Loading document...
The application site forms the curtilage of Plot 33A Royal Park, Ramsey, which is a parcel of undeveloped land, located along the western boundary of the Royal Park estate, and north of Rheast Mooar Avenue.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of ‘proposed residential’, under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Elevational revisions to approved houses types - 07/00364/B - APPROVED
Proposed residential estate layout comprising of plots, roads and sewers for 111 mixed density dwellings with associated open space and landscaping - 04/02311/B - APPROVED
Proposed detailed house types for phase 1 of residential development comprising 46 plots - 04/02310/B - APPROVED
The application seeks approval for the erection of a dwelling. The dwelling would be two storey detached property, with a total width of 8 metres, a total depth of 10.5 metres and a ridge height of 7.6 metres. The dwelling would be sited between Nr 17 Royal Park to the east and Nr 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue to the west.
Ramsey Commissioners have objected to the application on the following grounds:-
"The application seeks to introduce a dwelling onto a site previously approved as open space and garden area and therefore the proposed dwelling would result in a loss of amenity space.
The proposed dwelling is considered to be too close to the boundary of the adjacent Rheast Mooar Estate and its appearance is incongruous in comparison to the existing property."
Highways Division:-
"Do not oppose."
The owner/occupier of 17 Royal Park, Ramsey, has objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; loss of light; impact upon residential amenities during construction; and Hartford Homes have obviously seen a chance at making a bit more money by squeezing in another first time buyer property.
The owner/occupier of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, Ramsey, has objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; detrimental to my present enjoyment; the close proximity will have possible problems with maintenance of my existing hedge; and the height of the building would in no way be acceptable.
Due to the zoning of the site the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
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:
Starting with the principle of development, the site is zoned as proposed residential, so the principle of a dwelling within the site is acceptable.
However, there are concerns with this site. The first is due to the forward part of the site, which was indicated within the submitted approved plans for the whole housing estate as being an area of public open space. The proposal would result in the loss of this open space due to the proposal, which is considered unacceptable.
A second area of concern is the potential impact upon the neighbouring properties. Particular concerns relates to the impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue. The proposal would be sited approximately 0.4 metres from the western boundary and approximately 7 metres from the eastern elevation of the side elevation of Nr 12.
It should be noted that the closest aspect of the proposal would be the single storey garage which does have a lean-to roof. However, the two storey aspect of the proposal would still be sited 3.5 metres from the western boundary and 10 metres from the side elevation of Nr12.
The western boundary treatment of the site consists of a hedgerow which varies in height from 2.5 to 3 metre (approximate). This boundary is shared with 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue. This boundary landscaping would probably reduce the appearance of the single storey aspect in part, but there is concern that the two storey aspect would have a significant appearance.
The two storey aspect has a ridge height of 7.6 metres, and consequently due to the distance the proposal would be from the side elevation of Nr 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, the side patio area and rear garden, it is considered the proposal would result in an overbearing impact for the occupiers of Nr 12.
Within the side elevation of Nr 12 there are a two windows, the first is a patio door which serves the lounge area and the second is a kitchen window, which is the primary light source for this room.
Regarding the potential of loss of light to the neighbouring properties, Nr 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, it is considered given the siting of the proposal in relation to Nr 12 and due to the sun's orientation, no direct sunlight would be lost to the property. Some light might be lost to the rear garden during early morning, however, it is not considered the light lost would be sufficient to warrant refusal.
Turning to 17 Royal Park, the proposal would reduce light to this property, especially to the rear garden area during the afternoon period, given the height and position of the proposed dwelling in relation to number 17. However, it is considered the loss of light would be less, compared to the impact number 17 has upon number 16 and vice versa. Both properties are semi-detached and due to this the potential of loss of light is greater, compared to the proposal which is set away and forward of number 17. The siting of this proposed dwelling is also what you would expect within a
housing development and is evident with other dwellings within Royal Park. Overall, it is considered the amount of light lost would not be sufficient to warrant refusal on this ground.
Turning to the siting of the dwelling and the potential impact upon the visual appearance of the street scene, the proposal would be set forward of the building line created by properties 7 to 17 Royal Park. Viewing from the west of the site along the building line, Nr 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue is forward of this building line. The proposal would therefore not appear out of keeping with the street scene but would appear to follow the curvature of the road. It is therefore considered the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the visual appearance of the street scene.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary with the relevant planning policy of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), for the reasons set out in this report, accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.
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
The owner/occupier of 17 Royal Park, Ramsey The owner/occupier of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, Ramsey
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 03.02.2009
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its size and height, and its proximity to the neighbouring property 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring property, particularly in respect of having an overbearing impact and would therefore be un-neighbourly and dominant in respect of the outlook and enjoyment of the occupiers. As such the proposed development is contrary to criterion (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. The proposal would result in the loss of an area of public open space as indicated and approved under the previous planning application 04/02310/B. Approval of the application to allow the encroachment of residential development into land that is designated as public open space would
detract from the character and amenities of the development and would result in an unwanted precedent in this area and in other areas of public open space within the Island.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 56/08 (Delegation of Functions to the Acting Senior Planning Officer), GC 55/08 for Advertisements and 69/08 for Registered Buildings.
Decision Made : Refused Date : ...
Signed : ... Acting Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
