Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01233/B Applicant: Dandara Homes Limited Proposal: Erection of 49 dwellings (change of house types from those approved under PA 13/91289/B) Site Address: Plots 118 To 137 & 141 To 144, Slieau Whallian View Off Raad Kirree Varrey Peel Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 15.12.2016 Site Visit: 15.12.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The site is a piece of land in the centre of a developing site situated between the Poortown/Derby Road and the playing fields of QEII school to the south. The site has approval for the development of a number of houses - 144 in the first instance (PA 13/91289/B) and modified through a series of applications, to have a net increase of 7 dwellings (taking into account also a reduction of 5 units in the number of dwellings on the adjacent scheme). - 1.2 The development is well under way with a number of dwellings already constructed. The application site in this case is an area in the centre of the development which has approval for 24 dwellings - 14 detached dwellings and 10 semi-detached dwellings, all two storey and arranged around an area of open space which abuts an existing area of public open space associated with Reayrt ny Cronk, the previous phase of development. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the development of this area with a larger area of public open space but in the same area, and the construction of 49 dwellings - 3 detached, 2 semi-detached and 44 terraced dwellings, all two storey in place of 24 previously approved. The general layout is the same but with new pathways leading to the rear of some of the properties with the most significant change to the streetscene being an almost continuous line of parking on hard surfacing facing the open space beside the road, compared with individual driveways and gardens in the previous scheme. - 2.2 Using the standards of the Strategic Plan, this development will require a provision of 756 sq m of children's play space and 1008 sq m of amenity space. What is proposed is around 1900 sq m in
2.3 The houses will be a mixture of mostly Cherry types - 3 and 2 beds some of which have accommodation within the roofspace, some public sector terraced housing which is of a similar
3.1 The site is designated for Residential use on the Peel Local Plan of 1990 and as such, the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan should be applied here, taking into account the character of the immediate area as approved in previous applications:
General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
4.1 The development was originally approved under PA 13/91289/B and has been modified with alterations to house types and also the provision of changing numbers of housing, the most recent of which being an application for 23 dwellings in place of 22 but being developed as affordable units by Peel Town Commissioners (PA 16/00253/B).
4.2 The conclusion of the inspector considering the 2013 application includes some useful advice:
"86. The development's residents would require educational, medical, policing and other services wherever they live on the Island. The need, as such, would not arise in any absolute sense because of this development. That public services on the Island, as in the UK, face pressures of constrained budgets with growing demands, is not a consequence of the appeal development or a reason for disallowing it. Rather the reverse in fact. Services can generally be provided more efficiently by being concentrated at designated Service Centres, including Peel, as intended by the Strategic Plan Spatial Strategy. It is for service providers to seek to respond to the needs of their users, so far as possible; doing so will be that bit less challenging when focussed rather than dispersed. I do understand that people in Peel having to wait for medical appointments, say, or faced with crowded schools, may not welcome this new development. But looked at broadly, there would be more scope for an additional medical practitioner, say, or more classrooms and teachers, than if the same 144 new households lived in less sustainable locations. It should be borne in mind too, that the 144 households would not all arrive at once, but over a period as the development progressed and likewise their children would not all need school places simultaneously. There would be at least some opportunity for service providers to respond in advance."
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 A letter has been received from the occupant of 16, Close Caaig which sits on the other side of the existing public open space who objects to the application. She is concerned that the development will result in overcrowding in the area which will cause problems for the town's infrastructure (waste water, schools and doctors' surgeries) which are already, in her view, at breaking point. She considers that the plans do not make sufficient space for storage, gardens or fire escape and she expresses concern that two spaces per dwelling are insufficient, as can be seen when one walks around many modern estates. She is also concerned that as cars are becoming larger, that the average space should be larger to accommodate all types of vehicle. She is concerned about the use of shared surfaces rather than carriageways with footpaths. She suggests that the play area should not be enlarged by this application or if it is, that the areas should be separated so that smaller children can have their own dedicated play space: currently some parents will not allow their smaller children to go to the play area as older children are playing there boisterously. She comments that the trees which have been planted by the developer are not being
maintained and are unlikely to reach maturity. She refers to correspondence previously exchanged between her and the planning office regarding the appropriateness of the existing play area and access to it using the shared surface (28.11.16).
5.2 She submits a further letter on 13.12.16 adding that she would wish to have it noted that the proposal is now adding 28% more housing to a development which was "unanimously rejected by Peel residents in 2014". She does not clarify in what referendum the residents were invited to vote nor the terms of that ballot. She queries whether developers should be using both Manx Roads and the Strategic Plan for guidance rather than just the one document and whether the existing provision for dealing with sewage is satisfactory as there are smells emanating from it which could be potentially dangerous to young people playing near it as well as any large vehicles associated with the maintenance of the works, and whether the estate roads are suitable for such traffic.
5.3 Peel Town Commissioners request a deferral on 15th November, pending the holding of a public meeting which was held on 30th November, 2016. They write in further on 14.12.16, advising that they object to the application on the basis that they do not believe that the local sewerage treatment plant can satisfactorily accommodate the additional waste which will be created by the proposed development. The works are privately owned and the Commissioners have received complaints from residents nearby highlighting ongoing problems with the reliability of the plant and the maintenance regime for it. - 5.4 The owner of 17, Atholl Street objects to the application on the basis that the sewerage system is not capable of accommodating the waste from the proposed works with the existing works giving rise to a noticeable stench. In addition, places at the local schools are limited along with places at local doctors' surgeries and parking in the town is stretched and the access roads unsuitable for significantly more traffic. Parking spaces within the estate are already oversubscribed. Whilst there may be a business case for the development, he does not believe that there is a social one, with a number of properties already for sale in the town. He supported the growth of the town but only if it can be sustainable and measured (12.12.16). - 5.5 The owners of 30, Stanley Road are concerned at the capacity of the sewerage system to accommodate additional waste and that of the local doctors' surgery and school to accommodate additional people. They are concerned that the local roads are not suitable for additional traffic (09.12.16). - 5.6 The owner of 9, Tommy Clucas Avenue is concerned about the operational capacity of the existing sewage treatment works which suffers from an existing odour problem which has yet to be remedied. He asks if the existing system is not capable of being remedied what will happen when the development is complete and the developer is no longer available to try to resolve the situation? - 5.7 The owners of 5 and 9, Quarry Lane in Slieau Whallian View object to the application, expressing concern at the adequacy of the sewerage system at the current time as well as the parking situation where properties are described as having inadequate parking on the driveway and end up with vehicles parked on the road. They are concerned that the schools cannot cope with additional children as well as the local medical centre (29.12.16 & 23/12/16). - 5.8 The owner of 8, Quarry Lane expresses concern at the increase in density of development and the adequacy of the existing infrastructure to accommodate additional loading as well as inadequate car parking within the estate (30.12.16). - 5.9 Highway Services raise no objection to the application, stating,
"The proposal is to increase the number of dwellings approved by PA 13/91289/B and change the dwelling types.
Each dwelling has been provided with the required number of car parking spaces and 3 visitor spaces have also been provided. Footpath links have been altered but maintained. The road layout has been altered to accommodate the additional dwellings and is satisfactory.
The road network approved under PA 13/91289/B was designed to accommodate a significantly higher number of dwellings than was approved under that application and is capable of accommodating the additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed increase in dwellings.
Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:
5.10 Department of Education and Children were approached to comment on the scheme in terms of its impact on local education infrastructure and particularly responding to concerns raised in this respect from local residents. Their response is as follows (:
"We continue to be proactive in seeking to accommodate the rising rolls which we are experiencing and / or expect to come from the continuing residential development in Peel. The capital developments completed at both QEII and Peel Clothworkers' in 2008 were a response then the ongoing / planned residential development at the time, in providing additional class-base capacity at both schools, and improving core facilities.
The current situation is as follows Peel Clothworkers The roll has been rising significantly over recent years .. it is currently 423, with a high reception intake trend over recent years, exceeding the outgoing year 6 rolls. This current / expected roll growth beyond our assessed permanent class-base capacity of 400 has been accommodated through use of the former pre-school nursery classroom for mainstream reception, and utilisation of the former staffroom as a classroom (the staffroom has been relocated to the youth room, with youth now using the mobile classroom), effectively increasing the capacity to 450. The roll is expected to grow further by September 2017, with an overall roll of circa 450 anticipated, and so this will see the school operating very much at capacity, with the measures we have taken. With regard to continuing to deal with an expected rising roll, we are currently looking at how we can better utilise existing spare primary capacity in adjacent catchments, to relive the pressure. At some point in the future it will be necessary to move forward with further capital development at the school to meet the rising demand, and we will need to make the case for the same to Treasury there is no current pink-book provision. The Department were proactive in securing additional land adjacent to the school some years back, such that additional built development can be accommodated at the site. QEII Contrary to expectations, given the extent of recent residential development in the town, the roll at the school has dropped over recent years. The school (current roll 756) is operating well within its permanent built capacity, which is assessed at 985. We are however keeping a close eye on the rolls at the feeder primary schools, and anticipate, that if the recent incoming trends continue, that the roll at the school could rise 950 at 2020, and to 1000 or beyond by 2026. We are at the early stages of progressing a business case for a new proposed extension at the school - a STEM block
(Science, Technology , Engineering and Maths), which will seek to address existing accommodation suitability issues i.e. provide improved facilities for students and staff, and also provide additional student capacity - there is current no pink book provision for this scheme. As with Peel Clothworkers, we have been proactive in securing additional land to the rear (North) and side (West) of the school to facilitate such additional built provision.
With regard to your specific query on the impact of the application for an increase in density of 25 housing units. It is difficult to assess the impact but if approved, built-out and occupied it is likely to put further pressure on the existing Primary school accommodation in the town, where pressure as outlined above already exists, and add to the longer term Secondary roll growth beyond capacity anticipated at QEII, providing further support for our outline development plans.
Whilst writing, a brief comment on the Inspector's comments on the previous application, which you have copied below. From our perspective the concentration of recent residential development in the West, in Peel, has required us to be proactive in progressing Primary development in Peel and accommodating the existing, growing pressures. It is at the surrounding Primary schools in the West where we have existing capacity - Michael, St John's and Foxdale, and so from our perspective, a more uniform spread of residential development across these other existing communities, which would help sustain these existing schools, and where any resultant roll growth could be accommodated, without the need for further built development, would be more sustainable."
6.1 The issue here is whether the increase in density is acceptable in terms of visual appearance, affordable housing, public open space and highway safety.
6.2 The density of the development overall has been increasing through applications submitted following the initial approval and in some ways, the increase in smaller, terraced housing reflects more closely the historic pattern of housing in the town, although with a greater public space within the immediate area. The major difference between the historic town centre and the outlying estates however, apart from details of the buildings, is the provision of car parking spaces and the domination they can have on the streetscene. In this case, the streetscene around the public open space will now be characterised by hard standings and parked vehicles with a few trees introduced. This is, however, not unheard of within this estate and the adjacent one. It could also be argued however, that the higher density and smaller units may be those where young children may live and the close proximity to the open space is perhaps more important than in the case of the larger houses with more spacious private gardens, which makes the proposal all the more acceptable.
6.3 The increase in density per se cannot be given as a reason for refusal: the decision must be based upon the impact of the change in numbers. An interesting recent decision on a housing development in Ramsey is relevant in this respect. 16/00232/B proposed development on fields 131047 and 134069 at The Vollan and was a housing development which increased the density of development from a previously approved scheme and the inspector notes the following:
"57. Nor do I consider that the density and layout changes will result in an incompatible, unplanned and unsympathetic development when considered in the light of the extant permission. It is evident that the spaces between dwellings will be smaller and that overall the appearance of Phase 2 will look tighter and more compact than Phase 1. However, although there are some design differences between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 houses the general palette of materials and styles are compatible and sympathetic to each other".
"59...I also agree that, albeit it tighter than the initial layout it is a much more efficient use of valuable land in a modern market and is more orderly and easier to navigate".
6.4 In this case, the existing layout and that of Reayrt ny Cronk alongside features a mix of house types - detached, semi-detached and terraced housing, some rendered, some Manx stone finish, some brick and some half brick, half render. The most attractive of the terraced properties within the existing development, it could be argued, are those with each property finished entirely in the same finish, rather than a half and half approach which has a more modern approach and where the properties are not hidden behind a row of parked vehicles or significant areas of hardstandings. What are proposed are all finished entirely in one material - either brick or render and unfortunately not stone and whilst there is a row of parking in front, this is separated from the dwellings by a footpath and with small grassed areas directly in front of the properties. Developments such as this can be made or broken by small elements such as grass and planting and it is important that the grass and small areas of planting shown in the plans, are implemented and if possible, retained. - 6.5 Whether this form of development is considered appropriate or not, it is not dissimilar to other terraces not too far away - for example plots 107-145 although set back slightly further and 10-18, Scoill Close. It is important that development makes the most of land which is sustainable and designated for development, in accordance with the Strategic Aim and Strategic Policy 1 which both echo the comments made the inspector in respect of 16/00232/B. The form and density of development is considered to be acceptable. - 6.6 The proposed scheme will also include a footpath access in front of the dwellings on both sides of the road which was not included previously. There will therefore be dedicated pedestrian access to the public open space close by the fronts of the proposed terraced dwellings. - 6.7 The provisions for public open space and affordable housing are considered to accord with the provisions of the Strategic Plan. - 6.8 There is no evidence that the surrounding road networks cannot satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development. Whilst people often express concern about increases in the number of vehicles using a road network, for example having to wait longer to get out of their driveways or to move off junctions, road networks have technical capacities which include levels of tolerance for people waiting to manoeuvre and the professional evidence and advice is that there is no issue with the capacity of the roads which will serve this additional development. - 6.9 Whilst there have been concerns raised by a number of local residents that the existing sewage treatment plant has been giving rise to smell nuisance, and this is clearly something that has been happening, as evidenced by the number of people who have complained about it, the applicant has explained that this is something associated with the maintenance of the works rather than a capacity issue. There is no evidence that the works cannot work satisfactorily with or without the proposed additional loading. - 6.10 Concerns have also been expressed that the local service infrastructure will be unable to cope with additional demand, specifically doctors' dentists' and school facilities. The inspector's comments set out at paragraph 42 (his paragraph 86) are helpful in that he explains that not only is it for the service providers to keep up with the demand rather than for the planning process to slow down development in line with what can be provided for, but also that additional population levels are
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
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 owners of 16, Close Caaig who may be affected by the additional use of the play facility and 5, 8 and 9, Quarry Lane and 9, Tommy Clucas Avenue who all use the estate road which will accommodate additional traffic as a result of the proposal.
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:
the owner of 30, Stanley Road and 17, Atholl Street both of which are too far from the development to be directly affected by it.
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: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 30.01.2017
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interest of highway safety
REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
This decision relates to drawings 15.01, 17.01, 17.02, 17.03, 17.04, 17.05, 17.05A,17.06, 18.01, 2460.19.01 all received on 2nd November, 2016, 14.01A, 16.01A, 16.02A, 16.03A, 16.04A and 16.05A all received on 21st November, 2016 and 15.02A and 15.03A both received on 25th November, 2016.
Decision Made : …To approve the application subject to a legal agreement and delegate the decision to be made by the Director once such agreement was in place
Committee Meeting Date:…03.05.2017 Signed :……S CORLETT…………….. Presenting Officer The decision was formally determined under the authority delegated to the Director
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown