Loading document...
Chartered Architects and Surveyors., 1 Dale Street, Ramsey, Isle of Man. IM8 1BJ Telephone 01624 813219 / 01624 814178 Fax 01624 816436 e-mail [email protected] 18th May 2005.
Miss J. Callow, Secretary to the Planning Committee, Department of Local Government and the Environment, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man.
Dear Madam,
Re: P.A.no.04/02353/A : Approval in principle for demolition of existing Garage and construction of four dwellings, each with integral double Garage, on land at the corner of Glen Elfin Road and May Hill, Ramsey for D.Hepworth Esq..
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated 8th March 2005 regarding the above mentioned outline planning application and would submit the following comments in support of our proposal for consideration at the forthcoming Review Hearing.
We would stress that our submitted proposal is an outline planning application only. We are not seeking detailed permission for our scheme but we felt it would be helpful to both the Planning Committee and the neighbours to give an indication of how the site might be developed. We are also aware of the style of properties in the vicinity and tried to demonstrate how the site, in terms of size of dwellings and appearance of individual properties, might be approached.
Judging by the comments received from adjacent neighbours, the scheme has attracted much criticism for the design, height of proposed buildings etc.. but our submitted drawing is a suggestion only and not a definitive scheme.
Having carried out a survey of the application site and taken into consideration the style, size and relative density of all neighbouring properties in the immediate vicinity, we felt that our approach within the submitted scheme provided a type of property that was very much in-keeping with the neighbours.
The adjoining properties to the site running along May Hill towards Whitegates Corner comprise of eight terraced properties of varying heights. The properties adjacent to the site along May Hill but running down towards Cruickshanks Corner are in two Terraces, the first containing six, two storey dwellings with a much larger terrace of four brick built properties closer to Cruickshanks Corner. Directly opposite our site but facing on to May Hill are four large terraced properties. Beyond these are more modern semi-detached and detached dwellings which lead up to, and abut, Lheaney Road.
We have enclosed a copy of the Location Plan at Appendix 1 which indicates quite clearly the density of development within the neighbourhood and we feel our proposal is in-keeping with the type of property in this neighbourhood and does not constitute an over-intensive use of the site as noted within the reason for refusal.
On the submitted drawing we have indicated four individual dwellings, each with its' own double integral Garage. Each property would have its' own private amenity space in the form of a front garden, although the dwelling indicated in Glen Elfin Road would have a rear Yard space only. Similarly, within this neighbourhood, the majority of properties have very little private amenity space and are therefore similar to our proposal. The adjoining dwellings leading up to Whitegates Corner have front gardens and rear Yards, some have Garages but most have no on-site car parking at all. Our amenity space has been given over to the provision of garaging which we feel is much more important in this location. There are two properties, one within the adjacent terrace on May Hill which has been converted into self-contained Flats and one in Maycroft which is also in Flats and these properties have no amenity space, or car parking, for the majority of occupants.
We would ask the Planning Committee to note that at Appendix 6 Open Space Requirements For New Residential Development within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (emerging legislation) paragraph A.6.1.2 states "It is not considered feasible to request smaller residential developments to make provision for open space either through on-site provision or by way of a commuted sum payment. Therefore, planning applications for the development of ten dwellings and above will have to make provision for open space." Each of our dwellings has a small amount of open space for occupants use together with space for drying clothes, bin storage etc..
We would add that within a short walking distance of the site is the Coronation Park and Ramsey Golf Course which provide more than adequate recreational and leisure facilities within the neighbourhood.
With regard to the streetscape, we have produced an Elevation which would provide tall, narrow, terrace type dwellings with projecting bay windows and Dormers at roof level. We thought that this was in-keeping with the general style of neighbouring properties but, again, have been criticised by certain objectors as the style of proposed dwelling is not Victorian but a modern pastiche of this style. We would have thought the style of proposed dwelling to be more appropriate than a modern semi-detached property or detached bungalow which would definitely be out-of-keeping with this particular location.
The roof height, again, is flexible. We have indicated a four storey dwelling although the Third floor would have a reduced eaves height to provide the Dormer windows within the roof construction. The properties immediately adjacent to the site are three storey but the height of dwelling does increase as the Terrace runs further up May Hill towards Whitegates Corner. We have included a number of colour photographs at Appendix 2 to indicate the differing heights and styles of buildings in the neighbourhood which we hope will show the Planning Committee that we have made an effort to acknowledge the style and design of adjacent dwellings within our proposal. We do not think the height is inappropriate, especially as the ceiling height of a modern dwelling will be much lower than its' Victorian counterpart and the overall finished height of any new three / four storey dwelling will not be out-of-keeping with its' older neighbours. A three storey dwelling would certainly be lower whereas a four storey dwelling may be slightly higher than the immediate neighbour at 9 May Hill.
We would agree that the access arrangements in providing steps up to the First Floor level to gain access do differ from the existing dwellings in the neighbourhood. This is a design detail and the layouts could be altered to provide pedestrian access at ground floor level through the front gardens, this would give a similar appearance to existing properties in May Hill. We would ask the Planning Committee to note that the dwellings on the lower side of Maycroft (adjacent to Cruickshanks Corner) and the upper side of May Hill (numbers 2 onwards) do have steps up to the front door as these dwellings have Basement accommodation.
The Advisory Council on Planning and the Environment have made a valid point within their correspondence dated 14th December 2004 in that, the car parking arrangements for each dwelling could be set slightly below ground level if required which would reduce the overall height of the building.
Although not noted within the reason for refusal, car parking appears to be of great concern to the neighbours. We have noted that out of eighteen neighbouring properties on the same side of May Hill as our proposed development (between Maycroft and Whitegates Corner), there are four properties with Garages on site and a separate block of four Garages in the Lane adjacent to "Avoca". We have incorporated a Garage with each of our proposed dwellings to provide off-street car parking for two vehicles for each property, this is in excess of the current off-street car parking requirements. Prior to submitting this planning application, we did discuss the off-street car parking requirements with the Planning Engineer at the Department of Transport and were advised that no vehicular access would be allowed on to May Hill as this is part of the T.T.Course. We therefore took our vehicular access off Glen Elfin Road and we note the Department of Transport has no objection to our proposal.
We sympathise with the neighbours regarding the on-street car parking arrangements at the present time, but, as Glen Elfin Road and May Hill are public highways we have no influence over car parking in the neighbourhood. Our concern is to provide off-street car parking for our proposal that will not cause any detriment to the neighbours.
It has been noted that two sites within close proximity to our land have been granted outline planning approval for residential development. Both sites are in Beaumont Road and we have enclosed a copy of the Location Plan at Appendix 3 indicating the sites in relation to our proposal. The site adjacent to "Dreemskerry" was granted approval for three Apartments and the site adjacent to "Comaa" has recently been given approval for four self-contained Apartments with parking at the rear.
We would ask the Planning Committee to consider the preceding comments in favour of our proposal but would stress that the submitted application is an in-principle proposal only. The design, appearance, roof height and access arrangements are details that would be addressed within a reserved matters planning application. We are pleased to note that the Planning Authority has no direct objection to the residential development of the application site but we would, because of the enclosed arguments supporting our proposal, wish to retain the number of dwellings contained within the development at four units.
We feel the submitted proposal is in-keeping with the general density, style and nature of the neighbourhood and it would be one of the few areas within the neighbourhood capable of providing off-street car parking for two vehicles per unit.
We would be obliged if you could advise us of the outcome of this Review Hearing in due course.
Yours faithfully,
Glenn Kinrade
Glenn Kinrade. CORLETT & KINRADE.
Encls..
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
