Loading document...
Planning statement on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control Division in respect of planning for the Erection of a detached dwelling Land Adjacent To Longmead Ballakillowey Road
Colby
Isle Of Man
Statement prepared on behalf of the Planning and Building Control Division by Miss Laura Davy
12 August 2013 13/00409/B Page 1 of 8
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION DUE TO THE LEVEL OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BY INTERESTED PARTIES.
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Land adjacent to Longmead, Ballakillowey Road, Colby. The site is part of the rear garden of Longmead, there is an existing vehicular access off the Ballakillowey Road. To the north of the site is "Strathcona" which is a two storey traditional detached property. On the opposite side of the highway to the west there are three traditional cottages "Ivy Cottage", "Fuchsia Cottage" and "Crofton Cottage". 1.2 The rear boundary of the garden of Longmead is in line with a number of the properties along Hill Park which is part of the Ballakillowey Estate. To the south of the application site is "Longmead" and to the side is "Lynwood Dene", both of these properties share the same vehicular access off the Ballakillowey Estate. The property on Hill Park which is adjacent to the application site is Horizons (3 Hill Park). 1.3 The Ballakillowey Estate is made up of mainly single storey bungalows, dormer bungalows and some two storey properties. They are all fairly large with reasonable sized gardens. 1.4 The site slopes downwards from north to south, resulting in Longmead being at a lower level than "Strathcona" which is to the rear. The garden to the rear of Longmead gently slopes to the south.
2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a detached dormer bungalow to the rear of Longmead. The bungalow would be sited at a right angle to the road, with the gable end of the garage facing to highway. The bungalow would have accommodation within the roof space, light and space provided by two pitched roof dormers in the front roof slope with a central projecting glazed gable. There would be three pitched roof dormers in the rear elevation. There would be an adjoining garage to the side of the bungalow closest to the road, this would be slightly lower than the main bungalow, there would be storage within the roof space, and this would also be serviced by two roof lights. 2.2 The bungalow would be finished with smooth painted render and natural slate roof with u PVC or aluminium windows. Also proposed is the removal of a tree to the eastern side of the site adjacent to the boundary shared with Horizons.
3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application: 3.2 PA 02/00862/A Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - Refused on review The application was refused for the following reasons: R1. The Planning Committee is not persuaded that the site can provide an appropriate or safe access which would afford adequate visibility to the drivers of vehicles emerging from the site. R2. Notwithstanding the above, the creation of an access which would attempt to provide appropriate visibility would necessitate significant changes to the roadside hedging which would have an adverse impact on the landscape at this point where the built-up estate meets the countryside.
C1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C2. This permission relates to the creation of a vehicular access as shown in drawings 02 P1 received 1st May 2012 and 01 P3 and 03 P2 received 29th May 2012. C3. Within two months of the completion or first use of the approved access, whichever is the sooner, the existing access must be closed off using hedging to match the existing boundary treatment, as per drawing no. 03 P2 date stamped the 29th May 2012.
4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the Area Plan for the South 2013. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007). Also relevant is Paragraph 3.15.1 and 4.51.1 of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
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; I) 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.
New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of 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 indentified in Area Plans.
Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the crieteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive.
"...Whilst largely rural, the Parish includes the built areas of Ballafesson, Surby and Ballakillowey, and the small residential clusters of Ballakilpheric/Cronk e Dhooney, The Howe/Glen Chass, and Cregneash..."
"The site lies within an existing built up estate between the A36 Sloc Road and the A7 Ballagawne Road, and sited to the north east of the junction of these two public highways. There are detached dwellings on all sides of the site and to the south is Greenacres, a large dwelling in its own grounds set in amongst substantial woodland. The site is not part of a settlement identified in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, but some development would represent a 'rounding off' of an existing development."
5.1 Highways Division do not oppose subject to them contacting the Highways Division prior to carrying out any works. They also note that the existing access should be closed up. The Highways Division have responded to the objections received by the neighbours', in summary their response is as follows: The access approved under PA 12/00663/B is suitable to serve a single dwelling. Although the application was for a garden access the visibility requirements are the same. Again we would want to see the garden access closed before the new access is used. Traffic speeds have been measured at around 30 mph on this road and there are about 150 two way vehicle movements in the peak hour. These figures do not indicate either a speed problem or a particularly heavy trafficked road. There are some accesses along this road and the location of the access close to other accesses and road junctions does not make it unreasonable for a driver to expect vehicles turning. Although the visibility splays are currently within the same ownership as the access a condition should be imposed to ensure that the visibility splays remain in perpetuity.
5.3 Rushen Commissioners have noted that the condition to close up the existing access has not been carried out. In summary they have made the following comments: this stretch of the road is becoming a concern to Rushen Commissioners and the people living in the area. They see both speed and parked vehicles being of concern. They recommend that the Highways Division re-visit the site to re-assess it for suitability for a further dwelling. They note that there could be in excess of three vehicles using the site and coming out onto the main road. They feel that the dormer bungalow is too large and the design not in keeping with the other properties on the road, this was one of the considerations when dealing with Graystones. Southern Area Plan regard this as unsustainable as it is too far from local amenities. It is presumed that this is taken into consideration when dealing with applications outside the boundaries of villages and towns. The Commissioners would be interested to know if this is regarded as a material consideration. They have requested that the neighbour's concerns be taken into account as they have knowledge of the area. 5.4 The owner/occupier of Horizons, 3 Hill Park, Ballakillowey object to the application. They are aware that there has been permission for a new access but they believe that this would have been done for occasional access. The top entrance to the plot has not been filled in and the new entrance is close to a bend which makes it dangerous. Permission was refused previously when an application was made to build on this plot and they note that nothing has changed. They also have concerns regarding water runoff and have had to spend money to re-tank the walls. Their other issue is that the bungalow would take up the entire width of the plot which would invade the privacy of their property. 5.5 The owner/occupier of Strathcona, Ballakillowey objects to the proposal. They note that the approved access was conditioned and this has not been complied with. They understand that the land is zoned, however they compare the traffic now to 30+ years ago. They feel
that the speed and quantity of vehicles is an accident waiting to happen. The proposal would have three dormer windows looking directly towards their property which they feel would be intrusive. They also note that there are issues with drainage and an additional dwelling will compound the flooding problems. They feel that the development is for financial gain but would be detrimental to the area and its residents. 5.6 The owner/occupier of Fuchsia Cottage, Ballakillowey, Colby objects to the proposal. They have concerns regarding highways safety and the additional traffic generated by the proposal. They feel that the new access is dangerous as it is opposite where vehicles are parked for the cottages. At present there are two accesses as the original one has not been filled in. The dwelling is too large for the site and would look out of place as the dwellings on this side of the road are cottages. 5.7 The owner/occupier of Uplands, Ballakillowey, Colby objects to the application on highways safety grounds. They feel that someone pulling out of the access may have an impact upon someone coming down the Sloc road. 5.8 Hon. MrJuan Watterson MHK Minister for Department of Home Affairs has noted that there are several highways points for consideration and that there is also a breach in terms of the condition which was attached to the previous application. Mr Watterson has asked that the breach be looked in to.
6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a dormer bungalow. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are:
6.2 The application site was part of the residential curtilage of Longmead and formed part of the rear garden. The area of land is within the predominantly residential zoning on the Area Plan for the South, the proposed use of the site therefore complies in principle with the land use zoning. 6.3 Paragraph 4.51 .1 relates to Site 17 so whilst it does not relate specifically to the application site it mentions that some development would represent a 'rounding off' of an existing development. This could be considered to be the case in this instance also. 6.4 The properties which are most likely to be affected by the proposal are Strathcona, Longmead and Horizons. The proposed dormer bungalow would be sited so that the bungalow would be facing the rear of Longmead and the rear of the proposed bungalow would face Strathcona. The bungalow has been sited so that there is over 20 m between windows which look towards both Longmead and Strathcona. There is general guidance that advises that there should be approximately 20 m between windows which look towards each other. Given the distance between these properties it is considered that there is a sufficient distance and that the proposal would not result in undue overlooking or loss of privacy. 6.5 The dormer bungalow would have an adjoining garage to the side which would be closest to the highway. This would result in the lowest part of the dwelling being in front of Strathcona. Whilst the proposed dwelling may alter the view from Strathcona there is no right to a private view. It is considered to be of a sufficient distance from Strathcona so that it would not appear unduly overbearing or result in the undue loss of light. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the owner/occupier of Strathcona.
6.6 The proposed bungalow would be sited approximately 3.3 m from the side boundary which is shared with Horizons, 3 Hill Park. The side elevation of Horizons faces in a south westerly direction and would not be in line with the proposed bungalow. There are two windows in the side elevation which faces towards the application site. Having looked at a previous application for Horizons this serves a sunroom; there is a further window in the front elevation which also serves this room. The other window serves a dining room, this is stepped back, and this is 4 m further from boundary than the side elevation of the sun room. Given the orientation of the property in relation to the proposed bungalow it is considered that the proposal would not result in the undue loss of light or appear unduly overbearing. The side elevation of the proposed bungalow would not have any windows and given the orientation of the bungalow the dormers would not directly face towards any of the neighbouring properties. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the amenities of the owner/occupier of Horizons. 6.7 Uplands and Fuschia Cottage have also objected but their concerns are mainly regarding highways safety. It is judged that these two properties are of a sufficient distance so that the proposed bungalow would not have an adverse impact upon the private amenity of those two properties. 6.8 The dormer bungalow has been designed to take account of the properties in the surrounding area. The properties in the Ballakillowey Estate are predominantly bungalows, split level houses and dormer bungalows, the majority of which were built in the 70's/80's. On the opposite side of the Ballakillowey Road is Fuschia Cottage and Ivy Cottage, and to the north of the application site is Strathcona. These properties are two storey in height and are fairly traditional. Further north on the Ballakillowey Road the properties are traditional. 6.9 It is considered that the dormer bungalow would sit comfortably within the Ballakillowey Estate in terms of the design. Whilst the dormer bungalow would not be traditional, the Ballakillowey Estate is not traditional and therefore the design is considered to be appropriate. Whilst Strathcona is a traditionally styled property and is adjacent to the application site it is considered that a two storey traditional cottage would appear at odds adjacent to Longmead and the backdrop of the Ballakillowey Estate. A full two storey property would also have increased the visual impact of the property when viewed from the highway and would have had more of an impact upon the outlook from Strathcona. So whilst the property would not be traditional it would be read against the Ballakillowey Estate and when viewed from the highway would appear as part of the estate. 6.10 Given that the property is sited within the visual boundaries of the Ballakillowey Estate it is considered that it would not result in an intrusion into the open countryside. The proposed bungalow would be in keeping with the adjacent properties and would be kept at a reasonable height which would minimise the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties and the visual impact when viewed from the public thoroughfare. It is considered that the proposed development would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside. 6.11 Also proposed is the removal of a tree from the site, given the position of the tree it does not overly contribute to the character and appearance of the street scene. 6.12 A number of the objections relate to highways safety. The access to the rear of Longmead was approved under PA 12/00663/B, it was a replacement access as the existing one provided limited visibility. The access to the rear of Longmead was not the main or only access; however, it did improve highways safety and was therefore considered to be acceptable.
6.13 The neighbours are concerned that an additional dwelling will increase traffic and they would be existing the site opposite Fuschia Cottage where there are vehicles parked on the highway. They have also commented that cars could be overtaking the parked vehicles which again would be opposite the access. 6.14 The Highways Division are satisfied that the access could accommodate one dwelling. They are satisfied that the measurements do not indicate a speed problem or a particularly heavy trafficked road. They would however condition that the visibility splays be retained in perpetuity. 6.15 Whilst the Planning Authority can appreciate the neighbours' concerns the Highways Division are satisfied that the access can serve one dwelling on the application site. 6.16 The owner/occupier of Horizons has concerns regarding water run off from the application site, this is a civil matter. The site is not within a flood risk area on the Area Plan for the South and the Water and Sewerage Authority have not expressed an interest in the application. 6.17 On balance it is considered that the application is acceptable and is recommended for approval.
7.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 7.3 The owner/occupier of Horizons, 3 Hill Park, Ballakillowey, Colby is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (6) (a), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.4 The owner/occupier of Strathcona, Ballakillowey, Colby is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (6) (a), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.5 The owner/occupier of Fuchsia Cottage, Ballakillowey, Colby is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (6) (a), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.6 The owner/occupier of Uplands, Hill Park, Ballakillowey, Colby is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (6) (a), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.7 Hon. Juan Watterson MHK Minister for Department of Home Affairs is not considered an "interested person" under the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, and as such is not afforded party status. 7.8 The Manx Electricity Authority is not considered an "interested person" under the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, and as such is not afforded party status.
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans 01 P1, 02 P1, 03 P1 and 04 P1 received on 3rd April 2013 and Sections received 25th April 2013.
C 3. Notwithstanding the plans submitted, the access shown orange on drawing 01 P1 date stamped 3rd April 2013 MUST be closed off by the formation of a sod bank to the height and design of the bank adjacent PRIOR to the commencement of any works.
C 4. The relocated access shown on drawing 01 P1 date stamped 3rd April 2013 shall be provided prior to the commencement of works, and visibility splays shall be retained thereafter.
Minutes from the Planning Committee Meeting held on the 1st July 2013
The Chairman declared an interest in the following application and left the meeting during its consideration. The Members elected Mr Evans to Chair.
In the absence of the Case Officer, Mr Riley summarised the key issues as set out in the report, and reported with regard to further views received from the resident of Strathcona since the officer's report had been drawn up.
Mrs Fletcher reported to the Members with regard to Highways issues and the existing access. The Members enquired if the existing access was to be retained. Miss Chance and Mrs Fletcher reported and Mr Riley confirmed that the existing access had been reported as being in use. The Members noted that conditions 3 and 4 dealt with the existing and proposed accesses.
Mr Cottier noted that there were some discrepancies between the report and the plan. He further enquired regarding the proposed removal of a tree. Mr Riley confirmed that it was not a registered tree.
Mr Young made comment regarding the design of the proposal. Miss Chance reported.
The Committee accepted the recommendation of the case officer and the application was approved subject to the following conditions.
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans 01 P1, 02 P1, 03 P1 and 04 P1 received on 3rd April 2013 and Sections received 25th April 2013.
C 3. Notwithstanding the plans submitted, the access shown orange on drawing 01 P1 date stamped 3rd April 2013 MUST be closed off by the formation of a sod bank to the height and design of the bank adjacent PRIOR to the commencement of any works.
C 4. The relocated access shown on drawing 01 P1 date stamped 3rd April 2013 shall be provided prior to the commencement of works, and visibility splays shall be retained thereafter.
Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as recommended.
Noted
| Item 6.9 Land Adjacent To Longmead Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man PA13/00409/B | Erection of a detached dwelling Applicant : Mr Vincent Garvey Case Officer : Miss Laura Davy Recommendation : Permitted |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown