Loading document...
The application forms the residential curtilage of 74 - 76 Waterloo Road, Ramsey, which form a row of five storey terraced properties which are located on the western side of Waterloo Road, and north of Queens Drive West.
The application site is within an area of predominately residential use, under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998, hereafter referred to as the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within Ramsey Conservation Area, nor are the properties Registered.
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- Confirmed use of the building as four apartments in a modified form along with associated parking 06/00955/B - APPROVED Conversion of existing building into four apartments with associated parking - 07/01346/B APPROVED
The application seeks approval for the erection of building to provide 23 apartments with associated parking.
The proposed development would have the following dimensions (measured from ground level):-
The existing buildings have the following dimensions (measured from ground level):-
Ramsey Parish Commissioners have objected to the application:- "01.05.08 - Whilst the amended drawings indicate a reduction in the overall height of the proposal from that originally submitted, it is considered that the overall scale and massing of the proposed development adversely impacts on the streetscape in this area and is therefore over intensive and un-neighbourly.
The Applicant maintains that one car parking space per unit is adequate due to the proximity of the site to the Town Centre however; the provision of 1.5 car parking spaces was required for a recent nearby apartment development. The location of this proposed development is on a major road into the Town with no on-street parking immediately outside the site. The lane to the side of No. 74, Waterloo Road has not been adopted by the Department of Transport and is therefore a private lane. The basement parking layout has not been amended from that originally submitted and, despite the assurances of the Applicant that all parking spaces are accessible, it is still the contention of Ramsey Town Commissioners that accessing several of the spaces would prove problematical."
Highways Division have objected to the application on the following grounds 15.07.08:-
However, subsequently the Planning Authority has received the following comments from the Highway Division:- "I would be willing to accept 1 space per unit ( 23 spaces) if secure cycle parking was provided and the parking on the north west wall was moved south westwards to permit 6 metres turning space in front of parking on north east wall.
The 2 new spaces at ground floor level and the new space in the south west corner of the basement are not acceptable."
Estates And Housing Directorate have commented on the application, and satas that as the proposal seeks the approval for 23 apartments a-provision-of-6 units should be provided as affordable housing.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Environmental Health Officer and Manager of Environment/Public Heath Unit make no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owner/occupier of 12 Carlton Grove, Queens Drive West, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; loss of the existing attractive buildings, proposal represents no resemblance; loss of privacy; inadequate parking provisions within site, would lead to parking overflowing into Carlton Grove; the increased volume of traffic would have an impact upon highway safety; and the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
The owner/occupier of 57 Waterloo Road, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; the increase of in the increase of units form the previous approval is no way a insignificant increase; inadequate parking provisions; unlikely people would to park in town centre car parks; the increased volume of traffic would have an impact upon highway safety; proposal could result in damage to the sewers; and I consider the proposal to be an over intensive use of the site and detrimental to the occupants of the neighbouring properties.
The owner/occupier of 59 Waterloo Road, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; inadequate parking provisions impact upon highway safety; and out of keeping with the rest of Waterloo Road
The owners/occupiers of Thie Cornell, Stanley Mount West, Ramsey, have objected to the application which can be summarised as; proposal is too large and too high; inadequate parking provisions; and loss of privacy.
The owner/occupier of 11 Carlton Grove, Queens Drive West, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; gross overdevelopment; inadequate parking provision
The owner/occupier of 63 Waterloo Road, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; inadequate parking provisions impact upon highway safety; and the proposal is out of keeping with the surrounding area.
The owner/occupier of 64 Waterloo Road, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; overdevelopment; inadequate parking provisions; out of keeping with the rest of Waterloo Road;
The owner/occupier of 62 Waterloo Road, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; inadequate parking provisions; questionable if the existing services can cope with an increase load; the buildings should be conserved and retained; and impact upon highway safety in the area.
The owner/occupier of 41 Queen's Drive West, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; inadequate parking provisions.
The owner/occupier of 1 Queen's Drive West, Ramsey, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; the proposal is a over intensive use of the space available; out of scale with the existing properties; inadequate parking provisions; and impact upon highway safety.
A resident of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Braddan, has objected to the application as the development is an over-bearing on its neighbours.
Due to the site being within a predominately residential area and due to the proposed usage the following policy in relevant in the determination of the application:-
Policy 2: 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:
Policy 5: In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.
Policy 6: Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive.
It is considered the following material planning matters are required for consideration for this development:-
The existing properties are five storey terraced properties which due to the external decorative mouldings result in the properties being attractive buildings. Unfortunately, it would appear that, due to poor maintenance they have fallen into a fairly poor state of repair over the years.
Currently, the existing buildings are in a prominent position in the street scene, especially as they are larger than either of the two adjacent properties (Carlton Court and 68 Waterloo Road). Carlton Court has a ridge height of 11.5 metres whilst the row of terraced properties which run along Waterloo Road, which includes Nr 68, have a ridge height of approximately 8.5 metres. The existing properties have ridge heights of 15 metres, whilst the proposed development would have a ridge height of 17.7 metres (measurements taken from Waterloo Road level). The proposed development when viewed from Waterloo Road would therefore have a ridge height increase of 2.7 metres, 6.2 metres higher than Carlton Court and 9.2 metres higher than 68 Waterloo Road.
Consideration needs to be taken therefore, whether this 2.7 metre increase is significant enough, to warrant a refusal on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse visual impact upon the street scene. It is considered given the existing being higher than the adjacent properties, a further increase will only emphasize the height differences between the proposed development and the adjacent properties. A scheme which proposed a very similar or the same height would be appropriate; however, it is considered the proposed height increase would result in a significant adverse impact upon the visual appearance of the street scene.
The design of the development is considered acceptable, given the site is not within a Conservation Area, nor are the existing building Registered. The proposed development would include decorative banding and mouldings to match the existing and the design of the development with the bay windows with the indicated fenestration (front elevation) would be in keeping with the area. However The appearance of older elevations from adjacent roads readily impacts upon neighbouring residential amenity. The most concerning part of the development - in regard to the impact upon residential amenity, is regarding potential overlooking from the side windows within the new development. The southeast elevation (including rear annex) would introduce a total of 32 windows, compared to the existing where there are no windows. This in itself is not a concern, however after visiting the site it became poor apparent that there are a total of six windows within Carlton Court which would be directly overlooked by the 1st and 2nd floor apartments (approx 3 metres away) within the main block, resulting in a loss of privacy. This could be overcome with a condition for obscure glazing to be installed. Two of the windows serve the living/kitchen, and the other two windows serve the two bedrooms. There is no real concern of obscuring glazing the living/kitchen and the rear bedroom, as these rooms have additional windows (primary) which look towards the front or rear, however, there is concern that the bedroom located in the middle of the apartments, as this is the only window to that bedroom, and to obscure glaze this window would adversely impact upon residential amenity for future occupiers.
Again, there are concerns regarding the windows on the southeast elevation (side) of the rear annex, which directly overlooks into the rear widows of Carlton Grove (approximately 10 metres away). However, these windows serve a bathroom and a bedroom, which also has a window to the rear elevation. It is therefore considered that adding a condition requiring obscure glazing would overcome the concerns of overlooking, without adverse impacting upon the residential amenity for future occupiers of the apartments.
The development proposes a total of 29 windows to the northwest elevation, of which 8 are Juliet balconies (French doors). The distance between the development and the adjacent property 68 Waterloo Road is 9 metres. Currently there are no windows within the northwest elevation of the main block of 74 Waterloo Road, but there are 11 windows within the side elevation of the rear annex.
The main issues relates to the Ground floor, 1st and 2nd floor apartment windows and particularly the bedroom windows, which are roughly opposite the windows within the side elevation of 68 Waterloo Road. Again, obscuring the windows would overcome the potential aspect of overlooking, but would result in the proposed bedrooms having a poor outlook and general amenity for future occupiers.
It is therefore considered the proposal would have an adverse impact through overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy upon the residential amenities of the Carlton Court and 68 Waterloo Road, for the reasons indicated previously.
Consideration also needs to be given to ensure the proposed development would not have a significant impact through loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the surrounding properties. Dealing, with the impact upon Carlton Court, the current situation is not considered ideal, given the close proximity of the rear annex of 76 Waterloo Road, however, whilst the proposal does increase the height of the property, it does also reduce the length of the southeast elevation, therefore it is considered the proposal would improve the amenity standards for the occupiers of Carlton Court. Regarding loss of light, it is not considered light would be further reduced than what currently is blocked, due to the orientation of the two properties, and because of the reduction in the length of the southeast elevation.
The second property to consider is Carlton Grove, again due to the existing situation; it is not considered the proposed development would significantly result in a loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the residents of Carlton Grove, due to the orientation between the properties and the distance between.
The third property 68 Waterloo Road, it is not considered the proposed development would significantly result in a loss of light and/or overbearing, given the orientation between the two properties and the distance.
Residential amenities for future occupiers Of the 23 apartments, 18 apartments are within the main block of the proposed development. The remaining 5 apartments are located within the proposed rear annex of the development.
The 18 apartments, all have views from their principle rooms (living/kitchen) looking towards Waterloo Road, whilst the fifth floor apartments would have an additional access to a balcony area.
The 5 apartments which would be within the rear annex (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th floors), all have views from principle rooms, to the rear of the application site (west), with distant views to the countryside/mountain views, as well as views to the north of the application site. The 5th floor apartment has views only to the rear (west) of the application site. Overall, it is also considered that the development provides good internal accommodation and outlook for each of the apartments.
Regarding the external amenity space there is a communal terrace located to the rear of the development ( 77 square metres). Thought should also be taken that the site is within 2 minutes walk of the beach ( 110 metres) and a 5 minutes walk to the nearby Park. Consideration should be taken, with regard to the fairly recently approved (June 2004) application (03/01060/B) for the nearby site at the former Queens Hotel, which proposed 50 apartments. Within the Inspectors Appeal statement, he comments on the external amenity standards for the apartments which he states; "...The scheme provides for very little in the way of outside space. However, from my visits to the
area, and what I was told at the inquiry, there are Nearly local facilities and amenities which the future occupiers are likely to find of benefit. In terms of the outdoor, there is the Promenade and the beach, whilst the countryside is only a little distance away. He tram station is just a short walk away, as is a public park. For indoor provisions there is the swimming pool, and of course the town centre shops are within easy reach". It is also important to consider that this is the same situation with many new apartment development within the Island, and as was the case for the development at the former Queens Hotel, external amenity space is normal accepted to be provided by public services/provisions outside the application site.
On balance, it is consider that the provisions, whilst small within the application site, with the provisions nearby the external amenities provisions for future occupiers of development would be acceptable.
Regarding parking provisions within the site the submitted drawings indicated a total of 26 car parking spaces, the majority of them being located within the basement ( 18 spaces), with the remaining at ground floor level ( 8 spaces).
Initially the Highway Division objected to the application; however the Division have subsequently stated that they would be happy with 23 spaces if secure cycle parking was provided and the parking on the northwest wall was moved south westwards to permit 6 metres turning space in front of parking on north east wall.
Considerations needs to be taken, that with current planning permissions for the conversion of the existing building ( 07 / 01346 / B ) into 4 flats and with the existing use of the buildings (Nr 74 \& 76), the three existing dwellings could be converted/retained which would result for a total of 15 flats within the three properties. Of these 15 flats, there would be seven off road parking provisions within the entire three sites.
Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan the parking standards state that there should be 1 space for 1 bedroom and 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms. Therefore, as the development proposes 22, two bedroom apartments and 1, one bedroom apartment, for this development 45 car parking provisions spoules would be required. However, within the Strategic Plan there is also provisions to relax the parking standards under circumstances, one of these being; "is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality." The site is 5 minutes walk from Ramsey Town Centre, within a minute walk of a bus stop and 5 mins walk to Ramsey bus station which has public transport linkthrough the Island.
It may therefore considered that the required parking standards to be relaxed and the parking provisions proposed to be acceptable, particularly as the approved and existing apartments, only have seven spaces, which result in half not having any space provided onsite.
Under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, for developments which propose eight or more residential units, the Department will normally seek that of the units should be made up of affordable housing. In this case, six of the apartments would be required to be provided for this development. The applicant has confirmed in writing that they are happy to provide six of the proposed twenty three apartments to be allocated for affordable housing. The existing/proposed fifteen apartments have no affordable housing provisions. It is consider the proposal would comply with Housing Policy 5.
It is consider the proposal would result in an adverse visual impact to upon the street scene given the increase height of the proposed development. Additionally, the 1st and 2nd floor apartment windows within the southeast elevation would result in significant overlooking to the detriment of the adjacent properties "Carlton Court" and the ground, 1st \& 2nd floor apartments within the northwest elevation
would result in overlooking to the detriment of the adjacent property 68 Waterloo Road. Accordingly, it is recommended the application for a refusal.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
11 Carlton Grove, Queens Drive West, Ramsey 12 Carlton Grove, Queens Drive West, Ramsey 57 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 59 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 62 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 63 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 64 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 1 Queen's Drive West, Ramsey Thie Cornell, Stanley Mount West, Ramsey
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
41 Queen's Drive West, Ramsey Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Braddan
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 06.08.2008
The development due to its height in a prominent position within street scene would cause a visually intrusive feature in this location and would cause a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the street scene.
The 1st and 2nd floor apartment windows within the southeast elevation would result in significant overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy to the detriment of the adjacent properties "Carlton Court".
6 August 2008 08/00103/8 Page 9 of 10
Additionally, the ground, 1st \& 2nd floor apartments within the northwest elevation would also result in overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy to the detriment of the adjacent property 68 Waterloo Road. It is considered that such overlooking would detract from the residential amenity currently enjoyed by adjacent occupiers and would therefore be an un-neighbourly development.
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
