Loading document...
light of these findings, the proposal could only be regarded as meeting the provisions of Housing Policy 14 if it would result in 'an overall environmental improvement', or if it is acceptable under the terms of the final paragraph of the policy which indicates that consideration may be given to larger dwellings, replacing an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact. 6.9 The proposal would replace an existing single storey property which in terms of proportion and form is of a traditional appearance. The applicants argue that the existing dwelling is of 'poor quality and unsightly bungalow that is out of keeping with most other properties in the vicinity'. In terms of the two exception reasons, it is not considered the proposal would comply with the second exception i.e. 'by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact'. Given the proposal would replace what is a very modest single storey building, which even though the site is in a prominent position, its size and height is such that the existing property is not prominent or unduly intrusive in the street scene. This is by comparison with the building proposed, which has a much greater scale, mass and bulk. As a result it is not considered the proposed building would have a less visual impact than the existing building on the site. 6.10 Consequently, the proposal needs to be judged to whether the existing dwelling is of 'poor form' and the new proposal is of more traditional character. 6.11 The Planning Authority would argue that the existing is not of poor form. Whilst the dwelling is perhaps in need of some repair/refurbishment, and its appearance is not a wholly traditional design (Manx Farmhouse), the dwelling is not considered to be an 'unsightly bungalow,' as suggested by the applicants, but adds to the character and variation to the area and street scene. Notwithstanding this, even if it was accepted the dwelling to be of 'poor form' it is not considered the proposed two storey building is of a more traditional character. Whilst the proposal would have pitched roofs with gable ends and painted render walls/stone finishes, the proposed dwelling would not be considered to be noticeably more traditional in appearance. Amongst other features, its concrete roof titles, its varied and irregular pattern of fenestration including picture uPVC casement windows, windows of difference sizes, full height patio doors (Juliet balconies at first floor) and its lack of chimneys, would not reflect traditional design elements of houses in the Manx countryside. Overall, the application is considered to fail both aspect of the second exception, first the existing dwelling is not considered to be of poor form and second the proposal would not provide a replacement of more traditional character. 6.12 It is accepted that some caution needs to be given to assessing the application proposal against Housing Policy 14, which, whilst the correct policy technically, is a policy designed to assess new houses in the countryside. The character of the area could be argued not to be countryside in the ordinary use of the term. Consequently it is considered important to assess the application utilising the general criteria for development in urban areas that General Policy 2 provides, given the criteria listed are material planning issues which should be considered, and given the location of the property. Visiting the site/area, it is clear that it is on a prominent corner, it has three elevations (north, east and west) immediately adjacent to the public highway which would be highly visible from public view. Consequently, it is essential that any new property should be of an acceptable quality and design and fit well with the street scene. It is considered the proposed property given its scale, mass, finish and design, which includes rather blank and bland elevational treatments, lacks any particular detailing or any architectural features, is not of an acceptable standard and would adversely affect the visual appearance of the streetscene. The Planning Division always strives to achieve the best possible result for any development so if it accepted this proposal it would fail in its objective. 6.13 Lastly concern has also been raised by neighbours as objection to the visual appearance of the proposed rear parking area. Currently, to the rear boundary of the site directly fronting
onto Mount Gawne Road. The boundary is mostly made up of a Manx stone wall between 0.8 m to 1.4 m in height. There is an existing single access which has a maximum width of 4.8 metres reducing to 2.5 metres giving vehicular access to the rear of the property and a detached garage. This application proposes to remove 10 metres of the existing walling (majority of which is 1.4 metres in height) to ensure the proposed four off road parking spaces can be accessed from Mount Gawne Road. Further, to ensure visibility splays are maintained (issue of visibility will be considered in due course), the entire existing landscaping (mature hedgerow) to the southeast of the new parking spaces would have to be removed. This is a concern as all such works would significantly open the rear of the site resulting in the loss of a large part of the rear boundary treatment. Consequently leaving it to appear as an open car park detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene.
