Loading document...
The application is before the Planning Committee as the recommendation of the Planning Officer is contrary to that of the Local Authority.
It should also be noted that the Planning Committee has already considered the application at their meeting on the 9th October 2009, and approved the scheme subject to a percolation test being undertaken, to ensure that a soak away system would be possible on this site. This has yet to be done and consequently the matter is being reported again to re-assess the application.
The site is part of the existing residential curtilage of St Olaves House, Bowring Road, Ramsey, located south of St Olaves House and to the west of Bowring Road.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of ‘predominantly residential use’ on the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
The following policies are therefore considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
Policy 2: “New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.”
Policy 1: “Development should make the best use of resources by:
General
Policy 2: "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:
Housing
Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
Environment
Policy 42: "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."
Ramsey Local Plan - Policy R/R/P3: Infill/Backland Sites:-
"Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such sites should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to the submission of any application."
The application site has been the subject of two previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:-
Approval in principle to erect a detached dwelling - 09/00455/A - Part Of Garden At St Olaves House – APPROVED
Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - 06/01416/A - Part Of Garden At St Olaves House – APPROVED
The application seeks approval for the approval in principle to erect a dwelling south of St Olaves House.
The Ramsey Commissioners have objected on the following grounds:-
"As the area of land presently occupied by St Olaves House is subject to an ongoing planning application for another dwelling to the east of the existing property, it is considered that this application is premature.
This proposal is deemed to be a tandem development utilising an existing driveway and vehicular access onto Bowring Road which is considered to be in a hazardous situation being near to the Jurby Road junction.
Concerns have previously been expressed in terms of the land stabilisation to the west of the site which may have a detrimental effect on the site of this proposed dwelling.
This proposal would constitute an over intensive use of the site and would reduce considerably the private amenity space to St Olaves House."
Highways Division do not oppose subject to the following conditions:-
"Existing access is to be used for this proposal. This becomes a shared surface; drive will need to be 4.1 metres for the first 6 metres from its junction with a major road.
Off street parking arrangements in accordance with IOM Strategic Plan. This can be achieved within land owned by the applicant."
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Manx Electric Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owner/occupier of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Ballaveare, Braddan, has commented to the application which can be summarised as; the site is within predominately residential use, however might be regarded as backland development, contrary to Environmental Policy 42.
The Strategic Plan in Strategic Policies 1 & 2 and in Housing Policy 4 directs new housing development towards existing towns and settlements.
The site is zoned for residential development in the Ramsey Local Plan, therefore, there is a presumption in favour of development.
Policy R/R/3 seeks to protect from development sites which provide attractive natural breathing spaces between buildings. These sites often include trees, mature landscaping or simply green spaces.
Whether this site could be regarded as being an attractive natural "breathing" space between established residential buildings, is questionable, given it is overgrown and does not seem to have had a particular use. Also the site is between residential properties and a woodland, therefore not between two or more residential properties.
The impact of any development on neighbouring amenities, amenities for the future occupiers and parking/highway issues should also be considered.
As the application is only approval in principle and the indicative plan only shows a footprint, it is not possible to make a full assessment of how the proposal would impact upon the neighbouring properties. The illustrative scheme does indicate that the northern part of the dwelling would be single storey, whilst the southern section would be two storeys, which would take into account the fall of the ground level, to form a lower storey. The properties the proposal could potentially affect are St Olaves House, 53, 51, 49 and 47 Bowring Road. Some consideration also needs to be given to the single dwelling to the northeast of the application site, still within the curtilage of St Olaves House for which approval has been given, but which is yet to be implemented.
However, at this stage the siting of the dwelling is indicated to be positioned more than 30 metres from the rear elevation of 53 Bowring Road and the proposed northern single storey aspect (probably garage) would be the closest part of the dwelling to St Olaves House. These are considered to be the main aspects for potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities at this stage. However, it is judged that a dwelling could be designed that would have limited impact upon the neighbouring properties given the size of the site and the distance from the neighbouring dwellings.
It is also considered that adequate parking and an acceptable amount of external amenity for future occupiers could be provided. Added to this, it is considered St Olaves House will still retain the majority of is rear garden/amenity space, especially as the application site is not currently used as a garden, as it is overgrown and unused.
The application for approval of the reserved matters would be required to show driveway alterations to comply with the standards indicated by the Highway Division; however, this can be accommodated within the curtilage of the site.
The proposal will increase disturbance to the occupiers of St Olaves House and to the proposed new dwelling, given additional vehicular traffic too and from the site and general noises associated with residential properties. However, given the proposal is for only a single dwelling and not a number of dwellings, it is not considered the proposal would result in a significant disturbance upon residential amenities to the neighbouring properties.
The Forestry Division have visited the site on a number of occasions and discussed the application with the owner. The Forestry Division see no reason to be concerned over the trees on the site(s) with only a minimal amount of remedial pruning on a couple sycamores and removal of some cypresses which are of little value. During his discussion, the owner has confirmed his intentions are to retain all tree specimens to provide/retain a degree of privacy to the proposed houses. The current position of the buildings will result in minimal root damage; but if the footprint of the proposed buildings alter then another visit and assessment will be required. The Forester would only insist that the applicants comply with the British Standard publication "Trees in Relation to Construction" (BS 5837). A condition at a reserved matters stage could require the applicant to discuss with the Forestry Division measures to safeguard the trees during construction.
It is therefore considered that at this stage the proposed siting is appropriate, although a condition should be attached requiring a full tree survey to be undertaken and submitted with any future Reserved Matters application.
The Commissioners believe that additional vehicular traffic at the access onto Jurby Road would cause a hazardous situation. The proposal would result in an additional single dwelling and therefore give the potential of three dwellings using the entrance. The Highway Division have not objected on these grounds, but have indicated that the first six metres of the driveway (measured form the junction) should be widened to 4.1m so that two cars can pass, and therefore prevent a vehicle waiting on the public highway, for a car exiting the site at the same time. It is considered with such a condition in place and as the traffic generated (even with a possibility of three dwellings using the entrance) would be limited, there would not be a significant impact upon highway safety.
The Commissioners also raised concerns of the land stabilisation to the west of the site which may have a detrimental effect on the site of this proposed dwelling. This is a valid issue, given the nearby site to the north, which has permission for a number of new apartments, has had issues with the stability of the bank/slope. It is therefore appropriate that a condition requiring a structural report on the stability of the bank be undertaken and included in a reserved matters application.
The Commissioners also raise the issue of a percolation test being undertaken to ensure that a soak away system would be possible on this site.
The Planning Authority has sent a number of letters requiring the percolation test to be carried out, but as of yet, has not received any notification that this has been done. The applicant has had since October 2009 to provide such details.
General Policy 2 (j) states that any development would be acceptable providing the site "can be provided with all necessary services". It is considered as the requested percolation test has not been submitted to the Planning Authority, it cannot be determined at this stage that a soak away system would be an acceptable for this proposed dwelling. Therefore the scheme would be contrary to General Policy 2 (j) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Overall, it is considered given no evidence has been submitted to support the proposed soak away system on this site the proposal is contrary to the relevant planning policy. Consequently, the application is recommended for a refusal.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
The Drainage Division (Water and Sewerage Authority)
It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
The Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2011
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The proposal would be contrary to general Policy 2 (j) which seeks to ensure all development can be provided with all necessary servicing. In this case, with no submitted percolation test, the Planning Authority is unable to determine whether the site is capable of development providing the necessary services.
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: ... Committee Meeting Date: ...
Signed: ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
