Loading document...
Application No.: 08/01795/A Applicant: Mr A Cope Proposal: Approval in principle for residential development to provide four detached dwellings with integral garaging Site Address: Land Adjacent To Brookfield Court Brookfield Avenue Ramsey Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations {{table:199302}} ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Clerk To The Commissioners Notes: Objection, see below Consultee: Manx Electricity Authority Notes: Note 2
SITE The site represents a parcel of undeveloped land adjacent to Brookfield Court, Brookfield Avenue, Ramsey located on the eastern side of Claughbane Drive and south of Brookfield Court.
LAND USE ZONING / PLANNING POLICIES 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 following policies are therefore considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
PLANNING HISTORY The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Approval in principle for erection of six houses - 01/02334/A - land adjacent to Brookfield Court, Brookfield Avenue, Ramsey – REFUSED AT APPEAL for the following reasons:-
Approval in principle for erection of seven houses - 01/00402/A - land adjacent to Brookfield Court, Brookfield Avenue, Ramsey – REFUSED AT REVIEW for the following reasons:-
Development of phase 4 sheltered housing scheme, erection of 11 houses, Ballastowell Gardens, Claughbane, Ramsey - 88/01809/B – APPROVED Erection of 28 No. houses and three blocks of garages, Phase 3, Ballastowell Gardens, Ramsey - 88/01263/B – APPROVED
Construction of Phase 2 Development including roads, sewers and 16 no. dwellings and warden’s house, Ballastowell Gardens, Claughbane, Ramsey - 88/00470/B – APPROVED
Layout of Phase 1 roads, plots and sewers of a 5-Phase development, Ballastowell Gardens, Claughbane, Ramsey - 87/01193/B – APPROVED
Construction of dwelling units 1-20, comprising Phase 1 development, Ballastowell Gardens, Claughbane, Ramsey - 87/01191/B – APPROVED
Approval in principle to erection 65-75 sheltered accommodation units with roads, car parking and landscaping, Ballastowell Gardens, Claughbane, Ramsey - 87/00310/A - APPROVED
The application seeks approval in principle for residential development to provide four detached dwellings with integral garaging.
The Ramsey Commissioners:-
"The current Ramsey Local Plan reference 3.14 Police R/R/P3: Infill/Back lands sites states that 'within areas zoned for Predominately Residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural 'breathing' spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such sites should form the subject of consultation with the Office of planning prior to the submission of any application.' As such the Commissioners consider that the development of this land would be an infill development and therefore contrary to the Ramsey Local Plan.
It is noted that both foul and surface water sewers are located within this plot of land and any development will require the relocation of these sewers to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and Ramsey Town Commissioners.
It is noted that the proposed access to two of the dwellings is shown to be from an un-adopted and therefore privately owned road."
Highways Division:- "Do not oppose"
The owners/occupiers of 22 Laury’s Avenue, Ramsey, have objected to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: several applications in the past 27 years all of which have been refused on the basis that development of the land would be detrimental to the area, as well as being a open green space; low level of natural breathing spaces in the general area around Claughbane Drive;
increase problems with traffic and parking; and the application site suffers from continuous water logging.
The owners/occupiers of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 Brookfield Court, Brookfield Avenue, Ramsey, have objected to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: concerns with increase in traffic causing further parking issues in the area; objections raised from the applications in 2001 and 2002 still apply; poor drainage within the site; and Policy R/R/P3: Infill/backland Sites within the Ramsey Local Plan applies.
The owners/occupiers of 23 Laury's Avenue, Ramsey, have objected to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: several applications in the past 27 years all of which have been refused on the basis that development of the land would be detrimental to the area; low level of natural breathing spaces in the general area around Claughbane Drive; since the permissions was given on the adjacent site for 15 flats the traffic levels have increased and parking is a real issue at all times; the application site suffers from continuous water logging; and nothing has changed in the last 27 years, either to the land, policies, drainage etc.
The owners/occupiers of 25 Fairway Drive, Ramsey, have objected to the application on grounds which can be summarised as: the site forms the only remaining area of green space on the entire estate, and forms a natural breathing space between the top of Brookfield Avenue and the Claughbane Estate; the adjacent site has been lost for general public amenity; the proposals would result in further traffic problems to the already congested area; and there are still a number of housing schemes within Ramsey which cater for existing residential need.
The Community Safety Unit has commented on the application raising points which can be summarised as; indicated 'post and wire' or 'timber panel fencing' along the public footpath would give little in privacy or security; would recommend the use of 2 metre high timber panel fencing; the proposal does not indicate any physical barriers to prevent access to the rear of the properties; and would recommend the inclusion of gating between front and rear gardens to a similar height to the adjacent party fencing (2 m) to afford a suitable level of security and privacy.
Due to the zoning of the site the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
Development should make the best use of resources by:
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.
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 back land 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.
The Ramsey Local Plan - Policy R/R/P3, which relates to the development of infill and back land sites, states:-
Within areas zoned for predominantly residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such site should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to the submission of any application.
The first and main issue relating to this application is the principle of residential development on this site. From studying the previous applications, especially the appeal decision for application 01/02334, it was concluded by the Appeals Inspector that:-
"In principle I accept that the land could be developed in a manner that would have little impact on the residential amenities of the properties in Laury's Avenue due to the topography of the site. There would be much greater impact on some of the flats at Brookfield Court. There is land in Ramsey allocated for residential development and not yet developed and I am not persuaded therefore that there is an overriding need for the release of this site. The piecemeal erosion of these small breathing spaces, which do contribute positively to the residential environment, is in my opinion undesirable in such circumstances. I have noted that the Strategic Plan is only at the draft stage. Any reconsideration of the use of land at the present time would in my opinion be premature."
Since this previous refused application, the Strategic plan has been adopted (June 2007). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements.
Additionally, since this application there has been a number of planning approvals for new dwellings on land which has the same zoning. The first area was the land at the junction of May Hill and Glen Elfin Road, Ramsey (04/02353/A), which initially was refused due to over development. However, the Appeal Inspector considered Policy R/R/P3 and stated that "there is logic in attempting to use suitable remaining urban land rather than continuing to expand into rural areas" and continued on to state that they were "aware of the presumption against developing such land as set out in Policy
R/R/P3 of the Local Plan, but given the condition of the site and its location within an urban area, I support the principle of developing the site with housing.” It should be noted that this site was significantly smaller than the current application site.
The other applications comprise the land adjacent to Summerland and Parsonage Road. A number planning applications (approval in principle & detailed) have been approved, which give permission for five new dwellings on four plots (3 have detailed permission, 2 still at AiP stage). The first application in this area was for: approval in principle for the erection of a pair of semi detached houses with on site garaging and parking, Garden 4 Summerland - 05/92418/A. This application was refused on the grounds of overdevelopment; however, the Department took into account the decision of the site at May Hill and Glen Elfin Road. The Department considered that the principle of residential development on this land was acceptable, although it was considered by the Planning Officer at that time that; “each site has different characteristics, there is a need to consider each planning application on its individual merits.”
A subsequent application on this site was submitted for a single dwelling (06/01545/A). This was approved at Appeal where the Planning Inspector stated; “With regard to the arguments raised by the objectors to this proposal, I note that the Ramsey Local Plan was approved in 1998, and thus is not as up-to-date as it might be. Since its adoption, considerably more weight is given to seeking to locate residential development in sustainable locations, an aspect of which is ready accessibility to shops, employment, education, and leisure facilities. In this respect, the application site scores well in contrast to peripheral Greenfield sites. The Tynwald policy of seeking affordable housing on development of over eight dwellings is not intended, in my understanding to place a restriction on development of a lesser scale. Nor do I regard it as likely that small infill plots will inhibit the bringing forward of larger development sites.” This application was subsequently approved, which led to additional planning approval for neighbouring sites along Summerland and Parsonage Road.
