Loading document...
Application No.: 08/00228/B Applicant: Mr J F Keenan Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage (comprising an amendment to the development refused under 07/01869/B) Site Address: Plot 2 Field 224254 Station Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Steve Stanley Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: ** Delegated Decision Senior DC Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes : Consultee : Ballaugh Parish Commissioners Notes: No objection Consultee : IOM Water Authority Notes: Note received Consultee : Chief Fire Officer Notes: Note received Consultee : Drainage Division Notes: No objection Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes: Note received
THE SITE 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 its south east boundary which backs onto numbers 4 and 6, Faaie Craine.
PLANNING STATUS The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Residential.
PLANNING HISTORY Planning application 02/02007/A sought approval in principle for the erection of four detached dwellings and was 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.
Planning application 06/01898/REM was a reserved matters application for a residential estate layout of four plots, roads and sewers. This was permitted.
Planning applications 07/01868/B, 07/01869/B and 07/01870/B sought planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage on each of Plots 1, 2 and 3 of the site. These applications were refused, with the reasons for refusal for each application being as follows:
07/01868/B "Whilst it is noted that the Inspector reporting on the previous application for PA 02/2007 comments that he saw no need for the proposed dwellings to be single storey, the proposed dwelling is so close to the boundary with Thie McPhail, the associated accommodation and number 2, Faaie
23 April 2008 08/00228/B Page 2 of 6
Craine, that the new dwelling would dominate the rear, private gardens of these properties and adversely affect the amenities of those occupying these dwellings."
07/01869/B "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 4 m from the boundary with numbers 4 and 6, Faaie Craine, and in the case of number 6, Faaie Craine, would be far closer to an elevation with a window in it than the generally required distance of 20 m . The development would therefore be unduly dominant in respect of the rear private space of the two properties behind and in the case of number 6, Faaie Craine would adversely affect the privacy of the property itself."
07/01870/B "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 7.4 m 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."
This current application represents an amended scheme to Planning Application 07/01869/B. Contemporaneous applications 08/00222/B and 08/00223/B represent amended schemes for refused applications 07/01870/B and 07/01868/B and are currently being considered by the Planning Department.
Proposed here is a full detailed application for the erection of a dwelling on the second plot on the left as one enters the estate. 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 and a two storey pentagonal tower at the north west corner of the front elevation. As stated earlier in this report, this application is an amended scheme to the previously refused planning application 07/01869/B. This revised proposal seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application which related to the proximity and subsequent impact of the development upon the properties numbers 4 and 6 , Faaie Craine.
Ballaugh Parish Commissioners indicate no objection to the proposed development. The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend the installation of domestic smoke detection. Isle of Man Water Authority recommends a note relating to the supply of water to the site. The Manx Electricity Authority recommends a note relating to the supply of electricity to the site. The Department of Transport Highways Division has not commented on this application. Department of Transport Drainage Division recommend the attachment of conditions regarding the disposal of foul and surface water from 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. He considered that the use of hedge rows to improve privacy will reduce light.
The occupant of 8, Faaie Craine reiterates their objection the previously refused application. Their reasons for objection may be summarised as concerns that the proposed house is out of character with the village 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 owner of 4, Faaie Craine (whose address is 6, Grosvenor Court in Leeds) suggests that the house will block the view from the rear garden and bungalow and result in a loss of privacy. 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 occupier of 4, Faaie Craine objects to this application. Their reason for objecting may be summarised as concerns relating to loss of light and privacy as a result of the proposed development. Concerns relating to highway safety are also raised.
The occupants of 10, Faaie Craine object to the application reiterating previous concerns raised 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. Their reasons for objection may be summarised as concerns relating to the loss of light, overbearing impact and loss of privacy. They also state that the proposed dwelling would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
The plans originally permitted under PA 06/01898/REM 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 unannotated 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 adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 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; I) 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 or 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.
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 (Giebe Aalin). In fact the Inspector reporting on PA 02/2007 comments at his paragraph 33 "Given the existence of two storey dwellings in close proximity to the site, I am not persuaded that the development should be restricted to single-storey".
This application differs from the previously submitted scheme in that the siting of the proposed dwelling has been moved approximately 4 metres to the north and 4.2 metres to the east, away from the shared boundary with the properties 4 and 6 Faaie Craine. This siting results in a minimum separation distance between the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling and the rear elevation of 6 Faaie Craine of approximately 18 metres. Between 10 and 10.5 metres of this separation distance would be within the curtilage of the proposed dwelling. It is considered that this distance would not afford an acceptable level of privacy to Number 6 Faaie Craine and despite moving the proposed dwelling to the east there would remain a strong overbearing impact and level of overlooking.
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.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposed dwelling would fail to comply with the provisions of General Policy 2 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, as it would not adequately protect the amenities of the adjacent property Number 6 Faaie Craine. Specifically it is considered that the separation distance of approximately 18 metres between the rear elevation of 6 Faaie Craine and the proposed dwelling would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and an overbearing impact upon the property.
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 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 Manx Electricity Authority raise issues associated with the provision of electricity supply, which are not material planning considerations and as the Electricity 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 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 owner of 4, Faaie Craine (whose address is 6, Grosvenor Court in Leeds) should be awarded party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 23.04.2008
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
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 fail to comply with the provisions of General Policy 2 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, as it would not adequately protect the amenities of the adjacent property Number 6 Faaie Craine. Specifically it is considered that the separation distance of approximately 18 metres between the rear elevation of 6 Faaie Craine and the proposed dwelling would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and an overbearing impact upon the property.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 31/07 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Refused Date :
Signed : Mrs F Mullen Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
