Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00354/B Applicant: Gary Walker Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of four dwellings with garaging Site Address: Balladoole 46 Bowring Road Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 3EJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Site Visit: 29.04.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an almost rectangular parcel of land at the corner of Coburg and Bowring Roads in Ramsey. The site corresponds to the residential curtilage of the dwelling known as "Balladoole". Balladoole is an historic and architecturally attractive dwelling of robust form and stands prominently on the corner of these two highways. It has several significant chimneys, highly decorative eaves and apparently original rainwater goods, with one key feature being a ground floor bay detail that also includes the front porch. Balladoole offers many hints towards the traditional Georgian country house: hipped roofs, several tall and prominent chimneys, six-over-six panelled sash windows, and a compact, almost-square form. Also within the site is a garage to the rear and a number of mature trees, both to the front and rear. - 1.2 Some research with respect to potential Registration of the building was conducted during the Spring of 2014, but it was concluded that the dwelling was not worthy of Registration. - 1.3 Balladoole is in a neglected state of repair. It is finished in render that is cracked and wearing in places, while there seems to be a number of fundamental structural issues, which is evident in the failing masonry on the building. The Building Control Manager conducted a survey of the site during the Spring 2014 research, and advised as follows:
"Much of the building interior must be removed and these include all timber walls, ceilings and lintels etc as well as some masonry walls and the roof to make the building reasonably safe to carry out a full structural survey for purpose of any application submitted for Building Regulations which may require parts to be taken down or replaced."
1.4 Surrounding the site are other residential dwellings of not quite such grandeur as Balladoole itself, but are certainly attractive and contribute very positively to the streetscene albeit that they are perhaps less prominent than Balladoole itself. The most handsome dwellings in the immediate vicinity are to the southwest of the site on Bowring Road and to the northwest on Coburg Road, and the application site is seen most readily in the context of these dwellings from Bowring Road, with the dwellings behind the site, on Coburg Road, less
visible from this key route through the town. Those dwellings on Coburg Road are of a higher density and are either semi-detached or terraced in form and generally of more traditional Victorian designs. It is therefore considered that the key views of, and the context for, the site is given by Bowring Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the demolition of Balladoole and its replacement with two pairs of almost identical semi-detached houses. The dwellings are identical in form but one would have a gable feature above an upstairs window with a downward-sloping porch roof, while the other would have no such gable feature but instead would have a gable-ended porch roof. Otherwise, the dwellings would be identical in offering three bedrooms at first floor and a lounge and kitchen/diner at ground floor. Each would also have a garage with utility room, which would provide the 'attached' element of the dwellings. The dwellings would be arranged with their accesses onto Coburg Road. A parking space in front of each garage is shown. - 2.2 In terms of details, the dwellings are fairly simple but offer coping stones, windowsurrounding render bands to be painted dark grey. Also dark grey would be the window and door frames, uPVC goods and concrete roof tiles. The dwellings would be finished in a smooth render and painted white, with no colour given for the garage doors. The material and colour of the porch roofs is not defined, while the porch roof gables of the two dwellings with this feature would be formed of cedar boarding.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Approval in Principle was granted for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of the site under PA 97/01981/A. No Reserved Matters application was submitted and so this approval has long-since expired. That application was subject to significant local opposition, although the only appeal request made to the decision was by a person whose correspondence had been received after the end of the consultation period and, as such, was invalid. The case officer commented that the site appeared to be large enough to accommodate a two-storey dwelling albeit that the loss of garden space was regrettable: their recommendation to approve was accepted by Planning Committee. It is interesting to note that the dwelling appears, given the comments made in respect of that application, to have been in disrepair in 1997.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site is within an area zoned as "predominantly residential" in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998 and therefore the principle of the site's use for residential dwellings is acceptable. - 4.2 The Strategic Plan sets out the policies against which the detail of the application will be assessed. Several policies are relevant, and these are set out below. - 4.3 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
4.4 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and
4.6 The relevant extract from Strategic Policy 4 reads: "Proposals for development must:
4.7 The relevant extract from Strategic Policy 5 reads: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island." - 4.8 The relevant extract from General Policy 2 reads: "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:
4.9 Paragraphs 7.25.2 and 7.25.3 are relevant. Those paragraphs state: "In addition, there are many as yet unscheduled and unidentified buildings and areas, which are either locally important or potentially worthy of designation. These also ought to be preserved and enhanced wherever possible through planning policy.