Impacts upon the residential amenities of surrounding residents 6.14 Generally, when considering potential impact upon neighbouring amenity there are three main issues, loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking, resulting in loss of privacy. 6.15 There are three parties which are 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. 6.16 Regard Avondale, the proposed scheme would retain a 2.5 metre gap between the two gable ends of the properties, matching that which currently exists. However, the amount of built development facing Avondale would increase given the depth and height of the proposed property. 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 affected 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 is no wider impact considered upon the amenity and the occupants of Avondale. 6.17 In relation to the potential impact upon the amenity and occupants of Thie My Chree and Reayrt Ny Marrey, it is consider the potential of overlooking by the development, that it would have an overbearing impact upon the outlook of these properties, is perhaps the main issue to address. In terms of distance, the property Thie My Chree would be approximately 40 metres and Reayrt Ny Marrey 30 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 rear windows of the proposed apartments easily exceed this distance. Therefore whilst overlooking would increase towards these properties, given that the proposal is two storey rather than single storey, it is not considered the amount of overlooking is significant enough to warrant a refusal. 6.18 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 proposed property 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 6.19 With any residential development it is important to ensure that any unit would have a satisfactory internal and external amenity space, including appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
6.20 As identified previously, to provide the required two off road parking spaces for each unit much of the land within the curtilage of the property would be taken up by the spaces. 6.21 Internally, the open plan lounge/kitchen areas would be served by windows which would have views out to sea, whilst the kitchen windows would also have views to the rear overlooking the rear parking area and beyond. Overall, it is considered the internal accommodation and outlooks would be clear and pleasant and from this respect would be an acceptable form of development providing acceptable levels of internal amenity space for future occupants. 6.22 In relation to the external amenity space, previously the submission proposed two residential dwellings (three storey town houses) and concern was raised as to the lack of external amenity space provided. The only difference now (apart from there being even less external amenity space due to the layout of parking to the rear) is that the units are now described as apartments rather than dwellings, and the layout has altered. Whilst the plans show the apartments having two bedrooms, the study is large enough to easily accommodate a third bedroom, which matches the three bedroom dwellings previously proposed, albeit the floor area of each of the previous dwellings was more than that now proposed by the apartments. 6.23 The Strategic Plan does not specify an amount of external amenity space (garden) which is required to be provided for either a new dwelling or apartment. However, in relation to dwellings generally, the Planning Authority considers each application on its own merit and what is a reasonable amount of space for that particularly dwelling. In relation to apartments, it is perhaps more difficult to ensure external amenity is provided for each unit. This is particularly the case when the proposal for apartments in converting an existing building (i.e. guest houses within settlements) or whether a there is a large scale development, where generally either balconies or large external communal spaces are provided. Either way, the Planning Authority should ensure wherever possible that such amenity space is provided on a site by site basis. There are situations where private external amenity space has been provided, these generally relate to new build apartment buildings, low in unit numbers. The spaces have not been especially large in size, but have been considered adequate. 6.24 In the case of the application site, there is potential to create a small side garden area and a separate garden fronting the property. If the application was to be approved, it would be possible to add a condition requiring the side garden are to be used by the occupants of the first floor apartment and the area fronting the property be used for the occupants of the ground floor. This is suggested as if the first floor occupants were able to use the garden fronting the property, they would have unobstructed views directly into the ground floor property windows, resulting in a loss of privacy. Whilst neither would have a substantial space, it would perhaps be acceptable if both had sea views. 6.25 Overall, it is considered each apartment would have an acceptable level of internal and external amenity space and a clear and pleasant outlook.
Parking provision/highway issues 6.26 The Local Commissioners and all the objectors have raised concern at having the four parking spaces accessing a narrow road (Mount Gawne Road), close to its junction with Shore Road. 6.27 The Highway Division has no objection to the proposal. The following comment was made regarding the last planning application on this site (which was not refused on highway safety grounds). These comments are again relevant in this case, given the situation is similar, if not the same. "The Highway Division considered 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 30 mph speed limit at this location. New development would be required to provide visibility splays of $2.4 \times 35$ 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 $85 \%$ tile of vehicles are travelling at 28 mph . 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 $2 \times 23$ 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 30 mph at this location, Highways are satisfied that the minimum requirement for visibility splays of $2 \mathrm{~m} \times 23 \mathrm{~m}$ 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". 6.28 In relation to objectors' concerns the Highway Division has stated 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 6.29 In terms of parking provision, all four spaces on the driveway are 6 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) per apartment. No policy states that provision of parking has to be provided for service/visitor vehicles. 6.30 In conclusion, the Highway Division acknowledges that this proposal does not meet the required visibility splays of $2.4 \times 35$ metres; however it is felt that the proposal for 2 apartments, the visibility that can be achieved, and the improvements to the boundary wall, and 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. 6.31 There are concerns that along the rear wall a small section of walling (adjacent to the northern most corner of site), 0.8 m to 1.4 m in height, which acts a retaining wall between the applicant's 1.4 metre rear wall and the 0.8 metres high wall of the neighbouring property Avondale. This section, albeit small, would likely be within the visibility splay (no splays shown on plans) and potential affect visibility. The agent advises that this section is not within the applicant's ownership, but "hope that the neighbour would allow this small section of wall to be removed to improve road safety in the area". A concern with this is that the proposal would obstruct views, especially to the two spaces closest to the rear elevation of the proposed building. Notwithstanding this point, all the parking spaces require land outside the applicants control to gain the required visibility in a north-western direction along Mount Gawne Road and therefore the Planning Authority cannot condition that required visibility splays are provided, or retained thereafter, as the land is not within the applicant's control. 6.32 Consequently, whist the Highway Division, perhaps rightly, consider such splays are achievable, the Planning Authority are concerned with the above issues and therefore the resulting additional four accesses onto Mount Gawne Road and the traffic generated by the
development, would potentially lead to an adverse impact upon highway safety to the detriment of all users of the public highways. 6.33 It should be noted the existing timber fence running along the north-western boundary, is within the applicants control and could be removed.
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: Rushen Commissioners The owners/occupiers of Roylin, Shore Road The owners/occupiers of Thie My Chree, Mount Gawne Road The owner/occupier of Reayrt Ny Marrey, Mount Gawne Road 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: The Manx Electricity Authority IOM Water and Sewage Authority Environmental Protection Unit (DEFA)
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of 15.08.2013
Recommendation:
The application site is not zoned for development and the creation of an additional dwelling is therefore contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the South, which seek to restrict such development to appropriate towns and
villages. Approval of the planning application would result in unwarranted residential development in the countryside.
R 2. The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development within a prominent position, if approved, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area by reason of its, scale, massing and design.
R 3. The proposed dwellings due to its scale, massing and design within a prominent position in the street scene would not be of an acceptable standard and would cause a visually intrusive feature in this location and would cause a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the street scene contrary to Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 4. The proposal requires the removal of approximate 10 metres in length of existing Manx Stone walling and require the removal of the existing landscaping, all along the northern boundary to provide the required parking spaces and required visibility splays. It is considered this would result in a loss of a large part of the rear boundary treatment and consequently would appear as an open car park detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene.
R 5. The proposal, if approved, would be likely to generate an increase number of vehicular movements and result in four separate accesses all of which would jeopardise the safety of highway users particularly along the site's access with Mount Gawne Road, given the applicants does not own or have control of the neighbouring land to provide the required visibility splays in a north-westerly direction.
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 : $\qquad$ Committee Meeting Date : $\qquad$
Signed : $\qquad$ Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
PA13/00796/B Mr David Corrin Demolish existing dwelling and garage and erection of a building to provide two residential apartments with associated parking, Kilravock Shore Road Bay Ny Carrickey Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LY Planning Officer: Planning history and constraint detail extracted from the planning database for this site, collated for the benefit of the Planning Officer on 10.07.2013, includes;
Dev Control Polygons: Reference Number: 13/00796/B Status: Pending Consideration Proposal: Demolish existing dwelling and garage and erection of a building to provide two residential apartments with associated parking
Reference Number: 12/01684/B Status: Refused Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of two replacement semi detached dwellings with associated parking
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
