Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/00291/A Mr Philip Richards Approvai in principle for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and redevelopment of plot to create a residential layout with associated services Netherby Douglas Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 ITN Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Miss S E Corlett 16.04.2014 16.04.2014 Planning Committee Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOMPENT IS CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE AREA PLAN FOR THE SOUTH THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of Netherby, an existing detached dwelling which sits to the north east of Brookfield Avenue and to the south of an open field all to the west of the A5 Castletown/Dougias Road opposite the southern part of the Isle of Man Airport. The house sits in the very far northern corner of the site with a long drive leading to the A5 which cuts through a lawned area with some conifers and planted beds scattered within the site. The site is around 1 hectare in area. 1.2 The dwelling has a red tiled hipped roof with gable ended extensions and rendered walling and two tall chimneys either side of a front pitched roofed dormer. 1.3 The boundary of the site to the A5 is provided by in the most part, a rendered wall painted cream with a white coping although theeastern 17.5m take the form of a slightly higher stone wall which ends just past the eastern edge of the application site, abutting the land to the east which has a low bank and hedging atop as its boundary to the A5. 1.5 The existing dwelling and the site are not particularly prominent as one approaches the site from the east (Ballasalla). Netherby can be seen through the roadside hedge but it and its grounds are largely screened by the conifers within the site. As one reaches the rendered boundary wall, there is less planting and a dear view into the garden is available. 1.6 The boundary with the Brookfield Avenue properties is formed by a low bank with trees and shrubs on top - quite an informal boundary but there are also trees within the grounds of the application site which provide separation between the more open lawned areas and this boundary. THE PROPOSAL 2,1 Proposed is the principle of the demolition of the existing dwelling (whose demolition would not require planning permission) and its replacement by a residential development of 6 May 2014 14/00291/A Page 1 of 10
==== PAGE 2 ====
the site as a "modest residential development with associate services", The plans submitted illustrate a range of different layouts ranging from seven detached units to twenty units which are detached, semi-detached and terraced, fourteen detached, semi-detached and terraced units, all of which would have 25% affordable housing provided in accordance with Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. 2.2 A new access is proposed to serve the new development which will be sited around 35m to the north of the existing access. This will take in land to the east which is currently outside the applicant's ownership but this land is included within the application site in order to provide visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m within this part of the highway network where traffic is restricted to 30 mph. The splays would be formed by setting back the existing hedge on the land to the north and constructing a new pedestrian footway to the north and south of the new access within the land owned by the applicant. This does not tie in to an existing footway on either side but will provide some refuge for pedestrians alongside the site. 2.3 The application drawings also illustrate zones where the height of buildings is restricted in association with air traffic safety regulations, effertively sterilising from development a triangular area at the southern end of the site and with the height of development increasing towards the north from 3m to potentially three storey buildings. 2.4 The supporting information also indicates that a pedestrian crossing may benefit users of Douglas Road although there is nothing shown in the submitted drawings to illustrate where this may be located and this would in any case be permitted development if undertaken by the highway authority. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS 3.1 The Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 designates the site as Open Space. The Plan identifies the site as being within the Castletown and Ballasaila area of Undulating Lowland Plain where the Written Statement contains the following: "The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of this open area that contributes to the setting of Castletown and Ballasalla, to enhance the river field pattern and to conserve the aquatic habitat corridor of the Silverburn. Key Views Open and panoramic views out to sea and over Langness’ rocky shoreline beyond the Airport. Key views to the prominent landmarks of Castle Rushen and King William's College." It goes on at paragraph 3.10: Landscape Type - Undulating Lowland Plain and Rugged Coast Landscape Area - F7 (Castletown and Ballasalla), F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula) and ElO (Castletown Bay) i. The broader setting of Castletown is provided by Castletown Bay, which is formed by the Langness Peninsula on the east and by Scarlett to the west, and by the gently sloping agricultural land rising towards South Barrute. This certainly merits protection, both for its own sake in terms of landscape, and as the historic context of the Town. ii. To maintain and improve the approaches to the Town. The more immediate setting for the old town - the residential developments around the edge, and, to the north-east, industrial development - is in some places and in some respects disappointing as they do not seem to reflect the local style and scale of development. Refurbishment, and in some instances new development, should provide opportunities to improve the built environment alongside the approaches to the Town. 6 May 2014 14/00291/A Page 2 of 10
