Loading document...
Application No.: 07/01808/A Applicant: Mr C Woodrow Proposal: Approval in principle to erect a detached dwelling Site Address: Land To Rear Of Rocklands, Bradda East, Port Erin, Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 11.12.2007 Site Visit: 11.12.2007 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Consulttee : Port Erin Commissioners Notes : Oppose Consulttee : IOM Water Authority Notes : Note received
The site represents what appears to be part of the garden of Rocklands, a semi-detached house which sits on the northern side of the Bradda Road and stretches back to a narrow lane which provides access to "Mar Rowee", a property to the north on the other side of the lane.
The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990 as Predominantly Residential. There is annotation on the plan referring to this area which states that "Several zones of interest do existing which include buildings which although not necessarily appropriate for registration, do contribute significantly to the character of the Village. These zones of interest include...sectors of Bradda East and Bradda West" (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3) and "although no conservation area exists in Port Erin it is recognised that in the zones of interest in particular, special attention should be paid to alterations and replacement buildings which might affect the general environment" (paragraph 9.7).
There have been no previous planning applications submitted in respect of the application site.
Proposed now is the principle of the erection of a dwelling in this rear part of the garden. The application contains the outline of the footprint of a dwelling and describes it as a "two bedroomed house".
There is an objection to the proposal from the occupant of Golden Eye on the basis of the narrowness of the road - their property is sometimes used by those visiting Mar Rowee for parking and turning.
Isle of Man Water Authority recommend a note to be attached to any permission granted.
The occupant of Maynrys objects to the application on the basis that a new dwelling on the site would adversely affect light available to her property, devaluation of her and other properties in the area (which is not a planning consideration) and parking difficulties.
The owners of Rosebank object to the application on the basis that the dwelling would "tower" above theirs due to the difference in height between the two levels and would also reduce light, views (which are not planning considerations) and privacy. They also express concern regarding the future of a number of mature trees on the site, parking space in an already congested area and possible problems with drainage of surface water from the site downhill towards theirs.
The owners of Caaghyr (translated as stone fort) express concern about the application on the grounds of possible subsidence of their property as a result of the building works.
The owners of Mar Rowee object to the application on the basis of access difficulties - specifically after attempts by the owner of Rocklands to remove a piece of wall which belongs to Mar Rowee but also generally in terms of the limited width of the access lane, and refer to a number of policies in the
Strategic Plan - General Policies 2h and 2i, parking difficulties, referring to paragraph 7.7 of the Port Erin Local Plan which states the parking requirement and the standards in the Strategic Plan which supersede this (2 parking spaces per dwelling), drainage problems - potential problems of surface water draining towards existing properties and no existing mains drainage into which the proposed property could be connected, the loss of trees and privacy as a result of the proposed development, the reference in the Local Plan to zones of interest (see above) and the impact on the landscape (Strategic Plan paragraph 7.4.1 which deals with protection of the areas of High Landscape Value) and refer to the fact that on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 (which was superseded by the Port Erin Local Plan) this site lies within an area of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Port Erin Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the access serving the site is inadequate for further traffic.
A resident of Port Soderick considers that the principle of development is acceptable.
As set out in General Policy 2, the principle of the development of a dwelling within an area designated for Residential use should generally be permitted provided that a number of criteria can be satisfied. These are as follows:
"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 response to this policy:
a) There is no development brief within the Port Erin Local Plan which would apply to this site. b) the area is generally characterised by a variety of house types, sizes and densities. For example, Roy Cottage is a very modest property in a small site opposite Golden Eye which is considerably larger: Caaghyr is approximately the same size as Rocklands but in a site around half the size. Therefore, if the site were large enough to accommodate a new dwelling with the requisite parking, amenity space and turning space, the fact that it is smaller than some of the surrounding plots should not be a reason for refusal.
c) the impact on the character of the surrounding area relates to the visual impact as viewed from the adjacent lane, from Bradda Road and from further south. In this respect there is a variety of house types and sizes and from either closer or further away, there would not necessarily be an adverse visual impact from the erection of a dwelling on this site.
d) there is no information to suggest that the site is of any particular wildlife value.
e) the erection of a building on the site would not affect any public view of the sea.
f) the application form suggests that there are no trees on or overhanging the site: however, there are some small, what appear to be self-seeded trees at the edge of the site
g) the site is higher than both Rocklands and Caaghyr and as such is likely to present opportunities for overlooking of both of these properties and a dominance of their rear outlook and private space. Whilst the difference in level may reduce direct overlooking between windows but the existence of a new building so high above the two existing semi-detached properties will have a very dominating effect.
Mar Rowee is unlikely to be affected in terms of privacy if the new property were orientated such that it were not looking directly at this existing property. It will affect the view from Mar Rowee but this is not a planning consideration.
h) and i) whilst the site could accommodate a dwelling with amenity space, it is doubtful on the basis of the plans submitted that sufficient space would be available for vehicular turning. Whilst the adjacent lane is lightly trafficked, it is narrow with limited visibility for drivers of emerging vehicles and there are other properties which use it. The lane is also very steep and its junction with Bradda Road is steep enough to limit vehicular turning to the left and approaching vehicles turning into the site from the east.
j) there is concern that the drainage of the site could be problematical and there is certainly a limited amount of space to accommodate a septic tank if connection to the main sewer is not an option.
k) the development of the site would not prejudice the development or enjoyment of adjacent land.
l) the site is not on contaminated land and there is no reasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
m) a detailed proposal for a dwelling on this site could take account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
n) the development could be designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
As such, whilst the site is designated as being appropriate for residential use or development, it is in a position and at a height as to give rise to a dominant property which would overlook the dwellings to the south - Rocklands and Caagher - and have an adverse impact on them. Furthermore, the site is unlikely to be large enough to provide sufficient space for vehicular turning and parking and the lane serving the site is so narrow and steep as not to be suitable to satisfactorily accommodate further traffic which would be generated from the proposed dwelling.
The occupants of Caaghyr, Maynrys, Golden Eye, Mar Rowee and Rosebank are all close to the site and would be directly affected by the proposal and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The Isle of Man Water Authority raise issues associated with the provision of a water supply, which are not material planning considerations and as such the Water Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance.
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 resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
In summary therefore, it is considered that the following parties accord with Planning Circular 1/06:
Department of Transport Highways Division Port Erin Commissioners The owners/occupiers Caaghyr, Bradda East, Port Erin The owners/occupiers Golden Eye, Bradda East, Port Erin The owners/occupiers Mar Rowee, Bradda East, Port Erin The owners/occupiers Rosebankr, Bradda East, Port Erin
Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status:
Mr A Jessop, Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Braddan Isle of Man Water Authority
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.12.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. Whilst the site lies within an area of Residential Use on the Port Erin Local Plan, the access serving the site is so narrow and steep as not to be suitable to accommodate further traffic. Furthermore, the junction of the lane with Bradda Road is so steep as to limit its use and further traffic using this junction and lane would be detrimental to road safety and the convenience of other users of Bradda Road and the access lane.
R 2. Due to the considerable difference in height between the site and the existing properties below - Caagher and Rocklands - a new dwelling on this site would dominate the rear private space of both of these properties and adversely affect their amenities.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
