Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00936/B Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00936/B Applicant : Ms Charlotte Titterton & Mr Ian Handbidge Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking and access Site Address : Site Adj To 10 Birchley Terrace Onchan Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken : 11.09.2019 Site Visit : 11.09.2019 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.10.2019 __
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, all railings and vegetation in the site curtilage within the visibility splays indicated on the approved plan shall not exceed 1.0m above the level of carriageway (0.9m above back of footway level) and shall be maintained to not exceed this height thereafter.
Reason: To maintain and improve highway safety.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, the surfacing of the access to the dwelling shall be constructed in stable material (not loose stone or gravel) as approved in writing by the Department within 5.0m of the back of footway and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that loose material does not migrate onto the highway
C 4. In accordance with Condition 4 on the approval in principle 18/00111/A for this site, the existing boundary railings shall be retained albeit reduced to no higher than 1m in height. 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 additional fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed around the curtilage of the dwelling house which fronts onto a highway.
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00936/B Page 2 of 12
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6, and to ensure the retention of adequate visibility.
C 5. 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 garden sheds, garages, summerhouses or other free standing buildings shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 22nd August 2019:
o WL/19/1469 1C - Floor plans and elevations as proposed o WL/19/1469 2 - Site Plan as proposed o WL/19/1469 3 - Location Plan o WL/19/1469 4 - Block Plan __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
o 22 Birchleigh Close, Onchan; o 6 Birchley Terrace, Onchan; and o 8 Conister Close, Onchan;
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
o 2 Birchley Terrace, Onchan; and o 4 Birchley Terrace, Onchan;
As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00936/B Page 3 of 12
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AS THERE ARE 5 OR MORE OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a parcel residential garden associated with No.22 Birchleigh Close and includes an outbuilding. The site is detached from No.22 and separated by an access lane that services the properties on Birchley Terrace; the site itself adjoins the property at No.10 at the end of the terrace and on the corner where Hillberry Road/Avondale Road curves.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application is for the reserved matters relating to approval in principle 18/00111/A which was approved by the Planning Committee on 08.05.18. The principle of a dwelling on the site has therefore been established as acceptable.
2.2 Proposed is a two storey detached dwelling with traditional styling and 134.2m2 of floor space combined over the two floors. The building is styled to follow the curve of the road with one end of the dwelling following the angle of the adjacent Birchley terrace and the larger part of the dwelling angled further towards the north forming a 'J' shape. Access would be via the Hillberry Road using the existing access to the site modified to provide an access apron and gateway set back from the road by 5+ metres. Parking for two cars in an area of 5m x 6.5m would be provided along with a turning area to the north western side.
2.3 The finish of the dwelling would be similar to the adjacent terrace, using smooth painted render, slate roof uPVC window units of carrying opening methods - sliding sash to the front and rear, and 3 velux roof lights on a pitched single storey area on the north west elevation. This includes a covered porch. There would be a large traditionally styled chimney stack on either gable. A bay window is proposed on the smaller frontage.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is designated as 'Predominantly Residential' under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000 Map No. 1. The application site is not within a Conservation Area and the outbuilding on the site is not Registered.
3.2 The Strategic Plan 2016 contains several policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3.2.1 Strategic Policy 1 states: "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(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
4.4 Spatial Policy 2 states: "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services o Ramsey o Peel o Port Erin o Castletown o Onchan
Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement."
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00936/B Page 4 of 12
4.5 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:
(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; (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 and (j) can be provided with all necessary services."
4.6 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."
3.2.5 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
3.2.6 The relevant parking standard under Appendix 7 for apartments is 1 space for 1 bedroom and 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms. It also states that standards may be relaxed where development: (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area. (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.
3.3 Policy O/RES/P/19 from the Onchan Local Plan 2000 is applicable to this proposal:
"The erection of new residential properties may be permitted within areas designated for residential use where these would fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings."
3.4 The Department's Residential Design Guidance (RDG) published in March 2019 is also a material consideration in the assessment of this application and is referenced in this report.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 One previous planning application of material relevance to this application is the approval in principle aforementioned (18/00111/A). The case officer's report noted the following:
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/00936/B Page 5 of 12
"Although the plans are illustrative, there is some concern regarding the layout shown, as this is likely to have an impact on No.10 in terms of overbearing and overshadowing, which could have an adverse impact on the amenity of local residents. Also the design could impact the openness of the corner if it is sited too close the highway and proud of the building line, and although it features traditional aspects, may appear out of keeping with the adjoining terraces due to its layout. Therefore no approval has been given for the submitted designs which will be more thoroughly assessed during the reserved matters application."