"Positive attitudes are therefore required through the Strategic Plan towards the protection of the built environment for maintaining the architectural and historic continuity and distinctive character of each town and village. A fine balance therefore needs to be struck between conservation and enhancement on the one hand, and promoting development and growth on the other. However, conservation of the built environment and archaeological features should be viewed as an asset to be promoted and not as a constraint to be overcome. The historic environment in practice cannot remain unchanged, and the role of planning is to reconcile the needs for development against the need to conserve and protect the historic environment."
4.10 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
Paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan contains General Policy 2, the relevant extract of which has been provided above.
4.12 Transport Policy 7 is also relevant: "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 initially deferred comment on the application on 15.04.2015, stating: "I have asked the agent to provide further information/new drawings be provided to show:
"I respectfully point out in order to try & achieve the departments standards the site entrance would have to be located roughly midway along the site frontage, which will unfortunately sterilise a large useful area of the plot for such development. I really wonder if an amended plan would assist our case our access to plot 1 being approx 9 metres from the junction.
"Quite clearly we cannot provide this requirement, to mitigate I must mention the following points - the existing vehicular access serving the present dwelling affords little or no lines of sight, being masked by the dwelling itself & present boundary treatment. The highways division has seen fit to provide a reserved parking space closer to the junction than their own requirements would allow & indeed this proposal ?, users of this space also needing to manoeuvre out into traffic flow, with arguably considerably less visibility (being reliant on a vehicles mirrors) than our current proposal affords - due to other vehicles being parked along the road side. Whilst I concede that standards are set & should be seen to be applied, I must stress that in many situations within the Islands road network the standards are simply unrealistic - vehicles travelling down Coburg Road & approaching the junction with Bowring Road would naturally be slowing down to stop for the junction as would vehicles exiting Bowring Road to travel along Coburg Road & wonder in this case if this fact could be used to mitigate the standards & department's objection ?
"We have been mindful to accord with the departments standards for off street parking & 2 spaces of an acceptable size are provided with excellent visibility to the right when exiting the land, infact should the application be approved, could be considered to improve visibility toward Bowring Road for the occupants of the neighbouring semi detached dwellings - 'Kiart & Park Hill' ?
Highway Services then amended their position to one of formal objection on 2nd June 2015:
"The access for Plot 1 & Plot 2 are too close to the junction with Bowring Road which does not provide sufficient visibility for cars entering Coburg Road to observe vehicles entering/exiting Plot 1/2."
They further commented: "I note [the agent's] comments regarding the reserved parking space being positioned closer to the junction, this is not a highways issue, as cars are legally allowed to park within 7 metres of a junction, unless marked out differently. A proposed access has to meet the criteria."
5.2 The Forestry Division within the Department of the Environment, Food & Agriculture have commented at length on the proposal. On 7th April 2015, they objected on three separate grounds:
"3. The arboricultural statement recommends 'replanting of favourable trees species and shrubs' but in my opinion there will not be enough space around the properties for this to be practical or sensible. It doesn't recommend species or planting locations."
They go on to make a number of recommendations:
5.3 Ramsey Town Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal in correspondence received 26th May 2015. - 5.4 The owner / occupier of 42 Bowring Road objected to the application on 27th April
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 As noted above, the principle of residential use of the site is acceptable given its Local Plan zoning and its location in an otherwise residential area. The key issue raised by the proposal are whether or not the redevelopment of the site as proposed is acceptable. In coming to a view on this, it must first be considered whether or not the loss of the existing building is acceptable. Secondly, the acceptability of the dwellings proposed in respect of their likely impact on public and private residential amenity is necessary. The key issues are therefore:
6.2 It is evident that the building is in a poor state of repair. The submitted plans indicate that the demolition order has been approved, but this was only confirmed following the application's submission. Given the architectural quality of Balladoole as outlined at the outset of this report, this is deeply regrettable. Although this does mean that an objection in respect of the provisions of Strategic Policy 4 would probably be difficult to sustain, the building's proposed loss must be balanced against what is proposed in its place. If the new dwellings are considered to be of better or equal architectural quality, then it would seem appropriate to view the application favourably in respect of the first two issues for assessment. The design of the replacement dwellings / adequacy of living conditions proposed - 6.3 The proposed dwellings are simple in form and not especially objectionable in themselves from a design point of view. They are essentially four identical units with smallscale differences, but offer little in the way of a high quality architectural treatment. They could certainly not be viewed positively when balanced against the building that is proposed to be lost.
6.4 The dwellings proposed offer very limited detailing: no chimneys, no decorative eaves, no robust window sills or lintels are proposed. uPVC-framed windows and doors and uPVC rainwater goods are also proposed. There are some hood mouldings above the elevation facing onto Bowring Road, and these are welcome but cannot be considered to outweigh the lack of other decorative features. They are dwellings that would probably sit happily amongst the vernacular of the southern area of Thornhill, and this is perhaps where the inspiration for the design has come from. However, the dwellings in the area around the application site, and which form the context of the site, offer attractive and interesting dwellings of fairly robust and traditional designs, massing and detailing and of a rather larger size than those proposed. The two pairs of simple semi-detached dwellings proposed do nothing to reflect this prominent and attractive context. - 6.5 There is more clear inspiration for the scheme along Coburg Road, and particularly the pair of semi-detached dwellings adjacent the site to the northeast known as "Kiart" and "Park Hill". These dwellings are somewhat typical of 1980s suburban housing estates. While, much like the proposed dwellings, they are fairly unobjectionable in themselves, they are also of a fairly utilitarian design that undermines the appearance of the surrounding streetscene. To use these dwellings as a design cue on the site of Balladoole is considered to be quite inappropriate. Although it is unclear if this has happened, the form and massing of the proposed dwellings are not dissimilar and to replace an element of high quality architecture with four examples of utilitarian architecture would, in this context, be contrary to the provisions of Paragraphs 7.25.2 and 7.25.3, Strategic Policy 3, Strategic Policy 5 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. - 6.6 The site is also considered to be too small to accommodate this number of dwellings. It is an important and prominent corner site (indeed, the house opposite is called "Corner House") and currently benefits from a definite landmark building (along with a mature elm tree), albeit one evidently in poor repair. To lose this corner presence and have it replaced with the gable end of a fairly small semi-detached dwelling would have the effect of reducing this positive presence, and thereby have a harmful impact on the sense of place of the area. - 6.7 A proposal for two dwellings could, in principle, be acceptable. This would enable one larger unit to be erected on the corner, and hence retain this important 'presence', and also enable a second, and possibly more modest, dwelling to be located to the rear. This would depend in many ways on the detail of the proposal, but it does indicate that the site in its proposed form is simply too small to accommodate this many dwellings without having a harmful impact on the streetscene as a result. - 6.8 Plot 1 would have a quite comfortably large front / side garden and would benefit from views up Bowring Road, contributing to a sense of openness. However, Plots 2-4 inclusive would have fairly limited outdoor amenity space. While each would have front and rear gardens, the rear gardens - which provide the greatest privacy - would be small (quite similar in size to the footprint of the dwellings themselves), and probably too small to provide an adequate level of outlook / outdoor amenity. This, coupled with the concerns outlined above, indicate quite strongly that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site contrary to parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Neighbouring living conditions - 6.9 There are only two dwellings' living conditions that are considered likely to be affected by the proposal: no.42 Bowring Road, which lies roughly 5m from the proposed Plot 1 and has its garden running the full eastern length of the site, and Kiart, which sits 6.5m northeast of the proposed Plot 4.
6.10 In respect of Kiart, the side elevation proposed for Plot 4 is entirely blank and large trees run the length of the boundary of Kiart and the proposed Plot 4. Even were those trees to be removed in the future, however, there would be no unduly harmful loss of privacy or overbearing impact arising from the proposal in respect of the occupiers of Kiart given the proposed blank boundary treatment. - 6.11 No.42 Bowring Road is more complicated to assess. The angle of no.42 relative to the rear elevation of the proposed four dwellings is such that there is unlikely to be any direct overlooking between the dwellings. There are few trees running along the boundary, but the erection of four new dwellings with their rear elevations and rear gardens backing onto this would reduce the privacy within the garden of no.42, albeit that this garden is heavily vegetated. Site levels have not been provided for the rear garden of no.42 so it is not immediately clear how the new dwellings would sit relative to this land. However, the ridge levels of no.42 and the proposed Plots are fairly similar (107.95 and 106.24 respectively) and with the land in the immediate area relatively flat it is reasonable to assume that the gardens would be of a similar level to one another. - 6.12 The boundary treatment here is varied - walling, timber fencing and post and wire fencing are in use in separate lengths. All four of the dwellings would directly face onto no.42's garden and, while the boundary treatment might in some places prevent direct overlooking of the dwelling, it would not do so with respect to the garden itself. In any case, the upper storey to each of the proposed dwellings has two (bedroom) windows facing onto the garden, which, at present, has no direct overlooking except from its attached neighbour
at no.40. While the garden to no.42 is long, it is also narrow, and therefore there is a sense of enclosure about it - the new dwellings would heighten this sense of enclosure if not necessarily through an overbearing impact then more through the perception of being overlooked.
6.13 It is therefore considered that the relationship between four new dwellings and no.42 Bowring Road would be uncomfortable for all parties, but especially for the current occupier of no.42, and would be sufficiently uncomfortable to warrant an objection to the proposal. The perception of being overlooked from the proposed dwellings would reduce the level of amenity within the garden of no.42 Bowring Road to an unacceptable degree, and therefore the proposal is contrary to part (g) of General Policy 2. Impact on trees - 6.14 As noted, the site is heavily treed. Also as noted, the Forestry Division have raised a number of wide-ranging and fairly significant concerns. These concerns are understood and accepted. They do not represent an objection that could not be overcome at some point in time, but four proposed dwellings appear to be more than the site can accommodate without undermining the amenity value provided by the trees as a whole. It is interesting that the Forester considers that the number of dwellings that could be accommodated on the site without unduly harming the amenity offered by the trees is a similar number that might be considered acceptable from a Planning point of view (see paragraph 6.7 above). - 6.15 In view of the number of serious issues raised by the Forester, and acknowledging that these could not be satisfactorily overcome by condition, it is considered appropriate to raise an objection to the proposal on grounds that it fails to adequately address the existing nature of the site in respect of its trees particularly, and is therefore contrary to part (f) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Highway safety
6.16 Highway Services have objected to the application on the grounds that the accesses for Plots and 2 are too close to the junction with Bowring Road, which does not provide sufficient visibility for cars entering Coburg Road to observe vehicles entering or exiting Plots 1 and 2. - 6.17 Visibility onto Bowring Road from Coburg Road is not excellent; nor is the visibility very good in the other direction. To introduce a situation that would require drivers to manoeuvre their vehicles into driveways so close to this junction would be undesirable, and the concern raised by Highway Services is therefore understandable. - 6.18 While the agent's view that vehicle speeds would be low in approaching this junction is probably accurate, the issue seems to be as much to do with causing vehicles to queue while awaiting manoeuvring to be undertaken, with potentially that queue trailing out onto Bowring Road itself. This would potentially have the knock-on effect of queues backing up onto a busy town centre road, and this would self-evidently be undesirable from the point of view of highway safety, and would be sufficiently harmful to highway safety to warrant the application's refusal given the provisions of parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. - 6.19 The proposal would provide two parking spaces per dwelling, albeit that one of these would be within a garage. A condition would ensure that the garages be retained for the parking of cars and not for any other purpose, and so the amount of parking proposed is acceptable, even if the access to it leaves much to be desired for the reasons outlined. 7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The application has been found to be unacceptable in respect of the latter four of the five key assessment criteria against which it has been assessed. On each of these individual points, it is concluded that the application could be refused.
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 have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.06.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval
Bowring Road and therefore result in a harmful impact on highway safety in the area. The application is therefore contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : ..04.06.2015 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed :…………………………………….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown