Loading document...
Application No.: 08/02303/A Applicant: Heritage Homes Ltd Proposal: Approval in principle to re - align highway and create roundabout to provide access to adjacent land Site Address: Part Of Fields 432607, 434113 & 434764 (and Including Section Of Public Highway) Adjacent To Glashen Close A5 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 28.01.2009 Site Visit: 28.01.2009 Expected Decision Level: ** Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Objection - Consulttee: Malew Parish Commissioners Notes: Objection - It should be rejected until such time as it is contained within an application showing the purpose it would serve; the requirement for it, and also the time scale within which the entire scheme would be completed. Consulttee: Drainage Division Notes: no objection in prciniple, subject to the following conditions:-
The site represents two pieces of land on the northern and southern side of the A5 Douglas Road to the north east of Ballasalla village. The piece of land on the north of the main road adjoins the main road to the south east, the north eastern edge of Glashen Close - the rear of Merricourt and Cedar Lodge and the rear of the farmbuildings formerly associated with Glashen Farm which were replaced by a new farm complex to the north east. Glashen Farmhouse is now Registered (RB 242) although the farm buildings are not. The piece of land on the southern side of the road abuts the main road to the north west, agricultural land to the south and east and lies opposite Merricourt, Ballacroft and Broadley within Glashen Close.
The main road is characterised on the northern side by a stone wall set back from the carriageway by a grass verge and on the southern side there is a footway with hawthorn hedge and very low grass bank separating the footway from the agricultural land beyond. There is a farm entrance within the existing southern edge of the highway within the defined site.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
There have been no planning applications which have been submitted in respect of this site alone although many applications have been submitted in respect of the redevelopment of Glashen Farm which now lies to the north east of Glashen Close.
It is relevant that a significant proposal for residential development to the north west of Glashen Close was recently refused - PA 06/2245 and two applications for residential development to the south west of Glashen Close were also refused (PAs 02/1480 and 1481).
It is also relevant that the Department of Local Government and the Environment is presently preparing an Area Plan for the south of the Island which will include Ballasalla and the land of and surrounding this application site.
Proposed is the principle of the creation of a roundabout within the area edged red. The outline of a possible arrangement is shown which shows the north western arm discharging between the former Glashen Farm outbuildings (which are not Registered although the road would continue to or close to the Registered Building and within the curtilage thereof), the main road re-aligned to the south east and a spur for a future by pass road leading towards Balthane industrial estate.
A resident of Ballaquark in Douglas objects to the application on the basis that there is no justification for the development and it lies within countryside which is protected for its own sake in the Strategic Plan and the shape of the site is "bizarre".
The owner of 4, Glashen Close objects to the application on the basis that the roundabout is unnecessary, irrelevant and would block traffic flow, require the removal of bus stops, increase danger to pedestrians.
Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that there is no purpose to it.
The resident of Ballasalla House objects to the application on the basis that the proposal is premature pending the southern area plan and a need for the development, the route of the by-pass, there is no approved development which could link in with the roundabout, Department of Transport does not appear to have been fully consulted, the sightlines are inadequate and it would slow traffic up.
The owners of Cronk ny Greiney object to the application on the grounds that there is no reason for it, the land required for the provision of the roundabout is agricultural, the proposal pre-empts the development plan for the area, bus stops would need to be relocated.
The owner of Abbeydale objects to the proposal as it is considered premature and has no purpose.
Department of Transport Drainage Division raise no objection subject to conditions regarding the discharge of surface water.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division object to the application on the basis that a transport assessment will be required due to the proposed road re-alignment
Jackson Homes indicate their ownership of land which shares a common boundary with the site.
Ballasalla and District Residents' Association object to the application on the basis that it is premature and would be located just after the brow of a hill.
A resident of Port Soderick comments that the application appears to be speculative.
The owner of 106, Silverburn Crescent objects to the application on the basis that it would result in disruption to traffic and an increase in congestion and that there is no valid reason for the scheme.
The site lies within an area designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the development plan and as such the provisions of General Policy 3 should be applied: that is:
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10) b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14) e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage".
There is no evidence that the proposed works comply with any of these requirements.
From time to time, alterations to existing highways are required either in terms of re-aligning the roadway or the introduction of traffic controls in the form of traffic junctions or roundabouts and sometimes these can be on land which is not designated for development – for example the roundabout which was introduced at the junction of the Castletown and Cooil Roads (A5 and A24) just outside Douglas or the improvements which have been introduced recently at Governor's Bridge in Onchan/Douglas. In such cases proposals are generally ones in full detail and with a full assessment of the highway implications and other concerns – visual impact, ecology, archaeology, noise, impact on residential properties. In all cases, the need for the development is included by the applicant. In this case there is none of this information which makes the assessment of the application very difficult and its justification impossible. The roundabout will not link to established development or even approved development and whilst there has been reference to a proposal for a by-pass, the route of this has not been the subject of a planning application. As such, the introduction of a roundabout which may or may not link to a by-pass which has no formally approved route, would be unacceptable.
The information dated 2005 from the Department of Transport regarding the southern relief road shows a roundabout in this general location but of a much more significant scale, with the north western spur heading straight off the roundabout and not back towards the former Glashen Farm buildings as is shown in this application.
It is also relevant that the applicant has not made a submission to the Southern Plan consultation process to the effect that land to the north of the A5 should be developed (they have made submissions which support the development of land on the southern side of the road). As such, whilst a by-pass to the south of the A5 may be proposed or required at some time, there is no evidence that this would need to include an arm into the land on the northern side or that there needs to be a roundabout to accommodate this.
The northern arm discharges traffic to a point in between an existing building and an existing dwelling. In front of this is the curtilage of a Registered Building which would undoubtedly be affected by the introduction of a public highway so close to it.
The submission for the development of Crossag Farm, for 257 dwellings was refused for a number of reasons including the design and finish of the proposed dwellings, the prematurity as Ballasalla has no Area Plan applicable to it and does not represent a settlement to which a sustainable urban extension could be attached, the absence of the by-pass, the absence of proposals for the replacement of the primary school and that some of the buildings could be seen on the skyline.
As such, the roundabout is proposed on land which is not designated for development and there is no over-riding national or indeed any need which would justify the changes to the appearance of the highway and the extension northwards of the village of Ballasalla.
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 residents of Port Soderick, Douglas, 100, Silverburn Crescent, Ballasalla House are not directly affected by the proposals and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The residents of Abbeydale, 4, Glashen Close and Cronk ny Greiney and Jackson Homes all abut or are opposite the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 10.02.2009
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
The site of the proposed works lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. As such, development within such areas must comply with the requirements of General Policy 3 in order to be in accordance with the Strategic Plan. It is not considered that the proposed roundabout would comply with any of these provisions and as such the development would be contrary to the provisions of that Plan.
There would not appear to be any justification for the provision of a roundabout in this location: there is no land allocated for development to the south east of the site and the land to the north west of the site has been rejected for the most recent form of development - PA 06/2245.
The extent of the north western arm of the roundabout would necessitate the demolition of Glashen Farmhouse which is Registered, or the removal of adjacent buildings which form the setting for the Registered Building. The indicated road would come very close to the boundary of Cedar Lodge. In the absence of information which would clarify the numbers of vehicles which the proposed road would accommodate and to where the road would lead, it is not possible to fully assess the impact on the occupants of Cedar Lodge or to conclude that the impact of such a new road in such close proximity would not be adverse.
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 : _________________________ Committee Meeting Date : _________________________
Signed : _________________________
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