Loading document...
Applicant: Mr Vincent Nyawai Proposal Approval in principle for four detached dwellings and associated access Site Address Conister Main Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JB Case Officer : Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken: 07.04.2021 Site Visit: 07.04.2021 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 09.11.2021
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019
Reason: in the interest of the character of the area
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application for approval in principle for residential development on land zoned as residential would be in accordance with the land use zoning of the Area Plan for the East and is recommended for approval.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawings referenced and received on;
Location Plan referenced; Ex-01 and received on 9th December 2020 Proposed Site Layout referenced; SK-02 Rev-D received on 3rd June 2021 Proposed Site Plan referenced; SK-01 Rev-C received on 3rd June 2021
Additional information for the Trees received on 25th February 2021, referenced; Arboricultural Impact Assessment Tree Constraints - TS-160221 Tree Impact - TR-160221
Additional information for highways access received on 29th September 2021, referenced; The report titled Development Access Arrangements Junction Visibility; referenced DWG-002 Rev P02 Proposed Development Access; referenced DWG-001 Rev P02 Road Safety Audit (stage 1)
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):
________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE LEVEL OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT
0.0 PRE-AMBLE - 0.1 This application was considered at the planning committee meeting of 15.11.2021 but was deferred for a planning committee site visit. Following the meeting, the applicant provided some further comments including in reference to the proposed condition about height (29.11.21 available to view online). The applicant was advised they could register to speak again is they wished to do so. During the site visit some issues were raised by third parties. The applicant has provided a further e-mail (06.12.21 - available to view online) which explains how they consider these issues have been addressed with reference to the consultation responses from highways and drainage. THE SITE
1.1 The site is an L shaped parcel of land which sits on the western side of the A5 as it runs through Newtown, Santon. The site accommodates an existing dwelling, namely; 'Conister', which faces onto the highway and in line with its neighbouring properties 'Inglemere' and 'Ballarene'. The curtilage of the dwelling / land associated with the property, is to the rear of those dwellings to the north east of 'Conister' namely in order, 'Inglemere', 'Sandycroft' and 'Leahurst' and Mussoone and Capella. To the south of the site the red line shares a boundary with Ballarene and Knaresborough. - 1.2 The existing dwelling houses that make up the immediate streetscene are characterised by predominately bungalows, pitched tiled roofs and painted render finishes with chimneys in the roof scape. Unusually parallel to the highway is vehicle parking for users / occupiers of these dwellings that face on to the Highway, which also have their own vehicle access and off road parking within their curtilage. There is a footpath that runs along this section of the highway adjacent to the properties boundaries. - 1.3 It is further noted between properties 'Normandie' and 'Ballarene' is an access road that serves three other properties, Knaresborough, Ballakneen, and The Loft. - 1.4 There is a change in level between the highway and the rear boundary of the site which is approx. 5m difference in level as noted on the site plan. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the erection of four dwellings, including the demolition of Conister and the creation of a new access into the site. On the application form, no matters (siting, landscaping, Drainage, Means of Access, Internal Layout, External Appearance, Design) have been 'ticked' to be determined at this stage. This application is only addressing the general principle of residential development on this site and principle of those access arrangements: nothing is to be approved in detail so all of the information submitted is for illustrative purposes only to demonstrate how the development may be achieved. - 2.2 The site plan and layout drawings shows the access road from the highway through the existing dwellinghouse (to be demolished) and accessing the land to the rear. There are four plots shown bordering the western boundary with the access road between the proposed plots and the eastern boundary shared with those dwellings backing onto the site. - 2.3 The application is accompanied with a Planning statement that notes the broad location of the site, the planning history of the property, the proposals of this application, focusing on the highways arrangements, with the proposed access into and out of the site with visibility splays, correlating to the submitted drawings, indicative sizes of dwellings, garages, parking and driveways. Also described are previous consultations with Planning and Highways, they quote what they think are the relevant policies and quote General Policy two and how they have considered this and the area plan for the East and the residential design guide. - 2.4 There have been a number of amendments to the proposals and additional supporting documents submitted which include; - 2.5 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment dates 16th February 2021 which identified 12 trees/ groups of trees on site for removal. The report concludes; "that individual trees; 3 No. category B trees and 4 No. category C trees will need to be removed to facilitate the development. Also noted is the removal of 1 group of Category B trees and 4 category C groups of trees for removal irrespective of the development… The most notable tree to be removed is a mature Alder (T4588) located along the boundary with the neighbour 'Inglemere'…The general quality of the trees marked for removal on site is low and there loss or arboricultural value is deemed low… The report also notes that a further 5 category U trees and 2 category U tree groups are recommended for removal due to their poor structural or physiological health".
