Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00910/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00910/B Applicant : Department Of Infrastructure Proposal : Highway improvement works and creation of off road parking and vehicular access to garage at Dingle Nook Site Address : A3 / A24 Mines Road Junction & Dingle Nook A3 Main Road Higher Foxdale Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
THE SITE 1.1 The site is split into two pieces of land within Foxdale village. One includes the junction of the A3/A24 highways in the centre of the village and the other is a smaller piece of land which lies to the north between two dwellings - Dingle Nook and Chapel House. The site does not include any buildings but public highway and land immediately alongside and the smaller piece of land constitutes a grassed area in front of a garage associated with Dingle Nook alongside a concreted driveway which belongs with Chapel House.
1.2 The junction has been the subject of a number of recent applications which are listed in the Planning History section of this report, as well as recent work which resulted in the demolition of the building on the corner and the treatment of the remaining land which currently appears as a steeply sloping tarmacadam surfaced area with timber planters and timber posts with chains slung between. The gable of the building alongside that which was demolished has been repaired and painted.
1.3 At the time of the site visit (1115hrs on Thursday 8th September, 2016) there was a large van parked within the "landscaped" area with a smaller van parked behind alongside 7, Mines Road.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the modification of the junction and the provision of a driveway for Dingle Nook, part of whose garden the junction modifications are to occupy. The modifications involve the widening of the carriageway in both directions onto the A3 (12m to the south and around 7m to the north), curving the road around in each direction. The current tarmacadam-finished area is to be terraced and landscaped although no details of that are provided at this stage. The new garden boundary of Dingle Nook is to be built in stone and its gate pillars reduced in height from 1.1m to 0.8m to improve junction visibility. A footway is to be provided around both new curves.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Foxdale Local Plan as highway with the adjacent areas into which the carriageway and footway are to be expanded, as residential. Bridge House which is that which was demolished, was identified as a building of interest on the proposals map but not specifically referred to in the Written Statement. The Written Statement does, however refer
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00910/B
Page 2 of 5
to the junction as "a serious problem" with poor visibility, accommodating fast moving vehicles and parked vehicles. A by-pass is discussed but with no simple solution. Paragraph 3.22 states, "Substantial alterations to this junction are limited by the existence of a telegraph pole and buildings on all sides of the junction at least one of which has been identified as a building of interest : the Village House which is already a Registered Building. Paragraph 3.23 goes on to suggest that "improvements" to the road network system are likely to be undesirable given their impact on the landscape.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of two previous applications which are material to the determination of this current proposal. The first application, PA 10/01602/B proposed junction improvements which included the demolition of Bridge House. The inspector refers to the Foxdale Local Plan, specifically to the junction which whilst described as poor also suggests that improvements are referred to negatively. He underplays the difficulty of large vehicles using the access, commenting that the junction would be no more difficult to use now than it was at the time of adoption of the Local Plan which refers negatively to improvements of the junction, as well as commenting on the absence of comparative accident records, suggesting that road safety may outweigh all other considerations. He suggests that further consideration should be given to try to reduce speed on the A3 and that without any evidence of a reduction in accidents and delays as a result of the works, then the purpose of the improvement becomes elusive. He personally considers that Bridge House had little historic merit but was persuaded by the objectors that it had local interest. The application was refused without specific reasons for refusal but referring to the issues set out in the inspector's report, which are summarised above.
4.2 The second application, PA 13/90943/B was also for the demolition of the house and creation of temporary garden and was approved. This approval, taken by COMIN, was in spite of an Inspector's recommendation for refusal on the grounds of lack of evidence of need bearing in mind the comments in the local plan and also the lack of a road improvement scheme which would justify the proposed works, as well as concern that the location of the site is not suitable for a garden and concerns regarding the loss of Bridge House. The decision was subject to a number of rather odd conditions including the following:
This was the subject of further submissions which led to the approval of what appears on site today.
The development of a Road Improvement Scheme. (Reason: the Council of Ministers was unhappy with the current road layout at the junction of the Main Road (A3) and Mines Road (A24) junction. The Council of Ministers considered that a road improvement scheme would assist in relation to highway safety.)
Measures to mitigate the Inspector's concerns in respect of the use of surface loose gravel. (Reason: To mitigate the Inspector's concerns in respect of the use of surface loose gravel.)
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The owner of 3, Mines Road expresses concern at the lack of detail on the drainage of the site, their property suffering from the downstream ditch being incapable of accommodating the run off from normal winter conditions and previous attempts to divert surface water under the A3 have not been successful. He suggests also that the surface water gullies cannot cope with the existing rainwater to prevent minor flooding across the road and he feels that there should be additional
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00910/B
Page 3 of 5
drainage built into the scheme to address all this. He also suggests an alternative to the T junction, being a mini roundabout which may promote better traffic flow whilst also restricting speed within the village. Finally he asks whether a traffic control system has been prepared to prevent two heavy goods vehicles meeting on Mines Road which is too narrow to accommodate this? (20.08.16)
5.2 Patrick Parish Commissioners advise that they will not be discussing the application until 12th September, 2016.
5.3 Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (09.09.16).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The two previous applications are material in the determination of the current proposal, although the house whose demolition was opposed in the first has now been demolished and the site is now a tarmacadam-finished open space with planters and a Millennium stone feature. This is now the starting point for the determination of the current application and whilst there may have been concerns about the loss of Bridge House, this is no longer relevant as the building is no longer there having been lawfully removed. Another material change in circumstance since the last two decisions is that in the later, COMIN required there to be a road improvement scheme. Whether or not COMIN was able to impose such a condition on that application, it now provides justification for the junction improvement and the impact of such works.
6.2 Despite earlier Inspectors' concerns that there is a lack of written or evidential information on the need for improvements here, anyone who has attempted to use the junction, from any of the directions of approach, will appreciate that the sharp angle of turning from the A24 south onto the A3, combined with the limited width of the interface between the two roads and the steep incline, all combine to making navigation around the junction difficult, particularly if there are vehicles coming from two or more directions to turn one way or the other. Added to this, the narrow width of Mines Road and the incidence of parked vehicles on it and the A3 provides limited waiting and manoeuvring space alongside the junction.
6.3 Also, despite a requirement for a landscaping scheme and such being approved by the Department, what has resulted is neither attractive nor useful and the loss of any part of this newly created space to highway improvement is not considered a detrimental step. There is also an opportunity to create something positive in the remaining space and not just a tarmacadam slope.
6.4 Whilst there are concerns from a near neighbour about drainage, the applicant has advised that the provisions for drainage will be as existing, with a slight extension of the existing culvert but as part of the scheme, although not shown in the application as they are works which would constitute permitted development, are improvements to the drainage but it is not anticipated to be able to accommodate all of the surface water run off from all of the surrounding hillsides. There is an intention to increase the depth of the existing drainage ditch from Mines Road to the disused railway line and they emphasise that it is the neighbouring land owners' responsibility to keep drains and ditches clear of debris and blockage.
6.5 The applicant also explains that a mini roundabout was not considered appropriate as there are not equally balanced streams of traffic in all directions which are required to make such a feature work in highway terms, the gradient would cause high sided vehicles to become unstable, visibility from Mines Road is not sufficient from far enough back to work and there is insufficient space to enable a mini roundabout to work, without vehicles staying on the A3 simply driving through it in a straight line.
6.6 Given the most recent decision on works to this junction and considering the requirement in that for a road improvement scheme and the authorised demolition of Bridge House, and also considering the current appearance of the corner site, it is considered that the proposed works will significantly improve highway safety and highway efficiency at this point and without any
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00910/B
Page 4 of 5
detrimental impact on the appearance of the area and as such the application is recommended for approval.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, in this case Highway Services and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
The owner of 3, Mines Road which is alongside the site.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.09.2016
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Upon completion of the junction improvement and within six months of the use thereof, the remaining area to the south east, shown in green hatching on the approved drawing must be
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00910/B
Page 5 of 5
terraced and landscaped in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Department. Such a scheme must enable safe and convenient access and use by the public and provide a visually attractive environment alongside the junction.
Reason: in the visual interests of the area.
This decision relates to drawing P011A received on 8th August, 2016.
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: 19.09.2016
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
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