Loading document...
Application No.: 08/01571/B Applicant: McArd Homes Proposal: Loss of light - Infrastructure, sewers etc - Too much noise - Increase in traffic #### Cynara Popular Road Douglas - Objects to the proposal #### Arbory Popular Road Douglas - Objects to the proposal #### Holly Cottage Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man - Objects to the proposal ### Consultations {{table:540212}} Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Douglas Corporation Notes: No objection Consultee : Chief Environmental Health Officer Notes: Comments received Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes : Site Address: - Former Warehouse And Garages - Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane - Douglas - Isle Of Man - IM2 4AX ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken: Mr Ian Brooks Site Visit: Planning Committee ### Written Representations #### Cynara Poplar Road Douglas Isle Of Man - **Objects to the
The application site fronts onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane and was originally a commercial site along with lock up garages; used as a mechanics workshop. The site has recently been used for storage and distribution warehouse facilities. The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential in the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The application site is not located within a Conservation Area. To the north east of the application site are the residential properties of Hilary Mount, Arbory and Cynara; located on Poplar Road, and to the south west is a residential care home. To the north west of the application site is a service lane accessing the rear of properties on Upper Duke's Road.
The proposed development consists of four 3-bed townhouses; one townhouse with integral garage; one 2-bed maisonette and one 1-bed apartment. The development would be split into two blocks The block fronting onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane would have a frontage length of 17.4 m . The depth of the buildings within the block would be between 6.8 m and 7.8 m . The height of the block would be between 9.3 m and 9.8 m to the ridge.
The block set to the rear would have a frontage length of 18.3 m . The depth of the buildings within this block would be between 6 m and 7.8 m . The height of the building would be 9.5 m to the ridge.
The properties would have smooth painted render walls with feature banding and decorative mouldings, and artificial slate roofs.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2, Environment Policies 26 and 42, Housing Policy 6, Transport Policies 4 and 7.
Housing Policy 6 states that "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
Environment Policy 26 states that "Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses."
Environment Policy 42 states that "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 open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open of green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
Transport Policy 4 states that "The new and existing highways which serve any 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."
Transport Policy 7 states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
There have been no previous planning applications which are considered relevant to the assessment of this application.
Highways Division of the Department of Transport and Douglas Corporation do not oppose the application.
The occupiers of Barnelles, Victoria Road are concerned that the development will put their son's health at risk due to the increase in traffic, as their son's bedroom is located behind the boundary wall adjacent to Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane.
The occupiers of The Shellys, 32 Upper Dukes Road have objected on the following grounds: 1) the height, design and close proximity of the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on their property, the development would result in overlooking and loss of light 2) it is out of keeping with the surrounding 2 storey dwellings, 3) impact on trees.
The occupiers of Cynara, Poplar Road have objected on the following grounds: 1) overlooking and loss of privacy, 2) the development is out of keeping with the area, 3) loss of light, 4) the development will affect access to their property, increased traffic will result in congestion within the cul-de-sac, disturbance to residents and road safety issues, 5) part of the lane is not adopted and is unsuitable for increased traffic, 6) Parking problems, 7) the development will expose the rear of their property.
The occupiers of No. 35 Upper Dukes Road have objected on the following grounds: 1) loss of light, 2) overlooking and loss of privacy, 3) increased traffic will make the road dangerously congested, 4) visual intrusion, and 5) potential noise impact.
The Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane Residents Committee have objected on the following grounds: 1) the development will result in loss of privacy and overlooking, 2) the development is out of keeping with the area, 3) loss of light, 4) the development will affect access to their property, increased traffic will result in congestion within the cul-de-sac, disturbance to residents and road safety issues, 5) part of the lane is not adopted and is unsuitable for increased traffic, 6) Parking problems, 7) increased light pollution from extra street lighting will cause a nuisance to residents, 8) impact on trees, 9) lack of proper drainage for the development, 10) noise pollution from traffic and additional habitation, 11) increased traffic would hinder access for emergency vehicles, 12) The site is unsuitable for any construction due to an underground stream.
The Committee has requested that their letter be treated as 19 objections from the following residents: The occupiers of Mount Pleasant Victoria Road The occupiers of Cynara, Poplar Road The occupiers of Sunnycrest, Poplar Road The occupiers of Arbory, Poplar Road The occupiers of Hilary Mount, Poplar Road The occupiers of Holly Cottage, Victoria Road The occupiers of No's 34, 35, 36 and 38 Upper Dukes Road The occupiers of Barnelles, Victoria Road The occupiers of Berethone, Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane The occupiers of No's 4 and 5 Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane
The occupiers of No's 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 Arthur Bell Estate The occupiers of Hilary Mount, Poplar Road have objected on the following grounds: 1) the development will result in loss of privacy and overlooking, 2) the development is out of keeping with the area, 3) increased light pollution from extra street lighting will cause a nuisance to residents, 4) impact on trees, 5) noise pollution from traffic and additional habitation, 6) The site is unsuitable for any construction due to an underground stream.
The occupiers of 5 Falcon Cliff Terrace does not agree with the density of the proposed development and is concerned about how Heavy Good Vehicles will manoeuvre.
The occupiers of Sunnycrest, Poplar Road have objected on the following grounds in addition to their signature to the residents committee's letter: 1) concerned about services to the site, 2) disputes the boundary line, 3) highway safety and parking issue issues, 4) the capping or redirecting of the natural spring could damage their property, 5) the development will overlook their property and result in loss of privacy.
The owners of Arthur Bell Estate via Dickinson Cruickshank are concerned that as a result of this development the privacy enjoyed and represented by a wall currently in situ will be lost. They also request clarification on the proposed boundary treatment between the Estate and the proposed development. If it is currently not the developer's proposal to replace the boundary, they request that a condition be attached requiring a like for like or similar replacement.
Standard comments have been received from the Manx Electricity Authority and the Environmental/Public Health Unit of the Department of Local Government and the Environment.
Mr Jessopp considers the principle of the development is acceptable; however, he is concerned about the proximity of the mature trees to the development resulting in overshadowing and poor amenity for the residents bringing pressure for the removal of trees.
The main considerations in assessing this application are 1) compatibility with the land use, 2) land contamination, 3) visual impact on the locality, 4) whether the development would impact on the neighbouring properties, and 5) whether the development has sufficient parking. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail.
The development is compatible with the area since the area is zoned as predominantly residential in the Douglas Local Plan. It is considered the principle of developing the site for residential use is acceptable in this locality.
The applicant's agents have submitted a ground investigation report indicating that three trial pits were excavated on the site to a depth of 2.5 m to identify any obvious ground contamination. The findings only identify the structure of the ground. The report indicate that "With the exception of concrete and tarmac and stone/granular fill surfacing, all materials found in the trial pits appear to be naturally occurring, with no apparent contamination found."
The report also states that "No investigation within the existing building was undertaken on the site. The existing building appears to date back to around 1960's construction. The use of the existing buildings is believed to be for light industrial purposes, with no known activities, which would cause any significant ground contamination."
The ground investigation report is of limited value as it only looks at the structure of the subsoil. It indicates that no soil samples have been taken to ascertain whether the ground is contaminated.
This is unacceptable given the proposed end use for the site, and further tests should be carried out to determine whether the site is contaminated.
It is acknowledged that it is difficult to analyse the ground conditions below the existing buildings on the site due to them being in situ. Any proper assessment of the ground conditions can only be carried out when the buildings have been demolished. If it is known or strongly suspected that a site is contaminated to an extent which would adversely affect the proposed development, an investigation of the hazards by the developer and proposals for remedial action would normally be required before the application can be determined by the planning authority; however, in cases where there is only a suspicion that the site might be contaminated, or where the evidence suggest that there may be only slight contamination, planning permission may be granted subject to conditions that the development will not be permitted to start until a site investigation and assessment have been carried out and that the development itself will incorporate any remedial measures shown to be necessary.
In respect of the visual impact on the proposal on Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane, the proposed townhouses to the rear of the site would not be readily visible from Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane and would not adversely affect the visual amenities of the locality; however, the new residential units on the Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane frontage would be visible. The proposed building would be between 2.5 m and 3.1 m higher than The Arthur Bell Estate, which is located to the south west of the application site. The design of the building appears unbalanced due to the different ridge heights, steepness of the hipped roofs, and the fact that the fenestration of the apartment/maisonette section does not match with fenestration of townhouses. The proposal would look out of place within the locality to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
The design of the north west elevation of this block, which would look into the development, is unbalanced with the use of dormers, velux style rooflights, single storey out porches. The spacing between the dormers and the velux rooflight is too large. Overall, the fenestration of the building is poor due to the fact that the applicants are trying to gain an extra entrance for the maisonette. If the apartment/maisonette block were a townhouse to match other townhouses within this block, the proportions would correct themselves.
In respect of the impact on The Arthur Bell Estate, the application site is located to the north east of the neighbouring property. The only part of the new residential units to be located near to any windows on The Arthur Bell Estate building would be the units fronting onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane. The proposed development would be set 7.8 m away from these windows, which are obscure glazed. It is considered the proposed development would not adversely affect the residential estate of The Arthur Bell Estate in terms of overshadowing and loss of light.
In respect of their concerns about the potential loss of a boundary wall resulting in the loss of privacy, the plans are unclear what boundary treatment is proposed between the application site and The Arthur Bell Estate. However, this could be dealt with by condition requiring such details to be submitted for approval.
In respect of the impact on Cynara, Poplar Road, the application site is located to the south west of the neighbouring property. The nearest part of the development would be 15.4 m away from a nonhabitable window and 18 m from habitable windows on rear elevation of Cynara. The development would be set between 4.2 m and 5.5 m from the rear boundary of Cynara. The development when viewed from the rear garden of Cynara would be 21 / 2 storeys with a hipped roof. It is considered the proposal would not adversely affect the residential amenity of Cynara in terms of overshadowing, loss of light and visual intrusion.
In respect of the impact on Arbory, Poplar Road, the application site is located to the south west of the neighbouring property. None of the proposed development would project along the rear
boundary of the neighbouring property. The nearest part of the development would be 18.4 m from a habitable window on the single storey rear outrigger and 21 m from the habitable windows of the main dwellinghouse of Arbory. Due to the orientation of the buildings on the site, it is considered the proposed development will not cause any significant harm in terms of overshadowing and loss of light.
In respect of the impact on Hilary Mount, Poplar Road, the application site is located to the south west of the neighbouring property. The nearest part of the development would be 16.4 m from a habitable window on the single storey rear outrigger and 19.6 m from the habitable windows of the main dwellinghouse of Hilary Mount. The application is also proposing to include additional planting on the rear boundary of Hilary Mount. Due to the orientation of the buildings on the site and the separation distance between the development and the rear elevation of Hilary Mount, it is considered the proposed development would not cause any significant harm in terms of overshadowing and loss of light.
In respect of the impact on Mount Pleasant, Victoria Road, the application site is set to the north west of the neighbouring property. Mount Pleasant is set at a slightly lower level than Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane. The closest part of the development would be 23 m from the rear elevation of Mount Pleasant and would be slightly offset to Mount Pleasant. Due to the orientation of the site, the proposal would not result in any significant harm in terms of overshadowing and loss of light; however, in terms of overlooking, the proposal might allow some oblique views of Mount Pleasant. However this would not result in a significant level of overlooking to warrant a refusal on the grounds of overlooking.
In respect of the impact on Barnelles, Victoria Road, the application site is set to the north west of the neighbouring property. The property is a single storey flat roof dwellinghouse. The proposed development would be 15 m from the rear boundary wall. It is difficult to establish whether there are any windows in the rear of the property due to the height of the existing wall. Therefore it is not possible to determine whether the proposed development would cause any harm to the residential environment of Barnelles.
In respect of the impact on Holly Cottage, Victoria Road, the application site is set to the north west of the neighbouring property. Holly Cottage is set at a slightly lower level than Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane. The proposed development is set 35 m away from the rear elevation of the property. Due to the orientation of the site and the separation distance between the site and Holly Cottage, the proposal would not result in any significant harm in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, overlooking and visual intrusion.
In respect of the impact on the properties of Newton Heath, Trevor, The Asters and The Shellys on Upper Dukes Road, the application site is set to the south east of the neighbouring property. The proposed development is set approximately 1.8 m below the access lane to the rear of these properties. Although not an approved standard the rule of thumb is to maintain a minimum of 20 m between the rear walls of properties; in this case, the proposed development would be set 14.2 m , and 13 m away from the nearest habitable windows on the these properties, respectively, and would have habitable windows that would face directly towards the rear windows of these properties. At the closest point, the development would be 7.4 m below the rule of thumb separation distance. The relationship between the proposed development and the properties of Upper Duke's Road is wholly unacceptable as it would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of these properties.
It could be argued that the retention of the sycamore trees between the development and the properties of Upper Duke's Road would provide screening to prevent any overlooking; however, due to the close proximity of the dwellings to the trees there would be pressure in the future for the trees to be removed which in turn would result in a greater problem of overlooking. In any event, it should be noted that during the winter months the trees will not have any foliage and would allow direct views of the properties on Upper Duke's Road. The trees cannot safeguard the privacy of the existing properties of Upper Duke's Road.
In addition, due to the close proximity of the dwellings to the properties of Upper Duke's Road, combined with the fact that the new dwellings would lie to the south east of the neighbouring properties, it is considered the proposal would result in overshadowing and loss of light.
In respect of the impact on Shonstone, Falcon Cliff Terrace, the application site is set to the north east of the neighbouring property. The proposed development would be set 20.5 m - 20.8 m away from the rear elevation of Shonstone. The development would have windows facing towards Shonstone. Due to the orientation and the separation distance between the development and Shonstone, it is considered the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the residential amenity of Shonstone in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy.
In respect of the living conditions for the future occupiers of the residential units fronting onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane, the only amenity space for the occupiers of these units would be located adjacent to Falcon Cliff Terrace. This area cannot be regarded as private amenity space, as the application is proposing a low level wall with railings in order to provide visibility from the driveway into the development which would not prevent any users of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane looking into this amenity space.
In respect of the amenity space to the townhouses to the rear of the site, the proposed dwellinghouses would abut or be built into the rear embankment. There would be no useable private amenity space for these dwellinghouses. This would result in a poor residential environment for the future occupiers of these dwellinghouses.
The window to window relationship between the two blocks of new residential units appears to be satisfactory as the separation distance would be between 21.4 m and 23.6 m ; however, as already highlighted above in connection with the relationship of the townhouses and the properties of Upper Duke's Road, the existing occupiers of Upper Duke's Road would be able to overlook the proposed townhouses within the development, which would result in a lower quality residential environment for the future occupiers of development.
In respect of the long term viability of the Sycamore trees to the rear of the site, the proposed dwellings would be built within or close to the tree canopies of these trees. This would result in a reduction of light to the new dwellinghouse, which in turn would lead to pressure from the occupiers of the dwellings to seek consent to fell or cut back the trees so as to improve natural light to the dwellings. Depending on when the development took place, the trees might require to be cut back in order to construct the new dwellings, which would further diminish the long term viability of these trees.
Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." The car parking standard for a typical residential development is 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. The proposed apartments have be assessed against a different standard which is 1 space for 1 bedroom apartments and 2 spaces for 2 or more bedroom apartments. The proposed development is required to provide 13 spaces. Each of the townhouses would be able to have two parking spaces. The 1 bedroom apartment could be allocated a space; however, the 2 bedroom maisonette would only have one space. The maisonette should be allocated two spaces. However, the car parking standard for town centre and brownfield residential developments may be relaxed in accordance with paragraph A.7.1.
Paragraph A.7.1. states that "New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development
such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to:
The site is within walking distance of Shoprite on Victoria Road and a bus route on Victoria Road. The need for car parking could be reduced in relation to these circumstances. The application is proposing to provide a car parking space for the maisonette. It is considered that the car parking requirement for two parking spaces should be relaxed in this instance due to the size of the dwelling and the close proximity of the dwelling to local services. Furthermore, it is considered the proposal would not adversely affect the demand for on-street parking and that the Highways Division of the Department of Transport does not oppose the application.
The notes suggested by consultees are not material planning considerations and for that reason are not attached to the report, as part of the recommendation.
It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
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.
The comments from the Manx Electricity Authority are not a material consideration and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Environmental Health Officer is part of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and should not be afforded separate party status in this instance.
Mr Jessopp of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, given his distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
In summary, it is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded interested party status:
Highways Division of the Department of Transport The occupiers of Mount Pleasant Victoria Road The occupiers of Cynara, Poplar Road The occupiers of Sunnycrest, Poplar Road The occupiers of Arbory, Poplar Road The occupiers of Hilary Mount, Poplar Road The occupiers of Holly Cottage, Victoria Road The occupiers of No's 34, 35, 36 and 38 Upper Dukes Road The occupiers of Barnelles, Victoria Road The occupiers of Berethone, Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane The occupiers of No's 4 and 5 Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane The occupiers of No's 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 Arthur Bell Estate The owners of The Arthur Bell Estate. Accordingly the following parties are not afforded interested party status: Manx Electricity Authority
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 02.12.2008
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of is siting and design in that the development would be in close proximity to the rear windows of the properties of Newton Heath, Trevor, The Asters and The Shellys on Upper Dukes Road which would cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of those neighbouring properties from overshadowing, loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy.
The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that its siting, design and layout would result in i) an unsatisfactory living environment for the future occupiers of the dwellings due to the inadequate provision of private amenity space; and ii) an unsatisfactory living environment for the future occupiers of the dwellings to the north west end of the site due to their close proximity to the properties of Upper Dukes Road which would result overlook the new dwellings.
The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that its design, height and external appearance would result in the introduction of development out of scale, proportion and character with the locality and detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 Decision Made :
T. Brook Tobin Tobin Reporting Officer
10 December 2008 08/01571/B Page 11 of 11
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown