Loading document...
Application No.: 20/01401/A Applicant: Mr & Mrs Richard Bellwood Proposal: Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling and addressing matters of access and parking Site Address: Land To Rear Of 6 Summerland Seamount Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2HT Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Site Visit: 22.12.2020 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.04.2021 _________________________________________________________________
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.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.
The principle of residential development as shown on the submitted plans is appropriate on this site in accordance with Strategic Policy 1,2; General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4 and Transport Policy 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawings referenced; 20 1462 01 Rev A; 20 1462 02 Rev A, 20 1462 04 Rev A, received on 2 March 2021. _______________________________________________________________
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
No.1 Seamount Road,Ramsey Summerlands, Queens Pier Road,
DOI (Flood Management) should be afforded IPS as a Government Department who has submitted a representation which relates to material planning issues. _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVE OBJECTED AND IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
0.0 PREAMBLE - 1.0 This application was deferred from a previous meeting (26.04.21) for a site visit. Following the site visit on 10/05/21 members, Perkins, Comish, Kermode, Young, were present
at the time and other members Cubbon, Pilling, Skelton confirmed they would visit separately.
2.0 The site visit covered the pertinent points of the applications and members we able to view the inside of the site to gain a better understanding of the context of the site, a greater understanding of the surrounding properties and their proximity to the site and observed the current access and dropped kerb leading onto the highway and the parameters involved. - 3.0 Further to the planning officer’s forma report below, comments have been received from; DEFA's Bio-Diversity officer commented (18/03/21) on the benefit of urban wild 'garden' areas with trees, grass and shrubs which can support a wide variety of bio-diversity; the strategic policy 4 seeks to protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban areas. If approved they seek a condition to include details of ecological mitigation measures with bird and bat bricks, installation of swift nesting bricks under the eaves on the northern elevation; a tree and vegetation planting proposal, and; a tree survey and tree protection plan. THE SITE
1.1 The application site is the land to the rear of No.6 Summerland Road Ramsey. This plot of land fronts onto Seamount Road and is flanked by two existing properties. To the west "Summerlands" and to the east, No.1 Seamount Road. At present the site features a dropped kerb opposite a garage door and pedestrian width door. The boundary with the pavement is approx.2.0m+ high concrete wall. The inside of the site is not visible from the highway. The agent’s photos indicate the area is mostly over grown with and garden sheds insitu that is accessible from the rear gardens of No.6 Summerland Road. - 1.2 The area is characterised by a number of different styles of properties, to the north two story semi-detached dwellings; to the east a pair of semi-detached properties three stories high finished in red brick with bay windows and ornamental detailing, to the south two story terraced properties in rendered finish; to the west, across from Queens Pier Road are two storey semi-detached properties and a single detached dwellinghouse. The area is typically residential with parking on the highway to the front of properties.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is an application in principle to address the mean of access only for the erection of one dwelling. A revised site plan and ground plan has been submitted showing a ground floor layout of parking for two cars in parallel within a garage (6m x 6m internal) with a utility room and entrance porch with staircase to an upper floor (upper floor not shown) with hard surfacing to the front of the property and gardens to the rear. The total footprint would measure 10.1m wide x 6.7m deep and a foot path of 900mm to either side giving access to the rear. The existing garage would also be demolished as part of the scheme and the removal of 4 trees within the site. - 2.2 Also supplied is a plan showing a vehicle access and egressing from within the site and visibility splays for vehicles existing the site in a forward gear before joining the highway. Also shown is he extending of the existing dropped kerb. - 2.3 The original application was for 'Approval in principle for the erection of two dwellings with associated parking'. However, following the initial consultation period and responding to the comments received and further consultation with the planning department this was altered to the erection of one dwelling. - 2.4 The amended drawings and the application description was re-publicised on the 5th March to show the application was for one dwelling as per this application and seeking comments by 26th March 2021. This was also circulated to those that had already commented.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being predominately residential use under the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a designated Conservation Area or within an area identified as being at floor risk from tidal or surface water flooding. - 3.2 Within the written statement accompanying the plan is Policy R/R/P3:Infil/ backland development - 3.3 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 3.4 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.5 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.6 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:
3.7 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
3.7 Environment Policy 42 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. - 3.8 The text preceding Environment Policy 42 gives helpful guidance for new development within existing settlements with respect to protecting the character and identity of the streetscene; "In terms of existing settlements, in both rural and urban areas, new development will be expected to follow the following design principles. Development will need to:
3.9 The strategic plan gives guidance on the interpretation of; "Infill development(1)" (in the sense of filling a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage) may be acceptable in built up areas, but the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements. - 3.10 "Backland development(2)" (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings. - 3.11 "Tandem development (3)" (consisting of one house immediately behind another, and sharing the same access) is generally unacceptable because of the difficulties of access to the house at the back, and the disturbance and lack of privacy suffered by the house in front. - 3.12 Transport Policy 4: The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan. - 3.13 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7. - 3.14 Strategic Policy 4 (in part) Proposals for development must:
4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full representation can be read online)
5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners initially commented on; (18/12/20) to object, as they felt the proposed dwellings would no respect the site or surrounding area and contrary to GP2; should be only one property not two; Quotes Ramsey Local Plan 1998 regarding back land development; raises issues regarding vehicle visibility when emerging from the site.
(22/03/21) on the amended plans to object, referencing the proposal did not respect the site and the surroundings in terms of siting, layout and scale of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Reference is given to Ramsey Local Plan 1998 policy R/R/P3: Infill /backland sites which states; "within areas zoned for predominately residential use there will be a general presumption against the development if those sites which provide attractive, natural breathing spaces between established residential buildings. These sits will often include trees, mature landscaping or simple green space." No comments were given on the means of access but left for DoI to comment further.
5.2 Highways Services initially commented (16/12/20) with an objection for visibility and again on the amended plans (19/03/21) to object specifically to visibility to the left on exit (east) which is 15.3m with a speed limit of 30mph. "Whilst there are parked cars lining both sides of the carriageway, good forward visibility from the bend with Brookhill Road to the Queens Pier Road junction would mean vehicles are likely to travel at higher speeds. The parked cars to the northern side of Seamount Road would also obscure vehicles exiting the garage for drivers heading west… The proposal raises adverse road safety issues due to the poor visibility provided to the left upon exit of the garage, contrary to Strategic Plan Policy T4." - 5.3 Manx National Heritage commented (17/12/20) to raise awareness regarding development next to trees and bushes and highlights nesting birds may be present from April to August and advises any works to be carried out, outside of those periods. Reference is made to the Wildlife Act 1990 and lists a number of offences. - 5.4 N0.1 Seamount Road, (21.12.20) their agent comments on behalf of themselves, who requests IPS, has concerns regarding the layout, and site plan; provides details comments on the access arrangements for vehicle users and highway safety aspects; the proposed parking arrangement would encourage on-street parking in an already congested area, would result in a loss of 5 street parking spaces; the propose development of the site as indicated would lead to overlooking to the rear private amenity space, would have an overbearing impact on the rear of No.1; would lead to a loss of light and overshadowing given the proposal; would be contrary to GP2, RDG2019; paragraphs 7.2-7.5. Further matters raised are during the construction, whether there would be undermining of the foundation, vibration, disruption and impact of their property. Further comments were received (29/03/21) on the amended plans, welcoming the reduction from 2 to 1 property but continues to object and reiterates their issues for access, parking, principle, design and layout. - 5.5 N0.5 Summerland Road (30/12/20) comments to object. They are the other half to
facing; Loss of outlook by introducing a built form in this position and of this scale. A better designed single dwelling with a lower roof line or only two stories would be more in keeping with the streetscene and not over development.
5.6 N0.4 Summerland Road (31.12.20) comments to object, as they are concerned at the size of the proposal as this will remove a proportion of natural light (from am - 1400hrs) and also would result in a loss of their privacy to the rear garden and those room on the rear elevation. There is a difference in ground levels several meters from those properties on Summerland and those on Seamount road given the natural slop of the hill which will make the proposal over bearing. - 5.7 'Summerlands' Queens Pier Road (30/12/20) objects as they share a boundary with the site and have concerns regarding; highway safety for all vehicle users as the property is effectively on a junction and user s of the garage reversing in will cause problem to road users, the linear parking arrangement would be problematic and result in onstreet parking; the size would generate a loss of light, over shadowing for their garden and amenity space, have an overbearing impact and would allow for overlooking into the private amenity if their outdoor space and contrary to GP2, RDG2019.
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is designated as predominately residential use and therefore the proposal for residential development is acceptable in terms of complying with the land-use designation. The conflicting comments from the commissioners regarding the proposal, initially two dwelling was too much and suggested one, now the proposal is for one dwelling considers it to not "respect the site and the surroundings in terms of siting, layout and scale". However the land use designation is residential and supported by the planning policies and with regard to the site providing a natural breathing space. However, as the sits is screened from public views with a concrete wall it currently offers no benefit to the wider streetscene and a dwelling here (if designed correctly in accordance with GP2) could be seen an improvement on the visual amenity of the streetscene. - 6.3 Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the removal of open spaces, which contribute to the visual amenity of a particular area, will not be permitted. However, the application site is screened from public view by a high wall along its Seamount Road frontage. This limits its present contribution to the visual amenity of this area. Furthermore, Environment Policy 42 states that the open spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans. The application site has not been identified as such as open spaces in either the Ramsey local plan or the 1982 Development Plan. It is further noted from the site visit, within 100m of the site are two established public open spaces with green recreational areas and mature trees with some grass lands. To the south west of the site is Coronation Park and to the north east a band of mature trees planting adjacent to Brookhill Road with a footpath leading down to the MER line and onto Waterloo Road. - 6.4 Strategic Policy 1, 2 identify areas of development to be located, generally within existing towns and villages. It can be agreed that this part of Ramsey is within an existing town and would be considered to accord to Strategic Policy 1, 2, as a sustainable site within a designated town to develop. This approach is further echoed within HP4. The detail of any such dwelling would be considered by a subsequent reserved matters planning application.
However, this is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal as the other matters listed within paragraph 6.1 still need to be considered and be considered acceptable.
6.5 The application seeks that all matters (siting, design, external appearance of the building, internal layout, drainage, and landscaping of the site) to be determined at the any future Reserved Matters Application. The concerns of the neighbouring property owners have been noted above and amended drawings received for one dwelling. The gist of their original comments still stands and partially applicable regarding the principle of development and any perceived impact. - 6.6 Whilst those comments are noted, at this stage only the principle and means of access (addressed below) is being considered and for the reasons listed in paragraphs 6.2 to 6.4 of this report, the principle of the use of the land for residential is considered acceptable. - 6.7 In assessing the potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities, potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene; and potential amenities of future occupants of the dwelling; are all matters which would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application specifically those aspects of Gp2. A condition can be included on any approval to seek further details submitted as part of a reserved matters application which will assist in the assessment of any impact on the neighbouring properties and their amenity.
6.8 Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are normally heavily relied upon. - 6.9 However, in this case the application site already features an existing dropped kerb access to the site and already serves a detached garage and pedestrian access doorway off the highway that serves the rear of No.6 Seamount Road. There are no restrictions at present on the current owners ability to utilise this access on a daily basis at all hours of the day. In their assessment highways services have not referred to the current access and its visibility, which is fundamentally important as what is proposed could be seen as an improvement and the access onto the highway would be wider. The site is within a designated urban area which would not be out of context with similar access arrangements in the town and whilst visibility is merely restricted to one direction (15.3m), this is not a strong enough reason for refusal, particularly given the status quo on site. - 6.10 Had the context been different and there had not been an existing dropped kerb and access point with a garage on site, greater weight could have been afforded to the comments from highways and that of the surrounding neighbours who commented regarding highways safety in the broadest of terms. On balance, it is deemed the proposals are broadly aligned with those aspects of TP4 and 7 of the strategic plan and would not introduce any highway safety implications over and above the existing arrangement.
6.11 The comments from the Eco-systems policy offer are welcomed and provide helpful advice to offset any loss of bio-diversity on site. They acknowledge the site is more of a wild garden when viewed from an aerial image. However having visited the inside of the site it is found to be generally over grown section of the garden with a detached garage building with self-seeded trees and bushes that is very densely overgrown. - 6.12 The re-development of the site would not be considered to be detrimental to what little bio-diversity exists on site or loss of green space and would not be considered to be contrary to Sp4b where it seeks to protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban and rural areas. The guidance offered from the eco-systems policy officer is to include a
condition for appropriate landscaping conditions for Manx native planting, integration of bird or bat boxes, swift nesting bricks under the eaves on the northerly elevation will then "result in no net loss of biodiversity" as advised by the eco-systems policy officer.
7.1 For the above reasons, it is considered the principle of residential development with means of access as shown on the submitted plans is appropriate on this site and recommended that the application be approved with attached conditions. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
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: 24.05.2021
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatoryto delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
