Loading document...
"As noted in our Planning Statement section 4.7, the final determination of the size of the attenuation required will be dependent on detailed design and the undertaking of extensive on site testing to determine the permeability of the proposed garden soakaways. This detailed design works will be undertaken post planning and details will be provided to MU for their approval in the usual manner. A noted in section 4.5 we have confirmed that surface water flow will be attenuated for a 1 in 50 year return period. Section 4.7 of our Planning Statement confirms that our initial assessment is a calculated size of the attenuation as 300 m 3 . This initial assessment is based on impermeable run-off from 60 % of the dwellings and 100 % of the public highway surface. We consider that this is a conservative approach for initial calculations and is sufficient to confirm the viability of the proposals at Planning Stage. "As noted in section 5.1 of our Planning Statement the site is not identified as at risk of flooding on the mapping issued by MU. As noted in Section 5.3 we are aware that flooding of the highway does occur at the current low spot in Clifton Drive close to proposed Plot 25. From our own investigations locally the flooding occurs to Clifton Drive and then extends west along Romney Wynd following the ground profile. The flooding would appear to be primarily as a result of blocked or ineffective gullies/drainage in the vicinity and it is known that the MU have recently de-silted the surface water culvert below the area. It is the responsibility of MU to ensure that this culvert is well maintained to reduce the risk of localised flooding at this low point. As noted in Section 5.5 of our Planning Statement, the proposed finished floor levels for Plot 25 and the adjacent plots is 11.4 m above datum, this is 470 mm above the existing low spot on Clifton Drive. As noted in Section 5.5, in a extreme flooding event (one outside standard design parameters) flood waters will collect at the low spot and then extend west along Romney Wynd following lower ground contours and as has happened in the recent past. Plot 25 and the adjacent properties are therefore adequately protected from localised flooding. We consider that the risk of flooding is appropriately addressed. The gardens associated with the plot 25 and the adjacent plots will be above surrounding road levels and therefore unlikely to be subject to water-logging." 5.5 Manx National Heritage commented on the application, received 17th March 2015. They advise that MNH owns and administers land immediately adjacent to the development site, and advise that that landholding "is used for a variety of purposes connected to the public enjoyment of the museum". They go on to comment on three specific matters:
also consider that a management plan for the after-care of the marshy area in the southeast corner of the site should be required by Planning condition, indicating that "incorporating it into the amenity space is indeed an option for coping with the existing drainage problem in a way that would benefit wildlife". 5.6 The Department has been sent correspondence indicating that the movement of a bus stop outwith the application site to a position away from Plots 1-5 (some of the affordable units) would be acceptable to the Traffic Manager within the Department of Infrastructure. This correspondence was sent to the Department on 10th March 2015. 5.7 Ramsey Town Commissioners commented on the proposal in correspondence received 25th March 2015. The Commissioners observed that:
The concerns raised by the residents are, in no order, as follows:
Development of the site was expected but not in the manner proposed;
Plots 25-26 are semi-detached and out of keeping with the existing detached properties on Clifton Drive;
\quad There has been a problem with water gathering at the end of the estate where the smaller dwellings are proposed to be built, and 60 -plus dwellings will not help the situation;
\quad The internal roads are barely within the overall specifications for development of this nature, meaning emergency and refuse vehicles will find it difficult to access the area and visitors will have difficulty in parking;
\quad There may be overflow parking on Clifton Drive;
We are not opposed to the development of the site but feel very strongly that existing householders' plight should be seen sympathetically;
Plots 1-5, 27-36 and 64-66 are too close to the road (27-36 are two-storey opposite a bungalow);
\quad The roads are very narrow and difficult to pass with cars let alone trade vehicles;
One highway labelled 'country lane' is currently a total bog;
No two-storey dwellings currently overlook single storey dwellings in Clifton Park;
\quad The proposed dwellings will be 30 % nearer to the pavements than is currently the case;
We ask if these proposals meet with current Building and Planning regulations;
\quad The leylandii hedge to the north of the proposed development has been allowed to overgrow and, were these to be cut down by new owners, the visual impact will be high;
Our property will be facing the rear of Plots 38-47, which we understand is against planning principles;
\quad The proposed density of the development is much greater than other properties in the area - Plots 2-36 would appear to be three times the density of existing houses immediately opposite;
\quad The proposed houses are higher than those in the area and would therefore have a greater visual impact, and Plots 38-47 and 64-66 could be lowered in height to 'soften' this impact;
\quad There would appear to be insufficient parking for the Plots accessed off Clifton Drive and this would result in vehicles bring parked on the road;
\quad The development should be moved back from the highway to match the established building lines of the properties facing the development." 5.9 The Manx Utilities Authority provided the following comments, received 6th March 2015: "Contact the Manx Utilities, Planning Department (Tel. 687781), to discuss the electricity supply for this application."
6.1 There is a very difficult balance to be struck. There clearly is a presumption in favour of new residential development on the site. The issue at hand is what level of development is appropriate. As outlined in Section 4, it is considered that a proposal not likely to have a harmful impact on the setting of the Grove in particular would, in principle, receive officer support. 6.2 It is perhaps worth reflecting on the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) in the first instance. They indicate that there is a "Pastoral farmland with a parkland character around the Grove Rural Life Museum", but there are a number of comments in the VIA that cause some concern. 6.3 The consultants indicate that the site's "present value to the local community is primarily for its role in providing a green setting to development on Clifton Drive and Balleigh Court". This seems to be contradicted by the Ramsey Local Plan as well as MNH's views on the proposal, both of which indicate the site's value is actually in the exact opposite direction, in providing a setting for the Grove Museum and its grounds, which as noted run adjacent the site. 6.4 The VIA includes the following two paragraphs that outline the views from the east: "4.15 The Grove Rural Life Museum (Receptor D) is 100 m to the east of the site. This property is set within mature gardens. The southern part of these gardens is characterised by mature trees and shrubs which generally enclose views from both the property and its grounds. There are occasional glimpsed views across the pastoral farmland to properties on Balleigh Court to the south. From the walled garden there are glimpsed views over the garden wall towards the pine trees on the eastern boundary of the site (Photograph 3). "4.16 Bowring Road (Receptor 6) is to the east of the site and is characterised by metal parkland style fencing and mature trees lining the road. Views towards the site are limited by the wall and trees, particularly when travelling by car. When walking along the footpath there are glimpses between trees across the adjacent pastoral field towards the mature pine trees along the eastern boundary and beyond to some of the grassland and scrub areas within the site (Photograph 4)."
"Receptors [that is, people that can view a site that is proposed to be developed] are considered to be of high susceptibility to change where that are walkers using public footpaths and also walkers and cyclists using the local road network and local residents."
They do not include the Grove as one of the four "Receptors that have the potential to experience the greatest change in their views". 6.6 They further continue: "6.10 The Grove Rural Life Museum is 100 m to the east of the site. The museum is set within mature gardens including mature evergreen trees and shrubs. This vegetation generally encloses the site. Where views out are possible they are across a pastoral field towards development along Balleigh Park. The museum would retain its connection with the adjacent pastoral parkland fields and mature garden vegetation generally would screen the application site". 6.6 VIAs, as a general rule, conclude on the existing sensitivity of a particular landscape or area in order to understand how susceptible to change it is. For example, a poor quality landscape would be viewed as more able to accommodate proposed development than one of much greater visual quality even if the kind of development proposed on both the sites was identical. There is usually an acceptance within the assessment process that there will almost always be some form of impact from a proposed development, and that the magnitude of the effect relates to matters such as the size or scale of a proposal, its degree of permanence and its 'reversibility'. This VIA uses four words to describe the significance of landscape effects: 'Negligible', 'Minor Adverse', 'Moderate Adverse' or 'Major Adverse'. Each 'Receptor' was assessed against the proposal as complete and also after 15 years, and lengthy commentary was provided for each. 6.7 The submitted VIA predicts that the proposed 66 dwellings would result in a Moderate Adverse significance of effects being felt by residents along Clifton Drive and within parts of Balleigh Court, while a Minor Adverse significance of effects would be experienced by the other properties surrounding the site and where views are more heavily filtered, distant or oblique. These areas include the remaining parts of Balleigh Court, dwellings known as The Greenings, Linden (although it is mentioned only as the "adjacent property" to The Greenings), Thornhill Manor and Oleander, as well as The Grove Museum of Rural Life. 6.8 In view of the importance that the Grove and its setting to the proposal, it is perhaps worth setting out the full commentary provided in the VIA in respect of the Grove.
Within the walled garden and the western edges of the museum grounds there are filtered views to the adjacent farmland; there would be glimpsed views of new properties within the eastern part of the site which would be seen beyond the retained pine trees along the eastern boundary. The development would be visible although glimpses of modern housing are not uncharacteristic from this museum as southerly views are across pasture towards properties on Balleigh Park. There are limited opportunities to see beyond the museum grounds and the existing housing development appears in these views; the magnitude if change would be low adverse."
which will reduce their impact and also not repeat the mistake of the white render finish found on those dwellings to the west and which manifestly ruin the setting of the Grove. The wording of Strategic Policy 1 is clear. Whichever reading of the Local Plan Policy is taken, it is considered that, having particular regard to the circumstances of this case, the expectation that new development should make efficient use of land is judged to outweigh the Local Plan Policy. The site is within one of the Island's main towns and has good access to its services, jobs, shops and also public transport that connects with the wider Island as well. 6.15 As such, but very much on balance, no objection is raised to the principle of the proposal. What remains for consideration is the detail. In no order, the primary issues are: (a) the design of the proposed dwellings and the site layout; (b) the impact of the new dwellings on existing dwellings' living conditions; (c) the living conditions afforded to the proposed dwellings inhabitants; (d) highway safety and parking; (e) flooding; (f) possible presence of bats; (g) impact on trees.
The design of the proposed dwellings and the site layout 6.16 The proposed layout has been approached with some effort to reflect the existing features on the site. However, the layout is not especially different to that shown to officers prior to the application's submission and so it is not known to what extent the extra survey work - Arboricultural, Visual Impact and Landscape, and Ecological assessments - has helped to evolve the scheme as a whole, and this is unfortunate. 6.18 The use of a 'circus' layout within the centre of the site, utilising some of the more important tree groupings on the site, is interesting and welcome, although it has not been approached in a way to maximise key views of dwellings and there may result in some unfortunate leftover space between the dwellings and the highway as a result of the layout proposed, contrary to good urban design practice. Moreover, it is considered that the circus' would be improved were it to blend in with the existing vegetation, which could be achieved through the use of appropriate timber fencing rather than the apparent open plan approach proposed. 6.19 Elsewhere, views through the site along the main routes are long distance, through the site and into the fields beyond, which will create pleasing entrances to the site. 6.20 The semi-detached rhythm of the proposed dwellings fronting Clifton Drive does not mirror the large bungalow opposite (so large, in fact, that their footprints are larger than the semi-detached dwellings together) and nor will the height of these dwellings mirror their existing counterparts. 6.21 The gardens for the smaller proposed units are generally quite small; in some cases they appear to be smaller than the footprint of the dwelling they would serve. However, concern about overdevelopment of the site on this point is to some extent minimised by the fact that the larger plots have significantly larger gardens such as to provide a sense of openness within the smaller gardens. 6.22 In some cases access to the front garden will be difficult and so it seems fairly likely that the grass shown on the drawings will be replaced with harder materials, which could be unfortunate in an area characterised by its natural environment. A condition could be attached ensuring that the gardens to the front of the dwellings are not replaced with hardstanding. While it remains unclear at this time whether or not such a change would be unfortunate, further assessment of this in future would probably be useful and so a condition to this effect would probably not be inappropriate in this instance.
6.23 Around the estate there are several areas of green that would sit between or on the edge of hardstanding areas and which may be rarely maintained as a result. 6.24 A large area of public open space is overlooked by the side gable of one dwelling although other areas are also more directly overlooked. This public open space is in the corner of the site and does sit alongside the setting of the Grove, which is welcome, but also appears to be located in the proposed position because the site is at its lowest here and is quite marshy. The value of this land from a public accessibility point of view is likely to be limited since it will feel to residents more a part of the land beyond than as part of their own estate. 6.25 Tandem parking is shown on a number of plots, with parking areas located away from houses in other cases, and this is likely to lead to displaced parking throughout the site and possibly on Clifton Drive itself. While in respect of the latter this is not necessarily of huge concern, the proposed roads within the site are quite tight and, while this will help reduce traffic speeds, may result in highways dominated by cars - potentially to the detriment of the general visual amenity of the site. 6.26 There is one public footpath that has been extended from the adjacent estate into the proposed layout. 6.27 Some affordable housing units, to the west of the site, are located immediately adjacent the children's play area and will have an open and pleasant outlook, and ensure that the play area is surveilled, which is welcome. 6.28 While the use of close-boarded timber fencing might not normally be the best design solution for garden boundaries, the tree presence across the site suggests this to be appropriate on this site. Manx stone walls would have been better, but used throughout the site they may have created in a slightly oppressive experience, especially alongside public open space. Even so, the regimented straight lines proposed for the garden boundaries does not necessarily seem like the best approach to be taken if the intention is to enable the scheme to sit within this natural environment. 6.29 Although no reference has been made to this, the scheme does not appear to be in significant conflict with any of the 'Secure by Design' principles. 6.30 While it is not ignored that the site does present many challenges to its redevelopment, the proposed layout is considered to represent a missed opportunity. There has been some effort to reflect both the site's own features and also those nearby, but the proposed site plan reads rather like the design approach has been to set out a layout for the houses based on the site's shape instead of on a good understanding of what the key features of the site are and how these might be best exploited to maximise the site's potential. This is unfortunate. 6.31 However, there remain a number of positive features and also features that are probably the best that the site can allow, and it is considered that an objection to the scheme on this basis could not be justified. 6.32 The scheme's dwellings have been designed specifically for this site, which as a general principle is always welcome. There are several house types proposed on the estate, one of which is only repeated once, which is quite unusual for volume housebuilding. It is understood that design inspiration for the dwellings has been drawn from the form of the Grove, and in the hipped roofs this is evident.
6.33 On the whole, the dwellings are fairly unobjectionable without being especially inspirational. They offer good and neat proportions, while the design language of the applicant's schemes elsewhere on the Island in recent times can be perceived. 6.34 The finishing for the elevations of those dwellings facing towards the Grove to be of the cladding and colours shown on the amended plans should be controlled by condition. Colour is not normally something Planning becomes too heavily involved with as this can appear overly prescriptive and interfering with homeowners' rights. However, in this instance, the impact of the dwellings on the setting of the Grove is considered to be of such importance that a condition to that end would be required in order to make the development acceptable. 6.35 In terms of this overall issue, the scheme is not considered to be in such conflict with Strategic Policy 5, Environment Policy 42 or parts (b), (f), (I) or (m) of General Policy 2 such as to warrant its refusal.
Public Open Space and biodiversity 6.36 In terms of the public open space provision, the scheme requires 3,366sqm for Formal Open Space, 1,122sqm of Children's Play Space and a further 1,496sqm of Amenity Space. As a whole the total requirement would be 5,984 sqm; proposed for the site overall is 5,992sqm. The agent indicates that Ramsey's level of formal open space (generally this is for sporting use) is already of a high level and, in view of the biodiversity interest on the site, the amount of space required for formal open space should be added to that proposed as amenity space. There is some logic to this argument. It is also noted that the Local Authority has not objected to this element of the proposal. 6.37 In the low-lying part of the site, which is evidently prone to low-level flooding or standing water, the Ecological Assessment notes that this area provides an opportunity to create a pond or other wetland habitat, and designed to benefit wildlife and suitably planted with native aquatic planting species. Although the Planning Statement submitted with the application indicates that a "managed wetland" is accordingly proposed, the details on this are limited. There are some helpful landscape strategy plans, which indicate a general approach along these lines, and are also much more specific with respect to the tree-planting proposed throughout the site, but the application contains insufficient information on which to be certain that such a wetland (even less a 'managed' wetland) will be created here. 6.38 A condition requiring a biodiversity management plan to be submitted and approved for the wetland habitat would be appropriate in this instance and would, when satisfactorily discharged, balance favourably against the failure of the scheme to provide any formal open space at all.
The impact of the new dwellings on existing dwellings' living conditions 6.39 The site is quite well-removed from nearby dwellings, and is also set down quite significantly from those to the south of the site. As such, the distances between those proposed and the existing is really quite generous and so there is unlikely to be a significantly harmful impact on neighbouring living conditions. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with part (g) of General Policy 2.
The living conditions afforded to the proposed dwellings inhabitants 6.40 As originally designed, the two largest Plots sat directly behind, and ran the length of, several of the smaller Plots to the southwest, at a short distance and also on a higher topography. This was considered likely to provide an uncomfortable relationship between the two sets of dwellings in respect of both privacy and oppressiveness, and as such a slightly
amended scheme was sought. Preferably, these two Plots would have been replaced by those found elsewhere around the central 'circus' and thus really reinforced the sense of place created in that central part of the site. However, the amended design and positioning of the two larger proposed dwellings represents an acceptable compromise. 6.41 This was the only real concern in respect of relationships between the proposed dwellings on the site. As ever in these circumstances, rather less attention needs paying to such a consideration than where a new dwelling is proposed to be located adjacent an existing dwelling since people purchasing the houses will always need to make something of this judgement themselves.
Highway safety and parking 6.42 General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 set out the general requirements in respect of parking standards and highway safety. The submitted plans show visibility splays of 2.4 m by 45 m in both directions from the two proposed accesses off Clifton Drive itself. These seem appropriate, and, having been on-site, the available visibility in both directions may well be longer distance than this. A condition restricting the height of potential obstructions within the visibility splays shown would be appropriate to apply. 6.43 The access routes into the site are slightly curved, and will be on undulating land, and these two points serve to mean that visibility along these will be acceptable but also sufficiently broken by changes in direction and topography to ensure that road speeds are kept fairly low. 6.44 Turning to the parking arrangements proposed, some of which have already been discussed, it is considered that these would be appropriate and would not cause undue harm to highway safety. The tandem parking shown on certain plots would not be ideal, and it is almost inevitable that some people will choose to park on the road, but the roads are wide enough that this should, hopefully, not be on the pavement, which is always a worry. Onstreet parking will also help to further reduce road speeds.
Flooding 6.45 The site is not in an area at great risk of flooding albeit that the lowest part of the site was seen to be very damp and adjacent to this - even marshy in appearance. However, the comments received from the flood risk engineer appointed by the applicant seems to address the localised flooding / standing water issues, which were also raised by some local residents, and it therefore is concluded that the site is not at so significant risk from flooding as to warrant the application's refusal in line with Environment Policies 7 and 10 and also part (I) of General Policy 2.
Possible presence of bats 6.46 The Senior Biodiversity Officer's comments with regards the potential presence of bats were forwarded to the agent for his consideration. While a condition requiring a bat survey be carried out would not be inappropriate in this instance, should any such survey indicate a need to minimise light pollution in that area of the site near to the bats that are found - or could be found if the appropriate habitat was discovered following the bat survey - this could require the proposed dwellings or highways in the site to be moved. 6.47 As such, the least risky approach would clearly be for a bat survey to be conducted now and any amendments to the site plan required could be done under the current application. It is not possible to amend a site layout once approval has been granted and, as such, should the bat survey require the moving of any Plots, a fresh application for the entire
site will be required. However, the applicant has decided to take the risk, and therefore a condition requiring a bat survey be carried out to the satisfaction of the Department prior to work commencing is recommended accordingly.
Birdlife 6.48 Related to the above, it is also noted that that the Ecological Assessment provided within the proposal suggests that biodiversity should be incorporated within the new development in the form of and bird- (and bat-) friendly features on buildings as well as through garden and open space design. This recommendation has not been followed through into the design of the dwellings proposed. A condition to this effect is recommended, with a suggestion that simple features such as bird and bat bricks within the apex of roofs could be incorporated within the dwellings' designs. In view of the limited information available with respect to bats in particular, which it must be remembered are a protected species, such a condition would not be inappropriate.
Impact on trees 6.49 It is evident that trees on the site are an important feature on the site. The Forester Officer's comments about the approach the development are instructive and do not indicate an objection to the proposal as a whole. As such, the suggested conditions in respect of tree protection and an Arboricultural Method Statement are certainly appropriate in this instance and are recommended accordingly. 6.50 The proposed retention of a good number of trees of individual and group value, and also the intention to plant a good deal more native species, is very much welcomed from both a biodiversity and also urban design perspective. 6.51 As such, while some Plots might be better moved away from existing trees to reduce the potential pressure on those trees' removal in future, it is considered that the proposal's impact on trees is overall an acceptable one and no objection is therefore raised on this ground.
7.1 The proposal, overall, represents an acceptable residential scheme. It has missed several opportunities with respect its layout, house design / finishes, biodiversity maximisation and tree coverage. The principle is considered acceptable on balance. However, it is considered that a fundamental objection to the proposal could not be sustained and the application is therefore recommended for approval. 7.2 Several conditions, discussed already, are recommended, while a legal agreement pursuant to Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 will also be required in order to ensure the affordable housing provision is adequately made.
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 The Department of Infrastructure's Highway Services, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 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:
The first three dwellings lie opposite the application site, while Oleander sits just to its northeast.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
Finally, it is not possible to grant Interested Person Status to Officers within the Department of which the Planning and Building Control Directorate is itself a part, which includes the following:
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement
Date of Recommendation: 14.09.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
