works without compromising the stability of the cliff face onto which the building is to be constructed. As such the proposal fails to accord with General Policy 21 and Environment Policy 28.
R 5 . There is insufficient information included within the application for the Committee to be able to be satisfied that surface water from the site may be disposed of in an acceptable manner.
An application was then submitted for the erection of two dwellings under PA 09/1925. This was permitted by the Planning Committee and recommended for approval by the Inspector at appeal but refused by the acting Minister for the reason that: "The proposed parking lay-by on the seaward side of the road would constitute an essential element of the overall development, without which the development would be inadequately provided with parking space; there are not in the submitted application any details of the retaining structure, the underlying foundation, or the precise dimensions of the lay-by; in the absence of such details, it is not possible to assess this element of the proposal; it is thus not possible to grant approval for either the lay-by or the complete development.
NOTE: This decision is without prejudice to the submission of a further application which includes full details of the proposed lay-by."
This latest application proposes the development of two dwellings and seeks to address the reasons for refusal given above in the case of the most recent application.
The building will be 8 m high from Shore Road to the top of the ridge. The level of Bay View Road is 2.4 m above this.
The building is symmetrical with two timber boarded gables at each end which project from the remainder of the frontage by 300 mm and the central section is to be finished in rough cast render. The windows are to be vertically proportioned and framed in timber. The rear is a flat, featureless elevation which will not be seen other perhaps from the memorial garden to the south, with two dormers in the rear roof pitch, similar to those visible from Bay View Road at Willow Cottage alongside. Two trees - a prunus and a smaller tree to the north are to be removed: the elm at the northern end of the site is to be retained although care will have to be taken to protect the tree whilst works are being undertaken.
The ground floor will accommodate a garage space for each unit and a sitting room and laundry with stairs to the first floor where there will be an en-suite bedroom and living room dining room, bathroom and kitchen. In the roofspace there is to be a second en-suite bedroom and roof storage space.
Across Shore Road there is to be parking provided in the form of a tarmacadam parking area which will accommodate three vehicles annotated for visitors. This area is presently covered in beach shingle. The works to create the parking bay involve the building up of the level of the parking area by at most 210 mm with stainless steel rock anchors inserted into the bedrock below. The face to the beach is to be formed by a sloping stone faced slab.
The 2008 application generated objections from 28 private individuals, Port St. Mary Commissioners, Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division. Manx National Heritage raised no objections but made comments regarding the height of the roof and the amenities of those using the memorial garden. They suggested that the area of archaeological interest, commented on by others, is further north than this site.
In respect of this application there are objections from or on behalf of local residents at: Willow Cottage, Willow Terrace 2, Carrick Court Thie Killey, Queens Road 3, Carrick Mews Sheallagh Mean, 2, Willow Terrace Avoca, Bay View Road
St. Mary's House, High Street 9, The Quay Brier Cottage These objectors raise a number of concerns including the instability of the site and risk of collapse of the bank, the scale and design of the buildings, additional traffic along Shore Road which cannot satisfactorily accommodate additional vehicles, inadequate car parking provided, the suitability of the shore-side parking, the loss of valuable green space and wildlife habitat, and the loss of the trees and potentially the elm which will be very close to the proposed building and excavation works. Some local residents have also experienced considerable periods of disturbance whilst other works have been undertaken along Shore Road.
Hon Juan Watterson MHK writes in to object to the application on the basis that it represents a green space which should not be developed and that the appearance of the development is inappropriate for its context
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division do not object to the application The Manx Electricity Authority indicate that they should be contacted regarding the provision of an electricity supply to the development
The views of The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have been sought in respect of the impact of the parking area on potential flooding in the area. They have indicated that there will be no increase risk of flooding from these works. They do recommend that the parking area is set at at least 300 mm above the 1 in 200 year plus climate change floor level which is for Port St. Mary 4.6m above Douglas 02. They also recommend that drainage is provided in the parking area, even in the form of holes in the kerb with flap valves so that ponding is prevented. They also confirm that they have consulted with the Harbours Division and they have in turn indicated that they have no interest in the application.
Although the draft Area Plan has been subject to public consultation, it is yet to be amended following consideration of any comments received and has not been subject to any form of public inquiry which is due to be held in July 2011. On both the extant Development Plan and the most recent draft Southern Area Plan the site is designated as part of a Residential area, the Area Plan containing a policy which prevents development of the site which exceeds the height or level of Bay View Road, which this proposal does not do. The adjoining properties on Willow Terrace are one metre lower in ridge height than the proposed dwellings and do not obscure the view of the rocks between Shore Road and low water. The sectional drawing provided (08-LC-676) illustrates the impact on the view from Bay View Road and this demonstrates that the impact will not obscure or hide the view of the harbour at all and it should also be noted that the proposed development does not occupy all of the open space between Willow Cottage and Boolavur.
Within such areas there is usually a presumption in favour of development and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan states that: "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: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j)can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
In this case there is no design brief for the site (2a). The environmental surrounding the site comprises a variety of dwellings in terms of height, style, finish. The proposed dwellings take their lead from new properties to the north and it is considered that they would not be out of keeping with the surroundings. Whilst a small number of trees and some vegetation are to be removed as part of the proposed development, this is not protected and the site could be cleared without the need for permission from any authority. In the previous application it was considered that the loss of the site was not objectionable on the basis of the loss of habitat despite objections from local residents to this effect. (2b, 2c, 2d, 2f). Indeed, there is no evidence from Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture that the site is worthy of protection for ecological reasons.