3.1 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY In terms of land use designation, the application site identified in red, is identified on the Area Plan for the East (Map 11-Newtown) as being within an area noted as 'Predominately Residential'. To confirm the site is not within a designated Conservation Area or within an identified area of Flood Risk Zone. - 3.2 Within the supporting written statement, page 8 - Table 4 refers to the settlement hierarchy and policy approach where Newtown sits in a "Village" category where the Spatial Policy advises " Development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and employment opportunities. The Area Plan will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character". - 3.3 Landscape Proposal 7 (Santon) states on page 28; "In cases where new development is proposed, applications must demonstrate that it can be suitably integrated into the surrounding landscape setting through reasonable mitigation measures and considering siting, colours, materials, finishes and the general scale". - 3.4 The land to the west is designated as Area of Ecological Importance - Draft on Map 1a; Environmental Constraints. Page 38 gives an indication to this where it says;
"Areas of Ecological Interest (AEI) Areas of Ecological Interest (AEI) are marked on the Constraints Map (Map 1a) to indicate places of known wildlife interest which have not yet been surveyed in detail or scientifically evaluated. Until Wildlife Sites, Areas of Special Scientific Interest or other designations have been identified within them, Areas of Ecological Interest will be subject to a precautionary approach when development is proposed in such areas. Proposed development which affects any designated Wildlife Sites will also be considered from a precautionary viewpoint".
THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 The following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
3.5 Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.6 Strategic Policy 2: 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."
3.7 Spatial Policy 5; New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3. - 3.8 Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement - 3.9 Spatial Policy 4: In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. These villages are: o Bride o Glen Maye o Sulby o Dalby o Ballaugh o Ballafesson o Glen Mona o Colby o Baldrine o Ballabeg o Crosby o Newtown o Glen Vine o Strang. - 3.10 General Policy 2 (in part): Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.11 Housing Policy 4 New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
3.14 The strategic plan gives guidance on the interpretation of; (in part)
"Backland development(2)" (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings.
3.15 Transport Policy 4: 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. - 3.16 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7. - 3.17 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5 (water conservation and management), Community Policy 7 (designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour), Community Policy 10 (proper access for firefighting appliances) and Community Policy 11 (prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire). OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 3.18 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property
4.1 A Certificate of Lawful Use was sought for the residential use of the land to the rear of Conister and this was refused (19/00707/LAW). The property has also been the subject of applications for alterations and extensions and other than one, all were approved, the most recent being 19/00841/B.
5.2 DoI Highway Services commented on 11/01/21 and 11/03/21 giving commentary with access arrangements, dimensions and visibility splays, drainage and gave advice on other highways relates issues for garage sizes, bike storage and Ev charging points. They do not object subject to the inclusion of conditions. - 5.3 On the amended plans DoI Highways commented (14/10/21) on the submitted transport assessments, reports and drawings submitted on 29 September 2021 to provide an in depth commentary to address the additional information. They conclude they have no objection subject to a condition being included on the proposal for the submission and approval of full details by Planning prior to commencement in the form of scaled plan and / or written specifications to illustrate the following:
Also they seek that the works to the highway will require S109(A) Highways Act 1986 and associated requirements on demolition and construction, such as traffic management measures for road closures and licences for equipment and materials in the highway.
5.3 DoI Flood Risk Management commented (11/02/21) with No Flood Risk Management Issues. - 5.4 MUA Drainage commented (01/02/21; 10/02/21) to seek a deferral pending further discussions about access into the existing foul sewer which crosses the site and manhole levels. They also suggest that it is advisable to carry out percolation tests at this stage to ensure that surface water drainage is possible. - 5.5 Arboricultural Officer, DEFA commented (05/11/21) with no objection to the tree loss. - 5.6 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer commented (20/01/21) basing their findings on an aerial photography and judges that there will be a nett loss of habitat as a result of the proposal and notes the limited amount of new planting to mitigate this. They request a condition on any approval which requires details in the reserved matters of suitable ecological mitigation to ensure that there is no nett loss for wildlife and also an arboricultural assessment, tree survey and tree protection plan alongside details of new planting using native Manx species. She would like to see the retention of the hedge all the way around the site and suggest that they seek advice in respect of the protection of bats in relation to the demolition of the existing house (20.02.21). NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS - 5.7 There are a number of neighbouring residents along Main Road Santon, who OBJECT to the proposals;
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are whether there is any adverse impact or harm from the proposal. The following topics are thematically identified below with the corresponding policies;
6.2 The starting point here is the land designation, TAPE does identify the land for residential development as it does the existing houses in the area and streetscene. As such the principle for residential development on this land is acceptable for residential development. Whilst the former land designation on the 1982 plan designated this land as open countryside and within an area of High landscape value and scenic significance, this has now been superseded by the 2020 Area Plan for the East adopted by Tynwald on 21 September and came into operation on 1st December. - 6.3 Considering the policy narrative from the Strategic Plan here, Strategic Policy 1 and 2 directs new development into existing named towns and villages where existing services can be utilised. As Newtown is a named village in Spatial Policy 4 this would allow for future development subject to it being able to respect the character of the area and meet the housing needs of the Island. It can be agreed that this part of Santon is within an existing village and would be considered to accord to Strategic Policy 1, 2, as a sustainable site within a designated village to develop. This approach is further echoed within HP4 and would also be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5 as a defined settlement to develop. By virtue of the designation of the site within an existing village and the site fronting onto an existing highway (A5), it would be considered to comply with Strategic Policy 10(a)-(d) which aims to promote integrated transport network. - 6.4 Sticking a balance on land use, and taking into account the comments received from the neighbours and the local authority on this issue, the principle of a dwelling house here could be acceptable. However, the detail of any such dwelling would be considered by a subsequent reserved matters planning application. However, this is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal as the other matters listed within paragraph 6.1 still need to be assessed and be considered acceptable.
