Loading document...
The site represents land adjacent to the Corner Filling Station at the junction of Waterloo Road and Approach Road, Ramsey, which is a parcel of developed land located on a corner plot with Waterloo Road to the south of the site and Approach Road to the east.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'Predominately Residential", under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is adjacent to Registered Buildings, Lough House (Nr 88), northeast of the application site; the Ramsey Youth Centre (nr 87) which is to the northwest of the site, and 37 - 43 Mysore Cottages (Nr10) which are northeast of the application site.
The following policies are considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Approval in principle for the demolition of existing building and erection of six town houses with associated on site car parking - 08/01681/A - PENDING CONSIDERATION
Retrospective application for the use of part of garage for the operation of a taxi phone dispatch centre - 06/01469/C - REFUSED on the following ground:-
Conversion of part car showroom and filling station to create car repair, tyres and exhaust centre - 99/00527/B - APPROVED
Alterations to provide new facilities - 90/01932/B - APPROVED
The application seeks approval in principle for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a block of sixteen apartments with associated on site car parking.
The Ramsey Commissioners objected to the application for the following reasons:- "It is considered that the proposal would be an un-neighbourly development due to the scale and massing of the apartment block and would therefore have a detrimental effect on the existing streetscape.
It is considered that the proposed access to the car park from Waterloo Road would be potentially dangerous and could result in a loss of existing on-street car parking to accommodate safe access and egress to the site.
Alternative means of access and egress to the car parking has been indicated to the rear of the site however it is the Commissioners understanding that such access would be over private land serving existing properties and garaging. No indication has been provided by the adjacent land owner to allow vehicular access over adjacent private land.
The drawings indicate a number of car parking spaces in front of the proposed front elevation to the apartment block and it is considered that such car parking would be detrimental to the amenities of the area and would be in front of an established building line."
Highways Division:- "Do not oppose" The Manx Electricity Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owner/occupier of 22 St. Pauls Mews, Ramsey, has no objection to the application but have some concerns about how heavy construction machinery will be accommodated, and Waterloo Road will be unavailable, and concerns that the cul-de-sac to the rear will be affected by traffic, preventing visitor parking etc.
The owner/occupier of 50 Waterloo Road, Ramsey objects to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: the site is too small; insufficient car parking spaces for residents; parking is already at a premium in the area; and the proposal is a total over development.
The owner/occupier of 57 Waterloo Road, Ramsey objects to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: insufficient car parking spaces for residents and visitors; creating parking spaces in front of the property would be setting a precedent; Waterloo Road is a busy main road being the main bus route to Douglas and a alternative route to the Mountain Road to Douglas; the spaces fronting the property would cause a hazard for both vehicles and pedestrians; there have been built or are plans to build a total of 100 apartments in the areas this is over-intensive development of the area; and the appearance of the proposal would not be in keeping with its immediate neighbours which would be dwarfed and the open aspect of the site would be lost.
The owners/occupiers of 23 St. Pauls Mews, Ramsey, object to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: high density occupation in an already overcrowded area; car parking in the area is already over sub-scribed; and car parking spaces shown would not allow for the opening of car doors or for 16 visitors cars.
The owners/occupiers of 43 Mysore Cottages, Waterloo Road, Ramsey, object to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: the proposal would be overbearing and not sympathetic with the adjacent Registered Buildings; and the rear lane is a privately owned, why can't the development gain direct access from the abutting public highways.
The owners/occupiers of 41 Mysore Cottages, Waterloo Road, Ramsey, object to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: the existing rear privately owned lane can not stand the current volume of traffic; main sewer below had to be replaced recently after collapse; access should be off Waterloo Road and/or Approach Road; over intensive use of the site; The 3 to 4 storey block would be intrusive to the neighbouring residential properties and would completely overshadow the Registered Buildings; proposal would completely look out of character in this area; and the increase in traffic would prove dangerous as well as impracticable in such a narrow access lane as vehicles will not be able to pass safely.
The owners/occupiers of Lough House, Approach Road, Ramsey, object to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: inadequate parking provision, the area already has issues with parking congestion and overflow from the scheme could not be absorbed; overdevelopment of the site; more than two storey buildings would be out of keeping with the Registered Buildings.
Abbey Properties Limited has no objection to the application at this stage but has indicated that permission has to be sought to allow access to the rear of the development through our land; at the time of writing we have not been contacted by the developer their agents for permission.
A resident of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Braddan, has no objection in principle to the application as the site is within a residential area but has a preference for application 08/01681/A which accords more with Strategic Policy and General Policy 2.
Due to the zoning of the site the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by:
Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must:
General 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:
Environment Policy 42: New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.
Housing 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.
Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
Recreation Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan requires the provision, where appropriate for recreational and amenity space, either on-site or by a commuted payment for off-site provision.
"In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Registered building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.
Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the
character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative affect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence."
Material planning matters which require consideration are:-
The site is within an area zoned as predominately residential. The existing filling/garage has an adverse visual impact upon the street scene and upon the adjoining properties. It is therefore considered residential development of this site would be acceptable, beneficial and more appropriate than the previous uses.
Visual impact upon the street scene and the Registered Buildings The application is only in principle, and therefore we do not have a full detailed plan showing all elevations of the proposal. The submission does include a typical elevation of the proposal when viewed from Waterloo Road. We do however know the scale of development that is proposed and it is for the applicant to show how that scale of development could be accommodated on the site.
The indicative plans show a five and four storey apartment block which would accommodate 16 residential units. The plans indicate 12, one bedroom apartments and 4, two bedroom apartments.
The indicative plan indicates the maximum roof ridge height would be 19.2 metres which would run along the Waterloo Road elevation, gradually reducing in height to 15 metres along the Approach Road elevation.
An issue with the proposal would be the impact upon the adjacent properties due to the massing and proportions of the proposal. From studying plans which have been submitted for the Ramsey Youth Centre in the past, the maximum ridge height of the property is 8 metres (main hall roof). The part of the building closest to Mysore Cottages has a ridge height of 5.8 metres. There are no scaled plans of Mysore Cottages and therefore it is not possible to give a precise height, however, it is considered the Cottages would appear to be approximately 5.5 / 6 metres in height.
Whilst the application is only indicative at this stage, it is reasonable to consider the indicative massing, scale and proportion details that have been submitted as there is no other basis on which the Planning Authority could conclude that the proposed level of development is acceptable. On the basis of these submitted details, it is clear that the development would have an adverse impact upon the visual appearance of the street scene. Additionally, due to the adjoining Registered Buildings, Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - POLICY RB/5 and Environmental Policy 42 are required to be considered. Again due to the massing and proportions of the proposal within close proximity of the Registered Buildings it is considered the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance, character and setting of the Registered Buildings.
The Conservation Officer has also considered the proposal and has concerns with the design, massing, scale and proportions of the apartment block upon the Registered Buildings.
A concern also relates to the proposal for four off street parking spaces fronting the Waterloo Road elevation of the proposal. The majority if not all of the properties along Waterloo Road do not have any parking spaces fronting the building line. The proposal would be out of keeping with the street scene and would set an unwanted precedent in the future. While the proposal is indicative at this stage, the applicant has not shown how the proposed quantum of development could be accommodated other than with these four unacceptable parking spaces.
Residential amenities for future occupiers The proposed apartments have little in the way of external amenity space, which is generally accepted for this type of development. The indicative plan does show floor plans of the ground floor, upper floor and the top floor plan. At this stage as the plans are indicative and as not all floor plans have been indicated, it is not possible at this stage to assess whether all the apartments have acceptable amenities. However, from the apartment plans which have been shown the internal amenities would seem to be acceptable.
Highway / parking issues As indicated by Transport Policy 7, all new development must comply with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Parking Standards. For one bedroom apartments ( Nr 12 ) one parking spaces is required to be provided. For a two bedroom apartment ( Nr 4 ) two parking spaces are requiring. The proposal therefore requires a total of 20 car parking spaces within the curtilage of the site. The indicative plans do show the required number of parking spaces, however there are concerns with this proposed layout.
The first concern relates to parking space 12, which does not provide a space which measures 2.4 metres and therefore would be unacceptable for a modern day car.
The second concern relates to the four car parking spaces ( ) which directly front onto Waterloo Road and are in front of the building line of the Waterloo Road elevation of the proposal. This layout would probably result in users of the spaces having to reverse directly onto Waterloo Road. Whilst this may be acceptable within some residential estates, it is considered such a proposal onto a major route into and out of Ramsey, would have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety in this location, both for users of the spaces and members of the public using the public highway. Additionally, it is considered the visibility splays required for the apartment block access onto Waterloo Road would be compromised with parked vehicles either side of the access as indicated, which would lead to further adverse impacts upon highway safety in this locality.
This application also indicates an access from the rear lane. A number of neighbours have objected or made comments on the issue of the proposal using the privately owned rear access lane. From a planning perspective the Department only needs to determine that the site can be accessed, which in this case it could. The Department of Transport Highway Division have no objection to the proposed scheme using the rear lane. The matter of whether the applicant can get permission is a civil matter between the relevant parties. If the applicant cannot get permission then the scheme would not be permitted to be built as it could comply with the approved plans.
Potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities The directly adjoining properties, the Ramsey Youth Centre and Lough House, are not residential properties. The residential properties mostly like to be affected would be the dwellings directly opposite Waterloo Road and Approach Road. Additionally, the properties to the rear of the application site, St Pauls' Mews might also be affected. However without full details of the proposal, it is not considered a full assessment can be made at this stage.
Affordable Housing provision As indicated within Housing Policy 5 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. The Department's Estates and Housing Directorate have stated that under this standard the proposal would be required to contribute 4 affordable housing units on this site.
The applicant has not indicated any Affordable Housing Provisions and therefore an additional refusal reason on this ground can be made.
Open space provision Recreation Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan requires the provision, where appropriate for recreational and amenity space, either on-site or by a commuted payment for off-site provision. The level of development proposed would leave little space on-site and the applicant has made no provision for an off-site alternative. This would support a further reason for refusal.
In conclusion, it is recommended that the planning application be refused on the planning policy grounds that the proposed development would be unacceptable to General Policy 2, Transport Policy 7, Recreation Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (June 2007) and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - POLICY RB/5.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:-
Ramsey Commissioners Department of Transport Highways Division Abbey Properties Limited Lough House, Approach Road, Ramsey 41 Mysore Cottages, Waterloo Road, Ramsey 43 Mysore Cottages, Waterloo Road, Ramsey 23 St. Pauls Mews, Ramsey 57 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 50 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 22 St. Pauls Mews, Ramsey It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:-
A resident of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Braddan The Manx Electricity Authority
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.12.2008 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
The development due to its massing, design and height in a prominent position within the street scene would introduce a visually intrusive feature in this location and as such would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities on the street scene and would detract from the appearance and setting of the adjacent Registered Buildings contrary to General Policy 2 and Environmental Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 POLICY RB/5.
The overdevelopment of the site would result in an unacceptable parking layout contrary to Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which would be detrimental to highway safety.
Parking for four private motor vehicles to the front of the Waterloo, elevation of the buildings building line would create a poor outlook for neighbouring residents, would detract from the visual amenity of the area and would create an unwanted precedent.
Parking for four private motor vehicles to the front of the Waterloo, elevation of the building line would result in users reversing into Waterloo Road, which would have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety to Waterloo Road which is a main route into and out of Ramsey. Additionally, the parked vehicles would obstruct user's visibility when exiting the site onto Waterloo Road and therefore creating an additional impact upon highway safety.
The proposed development makes no provision for Affordable Housing and is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.
Contrary to the requirements of Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan the proposed development makes no provision for recreational and amenity space, either on-site or by a commuted payment for off site provision.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Signed : Reporting Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
