Loading document...
Application No.: 08/02096/REM Applicant: M Bibby & J Christian Proposal: Reserved Matters application for the erection of a detached dwelling Site Address: Land Adjacent To Allandale Farm Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ## Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose subject to condition Consultee: Lezayre Parish Commissioners Notes: Refuse Consultee: Drainage Division Notes: No objection in principle subject to condition
The application site represents a parcel of land adjacent to Allandale Farm, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The property is located on the northern side of Ballamanagh Road and south of the Sulby Bridge. Presently there is a total of three detached buildings within the site, all of which are in a poor state of repair.
The application site is within the area covered by the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998. Under this, the application site is recognised as being within an area of open space (including agriculture). Under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 the site is also within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
Relevant policies include:
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Reserved Matters application to erect a dwelling - 08/00326/REM - REFUSED on appeal on the following grounds:- "The details of reserved matters for which approval is sought would not be satisfactory, particularly in respect of siting, design, internal layout and landscaping."
Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - 07/00375/A - APPROVED
The application seeks approval of the matters that were reserved from approved application 07/00375/A. It proposes the erection of a detached dwelling which would have a width of 20.8 metres, a depth of 19 metres and a height up to ridge level of 6.2 metres.
The previously refused dwelling proposed to have a width of 23 metres, a maximum depth of 21 metres and a height up to ridge level of 8 metres.
Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended a refusal on the following ground:-
"The dwelling should be a single storey and sized in keeping with surrounding properties." Highways Division do not oppose subject to the imposition of the following conditions:- "Two off street parking spaces to be provided for this proposal.
The access drive arrangements shall comprise a turning facility to permit a motor car to turn around within the site so that a vehicle can emerge from the site in a forward gear.
Visibility splays of 2x18 metres are required."
The Drainage Services Manager makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owner/occupier of Strooanane, Ballamanaugh Close, Sulby, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; the size of the proposal is out of keeping with the area; access is very large, concern due to applicant's occupation that this will result in equipment/trucks to the site; little detail on what planting and trees will be planted; the internal layout is still too large; no tree survey has been undertaken with DAFF; A bungalow owned by the DHSS in Ramsey accommodating 4 disabled persons and their carers exists, which confirms how inappropriate the size of this proposed dwelling is. It is a "mansion" and is therefore not in sympathy with the area; loss of light; soakaways/drains are inadequate and will result in flooding of the surrounding properties; septic tank sewerage will give rise to a serious risk for contaminating the streams; the land has been contaminated; additional traffic will cause disturbance; impact upon the natural beauty of the area; loss of barns will result in harm to birds and owls; loss of wild fauna and orchids; and the proposal will impact upon the High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
The owners and/or occupants of 26, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 40 Carrick Park, Sulby, object to the planning application, which can be summarised as; still appears too large, too high and still has two storeys; it has not been moved nearer to the road or closer to the farm, away from the existing bungalows, which could be done by the demolition of the buildings fronting the highway; a septic tank should not be installed in an area served by sewer pipes; drainage issues relating to the high water table in the area and proposal would add to the problem.
The owners and/or occupants of Nonnezoshe, Ballamanaugh Close, Sulby, object to the planning application, which can be summarised as; the proposal is two storey, loss of privacy through overlooking; out of keeping; drainage issues; dwelling is sited too far from the access road.
The proposal is a unique application as the previous Approval in Principle gave permission for a new dwelling located within "Open Space", which is against Planning Policy generally. The only exceptions for new dwellings in open space normally, are replacement dwellings, which allow the replacement to be no more than 50% of the existing footprint or dwellings for agricultural workers who have justified and proven the need. However, the principle for development has been approved on this site, and therefore this proposal will be judged on the Reserved Matters of the application only.
The Material Planning Matters which are needed to be considered are:-
Size, siting and design of the dwelling
Whilst the site is within an area of land zoned as open space, the site is situated within the vicinity of Sulby Village, particularly to the housing estates to the north of the site. The dwellings are made up by a variety of different types and designs, these include single bungalows within Ballamanaugh Close and Carrick Park which is made up of single storey bungalows, dormer bungalows and two storey dwellings.
There are considered to be two principal issues to consider in relation to the size of the proposed accommodation. First is whether it is reasonable to require the applicant to justify the level of accommodation proposed (and if so whether they have done this); and second is to consider the impact of the proposed development on the character of the locality, its visual and other amenities.
