Loading document...
17 December 2014 14/01136/B
17 December 2014 14/01136/B
Page 2 of 9
Page 2 of 9
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the north eastern side of the A1 Douglas Road to the north west of QEII secondary School. Immediately alongside the site to the south east is a dwelling, Croit-ny-Greiney, to the north west are two properties, Croity-Ferish and CarnY-Greie. These properties sit alongside a lane which runs up around the rear of the application site and across the rear of 7, 8 and 9, Rheast Bridson and 39 - 47, Bluebell Close, Reayrt ny Keylley.
1.2 The site has a frontage to Douglas Road of 123m and a depth of between 43m and 80m. The site is relatively flat and is presently an open field. The roadside frontage is formed by a low stone wall and the other boundaries are planted with trees and shrubs.
2.1 Proposed is the development of the site to provide a two storey building which will provide 40 apartments to be occupied as sheltered housing. The applicant is the Peel and Western District Housing Committee who is a housing provider. The building will take the form of an L shaped terrace which comes as close to the rear boundary as 7.5m but the building will be at least 26m from the buildings to the rear, in Rheast Bridson. The building will be 20m from the A1. It will be 12.5m from Carn-Y-Greie and 25m from Croit-ny-Greiney.
2.2 The building will be set back from the A1 and car parking will be provided in the form of two rows of spaces, 42 in total including 6 suitable for disabled drivers and located alongside the main entrance.
2.3 Communal gardens will be provided at the rear.
2.4 The access into the site will be via a new entrance with accesses turning in both directions to provide access to the parking spaces as well as around the side of the building on the Croit-ny-Greiney side to provide access for deliveries and to the plant.
2.5 The roof will be pitched at 27 degrees and finished in a slate like tile with rendered walls with some sandstone coloured tile hanging.
2.6 The building will be taller than those around it - approximately 3m higher than Glenmoar (across the A1), 2.5m higher than Croit-e-Ferish, 3.2m higher than Carn-Y-Greie, 0.7m higher than Holmcroft, 1.2m higher than 7, Rheast Bridson and 1.5m higher than 8, Rheast Bridson.
2.7 The applicant has included a study of need for the development. As the housing authority for elderly persons accommodation they indicate that Westlands accommodates 24 bungalows, 67 two storey apartments all built between 1970 and 1982. The Committee does not believe that this current housing stock meets the needs of its current tenants and is not attractive to potential tenants, the rooms are generally very small (31 - 44 sq m) and there is little in the way of community facilities, leading to a lack of opportunities for the promotion of community activities.
2.8 Their objective is to develop quality homes in a village type environment close to the centre of Peel with a community spirit where existing and future tenants will desire to live. They will seek to demolish existing homes which are not fit for purpose and will replace them with an increased number of units which are suitable for occupation for the next 50 years.
2.9 The phasing of the overall proposal is to create new accommodation on the application site then decant existing tenants from the existing units at Tynwald Close which will be
redeveloped for new sheltered units then move tenants from the existing accommodation at Westlands and redevelop the western end of that and finally refurbish the existing 12 bungalows at Westlands.
2.10 The Committee considered refurbishment work only but considered this to be unacceptable as this would not have addressed the size constraints of the existing accommodation. Whilst it could have been possible to require the provision of additional sheltered accommodation in the Reayrt ny Cronk and new development opposite the Highwayman Public House on the Ramsey Road, it was considered that the application site is preferable, being closer to Westlands and closer to key amenities and facilities within the town.
3.1 The site lies within a wider area designated on the Peel Local Plan as Predominantly Residential. As such, the development should be considered in respect of the provisions of General Policy 2 which 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:
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; 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 and m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them."
3.2 The site lies outside of Peel's Conservation Area.
4.1 The only planning application which has been submitted for development on this site was PA 06/01730/A for the principle of the development of 20 detached dwellings and 6 affordable semi-detached dwellings. This was refused by the Planning Committee on the basis of inadequate drainage but was approved on appeal. No application for reserved matters was submitted and that approval has now lapsed.
5.1 Department of Health and Social Care confirm by memo dated 1st October, 2014 that the application will provide 100% affordable housing as it is made by a public sector housing provider.
5.2 Peel Town Commissioners indicate by letter dated 9th October, 2014 that they approve of the application.
5.3 The owner/occupier of 8, The Links which sits opposite the site to the south, objects by way of letter dated 16th October, 2014 on the basis that the development appears too dense for the area: the previous application was for 26 units, this is for 40. In addition the proposed building is higher than its neighbours. The proposal will create an additional access onto the A1
and this is a potential hazard in any area which already suffers congestion, particularly so close to the school and football club. They do not believe that the drainage infrastructure in the area will be able to cope and the prospect of a car park in the front area is unappealing although the proposed tree planting may interfered with visibility. Finally, the rear garden area will be in shade most of the day and perhaps the car park should be located at the back and the garden at the front.
5.4 The owners of Melschede on Douglas Road opposite the site submitted views dated 28th October, 2014. They object to the application on the basis that the site is further from the local amenities - doctors and shops which could result in more car journeys within the town. They consider that the development is too crowded. They consider that the proposed access which will be opposite theirs will result in further disruption to them as they try to access and egress their property. They consider that the development will result in a loss of their privacy as the windows will look directly into their dining room and kitchen and they fear light pollution if the development is to be lit all day and night. The development will contribute to even more traffic in the area which already has significant levels of traffic from the school and football club which makes it difficult to access the main road. They consider that they will be affected by construction noise and wonder whether the existing drainage infrastructure can accommodate the additional discharges, particularly in terms of surface water as their property suffers from flooding which worries them as they use a septic tank. They are aware that Peel Town Commissioners have recently objected to planning applications for additional housing in the town but seem happy to support this proposal.
5.5 The owner/occupier of 1, The Links which lies opposite the site to the south, expresses concern by way of an undated letter which was received on 22nd October, 2014 at the density and overpowering nature of the development and the need for parking in association with the development with an access so close to the school on an area of road which is already chaotic. She suggests that people are already disappointed with the amount of built development ongoing around the school and the impact on sewerage. She queries whether the development will be linked to the existing sewage pumping station on the other side of Douglas Road. She also fears that the development will have an adverse impact on property values, which is not a material planning issue.
5.6 The owner/occupier of 10, Rheast Bridson which lies to the north of the site, across the rear lane and part of the garden of Holmcroft, indicates via the website on 23rd October, 2014 does not object to the development but would like to ensure that the small stand of trees adjacent to the field is retained as this has interest for wildlife.
5.7 The owners/occupiers of 4, the Links which lies at the southern end of the small estate of The Links, object to the application via the website, dated 23rd October, 2014. They do not object to the principle of residential development on the site and acknowledge the need for sheltered housing. However, the existing access into The Links offers limited visibility to those emerging from the estate onto Douglas Road and this will make the situation even worse as it is so close. Should the proposed access be moved closer to the school this would help the situation. They also note that the existing footway between Tynwald Close and the school is inadequate in terms of its levelness and width and is a major route between the school and the town.
5.8 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture advise on 24th October, 2014 that this is proposed to replace an area of Westlands, which would afterwards be demolished and replaced with another new building. The site being replaced includes a boiler house which houses a roost of common pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus, which are considered to be using the warm roof as a maternity site, to raise their young, during the summer months. It is therefore important that an alternative site be provided prior to the demolition of the roost, that the bats be safely excluded from the current site, and that the new site mimics the original site as far as possible to maximise the chances of success in rehoming the bats. A condition requiring
provision for pipistrelle bats may be pertinent. They have discussed this with the applicant's agent who advises that there is a boiler room within the proposed development which could make provision for the replication of the roost to be lost.
5.9 They also advise that entrances to the roost shall not be brightly lit and should face south east as should the roof area. They should not be shaded by trees and if the bats are within the roof structure itself they must not come into contact with breathable roof membranes which can trap them or bituminsed polypropylene. They consider that the bats can be accommodated without significant amendment to the scheme.
5.10 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) asks that they be contacted in association with the provision of electricity supplies. This is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.
5.11 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services object on 7.11.14 to the application on the basis that no information has been provided to indicate the levels of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development. Whilst Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is satisfied that the site is in a sustainable location and the Main Road has additional capacity to accommodate more traffic, the proposed visibility splays of 2.4m by 70m are inherently unsafe unless a significant level of speed enforcement or highway engineering works is undertaken to reduce vehicle speeds from the 43 and 46 mph which were measured in the north westerly and southern easterly directions as the 85th percentile speed of traffic. Department of Infrastructure Highway Services also has concerns about the pedestrian crossing points and the position of the flat top traffic hump relative to Douglas Road. Department of Infrastructure Highway Services has no objection to the level of car parking provided.
5.12 The applicant has met with Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and has submitted additional information by way of a letter dated 11.11.14 and plans reference SC1210A/P/10-01A and SC1210A/J/10-101. These illustrate that whilst the applicant had understood from the previous application on the site that visibility splays of 2.4m by 70m would be sufficient, they can provide splays of 2.4m by 90m without changing the proposal. They consider that the point of access is not capable of being moved as it requires to be as far as possible from the entrance to The Links but at the same time locating it such that the visibility splays may be achieved. They can relocate the pedestrian crossing from one side of the proposed access to the other onto the public highway so this is usable by those using the footway and not having to enter into the entrance of the site and have reduced the traffic hump in the entrance. The applicant indicates that it is willing to work with the highway authority to reduce speeds, for example displaying a road side to indicate that there are elderly people in the area and this may be controlled by condition. They are also aware from previous meetings with Department of Infrastructure Highway Services that the latter can impose "H bar" line painting to prevent parking in front of Melschede and the applicant will provide a traffic mirror within the application site to assist those manoeuvring out of Melschede. The applicant also agrees that two spaces within the applicant site may be used by the owners of Melschede. They believe that these steps will overcome Department of Infrastructure Highway Services objections and wish to emphasise that traffic generated by the development is likely to be off peak and low in off peak times.
5.13 The owner of Grand View on Mount Morrison writes on 6.11.14 on behalf of the owners of 9, Rheast Bridson and expresses concern that the development represents too high a density of development and is too high with the result that some views may be afforded into the bedroom windows of their property and their rear garden which is presently private. They are concerned about the ability of the drainage system to cope with the additional demands and note that Peel Town Commissioners have recently objected to housing development in the town and wonder how they can now not object to the current application on the same basis.
6.1 The issues in this case are whether the site sits acceptably in its context both in terms of its impact on the streetscene and its impact on those in neighbouring property. It is also relevant whether the development can be accessed satisfactorily and whether it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
6.2 The building will be larger than the properties immediately alongside, particularly in length and mass. However, the streetscene is already dominated by the QEII High School and other than this the streetscape comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties of varying heights and densities. It is considered therefore that the proposed building, particularly due to its careful design and finish, will sit comfortably in the streetscene.
6.3 The dwelling will be well placed in terms of existing neighbouring property. Whilst taller and larger, it will be in excess of 20m from the nearest homes and generally more than 30m from the properties in Rheast Bridson which look directly towards it from their rear. Additional low level planting will be introduced on this boundary. Whilst Carn-y-Greie looks towards the application building and is closer than the Rheast Bridson properties, it looks at an angle and will still have an outlook between the building and rear of Croit-e-Ferish. The building is more than 35m from the properties in The Links and separated therefrom by a busy public highway. It is not accepted that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on these properties.
6.4 The development of sheltered housing is likely to result in a lower level of traffic than an equivalent number of unrestricted occupancy residential properties and the timing of the comings and goings is likely to be different, both resulting in fewer peak time and school time activity traffic journeys, to the benefit of the area. The parking standard for sheltered housing at one per three units is less than that required for residential development two per dwelling, although there will of course need to be provision for staff, visitors and servicing. The scheme is more than satisfactory in this respect.
6.5 Whilst the access is close to the entrance to The Links it is not directly opposite (there is around 24m between the two) and the proposed access has adequate visibility splays available to it (90m in each direction). The applicant has advised of additional steps it would be prepared to take to improve access for users of the development and those in property alongside. It is considered that these overcome the issues raised in the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services.
6.5 The demolition of the existing boiler house is not within the terms of this current application and may well not require planning approval. However, it is clear that this can be accommodated within the scheme and a condition should be attached to the planning decision notice in this case.
7.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
7.3 All of the parties who have written in on the application are either adjacent to the site or use an access which is opposite the site and as such should be afforded interested person status.
7.4 Department of Health and Social Care and Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture are statutory authorities which raise material planning considerations and as such should be afforded interested person status under Article 6(4)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013.
7.5 Manx Utilities Authority does not raise material planning considerations and should not be afforded interested person status in this case.
The conditions and notes (if any) related to the Department’s original approval
C1 The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C2 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
C3 Prior to the commencement of any works on site the applicant must have approved by the Department a scheme for traffic management measures to reflect the proposed development and use and such must be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
C4 No other work may commence until such time as the access complete with visibility splays as shown in the approved drawing SC1210A/P10-101 and SC1210A/10-01A is implemented and available for use.
Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
N 1. The Department notes the offer of the applicant to install a traffic mirror opposite Melschede, to allow the occupants of this property to park up to two vehicles at a time within the application site and the understanding that the Department of Infrastructure may introduce H-bar line painting in front of the access to Melschede to prevent parking in front of that site.
N 2.
Prior to the demolition of the existing boiler house a scheme must be approved by the Department which makes alternative provision for housing the bats which are known to roost in the current building. Pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), are considered to be using the warm roof as a maternity site, to raise their young, during the summer months. The scheme must be implemented in accordance with these details and retained as such thereafter. The proposed development provides an opportunity for such relocation.
Reason: This species is protected under the Wildlife Act 1990. It is therefore important that an alternative site be provided prior to the demolition of the roost, that the bats be safely excluded from the current site, and that the new site mimics the original site as far as possible to maximise the chances of success in rehoming the bats. The applicant should consult DEFA in this respect.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
