Loading document...
Ellis Brown • 1 Strathallan Sydney Mount • Douglas Isle of Man • IM1 3DB Telephone: +44 (0) 1624 621375 • Email: [email protected] • Online: www.ellisbrown.im
Prepared by Mark Peace BA (hons) Dip Arch RIBA
23rd January 2025
Introduction
This application was made in principle only. The means of access and all the detailed items were excluded from the application, The layout submitted is also indicative only. The footpath widens at the entrance and therefore the red line goes up to the back edge of pavement. The reasons for refusal all centre around matters of detail all of which were excluded. To prepare a full access scheme with the application, a transport assessment and road safety assessment would be required at considerable expense, hence the omission of access on the application form. Notwithstanding the above, the sightlines are 73m to the North and 103m Min. to the South when setback 2.4 from the Kerb line of the road.
The road is 30mph therefore the required sightline is 43m in both directions x 2.4 setback. The sightlines are more than adequate to facilitate the access.
The planning report accepts at 7.7 that the “principle of development on the site is acceptable and compliant with the Strategic Plan and Area Plan Policies. Therefore this satisfies the principle of development which is what was applied.
There is no remit to assess any other detail with this application. The planning officer has assumed points of detail without appreciating that the layout provided was for indicative purposes only and should be assessed as such.
A site visit by the committee was requested so that they could fully appreciate the extent of this site, but without reference to the Committee as a whole, the Chairman took the vote on the application and then dismissed the request for a site visit without proper consideration with the rest of the committee, after the vote had taken place.
This is not the correct procedure and a site visit would have demonstrated the size and setting of this area of land.
Notwithstanding that sight lines are available, the access is an existing garage with hardstanding which could accommodate cars at this level as part of a proposed development.
The principle of car access is already established.
The layout submitted was for indicative purposes only. The reason for refusal does not take this into account. Notwithstanding this the amenity space shown indicatively is within the distances set out in the Residential Design Guide and therefore is compliant. A social housing unit requires a garden depth of 7m as a guide only, the depth of garden shown indicatively is 10m.
The existing gardens to 58 and 60 remain unchanged at in excess of 10m. The grassland area is not a principle part of the garden areas to these houses. The overall site depth is such that there is over 30m of distance between the rear of the existing houses and the proposed housing which demonstrates that this is a large site with ample space separation in accordance with the Residential Design Guide. The application was made in principle only with layout and design specifically excluded from the list on the planning application form. This should not be a reason for refusal.
Comment: The layout is indicative only. The development of this area allows the existing houses to have amenity space which exceeds the residential design guidelines. The area here is a large expanse of grass which is rarely used as a private garden. It is not segregated and has been left open for many years. The site is more than capable of being developed in such a way as not to impact existing residents and houses. It is at a much lower level than the houses on Victoria Road and will not impeded their view or amenity. The site is predominantly residential and is not accessible to the public. It is not cramped and including the existing house no. 60 is less than 10 houses to the acre. This is not an important green open space and is certainly not cramped. The application was specifically made in principle only with layout and design excluded.
Comment: See above previous comments regarding sightlines and access. Access was excluded from the application albeit that an indicative scheme is shown which demonstrates that vehicles could traverse the access lane without impacting on the existing properties. There is an existing garage and hardstanding at the entrance that could also be utilised for vehicles to park as per the existing situation and used in connection with the proposed houses. This also demonstrates that the location of the lane access is already utilised by vehicles onto the site. The application in principle would allow a much more detailed design to be undertaken to address any concerns that have been raised. The application was not for 4 dwelling houses as the layout was indicative only.
Mark Pearce Prepared by Mark Pearce BA (hons) DIP Arch RIBA
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
