Loading document...
Application No.: 22/01112/B Applicant: Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal: Construction of 7 bungalows and 5 garages, including vehicular access Site Address: Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.04.2024
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and to ensure the delivery of an appropriate landscaping scheme.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
The proposed development is considered to amount to an efficient redevelopment of a vacant site which is designated for development, whilst constituting a high quality of design and layout without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality. The proposals are further deemed to be acceptable with respect to highway safety, flood risk and ecological matters. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10 and 42 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawings and documents referenced;
00.01 RevB - proposed site plan - 00.02 RevB - proposed landscaping plan
040.00 RevA - proposed junctions plan - 041.00 RevA - site sections plan Road safety audit Road safety audit response letter Revised covering letter Drainage letter Culvert calculations document Received 29.11.23
00.00 - location plan
00.03 RevA - landscaping details
01.10 RevA - plot 1 ground floor plan
01.20 RevA - plot 1 elevations
01.30 RevA - plot 1 garage elevations
02.10 RevA - plot 2 ground floor plan
02.20 RevA - plot 2 elevations 02.30 RevA - plot 2 garage elevations 03.10 RevA - plot 3 ground floor plan 03.20 RevA - plot 3 elevations
03.30 RevA - plot 3 garage elevations - 04.10 RevA - plot 4 ground floor plan
04.20 RevA - plot 4 elevations 04.30 RevA - plot 4 garage elevations 05.10 RevA - plot 5 ground floor plan 05.20 RevA - plot 5 elevations
05.30 RevA - plot 5 garage elevations - 06.10 RevA - plot 6 ground floor plan
06.20 RevA - plot 6 elevations 07.10 RevA - plot 7 ground floor plan
07.11 RevA - plot 7 first floor plan 07.20 RevA - plot 7 elevations
07.30 RevA - plot 7 shed
10.00 RevA - finishes schedule - 10.01 RevA - finishes reference document
Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities Authority Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management Division
It is recommended that the following should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings:
as they have explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
It is further recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Isle of Man Friends of the Earth, The Green Centre, Chester Street Centre, Douglas
as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION DUE TO THE PROPOSALS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND GIVEN THE SITE'S PLANNING HISTORY
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application relates to land adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The site is located to the eastern edge of the village of Sulby. The site is currently only accessed from River Meadowland, a rural lane passing along the south side of the village. The entrance to the site is from the north side of the lane, not far from the junction with Ginger Hall corner. - 1.2 The site is bounded on its north side by the rear of a row of detached bungalows on Carrick Park. On the east side, the site extends to the west side of the A3 main road and then tapers inwards where it adjoins the Ginger Hall Hotel and its car park. To the south is River Meadowland Lane. On the west side, the site adjoins the rear of two detached houses on a small residential cul-de-sac to the west. - 1.3 The site has an area of approximately 0.55 hectares (ha) and is broadly square shaped although it tapers inwards on its south east side. The site is undeveloped land and is mostly overgrown. There are a number of trees and bushes along the west boundary. The site falls in a north westerly direction towards the rear of the houses on Carrick Park. There is a low fence on the north side and the site is relatively open to the rear of the properties on Carrick Park. There is a drainage ditch on the inside of this north western perimeter of the site which then runs underneath the A3 main road to the east. On the east side, next to the Ginger Hall Hotel, there is a high fence. On the south side, next to River Meadowland Lane, is a roadside lane with a field gate where the access to the development will be located.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a development of seven detached dwellings with associated garages. The properties are mainly single storey detached bungalows, Plots 1 to 5 each having a similar styles two bedroom properties, the exception would be Plot 7 which would have the same footprint and height, but include two dormer windows within the rear elevation. Plot 6 is a smaller two bedroomed single storey detached bungalow. Plots 1 to 6 would all be served by a new tarmac road which forms a cul-de sac. This new road accesses directly onto the Lezayre Road (A3). Plot 7 would not be served by this cul-de-sac and would have its individual access onto the Ballamanagh Road, which is an existing access (southern boundary) which was created for previous housing schemes on this site, where the majority of dwelling would have used this access. All the dwellings except the smaller dwelling on Plot 6, together with Plot 7 would have a single detached garage. - 2.2 The proposals effectively comprise a resubmission of an almost identical scheme previously approved at appeal in 2018 (PA 17/000462/B). The only change being the removal of the detached garage for plot 7 and replacement with a smaller shed for the storage of bicycles and other domestic paraphernalia. Additional information and clarification has also been provided to satisfy previous highways and drainage/flooding concerns.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- - 3.2 22/00826/NTU - Sought permission to vary condition 1 of PA 17/00462/B to extend the period of commencing development by a further 2 years. This application was not pursued and therefore no decision was issued.
3.3 17/00462/B - Construction of 7 bungalows and 6 garages, including vehicular access. Following an initial recommendation for approval by the case officer and ratified by the planning committee, the application was subject to a third party appeal. Whilst the Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission refused on highway safety grounds, the Minister concluded that the proposals would not be unacceptable on such grounds, particularly in the context of support having been provided by Highway Services. The appeal was subsequently dismissed and planning permission was granted in July 2018. - 3.4 14/01198/B - Erection of a development of five detached dwellings with associated garages. The application was approved. - 3.5 13/91035/B - application for erection of five detached dwellings with associated garages. The application was refused at appeal for the following reasons:
3.8 09/00504/B - application refused at appeal in 2010 for four plots. - 3.9 99/02118/B - approval granted in 2006 for two bungalows. - 3.10 95/01092/A - approval in principle granted at appeal in 1996 for two plots. - 3.11 91/00838/A - approval in principle refused for five plots. - 3.12 90/01993/A - approval in principle refused for plot layout. - 3.13 89/00755/A - approval in principle granted for dwelling and annex. - 3.14 88/01528/A - approval in principle refused for four dwellings.
4.1 The land is zoned under the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 as being 'Predominately Residential Use & Woodland'. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
4.2 Due to the site's location, land use designation and the type of development proposed, the following Planning Policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Sulby Local Plan 1998 are relevant when determining the application: Strategic Policy
Spatial Policy
General Policy
Environment Policy 10 Development and flood risk
Housing Policy 1 Housing need
Transport Policy
4.3 Sulby Local Plan (NO.2) Order 1998 - Development Brief states: "3.15. It is recommended that the development of this area shall be undertaken in accordance with the following brief.
5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners - With reference to the above planning application, the Commissioners met on site last month with Mr Cowin, Flood Risk Manager, Chris (drainage engineer) along with concerned residents and Mr Johnston MHK. A discussion took place regarding how the drainage of water from the site and surrounding areas could be improved to prevent flooding into the adjacent properties in Carrick Park.
Mr Cowin agreed to go away and come up with a suitable plan/solution that could be created to improve the drainage of water in the ditch away from the site. This would be communicated to the site owner, Mr Sweeney.
Mr Cowin did show us a plan that showed the level of the application site to be approximately 600mm higher than the adjacent property. Currently the site is at similar level to that of the top of the ditch. My Commissioners were very surprised to see the change in site levels, shown on this drawing. From previous planning applications for this site, drawings have not demonstrated this.
After calling the architect to this application he advised that the drawing we refer to was prepared and shows an indicative level of the site. He also explained that the profile shown on this plan is the site/land profile for the previous approved application for this site 17/00462/B (now lapsed).
My Commissioners were not aware of this proposed profile to the site and would like to request that the applicant submit a plan that shows several cross sections through the site to indicate the site levels, so that the site can be properly understood.
We further understand that Mr Cowin (DOI Flood Risk Manager) and Chris (drainage engineer) are in contact with Mr Sweeney suggesting the best way for the water to be taken away from the site, hopefully reducing the risk of flooding to the neighbouring properties in Carrick Park and the site itself.
The Commissioners will support these suggestions and hope that the planning application will only be approved, once the full details are agreed by the applicant Mr Sweeney and the flood team.
The Commissioners also wish to state that the owner or any future owner of this site should bear the cost to improve the drainage of water from the ditch on this site, to alleviate flooding to nearby properties. (30.03.23)
5.2 Highway Services - Previous Highways response dated 11/10/2022 requested a number of alterations to the layout in order to comply with current standards, including clarification to visibility extents, adjustment to the tactile location, driveway and cycle parking revisions to Plot
The audit produced a number of problems identified with the design. The designers response has adequately addressed the problems raised, with either solutions included or rationale for the choice provided. The proposal has now included an upgrade to the bus stop facility along the A3. Previously there was provision of a flag stop. The revised plans have now added Kassel kerbs to aide pedestrians on and off the bus, and a bus shelter off the pavement. The location of the bus stop has been moved further along the A3 and poses as a visibility obstruction for those emerging from the new junction access (as raised in Problem 3). The new junction only serves six dwellings, and the bus stop being in a rural location would likely see infrequent use. Whilst it is possible that the two movements could happen simultaneously, there is a reduced likelihood, and in such an event the vehicle driver would be discouraged from emerging due to visibility being so restricted.