These concerns related to a previous scheme which showed a different design and layout to the current scheme.
4.2 Conditions on this approval include the requirement to retain the existing boundary treatments, and a restriction on any outbuildings.
4.3 In addition, approval was granted (19/00792/B) recently for extensions to the property to the north (22 Birchleigh Close) including a two storey element and a dormer, effectively extending the first floor to the rear.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. These comments have been considered as part of the assessment and this report contains only summaries of the points made.
5.1 Onchan Commissioners recommend that the application be refused on the grounds that, "the development will have an adverse effect on highway safety." (17.09.19).
5.2 DoI Highway Services initially objected to the application on 26.09.19 noting:
"Visibility of 2.4m x 43.0m is proposed but this can only be achieved if the x distance of 2.4m is set at the same angle as the access. Whilst this maybe a reasonable attempt and trying to achieve the necessary visibility, it is not correct in terms of how it should be presented when considering visibility and stopping sight distances as shown in Manual for Manx Roads and its supporting documentation in Manual For Streets. Measuring the visibility correctly demonstrates a significantly reduced sightline to the right for a vehicle exiting the site due to third party land constraints. Given the fact that the development is for the erection of a dwelling using an existing access, it is considered there would be a material increase in traffic entering and exiting the site when compared to its existing use. Given the fact that access is a substandard in terms of its visibility, any development that increases vehicle movements at such an access is not considered to be in the best interests of highway safety.
Refusal is therefore recommended as the development is considered to be contrary to policy GP2 (i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
5.2.1 Following on from this, DoI Highways later undertook a site visit and provided the following comments stating that they do not oppose the application subject to conditions, on 18.10.2019:
"An initial Highway response was provided on 30th August 2019 stating an objection due to the intensification of use of an access with substandard visibility. However; the primary problem related to the fact that the visibility splay had been incorrectly drawn whereby the required 2.4m set back distance from the edge of carriageway had been drawn at a 45 degree angle and the perpendicular distance was reduced to a substandard 1.7m. The site would be accessed from the A18 which is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. The proposed access would be situated around 20m to the northwest of an approximate 45 degree bend. The A18 in proximity of the proposed access has a significant uphill gradient to the northwest and a similar downhill gradient to the east. The frontage of the site has metal
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/00936/B Page 6 of 12
railings and a hedge along the highway boundary on the inside of the bend. It is not clear if the proposed access has a suitable dropped kerb access crossing of the footway.
It is noted that 5 representations have been received, all of which make reference to the proposed access with a particular regard to visibility; 3 of these originated from Birchleigh Terrace. It is noted that whilst none of the dwellings within Birchleigh Terrace have vehicular access crossings over the footway there is an on-street parking layby alongside the frontages. One of the Birchleigh Terrace responses specifically mentioned vehicle collisions in the locality. It is noted that from a parked car facing east at the western end of the layby, visibility to the west would be around 18m which would provide safe access onto the main carriageway for approaching vehicle speeds not exceeding 16mph (based upon the Manual for Manx Roads). When taking into account that approaching vehicles would be reaching the end of a long downhill straight, exiting the layby presents a significant existing highway safety issue. Note that The Manx Highway Code states that the minimum stopping distance at 30mph is 23m. The application proposes the construction of a detached 3 bedroom dwelling with the required 2 on-site car parking spaces and turning around area. The access would have an initial approach angle of 45 degrees and there would be sufficient space for a large car to turn perpendicular to the carriageway with minimal clearance. In order to allow a left turn movement out of the site to be undertaken with greater ease it is suggested that consideration be given to moving the wall slightly to the southeast of the access and the gate width be widened slightly. In order for the swept path of turning movements to be undertaken, a minimum 5.0m length of dropped kerb should be provided.
Following the initial highway objection the agent corrected the visibility splay drawing which now indicates that suitable visibility can be achieved using a 2.4m set back distance perpendicular to the carriageway. A visibility to the northwest (looking right when accessing) would more than meet minimum requirements by using land within the site access and within the highway boundary. Attaining suitable visibility to the southeast (looking left) is a more complex situation but nonetheless is achievable. The visibility splay illustrated on the revised plan would require the front garden area to be included within the visibility area. The plan states that any hedges and planting would be maintained to a height not exceeding 1.0m; however, the 1.0m maximum height requirement relates to above carriageway level, therefore with a kerb height of around 0.1m, there should be no vegetation higher than 0.9m above the back of footway. The railings could be retained at a height greater than 0.9m. With the removal of the vegetation a visibility of 2.4m x 36m can be achieved 0.5m out from the nearside edge of the carriageway measured along the line of travel of a vehicle. However; in reality due to the tight bend, limited forward visibility and the presence of a hatched ghost island to segregate opposing traffic, the visibility for vehicles heading west towards the access would for the most part be in the order of 2.4m x 45m measured along the centre line of the carriageway. This visibility when combined with the uphill gradient would be at least acceptable.
The visibility splay to the southeast would be maintained by means of a planning condition and this would present a significant improvement to visibility for vehicles exiting the parking layby. In particular, at the western end of the layby, visibility would be increased from 18m to 38m which would represent a substantial improvement upon the current adverse road safety issue. Please attach the following conditions to any future consent:
Any boundary walls and vegetation within the visibility splays indicated on the approved plan should be reduced in height to a maximum of 1.0m above the level of carriageway (0.9m above back of footway level) and maintained to not exceed this height thereafter. Reason: To maintain and improve highway safety.
The surfacing of the access should be constructed in stable material (not loose stone or gravel) within 5.0m of the back of footway. Reason: To ensure that loose material does not migrate onto the highway.
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/00936/B Page 7 of 12
The applicant would need to enter into a Section 109A Agreement to create or extend the access crossing of the footway."
5.3 An objection has been received from 6 Birchley Terrace, citing the following as reasons for objection (08.09.19):
o Insufficient consideration to access issues - high speed road and dangerous; o During construction, access to rear lane will be difficult for bin collection etc.; o Believe there is a well on the plot - not addressed in the plans; o Major electricity cable under the plot.
5.4 The occupants of 4 Birchley Terrace have also provided an objection letter (06.09.19):
o Plot is not categorised as a building plot, used as an amenity plot and garden; o Deeds state right of way through the plot - the development would restrict this; o Issues with the access impact on highway safety with cars driving over the footway etc.
5.5 The occupants of 22 Birchleigh Close also object (11.09.19):
o Access comes out onto a blind bend - major risk of future accidents; o Concern about the level of traffic in and around the site during construction - no parking for such vehicles; o Design is out of keeping with the character of the adjacent properties and surrounding area; o Concerned that plans shown for current application do not comply with what was stated on the decision notice from 18/00111/A; o Too much emphasis on the driveway and not enough garden or green space - adverse visual impact; o Drainage would also be affected due to lack of green space, run-off into the road.
5.6 The occupants of 8 Conister Close, Onchan also object to the application (12.09.19):
o The proposed building is directly opposite their gable end sun room and will affect privacy; o Concerned about vehicle access on a busy corner.
5.7 Objections were received from 2 Birchley Terrace (19.09.19): o The access proposed is on a blind bend- danger to traffic; o Numerous accidents on this stretch of road have been witnessed; o Consideration needed for where builders would park during construction; o The erection of a dwelling on this site would be out of keeping with the history of the site.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The following are the key considerations in the assessment of this application:
o Principle of Development; o Siting, Design and Visual Impact; o Impact on Neighbour Amenity; o Residential Amenity of Future Occupants; o Access; o Parking.
6.2 Principle of Development
==== PAGE 8 ====
19/00936/B Page 8 of 12
6.2.1 The site is within an area zoned on the Onchan Local Plan as being 'Residential', there is therefore a presumption in favour of residential development in principle. In addition, approval in principle has been granted on this site via 18/00111/A. The principle of the development has already been established as acceptable subject to an assessment of the reserved matters below.
6.3 Siting, Design and Visual Impact
6.3.1 It is important, as with any development proposal, to assess the potential impact on the street scene and how well a proposal would complement the character and appearance of the area. In this case, the most notable built development in the area is the Birchley Terrace, a row of simple traditional two storey stepped terraces. For a development to be appropriate in the triangular site to the west of the terrace (the application site), it must respect the form and design of this terrace.
6.3.2 The Birchley Terrace properties are set back slightly from the footway by around 2 metres, with small stone walled shrubbery's and planted areas, and steps leading to the ground floor level. Due to the gradient of the road, every two dwellings is stepped upwards by close to 1 metre. The terraces would have traditionally had sliding sash windows and timber doors although it would appear that much of these have been replaced over the years. They bay window frontage of the proposed new dwelling would be set back further by 3-3.5 metres from the footway, meaning that from the bottom of the hill, it would only partially be visible. The larger part of the frontage would sit 2-3 metres back (varying due to the curvature of the road). Overall, the frontage would generally follow the building line of the street scene, slightly set back from the road. To the rear, the eastern part of the rear elevation would follow that of the adjacent No.10, with the larger rear elevation angled towards 22 Birchleigh Close to the north west.
