Loading document...
Application No.: 14/01198/B Applicant: Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal: Erection of a development of five detached dwellings with associated garages Site Address: Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 06.11.2014 Site Visit: 06.11.2014 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE, AS THE COMMITTEE HAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED A SIMILAR SCHEME AND AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMEND FOR AN APPROVAL CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF HIGHWAY SERVICES
INTRODUCTION This application was part of a previous Planning Committee agenda with a recommendation for refusal. However, prior to its consideration, the applicant requested a deferral to see if he could overcome the recommendation for refusal. The Committee agreed to this. An amended proposal has been received and has been subject to re-advertisement. This report now considers whether these amendments are appropriate.
1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application relates to land adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The site is located to the eastern edge of the village of Sulby. The site is currently only accessed from River Meadowland, a rural lane passing along the south side of the village. The entrance to the site is from the north side of the lane, not far from the junction with Ginger Hall Corner. - 1.2 The site is bounded on its north side by the rear of a row of detached bungalows on Carrick Park. On the east side, the site extends to the west side of the A3 main road and then tapers inwards where it adjoins the Ginger Hall Hotel and its car park. To the south is River Meadowland Lane. On the west side, the site adjoins the rear of two detached houses on a small residential cul-de-sac to the west. - 1.3 The site has an area of approximately 0.55 hectares (ha) and is broadly square shaped although it tapers inwards on its south east side. The site is undeveloped land and is mostly overgrown. There are a number of trees and bushes along the west boundary. The site falls in a north westerly direction towards the rear of the houses on Carrick Park. There is a low fence on the north side and the site is relatively open to the rear of the properties on Carrick Park. There is a drainage ditch on the inside of this north western perimeter of the site which then runs underneath the A3 main road to the east. On the east side, next to the Ginger Hall
Hotel, there is a high fence. On the south side, next to River Meadowland Lane, is a roadside lane with a field gate where the access to the development will be located.
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a development of five detached dwellings with associated garages.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The land is zoned under the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 as being 'Predominately Residential Use & Woodland'. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 3.2 Due to the site's location, land use designation and the type of development proposed, the following Planning Policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Sulby Local Plan are relevant when determining the application: - 3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.5 General Policy 2 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:
3.6 Housing Policy 1 states: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 6000 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2001 to 2016." - 3.7 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." - 3.8 Sulby Local Plan (NO.2) Order 1998 - Development Brief states: "3.15. It is recommended that the development of this area shall be undertaken in accordance with the following brief.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
13/91035/B - application for erection of five detached dwellings with associated garages. The application was refused at appeal for the following reasons:
12/01125/B - application for six dwellings refused in January 2013. The grounds for refusal were:
91/00838/A - approval in principle refused for five plots. 90/01993/A - approval in principle refused for plot layout. 89/00755/A - approval in principle granted for dwelling and annex. 88/01528/A - approval in principle refused for four dwellings.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected to the application (received on 13.11.2014, 12.01.15 & 11.08.2015) for the following reasons:
"My Commissioners feel that the proposed 5 dwellings would be an over development of the site, too dense.
They would like to make some further comments in relation to the plans submitted.
The plans submitted are the same plans but with alterations, to those used for the previous application (13/91035). Some of these are quite confusing as the previous information still remains.
Drawing 30 shows the site layout with the altered road. The road would now require the removal of an electricity pole, but no mention is made regarding this in the application.
Drawing 100 which shows surface water drainage still shows the road in the position shown on the previous application. Should the drawings not be consistent with each other?
Drawing 35 shows the new access with a traffic mirror, but the hatched splays are still shown from the previous application as drawing number 09/0513/4. This plan also showed that trees would need to be removed. No mention is made on the current application for the removal of trees.
Mr Sweeney has tried many times to seek permissions to erect dwellings on this site. He has previously used amended drawings with some of these applications. It would be clearer for those judging the application if all drawings gave accurate clear information.
12.01.15 - Same comments as before. 5 dwellings would be an overdevelopment of the site. The Commissioners note that PA 11/00155/B for 4 dwellings was approved on 1st April 2011 is still live."
11.08.2015 - "5 properties developed on this site is too dense. No access to TT course as previously stipulated. Access to this development area is from the Claddagh only."
5.2 Highways Services (received on 10.11.2014 and 16.01.15) object to the application for the following reasons:"This application has been submitted with a vehicular access designed to overcome the second reason for refusal off PA 13/01035/B that states:
"The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of the inadequacy of visibility to the south west would not be served by a safe and convenient access and thereby would be detrimental to the interests of highway safety."
The access has been relocated to the north east of the site and is therefore able to achieve visibility of some 25m to the south west. This is still below the required visibility splay of 36m. As a result of this the visibility to the north east has been reduced to some 10m over land
within the applicant's control; basically transferring the reduced visibility from the south west to the north east and achieving no improvement over the previous application.
The frontage of the site is approximately 28m, there is no footway and as such full visibility of 36m in each direction is not possible over land within the applicant's control.
This was recognised during previous applications and an increase in dwellings from 2 to 4 was accepted only on condition that the maximum visibility splays were provided along with a traffic mirror to assist visibility.
This application has provided, overall, less visibility than the previous application that was refused at appeal and therefore Highway Services recommend that the application is refused on the following grounds:
"The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of the inadequacy of visibility would not be served by a safe and convenient access and thereby would be detrimental to the interests of highway safety."
16.01.15 - "The proposed improvement to visibility is over land not within the applicant's control and there is no change to previous comments"
08.06.15 - "This site has a long history of applications with Mr Sweeney adding houses. I have attached my report for the last appeal when the application was also for 5 houses that clearly explains the reasons for my objection. If the applicant wishes to submit the new access layout for 4 dwellings then I will be happy to assess it, but as my report makes clear, the only reason we accepted an increase from 2 dwellings to 4 dwellings was because the original access was incredibly poor and work had started on site; therefore the additional dwellings were offset against an improved access for all. The change in improved visibility from left to right is not significant enough to justify adding more traffic to the access.
Access through plot no 5 would be strongly resisted as this would constitute a new access onto the TT course and is in direct contravention of the Department's Policy Relating to the Hierarchy of the Island's Road Network that has a presumption against new frontage access. If an access was to be permitted at this location then full PPG13 standards would be required; visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m if traffic is travelling at 30mph.
The applicant is fully aware of our stance on all these points as I have discussed each of them with him on several occasions."
5.3 The Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity (received on 10.11.2014) makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice. - 5.4 The owner/occupier of The Shop, Sulby Bridge, Sulby (received on 05.11.2014 &
5.5 The owners/occupiers of Esfahan, Ballamanagh Close, Sulby (received on 18.11.2014) have made the following comments which can be summarised as; a number of trees in site where plot 1 is proposed, a property there would require trees to be removed; selling property may also be difficult due to shade of trees; if scheme is approved as many trees on
6.1 The following material planning issues should be considered:
6.2 As indicated within the 'Planning Policy' section of this report, the site is designated for residential development; therefore it is considered that the principle of residential development is acceptable. Number of Dwellings within the Application Site - 6.3 The previous Planning Inspector when considering application 13/91035/B for five dwellings accepted that whilst the Sulby Local Plan limited the site to have only two dwellings, a previously approved application (11.00155/B) had allowed four dwellings on the site. The Inspector also considered that the site was in a sustainable location within a village, and the proposed development of five dwellings would make good use of under-used land, therefore according with Strategic Polices 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 4. It was concluded that in principle five dwellings on this site was acceptable. Accordingly, it is considered the principle of five dwellings on this site is acceptable. Character and appearance - 6.4 Whilst the principle of five dwelling is acceptable, consideration is still needed to whether five are achievable. Whether the site can accommodate a dwelling on each of the proposed five plots was an area of concern with the previous application. The Inspector for that application commented that: "I find the proposed layout to be contrived and cramped. For example, the bungalow on Plot - 5 would be tucked into a corner with outlook over the rear of the bungalows on Plots 1 and 2; and the outlook from the bungalow on Plot 3 would be towards the side of the bungalow on Plot 2."
6.5 This new proposal does involve the alteration of the plots so that all the front elevations face onto the main estate road. The layout is considered a vast improvement over the previous schemes each dwelling having front and rear gardens and each dwelling would have clear and pleasant outlook not overlooking each other as previously commented. Potential plots 1 and 2 would ideally be positioned further forward to provide each dwelling with a greater rear garden; however, this is not considered to be a significant issue to warrant a refusal. - 6.6 In terms of design, each of the proposed dwellings is identical in footprint, height, design and finish. Each dwelling would have a maximum width of 13.5 metres, a depth of 10.6 metres, and a ridge height of 6.7 metres. - 6.7 The proposed dwellings would be single storey bungalows with a modern fenestration. There would be projecting bay windows to the front elevations. The frontage of the bungalows would be finished with a Rustic facing brick or stone, whilst the three remaining elevations of each dwelling would have painted render. The roof would be finished with natural slate. Each dwelling would also have a chimney stack, again finished with Rustic facing brick or stone. - 6.8 The dwellings in terms of design, proportion, form and finish would follow similar lines to modern properties within Carrick Park and Ballamanagh Close. - 6.9 In terms of the design and size of the properties in relation to the street scene, the dwelling sited on Plot 5 would be the most apparent from public view. The dwelling would be angled in relation to the adjacent highway and therefore the front and gable elevation would be apparent form public views. The dwelling would be located approximately 9.8 metres from the public footpath which runs along the north-eastern boundary of the site. In terms of built development along the Sulby Bridge (i.e. along the pubic highway) there are a number of properties which are similar in distance to the proposed dwelling, as well as a number of properties which directly adjoin the highway. - 6.10 The proposed siting of the dwellings also takes into account the existing foul sewerage pipe which runs through the site, which requires a 6 metre service corridor set centrally (3 metres either side) where no built development is permitted. A surface water retention device is also included within the site. - 6.11 In terms of design, concerns were raised by the previous Inspector (13/91035/B) that the five bungalows appeared "monotonous, with scant regard to local distinctiveness". Whilst the new proposals are of the same design, scale and form the finish of the dwellings has been altered with plots 1, 2 and 3 being finished in rustic brick and painted render, which plot 3 and 5 being finished with a mixture of stone and painted render. Whilst comments made by the Inspector are relevant, it is considered given these slight alterations to the finishes and as permission for similar scale, form and finishes was accepted under application 11/00155/B; it is considered the design of the dwellings are acceptable. Consequently, it is considered that the proposals would be appropriate and would not have an adverse visual impact upon the visual amenities of the area. Highway Issues - 6.12 As part of the submission, alterations are required to be undertaken to the existing entrance. As indicated previously the entrance accesses onto the stretch of the Ballamanagh Road, which is within a 20mph zone and is also just before the junction to Lezayre Road (A3). - 6.13 The applicant's plan shows that 2.4m x 19.5m visibility splays can be achieved in a south-westerly direction (i.e. when leaving the site looking towards the Claddagh Campsite),
"2. Any future development proposals shall ensure the retention of existing trees along the boundary with the Claddagh Road."
6.15 However, from previous discussions with the Forestry Division on site, it was determined that one of the trees was approximately 90% dead, whilst the other tree had little quality and they would have no objection to the removal of the trees. All remaining trees along the boundary are to be retained. - 6.16 A point which the Forestry Division raised and the applicant has indicated on the submitted plan is additional tree planting in the vicinity of the existing trees so to mitigate the loss of the two trees. The applicant has indicated an area adjacent to the existing, were more trees could be planted without affecting the visibility splays or the development. - 6.17 It should be noted that the current entrance to the site was undertaken as approved in application 99/02118/B, which was for two dwellings. That application, which as been formally commenced by the construction of this access, considered the matter at length and was approved with required visibility splays of 2.4m x 2.4 m. This access has been started, although the tarmac has not been laid. This provides very little visibility, albeit it was for two dwellings and therefore it could be argued these would generate less traffic than the now proposed four dwellings.
6.19 However, it is considered that the proposed improvement to the visibility splays would improve highway safety, even though more vehicles would use the access. This issue was previously addressed by the Planning Committee in detail and was not a reason for refusal of the previous application (09/00504/B) and was considered acceptable when application 11/00155/B for four dwelling was recently approved, again by the Planning Committee. Highway Services also have no objection to this aspect of the proposal. - 6.20 Arguably, one of the main issues with this current proposal is the inclusion of a new vehicular access onto the Main Road (TT course) which would serve the dwelling within plot 5 only. This new access would be located adjacent to the Ginger Hall Pub car park. The access would provide the required visibility splays of 2.4m by 90 metres in both directions. It is noted that the visibility from this access is greater than the required 90 metres in both directions. Accordingly, in terms of visibility the access would be acceptable. - 6.21 The issue which raises significant concern form Highway Services is the creation of an additional access onto a 'primary distributor routes'. Highway Services have indicated that the policy is against new frontage access onto primary distributor routes in towns and presumption against new on strategic routes in rural areas or district distributors in towns. The reason is that these routes are primarily for through traffic and each access point provides a possible conflict point due to turning vehicles. Each conflict point increases the risk of collisions or delay along these routes. Furthermore, they indicate that they try to locate access points onto local residential roads or collate them together so that a single access serves several properties. Accesses onto these higher level routes also require longer visibility splays as drivers have a longer reaction time when travelling on commuter type routes rather than residential roads.
6.22 Whilst the Planning Directorate acknowledges the reasoning for not wishing new access on 'primary distributor routes', in this case there are considered arguments for allowing the proposed access. Firstly, the access is within Sulby Village where a number of existing road junctions and residential access in the immediate locality to the site. Accordingly, the character of the area is one where a number of accesses are and persons travelling along this stretch of road would be aware of persons potentially wishing to turn in or out of their access/junction. Second, the site is immediately adjacent to the Ginger Hall Pub car park which has two points of access onto the same Main Road and again persons would be awre of potential from traffic to turn or exit from. Thirdly, the site is within a 30mph zone, between two bends and therefore traffic speeds are relatively low. Fourthly, the access meets the requirement for visibility when exiting the site; but it is also important to note that persons travelling along the Main Road from either direction of the access, would have good visibility of the access and any vehicle exiting/turning in or from the access. Accordingly, whilst the proposal would result in a new access onto a 'primary distributor routes', for the reasons given, it does not considered the access would have a significantly adverse impact upon highway safety to all road users to warrant a refusal. - 6.23 Overall, it is considered both access would be acceptable and therefore considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Drainage Issues
6.21 One main concern from a number of nearby residents relates to concern of the soakaways/surface water drainage which could lead to future flooding of the surrounding area. - 6.22 The MUA have previously had detailed discussions with the applicant during the consideration of earlier applications. These applications were not refused on drainage issues. - 6.23 The applicant has employed Structural Engineering Services Ltd to carry out drainage calculations for the proposal. The surface water is indicated as being collected in a piped system and then discharged into the existing drainage ditch located along the North West site boundary. The report also indicates that the existing drainage ditch to the north is to be cleaned out and its profile regularised. The discharge will be via a vortex device and retention pipes. Vortex flow control devices use an air-filled core to limit the volume of water flow to a designed constant rate while the head builds up. They are constructed with stainless steel with no moving parts and operate by directing the flow to rotate inside a cylindrical vessel towards a central outlet. This generates a vortex with an air filled core which allows the openings to be larger than the equivalent conventional orifice, reducing the likelihood of blockages. As the cross-sectional area of the outlet of the Hydro-Brake Flow Control can be up to six times that of the equivalent orifice plate, maintenance is far easier and there is much less risk of blockage. - 6.24 A surface water retention device (oversized pipes or culvert sections) is also proposed in conjunction with the Vortex discharge device to restrict outfall to 3.8L/s, in compliance with Manx Sewers. - 6.25 The report has also indicated that during the detailed design stage (Building Regulations Application) exploratory methods of reducing the volume of attenuation by utilising soakaways, swales, permeable paving (gravel is proposed for driveways) and the collection and recycling of roof drainage (rain water harvesting),will be examined. - 6.26 This method of drainage has previously been approved under application 11/00155/B, albeit for four dwellings not five. However; this scheme was again submitted as part of the last application for five dwellings where the Inspector stated: "In reaching that view I have taken into account all other matters raised, including neighbour's comments about drainage. However, in my view, this is something that could be resolved by a planning condition"
6.27 The Inspector recommended the following condition:
"No development shall commence of the ditch until details of surface water drainage, including arrangements for the drainage of the ditch on the north west boundary of the site and a programme for implementation, have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall not be carried out unless in full accordance with the approved details."
Potential Impacts upon Neighbouring Residential Amenities
6.28 The main issues to consider regarding the impacts upon neighbouring amenities are loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. - 6.29 Visiting the site and considering the plans it is considered given the design, size, height and distance to proposed dwellings would be from neighbouring properties, the proposal would not result in significant impacts to warrant a refusal. The existing boundary treatments and the proposed would further ensure the protection of existing neighbouring amenities by the development.
7.1 Based on the information provided as part of this application, it is judged that the proposal would comply with the majority of the relevant planning policies indicated within the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 and all the relevant policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, with the exception of paragraph 1 of the Development Brief which states; "The residential development of this area shall be limited to a maximum of two detached dwellings".
7.2 However, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the remaining planning policies, particularly, Strategic Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which due to the inconsistency between the provisions of the Strategic Plan and the provisions of the Sulby Local Plan are the prevailing policies to consider. It is therefore considered that whilst the proposal is contrary to part of the relevant Development Brief, the development would optimise the use of the land, comply with the aforementioned policies and comply with the majority of the Development Brief.
7.3 Furthermore, the proposals would provide a suitable layout for the estate, have no significant impacts upon neighbouring amenities; provide dwellings of an acceptable design in this area, and provided access which would not adversely impact upon highway safety Accordingly, the application is recommended for an approval. - 8.0 PARTY STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order
8.2 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered
to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: The owner/occupier of The Shop, Sulby Bridge, Sulby The owners/occupiers of Esfahan, Ballamanagh Close, Sulby The owner/occupier of 41 Carrick Park, Sulby
8.3 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: The Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity
"With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order".
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.08.2015 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.
in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.
This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 14, 16, 09 0513/3, 15 A, Preliminary Drainage Calculation all received on 17th October 2014; drawings reference number 11 received on 24th November 2014; drawings reference number 100 C received on 1st December
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 : ……PER……… Committee Meeting Date:…07.09.2015 Signed :………C BALMER……….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
The Committee endorsed the recommendation subject to adding an additional condition of approval (numbered 8) relating to the access to the site at plot 5. Visibility splays as demonstrated must be maintained and kept thereafter.
Wording of the condition was circulated and endorsed via the committee minutes EJC 9/9/15
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown