Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01211/B Applicant: Mr William Bush Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with garage Site Address: Land Adjacent To Rocklands Bay View Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 17.06.2010 Site Visit: 17.06.2010 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations 9 The Quay Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5EA Objects to the proposal Wave Crest Bay View Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal ### Consultations Consultee: Senior Forester Notes: Comments received Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Defer 11.11.10 - Do not oppose 2 February 2011 10/01211/B Page 1 of 6 Consultee : Port St Mary Commissioners Notes: - comments received. Defer. 17.09.10 - comments received. Consultee : Mr B J Boyle Notes: Comments received Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes: Comments received
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
The site represents a piece of land, which site accommodates an existing dwelling - Rocklands - which sits on the eastern side of Bay View Road, immediately to the south of the shelter and footpath leading down to Chapel Bay. The site has to the east a footpath which is part of the Raad Ny Foillan long distance footpath, to the south is an existing dwelling - Ballamaria. The site slopes steeply towards the coast with an overall fall of 9 m with the footway raised above the level of the shingle by approximately 2 m .
Rocklands is a three storey traditional house built into the slope of the site. It has sliding sash windows, a slate roof, rendered walls and substantial chimneys. Ballamaria and Ballamona to the south of this, are similar but with projecting bays - Ballamaria with single storey bays and Ballamona having two storey bays and dormers (Ballamaria has three, Ballamona two) in the front pitch.
Opposite the site there is a terrace of properties - Bay House, Thornlea, Sefton House and Wave Crest, all Victorian properties with Bay House sitting slightly further forward towards the road than the others to the north west.
The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Predominantly Residential. On the draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 the site lies within an area of Residential use but outside of the settlement boundary and within both the proposed Conservation Area and an area where the existing trees are recognised as being Registered. On the modified draft, issued in January 2011, the site is identified as Residential and is within the settlement boundary.
Planning permission was sought for the principle of the erection of a dwelling and garage under PA 85/0711. This was refused for the reason that the development would involve the undesirable loss of a substantial number of trees which would be detrimental to the amenities of the area. Various applications have been considered in respect of Rocklands - the alteration and extension of the dwelling itself, the erection of a garage (PA 95/1114) and the installation of fencing on an existing wall which was refused (PA 88/1600).
Also of relevance is a recent planning appeal decision in respect of the erection of a dwelling alongside Willow Terrace - PA 09/1295 which will be referred to later.
Proposed here is the erection of a dwelling and attached garage. The dwelling has been designed to pick up features of Ballamaria and Ballamona and has a single storey bay either side of the front door, sliding sash styled windows and three pitched roofed dormers on the front pitch. The garage is flat roofed which has a castellated parapet wall on the front and a balustrade on the rear. The rear elevation is more modern with a protecting glazed full height feature in the centre and four levels of glazed balcony on the rear. The roof is to be finished in slate, the walling in render and plastic framed windows.
The dwelling is to be the same height as Ballamaria (see drawings for PA 05/1316). Visibility splays are shown from a new access which will also serve Rocklands.
The owner of Wave Crest objects to the application on the basis that the geological instability of the area will be jeopardised by building and engineering works and they also suggest that the design of the development is out of keeping with the area. Finally, they are concerned that the access from Shore Road onto Bay View Road is busy and has limited visibility and further traffic using this would exacerbate the situation.
The owner of 9, The Quay objects to the application and suggests that the trees which were previously on the site were removed under the premise that they were dangerous and they actually supported rooks which, with the trees formed an attractive backdrop to the village. She also points out that there have been land slips in this area recently and the trees may have been the only thing holding the slope together.
The Highways and Traffic Division seek clarification of the visibility splays but on receipt of further information, raise no objection to the application.
The Manx Electricity Authority request a condition regarding the supply of electricity on the site. This is not a material planning consideration and need not be referred to in the planning decision notice.
Port St. Mary Commissioners acting as the drainage authority request that no surface water is discharged to the main sewer and that the development is connected to the main foul sewer for the disposal of foul water. The application states that surface water will be disposed of to the beach. There is a surface water sewer running in front of the site in Bay View Road. This is a matter for the building regulation application.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's Forestry Officers submit two responses, one expressing concern at the potential loss of trees either by direct effect from the proposed building or subsequent requests for removal after the dwelling is constructed and occupied. A further response has been received which confirms that there is no objection from DEFA as the protected trees which support a rookery, are to be retained.
Port St. Mary Commissioners express concern at the safety of the scheme considering the proximity of the footpath, whilst construction works were being undertaken and if there were to be a landslip. They are concerned at the size of the development and its impact on the footpath and the safety implications of construction traffic entering and leaving the site during the implementation of the development. They also express concern that the relative height of the building is not shown compared with adjacent dwellings.
The proposed development is consistent with the prevailing land use on both the adopted and the draft development plans and as such General Policy 2 should be applied which state: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
In this case there is no development brief (a). The design of the dwelling takes into account from the front the appearance and character of the adjacent properties - Ballamaria and Ballamona both of which are attractive components of the streetscene and of a similar height and mass. The rear is more modern and takes account of the views available and is not considered to be out of keeping or unacceptable (b), (c) and (g).
There is no evidence that the site supports protected wildlife or features of ecological interest or watercourses (d).
There is a view through the site of the far side of Chapel Bay and Carrick Bay further to the north although this view is only available when immediately alongside the site. This is not considered a public view of the sea which is worthy of preservation.
The majority of the trees which previously existed on site have been removed with the relevant permissions and there are no other features of interest of value which would warrant retaining (f). There are two further trees to be removed neither of which would be detrimental to the retention of the remaining trees on site, nor would their removal be detrimental to the amenities or character of the area.
The dwelling will be close to Ballamaria which in turn is close to Ballamona, and it is not accepted that it would have any adverse impact on those in neighbouring properties or the streetscene more generally.
The dwelling is provided with the requisite parking and manouevring space and can provide the required visibility splays (h) and (i) and all required services - there is no objection from the Highway Authority and whilst construction traffic will have to use the entrance which is onto the main road, this is no different to the scenario if the existing dwelling needed works undertaking to it.
The development will not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan (k).
The site is some height above the existing sea level and is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding (l)
There is no issue with community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them (m) and There is no information in respect of best practice in reducing energy consumption (n). It is considered that the application satisfies GP2.
Other issues which have been raised include the stability of the site which was referred to in PA 09/1295. Here, the Inspector states at his paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 "I draw two main conclusions from the available evidence. First, there is an engineering solution to the problem of land stability. To many potential developers, the scale of engineering works needed, involving quite complex, specially designed reinforced concrete structures, might be disproportionately costly; but that is not a planning matter. Second, control over the design and implementation of the engineering works would properly fall under the building regulations authority, which evidently has powers to make variations if they become appropriate during the construction process. If the proposed development were to be carried out, it would probably result in the land being more stable than at present. Concerns are bound to remain, especially as there is a lack of agreement between two firms of consulting engineers; but I agree with the planning authority's view that it is not for the planning authority, or by extension an inspector or Minister deciding and planning appeal, to arbitrate between two engineers on matters covered by building regulations. The need to comply with building regulations would provide the "appropriate precautions" referred to in Environment Policy 28 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore the proposal would comply with that policy".
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
Wavecrest sits opposite the site and as such the owners should be afforded party status Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's Forestry Officer is a statutory authority and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
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.
9, The Quay is some distance away and the owner is not directly affected and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 02.02.2011
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This permission relates to the construction of a dwelling with access and parking, all as shown in drawings reference At 1020.1 and AT 1020.2 both received on 13th August, 2010.
Prior to the commencement of any development on the site, including excavation, all trees to be retained as shown on drawing AT 1020.2 must be fenced off beneath the canopy drip line. This fencing must be retained throughout the construction process and no materials deposited nor vehicles parked within the protected area in order to protect the roots of the trees to be retained.
Following the protection of the trees in accordance with condition three above, no other development may commence on site until such times as the access complete with visibility splays as shown in the approved drawings, has been set out and is available for use.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date :
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
| Consulttee: | Highways Division |
| Notes: | Defer |
| Application No.: | 10/01211/B |
| Applicant: | Mr William Bush |
| Proposal: | Erection of a detached dwelling with garage |
| Site Address: | Land Adjacent To Rocklands Bay View Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man |
{{table:354360}} {{table:354361}} {{table:354362}}
| Wave Crest Bay View Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal |
We would advise the replacement of the Sycamore with another tree as a planning condition.
An additional thought. As part of the conditions pertaining to this application could you also add a reminder of the requirement to protect trees as per BS 5837 (protection of trees on building sites). This will hopefully ensure there will be no damage to the trees on the site if permission to develop goes ahead.
J A Walmsley, Forestry Productivity and Compliance Manager. {{table:354364}} 11.11.10 - Do not oppose
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
