Loading document...
The site comprises the curtilage of "Brae Villa", a detached dwelling standing on the south-west side of Tromode Road, approximately 100m from Quarterbridge Road. The frontage to the highway is approx. 37.5m, and the site area is approx. 0.12ha.
On the Douglas Local Plan, the site falls within an area zoned for Predominantly Residential use. There are no written policies of particular relevance to this site or the proposed development.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 has a number of relevant policies, which need to be considered as part of the determination of this application. The relevant policies are General Policy 2, Housing Policies 5 and 6, Recreation Policy 3 and Transport Policy 7
The application seeks Approval in Principle for a residential development with associated parking and facilities. An indicative drawing shows a three-storey building accommodating fourteen parking spaces within the basement, and 11 flats, five on each of the two floors above the basement apart with one of the apartments being split over two floors. There would be eleven one-bedroomed flats. Indicated site works include access improvement, provision of one visitor's parking space as well as two other parking spaces to the rear of the building.
In determining the current application, it is material to have regard to the following previous applications in respect of the same site:
PA06/00534/A – Approval in Principle for the erection of block of ten apartments with associated basement parking facilities to replace existing dwelling – refused on 3rd July 2006.
The reasons for refusal were as follows:
a) a large building, close to the road and to the side boundaries, and covering much of the site; the development would thus be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is characterised by individual dwellings standing in their own green space; and in b) there being inadequate pleasant external space for the residents of the proposed flats.
PA04/105: Approval in Principle for the erection of two residential buildings of up to ten apartments each and parking, to replace existing dwelling.
Refused initially and at Review for the following reasons:-
(1) There is within the submitted application inadequate information to enable a full assessment of the proposed development; there should be a survey of existing ground levels and trees (on and over-hanging the site), and feasibility sketches indicating how as many as twenty flats could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site (together with adequate parking space and amenity space).
(2) Notwithstanding (1) above, it is self-evident that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the nature and density of adjacent residential development.
(3) It is not at this time possible to make available for the proposed development an adequate supply of potable water.
It should also be noted that Approval has been granted for the erection of a single detached dwelling in the garden at the rear of "Sycamores", immediately west of the site.
The Highway Authority recommends provision of 2.0m x 90m visibility splays. The Local Authority has not commented on the application to date. There are standard comments from the Water Authority and the MEA.
The occupiers of Teal, Tromode Road have objected to the application on the grounds that the number of dwellings proposed is too great for support by the existing services. They are also concerned that the traffic situation is already dangerous. The removal of mature trees would spoil the nature of the area, which is the perimeter of what was classed as a garden city development. The town needs more family homes, not more apartments and they would be more in keeping with the area.
The occupiers of 27 Malvern Road (prospective owners of "Tree Cassyn") have objected on the following grounds: traffic, development not in keeping with the surrounding area and its size would constitute an overdevelopment of the site; the apartment complex would be substantially larger than the existing property and will cause significant impact to all surrounding dwellings
The occupiers of Ashfield, Tromode Road have made comment on the administrative process of the application regarding the site notice, fees and the description of development. They are also concerned about the intensity of development, parking, drainage, height, demand, first time buyer's provision, trees and political opinion and design of the apartment block
The occupiers of Greenmeadows have objected on the following grounds: the description of development is misleading, two previous applications have been refused as it would be over development and not in keeping with the surrounding houses, parking and traffic is a problem in Tromode Road, drainage, overlooking/loss of privacy.
The occupiers of Virginia, Tromode Road has objected on the grounds that the development would be totally out of keeping with the surrounding area.
The occupiers of 9A Tromode Road have objected on the following grounds: Lack of parking provision, traffic problems, drainage, emergency service access, setting a precedent within the area, design of building leading to excess noise and nuisance to resident that live in the are, refuse collection, claim for the development to help local people, loss of trees, no demonstration of a
percolation test has been submitted with this application and concerns regarding the opinions of a local Councillor.
The occupiers of Aingarth, Tromode Road have objected on the following grounds: It will be an over development of the area, drains will not stand up to further developments, traffic problems with regard to on street parking are difficult enough now without the possibility of up to a possible 20 or more vehicles, the development would not be in keeping with the surrounding properties or indeed the whole area.
The occupiers of Tree Cassyn have objected on the following grounds: the development would be completely out of keeping with the rest of the dwellings in the vicinity, the additional traffic from the development would be likely to cause problem on Tromode Road, concerned about whether the existing service are capable of handling the additional volumes likely to be generated by such a development.
The indicative drawings of the previous application showed a three-storey building accommodating fourteen parking spaces within the basement, and ten flats, five on each of two floors above the basement. There would be eight one-bedroomed flats and two two-bedroomed flats. Indicated siteworks include access improvement and provision of one visitor's parking space.
The current application is in principle only, but it is reasonably clear that the applicant wishes the Department to have regard to the indicative proposal for eleven flats. It should be noted that the indicative plans are essentially the same development as the previous application apart from now the applicant is seeking 11 one bedroom flats.
The site is within a Predominantly Residential area, and there is a generally acknowledged current demand for residential accommodation for small households within the eastern part of the Island.
However, regard should be had in particular to the following issues:-
a) Would the proposed development be in keeping with the area around the site, and if not, would there be any adverse impact on that area? b) Would there be adequate amenities for the occupants of the proposed flats, particularly in terms of external space and parking space? c) Having regard to the increased use of the vehicular access, would the visibility be adequate? d) Would there be adequate open space provision; and e) whether affordable housing provision would be provided?
These issues are considered in the above order in the following paragraphs.
The site is at that part of Tromode Road where the character is changing from the suburban housing east of the site to the green, open space of the playing fields and Port e Chee Meadow. The leafy space around the existing house contributes to this generally attractive character. The building now proposed would be of bulky form and would be sited close to the highway (approximately 6m compared to the previous 5m) and to the side boundaries of the site. In terms of its appearance from the road, the site would become predominately developed, with little green space around it. In my judgement, this would be out of keeping with the general character of the area.
The occupants of the proposed flats (eleven separate households) would have only very limited external garden space and this would be next to the garage entrance. There would be fourteen parking spaces within the garage, one space alongside the driveway and two spaces to the rear of the building. Having regard to the size of the flats, this parking provision would be judged to be acceptable in terms of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Tromode Road is a local distributor road which feeds the primary and district networks. In such circumstances, and noting the significant increase in use of the access which would arise, there
should be visibility splays of 2.0m x 90m. It appears from the submitted drawings that this could not be achieved without relying on land outside of the defined site. However, the applicant has indicated that the visibility splay to the left of the exit would fall within the sight line zone in front of Tree Cassyn. The existing levels within this area have been reduced to maximum 1 metre in height. The Highways Division of the Department of Transport have indicated that the development could provide visibility splays which meet Department of Transport Highway Standards.
Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 of the Plan"
In assessing the open space provision, the provision depends on the number of bedrooms within the dwelling. The overall open space provision for this development is as follows:
11no. 1 bedroom dwellings x 48 sq m = 528 sq m of open space
The indicative plans do not show how the open space provision will be provided. I therefore consider the open space provision within the development is inadequate and I therefore recommend that the application be refused due to the lack of open space provision.
Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made of affordable housing. This policy will apply to development of 8 dwellings or more."
The Estates and Housing Directorate have indicated that "...due consideration to the land availability and demand for affordable housing in the Douglas Area, the applicant proposes 11no. properties and therefore the provision of 3 no. affordable home would be appropriate and any such properties should comply with the Department Guide to Public Sector Housing Standards Document (this will require that the 2 bedroom apartment be provided of minimal floor are of 63 sq m.)."
The Estates and Housing Directorate also stated that "It is noted that the proposals show 11 no. small 1 bedroom units on this site and that the provision of affordable homes would therefore require a redesign of the scheme so as to accord with the standards."
The Estates and Housing Directorate anticipates that the affordable housing element will be utilised for first time buyer housing to be sold in accordance with the House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2007.
In conclusion to the affordable housing, the indicative plans would not provide the necessary affordable housing to accord with Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.
In respect of residents concerns about drainage, this application is only for an approval in principle and therefore the detail surrounding the drainage would be dealt with as part of the reserved matter application. Furthermore, drainage details would be dealt with under the Building Regulations.
It is recommended that the application should be refused for the reasons stated above.
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.
Whilst the MEA and Isle of Man Water Authority represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupiers of "Teal", "Green-Meadows, "Ashfield", "Aingarth", "Tree Cassyn" "27 Malvern Road" (prospective purchaser of Tree Cassyn), 9A Tromode Road accord with Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded party status.
The occupiers of Virginia, Tromode Road, do not accord with Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 07.08.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The indicative drawings illustrate a considerable over-development of the site which would result in: a) a large building, close to the road and to the side boundaries, and covering much of the site; the development would thus be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is characterised by individual dwellings standing in their own green space; and b) there being inadequate pleasant external space for the residents of the proposed flats.
R 2. The indicative layout would be contrary to Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development does not provide adequate open space provision within the proposed layout.
R 3. The indicative layout would be contrary to Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development would not provide the necessary affordable housing in accordance with the policy and the Housing Assistance Scheme 2007.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 16/8/07
8 August 2007 07/01101/A Page 7 of 7
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
