Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/01168/B
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/01168/B Applicant : Gary Walker Proposal : Erection of three dwellings with garaging and off road parking to replace former dwelling Site Address : Balladoole 46 Bowring Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3EJ
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an almost rectangular parcel of land at the corner of Coburg and Bowring Roads in Ramsey. The site corresponds to the residential curtilage of the dwelling once known as "Balladoole" that has been recently demolished. Balladoole was an historic and architecturally attractive dwelling of robust form and stood prominently on the corner of the two highways. It had several significant chimneys, highly decorative eaves and apparently original rainwater goods, with one key feature being a ground floor bay detail that also included the front porch. Balladoole offered many hints towards the traditional Georgian country house: hipped roofs, several tall and prominent chimneys, six-over-six panelled sash windows, and a compact, almost- square form. Also within the site was a garage to the rear and a number of mature trees, both to the front and rear. These too have been removed recently
1.2 Some research with respect to potential Registration of the building was conducted during the Spring of 2014, but it was concluded that the dwelling was not worthy of Registration.
1.4 Surrounding the site are other residential dwellings of not quite such grandeur as Balladoole itself, but are certainly attractive and contribute very positively to the streetscene albeit that they are perhaps less prominent than Balladoole itself. The most handsome dwellings in the immediate vicinity are to the southwest of the site on Bowring Road and to the northwest on Coburg Road, and the application site is seen most readily in the context of these dwellings from Bowring Road, with the dwellings behind the site, on Coburg Road, less visible from this key route through the town. Those dwellings on Coburg Road are of a higher density and are either semi-detached or terraced in form and generally of more traditional Victorian designs. It is therefore considered that the key views of, and the context for, the site is given by Bowring Road.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 Full planning approval was sought earlier in 2015 for the demolition of Balladoole and its replacement with four dwellings formed of two pairs of semi-detached units. That application was refused for five reasons:
R 1. The proposed replacement of an element of high quality architecture with four examples of utilitarian architecture would, in the important visual context offered by the attractive and well- proportioned buildings found on Coburg Road and Bowring Road, be harmful to the sense of place offered by this area and therefore be contrary to the provisions of Paragraphs 7.25.2 and 7.25.3, Strategic Policy 3, Strategic Policy 5 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/01168/B
Page 2 of 9
R 2. In view of the small gardens proposed along with the loss of trees that would have to occur for the proposal to go ahead, as well as the uncomfortable relationship that the four dwellings would have with 42 Bowring Road to the rear, the proposal is judged to represent overdevelopment of the site contrary to parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
R 3. The perception of being overlooked from the proposed dwellings would reduce the level of amenity within the garden of no.42 Bowring Road to an unacceptable degree, and therefore the proposal is contrary to part (g) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
R 4. Inadequate attention has been paid to the existing trees on the site, and the proposed redevelopment would result in the loss of a number of important trees on the site that, together, provide important amenity to the area. The tree survey submitted is limited in scope and cannot be relied upon to satisfactorily protect the trees on the site (in particular the large elm to the front of the site), nor does it appear to have assessed the health of the existing trees. As such, the proposal is contrary to part (f) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
R 5. The accesses to parking for Plots 1 and 2 would, given their proposed location so close to the junction of Coburg Road with Bowring Road, result in vehicles being manoeuvred close to this junction. This, coupled with limited visibility in the area, could result in traffic backing up onto Bowring Road and therefore result in a harmful impact on highway safety in the area. The application is therefore contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
2.2 Additionally, Approval in Principle was granted for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of the site under PA 97/01981/A. No Reserved Matters application was submitted and so this approval has long-since expired. That application was subject to significant local opposition, although the only appeal request made to the decision was by a person whose correspondence had been received after the end of the consultation period and, as such, was invalid. The case officer commented that the site appeared to be large enough to accommodate a two-storey dwelling albeit that the loss of garden space was regrettable: their recommendation to approve was accepted by Planning Committee. It is interesting to note that Balladoole appeared, given the comments made in respect of that application, to have been in disrepair as early as 1997.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the erection of three dwellings on the site: one detached unit, and a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The detached dwelling is the grandest of the three by some way, with the design, form, mass and detailing drawn from some of the other prominent and historically and architecturally interesting dwellings found in the nearby vicinity on Bowring and Coburg Roads. This dwelling would have five bedrooms over three storeys. An attached garage to the rear somewhat undermines the success of the overall built form, which is otherwise well-considered. The dwelling would be finished with smooth render, complete with decorative cornice, strong course and hood moulds in addition to a slate roof finish with concrete verge coping stones.
3.2 The two semi-detached dwellings proposed are identical in offering three bedrooms at first floor and a lounge and kitchen/diner at ground floor. Each would also have a garage with utility room, which would provide the 'attached' element of the dwellings. The dwellings would be arranged with their accesses onto Coburg Road. A parking space in front of each garage is shown.
3.3 In terms of details, the dwellings are fairly simple but offer coping stones, window- surrounding render bands to be painted dark grey. Also dark grey would be the window and door frames, uPVC rainwater goods and concrete roof tiles. The dwellings would be finished in a smooth render and painted white, with no colour given for the garage doors. The material and colour of the porch roofs are not defined.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/01168/B
Page 3 of 9
3.4 The application has been submitted with a proposed landscaping scheme indicating how the edges of the site will be finished along with deciduous and non-deciduous trees across the site. A management plan was also submitted at the request of the Forester in respect of the proposed landscaping scheme, and this was duly circulated to the interested parties.
3.5 Also submitted with the application is a letter of support from the owner of 'Kiart', adjacent the site to the northeast, and the residents of two dwellings further along Coburg Road. The points raised by these five people indicate that the development will alleviate congestion in the area and also help tidy up a site that has been run down for a number of years.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site is within an area zoned as "predominantly residential" in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998 and therefore the principle of the site's use for residential dwellings is acceptable.
4.2 The Strategic Plan sets out the policies against which the detail of the application will be assessed. Several policies are relevant, and these are set out below.
4.3 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
(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: "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 relevant extract from Strategic Policy 3 reads: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
(b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."
4.6 The relevant extract from Strategic Policy 4 reads: "Proposals for development must:
(a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations".
4.7 The relevant extract from Strategic Policy 5 reads: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island."
4.8 The relevant extract from General Policy 2 reads: "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;
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/01168/B
Page 4 of 9
(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."
4.9 Paragraphs 7.25.2 and 7.25.3 are relevant. Those paragraphs state: "In addition, there are many as yet unscheduled and unidentified buildings and areas, which are either locally important or potentially worthy of designation. These also ought to be preserved and enhanced wherever possible through planning policy.
"Positive attitudes are therefore required through the Strategic Plan towards the protection of the built environment for maintaining the architectural and historic continuity and distinctive character of each town and village. A fine balance therefore needs to be struck between conservation and enhancement on the one hand, and promoting development and growth on the other. However, conservation of the built environment and archaeological features should be viewed as an asset to be promoted and not as a constraint to be overcome. The historic environment in practice cannot remain unchanged, and the role of planning is to reconcile the needs for development against the need to conserve and protect the historic environment."
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 Housing Policy 6: "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".
Paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan contains General Policy 2, the relevant extract of which has been provided above.
4.12 Transport Policy 7 is also relevant: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal on both 23.10.15 and 29.1.16 subject to the imposition of the following condition:
"Nothing must be planted or erected within the visibility splays that may exceed 1.05 metres in height."
5.2 The Forester within the Department commented at length on the application on 05.11.2015. He raised concerns about the loss of tree cover on the site already undertaken and also identified that the remaining treed area would be judged of at least moderate value, as a group, with appropriate management. He also notes several individual trees that may well be of individual value within this group. He also indicates that the trees on the site are probably not undermining the stability of the adjacent Kiart, with the concerns raised being able to be properly managed through appropriate arboricultural and silvicultural means. Finally, he raised concern with the kind of trees proposed for the site as these would grow to inappropriate sizes and place pressure for their removal at a later date. As noted earlier, an attempt was made to address this point via the submission of a management plan, but no further comment was received from the Forester.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/01168/B
Page 5 of 9
5.3 Ramsey Town Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal in commented received 20th November 2015, but offered the following 'observations':
"The detached dwelling has been designed to reflect the design of the property which was recently demolished on this site however it is considered that the lower ceiling heights has provided a design which appears to be slightly out of proportion;
"The semi-detached dwellings are small with 3 bedrooms and would have benefitted from increasing the footprint of each property. There is concern that the garages would be unusable due to their size and the location of a boiler which could preclude a vehicle being garaged."
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In order for the current application to be found acceptable, it will need to overcome the five previous reasons for refusal on this site without also raising new concerns. In summary, those reasons for refusal related to (a) the quality of the design of the dwellings proposed, and also the amenity space they would be offered, (b) the impact on neighbouring living conditions, (c) the impact on trees, and (d) the impact on highway safety. These remain the four key assessment points in respect of the current proposal, and are considered in turn below.
The design of the dwellings proposed
6.2 Environment Policy 42 requires that new buildings be designed in such a way as to support the existing built form of an area. This is a site that benefits from many positive design cues to the west and north. The fact the previous application seemed to wish to reflect the less positive features in the area was particularly unfortunate; that the current proposal, at least in its key corner plot, references very strongly some of the more architecturally interesting dwellings is particularly welcome.
6.3 Balladoole provided an important landmark building on this corner plot, and the philosophy of replicating this is considered wholly appropriate. The design of the dwelling appears to be slightly 'square' in the drawings, but this is perhaps inevitable where a parapet wall forms a part of the design. The use of traditional design features in the form of hood mouldings, string courses, coping stones, chimneys and the aforementioned parapet walls also reflects the more successful design cues in the area, while the window proportions in terms of position and size to the side and rear elevations are a little haphazard, seemingly reflecting that the dwelling has been designed at least partly from the 'inside out', which is to its detriment but not harmfully so. Though the loss of Balladoole remains lamented, the dwelling proposed for its replacement is considered to represent an acceptable way forward. The concern of the Commissioners is understood - the main dwelling does appear slightly out of proportion - this is not considered to be reason enough to refuse the application, especially in view of the otherwise favourable findings.
6.4 The garage proposed to the rear does, as noted, somewhat unsettle the overall appearance of the dwelling and a detached (or no) garage would be preferable from a site layout and design ethos point of view. However, this is not considered to be sufficient reason to object to the proposal.
6.5 The pair of semi-detached dwellings is identical to those proposed under the previous application. There was not considered to be anything inherently wrong with the design of the more northeastern pair under the previous application - the concern was with how the site as a whole would fail to contribute to the sense of place offered by the attractive dwellings immediately surrounding the junction of Bowring Road with Coburg Road. The two dwellings proposed reflect the form and massing of the other, more modest semi-detached dwellings further to the northeast and this in itself is considered appropriate. They are of a neat and well-considered design that would be bookended with chimneys (a welcome addition from the previously proposed design) and act as an effective transition between the grander, corner plot proposed and the existing semi- detached dwellings already present.
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/01168/B
Page 6 of 9
6.6 As a whole, the site is considered to be large enough to accommodate three dwellings with associated garden, parking and garage space without feeling too densely developed. The three dwellings proposed would not have huge gardens but neither would they have very small ones, and there would be sufficient openness across the plots so as to provide both a pleasant and sufficient amount of outdoor space. Increasing the footprint of the semi-detached dwellings would reduce the openness of the site, the size of the gardens, and increased the mass of built form facing towards the neighbouring dwelling. As such, while the Commissioners' concern in respect of the usability of the garages is understood, the site will still benefit more from having the garages than without them.
6.7 The submitted drawings are not clear with respect to the opening mechanism of the windows for any of the Plots proposed. While the use of casement or awning windows in Plots 2 and 3 would be unobjectionable, Plot 1 - given its traditional mass, form and detailing - should really benefit from sliding sash windows. A condition to this effect is recommended accordingly.
The impact on neighbouring living conditions
6.8 The previous concern on this point related to the fact that two pairs of semi-detached dwellings would present a more or less continuous mass of built form running parallel with the long, narrow garden associated with 42 Bowring Road to the southeast of the site. This was concluded to be unduly overbearing on that garden space and to be likely to result in a sufficiently harmful impact to refuse the application.
6.9 Now proposed is a pair of semi-detached dwellings alongside a larger dwelling sat at an angle to 42 Bowring Road. Although there still be a degree of overlooking and / or overbearing impacts resulting from the proposed works, it is considered that the broken up nature of the mass of the built form will keep this to within acceptable limits. It is noted that the site is zoned for residential development within a town where some degree of inter-visibility is to be expected. It is further noted that the main impact will occur towards the end of the garden furthest from its associated dwelling, which is likely to be used less than the area immediately adjacent no.42 and which is more likely to be used more regularly by the occupiers.
6.10 The impact on the nearby Kiart to the northeast is considered to be similarly acceptable, as was found to be the case with respect to the previous application. While the dwellings would be fairly close to one another, the nature and location of the site in addition to the modest mass proposed is considered to be sufficient to conclude there would be no unduly harmful loss of privacy or other amenity arising from the proposal. Moreover, the side elevation proposed for Plot 3 is entirely blank. That the application is accompanied by a letter of support from the occupier of Kiart is noted and welcomed, albeit is not determinative of the impact concluded as being acceptable.
6.11 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring living conditions and therefore accords with part (g) of General Policy 2.
The impact on trees
6.12 The site has been cleared of trees. It is understood that this has been undertaken with the appropriate felling licences from the Department. There was one particularly prominent tree in the front garden of Balladoole and the loss of this in particular is unfortunate; the site is part of a wider area of townscape characterised by the presence of interspersed trees and greenery, but now this element of its character has been lost. The application has been submitted with a landscaping scheme - which is perhaps more appropriately titled a tree-planting scheme - and, although this is perhaps slightly limited in nature it has been prepared with care and attention paid to the appropriate kind of trees for the site. It is therefore considered that, with appropriate management, the site can again offer tree coverage commensurate with its surroundings.
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/01168/B
Page 7 of 9
6.13 A condition requiring that any trees or hedging plants that die or are removed within the first five planting seasons be replaced would be appropriate to apply in this instance, and in so doing would make the application acceptable in terms of parts (c) and (f) of General Policy 2.
Impact on highway safety
6.14 Highway Services have indicated that a condition would make them content with the proposal. This condition is reasonable and necessary given the site's proximity to Coburg Road's junction with Bowring Road.
6.15 It is noted and welcomed that the proposal would provide sufficient room for some 7 parking spaces across the site, one more than would normally be required or expected of a scheme proposing 3 dwellings. While three of these spaces are to be provided in the form of garaging, and those serving the semi-detached dwellings at just over 5m by 3m in size they would be small, the intention to provide the garage is welcome in an area that does suffer from noticeable parking pressure at this immediate location. (Further to the northeast along Coburg Road, parking availability tends to be far higher.) Introducing additional on-street parking here could result in a knock-on negative impact on the safety of the Bowring Road / Coburg Road junction. Consequently, it is considered that a condition requiring the garages remain free of obstruction and for the purposes of car parking at all times would be reasonable and necessary to apply in this instance in order to make the application acceptable in terms of parts (h) and (i) of GP2 as well as Transport Policies 4 and 7.
Other matters
6.16 The use of post and panel fencing is judged inappropriate with respect to the streetscene, the boundary treatment of which is largely characterised by rendered masonry walling. While Manx stone wall would, in matching the application site, probably be preferred - and its retention around the site is considered to be essential - the use of dwarf masonry walling nearby is not considered inappropriate. A condition to this effect is recommended accordingly.
Conclusions
6.17 It is considered that the current proposal is acceptable for the reasons as set out above, and complies with the relevant Development Plan policies. The application has overcome the previous reasons for refusal successfully and has not raised any new concerns. The design of the landmark corner dwelling is considered to be generally acceptable even though the attached garage unsettles its appearance somewhat. The impact on neighbouring living conditions and highway safety would be acceptable, while the intention to return appropriate vegetation to the site is welcome.
6.18 However, it remains the case that the site is proposed to be fairly tightly developed, particularly so for the pair of semi-detached dwellings, and so it would be appropriate to remove permitted development rights with respect to extensions for the site. This is not to say that extensions would be unacceptable, but more that a proper assessment through the planning process should be required in order to reach that conclusion, not just in design terms but also in respect of impacts on the neighbouring living conditions of both the proposed and existing dwellings.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For the reasons given above, a recommendation of approval subject to conditions is made.
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;
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/01168/B
Page 8 of 9
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 The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
o The Forestry Division of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture. Currently, the Forestry Division and the Planning & Building Control Directorate sit within the same government Department and therefore the former cannot be afforded Interested Person Status.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.02.2016
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. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, the boundary treatment between Plots 1 and 2 and Plots 2 and 3 shall be formed of masonry walling, rendered and painted to match the dwellings.
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the site and townscape in which it sits.
C 3. The visibility splays identified on Plan 1290.10 shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 4. The garages hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor car(s) and shall be retained as available for such use.
Reason: To provide adequate off-street parking.
C 5. Any tree or hedge shown on the approved Landscaping Plan (reference 1290.15) that, within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later), dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.
==== PAGE 9 ====
15/01168/B
Page 9 of 9
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
C 6. With the exception of the window on the southeastern elevation, all windows of the approved Plot 1 dwelling shall have a sliding sash opening mechanism. The windows shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of this dwelling and townscape in which it sits.
C 7. 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.
The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 19th October 2015: 1290.5, 1290.10, 1290.11, 1290.12, 1290.13, 1290.14 and 1290.15, and also the Landscaping Proposal information, date-stamped as having been received 25th January 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 23.02.2016
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
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