Loading document...
| Application No.: | 14/00653/B |
| Applicant: | Miss Diane Marchment |
| Proposal: | Erection of a detached dwelling with associated garage |
| Site Address: | Plot 2 Off Station Road St Johns Isle Of Man |
1.1 The site is a piece of land which lies to the east of Station Road in St. John's village. The site has access via a partly made up roadway which runs between the small local grocery store/Post Office and Mona House and Coach House Cottage to the south. The site is 42m by 41m in area.
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling on the site. The house is very modern in form and detailing with flat roofs over two storey and single storey elements with cedar cladding at the upper level and a flat roofed detached garage alongside.
2.2 Three trees are shown on site, one of which is to be removed as part of the application.
3.2 The site lies within an area designated on the St. John's Local Plan as Proposed Primary School. This was one of two sites identified, the other being the one which was developed for this purpose. Planning approval was granted for the principle of the development of this site for a dwelling and for a second alongside to the east (which is the subject of PA 14/00653) under PA 11/00241.
3.3 This approval was subject to a number of conditions including the following:
| Case Officer : | Miss S E Corlett |
| Photo Taken : | 11.06.2014 |
| Site Visit : | 11.06.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level : | Officer Delegation |
3.4 Plan reference 725/PL100C showed a number of trees on the site, with only two sycamores to be removed to make room for the proposed dwelling and an ash removed at the eastern edge.
3.5 The access into the site has been created inasmuch as the visibility splays out onto Station Road have been provided through the alteration of the roadside wall. This has been agreed with the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services (see memorandum on file PA 11/00241 which explains that for safety reasons the wall needs to be no lower than 1.15m and the wall has been lowered in accordance with this. This was acceptable to Department of Infrastructure Highway Services).
4.1 German Parish Commissioners raise no objection but do not imply any approval to any access through to Balladoyne estate.
4.2 The owner of the post office and store objects to the application on the basis that the car park adjoining her property does not belong to the applicants and is used by customers and staff of the shop as well as a right of way used by children and adults and the occupants of the properties alongside the post office. Additional traffic using this area is therefore unacceptable and is likely to further affect the structural stability of her property.
4.3 The owners of 7, Balladoyne have no basic objection to the application but wish it to be confirmed that no approval is implied or granted to further access to the east. The owner of Brushwood, Balladoyne make the same comment about access through to Balladoyne.
4.4 The owners of Balladoyne Farm who also co-own land on which the drainage is to be installed suggest that the drawings submitted are inaccurate in that they still show access through to the land to the east. They also point out that there is no information on trees on site, and land is included which is not within the ownership or control of the applicant. The access is not as stipulated in the approval in principle and the site notice was not displayed as required.
4.5 The owner of Claireville objects to the application on the basis of an increase in traffic coming out onto Station Road and suggests that an alternative access onto the Curragh Road should be explored.
4.6 Manx Utilities (Electricity) seek consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies to the development which is not a material planning concern.
4.7 Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application.
5.1 The principle of the erection of a dwelling on this site has been approved under PA 11/00241. However, it was clear in that approval that the detailed plans should include not only an accurate tree survey but also a landscaping scheme. Almost none of the existing trees are shown on the drawings and as such it is assumed that the trees would all be removed. This has been raised with the applicant and her agent and no reply has been forthcoming. The loss of trees was raised by third party objectors at the time of the approval in principle. In the absence of any information on the trees and their protection, the application cannot be considered to be acceptable. There is similarly no information on levels - the proposed development has simply been superimposed upon the level survey and as such the true impact of the development cannot be assessed.
5.2 The information submitted by third parties on access is important but appears to have been raised with the approval in principle and not accepted by the inspector as a justification for the refusal of the application. As such, it is difficult to accept that the access is unacceptable. Whilst the wall has not been reduced by the full amount - 10mm higher than approved, it is not considered that this additional height makes a significant difference to those exiting the site. Visibility of vehicles using the road is impeded very much by vehicles parked on the highway and the two service poles. Oncoming pedestrians can be seen above the wall.
5.3 The design on the dwelling is modern and perhaps different from the very traditional architecture in the village. If the dwelling were not visible then perhaps such a modern design could sit comfortably in the village. However, in the absence of information on existing and proposed trees and levels it is not possible to ascertain whether the dwelling would be visible and from where.
5.4 The site plan drawing does not include all of the site and critically does not include all of the details of the proposed drainage.
5.5 In conclusion, the application lacks so much critical information that it is not possible to judge that the proposal is acceptable. It does not comply with the conditions of the approval in principle - specifically conditions 5 and 6. It is not helped that the location plan continues to show an access through to Balladoyne estate.
6.1 The local authority, German Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
6.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
6.3 The Post Office and Balladoyne Farm are immediately alongside the application site and as such these parties should be afforded interested person status.
6.4 Claireville, Brushwood and 7, Balladoyne are not adjacent to the site and as such should not be afforded interested person status.
6.5 Manx Utilities do not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded interested person status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 08.07.2014
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The application lacks sufficient detail regarding existing and proposed trees, levels and drainage to enable a conclusion to be reached that the proposed development would sit comfortably within its context and not result in a visual and environmental detriment to the village. No details of existing or proposed trees have been submitted and as such the proposal fails to comply with conditions 5 and 6 of the approval in principle PA 11/00241.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Refused Date: 08.07.2014
Signed: _________________________ Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