6.5 The principle of the proposal would see that the demolition of the existing house to create a wider entrance into the rear of the site. The site is not within a conservation area or is a registered building and sits detached in its own grounds. For reference, planning consent is not required for its demolition and whilst its loss is unfortunate, there is no overriding justification to retain the current dwelling on any architectural or historic merit. The demolition would see a new access being created to serve the four new dwelling to the rear of existing houses. Guidance is given in EP42 for 'backland development' as noted in para 3.14 and can be acceptable if satisfactory access is achievable and adequate amenity space for existing and proposed dwellings. - 6.6 The proposed drawings note an indicative layout to show how the four plots could be laid out with an internal access road from the highway that includes parking and their own amenity space. The indicative foot print of those plots would broadly measure approx. 115sqm
(approx. 12m x 9m at the extremities) and the drawings indicate a change in level of 3m difference between the carriage way and the driveway for plot 1. This footprint is similar to those existing dwelling in the streetscene but learning to the larger size in similarity.
6.7 Any new dwelling here (subject to approval) would need to reflect the character of the area which would be predominately single storey to eaves level and a shallow pitched roof of traditional proportions, it would be designed with those notable traditional features (pitched, slated roof, render and/or stone walling) which reflects the character of the older more vernacular properties in the vicinity, as opposed to a contemporary modern approach which would be read at odds and contrary with the principles Ep42.
6.9 The initial proposal was for 5 houses but this raised concerns and was amended to 4 houses. The site would measure approx. 3830sqm or approx. 0.4 hectares which would equate to a ratio of approx. 8 dwelling per hectare which corresponds to a 'low density' but towards the higher side of development in this category. On page 16 of the Residential Design Guide, Figure 3a "Density of Different Types of Sites" at para 3.6.3, gives helpful guidance; "Larger sites towards the edge of settlements, consisting of mainly houses and bungalows with relatively few apartments or terraces". This density approach could be acceptable if it reflects the character of the area without being considered over development. - 6.10 At this stage it is only the principle to be discussed but the indicative plans do give an illustration how the density of development works within the confines of the site. Any further design of the dwellings which concerns those aspects of scale, form, design, massing would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application and would need to comply specifically those aspects of Gp2b and again EP42, STP5, CP7 & 11. A condition can be included on any approval to seek further details submitted as part of a reserved matters application which will assist in the assessment of any impact on the character of the area, any neighbouring properties and their amenity from the design of the dwellinghouses.
6.11 The existing site is screened for its majority by those dwelling houses fronting onto Main Road, and with the topography of the area sloping aware from the highway any proposed dwellings ground level would be slightly lower than those existing properties looking at the existing topography and the levels shown on the site plan. The principle of development of the site would not be considered to have a detrimental visual impact given the surrounding residential context of the area nor would not it be introducing an incongruous feature on the land scape through residential development in accordance with the land use designation.
6.12 Turning to the comments received from the neighbouring residents (putting highway safety aside, as this is addressed below), and the assessment for the potential for any adverse impact from the proposed development. The intervening distances indicated on the site plans from the existing dwellings would see almost 26m between the house on plot 3 (the nearest) and the rear of Leahurst and 14 m between the rear of Knaresborough and the house on plot 1 although the two are offset so not facing each other directly. The position of the house on plot 1 is further back than Conister and Inglemere and in between the positions of the properties facing directly onto the highway and those which sit to the rear of these. - 6.13 This application seeks that all matters (siting, design, external appearance of the building, internal layout, means of access, drainage, and landscaping of the site) to be determined at the any future Reserved Matters Application. The concerns of the neighbouring property owners have been noted and the gist of their comments stands and partially applicable regarding the principle of development. - 6.14 The potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities through, overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity, potential impacts upon the visual amenities of
the street scene; and potential amenities of future occupants of the dwelling; are all matters which would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application specifically those aspects of Gp2.
6.15 This application is seeks to address the means of access and many of the neighbouring concerns would focus on this aspect from those individuals that reflect on their own user experience of the road and its operational activity on a daily basis, which is welcomed and gives an insight to the confliction of uses. - 6.16 The submitted Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and designers response makes reference to 10 problem areas which are addressed by the proposed layout for the most part other than those requiring detailed design elements, such as highway drainage, lighting, signs and markings to ensure conformity with standards and that road safety risks are minimised, such as intervisibility between accesses. - 6.17 Having checked with DoI it is understood the layby is public highway as is the footway
at its rear and it is the DOI's responsibility, nor would it be sold or rescind the public rights through extinguishment. The Applicant / Developer would be responsible for the implementation of the scheme under a s109(A) Agreement either for DOI to construct or for a suitably qualified private contractor to do. The land must be in the Applicant's / Developer control, and the public highway or where other land is involved would be secured via third party agreement between landowners which must be proven.
6.18 The proposed highway works are integral to the proposal for development of the land to the rear as safe access cannot be realised without it and the preliminary layouts technically show how this could be possible, not necessarily agreeable at this stage. Furthermore, there is need for detailed design to ensure it fits with the junction arrangement at the equestrian centre, neighbouring property and other markings. - 6.19 The proposed recommendations for alterations to the highway and parking area would make significant alterations to the character of the area in this location, essentially formalising the junction to the site. The scope of works identifies a loss of parking spaces to create a ghost island (markings on the ground) being implemented to ensure safe visibility.
6.18 Highway Services have considered the principle merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway noting visibility splays, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it is noted they do not object to the principle of the means of access to this application.
6.14 Having considered the above, the principle has been shown how it could be theoretically achieved, not necessarily practically given the ownership issues, on balance, it shows and access could be designed to align with the principles of Gp2 h&I and TP4&7 and CP10.
6.19 The comments from the Eco-systems policy offer are welcomed and provide helpful advice to offset any loss of bio-diversity on site. The re-development of the site would not be considered to be detrimental to what little bio-diversity exists on site or loss of green space / gardens and would not be considered to be contrary to Sp4b where it seeks to protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban and rural areas. Following the site visit, it proved the pond referred to by the eco-systems policy officer in their 'desk-top study' was no longer present and is part of the wider lawn area. - 6.20 Nevertheless, considering this is new development it would be fitting at this stage to include a condition for appropriate landscaping conditions for Manx native planting, integration
of bird or bat boxes, swift nesting bricks under the eaves on the northerly elevation to ensure there is "no net loss of biodiversity" on site.
6.21 Having visited the site and reflected on the Arboricultural impact Assessment and supporting drawings, the advice and opinion from DEFAs Arboricultural Officer was sought. The trees marked for removal are either low quality or low amenity value. Whilst there loss is unfortunate, whether the proposed scheme was to proceed, there could be justification for their removal as part of a maintenance programme for the area subject to the appropriate licenses being issued. In this case the Agricultural and Lands Directorate do not object and it is considered the location of the trees and groups of trees, whilst not immediately visible from the streetscene offer low visual amenity and this aspect would be in accordance with GP2d and SP4b.
6.22 The application proposes to introduce built elements on site where there is currently none. This will introduce an area of no-permeable surfacing (roofs and hard standing) and inadvertently increasing the amount of runoff water on the site that could of otherwise been absorbed into the ground. With regard to drainage from these non-permeable surfaces, the application form notes the runoff water is to be disposed of through soak aways.
6.23 The erection of a new dwelling would have to conform to building regulations standards which ensures the thermal efficiency of the building is maximised. Any future reserved matters application would also need to consider a sustainable construction approach through o maximize carbon sequestration; o minimize greenhouse gas emissions; o maintain and enhance ecosystems; o achieve biodiversity net gain; o provide sustainable drainage systems; and o provide active travel and public transport infrastructure as noted in the residential design guide
at para 1.3.2 on page 3. This will ensure any proposed dwelling on site would be designed and built to meet the criteria for best practice in reducing energy consumption in accordance with GP2n.
6.24 None. From the consultation period there has not been any other matters arising that need addressing here. CONCLUSION
7.1 For the above reasons, it is considered the principle of residential development on land that has been zoned for residential as shown on the submitted plans is recommended for approval with attached conditions. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 13.12.2021
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
Application No. : 20/01507/A Applicant : Mr Vincent Nyawai Proposal : Approval in principle for four detached dwellings and associated access Site Address : Conister Main Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JB
Senior Planning Officer : Mr Jason Singleton Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report This application was deferred for site visit, to take place on the 06.12.21 at between 10.30 and 11.30.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown