Loading document...
Application No.: 09/01554/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Alan Desmond Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and erection of a detached dwelling Site Address: Land Adjacent To Okara Crescent Road Ramsey Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 02/11/09 & 10/05/10 Site Visit: 02/11/09 & 10/05/10 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations Magher Breck 2 Lheaney Grove Ramsey Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal 3 Lheaney Grove Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2JQ | Objects to the proposal ### Consultations Consultee : Mr P S Harrison Notes : comments received. Consultee : Highways Division Notes : Defer Consultee : Clerk To The Commissioners Notes : objection Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes : see note 1
The application is before the Planning Committee as the Planning Officers recommendation is contrary to the written submissions of the Local Authority.
SITE 13 July 2010 09/01554/B Page 1 of 9
The site represents the curtilage of the land adjacent to Okara, Crescent Road, Ramsey which is a triangular shaped parcel of land, located on the western side of Crescent Road.
Currently the site is overgrown and would not appear to be maintained; however, to the southern part of the site comprises a single storey garage which has access onto Crescent Road via an existing drop curb.
The application site is within an area of predominately residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998, hereafter referred to as the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
The following policies are therefore considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
As the site is located within an area predominantly residential use the following policies are relevant:-
Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
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 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:
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:
Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan "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 simple green space. Any possible development of such sites should from the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to the submission of any application."
The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Erection of dwelling with garage - 02/00532/B - REFUSED for the following reasons:-
a) Its size and shape, the dwelling would have insufficient private amenity space; b) Its proximity the highway compared to neighbouring properties along Crescent Road; the dwelling would be closer to the highway and this would be detrimental to the street scene as well as to the outlook enjoyed by the neighbouring property to the south. c) Its proximity to the bungalows to the rear of the site in Lheaney Grove, the dwelling would be un-neighbourly in that it would overlook the bungalows and reduce their privacy."
Approval in principle for erection of dwelling - 01/01008/A - REFUSED for the following reason:-
PROPOSAL The application seeks approval for the demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey detached dwelling. The dwelling would have a width of 9 metres, a depth of 7.2 metres, and a ridge height of 8 metres.
The Ramsey Commissioners have objected on the following grounds:- "It is considered that the application site is of insufficient size to support a separate dwelling and therefore is un-neighbourly and an over intensive use of the site. 14.06.10 - objection - Despite a redesign of the internal layout of the proposed property, it is still considered that the application would result in an over intensive and un-neighbourly development. In addition, it is considered that the proposal is not in accordance with the Ramsey Local Plan in respect of the development of infill/back land sites - Policy R/R/P3 which states that, 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."
Highways Division have deferred from making a decision on the following grounds:- "Visibility splays are not shown at the point of access. metre visibility splays are required. Splays shall be kept clear of any object, vegetation, or other obstructions of a height exceeding 1.05 m above the land of the adjacent carriageway.
The access drive arrangements shall comprise a turning facility to permit a motor car to turn around within the site so that a vehicle can emerge from the site in a forward gear."
The Water and Sewage 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 Electricity 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 owners/occupiers of Magher Breck, 2 Lheaney Grove, Ramsey, have objected to the proposal which is summarised as; over intensive use of the site on a small strip of land; detrimentally effect the very pleasant open appearance and character of the area; unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of both No 2 and No 3 Lheaney Grove and permission was refused at appeal previously and the same reasons apply.
The owner/occupier of 3 Lheaney Grove, Ramsey, has objected to the proposal which is summarised as; will spoil our views if the green foliage and trees; loss of privacy; proposal would be an eyesore and a blot on the landscape.
The first issue to determine is the principle of a dwelling on this site. As indicated previously the site is within an area of "predominately residential use". Therefore it is considered in principle that the development of the site into residential use is acceptable, ormaced Faccoron with the entehe Set out in general othity 2. In prinaive However, consideration needs to be taken of Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan, which states that within areas zoned for predominantly residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of sites that provide attractive, natural breathing spaces between established residential buildings. also Perhaps at this stage it is worth explain what planning policies have been adopted since the last application in 2002 relating to this type of development.
Since the previous application (02/00532/B) the Isle of Man Strategic Plan has been adopted (June 2007). Within this document Strategic Policy 1 considered that development should make (a) the best use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
Further to this Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 require new development to be located primarily within our existing towns and villages. A the Imthepe Ree Consequently, since the adoption, there have been developments which have been permitted within Ramsey, which have resulted in the best use of under-used land, which include the four plots adjacent to the Summerland and the parcel of land situated at the corner of Glen Elfin Road and May Hill .
An Appeal Inspector for one of the planning applications (06/01545/A) along Summerland, he stated:- "I note that the Ramsey Local Plan was approved in 1998, and thus not as up-to-date as it might be. Since its adoption, considerably more weight is given to seeking to locate residential development in sustainable locations, an aspect of which is ready accessibility to shops, employment, education, and leisure facilities. In this respect, the application site scores well in contracts to peripheral greenfield sites."
Whilst it could be argued that Policy R/R/P3 be applied to the application site under consideration now, it is concluded that the application site is not significantly attractive and does not form a substantial breathing space between established residential buildings.
Furthermore, it is important to consider the applicant could clear all the landscaping within the site tomorrow, which is mostly made up of overgrown bushes and weeds. The exception to this would be the removal of the trees; this would require a tree felling licence from the Forestry Division.
The development involves the removal of two trees from the site, with four trees remaining within the side garden. The applicant has been in contact with the Forestry Division, but no comments have been received. The scheme does propose to have a rear and side gardens, with a boundary hedge running along the majority of the eastern boundary.
A concern was also raised regarding the lack of private and appropriate amenity space for occupants of the new unit. The proposal would have a similar amount of external amenity space compared to the previous scheme. To the rear there would be a rear garden which has an approximately depth of 5 metres and a width of 16 metres. The largest area of external space would be to the north of the dwelling (side garden) which has a width of approximately 18 metres and a maximum depth of 10 metres, which gradually decreases to 4 metres (northern most point of site).
Since this previous application, the Planning Authority has refused an application (07/01458/B) for a pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings adjacent to Summerland on the grounds of a lack of amenity space. Each of the dwellings under this application had significantly less space compared to the proposal. The The Appeal Inspector for application 07/01458/B stated:- "The external amenity space is limited and the houses would have very small gardens. However there are no minimum standards in relation to amenity space provision and it is not unusual for developments in urban area to have small gardens. Bearing in mind that in visual terms the limited amenity area would not result in an unduly cramped appearance, and that not everyone wishes a large garden and the availability of public open space in the immediate area, including a park on the opposite side of Queens Pier Road, I am not convinced that the small area of amenity space would result in unacceptable living conditions for prospective residents."
Given this previous comments on the issue of amenity space for new dwellings within town centres; the site is within a few minutes walk of various amenities (Promenade, Beach etc) and as the dwelling would have a larger external amenity space compared to some neighbouring properties within Crescent Road and neighbouring residential developments, it is consider the proposal would provide adequate amount of amenity space for future occupants of the dwelling.
For these reasons and a subsequent change to a greater use of urban sites rather than Greenfield sites, renders this policy somewhat inappropriate, particularly due to Strategic Policy .
However, taking this policy into account still requires consideration to whether the development of the site as proposed, would have an adverse impact upon the appearance of the streets scene and/or impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.
One of the two reasons for refusal of the previously application (02/00532/B) was on the grounds that the dwellings proximity to the highway compared to neighbouring properties along Crescent Road, and therefore would be detrimental to the street scene as well as to the outlook enjoyed by the neighbouring property to the south.
The majority of the footprint and size of the new proposed dwelling is the same as the previous refusal scheme, although the previous refused scheme did proposal a single storey projection from the front elevation, which was 1.5 metres forward of the main dwelling elevation. This aspect has now been removed.
From visiting the site on a number of occasions, studying the submitted plans and using aerial photography, the proposal would be set approximately 1.6 metres forward of the front elevation of 'Okara' and 'Rosedene' (pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings) which are the closest properties along Crescent Road. However, when taking into account all the properties within Crescent Road and their building lines, the proposal would be approximately level with that of 'Glen Hazel', 'Eastleigh' and 'Cuchulainn'.
In terms of design and appearance, the proposal would be within a residential area which is made up of varies types of designs, heights and styles. It is considered the scheme as proposed would be appropriate in this street scape.
Whilst the closest aspect of the proposal would be 4.5 metres from the public footpath, it is considered given the reduction of the forward projection of built development of the dwelling and for the other reasons indicated, it is considered the scheme would overcome the previous reasons for refusal, and therefore would be sympathetic to the streetscape.
The final issue which needs careful consideration is the potential impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, namely 2 and 3 Lheaney Grove, which are west of the application site.
The previous scheme was also refused on the grounds that due to the proposals proximity to the bungalows to the rear of the site in Lheaney Grove, the dwelling would be un-neighbourly in that it would overlook the bungalows and reduce their privacy. The previous scheme proposed a total of four first floor windows which looked directly towards the neighbouring properties to the west. These windows served a bedroom, toilet, bathroom and the landing.
Careful consideration has been taken to answer these concerns, and the applicant has submitted a scheme which only has a single landing window at first floor level which directly looks towards the neighbouring property.
This consideration has required the applicant to plan the first floor layout, to ensure all rooms benefit from a window and provide adequate living amenities for future occupants; whilst not adverse impacting the neighbouring properties through overlooking.
It is considered given the landing window does not serve a primarily habitable room (kitchen/lounge) a condition can be attached, which required obscure glazing to be installed and retained thereafter. This would ensure no overlooking would occur over the neighbouring properties, resulting in a loss of privacy.
Whilst the previous application was not refused on the grounds that it would result in an overbearing impact upon the outlook of these neighbouring properties it is appropriate to consider again.
The closest property would be Nr 2 Lheaney Grove, which would be approximately 19 metres away. The closest aspect, which is directly in line with the rear elevation/windows of this neighbouring property, would be the single storey aspect of the proposed development.
It is considered, the distance between the two properties and given the aspect directly facing the neighbouring dwelling is single storey, the proposal would have no significant impact upon the outlook of Nr 2 Lheaney Grove to warrant a refusal on these grounds.
Regarding the outlook and internal amenity space for future occupants of the proposed dwelling, it is considered the layout design ensures the lounge has views over the rear, but particularly the side garden which would provide a clear and pleasant outlook. The kitchen has views to the front of the dwelling, towards Crescent Road, again consider appropriate.
Overall, in terms of floor space, the proposal would result in a three bedroomed property which has an acceptable amount of internal amenity space appropriate for the size of dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION
Overall, due to these reasons indicated, it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (June 2007) and therefore recommend the application be approved.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
The owners/occupiers of Magher Breck, 2 Lheaney Grove, Ramsey The owner/occupier of 3 Lheaney Grove, Ramsey
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 Department of Transport 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.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.07.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
