Loading document...
The application site is to the west of Station Road, Ballaugh. The site consists of the central section of Fields 224254 and 224255. To the north of the site is the property Cronk Breck, served by a private lane and the residential development of Squeen Meadow. To the south are the properties of Faaie Craine, a close of single storey detached properties. Numbers 4 Faaie Craine is situated to the rear of Plot 2, Number 6 Faaie Craine is situated so as to the rear of Plots 2 and 3 and Number 8 is to the rear of Plot 3. Number 10 Faaie Craine is to the south west of Plot 3.
The boundary shared between the properties on the northern side of Faaie Crain and the application site is planted with trees and shrub hedging. The screening effect of the existing planting varies with some sections having more robust planting and others being intermittent.
Plot 2 is a parcel of land immediately west of Plot 1 (PA 08/00222/B which successfully sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling refers). Plot 3 is a parcel of land immediately west of Plot 2.
This application seeks approval for the erection of a dwelling with integral garage on each plot and the revision of part of the estate road to serve the dwellings. The estate road has been realigned from previous applications with the road now proposed to run parallel with the existing private lane before turning towards Plots 2 and 3 and terminating in a turning area. The entrance to the site and Plot 1 remain as approved under PA 06/01898/REM.
The application represents a revised scheme to those submitted under planning applications 08/00223/B and 08/00228/B which sought approval for the erection of dwellings on Plots 2 and 3. These applications were refused at appeal with the appointed Inspector finding that the proposed dwellings would be located so as to be too close to the adjacent properties at Faaie Craine and as such would have adversely affected the amenity of local residents contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
In response to the refusal of these applications, the submitted plans show the dwellings re-sited so as to be further north. The dwellings themselves have been revised although they retain the design language displayed by the previous applications including the application approved which related to Plot 1.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential and displays a variety of house types including bungalows (Faaie Craine), two storey dwellings (Squeen Meadow) along with properties on the eastern side of Station Road such as the substantial detached dwelling The Grange and the Parish Hall which has a distinctive design which includes a tower feature.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Residential. General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is considered to be specifically relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. This 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:
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 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 4m 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 20m. 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 7.4m 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."
Applications 08/00222/B, 08/00223/B and 08/00228/B proposed amended schemes for refused applications 07/01868/B, 07/01870/B and 07/01869/B. 08/00222/B was approved at appeal with the appointed Inspector finding that the separation distances between the proposed dwelling and the properties at Faaie Craine would be sufficient to protect residential amenity.
08/00223/B and 08/00228/B were both refused at appeal with the appointed Inspector finding that the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the properties of Faaie Craine would be such that residential amenity would be unacceptably adversely affected.
The Department of Transport Highways Division does not object to this application subject to conditions.
The Department of Transport Drainage Division does not object to this application subject to conditions. However these conditions relate to Building Regulations which are dealt with by Building Control and as such is not considered to be a matter for planning.
The Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry requests that a condition of approval relating to the nearby watercourse be attached.
The owner/occupier of 9 Squeen Meadow, Station Road, Ballaugh objects to this application stating that the site has been reduced in size, that the dwellings would be too large for the plots and that it has not been demonstrated that there is a right of way over the private lane to allow access to the site.
The owner/occupier of 8 Faaie Craine objects to this application stating that the proposed dwellings would be out of place and that there may be pressure in the future for the existing boundary treatment to be removed or damaged during construction.
The owner/occupier of 4 Faaie Craine objects to this application stating that the development of Plots 2 and 3 would, in combination with Plot 1 result in an overpowering impact. Issues of highway safety are raised in relation to the access onto Station Road.
The owner/occupiers of 8 Squeen Meadow objects to this application stating that the size of the proposed dwellings are out of proportion with the proposed plots. It is also considered that the revised estate road would be unacceptable. Issues of overlooking and loss of privacy are also raised. The legality of using part of the private road is also questioned.
The owner/occupiers of 2 Faaie Craine objects to this application stating that the proposed dwelling on Plot 2 would result in a loss of privacy and an overbearing impact. The development of Plot 4 (to the immediate west of Plot 3) is also questioned. Alternative types of development are advocated for the site including bungalows or sheltered accommodation. The use of the part of the private lane for access is also questioned.
The owner/occupier of 3 Faaie Craine objects to this application questioning the drainage of the site, the use of part of the private lane for access and highway safety.
Ballaugh Parish Commissioners do not object to this application.
The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application are the impact of the proposed dwellings upon the surrounding area and upon neighbouring properties.
At the appeal enquiry for the previous and most recent applications for the site, the Inspector judged that given that the proposed dwellings would be adjacent to single storey properties, the generally accepted minimum separation distance of 20 metres should not be applied. Instead a greater
distance would be required to protect privacy and prevent the proposed dwelling from appearing overbearing and un-neighbourly when viewed from Faaie Craine. The dwelling approved on Plot 1, which was approved, is approximately 25.4 metres from the adjacent property 2 Faaie Craine. This distance was considered sufficient to attain a reasonable level of privacy for both properties.
The submitted plans show that the dwelling proposed for Plot 2 would be approximately 33.5 metres from 4 Faaie Craine and 24 metres from 6 Faaie Craine (measured from the main core of the proposed building). It is judged that this separation distance would be sufficient to protect to an acceptable level the privacy and amenity of both the properties on Faaie Craine and the proposed dwelling.
The dwelling proposed for Plot 3 would be approximately 28 metres from 6 and 8 Faaie Craine and 27 metres from 10 Faaie Craine (measured from the main core of the proposed building). It is judged that this separation distance would be sufficient to protect to an acceptable level the privacy and amenity of both the properties of Faaie Craine and the proposed dwelling.
Turning to consider the impact upon the properties of Squeen Meadow, the closest of the two proposed dwellings (Plot 2), would be approximately 27 metres from 9 Squeen Meadow and 32 metres from 8 Squeen Meadow. There would be separation distance of approximately 26 metres between the dwelling proposed on Plot 3 and the property Cronk Breck. It is judged that these separation distances are sufficient to protect, to an acceptable level, the privacy and amenity of both the properties of Squeen Meadow and Cronk Breck and the proposed dwelling.
It is considered that the realignment of the estate road would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties. The area previously proposed between the estate road and the private lane would be incorporated into the gardens of the proposed dwellings and as such the overall ratio between the built form and open space would remain consistent. Furthermore, in response to comments that the proposed dwellings are disproportionate in scale to the plot sizes, the dwellings proposed occupy a similar proportion of their plot as the dwelling approved for Plot 1. It is judged that the dwellings would be provided with adequate outdoor space to afford a reasonable level of amenity and create an acceptable streetscene. Indeed the separation between each of the dwellings on all three plots would be significantly greater than the distanced between the dwellings on Faaie Craine or Squeen Meadow.
It is considered that the proposed dwellings have been designed to a high standard featuring interesting details, such as the tower feature influenced by the nearby Parish Hall and a rich palette of materials. The varied range of properties in the vicinity does not generate an overriding design language which should be replicated and applied to the development of this site. Indeed Faaie Craine and Squeen Meadow display quite different architectural forms and exterior finishes. It is also pertinent that the dwelling approved for Plot 1 is of a similar design to those now proposed for Plots 2 and 3 and it is judged that the continuation of this design language within the site would be important in creating a coherent development.
The access to the site, which has been approved previously, does not form part of this application. However for purposes of clarity, the Inspector presiding over the appeal for the approved application 02/02007/A concluded:
"Using the private lane has the potential to produce a sightline of some to the southeast, which is a significant improvement. The sightline to the northwest assisted by the curvature of Station Road affords good visibility of approaching traffic from the Jurby direction. Moreover, setting back the sod hedge along the Station Road frontage of the site would greatly improve the sightline to the southeast for drivers emerging from the lane, whilst also affording motorists approaching from the village a better view of the bellmouth. The footpath along the site frontage would make a significant contribution to pedestrian safety".
PA06/01898/REM proposed a residential estate layout of four plots, road and sewers. In considering this application, the Planning Authority concluded that the setting back of the sod hedge would improve visibility however the proposal to include a section of footpath along side the front of the site would be inappropriate as the walk way would terminate suddenly in a position with poor visibility for pedestrians, a view supported at the time by Ballaugh Parish Commissioners. It was concluded that the footpath should end at the entrance of the application site. This layout has been accepted previously and the Department of Transport does not object to this current application.
Several third parties have commented on the use of the private lane to access the site, stating that permission of the owner of lane may not have been granted to the applicant. This issue was discussed at the most recent appeal hearings relating to the site. The Inspector clarified this point in his report relating to Plot 1 stating that:
"The access to the proposed house would apparently involve the use of a small part of the existing private road next to its junction with Station Road. Planning approval has evidently already been granted for the access road which would serve the appeal site (and Plots 2 and 3). The matter of visibility at the Station Road junction and related safety issues must have been considered before that approval was granted. Whether there would be a right of way over the private road is a private legal matter between the developer and the owner of the road and is not a planning consideration - a grant of planning approval does not necessarily mean that the development could be carried out, if there were no right of access."
As such, whether there is an agreement in place to use the private lane for access is a matter of civil law. It does not affect the planning merits or demerits of the proposal. Notwithstanding this, no comments have been received from the owner of the lane.
It is concluded that the proposed dwellings are acceptable as the development would comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
Permit.
It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:
Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status:
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 04.03.2009
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This approval relates to the erection of a detached dwelling on Plot 2, the erection of a dwelling on Plot 3 and the realignment of estate Road, Field 224254 and 224255, The Stables Field, Station Road, Ballaugh as shown by the plans and information 06/0040, 06/0040/10, 06/0040/11, 06/0040/12 and Additional Information Sheets For Plots 2 and 3 all received 18th December 2008.
The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicular means of access and footpaths have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and until the section of road and footpaths up to the site has been constructed in accordance with planning permission 06/01898/REM.
No existing tree or shrub indicated on the approved plans to be retained shall be cut down, grubbed out, topped, lopped, or uprooted without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Any such tree or shrub removed without such consent or dying, becoming seriously damaged or diseased within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Any development must be a minimum distance of 8 metres from the watercourse in order to minimise the risk of damage or disturbance. Measures must be in place during construction works to safeguard the nearby watercourse from any run-off and sedimentation.
No development may commence until there has been approved by the Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping which includes indications of all existing trees and hedges within the site and details of new planting to reinforce the existing screening along the south east boundary of the site.
All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 31/07 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 5/3/09
Signed : J. S. B. Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
