Loading document...
Application No.: 07/01870/B Applicant: Mr J F Keenan Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage Site Address: Plot 3 Field 224255 Station Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 11.12.2007 Site Visit: 11.12.2007 Expected Decision Level: Delegation ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consulttee: Ballaugh Parish Commissioners Notes: Comments received Consulttee: IOM Water Authority Notes: Note requested
The site represents an undeveloped plot of land situated on the western side of Station Road between Faaie Craine and Squeen Meadow and opposite The Grange in the village of Ballaugh. The site forms part of a development of four plots which have previously been considered in principle and for the layout of the plots, roads and sewers (see below). The site has hedging and trees to the east and south, backing onto 8 and 10, Faaie Craine.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Residential.
PA 02/2007 - approval in principle for the erection of four detached dwellings - permitted on appeal. Conditions were attached to require only the means of access and disposal of surface water. In particular it was required that prior to the commencement of any other part of the development, the sod hedge along the street frontage with Station Road and the southern side of the private lane must be set back and the footpath constructed along the frontage of the site and a sod hedge installed in its place.
PA 06/1989 - reserved matters application for residential estate layout of four plots, roads and sewers - permitted.
Contemporaneous applications are being submitted for the development of the two other plots in the estate - PAs 07/1868 and 1869.
Proposed here is a full detailed application for the erection of a dwelling on the third plot on the left as one enters the estate. The dwelling is similar to that proposed for plot one but larger in width. The dwelling is a two storey property with a rendered plinth with brick dwarf wall and mostly rendered walling above. There is an attached double garage with hipped roof above and two storey pentagonal tower in the centre of the front elevation.
Whilst it is noted by some of the parties that there are now only three dwellings being proposed, the boundaries of the plots are similar to those previously approved and so the last plot, for which there has been no detailed application submitted to date, will probably still be the subject of a future application, this not reducing the density of development (in simple numerical terms) below that which has been approved.
The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend the installation of domestic smoke detection.
Isle of Man Water Authority recommend a note relating to the supply of water to the site
The occupant of 9, Squeen Meadow objects to the application on the basis that he considers the properties are too large and that there will be a direct invasion of privacy and light into adjoining properties.
Department of Transport Drainage Division recommend the attachment of conditions regarding the disposal of foul and surface water from the site.
dot ht indication that they have no objection to the application.
The occupant of 8, Faaie Craine objects to the application on the basis that the proposed house is out of character with the village and voices a concern that the house will be built with a shaded garden and that in the future requests may be made to remove the existing trees. Concern is also expressed about the potential for damage of tree roots during construction of the proposed dwelling.
The occupant of 8, Squeen Meadow suggests that there are still outstanding matters from the previous application (PA 02/2007) although which conditions still need to be resolved are not specified and no reference is made to PA 06/1989. It is also suggested that the house is too high and too large and should be single storey and further from the boundaries with existing properties which would be overshadowed and whose privacy would be diminished by the proposed dwelling.
The owner of 4, Faaie Craine (whose address is 6, Grosvenor Court in Leeds) suggests that the house is too close to the boundary hedge with a clear view into her property from the proposed house. She also suggests that the house type is out of keeping with the character of the village. She also refers to the impact on the value of her property which is not a material consideration.
The occupants of 10, Faaie Craine object to the application on the basis that the properties in Faaie Craine have low pitched roofs and are bungalows and by comparison the proposed dwelling will overshadow the existing properties and will invade their privacy through being too close. They also suggest that the style of dwellings will be out of keeping with the character of the village and suggest that bungalows would be more sympathetic to the area.
The occupants of 2, Faaie Craine object to the application on a similar basis to the objections above and also point out that there is a conservatory on the rear of 2, Faaie Craine which is not shown on the drawings and that the garage at Thie McPhail has been converted to a dwelling.
Ballaugh Commissioners suggest that the property should be a bungalow to match other properties in Faaie Craine.
The plans originally permitted under PA 06/1898 showed the footway extending across the length of the frontage but this was amended to simply end alongside the access rather than extending down the road and across the site. The only difference in this respect between the approved 2006 plans and the current application is that the area between the plot hedge and Station Road is shown as a grass verge on the approved plans and simply un-annotated on the proposed plans. There is also an additional (third) tree in the hedge shown on the approved plans in the middle of the hedge.
In addition to the conditions of the approval in principle and the layout of the roads, plots and sewers, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is also relevant in the consideration of this application. This policy 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."
As there was no restriction on the type of form of development in either of the previous applications, the current proposal is not in conflict with any development brief or previous policy for the site. In fact the Inspector reporting on the earlier application for the plots, PA 02/2007, noted that there should be no requirement for the dwellings to be single storey due to the incidence of two storey properties in the vicinity.
The site lies within an area which is characterised by a variety of house types: there are modern bungalows to the south (Faaie Craine), slightly larger properties to the north (Squeen Meadow) and new properties built with vernacular features to the north of Squeen Meadow (St, Mary's Meadow), a larger older property across the road (The Grange) and modern but interesting new housing to the north east (Glebe Aalin)
The closest part of the proposed dwelling to 10, Faaie Craine which is the nearest to the proposed dwelling, is 14.4m away and separated therefrom by an existing fence with limited, if any vegetation. As such there is very likely to be an impact of overlooking and domination from the proposed property which is two storey and has six bedroom windows looking towards number 10 and directly at number 8 although the main rear wall of this property is some 25m away.
Whilst the applicant's agent submits that if the properties were single storey they would have a larger footprint, this would not necessarily be the case if the resultant dwellings would be overly large and planning permission were not forthcoming.
It is considered that the design approach is an interesting and innovative one which, whilst not replicating either the traditional approach adopted in St, Mary's Meadow or Squeen Meadow or the more modern properties in Faaie Craine, does incorporate features of the larger, detached properties in the vicinity - The Grange, for example and are attractive properties in their own right.
The points raised by the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service are the responsibility of the Building Regulations and as such this party should not 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 occupants of 2, 4, 8 and 10, Faaie Craine are alongside the side and the occupants of 8 and 9, Squeen Meadow are close to the access road which serves the site and as such should all 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.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 17.12.2007
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
Whilst it is noted that the Inspector reporting on the previous application for PA 02/2007 comments that he saw no reason for the proposed dwellings to be single storey, in this case, the proposed dwelling would be as close as 7.4m from the boundary with numbers 6, 8 and 10, Faaie Craine and being two storey would be considerably taller than the bungalows to the rear. The development would therefore be unduly dominant in respect of the rear private space of 6, 8 and 10, Faaie Craine.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made: Refused Date: 27.12.2007
Signed: [Handwritten signature]
M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
