Loading document...
Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Administrator, Crown Division, Chief Secretary's Office, Government Offices, Douglas, IM1 3PG.
Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Administrator, Crown Division, Chief Secretary's Office, Government Offices, Douglas, IM1 3PG.
Date: 17th October 2011 Your Reference: AP11/0121
Dear Mr. Johnstone,
Re: PA 11/00942/B – Erection of a dwelling, Plot 1 Far End & Adjacent Plot, King Edward Road, Onchan
Please find a statement that set out the position of the Planning Authority in respect of the above planning application.
The statement comprises of two parts:
A copy of the case officers report that assessed the proposal and recommended that the planning application be granted permission. This was considered and accepted by the Planning Committee on 15th September 2011.
An extract of the minutes of the 15th September 2011 Planning Committee Meeting.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Brooks BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI Planning Officer
Department of Infrastructure Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
| Proposal | Description | | --- | --- | | | |
| Site Address | Description | | --- | --- | | | Erection of a dwelling | | | Plot 1 | | | Far End & Adjacent Plot | | | King Edward Road | | | Onchan | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM3 2AU | | Applicant | | | Howstrake Developments Limited | | | Application No. | | | 11/00942/B | | | Case Officer | | | Mr Ian Brooks | | | Recommendation | | | Permitted | |
| Onchan Commissioners | Approve | | --- | --- | | Highways Division | Do not oppose | | Manx Electricity Authority | Comments received | | Drainage Division | No objection |
| 133 King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man | | | --- | --- | | Braemar 1 Lag Birragh Drive Onchan Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal | | The Long House Lag Birragh Drive Onchan Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal | | 137 King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2AX | Objects to the proposal | | 135 King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal |
The planning application is being considered by the Planning Committee due to the number of objections received.
The application site comprises of land situated at the western end of the built area of King Edward Road in Onchan. The site contains a large vacant house in a poor state of repair. The site slopes down from the north to south towards the sea. To the west of the application site are the residential properties of "Braemar" and "The Long House". To the south of the application site is the residential property of Fo Carrick.
This application is seeking permission for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the site.
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, Housing Policy 6
Housing Policy 6 states: "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 the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as proposed predominantly residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000.
Policy O/RES/P/19 of Planning Circular 1/2000 states that: "The erection of new residential properties may be permitted within areas designated for residential use where these would fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings."
The application site and adjoining land has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications that are considered potentially material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Planning application 01/00058/B sought approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and creation of four apartment buildings housing 42 apartments on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 25th September 2001.
Planning application 01/01273/B sought approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and creation of four two storey blocks, housing 30 apartments on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 29th October 2001. The refusal was confirmed at review, with the review refusal decision notice issued on the 31st January 2002. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 9th July 2002.
Planning application 02/01755/B sought approval for the erection of four apartment blocks each containing three apartments with parking provisions and landscaping on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 23rd January 2003. The refusal was confirmed at review, with the review refusal decision notice issued on the 27th March 2003. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 30th July 2002.
Planning application 06/00212/B sought approval for the creation of a layout for six residential dwellings and garages, roadway and drainage on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was refused on the 27th July 2006. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 8th January 2007.
Planning application 07/02101/B sought approval for residential development to provide plots for four detached dwellings with associated roads and drainage and creation of a new access on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was approved on the 11th March 2008.
Planning application 08/02129/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling on plot 4 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. This previous
Planning application was refused by the Planning Committee on the 17th April 2009. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal approval decision issued on the 22nd July 2009.
Planning application 08/02129/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling on plot 4 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. This previous planning application was refused by the Planning Committee on the 17th April 2009. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal approval decision issued on the 22nd July 2009.
Planning application 09/02073/B sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on plot 2 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. This previous planning application was approved by the Planning Committee, with the approval decision notice issued on the 13th April 2010.
Planning application 09/02069/B sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on plot 1 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B, which was refused on appeal on 12th October 2010.
REPRESENTATIONS
Onchan District Commissioners have recommended that the application be approved.
Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure do not oppose the application
The occupiers of No.137 King Edward Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the building is still huge in height and mass. 2) Questions why have local plans, when the Department overrules them, 3) the development will be out of keeping with the surrounding properties, 4) the development will overlook their property.
The occupiers of "The Long House" Lag Birragh Drive have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Loss of privacy, 2) being overbearing, 3) the proposed screening will not help the face that they will be overlooked considerably, 4) the dwelling is too large.
The occupiers of 133 King Edward Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) overlooking and loss of privacy, 2) The dwelling appears excessive and overbearing, 3) that it would be out of keeping with the current surrounding properties.
