Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00681/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00681/B Applicant : Anorgarth Limited Proposal : Erection of a dwelling with integral garage Site Address : Vacant Plot With Garage Gellings Avenue Port St. Mary Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 18.07.2016 Site Visit : 18.07.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE AREA AND THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY LOCAL RESIDENTS.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is an essentially vacant parcel of land located at the corner of Cronk Road and Gellings Avenue in Port St. Mary. The site is bounded by a stone wall roughly 1m in height along both highway-adjacent sides. There is a pavement running alongside the site on Gellings Avenue whereas the wall immediately abuts the Cronk Road highway. At the very southern corner of the site is a sign identifying the area as a 'Disc Zone' and what appears to be an electricity meter box. Within the site is a single (unspecified) fruit tree.
1.2 Immediately adjacent the application site to the northeast is a similar plot of land; while previously this had similar pair of flat roof garages to the single one currently present on the application site, these have since been demolished and planning approval was very recently granted for the erection of a pair of three-storey dwellings, each with integral garages. Running further down in this direction towards the Bay View Road is a terrace of three two-storey houses with dormer accommodation in the roofspace. A modern block of apartments sits on Gellings Avenue immediately opposite to the application site.
1.3 Dwellings of similar massing to the surrounding development, albeit of much more historic construction, run along Cronk Road and face down onto the application site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a single dwelling with integral garage on the application site. This would take the form of the existing terrace of three dwellings further down the site, rather than taking its lead from the recently approved dwelling adjacent. The dwelling does, however, retain a gable feature at the uppermost level and this reflects the half- dormer approach found in both the existing and approved dwellings. Some hood moulding is shown around the windows on the middle storey, which is otherwise differentiated by a small, overhanging porch canopy.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00681/B
Page 2 of 7
2.2 The dwelling would have accommodation over three storeys, with the garage and a guest room / ensuite bathroom at ground floor level; kitchen, utility room, lounge and WC are on the floor above and on the top floor is a pair of bedrooms and a bathroom.
2.3 To the front of the dwelling (and garage) is parking area measuring roughly 5.5m in depth and 4.8m in width is shown; the garage itself would measure 5.8m by 3.7m.
2.4 The stone wall is intended for retention, while the fruit tree would be removed to make way for the dwelling and a small rear garden. No felling licence is required for the removal of a fruit tree.
2.5 The agent was contacted during consideration of the application in respect of the design and also highway concerns raised in representations. The design was amended very slightly to reflect some of the comments made by officers, and the amended drawings were circulated for 14 days. The design was again subject to revision following concern raised about the visual and overlooking impacts of a then-proposed external staircase on the rear elevation. This was removed and an amended plan received to that effect. That plan was retained on file for information as it represented less development than what was previously consulted upon and it was not considered necessary to seek further views.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Although there has been an extensive and controversial planning history on the aforementioned neighbouring site, the application site itself has not been the subject of any applications considered material to the assessment of this current proposal.
3.2.1 Moving next door, planning approval in principle was granted for the erection of a pair of semi-detached properties under PA 05/92275/B. The conditions of that approval required that the roofs of the properties are stepped to take account of the changing ground level and that the height of the properties may not exceed the relative height of the terrace of three dwellings to the north east. Reserved matters approval was granted under PA 09/00128/REM and this was extended until 2014 but not implemented. Subsequently, and much more recently, planning approval was granted again for the erection of a pair of dwellings under PA 16/00281/B, and which some members of the Committee may recall having considered earlier in the year.
3.2.2 That application went before the Committee over concerns with respect to the application of parking standards. There were also concerns raised by owners of neighbouring properties; the case officer's assessment in full ran as follows:
"The previously approved scheme showed two spaces per dwelling, one of which was a garaged space measuring 5m by 3.6m and the other a space on the driveway measuring 4.8m by around 5.7m. What is now shown is similar to this, with the shortest length of parking being 4.8m unimpeded by doors which is equivalent to a standard parking bay and therefore capable of accommodating a full length vehicle. This appears to be in accordance with what has approval alongside.
"The neighbour has concerns that the property will overshadow hers due to a stepping back of the property by around 900mm. However, this set back is so slight, it is not considered that the new building will affect the sunlight to any of the rear window and only a slight impairment of sunlight to the rear elevation and rear garden. Similarly, it is not considered that the occupants of 7, Victoria Avenue will be so adversely affected by the slight set back so as to warrant refusal of the application for this reason.
"The proposal is considered to be a suitable use of brownfield land within a sustainable location and as such the application is recommended for approval. Due to the limited size of the site, it is
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00681/B
Page 3 of 7
considered appropriate to limit the ability to extend the properties without further control and as such it is recommended to restrict the application of the Permitted Development Order."
3.2.3 In addition to the applications referred to in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, PA 90/01223/B, which sought approval for the construction of a children's day nursery, was refused for reasons relating to traffic problems. An application (87/01593/A) was also refused for the erection of a dwelling, which was refused as there was inadequate space between the proposed property and the rear and inadequate space to the front.
3.3 Planning approval was granted for the erection of the three nearby houses under PA 98/01877/B.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area of Residential use as zoned on the Area Plan for the South. As such, the proposal falls to be assessed against the following criteria of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure initially sought deferral of determination of the application; their comments, received on 28.07.2016, read as follows:
"The proposed development generally comprises the construction of a 3 bedroom house on a corner plot of land at the junction of Gellings Avenue with Cronk Road. Vehicular access to the site / existing garage is already established on Gellings Avenue in the form of a private driveway. On- street parking is not permitted on Gellings Avenue adjacent to the site.
"It is stated that 2 car parking spaces are proposed. In accordance with the standards set out in the Strategic Plan, this is considered to be acceptable.
"Due to the level difference between Cronk Road and the existing driveway along with its proximity of the existing junction of Gellings Avenue with Cronk Road, the visibility to the south west of the driveway to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic is poor. In part, this is due to the existing wall. The submitted plans do not appear to indicate if the proposals will seek to improve the existing situation.
"It is unlikely that the location of the dwelling within the site will encroach on the existing visibility to the north of Gellings Avenue which is also affected by the existing boundary wall. However, this has not been demonstrated by the applicant. In accordance with Manx Roads, the visibility to consider is 2.4m x 25m.
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00681/B
Page 4 of 7
"Recommendation: Having reviewed the supporting information, the Department of Infrastructure would recommend deferral (DEFER) until the applicant has had the opportunity to consider the above comments."
5.1.2 On 07.11.2016, they commented as follows:
"Following receipt of additional information from the applicant highway services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:
"1. The boundary treatment adjacent to the highway shall not exceed 1m in height.
"Reason: to ensure adequate visibility in the interest of highway safety
"2. Prior to occupation of the building the garage and parking space shall be available for the parking of a vehicle and remain free from obstruction and available for parking thereafter.
"Reason: To ensure that the car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."
5.2 Port St. Mary Commissioners indicate that they have no objection to the application (14.07.16).
5.3.1 Three identical letters of objection have been received, all apparently on 22.07.2016, from the residents of the following three properties:
o 'South Brent', Cronk Road, Port St. Mary (opposite the application site to the southwest); o 'Costebelle', Cronk Road, Port St. Mary (also opposite, and attached to South Brent to the northwest), and o 'The Homestead', Cronk Road, Port St. Mary (also opposite, and attached to South Brent to the southwest).
5.3.2 The concerns raised are as follows:
o There are severe on-street parking issues in the area; o Both Victoria Avenue and Gellings Avenue are Disc Zone parking only and overflow parking from these streets ends up on Cronk Road, which forces Cronk Road residents to have to park up to 50m away from their homes; o More dwellings in the area make this issue more pronounced, especially without reviewing the extension of the disc zone parking areas; o Road safety and emergency access, also during the construction phase; o Sightlines for residents will be impeded by large vehicles; o Drivers exiting the proposed dwelling will not have clear sightlines because these are concealed by the stone wall; o Highway Services were incorrect in stating that PA 16/00281/B would not adversely affect highway safety in the area - Gellings Avenue is narrow and any obstruction to the pavement would dangerously force pedestrians into the road; o There are no objections to the principle of a new dwelling here but there is nothing in the Commissioners' minutes to indicate consideration has been given to the above concerns and, accordingly, the plans should be rejected.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 There is no issue with the principle of a new dwelling here - even comments in objection received from the people living nearby espouse this view. While the site is tight, and the surrounding development quite densely developed, it is also considered that the site can accommodate a new dwelling of the size proposed without affecting neighbouring living conditions to an unduly harmful degree.
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00681/B
Page 5 of 7
6.2 The dwelling's design is not especially inspiring and it is unfortunate that cues have been taken from the short terrace of the late 20th century as opposed to the more attractively detailed dwellings approved alongside. There is no longer proposed to be a lopsided porch or front door, and the overhanging eaves have been re-designed to be flush with the gable wall, which are welcomed. At odds with the other dwellings along the street here, though, is a rather undifferentiated frontage and a lack of chimneys. The rear elevation is blank and somewhat featureless. All of this contrives to produce a design that does not contribute particularly positively to the environment of the area. It is not, however, judged to be so inappropriate as to warrant refusal, and in view of the dialogue between agent and officers that has resulted in the design now before the Committee it is not considered that further amendments will be forthcoming. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the design, which arguably complies with Environment Policy 42 and parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 without its being especially noteworthy.
6.3 Similar to the adjacent site, the most contentious issue here is that of highway safety, to include both parking and visibility. The space proposed both internally (the garage) and externally (the driveway) is, similarly to that adjacent, sufficient to provide for two parking spaces. Whether or not these are both used is, of course, not something the Department can control: it can, however, prevent the use of the garage for anything other than the parking of a domestic vehicle, and the condition requested by Highway Services to this end is appropriate. Such a condition would allow for two parking spaces within the curtilage of the dwelling and would allow the proposal to be in accordance with the requirements of Transport Policy 7.
6.4 The other condition requested by Highway Services would result in a new wall running along the boundary of the highway with the application site, in replacement of the existing stone wall, but at a height of 1m, rather than the 1.3m as proposed in the application. The existing wall provides an attractive landmark within the streetscene. In some cases, it is appropriate to allow such traditional or attractive features to remain if it is considered that their loss would be more unacceptable than the inability to provide the required visibility. In this case, however, the site is on a fairly significant slope and is near to a junction at the top of that slope. Visibility leaving the site is not ideal, and manoeuvring into and out of it, given the above, is not straightforward. The condition would still allow for the retention of the majority of the stone wall, while its height would also be retained at its existing level at its return along Cronk Road, meaning that this length of wall at a lower height than the remainder would not appear at odds with the higher section to be left untouched. On this basis, a condition requiring the reduction in height of the wall from 1.3m to 1.0m is, in this case, considered appropriate.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o 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 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00681/B
Page 6 of 7
8.2.1 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.
8.2.2 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:
o The owner / occupier of 'South Brent', Cronk Road, Port St. Mary; o The owner / occupier of 'Costebelle', Cronk Road, and o The owner / occupier of 'The Homestead', Cronk Road.
All of these dwellings are opposite to the application 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: 22.11.2016
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. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the boundary wall adjacent to Gellings Avenue shall be reduced to 1m in height and retained as such thereafter. If the wall is to be capped, it shall be capped with stonework unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: to ensure adequate visibility in the interest of highway safety.
C 3. No approval is hereby given for the demolition and re-building of the boundary wall, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the character and appearance of the area.
C 4.
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00681/B
Page 7 of 7
Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the garage and parking space shall be made available for the parking of a vehicle and shall remain free from obstruction and available for parking thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 03 and 04, date-stamped as having been received 14th June 2016, also to Drawing 02 Revision 01, date-stamped as having been received 1st September 2016, and also to Drawing 01 Revision 03, date-stamped as having been received 21st November 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: 28.11.2016
Signed : E RILEY 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