Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01173/B Applicant: Ramsey Golf Links Ltd Proposal: Creation of three new dwellings with associated golf club car park and access alterations/improvements. Site Address: Golf Links Brookfield Avenue Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2AH Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 20.04.2017 Site Visit: 20.04.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL RELATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ZONING, AND ALSO GIVEN THE LOCAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PROPOSAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land currently occupied by part of the car park associated with Ramsey Golf Club and also a number of trees, bushes and other vegetation. The site slopes down steeply in a northerly direction: the southern edge of the site is in excess of six metres higher than the northern side. This topographic change takes place over a roughly 12 metre distance. - 1.2 Trees are sited along the northern and western boundaries of the site such that the Leighny Fields park and the golf club itself to the north and west respectively are not visible from within the higher part of the site, which, realistically, is the only part of the site that is accessible. Partly within, but primarily to the south of, the application site is the golf club car park, while to the east are the residential properties lining Claughbane Drive and Brookfield Avenue, which is a single highway running north-south. The site apparently shares a boundary with two of these dwellings, at least in part, with the dwellings' gardens running parallel with the highway to the east. - 1.3 Edged in blue is the entirety of the golf club land, buildings and associated infrastructure.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of three identically designed dwellings on the site. These would be set into the sharply angled slope on the northern part of the site and, accordingly, step down significantly. To the car park, the dwellings would present as a pitched-roof bungalow with projecting gable feature and finished in a mixture of Manx stone and timber cladding; also within this front elevation would be a garage door, providing a single parking space within. To the rear, however, the proposed dwellings are almost entirely glazed and present threestorey aspects, with two terraces on the steps down and a terrace at the lowest level. The rear of the dwellings would also have a significant gable feature, within which would be a centrally set chimney stack, and would be almost exclusively glazed. Structural elements would be formed of Manx stone. - 2.2 Overall, there would be four storeys of accommodation within each dwelling: the 'bungalow' element is large enough to provide two en-suite bedrooms within the roofspace. There would be a further three en-suite bedrooms at the ground floor level, opening onto the dwellings' gardens.
2.3 In addition to the internal garages, there would be a further two parking spaces made available to each dwelling at the frontage: these would be parallel to one another, with one being in front of the garage door. - 2.4 The side elevations would also be finished with a mixture of timber cladding (largely to the gables) and Manx stone below, and within each side elevation are windows on each of the four storeys. - 2.5 Alterations to the existing access into the site (and also golf club car park) are proposed. This involves the widening of the access lane between two dwellings on Brookfield Avenue 'Cynclaire' to the north of the lane, and 'Frandora' (which is addressed as being on Brookfield Terrace, but is nevertheless on the same highway) to the south - to 4.8m. A visibility splay of 2.4m by 50m is proposed / achievable. Accompanying this is proposed new footpaths to both sides of the access lane, along with new screening planting to the north. The footpath would be lit via streetlamps, details of which do not seem to have been provided within the application. - 2.6 In addition to the above, there would be a one-way system instigated in the slightly rearranged car park. The erection of the proposed dwellings would result in the alteration of the car park, but at present this is not formally laid out and as such it is difficult to know the actual number of parking spaces at present, though the applicants believe this to be in the region of 75-79. A parking survey undertaken indicated that there are between 20 and 23 spaces available / vacant at any one time. The applicant notes that the maximum number of golfers that the club could accommodate at any one time would be 96, but this would arise from a 'two-tier' teeing off system, which is rarely if ever used. The proposed layout would allow for 80 parking spaces, included two for disabled users, along with a separate driveway off that car park to the three proposed dwellings. - 2.7 A number of trees would need to be removed that are currently on the slope of the site, and based on the findings of an Arborist Report submitted with the application, nine trees are proposed to be planted in replacement along the boundaries of the car park - however, four of those (between the proposed dwellings and those existing on Brookfield Avenue) appear as if they lie outside land within the control of the applicant. They may be just within the boundary, but if so only on the very margin of a parcel of land that sits between the application site and the rear curtilage boundaries of the Brookfield Avenue dwellings and it is not immediately clear in whose ownership the land would lie. - 2.8 The application includes a Design Statement. The Statement discusses the proposal and its planning policy context. It indicates that a parking survey has been conducted but this seems to comprise photographs of the golf club car park rather than a daily survey of parking available in the area. The Statement is quite honest in indicating that the application's purpose "is to raise much needed funds for the continuation of the Club and in order to enable the future financing of improvements to other parts of the golf course as well as Club facilities". In so doing, it notes that the current membership is 450 is down on the highest level in excess of 1,000 enjoyed in 1991.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 PA 15/00979/A was submitted, which sought Approval in Principle for the erection of three dwellings on the site, with all matters bar means of access to be left for a subsequent Reserved Matters application. The applicant was advised that a full application should be made in order that a full assessment of the impact of three dwellings here would be possible. However, they chose to submit an application seeking Approval in Principle and, during the course of making the assessment, it became clear that there was no way for officers to reach a conclusion that the principle of development here would or would not be acceptable. Accordingly, that application was withdrawn before a decision could be issued. - 3.2 There is also an extant approval for the change of use of a function room within the Clubhouse to a shop and teaching room.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site is zoned as 'open space (golf course)' within the Ramsey Local Plan, which does not have any policies of direct relevance to the proposal. - 4.2 The Strategic Plan does contain relevant policies. Recreation Policy 2 sets out the general presumption that applications that would result in the loss of public open space will approved only where two caveats can be both met, namely:
4.3 The application also needs to be assessed against General Policy 2, Environment Policy 4 and Transport Policies 6 and 7. - 4.4 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
4.5 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
"Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
4.6 Environment Policy 42 states: "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." - 4.7 Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users." - 4.8 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure twice (on 07/11/16 and 31/03/17) sought a deferral on the application, noting that the proposal was unusual in that the only pedestrian and vehicle access to houses is through a private car park. They requested that an access width of 4.8m with footpaths of 1.35m be provided, along with additional lighting along that footpath, which they also sought to be connected from the highway to the first dwelling. On receipt of an amended plan showing this, Highway Services offered no objection to the application on 27/04/17, requesting the following two conditions be added to the approval notice:
"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."
5.2 The Arboricultural Officer of the Department noted some concerns with the proposal on 26/10/2016 but, following an exchange of emails (03/11/2016), a site meeting and the submission of further information, confirmed he had no objections. He noted that the trees to be removed were either poor specimens or too small to be judged a constraint to development, and sought the following condition should the application be approved:
"The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots Tree Management Limited submitted in support of the application on 24th November 2016 shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged supervision detailed in section 8 and appendices 5 and 7, by a suitably qualified and preappointed tree specialist. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, or wilfully destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the completion date, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars or as may be permitted by prior approval in writing from the Department. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory
written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist."
5.2 The Senior Biodiversity Officer, in comments received 29.11.2016, noted the historic presence of frogs on the site and sought further information in this respect. A report was provided by the Manx Wildlife Trust, and the Senior Biodiversity Officer noted as follows on 17th March 2017:
"Essentially, there is no evidence of frogs on site (though potential habitat). My only comment is with regard to the timing of clearance (March-Nov in the frog report), that nesting birds must be taken into account and these are now more likely to be present than frogs. If scraping short open grass, this is probably not an issue, but if clearing scrub, then the developer must take this into account and not just run to the frog recommendations regardless of other requirements.
"I have no ongoing concern relating to the determination of this application."
5.3 The Fisheries Directorate within the Department initially expressed some concern with the proximity of the proposed works to a nearby stream, and sought clarification on this in an email dated 21st October 2016. Subsequently, having received a completed "9m within a watercourse" form and also having met the applicants on site, they stated that the development site is a little further away from the watercourse than initially believed and, moreover, appropriate precautions had been put in place to ensure that harmful materials and washings are kept out of the stream should development proceed. Accordingly they offered no objection to the application on 11th November 2016. They did ask that the applicant contact them prior to the commencement of works, however.
"The current proposals show that the proposed developments will be built over critical public drainage and Manx Utilities have received no assurance that the sewers will be suitably protected or diverted.
"At this stage we require the following information before we are able to pass our comments onto the planners:-
"A 225mm diameter foul sewer and 900mm diameter surface water sewer currently cross the proposed development site, due to the criticality of these sewers Manx Utilities would not permit the construction of the dwellings over or within 3m and would insist that these public sewers are suitably diverted to MU requirements.
"On assessment, both these sewers can be diverted within the confines of the application site as there are sufficient falls, however in order to carry out the diversions a number of mature trees may be required to be removed (the exact number will be subject to the final diversion route), the permission to remove any trees with be required from DEFA.
"Manx Utilities will therefore be content with a suitably worded planning condition for this planning application which will require the diversion of both sewers which must be designed and constructed to MU requirements prior to any construction work commencing on the proposed dwellings.
"Any potential developer must also enter into a section 8 adoption agreement (under the Sewerage Act 1999) with Manx Utilities for the future adoption of these diverted sewers.
"Early consultation with Manx Utilities is recommended."
As this is a jointly signed letter, rather than a petition, it is considered appropriate that each respondent be independently assessed as to whether or not they should be granted Interested Person Status. The addresses listed are:
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of three dwellings on land not zoned for such a use in the Ramsey Local Plan. That a proposal is not in conformity with the Local Plan zoning does not automatically mean it should carry a recommendation to refuse, and it must therefore be determined whether or not there are material considerations that would outweigh this lack of conformity with the Local Plan zoning. Consideration is also required as to what level of harm would arise from the implementation of the proposal. The principle - 6.2 In the first place, it must be acknowledged that while the land may be zoned as public open space (golf course), its active use is as a mixture of car park and grassed bank / trees. The only contributions it makes are in terms of its provision of parking spaces and a soft green edge for the car park in the form of the trees set within the sloping bank. - 6.3 In view of Highway Services' conclusions on the application, and the fact that the car park would be newly laid out with some 80 parking spaces, it is considered that the loss of the land from its existing use will not be intrinsically harmful to the running of the golf club. Though, clearly, there would be a loss of land that could be used as a car park, as it is not formally laid out at the moment it is difficult to be certain what impact on the provision would arise. The evidence within the application seems to indicate that there is spare capacity within the car park. That there is concern that overspill parking would affect local on-street parking availability, it is to be noted that the housing development in the area is of a low density and on-street parking is likely to be more readily available than in an area of terraced housing, for example. A handful of dwellings in the area also benefit from off-street parking. - 6.4 The trees provide a welcome feature of the area, contributing to the wider greenness that the golf club itself provides and also giving a level of amenity to the houses on Brookfield Avenue. However, it is to be noted that these trees are within the applicants' control and could be removed under licence - at any time. It is to be noted that the Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the loss of the trees proposed for removal. - 6.5 The site therefore provides a mixture of somewhat utilitarian car park and trees not judged worthy of retention. While it is not ignored that the greenness of the sloping / northern part of the site will provide a welcome view for the residents backing onto it, it is to be remembered that a loss of a private view cannot be a material planning consideration. It is also not ignored that the loss of this public open space will not comprise "an overall community gain", as required by Recreation Policy 2. It does provide a contribution to the running of that open space (i.e. the golf club), but for the reasons outlined in paragraph 6.3 above it is judged that to resist its loss from its current use would be difficult. As such, this is a wholly different situation to one previously before the Committee in which the proposed conversion of tennis courts to car parking was refused (PA 17/00472/C). - 6.6 It is also noted that the Senior Biodiversity Officer is content with the proposal's likely impact (or lack thereof) on the common frog and other protected species. Environment Policy 4 is therefore considered met. - 6.7 It is accordingly concluded that the loss of the land from its existing use and the removal of the trees proposed do not represent a significant enough reason to refuse the application. This, however, is by no means reason to conclude that the development proposed is acceptable, with the detailed matters for consideration including: the impact on neighbouring living conditions, the design of the dwellings proposed, and finally the quality of the living conditions that would exist for the residents of the proposed dwellings. Highway safety has been partially considered above, but
further consideration is also needed in terms of visibility and the safety of pedestrians within the site. The issue of sewer diversion must also be addressed. Assessment of these now follows.
The detail
6.8 In the first instance, it is noted that the site is within a highly sustainable settlement with a range of services and public transport, and therefore the principle of having additional housing in this location is acceptable. - 6.9 In terms of the impact on neighbouring living conditions, the main impact is judged to be that of privacy. The distance between the easternmost of the proposed dwellings to that which would be nearest on Brookfield Avenue ('Ballacottier') would be roughly 34m. From the site visit, this distance feels shorter, and it is also to be noted that the car park is higher than the land on Brookfield Avenue. The normal expectation is that 20m should separate windows on dwellings, but this is only a rule of thumb and every application should be treated on its own merits. The only two dwellings that could be considered to be materially affected by the easternmost of the proposed dwellings are 'Brookfield' and 'Ballacottier'. The latter is almost due east of the easternmost of the proposed dwellings, while the latter sits to the southeast of them and as such views between the dwellings will be obscure rather than direct. - 6.10 The rear of Brookfield has a significant number of windows, plus a conservatory, although it is noted that no objection has actually been made in respect of loss of privacy. The addition of a dwelling of the size / massing proposed will affect the outlook of those living in, and using the garden of, the existing dwellings here - Ballacottier in particular, not least as it is a bungalow. Section drawings have been provided, and these show the new dwellings would have a roof pitch height not dissimilar to those of the dwellings in the area. It is also noted that there would be six, relatively small, windows sited within the eastern elevation facing towards the dwellings on Brookfield Avenue, but equally there will be a number of trees and bushes retained to help act as a visual break between the existing and proposed dwellings. - 6.11 The effect of construction work on living conditions is not a material planning consideration, while the comings and goings of prospective residents could not, relative to the existing traffic movements that can occur within the car park already, be considered materially harmful. - 6.12 Taking all the above into account, it is concluded that there will not be an unduly harmful impact on neighbouring living conditions arising from the proposed development. - 6.13 The design of the dwellings is judged to be well-considered and bespoke to the site. It is unfortunate that there is no differentiation between the three proposed, but equally the topography of the site is a constraint such as to mean that there is limited opportunity to be fully creative. The use of traditional and contemporary materials is welcomed, and it is concluded that the proposal accords with the design principles set out in part (b) of General Policy 2. - 6.14 In respect of the amenity levels offered to prospective residents, and moreover the impact the new dwellings would have on the character of the area, this is perhaps the most difficult element of the proposal to resolve against adopted policy, in particular Environment Policy 42 and part (g) of General Policy 2. - 6.15 There are no policies that specifically seek to protect the amenity of residents of new houses proposed for construction. However, it would be wrong to ignore the issue, and it is considered that the element of General Policy 2 that a proposal should not "affect adversely the amenity of local residents" should reasonably and implicitly include a consideration of this issue. - 6.16 There will be limited outlook provided from the side elevations of the proposed dwellings. The fundamental question, then, is whether or not a pair of outlooks comprising a car park and sports buildings (to the north) and green, open space (to the south) is acceptable. The majority of
6.24 It is understood that this will be a disappointing conclusion for the owners of the properties along Brookfield Avenue, who will reasonably have believed that living adjacent to land zoned as public open space (gold course) will have meant their views would remain as they currently are. There is great sympathy with this view. However, the role of the planning system is to provide an assessment framework so that the impact of a development proposal can be properly understood. While there are a number of issues raised by this proposal, and it is readily appreciated that a recommendation to refuse may seem the logical approach, it remains the case that when assessed against the relevant policies the application does not conflict with them so significantly as to warrant its refusal.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 The application proposes development contrary to the Local Plan zoning. However, despite the in-principle objection to what is proposed, the level of harm that would arise from the development proposed has not been found sufficient to warrant the application's refusal. This conclusion has been reached after careful assessment against the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan and, while a certain level of harm has been identified, it is not judged that this is so severe in terms of either private or public amenity to warrant the application's refusal. - 7.2 A number of conditions are required. - 7.3 In attempting to address concern raised by Highway Services, an amended plan showing the site layout and visibility splay was provided. This drawing also partially shows the proposed layout for the dwellings' curtilages, which is also shown on a separate drawing and which has not been subject to revision. Therefore, to approve both these drawings would result in approval being granted to two separate access / curtilage layouts. As both these drawings need to form a part of the approval, a condition is required to clarify which parts of each drawing are approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated
as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
Aside from Brookfield, all of these dwellings site immediately adjacent to the application site. Brookfield itself lies at an oblique angle to the application site and would reasonably be judged to be affected to a similar degree as Corvalley given its position and distance from the dwellings proposed.
8.2.3 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.07.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: No detail on the design or strength of this lighting has been provided and to ensure the impact on local amenity is acceptable further information is required.
Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
Reason: To ensure appropriate sewer facilities are provided to the dwellings hereby approved and also those existing in the area. Although this is not normally a material planning consideration and other legislation exists to ensure sewers are located in appropriate and safe positions, the potential proximity of the diverted sewers to the existing and nearby dwellings is such as to require further detailed consideration of this matter prior to any related works being undertaken.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1 Rev A, 2 Rev A, 4 and 5 (all date-stamped as having been received 14th October 2016), to Drawing 14TS022-01 Rev B (date-stamped as having been received 26th September 2016 and 14th October 2016), to Drawing 3 Rev A (date-
stamped as having been received 3rd April 2017), and also to the Tree Survey And Report (dated 24th November 2016).
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 17.07.2017
Signed : E RILEY Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Application No. : 16/01173/B Applicant : Ramsey Golf Links Ltd Proposal : Creation of three new dwellings with associated golf club car park and access alterations/improvements. Site Address : Golf Links Brookfield Avenue Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2AH Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report
In noting the fine balance that needed to be struck with regards the proposed development and its impact on local parking availability, living conditions, and the character and appearance of the area, the Planning Committee felt it appropriate to add two further conditions to those initially suggested to them by the case officer. These were judged necessary, and are set out below:
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: No detail on the design or strength of this lighting has been provided and to ensure the impact on local amenity is acceptable further information is required.
Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
November 2016) shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged supervision detailed in Section 8 and Appendices 5 and 7 of that Report.
Reason: In the interest of ensuring a properly landscaped appearance to the site.
Reason: To ensure appropriate sewer facilities are provided to the dwellings hereby approved and also those existing in the area. Although this is not normally a material planning consideration and other legislation exists to ensure sewers are located in appropriate and safe positions, the potential proximity of the diverted sewers to the existing and nearby dwellings is such as to require further detailed consideration of this matter prior to any related works being undertaken.
Reason: In order to provide sufficient parking spaces for the Golf Club and to avoid the displacement of car parking to nearby highways.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1 Rev A, 2 Rev A, 4 and 5 (all date-stamped as having been received 14th October 2016), to Drawing 14TS022-01 Rev B (date-stamped as having been received 26th September 2016 and 14th October 2016), to Drawing 3 Rev A (datestamped as having been received 3rd April 2017), and also to the Tree Survey And Report (dated 24th November 2016).
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown