Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01063/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01063/B Applicant : Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal : Proposed Erection of a 3 Bed Dormer Bungalow Site Address : Land To The West Of 17 Royal Park Royal Park Ramsey Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 21.10.2020 Site Visit : 21.10.2020 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.11.2020 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01063/B Page 2 of 11
C 5. No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the shed, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
C 6. The visibility splay(s) identified on drawing number 52; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1m in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered the principle of residential development is appropriate on this site for the reasons indicated would not have any significant impacts upon public or private amenities and therefore comply with the relevant planning policies Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 4, Transport Policy 7 & Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2019.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 50, 51, 52, 53 & 54 all received on 12th October 2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
27 Rheast Mooar Lane, Ramsey 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue 1 Royal Park, Ramsey
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
__
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL AND AS THERE ARE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE CONTRARY TO RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER
This application is being further presented after a previous deferral by the Committee in order to conduct a site visit. The site visit was carried out November 20th.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01063/B Page 3 of 11
1.1 The site is a rectangular vacant plot of land of some 300sqm (10 x 30m) at Royal Park on the northern bend of this road within a predominantly residential area of Ramsey. The tree and hedge screened side boundary of the site abuts the garden of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue occupying a slightly elevated position to the west and has a patio window and kitchen window facing onto the site.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a 3 Bed Dormer Bungalow. The dwelling would have a total depth of 9.2 metres, a width of 6.5 metres and a ridge height of 6.1 metres (eves 3.3m). The dwelling would be sited between Nr 17 Royal Park to the east and Nr 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue to the west.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, only the following are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2 Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking - 18/01106/B - REFUSED at Appeal on the following grounds:
"R .1 The proposal, by reason of its siting, layout, scale, form, design and the spaces around the building adversely affects the character of site and surroundings and the local townscape in general contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and 2 (c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
3.3 Erection of a dwelling - 08/02191/B - REFUSED on the following grounds: "R 1. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its size and height, and its proximity to the neighbouring property 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring property, particularly in respect of having an overbearing impact and would therefore be un-neighbourly and dominant in respect of the outlook and enjoyment of the occupiers. As such the proposed development is contrary to criterion (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. R 2. The proposal would result in the loss of an area of public open space as indicated and approved under the previous planning application 04/02310/B. Approval of the application to allow the encroachment of residential development into land that is designated as public open space would detract from the character and amenities of the development and would result in an unwanted precedent in this area and in other areas of public open space within the Island."
3.4 Phase One, Fields 131161, 131047 & 134070, Ormly Fields with access vie Vollan Crescent - Proposed detailed House types for phase 1 of residential development comprising of 46 plots - 04/02310/B - APPROVED
3.5 Fields 131161, 131047, 134070,131049 and 131085 Ormly Fields with access vie Vollan Crescent - Proposed residential estate layout comprising of plots, road, and sewers for 111 mixed density dwellings with associated open space and landscaping - 04/02311/B - APPROVED
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area of predominantly residential use under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01063/B Page 4 of 11
(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
4.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
4.5 The Strategic Plan identifies a hierarchy of settlements that guide what type of development is appropriate within them. Ramsey is designated as one of the nine "Service Centres" within the Island (Spatial Policy 2). This Policy states that; "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services."
4.6 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
4.7 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans..."
4.8 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new 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."
4.9 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
4.10 Environment Policy 42: 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 or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.
4.11 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE JULY 2019
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01063/B Page 5 of 11
"LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".
This document is intended to facilitate good quality design, and an important aspect of that is local distinctiveness. New residential development should be informed by the best qualities of our existing residential areas. However, this does not mean that all new residential developments should seek to replicate the appearance of older ones, and good quality contemporary design is encouraged. Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area.
The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a 'sense of place'. The character and context of a site should influence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reflects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features or water features. The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement.
If the context to a development has been compromised by earlier development, this should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate what has been done before. Opportunities should be sought to deliver high quality sustainable development that reflects up-to-date technologies and aesthetics and creates a strong "sense of place.
"LOSS OF LIGHT/OVERSHADOWING A development should not result in significant levels of loss of day light or overshadowing, especially to primary habitable rooms, or to private gardens. Applicants are advised to look carefully at the path of the sun throughout the day, and consider where shadows fall, using this information to help in considering the design, position and height of the extension. The impact of overshadowing will increase if the new property/extension is to the South of a neighbouring property (as the sun's orientation is East to West). When the windows affected serve habitable rooms then it will be necessary to assess the impact upon light reaching these rooms.
A simple check can be undertaken in relation to this issue. o A side view is drawn which includes the proposal site and the main face of the neighbouring property. o A point is identified which is 2 metres above ground level on the closest wall with a relevant window of the neighbouring building. o A line is drawn from this point at a 25 degree angle towards the application site.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01063/B Page 6 of 11
o If no part of the proposal is above this line, there will still be the potential for good daylight to the interior.
Where a change in level separates two adjoining dwellings, a proposal for a dwelling on a higher site or an extension to the higher dwelling, will normally have a far greater effect on its lower neighbour than in the reverse.
OVERBEARING IMPACT UPON OUTLOOK Any development should ensure that existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being impacted by an overbearing building/structure. The positioning, design and scale of an extension/new build dwellings should not be dominant or have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that may be present in a neighbouring property. It is normally possible to avoid overlooking with careful design and by following the guidance set out within this document. The impact on a private garden may include consideration of the overall size of the garden and whether only a small part of it is likely to be impacted on detrimentally.
OVERLOOKING RESULTING IN A LOSS OF PRIVACY The "20 metre guide" provides a useful way to identify where overlooking is likely to be a concern. It refers to the distance between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms that face each other - if this distance is over 20 metres, overlook is unlikely to be a concern. This distance can be relaxed where the design or orientation is such that privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property is not compromised. In dense urban areas where there is already a level of mutual overlooking a lesser standard may be acceptable. The required distance may need to be greater if there is a change in topography, which would result in an adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property.
The presence of existing or proposed landscaping features (e.g. fences, walls and hedges) may help to mitigate overlooking at a ground floor level (depending on relative heights). Although the permanent retention of such landscaping cannot be guaranteed, it would be within the gift of both neighbours to retain/maintain/replace such landscape features."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Commissioners have objected (27.10.2020) on the following grounds: "It is considered that the proposed dwelling does not respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting , layout, scale form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them as set down in General Policy 2 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. In addition, it would affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
Whilst the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 takes precedence over the Ramsey Local Plan 1998, the Local Plan is still valid and therefore Policy R/R/P3: Infill/Backland Sites applies. This states that 'Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural 'breathing' spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping or simply green space."
5.2 Highways Services do not oppose the application (27.10.2020) commenting that; "Reference made to planning approval: 18/01136/B
The proposal is acceptable from the highway viewpoint.
The proposed creation of a vehicular access is acceptable on a separate s109(A) Highway Agreement for the vehicular crossing of the footway with more than adequate visibility splays of 2.4 x 43m in each direction on exit and benefiting from being on the outside of a bend.
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01063/B Page 7 of 11
There is compliant space for shared pedestrian and vehicle movements with a wide driveway and area of hardstanding readily accommodating the parking of two cars within an area measuring 6 x 7.5m and meeting the Strategic Plan car parking minimum standard of two car parking spaces.
Separate covered and secure bicycle parking should be provided to aid sustainable travel. An electric vehicle charging point should be considered to meet low emission objectives.
There is space for waste bin storage for kerb side collection.
Accordingly, as the proposal raises no significant highway safety or network efficiency issues, Highway services raise no opposition subject to conditions of access and visibility in accordance with Drawing No 52, and pedestrian vehicle areas, including car parking in accordance with Drawing No. 51. Details should be provided for bicycle parking. An advisory to apply too for a S109(A) Highway Agreement.
Recommendation: DNOC"
5.3 The owners/occupiers of 27 Rheast Mooar Lane, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (03.11.2020); The rear of our garden adjoins the new two storey dwelling and its very close proximity would infringe greatly on our privacy. Also any development would include the removal of the current established tree lines which would again interfere with our privacy.
