Loading document...
The application site comprises of a parcel of land that is located between Parsonage Road and Summerland in Ramsey. The application site, which comprises of a garden area, measures approximately 0.038 of a hectare (0.094 of an acre).
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the application site. The application is accompanied by illustrative drawings showing a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the application site and a supporting statement.
To the best of my knowledge the application site has not been the subject of any previous planning application.
Ramsey Town Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal represents over development of the site that could result in an unneighbourly form of development that there are potential vehicular access issues, that car parking can be problematic and that the required infill could result in a visually intrusive development.
The Department of Transport Highways Division object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development will not have sufficient
space to accommodate a vehicle and that vehicles parked on the driveway would block access to the proposed garages.
The Isle of Man Water Authority make no comment on the merit of the planning application but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment state that they consider the proposal to be a reasonable use of a brownfield site and make comment on design.
Save Mann's Heritage object to the planning application. The grounds for their concern can be summarised as concern that the development of the site would be unsympathetic to the properties on Summerland, that the orientation would sterilise the development of adjacent plots and that piecemeal development is undesirable.
The owner and/or occupant Flat 2 Towerside Court, which is located on the opposite side of Parsonage Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development will lead to a loss of view, that it will cause a loss of light, that its orientation on the site is out of keeping and that the site should remain as a garden area.
The owners and/or occupants of 5 Summerland, which is located on the opposite side of Summerland to the site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is visually intrusive, that the effect on the potential for the registration of Summerland is inappropriate, that the proposal represents over development as the site is too small for the proposed development, that there are vehicular access issues, that car parking is problematic, that the proposal is contrary to local plan policy, that approval would set an inappropriate precedent and that there are covenants preventing development.
The owners and/or occupants of 1 Summerland, which is located on the opposite side of Summerland to the site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that there are restrictive covenants in place, that the proposal would be visually intrusive, that the development is detrimental to public amenity, that development would be unsympathetic to the character of the surrounding area, that approval would set an inappropriate precedent, that the effect on the potential for the registration of Summerland is inappropriate, that there are vehicular access issues and that car parking is problematic.
The owners and/or occupants of 3 Summerland, which is located on the opposite side of Summerland to the site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that development would be unsympathetic to the character of the surrounding area, that it would cause an unacceptable loss of light, that it would cause an unacceptable loss of sun, that it would cause an unacceptable loss of view, that there are vehicular access issues, that car parking is problematic, that the proposal is contrary to local plan policy, that there are restrictive covenants in place and that the effect on the potential for the registration of Summerland is inappropriate.
The owners and/or occupants of 2 Summerland, which is located on the opposite side of Summerland to the site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that there are restrictive covenants in place, that there are vehicular access issues, that car parking is problematic, that the proposal represents an over development of the site, that the development would have a detrimental impact on property values and that the actual need for the development is questionable.
The owners and/or occupants of The Old Vicarage on Vernon Road, which is located to the west of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the development would detrimentally alter the character of the area, that the surrounding street scene would be adversely affected, that the proposal represents the loss
of valuable green space, that approval would set a precedent, that the proposal represents over development of the plot and that additional traffic would be generated.
The owners and/or occupants of 3 Christian Close, which is located in Ramsey but some distance from the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the development of the site would detrimentally alter the character of the area and that the loss of green space in Ramsey would be regrettable.
The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe, which is located in Braddan, states that they are disappointed with the proposed development and consider that the site should remain as a garden area and that any design should reflect the potential for the registration of the properties on Summerland.
The application site is within the area covered by the Ramsey Local Plan. Under this the application site is within an area recognised as being in predominantly residential use and is not designated for any specific purpose.
Planning Circular 2/99, the written statement that accompanies the local plan, states at paragraph 7.4 that:
"With regard to existing residential areas, it is considered important that backland and/or garden areas are protected from inappropriate residential development, particularly where such development would result in the loss of existing trees or hedgerows."
Policy R/R/P3, which relates to the development of infill and backland sites, states:
"Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such site should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to the submission of any application."
In terms of the various concerns and objections raised by representations to planning applications I would advise that issues relating to covenants or restrictions outside of the planning system are not material planning considerations in the assessment of a planning application. The enforcement of any such restrictions is a civil matter to which the planning authority can have no regard. Similarly, the effect of development on the financial value of a property is not a material planning consideration. The right to a view and right to light are not normally taken to be material planning considerations. I am content that the remainder of the concerns and objections raised are essentially material planning considerations and matters to have regard to in the assessment of the planning application.
The consideration of Policy R/R/P3 has been previously considered through the assessment of planning application 04/02353/A, which proposed the residential development of a parcel of land situated at the corner of Glen Elfin Road and May Hill. This site is located approximately 250 metres from the application site for the current planning application. This previous planning application was the subject of an appeal and in the conclusions of their report the appointed Planning Inspector stated that "there is logic in attempting to use suitable remaining urban land rather than continuing to expand into rural areas" and continued on to say that they were "aware of the presumption against developing such land as set out in Policy R/R/P3 of the Local Plan, but given the condition of the site and its location within an urban area, I support the principle of developing the site with housing."
Whilst I do consider this previous conclusion to be relevant I am of the opinion that as each site has different characteristics there is a need to consider each planning application on its individual merits.
It is my view that the application site and the adjacent open space could be developed in a manner that does not unduly affect the character of the area and the amenity of the existing surrounding properties. It is reasonable to say that the Department's stance on the use of urban sites has evolved since the publication of the Ramsey Local Plan and Planning Circular 2/99. Local plan policy is another material consideration in the assessment of a planning application and as always policy can only ever act as guidance in any such assessment. Taking account of the conclusions of the previously appointed Planning Inspector I can see logic and a wider benefit to making best use of sites within urban areas. As such I consider the principle of the residential development of the application site to be acceptable.
Setting aside the principle of development it remains necessary to examine the application site against the proposal to erect a pair of semi-detached dwellings on it.
Although only illustrative I believe that it is reasonable to look at the submitted illustrative drawings as they show the only realistic way for a pair of semi-detached dwellings to be accommodated on the application site. One result of attempting to accommodate two dwellings is the orientation of the dwellings perpendicular to the row of houses on Summerland. Regardless of whether the principle of doing so is acceptable orientating the dwellings in this way will hinder the development of the adjacent land. Additionally, the development of the site for two dwellings results in a high level of built development across the application site and limited remaining space for associated amenity areas. This concern is linked to the objection from the Highways Division, although I do not fully understand or share their concern that parking on the driveway would block access into the proposed garages. It does seem apparent that erecting two dwellings on the application site would restrict the ability to provide on site manoeuvring space so that vehicles can enter and exit in a forward gear. Failure to be able to do this would be contrary to the interests of highway safety.
I believe that the application site is capable of accommodating residential development but it is my view that any such development has to be limited to a single dwelling. I accept that the orientation of a single dwelling would still have to be an issue for consideration at reserved matters or full planning application. However, given that the application site slopes downwards from Summerland towards Parsonage Road and there is separation provided by these roads I believe that a dwelling could be constructed that did not unduly affect the residential amenity of existing surrounding properties. Contrary to the concerns of one of the objectors given that the application site is located to the north of Summerland and is at a lower level I cannot see the development would affect sunlight.
In conclusion, I recommend that the planning application be refused on the basis that the erection of two dwellings is an over development of the application site.
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
The owners and/or occupants of The Old Vicarage on Vernon Road; The owners and/or occupants of 3 Christian Close; and The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.06.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that the erection of two dwellings on the application site would: a) constitute an over intensive form of development; b) result in dwellings that each have an insufficient level of private amenity space associated to them; c) prohibit the formation of a turning feature within the curtilage of each property that allows a motor vehicle to enter and exit in a forward gear; and d) result in dwellings being orientated in a manner that unduly affects the potential development of adjoining land.
Decision Made : _________________________ Committee Meeting Date : _________________________
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