The development has been lowered and would no longer obscure a public view of the sea from Bay View Road. (2e)
The development will not directly adversely affect the amenities of local residents in that it follows the line of built development along Shore Road. Whilst the view of the site will change, there is no over-riding importance of the site for ecological or other value which would justify refusing the principle of developing this land for residential purposes, bearing in mind that the area is designated as Residential on the extant plan. Similarly, it is considered that the development will not adversely affect public amenities
The development will provide sufficient car parking and amenity space and has a good outlook (2h). There is no indication from the highway authority that the proposal is deficient (2i) nor is there any indication that the development cannot be satisfactorily serviced (2j) nor will it prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan (2k);
The site does lie within an area where there may be a risk of flooding and the applicant has consulted the Drainage Authority who would recommend that the building is raised in level to accommodate this. However, this would compromise the inclusion of vehicular access and would result in the building being higher than proposed and thus fit less well into the streetscene. The risk of flooding is not to other properties but contained within the building and the applicant has indicated that he is prepared to accept this risk of flooding which would be to the ground floor garage, hall and a sitting room and laundry (2l). The Inspector reporting on the previous application does not accept that the risk of flooding or the absence of a flood risk report, is a reason to refuse the application. He states "On balance, bearing in mind that other new dwellings have been approved along Shore Road and that the proposal would not cause any additional flood risk to other properties, I find that the possible risk of flooding would fall within an acceptable limit. On that basis the proposal would comply with Environmental Policies 10-13 of the Strategic Plan" (paragraph 37).
There is no indication that the proposal does not take account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them or that regard has not been had to best practice in reducing energy consumption which would also be taken into account in the application for approval under the Building Regulations.
Appendix Seven of the plan sets out parking standards in respect of new residential development and states: "New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, b) the size of the dwelling, c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (paragraph A.7.1). This goes on to recommend that one space is provided for a one bedroomed apartment, 2 spaces for two or more bedrooms but that "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6).
In this case the proposal makes provision for an integral garage for each unit and an additional two spaces on the other side of the road, thus complying with the requirements of Appendix Seven.
Other policies within the Strategic Plan which have been referred to include Environment Policies 10, 11 and 13 which relate to flooding, Environment Policy 24 regarding Environmental Impact Assessments, Environment Policy 28 regarding unstable land and Environment Policy 42 which deals with areas of green space within built up areas.
Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4".
There is no mention of a flood risk in the draft Area Plan of 2001 and the draft Southern Area Plan does not indicate that the site is subject to flooding, although it is clear from evidence from local residents that tidal flooding occurs and water and debris is sometimes tracked onto Shore Road. As such, it is considered that a flood risk assessment is not a reasonable requirement in this case. There is no submission from the Department of Transport Drainage Division to support such a requirement. The applicant has, however discussed the issue of flooding with the Drainage Authority and whilst their recommendation is to have a floor level 600 mm above Douglas 02 level, the applicant can only achieve 300 mm without adversely affecting vehicular access to the property and the overall height and impact of the property. The risk of not achieving the desired level is that the property could be flooded - a risk to the occupants and with no implication for flooding of other property, much of which is already lower than the application property. The Inspector dealt with this issue in the previous application - see comments above.
Environment Policy 11 states "Coastal development will only be permitted where it would not: i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes; ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and
iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development".
There is no indication that the development will prejudice any of the above. Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." See earlier comments.
Environment Policy 24 states: "Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases".
It is not accepted that the development will have a significant effect on the environment particularly bearing in mind the designation of the site on the extant plan.
Environment Policy 28 states: "Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been taken". The plans have been drawn in consultation with a Structural Engineer and the structural stability of the site is taking into account during the consideration of the application for approval under the Building Regulations. The Inspector reporting on the previous application, states "The need to comply with building regulations would provide the "appropriate precautions" referred to in Environment Policy 28 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore the proposal would comply with that policy (his paragraph 34).
Environment Policy 42 states "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
The modified draft Area Plan does not identify the site as Public Open Space, which it clearly is not and there is no corresponding proposal for the site to become publicly accessible, nor would the site be particularly useful other than as an amenity area to look at rather than to actively use.
Environment Policy 28 states that "Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been undertaken". The site is steeply sloping and elsewhere in close proximity of this site, there has recently been incidence of slippage. As such, the structural stability of the slope is a material consideration. In the case of other developments along Shore Road, some reference has been made in these applications to advice which has been sought from a structural engineer (one of the collapses was in respect of a site which had been the subject of advice from such an engineer). The application includes advice from a Structural Engineer and whilst there is counter evidence or argument from an engineer employed by one of the objectors, it is not considered within the remit of the planning application to arbitrate between professional advice on the structural stability of the site.
Whilst the site is presently natural in appearance and character, it would not appear to support species which warrant sufficient protection as advised by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to warrant refusal of the application.
In summary, whilst there are a large number of objections to the application, the site lies within an area designated for Residential use on the extant development plan. There is no evidence that the site is of sufficient ecological, archaeological or other importance as to warrant refusal of development and the proposal has responded to the criticisms of the previous application by lowering
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
