DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 18/01106/B Applicant: Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking Site Address: Land To The West Of 17 Royal Park Royal Park Ramsey Isle of Man Senior Planning Officer: Mr Thomas O'Connor Photo Taken: 30.01.2019 Site Visit: 30.01.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.02.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed bungalow, by reason of its size and height, and its proximity to the neighbouring property 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, would adversely affect the residential amenity of that 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 2016. - 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 contrary to criteria a and b of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as well as Ramsey Local Plan policy R/R/P3. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Gorselands, Eairy (co-owner of 17, Royal Park) 1, 15 and 17, Royal Park 12, Rheast Mooar Avenue

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the the property at 27 Rheast Moor Lane, Ramsey should not be given Interested Person Status as this address is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and; they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is a rectangular vacant plot of land of some 300sqm (10 x 30m) at Royal Park on the northern bend of this road within a predominantly residential area of Ramsey. The tree and hedge screened side boundary of the site abuts the garden of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue occupying a slightly elevated position to the west and has a patio window and kitchen window facing onto the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application seeks to erect a single 2 bedroom bungalow with a footprint of some 70 sq bm (10115 x 6965mm) with heights of 2.4m to the eaves and 4.5m to the ridge of the hipped pitch roof of concrete interlocking tiles.. External finishes would be a smooth render painted finish on a rustic face brickwork base. Main windows would be orientated to the front and rear elevations and consist of white uPCV windows and doors. - 2.2 The dormer bungalow dwelling to the rear at No.1 Royal Park would be have its main elevation rear windows positioned some 22m distant from the rear elevation of the proposed single storey dwelling, presently demarcated by a 1.5m high timber fence on the boundary with a proposed intervening landscape boundary screen planted as part of any planning permission that may be granted. - 2.3 The two storey dwelling at No.17 adjacent would be some 4m distant from the boundary and have no living room windows facing directly onto the site. A 1.5m high boundary fence would demarcate the rear side garden boundaries between the application site and this dwelling.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

• 3.1. 04/02310/B - Permitted- Phase One, Fields 131161, 131047 & 134070, Ormly Fields with access vie Vollan Crescent - Proposed detailed House types for phase 1 of residential development comprising of 46 plots;
• 3.2. 04/02311/B - Permitted - Fields 131161, 131047, 134070,131049and 131085 Ormly Fields with access vie Vollan Crescent - Proposed residential estate layout comprising of plots, road, and sewers for 111 mixed density dwellings with associated open space and landscaping.
• 3.3. 08/02191/B - Refused March 2009 - for the erection of a single two storey dwelling on the current proposed site.
• 4.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY

4.1 Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998

4.2 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'proposed residential', under the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 4.3 Policy R/R/P3 Infill/Backland Sites - 4.4 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) - 4.5 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

4.6 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 4.7 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 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.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners- Object to the proposal on 23.11.18 for the following reasons:

• o It is considered that the proposed dwelling does not respect the site and surroundings in terms of siting, layout, scale, form design, and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them as set down in General Policy 2 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. In addition, it would adversely affect the amenity of local residents and character of the locality.

• o Whilst the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Takes precedence over the Ramsey Local Plan 1998, the Local Plan is still valid and therefore Policy R/R/P3 (Infill/Backland Sites still applies. This states that 'Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential use there will be a

general presumption against the development of this sites which provide attractive natural breathing spaces between established residential buildings. These sits will often include trees, mature landscaping or simple green space'.

5.2 Highway Services - The proposed dwelling would be on a vacant plot of land and have a new vehicular access at least 4.2m in width. It would require a new vehicular crossing with dropped kerbs for which a S109 highway Agreement would be required. Highway services

oppose the application on highway safety grounds as the application does not demonstrate that the proposed vehicular access would have adequate highway visibility. In order for highway support to be afforded to the development, the applicant must provide for a revised suitably scaled site plan to show adequate visibility splays.

The proposed site plan submitted does not show the highway visibility for the proposed new access. Highway visibility splays of 2.4 x 43m for the 30mph speed limit should be shown on a revised scale site plan to the nearest kerb line in both directions within the public highway and/or land owned by the applicant, to demonstrate that the access would have sufficient visibility and be safe. The dwelling would have a parking area of at least 7.4m width and 6.5m in length which could accommodate 2 parked cars to accord with the parking standards and the 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide (02.11.18).

5.3 Neighbours: 7 letters and emails have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal: from:

Gorselands, Foxdale Road, Eairy received 19/11/2018; 27 Rheast Mooar Lane, Ramsey recieved 18/11/2018 12 Royal Park, Ramsey email eceived 18/11/2018 12 Rheast Mooar, Ramsey received 18/11/2019 15 Royal Park Ramsey received 27/11/2018 1 Royal Park received 22/11/2018 17 Royal Park, Ramsey received 22/11/2018

In synopsis, the objections can be summarised as follows:

• o Would result in an unwelcome development of a green open space that separates Royal Park from Rheast Mooar Avenue that benefits the residential amenities of existing residents;
• o Disruption to neighbouring dwellings within this already established estate during the construction period;
• o Would result in an invasion of privacy currently enjoyed by local residents;
• o Loss of a valued green space and trees that enhance the character and amenity of the surrounding area.
• o Loss of privacy to local residents by reason of overlooking and impairment of outlook to local residents.
• o Overshadowing;
• o Loss of hedge;
• o Out of keeping with surrounding buildings
• o Detriment to highway safety;

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In respect of the principle of development, the site is zoned as proposed residential. As such, the principle of a dwelling within the site is acceptable.

6.2 However, there are concerns raised in respect of the development of 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 for the following reasons.

6.3 As an integral part of the Phase One development for Royal Park the loss of this allocated Green Space would be contrary to General Policy 2: of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, criterion (a ) in that this land is integral to and in in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan and therefore serves a necessary function as a Green Space within this development. Its loss would fail to respect the original design parameters of the wider Royal Park Development site to the detriment of its surroundings, siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. As such the development would be contrary to criterion (b) of General Policy 2: of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 6.4 As a consequence of this the proposal would also be contrary to the requirements of Environment Policy 42 which states that 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. In particular is stated that 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. This Policy requires that open or green spaces identified in Area Plans such as this are to be preserved. - 6.5 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 some 0.4 metres from the eastern boundary and approximately 7 metres from the west facing elevation of the side elevation of the proposed dwelling and; 1 Royal Park sited directly to the rear and 17 Royal park located adjacent on the adjoining plot to the east. - 6.6 After the refusal of the previous application on this site for a two storey dwelling (08/02191/B - Refused March 2009 ) this application now pertains to a single storey bungalow as detailed above. However, the 4.5m high roof ridge line of the proposal would still be sited 4.7 metres from the western boundary with 12 Rheast Mooar and some 4.7m metres from the side elevation of 17 Royal Park. - 6.7 The western boundary treatment of the site consists of a hedgerow which varies in height from 2.5 to 3 metre (approximate) and is shared with 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue. This boundary landscaping would probably reduce the appearance of the aspect of this single storey from the eaves line in part, but there would remain the concern that 4.5m ridge line would continue to have a significant impact upon the character and amenities of neighbouring dwellings given the confines of the site and the close proximity of the proposed dwelling on the residential amenities and adverse impacts upon their enjoyment of their properties in terms of massing , overshadowing and overlooking from the small rear garden area to be created. - 6.8 Notwithstanding the reduction in height to a single storey dwelling, a ridge height of 4.5m would be introduced. Within the side elevation of No. 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. Consequently, due to the distance the proposal from the side elevation of Nr 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, the side patio area and rear garden, it is considered the proposal would continue to have an overbearing impact for the occupiers of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue. - 6.9 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, that 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. - 6.10 There would be a main window to window separation distance of some 22m between the rear of the proposed bungalow and the rear elevation of dwelling at 1 Royal Park with

• adjoining boundary to the north. Though this would exceed the 20m generally regarded as an acceptable interface distance and the boundary is demarcated by a 1.5m high (approx.) close boarded timber fence, the potential for mutual overlooking between the private spaces between the gardens would remain high resulting in a potential for material loss of privacy to both sets of residents
• 6.11 Similarly there would also be a potential for overlooking between the private garden areas of the proposed dwelling and No.17 Royal Park given the close proximity of their patio areas particularly in respect of overlooking from the upper storey of No 17 onto the rear garden of the proposed dwelling over the 1.5m high boundary fence.
• 6.12 In respect of 17 Royal Park, though the single storey bungalow dwelling proposal would reduce the impact upon this property from the 2 storey dwelling previously proposed, some loss of light to this property would nonetheless occur especially to the rear garden area during the afternoon period, given the 4.5m high ridge 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 erection of a two storey dwelling on this site as previously proposed. The physical siting of this proposed single dwelling is also what you would expect within a housing development and is evident with the location of other single storey dwellings within Royal Park development. Overall, it is considered the amount of light lost on No. 17 Royal Park would not be sufficient to warrant refusal on this ground.
• 6.13 With regard to the siting of the dwelling and the potential impact upon the visual appearance of the street scene, the proposal would be set broadly within 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.
• 6.14 Notwithstanding the objection received from Highways it is clearly possible to provide the required visibility splays given the location of the site relative to the alignment of the highway.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the relevant planning policies of Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Ramsey Local Plan of 1998, for the reasons set out in this report, accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 22.02.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.