With regard to the first question, the Inspector who considered the earlier reserved matters application noted that, most unusually, approval had been given in principle on the basis of the personal circumstances of the family for development that would normally have been approved. He noted that the approval in principle contained a condition that only permits occupation by the applicants and their dependants. In the reserved matters scheme that was refused, some of the accommodation proposed was identified as being for a carer. The inspector identified that such a person would not be permitted to occupy the dwelling (being neither the applicant or their dependant). This formed one aspect of the Inspector's view that the accommodation proposed was of excessive scale. The accommodation now proposed does not identify any of the bedrooms as being intended for occupation by a carer and the number of bedrooms identified has reduced from seven as originally proposed to six in the current scheme (albeit that some would lend themselves to subdivision). The Inspector also had a broader objection to the scale of what was proposed in the earlier reserved matters application. Among other objections he felt that the provision of four bathrooms on the first floor along with a landing area of approximately 50 square meters was excessive. He concluded that "there is a public interest in ensuring that what might be perceived as unfair advantage is not taken of the situation, when considering approval of a permanent building which would continue to exist long after the family's current circumstances have changed." It is considered, bearing in mind the fact that approval in principle was granted on the basis of the personal circumstances put forward by the applicants at that time in a location that would not normally have been considered for residential development, that the applicants should be required to justify the scale of the dwelling they propose in terms of meeting their personal needs. The applicants have not done this however it is understood that the family has a total of five children which would suggest that six bedrooms would be a reasonable requirement and, although the overall scale of the property is large, it is not considered to be unreasonably so for a family of this size. It is considered therefore that the scale now proposed is not objectionable in principle.
With regard to the impact of the proposal, the proposed dwelling is essentially a bungalow (albeit a very large one), with accommodation within the roof space. The proposal has three rear pitched roof dormers to the rear elevation.
The proposal is of reduced height and massing compared to the previous scheme and would have a ridge height of 6.2 metres, (1.8 metres lower than the previously refused scheme). Additionally, the proposal has been reduced in width by 2.2 metres and the depth has been reduced by 2 metres. These reductions have resulted in the proposal appearing to be of significantly reduced scale and especially the massing, compared to the previous scheme.
The proposal is for a six bedroom property (although the roof accommodation could potentially be subdivided differently to create a greater number of rooms. Four bedrooms are located at ground floor level, one of which is for the applicant's daughter (Molly) with two more rooms within the roof space. The rest of the large family would be accommodated in the remaining bedrooms.
The proposed location of the dwelling, is due to the condition attached to the previous application which stated; "This permission is for residential use of land extending to no more than 60% of the depth of the land shown on the submitted plan".
The previous Inspector (08/00326/REM) criticised the location of the previous dwelling; “...the proposed house would leave only a very small gap (barely 1 metre) between the projecting rear part of the house and the boundary with what is shown on the submitted plans as a “paddock”.
The Inspector goes on to say; “A large house would look oddly positioned if it stood so close to a physical boundary between its curtilage and a paddock.”
The proposed dwelling would now be approximately 5 metres from this paddock boundary. It could be argued that due to the size of the site the dwelling could be moved more towards the Ballamanagh Road, however, it is considered the proposed distance is acceptable. The dwelling would still be set within fairly substantial grounds, due to the garden areas to the front and sides, and also due to the paddock area which although it cannot be used as a private garden would still appear to be part of the entire site.
The Appeal Inspector who considered the previous reserved matters application (08/00326/REM) indicated he had concerns that the retention of the old building (Tholtan) near the front of the site would mean that some of the conceivable “planning benefits” of the development would not be achieved. This formed part of the inspector’s justification for recommending to the Minister that the earlier reserved matters application be refused.
The first Appeal Inspector for application 07/00375/A, states in his formal recommendation that; “The Minister is recommended to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle for the demolition of existing metal outbuildings and erection of a disabled person’s dwelling...”. Demolition of the buildings was not required by any condition attached to the approval in principle although two of them would need to be removed in order to construct the dwelling that is now approved. This application, again proposes to retain the Tholtan which runs along the south east boundary of the site. The retention of this building would inevitably undermine some of the justification that was used by the Inspector who considered the appeal against refusal of approval in principle. While it could be argued that the removal of the building would make the proposal more apparent within the street scene, given the Tholtan and existing substantial landscaping would screen the majority of the proposed dwelling, this is not considered to be a valid reason to permit the existing building to be retained. The dwelling that is proposed would have a large integral garage that should meet any reasonable domestic storage requirements.
The dwelling is of a substantial size, but due to the reduction in the height, the amount of accommodation which can be provided within the roof space is reduced. Although there is an increase in the ground floor footprint compared to the previous application it is considered that the proposal would fit well within the site and would not represent an overdevelopment of this particular site.
The proposed footprint would be larger than neighbouring dwellings within the surrounding locality (Carrick Park & Ballamanagh Close). However, the curtilage of the site is substantially larger than any of the neighbouring properties, and from viewing aerial plans of the surrounding area; the application site would still have far less built development density, compared to the neighbouring sites.
The proposal, due to its design, does help in reducing the massing and appearance of the dwelling. Additionally, the style and appearance would be in keeping with the neighbouring properties within Carrick Park & Ballamanagh Close. Overall it is considered the proposal would be acceptable from this aspect.
Impact upon residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.
