Loading document...
1.1 The site represents part of the residential curtilage of Kilravock, Shore Road, Bay Ny Carrickey, Port St. Mary which is located along Gansey Promenade on a corner plot with Shore Road to the south and Mount Gawne Road to the northeast of the site.
1.2 The existing dwelling Kilravock, is a single storey pitched roofed property which has a painted render finish with slate roof. To the rear northwest corner of the site is a single storey flat roofed garage and immediately adjacent to the rear elevation is an area of hardstanding and a small lawned area. Vehicle access to the garage and rear hardstanding area is via an existing narrow gated entrance accessed from Mount Gawne Road.
2.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the erection of two replacement semi-detached dwellings with associated parking.
2.2 The western most dwelling (referred to as dwelling one) would have a width of 5.7 metres, a depth of 9 metres, and a ridge height of 10 metres. The easterly dwelling (referred to as dwelling two) is set forward of the other dwelling one by 1.4 metres and would have a width of 6 metres, a depth of 9 metres, and a ridge height of 10 metres. Each dwelling would be set over three floors, the ground floor accommodating the hallway, bedroom, integral garage and utility room. Each first floor would accommodate a separate lounge, kitchen and landing area, whilst the second floor would accommodate two bedrooms (one with en-suite) and a bathroom.
2.3 Externally, each dwelling would have a separate driveway (single parking space) to the rear elevations of the dwellings and both driveways would access directly onto Mount Gawne Road. In terms of external amenity spaces, dwelling one would have a rear garden area and a small area to the front of the dwelling with views out to sea. Dwelling two would benefit from a modest garden space to the side of the property which would also have sea views. This dwelling would also have a very small (2.4 metres in depth) area fronting the dwelling which would also benefit from sea views.
2.3 For reference, the existing dwelling has an overall width of 10.8 metres, a depth of 7 metres and a ridge height of 4.3 metres.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Residential. On the Final Modified Draft Southern Area Plan of May 2012 the site is part of the open countryside which is identified as Incised Inland Slopes. It should be highlighted that at the time of writing this report the Final Modified Draft Southern Area Plan is shortly due to go before Tynwald potentially to be approved for adoption. If this occurs the Plan would likely come into force on the 1st March 2013. If this is the case then the current zoning of the site as residential would alter to being designated as open space.
3.2 Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:-
3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the 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(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
3.4 General Policy 2 states: "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 spaces 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 unacceptable 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; (l) 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."
3.5 Environment Policy 42 states: "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."
4.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
5.1 Rushen Commissioners have objected to the application which can be summarised as; overdevelopment of the site, given the existing is a small single storey bungalow; a three storey building would be too high in comparison; the design is more in keeping with a townhouse; the eastern gable in particular would present a high blank wall, very visible to people walking/driving along Shore Road; the driveways to the rear would result vehicles having great difficulty in turning right as Mount Gawne Road is so narrow for this stretch of the road; and the Commissioners feel on le a single dwelling no high than two storeys is suitable on this site.
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division does not oppose the application.
5.3 The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have made no comments to the merits of the application but ask for an informative note is attached to any approval.
5.4 The owners/occupiers of Roylin, Shore Road have objected to the application which can be summarised as; the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site; and if approved, driving from Mount Gawne Road off Shore Road with two additional drives as you come round the corner would cause more congestion, adding to an already dangerous junction.
5.5 The owners/occupiers of Thie My Chree, Mount Gawne Road have objected to the application which can be summarised as; the proposal is a overdevelopment of the site which is also out of context with the surrounding houses; would introduce a significantly prominent feature in the landscape; and two new drives would have difficult accessing/exits the sites and therefore nay visitor/service vehicle would park on Shore Road or more likely Mount Gawne Road near a busy corner.
5.6 The owner/occupier of Reayrt Ny Marrey, Mount Gawne Road has objected to the application which can be summarised as; the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site; visual impact from both the front or back would be significant; all other properties in the area are detached and not more than two storeys; recent plans have been approved for the demolition of the Motorlands garage for three large detached properties; proposed dwellings would be twice the size of the existing single storey building; the angle of the proposed driveways and the narrow width of Mount Gawne would indicate that cars could drive out up the road; and reversing into the road given the proximity of the corner with Shore Road is potentially dangerous.
6.1 Considering the plans, visiting the site/area and from the written correspondents received; there appears to be three issues with the proposal:
As indicated within the policy section of this report the site is currently designated as residential. Consequently, the principle of having two dwellings on this site is acceptable. However, this does not automatically make the current proposal acceptable, as additional considerations need addressing such as whether the sites can provide adequate parking provision, external and internal amenity space etc. These issues will be considered later in this report. However, whilst the principle of two dwellings maybe acceptable as identified earlier, if
the Final Modified Draft Southern Area Plan is adopted then the site would be designated as open space and therefore a additional dwelling on this site maybe unacceptable.
The impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene
6.2 The application site is located within a prominent position within the street scene namely when viewed along Shore Road and Mount Gawne Road. Consequently, any redevelopment must be considered to "respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them" as stated within General Policy 2 paragraph b of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
6.3 Visiting the surrounding area it was noted that the character of Shore Road and Mount Gawne Road is very much of mixed designs and different massing and styles of buildings and as such it is important that what is built on this site follows this, especially given its prominent position within the street scene. However, what was apparent was the majority of properties along Shore Road and Mount Gawne Road are single (including some dormer accommodation within roof space) or two storeys in height. Within the immediate location of the site this is the case, with the exception of the Motorlands garage which eastern part of the large building is three storeys in height. The Motorlands site has benefited recently from an Approval in Principle (12/00298/A) to redevelopment the site for three detached dwellings, conditioned such that each dwelling would not exceeding 10 metres in height.
6.4 The submission currently under consideration would have a roof ridge height of 10 metres, so an argument could be made that there has been an acceptance that development along this stretch of Shore Road can be up to 10 metres in height. However, each site is considered on its own merits and in this case there are material differences between this site and the nearby Motorlands site. Firstly, the indicative site plans submitted with the Motorlands site showed each dwelling within significantly larger plots than the two plots proposed, and these three dwelling are shown being setback between 8 metres and 14 from Shore Road. This is an important factor between the two sites given dwelling one would be positioned 4.5 metres and dwelling two 3 metres back from Shore Road. Furthermore, dwelling one would be 5 metres and dwelling two would be sited 1.5 metres away from Mount Gawne Road. Therefore, the visual impact of a three storey buildings (10 metres high) on this corner plot is potentially greater, given the close proximity of built development on the boundaries of the two proposed plots, compared to the Motorlands site which has the potential ability to set any dwelling back from the Shore Road, therefore reducing the impact of development on the street scene.
6.5 Secondary, it is important to note that the Motorlands site already has substantially larger unattractive and out of keeping building in terms of footprint, size, design and height, whilst the existing application site accommodates a very modest single storey building. For these reasons it is considered a clear distinction between the application site and Motorlands site can be made, and this application judged on its own merits.
6.6 It would appear due to the limited size and shape of the site the design requires an integral garage for both dwellings, to try to provide the required two off road parking provision. Two off road spaces cannot be provided within either plot, without significantly affecting the space provided for the external amenity space (garden) for each dwelling. Consequently, it is considered to provide the required parking provision the integral garaging is required in connection with a single space on the driveway. However, due to this and because the footprint of each dwelling is modest, this has required the dwellings to be three storey in height to provide the required accommodation. Consequently, it could be considered that to provide the required accommodation and parking provision results in overly tall dwellings which would be out of keeping with the street scene and would have an appearance of town houses which would be more suitable in town centres, but on this site would be out of keeping with the street scene. Consequently it is considered the proposal would fail General Policy 2 paragraph b of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Impacts upon the residential amenities of surrounding residents
6.7 Generally when considering potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities there are three main issues, loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
6.8 The effect to the living conditions there are three parties which are potential most affect by the development, Avondale immediate to the west of the site, Thie My Chree to the north of the site and Reayrt Ny Marrey to the north east of the site.
6.9 Regarding to Avondale, the proposed scheme would retain a 2.5 metre gap between the two gable ends of the properties that current exists. However, the amount of built development facing this property would increase given the increase of depth and height of dwelling one. It was noted visiting the site that there are four gable end windows (serving bathrooms/hallways) which face towards the application site which would be affect by the proposed development (loss of light/outlook). However, from studying the approved plans for Avondale, all four windows do not serve habitable rooms (lounge/kitchen) and therefore the impact is considered acceptable, even though there will be a loss of light/outlook. There are not considered any further impacts upon the amenities of the occupants of Avondale.
6.10 In relation to the potential impacts upon the amenities of the occupants of Thie My Chree and Reayrt Ny Marrey, it is consider the potential of overlooking and by the development having a overbearing impact upon the outlook of these properties are perhaps the main issues to address. In terms of distance, the neighbouring property Thie My Chree would be approximately 39 metres and Reayrt Ny Marrey 31 metres away from the rear elevations of the dwellings. In terms of overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy the planning authority general guide is that directly facing windows should retain a 20 metre gap. In this case the two proposed dwellings would more than meet this distance. Therefore whilst overlooking would increase towards these properties, given the proposal is three storey rather than single storey, it is not considered the amount of overlooking that would occur is significant enough to warrant a refusal.
6.11 In terms of the proposal having the potential impact upon the outlook of the neighbouring properties (Thie My Chree and Reayrt Ny Marrey), again because of the increase of the depth and height, the dwellings will have a greater impact upon the outlook of the neighbouring properties. However, again due to the distances it is not considered this impact would be significant to warrant a refusal. It is worth noting that there is no right to a view by neighbouring residents and therefore the potential loss of views is not a material planning consideration.
The amenity levels of future occupants of the proposed dwelling
6.12 Firstly when considering such issue, General Policy 2 paragraph h of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan requires consideration. This policy indicates that any development should provided satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
6.13 As identified previously, to provide the required two off road parking spaces the ground floor of both dwellings includes an integral garage. Consequently, the main living accommodation is located at first floor level. The lounge would be served by windows which would have views out to sea, whilst the kitchen/dining area would have views to the rear overlooking the rear driveways and beyond. Overall, it is considered the internal accommodation and outlook would be clear and pleasant and from this respect would be an acceptable form of development and provides acceptable levels of internal amenity space for future occupants.
6.14 The external amenity space available does raise concern. Dwelling one would have little amenity space, with a small garden to the rear immediately adjacent to the driveway, which would have little in the way of sunlight throughout the day. There would also be a small area to the fronting of the dwelling which would have a pleasant outlook, but its size is limited, especially for a three bedroomed property. Dwelling two would only have larger garden than dwelling one and would benefit from sunlight throughout the day. It should be noted that the only usable garden space for the existing dwelling is the side garden, which is now proposed for dwelling two. Overall, it is considered whilst dwelling two would benefit from an acceptable level of external amenity space, dwelling one would not be provided with a suitable level of usable external amenity space. Therefore, it is considered the application represents an overdevelopment of the site given it fails to provide future occupants the required level of amenity contrary to General Policy 2 paragraph h of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
6.15 The Local Commissioners and all the objectors have raised concern of having two accesses which discharge onto a narrow road (Mount Gawne Road) close to the junction with Shore Road.
6.16 The Highway Division has considered these views and indicate that the existing site accommodates one single dwelling with garage. Existing vehicular access is situated approximately 18.5 metres from its junction with Shore Road. Mount Gawne Road is classified as a residential access road in the Policy Relating to the Hierarchy of the Island's Road Network adopted in 2004. Mount Gawne Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit at this location. New development would be required to provide visibility splays of metres. This proposal does not comply with this standard. However, they indicate that a traffic survey was carried out in July 2011, 50 metres north-west of the proposed development, which indicated that the tile of vehicles are travelling at 28mph. Due to this, speeds will be considerably less at the site of the proposed accesses due to motorists slowing to a stop to exit onto Shore Road from Mount Gawne Road. This argument can also be used of vehicles leaving Shore Road onto Mount Gawne Road. The applicant has demonstrated that visibility splays of metres can be achieved from the proposed access of the first property nearest to Shore Road. An improvement of approximately 5 metres from current access. Access from the second property provides approximately 27 metres. The Highway Division therefore consider given that vehicles will be travelling less than 30mph at this location, Highways are satisfied that the minimum requirement for visibility splays of can be achieved. Furthermore, in addition to the above, the actual visibility from the existing access is reduced considerably due to the height of vegetation and stone wall. The actual on site visibility at this location is reduced to approximately 5 metres. The applicant has stated that the vegetation along the boundary wall on both Shore Road and Mount Gawne Road will be removed. The stone wall will be reduced to 1 metre in height. This will provide an increased visibility to the full 22 metres from the proposed accesses. In addition visibility will be improved greatly to all other road users, including pedestrians and horse riders, accessing not only Mount Gawne Road but also Shore Road, as the hedge adjoining Shore Road will be removed, which in turn will result in the traffic mirror becoming obsolete.
6.17 In relation to objectors' concerns, the Highway Division comment that angles for manoeuvring are tight, however, the road width measures 6.5 metres, and 6 metres clear space which is what is normally required. Furthermore, the safety at this junction will be improved with the removal of vegetation and lowering of the wall to 1 metre in height
6.18 In terms of parking provision, both spaces on the driveway can provide the required parking space standards of 6 metres by 3.25 metres and both the garage spaces meet the required standard of 5 metres by 3 metres. Consequently, the application does provide the requirement of two off road parking spaces as identified within the Strategic Plan (Appendix 7). No policy states that provision of parking has to be provided for service/visitor vehicles.
6.19 In conclusion the Highway Division acknowledges that this proposal does not meet the required visibility splays of metres; however it is felt that the proposal for 2 dwellings, the visibility that can be achieved, and the improvements to the boundary wall, the improved visibility at the junction, due to the reduced wall height, will result in no detrimental impact on Highway safety. The Highways Division has no objection to the application.
7.1 For these reasons set out in this report, it is considered the proposal would contravene the relevant policies as indicated within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
8.2 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.
8.3 It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 14.02.2013
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The proposed dwellings due to their height, massing and design in a prominent position within street scene would cause a visually intrusive and out of keeping feature in this location and would cause a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the street scene, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2.
The proposed development due to its siting and size would not provide an acceptable level of usable external amenity space (western dwelling) and as such would represent an over-development of the site, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 11.2.13
Signed : _________________________ Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed : _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : _________________________ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed : _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