The occupiers of 135 King Edward Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: the previous application was refused on the basis that "a serious problem of overlooking and the building being overbearing and would seriously harm the residents in Braemar and Long House" - these remarks do not appear to have been addressed in this application.
The occupiers of Braemar, 1 Lag Birragh Drive have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the building will be overbearing, 2) overshadowing, loss of light, 3) loss of privacy, 4) questions the use of a flat roof on the proposed development and comparing to a dormer, 5) questions the legality of moving a footpath, 6) concerns about the state of the site at the moment, 7) the size of the screen would be anti social.
Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have not objected to the application.
Manx Electricity Authority has commented on the application in relation to the supply of electricity to the site.
ASSESSMENT The principal issues in assessing this application are a) Land use, b) Impact on surrounding properties, C) visual amenity of the area, and D) Highway safety. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order.
The development is compatible with the land use zoning of the area, which is predominantly residential within the Onchan Local Plan. It is considered the principle of developing the site for residential use to be acceptable in this locality; however, there are other material considerations to be taken into account in order to determine whether the proposed development is acceptable.
In terms of the impact on No.133, 135 and 137 King Edward Road, in considering the previous application 09/02069/B, the independent inspector stated that "there is no doubt that the views of residents from their living rooms and front patios in 133, 135 and 137 King Edwards Road would change if this house was permitted and built. Instead of the very large traditional pitched red roof of Far End, there would a modern house with its very different roof style and appearance." "It is clear that the residents in 133, 135 and 137 do not like the modern design of the proposed house. They much prefer the traditional shape and design of Far End. This is however not a sufficient reason to support refusal of the scheme." "As for overlooking, there is no clear evidence to suggest that there would be serious overlooking or privacy problems in relation to properties in King Edward Road. The windows of the proposed house are either at a high level or non-habitable. It is also the case that the distances between the proposed house and the King Edward Road properties are in excess of 60 m . At this distance the problem of overlooking and loss of privacy is significant reduced. It is not sufficient to justify refusal."
This application still proposes high level windows or windows serving non-habitable rooms. The distances between the distances between the proposed house and the King Edward Road properties are still in excess of 60 m . It is considered the proposed development will not adversely affect the residential environment of No.133, 135 and 137 King Edward Road.
In respect of Braemar and Long House, the independent inspector made the following comments: "The visual impact on Braemar and Long House is much more serious. This is because the proposed house would be much closer to both these properties compared with the King Edward Road properties, and it has a 1st floor balcony and windows which would be damaging to the living conditions in these 2 properties. It is the height and location of the balcony and windows which presents the overlooking and privacy problems." "Braemar has a conservatory which has windows facing the proposed house. Braemar also has a rear garden and patio directly adjoining the appeal site. This part of the rear garden includes child play equipment. Both conservatory and rear garden would seem to be seriously overlooked by the 1st floor balcony of the master suite and the 1st floor windows of the master suite. There was no clear evidence submitted to demonstrate that the existing or proposed landscaping would remove this overlooking and consequent loss of privacy. Details of the landscaping had not been prepared. In particular, the required height of the landscape screen alongside Braemar, the nature of the landscaping and the time for the screen to be effective should be available to decision makers when considering this proposal. The existing screening along the boundary includes a sycamore, and what looked like ribes sanguineum,
hebe and escallonia. None of these shrubs would normally be tall enough to effectively screen the 1st floor balcony or windows." "Long House has a rear garden with raised timber decking containing a garden table and chairs. This garden area would be seriously overlooked by the same 1st floor balcony and windows. Again there was no evidence to demonstrate that the proposed landscaping under condition 3 would address this overlooking problem. No details of how the landscaping would provide privacy were offered. No views of the proposed house as seen from the garden of Long House were submitted. No details of future views from the garden were submitted. No details of proposed landscaping screen alongside Long House, the nature of this landscaping and the time for this screen to be effective in protecting privacy should be available to decision makers when considering this proposal." "Unfortunately the application plans and the plans and diagrams submitted for the appeal, and seen in the Inquiry, failed to show how the new house would relate to Braemar or Long House. From all the plans submitted for approval, it is impossible to calculate accurate distances to the new house from Braemar and Long House. I therefore had to make judgements about distances in relation to overlooking on my 2nd site inspection. In doing that I noted the 21 m distance suggested by the applicant's agent as being a satisfactory distance between facing windows of houses. While this distance and greater distances [i.e. 25-27.5 \mathrm{~m}] are used in some Design Guides in the UK, such figures have not been adopted on the Island. In fact the 21 m distance is very unlikely to be used when the overlooking is from a position that is much higher than the location overlooked. A longer distance is normally adopted for this purpose. This is of course the case with this appeal. There were also no plans or diagrams to show how the proposed boundary landscaping might address the overlooking and privacy problems. The appellants in Lag Birragh Drive raised overlooking and privacy problems and their doubts about the proposed landscaping as well as objections about the new house being overbearing in the Inquiry and in their written objections; their objections were not satisfactorily addressed." "The scheme is therefore seriously unsatisfactory in the way it addresses its visual impact on living conditions for residents in Braemar and Long House. There seems to be a serious problem of overlooking and loss of privacy from the 1st floor balcony and master suite windows to the rear gardens of both these properties; a way of satisfactorily addressing this problem has not been submitted. It is worth noting that there would be spectacular views to the west over Douglas Bay from the 1st floor balcony and master suite windows. Furthermore, there is also a problem of the new house being overbearing when viewed from the rear gardens of both these properties, mainly because of the absence of any clearly defined landscape screening. The application should be refused on these grounds. In short, the proposed dwelling on plot 1 as shown in the submitted plans would seriously harm the living conditions of residents in Braemar and Long House."
The application was refused at appeal for the following reason: "The proposed dwelling would seriously harm the living conditions of residents in "Braemar" and "Long House by reason of - (a) a serious problem of overlooking and loss of privacy from the first floor balcony and master suite to the rear gardens of both dwellings; and (b) the proposed building being overbearing when viewed from the rear gardens of both dwelling."
In terms of addressing the overlooking issue, the applicant's agent has indicated that all the windows on first floor level that look towards the neighbours are to be obscure glazed. Furthermore, the first floor balcony has been reduced in size so as not to wrap around the western elevation of the property. The western elevation of the proposed balcony for the
Master Suite will have a screening panel so as to prevent any overlooking from occurring. It is considered the applicant's have addressed the first part of the reason for refusal.
In terms of addressing the overbearing issue, the applicant has now provided a clearly defined landscape scheme along the boundary of Braemar and The Long House. These plans also show the relationship of the new dwelling with the neighbouring properties. The applicants are proposing retain the existing landscaping between the new dwelling and the neighbouring properties and to plant additional landscaping along the boundary of the new dwelling and Braemar. The landscaping scheme will help to mask the proposed development when viewed from the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties. This will reduce the overbearing effect of the development on the residents of Braemar and The Long House. It is considered the applicant's have addressed the second part of the reason for refusal.
VISUAL AMENITY
This issue was considered during the appeal of the previous application. The independent inspector stated that "the local street scene near to the appeal site is varied. There are many different designs of property in King Edward Road and Lag Birragh Drive. There is also a wide range of size of dwelling in the area. I did not see two dwellings which had the same design or size. Many properties in King Edward Road are bungalows - most bungalows appear to have been extended with sun lounges, dormer windows or roof lights. There is therefore no single design theme to be followed in this area."
"The proposed new dwelling on plot 1 would be very different in design to Far End and to the older adjoining dwellings. Consequently it would be a significant change to the street scene. The large detached house with its traditional pitched roof would be replaced by a larger modern 3 storey structure with a central rotunda. This modern house would be similar in design to the modern houses already permitted on plots 2, 3 and 4."
The change in design would be striking when viewed from any direction. However, insufficient evidence was submitted to show that this new design would be visually harmful. Variety of design in this stretch of King Edward Road has so far not spoiled the appearance and character of the varied streetscene, with this first issue, I conclude that the proposed new dwelling would not harm the character or appearance of the King Edward Road street scene."
The size, design and external appearance of the dwelling as viewed from King Edward Road, is the same as the previous application. The independent inspector concluded that it would not harm the character or appearance of the King Edward Road street scene. The same is true with this scheme.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
Turning to the issue of impact on highway safety it can be seen that the proposed development does not create any new accesses onto the public highway as it relies on using the access road that was approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. The proposed dwelling has more than adequate on-site car parking provision. As such, the proposed development does not harm highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
PARTY STATUS
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 Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
In respect of the representations from the occupiers of 133, 135 and 137 King Edward Road, it should be noted that the Planning Committee afforded them party status on the previous application due to their proximity to the development site. It is recommended for continuity purposes that the occupiers of 133, 135 and 137 King Edward Road be afforded party status.
The occupiers of "The Long House" and "Braemar" are adjoining landowners and as such should be afforded party status
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority and the Manx Electricity Authority have commented on non-planning matters and as such should not be afforded party status.
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 permission relates to the erection of a dwellinghouse as shown in drawing numbers K243/P/10-01, K243/P/10-02, K243/P/10-03, K243/P/10-04, K243/P/10-05, K243/P/10-06, K243/P/10-07, K243/P/11-01, K243/P/11-02, K243/P/11-03, K243/P/12-01, K243/P/12-02, 01, 02, 03, and Design Statement prepared by Kay Associated Ltd date stamped 8th July 2011
C 3. The first floor windows to be formed in the west facing elevation of the dwellinghouse and the screen panels to be used on the first floor balconies and upper floor balconies must be glazed or re-glazed with obscure glass.
C 4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved plans must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Date: 08 September 2011
Comments: 11/00942/B Onchan
Infrastructure
Date: 08 September 2011
Comments: 11/00942/B Onchan
Location: Government
Base Map reproduced from Isle of Man Survey mapping. Licence Number GD000/97
© Crown Copyright. Department of Local Government and the Environment, Isle of Man.
Unauthorized reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution of civil proceedings.
Produced using Uniform 7.3
1:10000
Part 2. Extract from the Minutes of the 15^{\text {th }} September 2011 Planning Committee.
This matter had previously been before the Committee and its determination had been deferred to allow the Case Officer to obtain further information with regard to the height of the proposed mast and the whether any further accompanying equipment or structures to assist with the data collection would be necessary.
The Case Officer gave the Committee a verbal report of the information obtained from the applicant, the Airport Director, the Senior Biodiversity Officer (Zoologist), Forestry, Amenity & Lands Division of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) and the Director of the Environmental Protection Unit of DEFA.
Mr Killip suggested that the matter should be deferred to allow the information contained within the verbal report to be incorporated into the written report so that the information was fully in the public domain.
Mr Evans supported Mr Killip's proposal and suggested that further information regarding bird flight paths be obtained from the compiler of the Manx Bird Atlas. Mr Cottier supported this suggestion.
Mr Killip formally proposed the deferral of further consideration of the application, Messrs Young and Evans seconded the proposal and with the exception of the Chairman the Committee determined to defer further consideration of the application.
DECISION
The Committee determined to defer consideration of the application.
Mr Quirk declared an interest in the following two applications and left the meeting. Mr Killip proposed Mr Evans as Acting Chairman, Messrs Skinner and Young seconded the proposal and Mr Evans assumed the Chair.
Item 6.4
PA11/00942/B
The Committee noted that the report, attached to the agenda, contained a typographical error in the planning history section, paragraph 7 being a repeat of paragraph 6.
The Committee further noted that additional planting was proposed and that it did not include leyandii.
DECISION
The Committee accepted the recommendation of the case officer and the application was approved subject to the following conditions.
PC Minutes 15.09.2011
K243/P/10-06, K243/P/10-07, K243/P/11-01, K243/P/11-02, K243/P/11-03, K243/P/12-01, K243/P/12-02, 01, 02, 03, and Design Statement prepared by Kay Associated Ltd date stamped 8th July 2011
C 3. The first floor windows to be formed in the west facing elevation of the dwellinghouse and the screen panels to be used on the first floor balconies and upper floor balconies must be glazed or re-glazed with obscure glass.
C 4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved plans must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
PARTY STATUS
Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as recommended.
Mr Skinner declared perceived interest in the following application and left the meeting.
| Item 6.5 | | | --- | --- | | 16 Ballakenneen Drive Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4MN | Additional use of residential dwelling for private tutoring and therapy treatment (Retrospective) | | PA11/00814/C | Applicant: Mr David John & Mrs Nucharee Burridge | | | Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks | | | Recommendation: Permitted |
The case officer advised the Committee that he had, that morning, received additional comments from the objectors, and the Committee discussed whether it would be appropriate to consider the application or defer further consideration. The matters raised in the comments related to Highway issues and Mr Almond, the Transport and Traffic Officer of the Highways Division, indicated that he was in a position to respond to the comments made.
The Acting Chairman read each point out so that the applicant (Mr Burridge), who was present, was aware of the issues raised.
Mr Almond advised that the Highway Authority had not linked the traffic management issues raised with this application. Douglas Corporation had raised the issue because the refuse collection vehicle had difficulties navigating the service lane due to the parking of cars at one stretch. The Highway Authority's proposed solution to the problem was the provision of double yellow lines at that part of the lane. The residents of the area were opposed to the introduction of double yellow lines and undertook not to park in the problem area when the refuse collection was due. The Highway Authority agreed to monitor the situation.
With regard to the analysis of parking in the service lane and surrounding streets, Mr Almond advised that site visits had been undertaken by his officers of the Highway Authority.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
