22 February 2019 · Delegated - Principal Planner Sarah Corlett
17, Royal Park, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 3uf
The proposal was for a 70sqm bungalow (10.15x6.965m footprint) with 2.4m eaves and 4.5m ridge height, hipped roof of concrete interlocking tiles, smooth rendered painted walls over rustic brick base, and white uPVC windows, on a 300sqm rectangular plot west of 17 Royal Park.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer determined the bungalow's size, 4.5m ridge height and proximity (0.4m to eastern boundary, 7m to west-facing elevation of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue) would create an overbearing, unneighbourly…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect zoning, design briefs, site surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design/landscaping (a,b), and not adversely affect local residents' amenity or locality character (g). Officer found proposal failed (a,b) by encroaching on approved open space integral to Royal Park design brief, and (g) due to overbearing impact on 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue from scale/height/proximity.
Environment Policy 42
Prohibits inappropriate backland development and removal of open/green spaces contributing to visual amenity/sense of place, requiring preservation of those identified in Area Plans. Site open space from prior approvals was to be preserved; development would erode character/identity and set precedent.
Policy R/R/P3
Presumption against developing sites providing 'attractive natural breathing spaces' between residential buildings in predominantly residential zones. Site seen as such green space separating Royal Park from Rheast Mooar Avenue.
Transport Policy 4
Requires highways to accommodate development traffic safely. Highways objected on visibility but officer assessed splays feasible given highway alignment.
Highway Services conditionally supports the application pending a planning condition to ensure highway visibility if approved on appeal, while Ramsey Town Commissioners object twice citing non-compliance with strategic and local planning policies on design, amenity, and infill development.
Key concern: proposed dwelling does not respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale form, design and landscaping... and would affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality
Highway Services
Conditional No ObjectionFor vehicles exiting the site, the 2.4m x 43m visibility splay shown to the left is acceptable and complies with visibility standards.; The visibility splay to the right is not agreed as a large part of the carriageway is outside the visibility splay area.; if the site frontage had nothing above 1m in height (excluding the 2 trees shown) then vehicles approaching the site and positioned in the road between the nearside kerbline and the splay could be seen by vehicles exiting the site.
Conditions requested: if the application is approved as part of the appeal it is requested that a suitable planning condition is imposed to secure this and the property deeds allow for this to permanently protect highway visibility for the propose access; site frontage had nothing above 1m in height (excluding the 2 trees shown)
Ramsey Town Commissioners
ObjectionIt is considered that the proposed dwelling does not respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them as set down in General Policy 2 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. In addition, it would affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; Whilst the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 takes precedence over the Ramsey Local Plan 1998, the Local Plan is still valid and therefore Policy R/R/P3: Infill/Backland Sites applies.
Ramsey Town Commissioners
Objectionthe Commissioners considered the above application at their meeting held on Wednesday 19th December, 2018 and have resolved to continue to Object to the proposal.
The original application for erection of a detached 2-bedroom bungalow with parking was refused primarily for loss of open space integral to the Royal Park estate design brief and adverse impacts on residential amenity, contrary to GP2 and EP42 of the Strategic Plan 2016. The appellant argued the modest single-storey design overcomes prior refusal issues, provides adequate separation distances, retains landscaping, and adds needed bungalow housing without highway safety concerns. The inspector found residential amenity and highway safety acceptable but concluded the bungalow would appear cramped and out of keeping with the two-storey street scene due to narrow side spaces, overriding benefits of new housing. The appeal was dismissed on 22 August 2019, upholding the refusal on character and appearance grounds under GP2(b,c) and EP42.
Precedent Value
Dismissal emphasises that infill on narrow plots in established two-storey estates must convincingly integrate scale/layout/spacing to avoid cramping; single-storey can succeed on amenity but not if visually incongruous. Future applicants should provide 3D visuals/section drawings proving street scene fit beyond materials.
Inspector: Brian J Sims