The four plots were/are part of the residential gardens of the properties along Summerland. The majority were over grown with large boundary walls along the Parsonage Road elevations. Overall, it was considered by the Department that allowing dwellings on these sites of open space would not have an adverse impact upon the properties along Summerland, or detract from their contribution to the street scene.
As stated previously each application site should be judged on its own merits. The examples stated are within fairly close proximity of the application site. In those cases it was judged that the benefits of sustainable residential development overrode the loss of the “open space”.
As also stated previously, the site at the junction of May Hill and Glen Elfin Road, is significantly smaller (376sqm approx) than the application site, and it is considered it did not provide a sustainable green barrier in that locality. The sites on the land adjacent to Summerland and Parsonage Road, it is considered should be assessed as a whole and therefore the sites equate to approximately 1500sqm in total.
The application site has an approximate area of 1872sqm, which is larger than the total area of the sites on Summerland, which have benefited from planning approval. In addition, in this instance it is considered the application site provides a more natural ‘breathing space’ between the established residential buildings, and the housing estates of Claughbane Drive and Claughbane Avenue, compared to the other sites indicated within this report. The importance of maintaining the local plan presumption against development is therefore considered to be clearer.
The second issue relates to the potential impact of the development upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, and the likely level of amenity for future occupiers. The application is for approval in principle only, and therefore full plans have not been submitted. Indicative plans show how four dwellings could be arranged within the site. At this stage due to there being no detailed drawings, it is not possible to make a full assessment of the potential impacts upon the neighbouring residential properties. However, from studying the indicative plans, it is considered at this stage, that
a scheme could be implemented for four dwellings which would provide acceptable amenities for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings, whilst not having a significant impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.
The third issue concerns the additional traffic and the parking arrangements. Again, as the application is only an approval in principle, a full assessment cannot be made. However, the indicative plans do show possible driveway layouts / turning areas and also state that each dwelling would have an integrated single garage. The drawing shows that each dwelling would be able to accommodate two off road parking spaces, with one behind the building line (garage). These provisions would be in accordance with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan parking standards. Additionally, the Department of Transport Highways Division has considered the application and have no objection.
It is an undeniable fact that the piece of land referred to does create a "breathing space", the development of which would remove an area of open space which was included in the original layouts for the area, and contributes to the visual amenity of the street scene. The loss of this land would result in a loss of open space to the detriment of current residents. It has also been established that the building of dwellings should be directed to sustainable locations. Since the area plans have not been established and are still on going and since not all of the smaller "breathing spaces" have been developed, the release of this site for housing is considered premature at this stage as, in the absence of it being proven that there is a need for the proposed housing that could not be met on a preferable site, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan (Planning Circular 2/99), Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (June 2007).
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
The owners/occupiers of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 Brookfield Court, Brookfield Avenue, Ramsey The owners/occupiers of 22 Laury’s Avenue, Ramsey The owners/occupiers of 23 Laury’s Avenue, Ramsey The owners/occupiers of 25 Fairway Drive, 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:
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
It is considered that the piece of land referred to in this application creates a "breathing space", the development of which would remove an area of open space which was included in the original layouts for the area, and contributes to the visual amenity of the street scene. The loss of this land would result in a loss of open space to the detriment of current residents. It has been established that the building of dwellings should be directed to sustainable locations and the Department is currently undertaking new area plans for the whole island, which will consider the potential need for additional housing. Since the area plans have not been established and are still on going and since not all of the smaller "breathing spaces" have been developed, the release of this site for housing is considered premature at this stage as, in the absence of it being proven that there is a need for the proposed housing that could not be met on a preferable site, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan (Planning Circular 2/99), Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (June 2007).
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 : [Handwritten signature] Committee Meeting Date : 18/12/08
Signed : [Handwritten signature] Reporting Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