5.4 The owners/occupiers of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (28.10.2020); The site comprising the application is on a very restricted area which was designated as open space in the original building proposal for phase 1 of the Royal Park development; the proposed elevation of the infill property would be detrimental in respect of my outlook and present enjoyment; The proximity of the proposed dwelling would adversely affect the residential amenity of my property and would have an overbearing impact; considerable damage was inflicted on my hedge bordering the proposed development by gardeners employed by the applicant. I regard the mature hedge as security for my property and am apprehensive of its future if this application is successful.
5.5 The owners/occupiers of 1 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (03.11.2020); The current and third planning application for the site shows a two storey dwelling, which is bigger and more overbearing than previously submitted plans; I find the plan to be unneighbourly on behalf of the developer; If allowed the proposed dwelling will lead to a complete loss of privacy to our living space and overshadowing; Currently the site is a small, attractive natural breathing space between Rheast Moore Avenue and Royal Park; and this area provides local wildlife with mature trees and shrubs for a home.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are (i) The principle of the proposal; (ii) Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions; (iii) Potential visual impact on the streetscene; (iv) Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision.
(i) The principle of the proposal 6.2 As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is designated as predominately residential use. Previously, the latter application (18/01106/B) was initially refused on the grounds that:
"R 2. The proposal would result in the loss of an area of public open space as indicated and approved under the previous planning application 04/02310/B. Approval of the application to allow the encroachment of residential development into land that is designated as public open
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01063/B Page 8 of 11
space would detract from the character and amenities of the development and would result in an unwanted precedent in this area and in other areas of public open space within the Island contrary to criteria a and b of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as well as Ramsey Local Plan policy R/R/P3."
6.3 However, this reason for refused was not included in the reason for refusal of the application by the Minister; following comments by the Inspector who stated: "It is necessary to consider the present proposal on merit and in current circumstances. The appeal site is now an undeveloped building plot in an otherwise established estate. Although the front part of the site was shown as landscaped open space on the original approval for this part of the Royal Park development in accordance with the RLP, it is not designated as public open space for protection. There are other open spaces contributing to the character of the surrounding area; not least opposite the appeal site but also elsewhere within the estate. As proposed, the development would perpetuate the use of the front part of the site as landscaped front garden, including new feature trees. Therefore, I do not consider that the loss of the forward part of the appeal site as open space would, in itself, be objectionable, either in strict policy terms or with respect to the appearance of the site or the immediate area. In this sense there would be no conflict with EP42 of the SP to protect open spaces."
6.4 Accordingly, given these comments, it is considered a refusal on the grounds of the loss of "Open Space" would not be advisable nor could a refusal be sustained. The comments and the decision of the Inspector have significant planning weight and are a material consideration which must be taken into account when determining this current application.
6.5 Consideration should also be given to The Isle of Man Strategic Plan which has been adopted (1st April 2016). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements; being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services and development should optimising the use of previously developed land. This proposal would meet these aims which essentially seek development within exiting settlements rather than the countryside. Spatial Policy 2 also indicates that Ramsey is a Service Centre and that this area should; "...provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services".
6.6 Accordingly, given the above reasons it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal as the other matters listed within paragraph 6.1 of this report still need to be considered and be considered acceptable. (ii) Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions
6.7 The main issue to consider are whether the proposal would result in a significant adverse impact through overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, loss of light and/or over bearing impact upon outlooks. The properties most likely to be affect would be 1 Royal Park, Ramsey to the north of the site and 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, Ramsey to the west of the site.
1 Royal Park, Ramsey 6.8 This neighbouring dwelling would be located to the north of the proposed dwelling measuring between 21 to 23 metres from the new dwelling. Between the two properties is a fence which is to be retained and new landscaping is proposed to be planted along this boundary. Within the southern elevation of this neighbouring property there are a total of six windows (three at ground level (kitchen dinner) and three dormer windows (bedroom/bathroom). The new dwelling would have a single bi-folding door at ground floor level (kitchen diner) and two dormers windows (bedrooms). These would be greater than the general guide (Residential Design Guide) which seeks a 20m gap is retained between directly facing windows, especially primary habitable rooms (lounges/kitchen diners). In this case this gap would be retained and with the existing fence line and future landscaping proposed; overlooking would not be so significant to warrant a refusal. Again, given the distance the
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/01063/B Page 9 of 11
proposal is from the neighbouring property and given the size/scale/height of the proposed dwelling; it is not considered the proposal would have a significant adverse impacts through loss of light and/or overbearing impact.
12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, Ramsey 6.9 This neighbouring dwelling would be located to the southwest of the proposed dwelling measuring between 7.8m and 12.4m to the new dwelling. Between the two properties is mature hedgerows (approximately 2.5m to 3m in height) which are all to be retained. The applicants have also indicated that the floor level of the neighbouring property would be 1.5m above that of the ground level of the new dwelling. The proposed dwelling is also set back from this neighbouring property; and therefor the side kitchen window of Nr 12 would not be impacted in terms of overbearing impact upon outlook, albeit the existing landscaping current prevents significant views outside the site. Furthermore, the applicants have also under taken the '45 degree approach' (as outlined within the Residential Design Guide) and the height and position of the new dwelling would not cause a concern from this respect. The suns orientation (east to west) and the position of the new dwelling in relation to Nr 12; again raises no concern to warrant a refusal. There are also no proposed windows which have direct views into any window of this property to also cause a concern. Overall, while there will be an impact of a dwelling upon the occupants of Nr 12, it is not considered the impacts are so adverse to warrant a refusal.
(iii) Visual impact on the streetscene 6.10 This is arguably the main issue with the proposal and the reason the previous application was refused. The previous application proposed a bungalow property which did not include dormers, but had a greater footprint than the current application. The bungalow had a hipped roof design and finished to match the existing properties in this area of Royal Park (Phase 1).
6.11 The Planning Inspector made the following comments: "...the bungalow would extend close to its side boundaries, leaving only a narrow walkway. In contrast, the spaces at the side of the dwelling within the adjacent curtilage of No17 Royal Park are considerably larger, equivalent to the width of a car. The same is true of the other properties to the east along that frontage
Existing dwellings in this part of the estate are generally of two-storey, semi-detached design. An exception is a dormer bungalow opposite the appeal site. By comparison, the modest appeal bungalow would appear both diminutive in relation to its two-storey and more substantial neighbours but, at the same time, would appear to be cramped within the width of a narrow corner plot.
As a result, although the bungalow would be detailed and finished to complement other buildings on the estate, I consider that it would be out of keeping and unacceptably harmful to the appearance and character of the established street scene of this part of Royal Park."
And
"...Accordingly, I find that the development would be contrary to the requirement of GP2b and c and EP42 of the SP to respect the site and surroundings and not affect adversely the character of the townscape including in its siting, layout, scale, form, design and the spaces around buildings."
6.12 The applicants have responded by stating: "This current proposal is for a dormer bungalow, which will be similar to the dormer bungalow located opposite the proposed site. The height of the proposed house will provide a good transition from the full two storey No. 17 Royal Park, to No. 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, which is
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01063/B Page 10 of 11
a bungalow. The proposed dormer bungalow will be narrower than the previously proposed bungalow, so will sit more comfortably on the plot. The materials and detailing of the proposed dwelling will match the rest of the houses in Royal Park."
6.13 It is considered that in terms of the street scene the proposed dormer bungalow would sit better than the original bungalow and the comments from the applicants that it would be a "transition" between the bungalow to one side and a two storey property on the other. Further, design of the bungalow and its size/form/mass, while still smaller compared to other properties in the street scene, is now of a size which overcomes the comments of the Inspector who had concerns that the bungalow design would; "would appear both diminutive in relation to its two-storey and more substantial neighbours but, at the same time, would appear to be cramped within the width of a narrow corner plot". Overall; while a balanced decision, it is considered the proposal would fit much better with the street scene, whilst not appearing cramped within the site. (iv) Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision
6.14 The proposal requires to have at least two off road parking spaces and this is easily achieved. Accordingly, from a parking perspective within the site, the proposal is acceptable.
6.15 In terms of the access arrangements Highway Services are content with the proposal and the access will not have an adverse impact upon highway safety.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered the principle of residential development is appropriate on this site for the reasons indicated would not have any significant impacts upon public or private amenities and therefore comply with the relevant planning policies Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 4, Transport Policy 7 & Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2019. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 30.11.2020
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/01063/B Page 11 of 11
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal