Loading document...
The site represents a parcel of land which sits on the western side of the A27 Glenfaba Road. The site is at a similar level to the land to the immediate north and east on which there is an almost complete residential estate and a nursing home under construction. To the south, west and northwest the land slopes down to a level significantly lower than the site. The site is open with a roughly formed edge beyond which the ground is natural scrubland and gorse.
The site is designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Industrial - part of a much wider area which stretches from Station Road to Glenfaba Mill and from the River Neb to the A27.
The site has approval for the principle of residential development under PAs 02/0491, 05/1701 and 06/0394. The last approval proposed six semi-detached affordable dwellings and fifteen detached dwellings. A condition of approval included a requirement for the application for reserved matters to include all boundary treatment and retention and maintenance of the existing boundaries of the site. The rear boundaries of the properties backing onto the escarpment must be hedges and planting, not fencing to maintain an attractive view from the west (Peel Hill). The conditions also required that the development presents a fair face as viewed from the south and that percolation tests are provided to demonstrate that soakaways will work satisfactorily.
Proposed now are the details of the matters reserved from PA 06/0394. Following the submission of the application, a meeting was held with the applicant and his agent to raise preliminary concerns regarding the plans which had been submitted and amended plans - PL01C, PL04B, PL08B, PKL09B and PL12C have been submitted (on 23rd October, 2007). It was suggested at the meeting that some of the conditions of the approval in principle had not been satisfied and it was suggested that the development seemed cramped. The applicant's agent explained that the site plan had shown the roof plans of the dwellings which extend further out than the external walling of the properties and as such the development was actually less cramped than was suggested by this drawing. An amended drawing showing the footprints of the properties would be submitted (see drawing PL01C). It was also suggested that the garages in plots 7 and 8 should be pulled away from the rear boundary (which they have been, marginally) and the house on plot 17 did not present a fair face to the south and should be re-orientated to avoid a side elevation facing south (which has not been changed in the amended plans and the elevation of the house is the same as initially submitted) although the southern elevation to the garage now has a projecting bay in the centre and has a small area of planting between the back of the garage and the boundary hedge and some planting shown in the hedge. It was also suggested that the two dwellings alongside, on plots 16 and 15 should perhaps be raised in level with dormers to help the transition up to the height of the largest house on plot 17 and this has been amended.
The proposal shows details of the creation of a new access onto the A27 and the construction of an estate road which curves into the site towards the south with a spur off to the north giving access to six dwellings - three pairs of semi-detached houses, five of which have a driveway alongside, the sixth, number one does not appear to have any parking although I understand that as the road is not
to be continued, the parking spaces are within the highway. If this is the case there is no turning facility. Plots 1 & 2 and 5 & 6 are the same in terms of front elevation and plots 3 & 4 differ only in respect of not having projecting first floor bays (which don't appear on the ground floor plans of the dwellings).
The dwelling on plot 7 is a simplified version of the semi-detached dwellings with no projecting front bay and the dwellings on plots 8 and 9 are taller properties, one of which has an integral garage and the other a detached garage.
The dwelling on plot 10 is lower (by 0.7m) than number 9 with a projecting bay in plain render and that on plot 11 has a three sided bay with some stone work and a projecting roof over the integral garage.
The dwelling on plots 12 and 13 are similar but the latter has a steeper pitched roof and steeper pitched projecting bay and is thus higher (by 0.6m). The property on plot 14 is a simple two storey property with a sloping roof over a single storey projecting bay with stone plinth and an integral garage: the property on plot 15 is taller and with a projecting bay.
The dwelling on plot 16 is wider than most but with the detailing and canopies of the earlier properties but with additional height (8.7m) and a dormer window in the front pitch and two in the rear.
The property on plot 17 is the largest on the estate, standing 9.2m high and 11m wide with three storeys including dormer accommodation in the attic. The property has two projecting three sided bays and a conservatory on the rear. The side elevation which will face those approaching the site from the south is relatively plain with three levels of windows and two doors on the ground floor. There is to be a large garage built in front of the house which will accommodate a double garage door and accommodation to the side and with a staircase up to the roofspace whose use is unspecified on the plans. The accommodation in the roof equates to around 40 square metres of floorspace which would accommodate single person permanent occupation.
Plots 18, 19, 20 and 21 are situated alongside the main road and are all different designs although all the same height and width. These are arranged with the access road running parallel with the A27 so the front elevation faces towards this main road.
The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommends consultation in respect of all fire precautions.
The occupant of 26 Ballatessan Meadow objects to the application on the basis that the properties would not have off-road parking, the A27 is already over-trafficked and a new access as proposed would be dangerous. He also objects as he suggests that Peel has limited infrastructure so most people drive to get their groceries. Some of these issues are ones which relate to the principle of development on the site and the position of the access (which was discussed at length with Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division in the previous application) and as such are not material considerations in the case of this application.
The Estates and Housing Directorate recommend that properties on plots 1 - 6 are appropriate for affordable housing and should be made available under the House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2004 (although there has been a later version - the 2007 Scheme which should be referred to in any condition).
The Isle of Man Water Authority recommend a note regarding the supply of water to the development
The Manx Electricity Authority make comments on the supply of electricity to the site and existing supplies.
The occupant of Garey Glass, Ballatessan Meadow expresses interest in the development in that he owns land immediately alongside the site and is concerned that the integrity of his boundary and property is maintained, including the disposal of waste and water from the site.
The tenant of Ballaterson Farm suggests that the property on plot 17 is too large and would dominate the site when viewed from the south east. He also expresses concern at the boundary of the site with the agricultural land which he farms and suggests that a stone wall would be a more appropriate and definitive boundary with such land. He suggests that no surface water may be allowed to discharge onto the surrounding land (a point raised by the occupant of Garey Glass), lighting should be controlled (this is a function of the local authority) as this is referred to in the Strategic Plan (Environment Policy 22) which suggests that development which would result in an unacceptable harm to the environment in terms (inter alia) of light pollution should not be permitted. In this respect, there is no lighting proposed and the level and type of lighting is the responsibility of the local authority.
The Architectural Liaison Officer comments on the application and suggests that properties 1-17 may not have adequate surveillance and the hedging to the rear of plots 18 - 21 and that some properties do not have fencing or walls to prevent people going from the front to the rear. If individuals erect their own fencing this may lead to an unacceptable visual impact within the estate. The Architectural Liaison Officer recommends that there should be fencing 1.8m tall around the rear boundary with public areas (which would only apply to plots 18-21 as the rear of the remaining plots backs onto private land which is not likely to become publicly accessible) and that fencing should be erected between the front and rear gardens.
A resident of Port Soderick expresses concern that the development is cramped and bears little resemblance to the character of the town.
Peel Town Commissioners suggest that the requirement in the approval in principle to undertake percolation tests has not been carried out and that the surface water cannot be accommodated in an existing surface water pipe as none exists. The application has been amended to provide soakaways rather than disposing of the surface water from the site to mains services.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division object to the application on the basis that inadequate setbacks have been provided to allow for footways and a turning lane.
The application should be considered against the conditions of the previous approval in principle. Also of relevance are certain policies of the Strategic Plan although it should be remembered that the Strategic Plan was not in force when the approval in principle was granted. General Policy 2 relates to development which accords with the land use zonings on the appropriate Area Plan. However, in this case, whilst the site is designated as Industrial and the proposed development is Residential, it does accord with the principle approved in an approval in principle and as such, the principles of General Policy 2 are applicable in this case. This states:
"Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
In terms of the conditions of approval, the general layout and number of dwellings accords with the approval in principle and the six dwellings on plots 1-6 can be conditioned to be made available as affordable units. Whether the dwelling on plot 17 provides a fair face to the south is at issue: the side elevation of the main house would not appear to have been designed to present a particularly attractive or principal frontage to the south and whilst the garage now has a projecting annex, this is still a large building, close to the boundary which could effectively represent a separate dwelling over and above those permitted in the approval in principle.
Details of the percolation tests have not been provided in accordance with the approval in principle.
Otherwise, the development provides for the introduction of hedging around the site and whilst this may not be in accordance with the advice of the Architectural Liaison Officer, will provide a more attractive and natural boundary to the countryside and open land to the west and south. This should not be replaced with fencing. Similarly in the case of the housing on plots 18-21 inclusive, their rear boundaries should not be formed by 1.8m fencing which would result in a stark boundary to the estate road and a harsh environment with the development. The development shows 1.8m fencing at rights angles to the estate road and extending beyond the frontages towards the road. This is not acceptable and should be lowered between the front (or rear) of the properties where they are adjacent to the road to create a more open character in front of the buildings.
The hedge around the perimeter of the buildings is to be made up of Geramium Magnificum which has pretty purple flowers and grows to 30 - 60cm in height, Vinca Major (periwinkle) which grows no higher than 70cm and Gallium Odoratum (sweet woodruff) which again is a species which grows to around 20cm in height. Cumulatively these will not provide a satisfactory hedge in terms of privacy and security for these properties. A proper bank whose dimensions and size are provided, should be installed. This is annotated on the plan but with no specific position or dimensions. It may be that these species are to be introduced on top of the bank.
In terms of the impact on the streetscene, aside from the impact of the dwelling and garage on plot 17 which is dealt with above, the development is not dissimilar to that across the road recently built by Heritage Homes in terms of density or layout. In this respect the development would respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; would not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape or any protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses or any public views of the sea. There is limited existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks of merit to be retained and the closest residents are across the road and whose amenity would not be adversely affected by the development. The development provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself and, subject to satisfactory percolation test results can be provided with all necessary services.
The land to the west and south is designated as Industrial and discussions have been on-going with the local authority who own the land regarding access to the undeveloped land. This development will not prejudice the development of that land.
There is no suggestion that the site is contaminated or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding and the comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer have been applied and some taken on board as set out above.
No information has been provided in respect of energy efficiency and whilst this is required in Energy Policy 5, this was not specified in the approval in principle and as such no energy impact assessment has been provided.
The occupant of 26 Ballatessan Meadow is not directly affected by the proposal as this property lies within the new estate opposite the site and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Estates and Housing Directorate are part of the Department and as such should not be afforded separate party status in this instance.
The Isle of Man Water Authority raise issues associated with the provision of a water supply, which are not material planning considerations and as such the Water Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues regarding working practices around existing supplies, which are not material planning considerations and as such the Manx Electricity Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupant of Garey Glass owns land immediately alongside the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. The tenant of Ballaterson Farm farms land which adjoins the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. The Architectural Liaison Officer is part of the Department of Home Affairs and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the development and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Recommended Decision:
Date of Recommendation:
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown