Planning Assessment and Party Status

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.

Conclusion

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.

Party Status

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.