Loading document...
Application No.: 07/00836/B Applicant: Heritage Homes Ltd Proposal: Erection of seven detached dwellings with access road, drainage and landscaping Site Address: Field 411570 And Access Leading Thereto Erin Way Port Erin Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Consulttee: Port Erin Commissioners Notes: Objection made Consulttee: Chief Fire Officer Notes: Note to be included Consulttee: Drainage Division Notes: No objection subject to conditions:
The site represents a parcel of undeveloped land which sits between the north eastern edge of the recent development of Erin Way/Truggan Road. The site has to its north the steam railway line, to the North West is the open space which also serves as the drainage catchment area. To the south west is Erin Way and Erin Lane - closest to the site are number 23 Erin Way and number 7 and 18 Erin Lane.
The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan as Predominantly Residential.
Apart from the development of the estate which largely excluded this site, only one application has been submitted which is relevant to the consideration of this application. PA 05/0910 proposed the development of 8 dwellings on this site. This was permitted by the Planning Committee but refused on appeal. The reasons given at appeal were that whilst the site is designated for development on the prevailing local plan and that "...in principle it would be appropriate to build dwellings on the appeal site" (paragraph 44) and that "...it would be unreasonable and impractical to require all of the land to be remain undeveloped" (paragraph 45), "...there is an important requirement to ensure the new development provides a reasonable transition between the existing housing and the open countryside" (paragraph 46). The Inspector goes on to suggest that there needs to be "...a more substantial area of planting than that shown on the layout along the boundary with the railway line" (paragraph 47). Despite the applicant indicating that this could be provided by moving the roadway closer to the proposed houses, which was a need accepted by the Inspector, this would need to be the subject of a new application and that this would be too substantial a change to be accommodated by a condition of approval of that proposal (paragraph 48).
The Inspector also expressed concern regarding the dwelling on plot 8 in that is extended beyond the existing line of houses to the south and suggested that this dwelling should be omitted and "...a more substantial area for planting provided along the south-eastern boundary as well as re-arranging and moving the houses on the remaining plots" (paragraph 49).
The Inspector went on to discuss whether the development should comprise solely bungalows and did not accept this (paragraph 50).
The Inspector discussed the drainage of the site and concluded that "...the addition of surface water from eight new dwellings would not cause significant harm to the ability of the detention pond to provide proper and adequate storage provision" (paragraph 52).
Now proposed is the development of a road, drainage and seven dwellings proposed in a form to try to overcome the objections to the previous application. The roadway has been moved back from the railway by 2.5m and tree planting introduced in its place. The Maple house type on former plot 7 has been removed and the houses to the west all moved slightly to the west and the Laurel, formerly plot 8 has been moved to the west, now not extending built development any further west than is the existing development in Erin Lane. In other respects the scheme is the same as that proposed under PA 05/0910.
The Fire Prevention Officer recommends consultation in respect of fire hydrants and water supplies, which may be addressed by way of a note.
Port Erin Commissioners object to the proposal on the basis that the proposal breaches the building line established by Erin Lane and that the property on plot 7 is too large.
The owner of the land to the north east of the site objects to the proposal on the basis that the proposal does not significantly alter the previous layout and still results in an adverse visual and landscape impact. He also expresses concern that there is an overlap between the property previously shown on plot 8 and that now shown as plot 7, that there will be a lot of infilling to accommodate the development, contrary to General Policy 2 (f) of the draft Strategic Plan. He also comments that the use of terracotta coloured tiles will conflict with the provisions of the 1982 Scheme 11(2)(b)(v11) which states that "The establishment and preservation of an attractive environment" will be sought through inter alia, "The use of dark coloured roofing tiles or slates", the finishes of the proposed dwelling conflicts with the appearance of the existing properties in the area and the landscaping strip is inadequate to overcome the Inspector's concerns on the previous application.
The occupant of 27 Erin Way objects to the application on the basis that the development will introduce a harsh backdrop to the steam railway line, the raising of the level of the housing will create a detrimental visual impact, the public open space is inadequate, and the route for construction traffic is through an existing residential area. He also suggests that bungalows would be more appropriate and refers to the site as an unofficial children's playground and suggests that if planning permission is granted that the open space on the corner of Erin Lane and Erin Way be fully instated.
The resident of Port Soderick considers that the site is designated as white land, despite the clear indication in the previous appeal that it is part of the residential area, but has no objection to the application.
The occupant of 23 Erin Way objects to the application on the basis that the raising of the level of the site and the two storey properties will have an adverse impact on the use of the railway line, drainage provision is inadequate (despite the findings of the previous inspector), existing residents will be disturbed through construction traffic and that the site will need to settle before being built upon. If permission is granted, this party suggests that the footpath on the eastern side of the estate be linked to the estate through this site, that pumping facilities be introduced to alleviate problems of flooding at the junction of the footpath and the railway, that the site hut be removed from the area of public open space and that the footpath between 23 Erin Way and 7 Erin Lane be removed and replaced by a footpath along the new site.
The Planning Authority is not in a position through this application to seek removal of advertising matter or site huts which are outside the site. I understand that the development of the four plots at the higher end of the site which have approval under PA 05/1549 is linked with this site in terms of infill material and it is likely that if planning permission is granted to this development, then the remainder of the estate will be developed. This would the result in the completion of the whole development being achieved more quickly, and the signage and huts would be removed.
The Department of Transport Drainage Division and Isle of Man Water Authority both raise no objection subject to the imposition of notes and conditions.
The occupant of 1, Erin Lane objects to the proposal on the basis of the building up of the site to accommodate the development and the impact which this will have on the value and amenities of the adjacent properties. This was not a reason for refusal for the previous application despite the levels being the same as those proposed previously. Number 1 Erin Way is some 70m away from the nearest house and there are three other properties in between. There is also criticism in this submission on the lack of information on the relationship between the new built up properties and those existing to the south. However, there is a sectional drawing which shows this relationship between plot 7 and 18 Erin Lane.
There are now matters raised in objection to this application which were not raised previously. These include the use of the application site as informal children's play space, the deletion of an existing footpath and the provision of a footpath across the site to the existing footpath to the east of the site and the use of materials. In the absence of reference to these matters by the inspector, or indeed any other party, it could be argued that they are not matters which now need to be addressed.
However, in response to them, I would comment that the site is not identified either on the layout plan or on the local plan as play space and as such it cannot be preserved as such. The Inspector in relation to the previous application concluded that the site is suitable for residential development.
The deletion of the existing footpath would not necessarily benefit other users of the estate and if the new development were to provide access to the footpath, this would not be a suitable replacement as the existing footpath does not link into the footpath to the east and simply provides access to Erin Lane from Erin Way.
The use of materials was not raised previously and the Inspector made no comment on them. Whilst there is a proposal to introduce two red roofs to the development, this complements what has been used in the variety of house types elsewhere on the estate: the remainder of the roofs in this development are black or brown. In any case, the 1982 Order recommends the introduction of variety in estate layouts through use of a range of densities and dwelling types...” (11(2)(b)(i)). Similarly, the use of rendered coloured finishes, timberwork and brickwork similarly introduces variety and interest. Again, full coloured drawings were prepared in respect of the streetscene for the previous application and no adverse comments were made in this respect when that application was being considered. As screening is now being introduced between the railway and the housing, the impact of the housing, even if it were considered unacceptable, which I do not accept, will be mitigated as viewed from the railway.
The proposed development omits a dwelling as was suggested as being necessary by the Inspector. The new easternmost house steps up from the garage to the two storey element of the house which I feel is a positive design element, particularly as one views the development from the east. The easternmost part of this property does not extend beyond the rear elevations of numbers 10, 12, 14 or 16 taking a line parallel with the rear hedge at the back of these properties although the single storey garage does extend 1m further to the east than the rear elevation of the main part of the dwelling on plot 18, drawing the line parallel with the rear of that house.
Whilst it would be possible to move the houses further from the railway line, this would inevitably mean bringing them close to the properties behind and I do not believe, for the additional few metres of space which would be provided, that this is justified. If the tree planting to be introduced between the road and the railway line is supplemented by fuchsia or other spreading vegetation, the new housing could be completely hidden from view in time, if that is what is required. It should also be remembered that there is existing housing much closer to the railway line on the northern side of the track, just to the north of the drainage/public open space area.
Similarly, whilst it would be possible to omit the Laurel previously proposed on plot 8 and retain the Maple on the new plot 7, this would result in a two storey gable being the first thing visible from the east which in my view, is less desirable than the stepped gable as proposed.
In my view the revised scheme takes account of the points raised in the previous refusal without further compromising the amenities of existing residents in the estate, particularly those immediately to the south of the site. The Inspector previously rejected any objection on the basis of a deficiency in drainage provision and accepted the principle of the residential development of two storey housing. As such I recommend that the application is permitted but not subject to conditions which require the removal of signage or structures which are not on the site for the above reasons.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Fire Prevention Officer and Isle of Man Water Authority raise issues which are not principally the concern of the planning system and as such should not be afforded party status.
The occupant of number 23 Erin Way is directly alongside the application site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of number 27 Erin Way and 1, Erin Lane are not directly alongside the site and are not directly affected. As such they should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 22.06.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the development of seven dwellings and associated landscaping, roads and sewerage all as shown in drawings 100 Rev A, 101 Rev E, 102 Rev E, 104 Rev B, 103 Rev H, 105, 106, 107, 108, ACND024 and 31549-200 Rev C all received on 27th April, 2007.
C 3. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer. C 4. The proposed development must be connected to the main foul sewer. NOTE: A Drainage Connection Fee will be payable to the Drainage Authority on this development
C 5. 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. All
existing trees and hedges within the site to be retained must be adequately protected during the course of construction.
N 1. PRIOR to the commencement of any works the applicant is advised to consult the Chief Fire Officer to ensure that adequate fire precautions are taken.
N 2. Prior to work commencing on site, the applicant should contact the Department of Transport in respect of their requirement for raising the overflow weir level on the adjacent basin in order to overcome the shortfall capacity for a 1:50 year flood.
N 3. For water connections that comprise more than a single connection to a water main or service, or where new water mains and hydrants will be required, the applicant should contact the Isle of Man Water Authority Planning and Projects Section, telephone 695958.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
TO: Secretary to the Planning Committee FROM: Miss Sarah Corlett, Planning Officer REF: PA 07/0836 – erection of seven detached dwellings with access road, drainage and landscaping, field 411570 and access leading thereto, Erin Way, Port Erin DATE: 24th July, 2007
The above application was considered and permitted by the Planning Committee on 19th July, 2007. Despite the views of the owner of Ballaqueeney Cottage and the land to the north east being noted in the report, this party is not referred to in the Party Status section.
This party submitted views in respect of the previous application, PA 05/0910, and was afforded party status. He owns land which is very close to the site. As such I would recommend that this party is afforded party status in this instance.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
