Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of a detached garage situated on the southern side of the A5 Castletown Road as it runs between Port St. Mary and Gansey. The garage is the first building on the right as one approaches Gansey from Four Roads and has a vehicular access directly onto the Castletown Road.
The garage has to its east an existing dwelling, "Belmont". Opposite is a large house - "Roughlands" and to the south is a line of properties - some detached some semi-detached which front onto Shore Road and back onto the site although at a level significantly below the application site. The road in front of the site slopes downward towards the east so the garage site is slightly below that of Belmont.
The existing garage building is a double garage with a flat felted roof and rendered walls.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Residential.
There have been no applications submitted in respect of this site.
Proposed here in principle is the erection of a dwelling and the use of the site as a residential curtilage. No details are provided, nor do they have to be, of the size, shape or type of dwelling proposed.
There are objections from local residents who fall into two categories: the occupant of Belmont lives directly alongside the application site and who is concerned at the standard of access presently available to the site, the presence of trees which would be affected by the development and which are on the site but which are not shown or acknowledged as such in the application. This party also expresses concern that the garages have not been used to accommodate vehicles for many years, the impact on his property on light, outlook and loss of privacy. He explains that his property is lower than the application site and the considerable excavation would be required to lower the level of the site such that a new dwelling did not tower over his property. He also suggests that development of this site would be out of character with the streetscene which is generally characterised by large properties in relatively spacious grounds. He refers to an existing site of archaeological interest (see Manx National Heritage’s comments below).
The residents of Wateredge, Bay Ny Carrickey House, Berwyn, Hughenden, Cronague Veg echo the comments made by the occupant of Belmont and suggest that any property would be detrimental to their privacy and amenities due to the difference in height between their properties and the application site.
A resident of Port Soderick suggests that the site is suitable for development in accordance with its designation and in accordance with Strategic Policy 1a which states "Development should make the
best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials".
The Manx Electricity Authority recommend the attachment of a standard note regarding existing supplies.
Manx National Heritage advise that the land lies within an area of archaeological interest and suggest that the applicant undertake a geophysical survey to establish the presence of otherwise of human burials on the site and that this is required by condition of any approval.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division indicate that there is insufficient visibility available to drivers of emerging vehicles (they recommend that 2m by 70m would normally be required) although they accept that there is an existing garage on site which would generate some traffic.
Port St. Mary Commissioners indicate that they have no objection to the application.
The site lies within an area designated for residential use on the prevailing development plan and as such the presumption should be in favour of development subject to the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, which 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:
a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
In this respect, there is no design brief (a) and sections k), l), m and n) cannot be determined on the basis of principle only.
The site is smaller than that of Belmont and Roughlands, but these are only two dwellings in the general streetscape of this particular part of the landscape. As such, I do not consider that it would be impossible to design a dwelling which would fit satisfactorily into the streetsce, even if this is not identical in density or spacing, to the two properties around it which establish its immediate context.
I am not aware of any locally important ecology which would be adversely affected by the development although it is likely that the two trees which are on site would have to be removed to accommodate the dwelling and necessary earth moving/levelling – sections d and f).
There is no particular view of the sea across this site which should be protected (e).
The amenities of those in Belmont would be affected by the erection of a dwelling on this site through the building of a structure which would necessarily be very close to windows which are the only windows in some of the rooms in this property. The property would also be very close to these windows, come of which are bedroom windows. Whilst there could be no windows in the new house which could look into Belmont, the permanent occupation of the site is likely to bring with it pedestrian activity which would be close to these windows. If the dwelling were to be positioned so as to avoid blocking out the outlook and light to the windows on the western side of Belmont, it would be positioned either so far forward on the site so as to prevent vehicular turning (if such is available within the site at all) or so far back that it would be unneighbourly in respect of the rear garden of Belmont and the properties to the rear.
The properties to the rear are already overlooked by Belmont which is generally in excess of the recommended 20m from these dwellings. The new dwelling on the application site would be likely to be further back still and as such, whilst the existing properties would be aware of a new property on the site, I do not consider that it would be so close or so dominant as to warrant refusal on this basis, based on the fact that the area is designated as Residential.
Section h deals with the amenities of the development in itself: the site is large enough to accommodate a dwelling and garden so I am satisfied that this requirement is met. However, the site is narrow and I am not satisfied that there is sufficient provision for the turning of a vehicle within the site other than using a turntable. Reversing into or out of the site is not recommended due to the absence of adequate visibility splays.
i) deals with traffic and highway safety and this is perhaps the most crucial consideration in this case. Visibility is almost non-existent to a driver of a vehicle positioned within the site and to be driven off the site onto the highway. To the east there is no visibility at all of vehicles approaching the site, obscured by the existing stone wall which is partly or possibly entirely owned in association with the by the adjacent site. To the west there is around 15m of visibility. I am not satisfied that the increased usage of the site from its residential development and use can be adequately and safely accommodated due to the existing access and there is no possibility of improving this access as the frontage is restricted.
As far as I am aware there are all necessary services available to this site.
Whilst the site is within a residential area, the access is so inadequate as prevent the safe use of the site for residential purposes which would result in a significant increase in the amount of vehicles using this access. In addition, I cannot see how a dwelling could be constructed on the site without severely and adversely affecting the outlook and light and amenities of the occupants of Belmont.
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.
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues in respect of existing supplies and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of Belmont, Bay ny Carrickey House, Cronague Veg, Water Edge are all immediately alongside the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Hughenden and Berwyn are not immediately alongside the site and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Manx National Heritage raise issues in relation to archaeology which is a material planning consideration and as a statutory authority should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 18.10.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The access to the site offers severely limited visibility for those in vehicles wishing to leave the site. The proposed development would significantly increase the vehicular comings and goings from the site and would as such increase the danger to highway safety, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2h and 2i of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The erection of a dwelling on the site is likely to severely and adversely affect the outlook and privacy of the occupants of Belmont, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2g of the Strategic Plan.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 26/10/07
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