There have been adjustments to the visibility splays provided from the two junctions. From the priority junction at the estate entrance, there has only been a minor alignment change that has taken the splay further out of the land surrounding the Ginger Hall. From the 'Junctions Plan' submitted, it is shown that the splays are contained within the highway (carriageway or footway) or redline boundary.
The visibility from the single dwelling access has also be adjusted. The entirety the splays are now contained within the redline boundary or the highway. As a result, there has been a reduction in achievable visibility to the right on exit from 23m to 19.5m, and a step-out of the left visibility further into the carriageway. The Claddagh Road is rural and narrower than a main route, with few dwellings and accesses served off it. As a result, vehicles will likely be travelling further away from the edge of carriageway. Despite the reduction, the arrangement still reflects an improvement to the access geometry and provides for a single dwelling onto a road with expected light volume of traffic. The visibility for this access is acceptable to Highways. The pedestrian crossing provided at the junction bellmouth has been moved further towards the development and away from the edge of carriageway, as requested by Highways. Whilst taken away slightly from the pedestrian desire line along the roadside (as the audit highlighted) it will provide a safer access for mobility/visually impaired users to get from the shared use area to the pavement.
The alteration to the highway, in the form of creating a new junction, will require a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement to be made post planning consent.
Alterations have been made to Plot 6 in order to provide the sufficient minimum depth for a driveway. A shelter has been placed in the rear garden for the storage of bicycles. Whilst this is a slightly inconvenient location, the requirement has been met and is accepted.
The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements, including visibility splays, to accord to Drawings No. 040 Rev A, 000.01 Rev B and 000.02 Rev B. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent. (05.12.23)
5.3 Manx Utilities Authority - The applicant is advised to enter into a section 8 adoption agreement with Manx Utilities which will detail the extent of the foul and surface water infrastructure that is proposed to be offered for public adoption. The S8 agreement must be prepared in accordance with Manx Sewers for adoption.
Existing public foul sewers cross the site; whilst the development proposals show a protected strip between the houses and the existing sewer on the site, the developer must ensure the sewer is fully protected during all construction works and that any manhole covers are not covered with construction debris.
Drainage communication fees are applicable for each plot connected to the public sewers. No surface water will be permitted to be discharged into any foul or combined drainage systems on this development. (06.03.24)
5.4 DEFA Biodiversity - The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that the Manx Wildlife Trust's Protected Species Preliminary Assessment report for Land Adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel dated April 2021, is all in order and a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken.
Since the MWT wrote the report, there looks to have been a change to the plans which means that 2 of the mature trees identified as having potential bat roost features are now to be removed, rather than 1 (Trees 1 & 3 in the MWTs report), therefore additional mitigation may be required from that which is suggested, but this will need to be determined by an ecologist during the pre-felling bat assessments.
In order to ensure that an appropriate level of ecological mitigation is put in place on site, we request that the following conditions are secured on approval:
5.5 Flood Risk Management - We have now had chance to review the drawings and calculations that have been sent through and we are satisfied that the 600mm diameter culvert is sufficient for the 1 in 100 plus climate change event. The details for the inlet and out must be provided in the subsequent flood risk management Act 2013 Section 20 application for works. We will ask for this detail to be conditioned. All design must be carried out to CIRIA guide C786 Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual. One thing our operations division has mentioned is that the reason there are 3 x 225mm diameter pipes is that they could not fit in anything larger due to the 6" cast iron water main. It may prove difficult to install the 600mm diameter pipe so this might be worth investigating. Due to the proposed culvert being shallow we would recommend concrete protection above. (20.11.23) - 5.6 Highways Drainage - Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. The Department is waiting for, in due course, detailed design information of the road and drainage on site. - 5.7 DEFA Fisheries - This planning application has been checked by Fisheries Officers. I can confirm that DEFA Fisheries have no concerns in relation to this development from a fisheries perspective. This is due to the nature of the nearby watercourse (ditch) which is not known to contain fish populations.
We ask that as the proposed works are in close proximity to the watercourse, precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river. Also, due to the size of the development, planning ahead to attenuate runoff (taking sediment out of solution) be accounted for while the site remains clear stripped, especially during winter.
5.8 Three letters of private representation have been received providing comments on the application, full details of which can be found on the online planning file. The following provides a summary of their comments only:
6.1 The principle of development has already been established through the previous grant of planning permission under PA 17/00462/B which is effectively identical to the current scheme under considered. The provision of 7 no. dwellings on site, whilst contrary to the site's development brief in the Sulby Local Plan, has previously been considered and found acceptable by the case officer for the previous application, the planning committee and the appointed Inspector. In the absence of any change to adopted planning policy which relates to Sulby, namely the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Sulby Local Plan 1998; it is considered that the principle of redeveloping the site to provide 7 no. dwellings remains acceptable.
6.2 Likewise, the general design, form and layout of the proposed scheme is effectively unchanged from the previous scheme, with the exception of the removal of the detached garage serving Plot 7 and erection of a smaller shed for storage purposes in its stead. On this basis, and in the absence of any change to adopted planning policy, the proposals are considered to remain appropriate from a design and visual impact perspective.
6.3 The submission has been accompanied by a full schedule of materials to be used in the external finishes of each dwelling. The dwellings would be finished in a combination of painted render, brick slips and varying shades of cedral cladding boards, together with blue black fibre cement roofing slates. The external finishes, particularly in the context of an enclosed modern micro-estate adjacent to an existing residential estate, are considered to be appropriate in this instance.
6.4 In terms of landscaping, the submission is accompanied by a comprehensive scheme, the context of which has been found acceptable by the Ecosystems Policy Officer, and includes substantial additional tree and hedging planting, together with areas of wildflowers planting in the public domain. Likewise, the proposals include the location and specification of bird and bat boxes to be installed within the site; which includes on the dwellings themselves where appropriate together with a retained tree in the southern corner of the site. - 6.5 Notwithstanding the level of information provided with the submission, further detail has been sought from the Ecosystems Policy Officer with respect to appropriate levels of ecological mitigation following the required tree removal, particularly in relation to birds and bats, together with further details relating to the protection of retained trees during construction. Upon review of the level of information provided with the submission, it is noted that full details of bird and bat boxes have been provided, including their specification and location, together with a comprehensive seed mix for each of the proposed wildflower areas. Likewise, the request for details of pre-felling bat inspections would effectively fall within the request for details of 'reasonable avoidance measures' for wildlife.
6.6 With respect to highways matters, additional information in relation to visibility splays has been provided, together with a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and responses to each of the issues previous identified by Highways. Moreover, further details in relation to a new bus stop have been provided, together with the new store for Plot 6 to provide adequate bicycle storage. Highway Services have confirmed they are now content with the proposals and conclude that it would pose no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues, subject to the attachment of appropriately worded conditions. - 6.7 A final issue for consideration relates to drainage and flooding matters. It is noted that a condition requiring the submission of full details pursuant to design and construction of surface water drainage was added to the decision notice for the previous application at the Inspector's initial recommendation. With respect to the current application, upon submission of new drawings and calculations relating to the culvert, Flood Risk Management have confirmed that they are satisfied with the supplied information however the detail for the inlet and outlet must be supplied as part of a Section 20 works application under the Flood Risk Management Act
6.8 The agent has provided the following response in this regard:
"In correspondence with the authority it was noted that matters controlled under separate legislation — including detailed drainage design — are established not to constitute a material consideration under §10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (in this respect, the authority has powers under §20 of the Flood Risk Management Act 2013). Whilst the possibility of conditioning detailed drainage matters was discussed, it is the applicant's preference to avoid pre-commencement delays and to address such details at this stage.
The proposed surface water attenuation is devised to control flows, originating from within the site, entering the existing watercourse (a drainage ditch on the site's northwest edge). This ditch drains northwards until it reaches the highway, however the manner in which it discharges is inadequately provided for at present (which would be the case notwithstanding any proposal for the site's development); pipes installed by the relevant authority in recent years appear not to serve the intended purpose for which they were installed.
In the preparation of their design, Burroughs Stewart Associates have undertaken calculations in accordance with the requirements of CIRIA Culvert, Screen and Outfall Manual (C786F), as cited by the Flood Risk Division. A culvert is proposed to be installed below the highway, replacing those pipes previously installed, so that the watercourse may freely discharge. We consider the foregoing to accord with the Flood Management Division's detail requirements. Having received confirmation of their satisfaction, we hereby formally submit the same for inclusion on the application's file."
6.9 Officers are in agreement that the provision of further details pursuant to drainage by way of a planning condition would not be necessary and would be sufficiently covered as part of a Section 20 application. Therefore, it is not considered that additional detail would need to be provided as part of the planning process, with both Flood Risk Management and Manx Utilities Authority noted as being content in principle with the proposals from a drainage and flooding perspective. - 6.10 Issues raised in relation to PV solar panels and ensuring that they are correctly installed are noted, however such matters are not a material planning consideration and fall outwith of the planning process.
7.1 The proposed development is considered to amount to an efficient redevelopment of a vacant site which is designated for development, whilst constituting a high quality of design and layout without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality. The proposals are further
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 07.05.2024
Signed : T COWELL Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