6.3.3 In terms of overall size and massing, the building would be longer but narrower than the Terraces. It would be higher, but this would likely appear as a natural increment in line with what is prevalent on the Terraces. The 1m gap between the elevations of the property and No.10 would ensure a break from those properties and an appearance of a progression from them to the modern properties to the north such as in Birchleigh Close. This is important, as set out in the RDG which notes that it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area (RDG 2.2.2).
6.3.4 The development would result in the loss of a green area on the corner, however an existing outbuilding and hard standing area is already extant and the principle of a dwelling on the site has been established. The site would retain lawn between the front elevation and the road, and the hedging between it and the footway would be retained. This hedging is a feature of the street scene further to the north west on Hillberry Road and is important to the character of the area. This would retain a natural visual break between the road and the dwelling ensuring that it does not appear overdeveloped. The hard standing area for turning and parking is partially in existence, and would be expanded. This is not considered unacceptably deleterious to the character and appearance of the street scene.
6.3.5 In terms of the finish of the building, the use of smooth render would tie it in with the adjacent Terrace, and the use of slate roofing would also contribute towards the building taking cues from neighbouring properties. The chimney stacks would also tie in well with those on the Terrace. The use of sliding sash windows adds another dimension of traditional character ensuring that the dwelling would fit naturally on the site and again tying it to the Terrace.
==== PAGE 9 ====
19/00936/B Page 9 of 12
6.3.6 Overall, the proposed dwelling would not appear overly dominant on the site and would tie the existing traditional Terraces to the more modern dwellings to the north whilst retaining natural boundaries with the road and the general building line of the street. It would not be unacceptable from a visual perspective or harmful to the character and appearance of the area, thus according with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, O/RES/P/19 in the Onchan Local Plan and the DEFA Residential Design Guidance (March 2019).
6.4 Impact on Neighbour Amenity
6.4.1 There are some common issues in relation to impact on neighbouring properties which may apply to new dwellings, these are:
o potential loss of light/overshadowing; o potential overbearing impact upon outlook; and o potential overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
6.4.2 A development should not result in significant levels of loss of day light or overshadowing, especially to primary habitable rooms, or to private gardens. The impact of overshadowing will increase if the new property is to the South of a neighbouring property (as the sun's orientation is East to West). When the windows affected serve habitable rooms (e.g. Living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms) then it will be necessary to assess the impact upon light reaching these rooms.
A simple check can be undertaken in relation to this issue, as outlined in the RDG (7.3.2).
o A side view is drawn which includes the proposal site and the main face of the neighbouring property. o A point is identified which is 2 metres above ground level on the closest wall with a relevant window of the neighbouring building. o A line is drawn from this point at a 25 degree angle towards the application site.
If no part of the proposal is above this line, there will still be the potential for good daylight to the interior.
Where a change in level separates two adjoining dwellings, a proposal for a dwelling on a higher site or an extension to the higher dwelling, will normally have a far greater effect on its lower neighbour than in the reverse.
6.4.3 The closest part of the new dwelling to 22 Birchleigh Close to the north is a 11-12m separating distance between which are two boundary treatments either side of an access lane. No.22 sits at a higher elevation than the proposal site, which slopes downwards towards the road. TWhen measured, it is not considered that there would be any risk of shadowing onto No.22 Birchleigh Close, or onto No.10 Birchley Terrace.
6.4.4 Any development should ensure that existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being impacted by an overbearing building/structure. The positioning, design and scale of a new build should not be dominant or have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that may be present in a neighbouring property (RDG 7.4.1). In this case the site dwelling would be higher than No.10 adjacent, however it is considered that this would follow the increments throughout the Terrace, and would not be of a height sufficient to warrant concerns over overbearing, especially considering the lack of gable windows on No.10.
6.4.5 The "20 metre guide" provides a useful way to identify where overlooking is likely to be a concern. It refers to the distance between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms that face each other - if this distance is over 20 metres, overlook is unlikely to be a
==== PAGE 10 ====
19/00936/B Page 10 of 12
concern. This distance can be relaxed where the design or orientation is such that privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property is not compromised. In dense urban areas where there is already a level of mutual overlooking a lesser standard may be acceptable. The required distance may need to be greater if there is a change in topography, which would result in an adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property. The presence of existing or proposed landscaping features (e.g. fences, walls and hedges) may help to mitigate overlooking at a ground floor level (depending on relative heights). Although the permanent retention of such landscaping cannot be guaranteed, it would be within the gift of both neighbours to retain/maintain/replace such landscape features.
6.4.6 The distance between the windows is greater than 14 metres, and the proposed first floor windows of No.22 would, if anything, carry a greater risk of views into the lounge of the proposed dwelling on the ground floor. The windows on the first floor of the dwelling all serve bathrooms and a landing area - non habitable rooms, and there are no first floor windows proposed on the western elevation. Whilst the rear elevation of the dwelling would be angled slightly towards to rear of the Terraces, those windows from the first floor would not be from habitable rooms, thus any potential impact of overlooking into the rear yard of No.10 for example, is limited. It is not considered, given the alignment of the new dwelling relative to the neighbouring dwellings, the topography or the area, and the design of the dwelling (including obscure glazing), that there would be any unacceptable overlooking risk between properties.
6.5 Residential Amenity of Future Occupants
6.5.1 If using the same methods of assessment as above, but in reversal, the impact of the extensions to 22 Birchleigh Close on the privacy of the proposed dwelling is considered. Whilst there would be views from bedroom windows into the rear of the property and onto the rear windows, this would be at a 45-90 degree angle and therefore not direct. The distances between respective windows would be 15 metres at a minimum, and whilst No.22 sits higher than the application site, it is not considered that there would be unacceptable loss of privacy from the perspective of the new dwelling. Given the orientation of the Terraces including No.10, it is similarly not considered likely that there would be undue impacts on future occupants from those properties.
6.5.2 In terms of amenity space provision, this would be somewhat limited but greater than that enjoyed by the Terraced properties to the east. The narrow lawn and hardstanding areas would provide a degree of outlook and openness which is considered appropriate to the area and whilst not plentiful, would be broadly acceptable.
6.6 Access
6.6.1 Following on from future amenities, pedestrian access would also be convenient to future occupants, given the public footpath immediately adjacent and the short walking distance (2-3mins) to the closest supermarket and other amenity areas.
6.6.2 In terms of highway impacts of the access proposed, the safety of the traffic on the adjacent main road and those accessing and exiting the site is of paramount importance. It has been widely noted by neighbouring objections that the road, and specifically the corner on which the site is situated, has seen frequent accidents and is a blind corner. Whilst is noted that this is an existing access, the intensity of the use would increase with the introduction of a dwelling.
6.6.3 Initially, DoI Highways objected to the lack of adequate visibility shown on the plans, but they have since stated that they have no objection to the proposal as the visibility would be adequate and acceptable levels of visibility for egress from the dwelling could be ensured via conditions surrounding the height of any boundary walls and hedging. The most recent
==== PAGE 11 ====
19/00936/B Page 11 of 12
representation from DoI Highway Services is taken as being the most reliable expertise on the matter of highway safety, and for that reason the access arrangements are considered acceptable.
6.7 Parking
6.7.1 In a similar vein, parking for two vehicles has been shown provided on the site plan. Whilst DoI Highways have not made comments in relation to parking, it is considered that adequate manoeuvring and parking space (5x6.5 metres) for 2 cars would be provided in accordance with current Strategic Plan parking standards and Manual for Manx Roads. In respect of parking, the proposal accords with the aforementioned policies.
6.8 Other Considerations
6.8.1 It is noted by neighbouring residents that concerns have been raised over right of way to the land forming the application site. Such matters would not be specifically material to the planning application and are considered a civil matter.
6.8.2 Drainage is also raised as an issue with the proposal. It is not considered however that the increase in hard standing would be so substantial as to unacceptably raise the levels of run off onto the road, considering the level of built development as existing, and the topography of the site and highway - this has not been raised as a highway safety issue specifically by DOI.
6.8.3 With regard to the conditions attached to the approval in principle (18/00111/A) for a dwelling on this site, it is considered that the current reserved matters proposal if approved, would be within the 2 year timescale specified in Condition 1 of that approval. The requirements of information to be submitted set out in Condition 2 have also been met via the current application under consideration. No new boundary treatment is proposed, details are provided of the height of the roadside boundary which is considered to meet the condition. The surface treatment of the driveway and access is the subject of condition 3 recommended for this application. The application is for a single dwellinghouse as per condition 3 of 18/00111/A, Condition 4 on that approval has been reiterated on this application, as has Condition 5. Overall, it is considered that the conditions attached to approval 18/00111/A have either been met via the current approval, or would be met via the satisfaction of conditions on the current.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the application is in broad accordance with the Development Plan land use and the relevant planning policies as outlined in this report. Whilst it is acknowledged that letters of objection have been received relating specifically to highway safety, the representations on this matter received from DoI Highways have been given particular weight and on balance, the access arrangements and thus the overall application is considered acceptable.
7.2 On the basis of the above recommendation, the application is recommended for approval.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
==== PAGE 12 ====
19/00936/B Page 12 of 12
(e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
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: 28.10.2019
Signed : N SALT 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