The boundary treatment which runs along the north-eastern boundary of the application site and is shared by the neighbouring dwellings Strooanane, Nonnezoshe and Argyll, comprises a number mature trees and mature hedgerows/bushes which vary from 1.5 metres to 3 metres in height (approximately). The applicant does not intend to alter the existing landscaping along the northern or eastern boundaries of the site.
The north-eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 22 metres from the rear elevation of Nonnezoshe and 21 metres from Strooanane. Additionally, the proposed dwelling is located to the south west of the neighbouring properties, therefore the orientation of this property will not reduce a significant amount of direct sunlight to the neighbouring properties.
The height and design of the proposal, and distance between the proposal and neighbouring dwellings, would also reduce any impact upon the neighbouring properties, and it is not considered it would have an overbearing impact upon the adjacent properties.
Regarding the possibility of overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy, there are only ground floor windows which would look directly towards the neighbouring properties. These windows are not required to have obscure glazed, due to the existing boundary treatment of the site, which provides adequate natural screening. This would prevent overlooking of the neighbouring properties of Ballamanaugh Close. The neighbouring property Allandale Farm is approximately 48 metres south east of the proposed dwelling and it is considered due to this distance that the proposal would not have any adverse impact through overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy. Additionally, a barn has recently been erected which is sited in a position which would block the majority, if not all, of Allandale Farm when viewed from the proposed dwelling.
As part of the previous approval, conditions were attached which required 2 metres by 18 metres visibility splays, on-site parking provision and a turning facility to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. The proposed application would provide such facilities and therefore comply with these conditions.
The previous Planning Inspector (08/00326/REM), had concerns about the size of the access driveway, and considered it a supplementary objection, due to “over-large radii” resulting in a “bellmouth” about 32 metres wide along the road. This application has overcome this issue by reducing the width of the “bellmouth” to 17 metres.
The Highway Division have no objection to the proposal, subject to the above conditions.
It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable from this aspect, and it is also considered that a single dwelling would not result in a significant amount of traffic to the area causing a disturbance to the neighbouring residential properties.
The Planning Inspector (07/00375/A) commented on concern of flooding within his report which stated; “I have noted concerns relating to flooding in the area. The Drainage Authority has not objected to the development, even though they appear to be aware of the problems in the area. In my view these matters are amenable to controls other than planning, and therefore no objection arises for this development”.
Additionally the Planning Inspector who considered the previous reserved matters application (08/00326/REM) stated; “There may be some drainage problems in the vicinity of the site but from the available evidence, I do not see compelling reasons to refuse approval on drainage grounds.”
The Drainage Division have commented on this application, and stated “The surface water from the new extension must be separate, accessible and join at the curtilage boundary into the existing combined drainage system. Details of the drainage layout have been included in the above planning application and do comply with Department of Transport Drainage Division requirements.”
It is therefore considered that the applicant is aware of the drainage requirements, and appropriate drainage details will be required to comply with the relevant Building Regulations.
Overall, it is considered the proposed dwelling is of an acceptable size for the size of the site, whilst not having significant impacts upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, or upon the visual amenities of the surrounding locality. For these reasons the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation:
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the proposed dwelling and access as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 01 rev P1, 02 rev P1, 03 rev P1, 04 rev P1 and 05 rev P1 received on 12th November 2008.
C 3. The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of any works, there must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, samples of the external brick soldier finish course of the dwelling.
C 5. A visibility splay of 2 metres by 18 metres shall be provided at each side of the site access prior to first occupation of the dwelling. No obstruction to visibility above 1 metre in height shall take place within the splays so provided.
C 6. Off street parking must be provided in accordance with Manx Roads 1.
C 7. Access arrangements should incorporate a turning facility so a vehicle can turn around and emerge in forward gear.
C 8. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, the access onto Ballamanagh Road is to be completed to the required standard of the Department of Transport Highway Division and the hardstanding to the front of the dwelling is to be completed to allow the required parking provisions to be used.
C 9. This permission may be taken up, and the dwelling may be first occupied, only by the applicants, their dependants and carers.
C 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval), within the application site.
C 11. All existing buildings on the site, including those that are annotated in the approved drawing 02 Site Plan rev P1 as being demolished and the tholtan that is not indicated on that drawing as being demolished, shall be demolished prior to first occupation of the approved dwelling. The material arising from their demolition shall either be removed from the site within one month of demolition or, if expressly approved in writing in advance by the Planning Authority, shall be utilised in the construction of the approved dwelling.
C 12. Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved a fence shall be erected along the line and in accordance with the specifications shown on approved drawing 02 Site Plan rev P1 to subdivide the area of the site indicated as 'paddock' from the land on which the approved dwelling is to be constructed. At no point following occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall the land indicated as 'paddock' be used for any domestic purposes.
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 : approved Committee Meeting Date : 27/2/09
8 April 2009 08/02096/REM
Signed : ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown