Loading document...
| Application No.: | 13/91461/B |
| Applicant: | Haven Homes Ltd |
| Proposal: | Demolition of redundant gas works structures and erection of thirty dwellings with associated roads and parking and re-cladding of existing commercial building |
| Site Address: | Former Gas Works Site |
| North Shore Road | |
| Ramsey | |
| Isle Of Man | |
| IM8 3DF |
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF ITS SCALE, BECAUSE IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A LEGAL AGREEMENT.
1.1 The application site is an area of previously developed land that includes the derelict Ramsey Gasworks and the Paul Dedman Performance motorbike shop. When natural gas was fed to Ramsey in May 2012, the use and purpose of the gasworks effectively became redundant. The applicant advises that the manufacture of coal gas ceased on the site in the mid- to late-1960s. Paul Dedman Performance remains in active use.
1.2 The site is topographically flat and contains two gas storage tanks. Metal security fencing surrounds much of the site, with a blockwork wall to the east that is too short to be visible from outside of the site. Also present is an unused storage building, while large areas of broken hardstanding are also evident. The site is an irregular shape, and perhaps most closely resembles a capital "T" rotated 90 degrees clockwise.
1.3 Residential development sits to the north, west and south of the site while an area of open space forms the eastern site boundary, with the estuary beyond. This open space comprises low-level, hedge-like vegetation and some grassland. The site immediately abuts the highway on North Shore Road to the north and Shipyard Road to the west. Gibson Street runs along the south of the site, and terminates where it meets the shoulder of the rotated capital "T". There is some variety of architectural styles in the area, although the urban fabric is very much characterised by tightly-knit terraced dwellings of varied finishings – some of stone, the majority in render – and most with grey slate tiling and chimneys. An occasional detached dwelling is present, and although these tend to be architecturally interesting and attractive, they are very much in the minority and could not be considered representative of the vernacular of the area.
1.4 No natural vegetation of maturity or quality is present on the site, with the aforementioned greenery sat between the site's eastern boundary and the estuary water. Sky Hill is visible from the site, although other views out of the site are limited to short horizons
| Case Officer : | Mr Edmond Riley |
| Photo Taken : | 15.01.2014 |
| Site Visit : | 15.01.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level : | Planning Committee |
primarily created by existing built development. Mooragh Park is largely screened from the internal element of the site by the premises of Paul Dedman Performance, which is a cuboid building of limited architectural merit.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the construction of 30 dwellings with associated garden land, boundary treatment, internal highways and public open space. Also proposed is the re-cladding in zinc and re-painting in blue of the premises of Paul Dedman Performance. The application site would be accessed solely from North Shore Road. 2.2 The application has been the subject of extensive pre-application discussions between the developer, architect and planning office (including representation from the highways department), with the design layout submitted representing the seventh iteration seen by the Department. The layout would provide 61 car parking spaces. 2.3 Six no. 2-bedroom dwellings, fourteen no. 3-bedroom dwellings and ten no. 4bedroom dwellings are proposed across five terraces and in the form of three house types. Two terraces are proposed end-to-end (forming two four-dwelling terraces) parallel to and south of North Shore Road. Facing these would be a six-dwelling terrace lying parallel to and north of Gibson Street. These three terraces comprise the full complement of 3-bedroom dwellings. 2.4 A second six-dwelling terrace is proposed to broadly continue the building line along Shipyard Road; this terrace would comprise the full complement of the 2-bedroom dwellings. The fifth terrace is proposed to lie parallel to, if 85 metres distant from, the aforementioned terrace proposed adjacent Shipyard Road. This terrace is some ten dwellings in length, and comprises the full complement of the 4-bedroom dwellings.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of numerous planning applications, none of which were submitted following the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2007, and only three of which were submitted following the adoption of the Ramsey Local Plan in 1998. Of these three, one related to the change of use of a Calor gas showroom for motorcycle sales and repair (01/00833), and another to the installation of advertising relating to that use (01/01481); both were approved. Neither the third application nor those submitted prior to the adoption of the Ramsey Local Plan are considered specifically material to the determination of the current planning application, although the previous use of the site for gas storage is of direct material relevance.
4.1 The site is designated for 'light industrial' use in the Ramsey Local Plan (No.2) Order 1998, a land use designation which covers the entirety of the land south of North Shore Road and otherwise surrounded by water despite that area including several residential streets. 4.2 Paragraph 4.8 specifically discusses the gasworks: "The Gas Works on North Shore Road generates considerable tanker traffic along the public road. Given the amount of surrounding development that has taken place since the original works were established, feasibility studies need to be undertaken to fully assess the re-siting of the works and to identify suitable alternative sites for it to be relocated at an appropriate distance from new or proposed residential properties. The issue of contaminated land will need to be considered (reference: Policy R/I/P7)". Policy R/I/P7 refers to Miltown Power Station, which had some
land contamination issues at the time the Local Plan was adopted. The issue of contamination does also apply to the application site. 4.3 Policy R/I/P1 A is specific to the North Shore Area, and encompasses the entirety of the land south of North Shore Road and which is also surrounded to the west, south and east by water, and carries the proviso that "The following areas [to include the North Shore Area, within which the application site is located] are allocated for light industrial development subject to the general provisions stipulated"; the provisions in the case of the North Shore Area are: "Further industrial or warehousing units beyond those currently with planning consent will not be permitted unless required for the shipyard. There will be a presumption in favour of the relocation/rationalisation of existing service/utility/construction industries in the gas works area to allow for improved traffic circulation in accordance with an adopted traffic management plan. Only after the implementation of this will any surplus land be approved for housing". 4.4 Policy R/I/P8 refers specifically to the North Shore Road Gas Works: "The Department of Local Government and the Environment (D.L.G.E.) in conjunction with the Department of Transport, Calor Gas and the Ramsey Commissioners shall undertake studies to determine the feasibility of the relocation of the Gas Works and, if possible, identify alternative sites".
Strategic Plan Policy 4.5 The Strategic Plan contains a number of objectives, paragraphs and policies of relevance. 4.6 Strategic Objective 3(f), which is one of a number of Strategic Objectives that provide the basis for the policies that follow, reads: "To promote urban regeneration and the re-use of derelict and redundant sites". 4.7 Strategic Policy 1 reads in full: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
4.8 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 2 reads: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages...". Housing Policy 4 reiterates this text. 4.9 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 3 reads: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
4.10 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 4 reads: "Proposals for development must:
4.11 Strategic Policy 5 reads in full: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies". 4.12 Strategic Policy 10 reads in full: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement". 4.13 Although General Policy 3 applies to land that is not zoned for any form of development, part (c) is considered worthy of note. It reads: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment." 4.14 Environment Policy 7 reads in full: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species." 4.15 Environment Policy 10 reads in part: "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". 4.16 Environment Policy 26 reads in full: "Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses". 4.17 Environment Policy 42 reads in part: "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". 4.18 Environment Policy 43 reads in part: "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans".
4.19 Housing Policy 1 reads in full: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 6000 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2001 to 2016". 4.20 Housing Policy 3 reads in full: "The overall housing provision will be distributed as follows:
4.21 Housing Policy 5 reads in full: "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". 4.22 Recreation Policy 3 reads in part: "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". 4.23 Recreation Policy 4 reads in full: "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'. 4.24 Transport Policy 1 reads in full: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes". 4.25 Transport Policy 2 reads in full: "The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems'. 4.26 Transport Policy 6 reads in full: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users'. 4.27 Transport Policy 7 reads in full: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards'.
The standard specified in Appendix 7 is as follows:
Parking spaces should not be provided in front of the dwellings where this would result in a poor outlook for residents and would detract from the amenity of the area."
4.28 Transport Policy 13 reads in full: "Development in or around harbours should neither compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner, nor be detrimental to the character of those harbours of historic interest".
5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners initially objected to the application on five separate grounds. Their representation can be summarised as concern with respect to the layout and its inappropriateness in respect of use by larger vehicles; the proposed junction to North Shore Road not providing an adequate visibility splay; inadequate affordable housing provision; inappropriate open space provision, and known ground contamination. 5.2 Following discussions between the applicant and the Commissioners, the objection letter was withdrawn to be replaced by one comprising various observations. As these observations reflect negative opinions with respect to the proposed development, it is considered appropriate to continue to register the letter as an objection. The second representation can be summarised as concern with respect to the practical use of the proposed public open space and internal highways. 5.3 The Highways Division identify that there are some minor design issues but do not object to the planning application. 5.4 DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer raised concern in respect of seagull attacks resulting from the provision of flat-roofed dwellings that provide suitable nesting sites. 5.5 The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority requested that a "Development Within 9 Metres of a Watercourse" form be completed by the applicant. They also requested further information in respect of flooding and waste sewerage. Negotiations on these matters took place and all were considered to have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant and agent. 5.6 The owner/occupier of Greystones, 3 Lumby Terrace (also known as 7 Shipyard Road) have submitted a representation, which can be summarised as concern with respect to site works traffic generation; poor condition of Shipyard Road; loss of privacy and overlooking, and inadequate parking on Shipyard Road. Also identified are two errors within the Planning and Design Statement submitted by the applicant. 5.7 The owner/occupier of Thie Aalin, 5 Shipyard Road have submitted a representation, which can be summarised as concern with respect to the loss of access to the rear of their property given the curtilage of Plot 22; loss of view, and increase in traffic and parking demand on Shipyard Road. 5.8 The applicant advises that a dialogue has been entered into with both these private residents with a view to allaying their fears. A verbal update will be provided to Planning Committee on this matter at the time of the meeting. 5.9 Manx National Heritage submitted a representation that provides some historic background to the site and its use. Concern is raised in respect of contamination issues with suggestion that historical research, survey and a watching brief would allow planned remediation ahead of construction. 5.10 The Manx Electricity Authority request the applicant contact them to discuss the electricity supply for the application. 5.11 The Department of Social Care acknowledge that the application would provide the size and type of dwelling required in Ramsey for affordable housing purposes. They identify
that a Section 13 Agreement with the developer would be required to secure this, were planning approval forthcoming. It is understood that discussions on this Agreement are at an advanced stage.
6.1 The application follows an intensive period of pre-application discussions that has culminated in the scheme submitted. 6.3 The first and most fundamental issue to consider is that of the principle of residential development on land zoned for light industrial use. Thereafter, consideration of the details of the application is set out.
6.4 It is a matter of fact that the application site is within a larger area designated as 'light industrial' in the Ramsey Local Plan. The policies of the Local Plan are supportive of the relocation of the gasworks use, and paragraph 4.8 of the Local Plan acknowledges the related heavy tanker use generated on a public highway as a result of the gasworks' location. Policy R/I/P8 is implicitly supportive of the moving of the gasworks to an alternative location elsewhere in Ramsey, while policy R/I/P1 A is implicitly supportive of the release of surplus employment land to residential use. Neither of these policies explicitly supports the use of the application site for non-light industrial purposes. 6.5 It is therefore appropriate to reflect upon the harm the loss of this light industrial land would cause to Ramsey, but also the strategic importance of this piece of land in the context of available employment land in the town and beyond. No account is taken of any potentially deleterious effect that light industrial uses on the application site could have in respect of the surrounding residential uses; the central point here is the extent to which the retention of the land for industrial purposes is appropriate from a quantitative (rather than qualitative) point of view. It should be acknowledged that this planning application does not enable a comparative analysis between the proposed use and any other use, as the application proposes residential use and no other planning application is currently under consideration for this land. 6.6 The applicant states that the site's proximity to Ramsey town centre and related amenities makes it sustainable from the point of view of residential development, and argues that this should go in the application's favour. For similar reasons, however, the site could equally be considered sustainable from an employment use point of view. 6.7 An employment land review, jointly commissioned by the Departments of Infrastructure and Economic Development, is currently being prepared but no formal publication date has as yet been set. It is not considered appropriate to hold the application in advance of this publication given the uncertainty regarding the publication date. 6.8 The most recent employment land study for the Island provided a quantitative outline of the availability of employment land; no commentary was provided on the quality of that land. Earlier studies found that 115.88 hectares were available in 2007, which had reduced to 79.48 hectares in 2010; this figure had then reduced again to 76.31 hectares by 2012. It is presumed that there has been some "churn" during that time - that is, the 76.31 hectares available in 2012 were not necessarily all also available at the time of the 2007 study. These figures relate to all employment land and do not differentiate between the different types (office, light industrial, industrial and so forth).
6.9 21.92 hectares of land is zoned for employment use in the North, which is the lowest amount of the four geographic areas of the Island; however, of these 21.92 hectares, some 12.28 hectares is considered "available", which is higher than the figures in both the East (12.04 hectares) and West (10.14 hectares). With 41.85 hectares, the South has more than the other three areas put together. Of those 12.28 hectares considered "available" and vacant in the North, 10.29 hectares are in Ramsey. It is therefore the case that, in purely quantitative terms, of the Island's vacant and available employment land is in Ramsey. This is not considered to represent a significant proportion. The application site, at 0.77 hectares, represents of the vacant and available employment land in Ramsey and of the entirety of the vacant and available employment land on the Island. (Some care needs to be taken with these figures given that the application site was probably not included in the figures of the 2012 Employment Land Review as it may have been at that time still in some, if probably low-level, use). 6.10 The agent states that the loss of the employment land, given the above numeric context, would not be significant. It is important to consider this opinion. The North has a limited supply of employment land relative to the remainder of the Island; protection of this land for the use for which it is zoned is therefore important, and it is for this reason that land on the Island has protectionist zonings in the Local and Area Plans. The loss of roughly one twelfth of the North's available and vacant employment land is not, in itself, insignificant although the fact that this land would be lost in Ramsey, where the vast majority of the remaining and available employment land is located is an important counterpoint. 6.11 At this point it is perhaps important to reflect on the qualitative value of the land for its zoned purpose. All the land immediately surrounding the site is in active residential use (the Paul Dedman retail unit is within the application site). To the east lies some green space and open water. The land is designated for light industrial uses, which in the Strategic Plan is identified as being "the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles". Clearly, then, only (light) industrial works that would not have a negative effect on local residential amenity could be expected to be located on the application site given its current zoning. It is therefore the case that the 'fallback' position i.e. that the land could be used for light industrial uses without the need for planning approval - would be unlikely to negatively affect local residential amenity. This perhaps slightly simplistic position could not be said to represent a qualitative assessment of the use of the land for light industrial purposes, although it is perhaps as close as can be offered in the absence of a qualitative assessment set out in an Employment Land Review. It is noted that the site has effectively been vacant for eighteen months. 6.12 The Department for Economic Development was contacted for their comments, but none were received. An officer informally stated that providing comments in respect of the loss of the Gasworks site from an employment-related use would be inappropriate and possibly premature of and/or contradictory with the forthcoming Employment Land Review, a draft of which has yet to be seen. It is not considered appropriate to delay the determination of the application until this is complete. 6.13 It has been seen that there is implicit support in the Local Plan for relocation of the gasworks to elsewhere. This support is now irrelevant given the redundancy of the application site. It has also been seen that there is explicit support for the release of light industrial land to (specifically) residential uses where that land can be shown to be surplus to requirements; this support should be considered in light of Housing Policies 1 and 3 of the Strategic Plan, which make provision for specific numbers of houses on the Island across the Plan period, with an Island-wide distribution also set out. These figures are not stated as being 'ceilings', and refer primarily to the allocation of future land for housing need.
However, the principle of new residential development in Ramsey is supported in these policies. 6.14 In the absence of robust qualitative information, and a clear and stated quantitative need, it is not considered that the loss of this area of employment land to other uses would be entirely inappropriate and land for industrial purposes remains available. However, there are other factors to consider before reaching a judgement on the overall principle of the loss of this industrial land. 6.15 The Ramsey Local Plan identifies the water to the east of the application site as "Harbour"; as such, there is the potential that the land could be suitable for that type of development. The Director of Ports was contacted for the views, and it is intended that a verbal update on any comments that may be received will be presented to Planning Committee. Transport Policy 13 requires that development in or around harbours should not compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner, nor be detrimental to the character of harbours of historic interest. No feasibility work is believed to have been done on the future uses relating to Ramsey harbour, and nor are any such proposals known to exist. The Employment Land Survey, as noted above, does not focus on the qualitative nature of employment land on the Island such that any argument in respect of retaining the land for Harbour-related use could be considered as somewhat speculative. 6.16 It is not considered that the application is premature in respect of the preparation of a replacement local plan. Whilst the Ramsey Local Plan is somewhat dated it remains the relevant and valid plan as its replacement has yet to be formally timetabled. 6.17 The Strategic Plan is supportive of the regeneration of derelict sites (although it is preferred that this is secured through Area Plans). 6.18 The land use zoning does undoubtedly weigh against the planning application. However, as there is no indication that the land is in demand for light industrial uses and there is a shortage of such in the area, the loss of this employment land in itself is not considered to be a substantive reason for refusing the current planning application. 6.19 Turning to the proposed use, the application site is within an established urban area, the predominant land use surrounding which is residential. No "bad neighbour" uses are within close enough proximity to be likely to have an undue adverse impact on private residential amenity of future occupiers of the dwellings here proposed. There are other land uses nearby in the form of shops and various sporting and leisure facilities. Ramsey has relatively strong public transport links with the rest of the Island, while there are a number of employment land uses within walking distance of application site. These are all positives, and are considered sufficient to conclude that residential use of the site is acceptable in principle. 6.20 On balance, it is judged that the redevelopment of this brownfield site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. What remains for consideration, then, are the details of the proposal submitted.
6.21 The IoMWSA initially advised the case officer that the existing pumping station serving the application site would be insufficient for drainage purposes of the proposed dwellings. They strongly recommended the applicant enter negotiations with the IoMWSA on this matter. The agent subsequently provided to the IoMWSA a drainage layout. This has not been provided as part of the planning application, but the IoMWSA has commented that the proposed drainage layout and arrangements therein are acceptable. The sewers proposed are 300 mm in width, which is greater than the 150 mm or 225 mm -size sewers normally
requested by the IoMWSA (only the latter of those two being large enough for formal adoption by the IoMWSA) - the increase in size are proposed to provide additional storage during high tidal events. On the basis that the sewers proposed are in excess of those normally sought by the IoMWSA, and provide sufficient storage for high tidal events, it is appropriate to consider the issue of drainage to be acceptable. 6.22 The easternmost part of the site is within an area subject to 1:200 flood risk (that is, there is a 1 in 200 chance in any given year of the site being flooded); for context, roughly all the curtilages of Plots 1-10 would fall within this area. It is proposed that the site will be raised in this area by roughly 1 m to 6.4 m above the Ordnance Datum level, and the IoMWSA has advised that this is acceptable. Some care should be taken with this 6.4 m figure as it would appear to be an average across the site - Plots 7-8 and 9-10, for example, would sit at 6.35 m and 6.25 m respectively. It is perhaps worth noting that the agent has advised that the site has not flooded during the recent poor weather. 6.23 Some concern remains in respect of surface water discharge into the river during extreme high tides, but the IoMWSA engineer advises that sufficient storage can be sought to 'hold back' peak flows during such events. Crucially, this additional storage can be provided underground and would not necessitate a change in the physical layout of the scheme as proposed, and nor would it prevent the final adoption of the drainage systems. On this basis, and given that unforeseen circumstances can (and often do) result in a requirement for amendments to drainage layouts once work on-site has commenced, no objection is raised in respect of drainage or flood risk issues. 6.24 The IoMWSA have advised that their Fisheries Officers are content with the application in respect of its potential impact on the adjacent watercourse - this is considered sufficient to conclude that there should be no objection raised by the Planning Division on this matter. 6.25 On the basis that the IoMWSA are content with the application in respect of flooding, drainage and water quality issues, the application is considered to accord with Environment Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Strategic Plan. No objection is therefore raised on any of these three matters.
6.26 A Contamination Report has been submitted as part of the application. Advice from the Building Control Manager in respect of this Report is sufficient to consider that the measures proposed are feasible. The key conclusions are that building work is technically possible on the site: (a) given the potential likely decontamination work required, (b) within acceptable health tolerances in respect of future residents, and (c) on the basis that the decontamination works required will not prevent the development taking place in line with the submitted plans. 6.27 It is also true that the agent has stated that the Environmental Protection Unit within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has conducted a site visit following consultation on the Contamination Report, and have indicated their agreement with the recommendations of that Report. 6.28 Subsequent to the submission of the planning application and the Contamination Report, the applicant has advised that 200 tonnes of (contaminated) material would need to be removed to Wrights Pit North. This falls within the annual limit of 2,000 tonnes that can be accepted at Wrights Pit North. That said, if the planning application is approved, it would be worth the applicant contacting the Waste Management team in DEFA to ensure that those 200 tonnes can be successfully accommodated there.
6.29 On this basis, the issue of contaminated land is considered to have been properly addressed, and the level of risk and concluded to be acceptable.
6.30 The details of the scheme can be divided into subject area: (a) layout; (b) highways safety; (c) parking within and without the scheme; design of the dwellings; (d) boundary treatments; (e) relationship with neighbouring dwellings; (f) public open space; (g) views into and out of the site; (h) affordable housing; (i) the integration of the scheme in design terms with local vernacular; (j) boundary treatment, and (k) the amenity value of the proposed dwellings for future occupiers. 6.31 The scheme is considered to represent a successful response to the local area in terms of the challenges presented, and will provide an attractive residential environment in no small part influenced by dwellings of a bespoke design. A Design Statement has been provided by the applicant and this is helpful in guiding discussion of the scheme as submitted with a view to reaching an objective conclusion as to its overall success and conformity with local and Strategic Plan policy. Layout 6.32 It is judged that the layout of building form provides for strong uniformity and reflects the immediate area's strong and formal terraced format.
6.33 Initially, the Highways Division identified several minor concerns with the application without these collectively representing a fundamental objection to the scheme. The concerns related primarily to the parking strategy, and the size of spaces proposed and their location relative to the dwellings that they would serve. It is noted that in some cases the proposed dwellings are not immediately adjacent to the spaces intended to serve them; it is also true that Plots 2-10 rely on an integral garage to provide their second required parking space. 6.34 While it is accepted that these concerns do represent 'minor design issues' they are not considered reason enough to refuse the application. 6.35 A parking courtyard to the rear of Plots 17-22 is considered an acceptable way to guide parking away from Shipyard Road, and the 61 spaces proposed for the scheme are in excess of the level required (which would be 60 - that is, 2 parking spaces per dwelling). These are substantive positives that outweigh the minor negatives, and no objection is therefore raised in respect of parking in the context of Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan. 6.36 A visibility splay of 4.5 m by 70.0 m has been shown on the plan. It is acknowledged that parking is common on North Shore Road, particularly to the west, and this may hamper visibility to the west. However, it must also be acknowledged that the Highways Division are content with the highways access as proposed. Vehicle speed at this point of North Shore Road, which is a relatively busy road, does increase as it travels from west to east as the highway opens out at this point. However, the converse is also true as vehicles travel from east to west given the on-road parking noted above. On this basis, it is considered that the access proposed is sufficient to ensure safe access to and egress from the application site. No objection is therefore raised in respect of Strategic Policy 10 (c) of the Strategic Plan. 6.37 In respect of the other relevant Transport Policies of the Strategic Plan, the use of paviors will likely keep speed levels low as they indicate clearly that the surfaces here are
shared - no pavements are proposed alongside the shared surfacing - and that all road users should be mindful of others. The scheme is well-located to Ramsey where access to the sustainable transport options is good. As will be discussed in more detail later in this Report, opportunities to link the scheme with surrounding development are limited due to its peculiar location relative to watercourses, but these have been taken where available. For similar reasons, links to existing sustainable transport options are similarly limited and would not be feasibly exploited. On this basis, no objection is raised in respect of Transport Policies 1, 2 or 6 of the Strategic Plan.
6.38 In terms of the impact of the proposed scheme on local residential amenity, it is considered there are three specific geographic areas that need to be addressed: (i) Shipyard Road, including Lumby Terrace (Plots 17-22); (ii) North Shore Road (Plots 23-30), and (iii) Gibson Street (Plots 11-16). These are considered in turn. The dwellings proposed to face Shipyard Road would be roughly 12.5 m distant from the four dwellings of Lumby Terrace that sit on Shipyard Road and on the opposite side of the highway. 6.39 Concern raised by residents of 3 Lumby Terrace regarding loss of privacy is understandable. The distance of 12.5 m is relatively short, although not unusually so in situations of dwellings facing each other (as opposed to standard distances of direct-facing, habitable windows rear elevation to rear elevation). The downstairs window in Plots 17-22 are those of the lounge, the upstairs windows the main bedroom. Full details regarding which rooms are served by the windows facing the highway from 3 Lumby Terrace, although the upstairs window is known to be a bedroom. 6.40 It is noted that dwellings facing one another elsewhere on Shipyard Road have similar distances between their principal facades. The bringing of the dwellings forward to the roadside in order to continue the building line of the dwellings to the east of Shipyard Road was requested by the planning officer at the same time as the terraced layout of the scheme was sought. The fenestration to Plots 17-22 is by no means extensive in size or number, and the fact that half the width of the front elevations to those Plots are set back slightly would provide a psychological benefit in terms of the perceptions of overlooking. While it is accepted that the development would impact on the residential amenity of Lumby Terrace it respect is not considered so significant that it would represent a substantive reason for refusing the application. 6.41 The owner / occupier of 5 Shipyard Road has raised concern in respect of civic and legal matters - relating to access to the rear of the property that would be prevented as a result of the development going ahead. These are not material planning considerations and are therefore not addressed in this report, although it is understood that the applicant is engaging with the objector in an effort to resolve these concerns. Further concern was raised in respect of loss of privacy, light and the existing view that the objector has from the gable end of his dwelling. Plot 22 contains one window in its side elevation, and this serves a stairwell. Any loss of privacy within 5 Shipyard Road is therefore well within acceptable levels. The applicant has advised that this window could be obscure glazed but it is not considered that such a requirement, while not unreasonable, is necessary given that the window serves a part of Plot 22 that will likely only be used transiently. With regard to the window that 5 Shipyard Road currently has in its gable, it is an unusual situation to find a window sat within a wall that also forms the boundary of a property as the homeowner has no control over the land over which they look. The neighbouring land owner has the right to plant bushes or to erect a fence under Permitted Development rights and without the need of a further planning approval. The concern regarding the light to that room is understandable, but this cannot form a valid reason to refuse the application.
6.42 In respect of loss of privacy to the rear garden of 5 Shipyard Road, it is noted that this is a semi-detached dwelling the shares a rear building line with its attached neighbour. The rear building line of Plot 22 would sit roughly 1 m further back than that of 5 Shipyard Road, although this measurement is taken from the rear outrider of Plot 22 and does not account for the rear outriders of 5 Shipyard Road, which appeared from the site visit to themselves be two storeys in height. Any negative impact in terms of loss of privacy to the rear garden is therefore also judged to be within acceptable limits. 6.43 The massing of the dwellings proposed, which are modest 2-bedroom and two-storey properties, are also considered acceptable in terms of any overbearing impacts that might arise with respect to the immediate built environment. Moreover, while they would be slightly higher than the existing dwellings, with a slightly different roof pitch, there is limited architectural homogeneity in these regards in the immediate area and the introduction of another, slightly different, pitch or ridge height is considered to reflect, rather than undermine, the local vernacular. 6.44 There are not objections from residents of North Shore Road and the distances between the existing and proposed terraces - roughly 18 m at their nearest and 23 m at their furthest - is judged to be sufficient in terms of any likely impact on private residential amenity. 6.45 In respect of Gibson Street, to the south of the proposed estate layout, it is again noted that no representations have been received from residents here. 9-16 Gibson Street are nearly 16 m distant from the proposed Plots 13-16, but this measurement is taken from the rearmost elements of the building line; 9-16 Gibson Street have single storey extensions and, measuring from the substantive rear of these dwellings, the distance increases to in excess of 18 m . As such, the distance between Plots 13-16 and numbers 9-16 Gibson Street is judged sufficient to result in no undue harmful effects in respect of private amenity. 6.46 The situation is different with regards Plots 11-12, which would sit just 12 m from numbers 17-18 Gibson Street. (There is also a 19 Gibson Street, but this directly overlooks what is proposed to be an area of public open space.) Planting has been proposed to help reduce intervisibility although it is acknowledged that this could also decrease the amount of light that nos. 17 and 18 Gibson Street currently receive. Developing this point slightly further (and as will become clearer later in this report), the landscaping strategy is considered quite central to the scheme's overall success. 6.47 It has been seen that, on balance, the effect of the scheme on the local area in terms of overbearing or overlooking impacts is considered to fall within acceptable limits. The layout reflects local building patterns in terms of the (terraced) structure and is therefore considered to comply with the provisions of Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. The next logical issue to consider is the design of the dwellings proposed.
6.48 The inspiration for the aesthetic of two-storey dwellings is in part drawn from local architectural detailing at Loch Villas on Gibson Street, which offers projecting gable boarding with a "crossed tie" feature (not unlike an inverted capital "T", with the spine joined to the apex of the gable). Other inspiration can be found in the use of colours from the Colours of Mann palette adopted for regeneration schemes on the island; these colours have been incorporated in quite dramatic fashion in the elevational treatment of the dwellings across the scheme, but particularly those of two storeys in height. Double storey windows, also found in the area in the form of bay windows, are proposed. These are the architectural details, however: the general form of the dwellings proposed exhibit some undeniable and
fundamental similarities between those found on the Pulrose Farm estate currently under construction in Douglas, and it is understood that the detailing outlined above has been incorporated into those dwellings' forms. The overall impression given is considered to be one of an unusual design, but one that draws from some successful elements in the immediate vicinity. Reflecting local vernacular without necessarily replicating it in a pastiche form is generally considered a benchmark of good design, and such an approach is certainly considered appropriate in this case. 6.49 The materials proposed - multi-coloured render drawn from the Colours of Mann palette; timber cladding to gables; grey, concrete roof tiles; grey, uPVC window and door frames; dark red composite insulated front doors - are all found within the vicinity to a greater or lesser degree. As such, their use in principle is unobjectionable and their use on the application site, with its rather contemporary styling, is considered to be broadly acceptable. 6.50 Advice was given by the case officer that it might be worth considering a design approach to Plots 17-22 that would reflect the more historic nature of development currently found on Shipyard Road. Although the advice in respect of pushing those dwellings further forward towards Shipyard Road in order to replicate the building line was followed, as was advice regarding the inclusion of rendered dwarf walls to the fronts of the dwellings, the design submitted remained that of contemporary architecture. This is perhaps unfortunate, as the dwellings proposed to front Shipyard Road are in many ways distinct from the rest of the scheme in terms of their relationship with adjacent development, and a more robust reflection of this fact might have been worth exploring. 6.51 The three-storey dwellings' design inspiration, in contrast to the others proposed, is entirely bespoke. The Design Statement accompanying the application states that the inspiration for these dwellings was taken from the industrial heritage (and use) of the local area. There can be some understandable reservations about such an attitude given the generally unbeautiful nature of industrial buildings. It is important to remember that objectivity remains key in an assessment of design. While a design proposed may not necessarily be considered aesthetically-pleasing by an observer, it does not automatically follow that the design is itself inappropriate if the reasoning behind its origination is successfully balanced against other considerations - namely, form, mass, proportion and appropriateness of material - to produce an architecturally legible and coherent design. It is considered that, on balance, the design of the dwellings does successfully negotiate these potential pitfalls outlined, and the reasoning for this is outlined below. 6.52 Originally, timber cladding was proposed for the upper storey, but this was considered to detract from the inspiration behind the design, and was replaced with grey zinc, which can also be found on the angled, mono-pitched roof. This is considered an understandable and appropriate design response. 6.53 It is noted that the third private representation - the other two being those of the owners/occupiers of 3 Lumby Terrace and 5 Shipyard Road, covered elsewhere in this report - considers the rear elevation of the three-storey dwellings to be unattractive, and raises concern in particular that this is the main elevation that will "show its face" outside of the site. This is a reasonable concern; the eastern extent of the site, by virtue of its overlooking the harbour and the relatively open and sporadic nature of Ramsey's built environment in that eastern direction, is indeed the most prominent. Careful consideration of the impact of such a contemporary design treatment is therefore required. 6.54 The application also proposes the re-cladding and re-rendering of the Paul Dedman Performance building. This would see the upper storey clad in a grey zinc to match the colour and style of the proposed three-storey dwellings, while at ground floor a cream-coloured
render is proposed. It is considered that this would provide a pleasing complementarity between these two elements of built environment, and further reinforce the commercial/industrial inspiration for the architectural design of Plots 1-10. It is undeniable that the proposed three-storey dwellings have a mass in excess of almost all the immediate surrounding built environment (both existing and proposed), but it is further considered that the additional mass provides something of a gradation between the grand, five-storey development to the east of the harbour on Mooragh Promenade and the more demure, twostorey development to the west of the harbour and surrounding the application site. It should also be noted that some dwellings on North Shore Road are three storeys in height. Plots 110 are also quite well-removed from the surrounding development such that any overbearing impacts that might arise in respect of surrounding development (both existing and proposed) would, it is considered, fall within acceptable levels. 6.55 The buildings' design is considered to successfully unite the area's industrial heritage with the need to provide attractive residential housing. The agent has provided a photomontage showing how the proposed three-storey dwellings might appear within the context of the surrounding built and natural environment. This would appear to represent a relatively naturalised rather than unrealistically 'ideal' image, evidenced by the inclusion of an overcast sky. Interestingly, the uppermost floors of the three-storey dwellings, clad in grey zinc, are shown to blend into the hills beyond in a way that reduces their visual impact. This is not to say that the visual impact without this effect is considered to be unacceptable - more that the colour proposed may well result in a rather less domineering impression than might otherwise be expected from the elevation plans submitted. This is considered to go in the scheme's favour. The colour proposed also reflects the relatively widespread use of grey slate tiling in this part of Ramsey. 6.56 Concern was raised with the developer at the very earliest stage of discussions about the 'first impression' created by the terrace of Plots 1-10 upon entering the scheme. The case officer was conscious that the side elevation presented could appear slightly 'flat' given the lack of fenestration and could also potentially create the impression of a succession of industrial units rather than of an attractive residential scheme. Considerable discussion on this point took place between the applicant, agent and case officer, and additional planting was proposed at this entrance point into the scheme in order to slightly soften the perhaps somewhat stark side elevation. This did reduce the case officer's concern on this matter. 6.57 The above notwithstanding, it is also true that the views out of the estate are at their most dramatic to the west (in the form of hills) and the east (over the harbour and, beyond, to the sea) - it is therefore appropriate that these views be exploited to their fullest for the benefit of future residents of Plots 1-10. The access road into the scheme is not extensive, and other side-on or oblique views of this elevation from elsewhere - Park Road, for example - would be tempered by the wider setting provided by the extensive views into the open countryside and harbourside within which the scheme would sit. As such, no objection is raised on this point. 6.58 Overall, then, the architectural design of the dwellings proposed is considered appropriate to their context, and conformity with Strategic Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan is considered to exist. Efforts have been made to reflect local vernacular and draw on the industrial heritage of the area where appropriate. The use of bespoke dwelling types and replication of local architectural characteristics is particularly welcome given that the applicant is a volume housebuilder. There are some weak elements in some of the detailing - for example, the window reveals on Plots 17-22 are shallow and perhaps a deeper reveal might have tied these dwellings into Shipyard Road a little more - but none of these are considered to overall represent inadequate or inappropriate elevational treatments.
6.59 It is now worth briefly reflecting on the residential amenity offered by the proposed residential properties.
6.60 The issue of privacy has largely been covered in the above assessment, but it is worth considering the amount of amenity space being proposed for the dwellings on the scheme, the usability of those spaces, and also the proposed arrangements in respect of refuse bin storage. 6.61 The density of the scheme is identified in the Design Statement accompanying the planning application as being 41 dwellings per hectare, and compares this with the surrounding locality of 79 dwellings per hectare. It is not clear what this 'surrounding area' specifically refers to, although the two figures are useful for comparison purposes, and give an indication that the scheme as proposed is, relative to its surroundings, well-served in terms of density. 6.62 A number of the gardens proposed are small. Plots 2-10, 14-16, 18-21 and 23-25 have gardens that could perhaps be considered undersized; many of those Plots listed have gardens smaller than the footprint of the dwellings associated with them. This has been a concern throughout the pre-application discussions and has not been fully resolved in the submission currently under consideration; strong representation was made by the agent and applicant that, while the gardens to Plots 2-10 may be small, there is also some quite generous balcony space. 6.63 There is no standard ratio between dwelling sizes and garden sizes, and this is understandable inasmuch as every situation is different and to be judged on its own merits. 6.64 It is true that future occupiers would be aware of the garden sizes proposed prior to moving into the dwellings; this is an important consideration, as there must be a careful balance struck between (a) requiring gardens of a certain size in order to provide appropriate levels of amenity and (b) accepting that the housing market guides development proposals to the extent that housebuilders would never wish to construct dwellings that they would be unable to sell. 6.65 Two important issues should be considered: firstly, the design layout for the scheme very much reflects the local terraced character, which is characterised by small amenity space to the rear, sometimes garden and other times in the form of a yard. This is reflected in the high density of the area. To expect a housing estate that is reflective of a high density area to provide spacious gardens would not be appropriate. Secondly, it is noted that all the dwellings proposed have (to a greater or lesser extent) both front and rear amenity space, with the result that the Plot sizes are, in fact, quite generous relative to the locality. 6.66 These two factors are considered sufficient to determine that, on balance, the amount of garden land proposed overall is acceptable. 6.67 One issue often overlooked in new housing schemes is that of how front gardens will be maintained - or, even more simply, the question of how gardens are to be mown. With the possible exception of Plots 18-21, this appears to have been properly considered in the current application. All the mid-terrace, three-bedroom properties have two parking spaces to their front such that the need to take a lawnmower to the front of the dwellings (from the rear where they are normally kept) is negated. The end-terrace properties have side access. Plots 18-21 do not have this access and are apparently shown with front gardens. This is perhaps slightly unfortunate, although the Proposed Site Plan does indicate that the land to the front of these dwellings as being "Private Amenity Space", rather than specifically
gardens; as such, it is quite possible that these areas could not require maintenance were they to be laid with hardstanding. 6.68 Finally, the issue of refuse bin storage has also been considered by the agent and applicant. Plots 12-15, 24-25 and 28-29 are shown with 0.4 m -deep open-fronted units that are designed to provide screened storage for refuse bins. Plots 1-10 have storage spaces within the integral garages, while Plots 11, 16, 23, 26-27 and 30 have access to the rear gardens where wheelie bins could be stored. Plots 17-22, meanwhile, would have their refuse collected from the rear, where access via gates is provided. Wheelie bin storage is a matter often poorly addressed on new housing schemes, and it is welcome that consideration has been given to it in the current submission. 6.69 The next matter to consider is that of the public open space and landscaping proposed.
6.70 Turning first to the landscaping, which has already been identified in this report as being central to the overall scheme's success, a coherent and design-led approach has been taken. It is often the case that landscaping - particularly with respect to planting - is treated as an addendum to a scheme or in a manner that is intended to mask its design flaws. Such a situation is not considered to exist on this occasion. The very robust and structured layout of the scheme - particularly in respect of the three-bedroom dwellings - was considered to lend itself to a similarly structured landscaping scheme. As such, the developer agreed to provide a number of trees parallel to the front elevations of those dwellings to provide a natural structure to the scheme in addition to that of the proposed built environment. It is recognised that for this idea to be properly realised, relatively mature specimens of trees would be required for planting. Information regarding what trees might be used for this purpose - and their size - was sought from the developer but that information is yet to be forthcoming. 6.71 Tree planting is also proposed for the areas between Plots 23-25 and the dwellings of North Shore Road and Plots 11 and 12 and the dwellings of Gibson Street. These are used as a screening mechanism by way of minimising loss of privacy for all residents, both existing and future. 6.72 Concern was raised about the somewhat stark impression that would be created by the expanse of close-boarded timber fencing to the rear of Plots 17-22 - in response to this concern, trees are proposed to be planted at this boundary. Additional and quite extensive planting is proposed throughout the public open space; it is considered that the planting proposed is judicious and perhaps more comprehensive than would normally be expected on a scheme of this size. That which is shown on the Proposed Site Plan does give the appearance of perhaps being conceptual, but it is understood by the case officer to be reflective of a more specific and planned programme of planting. However, and for the avoidance of doubt, if approval were to be forthcoming it is considered appropriate to require via condition that a landscaping scheme be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning and Building Control Division prior to work commencing on site.
6.73 The application site requires some of informal play space based on the number and size of the dwellings proposed. The agent and applicant considered that the nearby Mooragh Park diluted this need and initially offered informal play space below this requirement; this argument was not considered acceptable as there was no good reason that informal open space could not be provided on the scheme. As such, 1,183sqm are now
provided across four areas, three of which are directly accessible from within the application site, a fourth of which adjoins the neighbouring harbourside open space and the final element surrounding the proposed parking courtyard. These areas are considered to provide varied and appropriate "breathing spaces" within the site, and also to relate well to views out of the site, particularly those of the estuary and Sky Hill. 6.74 In respect of formal Public Open Space (POS), a slightly different approach is taken. Mooragh Park contains a number of good quality and well-maintained leisure facilities. Ballacloan Football Stadium is immediately north of North Shore Road, while a rugby club and indoor swimming pool are all within walking distance of the application site. Further afield in Ramsey is a golf club. 6.75 It is the case that these facilities are available and made use of by many people in the town as a form of leisure and recreation, which is the purpose of providing formal open space - rather than just considering sports pitches and playing fields, which only attract certain types of activities. It is perhaps useful to consider the needs of the existing population of Ramsey - 7,821 people, at the time of the 2011 Census, which at that point would have resulted in an overall demand for just over 14 hectares of formal open space ( 18 sqm per person as required by Appendix 6, Table 1 of the Strategic Plan). Mooragh Park (albeit not entirely laid out as formal recreation space) and Ballacloan Football Club together total some 11.6 hectares of formal open space, with other public open space (again, not all laid out as formal recreation space) in Ramsey offering a further 17 hectares, with both the schools and Poylldooey providing the majority of this. Much of this land is in public ownership and could provide more organised formal open space if the local authority considered the town deficient in this respect. Ramsey Golf Club offers a further 37 hectares. 6.76 Reflecting on the fact that Ramsey Town Commissioners have not sought formal POS, and the good level of provision within Ramsey, it is considered appropriate to not require formal POS or a commuted sum in lieu for this application. This judgement is reached given the very specific and very particular circumstances of the application site. 6.77 Mooragh Park provides some children's play equipment. It is, however, acknowledged that this is over half a kilometre from the application site. As with formal POS, the responsibility for providing and maintaining children's play equipment rests with the Commissioners, and again the Commissioners were aware that a request for such equipment could be made from the applicant. It is again noted that the Commissioner's objection to the planning application in respect of the proposed informal open space raised concerns solely in respect of the utility of that space (or lack thereof) rather than the applicant's failure to provide play equipment itself. For the same specific and particular circumstances of the application site, and given the response received from the Commissioners, it is not considered that the lack of children's play equipment on the site represents a substantive reason to refuse the planning application. 6.78 The approach taken with respect to formal and informal public open space is therefore considered, on balance, to be acceptable and any conflict with Recreation Policies 3 and 4 not judged to be so significant as to warrant a refusal on these bases.
6.79 Already well-related to Ramsey in a strategic sense, an effort has been made to connect the scheme with its more immediate surroundings via a pedestrian access lane onto Gibson Street. It is noted that access to wider Ramsey is primarily via North Shore Road so access to the land to the south, which is surrounded by water in any case, is not entirely necessary although the provision of some form of connectivity is welcome.
6.80 In terms of the surveillance of the public areas of the proposed scheme - the public open space, the car parking, the pedestrian access between the site and Gibson Street - is generally considered to be acceptable. While it is noted that some of the POS is overlooked only from gable ends of proposed dwellings, these areas are also quite well surveilled from North Shore Road and the Paul Dedman Performance unit. Surveillance of the other public areas, which are directly overlooked either by front or rear elevations of proposed dwellings, is judged to be acceptable. 6.81 Advice from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer has been sought on this matter, and a verbal update will be provided to Planning Committee should a response be forthcoming.
6.82 This assessment has in places touched on boundary treatment of the scheme, but it is worth reflecting on it in a little more detail. Plots 1-10 will, to the rear, be separated by 1.8 m high close-boarded timber fencing with the end of each garden finished with the existing blockwork boundary wall. This is short - too short to be seen from the other side of the estuary - and will be repainted; the same treatment is proposed for the rear boundaries of Plots 11-16 and 23-30. Were close-boarded timber fencing proposed throughout the scheme, it is considered that this would have a somewhat claustrophobic effect for the residents in those dwellings, but the blockwork walls reduce this effect somewhat. The open nature at the rear of Plots 1-10 further serves the purpose of reducing any claustrophobic effect to acceptable levels. 6.83 The fencing proposed to the east of Plots 11 and 30 - both of which overlook public open space - are 1.5 m in height and topped with trellises of 30 cm in height. The trellises would improve the intervisibility between the dwellings and the public open space, and also serve to reduce the starkness of 1.8 m -high close-boarded fencing from the point of view of the general public. This may cause maintenance problems in future and it would perhaps be better were a wall of 1.8 m high proposed. A similar judgement is reached in respect of the fencing proposed to the rear of Plots 17-22, which will also be softened by tree-planting. 6.84 It was considered unfortunate that this treatment was not proposed to the north of Plot 1, which originally had 1.8 m -high close-boarded fencing for the entire length of its boundary with the proposed POS; fencing of 0.6 m from the fence's return where it joins the rear garden was requested instead. This is considered to reduce the starkness of the fencing and provide a more welcoming first view of the application site at its entrance. Fencing 0.6 m in height is also proposed to run a short distance between some of the Plots at the front, where those Plots either have proposed bin stores or are at the end of a terrace. This fencing is not considered to especially add to or detract from the design quality, although it perhaps could be said to reinforce the structural uniformity presented by the scheme. 6.85 As discussed elsewhere in this Report, the case officer requested close attention be paid to the integration of the proposed dwellings with the existing dwellings of Shipyard Road. The dwarf walls already in place along Shipyard Road present an opportunity to reflect a robust and traditional boundary treatment, and the application has successfully managed this to the front elevations of Plots 17-22, both fronting the road and between the gardens to these dwellings. This is considered a successful approach and is welcomed.
6.86 Housing Policy 5 requires that of the scheme should consist of affordable dwellings. Plots 17-22 and 24-25 are being offered to the Department of Social Care (DSC) as the affordable units. The eight plots proposed would meet the numeric requirements of
Housing Policy 5, and it is the responsibility of DSC to seek dwellings of a size and type appropriate to the needs of the locality. On this point, it is understood that a draft of a section 13 legal agreement to this effect are broadly agreed by the parties. 6.87 Concerns about the potentially negative impacts of corralling the affordable units within one specific area are not considered to apply to the current planning application. The integration of Plots 17-22 within the overall streetscene was a particular design challenge and one that is, as noted elsewhere, considered to have been tackled successfully; these Plots, although perhaps sitting somewhat separately to the remainder of the scheme overall, are in many ways the most centrally-located relative to the wider residential area. Moreover, Plots 24 and 25 are slightly separate from the other affordable units to reduce this concern slightly further. 6.88 It is therefore considered that the amount, type and location of the affordable housing proposed is acceptable and satisfies the provisions of Housing Policy 5.
6.89 As noted in the Representation section of this report, the Senior Biodiversity Officer identified concerns regarding the potential for seagull attacks on people during nesting season, and requested further information in respect of ensuring the flat-roofed dwellings do not provide for a nesting location for seagulls. The agent advised that the zinc roofs can become hot during sunny weather such as to make the environment inhospitable for nesting purposes. This was accepted by the biodiversity officer, and no objection is therefore raised on this point, which is in any case considered a relatively minor material consideration. 6.90 Although no specific wildlife protection issues have been raised, the biodiversity officer does state that the adjacent public amenity space (i.e. that land between the application site and the estuary) should be protected from "unexpected activities during works (storage, disruption, spillage, etc)". While this point is agreed with, it is not possible to attach a condition to this effect as the land in question lies outside the application site and therefore requiring activities to occur (or, in this case, not occur) via planning condition would be beyond the powers of the Planning Division.
6.91 There is some conflict between the proposal and Local Plan policies. However, the circumstances of the application site are such that the loss of the light industrial land is not considered so significant in either a local or Island context as to represent a fundamental objection. It is therefore considered that a refusal on the basis of the loss of light industrial land would be inappropriate. Moreover, it is also considered that the principle of residential development on the application site is acceptable given the surrounding uses and geographic relationship between the site and surrounding amenities. 6.92 Issues of flood risk and contaminated land have been satisfactorily addressed. The specifics of the design and impact on local residential amenity are considered to fall within acceptable levels; this judgement is reached having had regard to the urban design of the proposal in terms of the site layout, public open space provision, dwelling design, highways safety and parking provision, views into and out of the site, affordable housing provision and proposed boundary treatment.
7.1 It is recommended that approval is granted subject to the prior completion of a Section 13 legal agreement to secure on-site affordable housing units.
8.1 The owner/occupier of Greystones, 3 Lumby Terrace (also known as 7 Shipyard Road) is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(b), considered "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 8.2 The owner/occupier of Thie Aalin, 5 Shipyard Road is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(b), considered "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Highways Division is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d), considered "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 8.4 The Department of Food, Environment and Agriculture is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d), considered "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 8.5 The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d), considered "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 8.6 The local authority, Ramsey Town Commissioners, is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(e), considered "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 8.7 The Department of Social Care is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d), considered "Interested Persons" and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status. 8.8 Manx National Heritage is not considered to have sufficient interest in the site to be granted Interested Person Status. 8.9 The Manx Electricity Authority is not considered to have sufficient interest in the site to be granted Interested Person Status.
Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement
Date of 05.03.2014
Recommendation:
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following approved plans, all date-stamped as having been received 10th December 2013:
C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following approved plans, all date-stamped as having been received 25th February 2014:
C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following approved plans, all date-stamped as having been received 6th March 2014:
C 5. The dwarf walls proposed to the Shipyard Road-side of Plots 17-22 (inclusive) shall, in the interests of highways safety, be no higher than 1.05 m in height.
C 6. Plots 17-22 shall not be occupied until both the parking courtyard and turning area to the rear have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for
any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
C 7. There must be no discharge of surface or foul water to any ditch or watercourse.
C 8. No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.
C 9. Prior to the commencement of any development on the site, a Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Division. The statement shall include: the phasing of the provision of the public open spaces shown in drawing 1275-003L, and the phasing and siting of any construction compound and details of any fencing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement. - SC
C 10. No development for affordable housing shall commence until the scheme provider has entered into an agreement with the Department of Infrastructure under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.
Cll- MNH - 7estchop survey N 1. Your attention is drawn to condition(s) 8, 9 and 10 above, which require the submission and approval of certain information PRIOR to the commencement of development on site. No development should be commenced until these conditions have been discharged, and failure to do so may render the development unauthorised and open to enforcement action. Failure to comply with the conditions is a criminal offence.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