==== PAGE 3 ====
iii, Retention of the green space which serves to separate Castletown from the industrial development to the north (see Green Gap Proposal 3).The land immediately to the north is designated as a site with potential for Business Park uses subject to the development brief set out at paragraph 4.20 which states: Development Brief SR2
==== PAGE 4 ====
==== PAGE 5 ====
3.8 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more." 3.8 It is also relevant to consider the Strategic Aims as set out in the Strategic Plan, which include the following: 3.3 Environment (d) To protect the individual character and identity of settlements, and to identify and protect those green spaces in built areas which contribute positively to public amenity. (e) To prevent the extension of settlements beyond boundaries that will be defined in the Area Plans and to prevent the merging of settlements. 3.5 Transport and Communications (b) To locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport. (c) To encourage development which would result in a more integrated transport network. PIJ\NNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning permission has been sought and granted for a range of alterations and extensions to the house, none of which is relevant to the consideration of this current proposal. Permission was refused for the principle of the development of the site for offices and for a nursing home (PAs 97/02068 and 98/00266). These applications were refused for similar reasons, referring to fact that the site is not designated for development and that "the largely green site" was considered to contribute to the open space separating Castletown from Ronaldsway and where the erection of a larger building and associated car park could lead to the gradual coalescence of the built development of Ronaldsway and Castletown and would reduce the contribution of this currently open space. In addition, the increase in traffic and activity on the site were considered to increase the impact on the residents of the adjacent Brookfield Avenue properties and there were concerns about the drainage of the site. REPRESENTATIONS 5,1 There are objections to the development from the residents of the following properties in Brookfield Avenue and lie on the Castletown side of the site. 2, Brookfield Avenue who reiterates the provisions of the Area Plan for the South which does not designate this site for development and which also sets out clearly the important of the green gap between Castletown and the Ronaldsway estate. They also consider that there is sufficient land allocated for residential development in the plan area. Tir-Nan-Og who comments that the introduction of dwellings which are two and a half or three storeys will be out of keeping with the Brookfield Avenue properties which are mostly one and a half and two storeys. Comments are also made that the notice has not been displayed such that it is discernible from the Castletown direction nor from directly opposite Netherby itself. Braemar, who suggest that the statement in the written submission which refers to the relocation of their wall which is not acceptable to them. The applicant has confirmed that this is not shown in the plans and was included in the written information in error. They are also concerned about the proposed foul drainage system close to their property as this may result in foul odours and related health implications for them and they consider a communal treatment plant unnecessary and could increase the risk of flooding and pollution: the area between Netherby and Braemar is already a collection point for rain water which floods 14/00291/A Page 5 of 10 6 May 2014
==== PAGE 6 ====
regularly. They also express concern at the proposal to introduce up to twenty new properties on the site will result in noise and a loss of privacy. Finally, they suggest that the proposed pedestrian crossing will disrupt traffic flows on the Douglas Road and could hamper traffic trying to access and exit from Brookfield Avenue. Ngong who object on grounds relating to the diminution of the value of the existing space and character of the area and the proposal involves the development of the site to maximum effect, The road network serving the site is very busy and the safety of the introduction of another access would be questionable. There is no pavement for people to get onto a bus on this side of the road. There is no information to demonstrate that a drainage system as proposed would be effective. The development would be out of character with the appearance and density of development in Brookfield Avenue. Silverburn, Brookfield Avenue object to the application on the same grounds as the owners of Bourne Court. Bourne Court who object on the grounds that the site is not designated for development, and the current character of the site is a dwelling in a large open site. The visibility splays cannot be provided other than using land not in the applicant's ownership, The road network is already busy and another access would only exacerbate the situation. No details have been provided to demonstrate that the drainage system would be effective. The privacy of the residents of Brookfield Avenue would be compromised and the development would harm the view of the site which is protected by way of the Landscape Character Assessment provision in the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. The owners of 3, Brookfield Avenue object to the application on the basis that the land is not designated for development but separates the residential from the industrial land further towards Ballasalla. The proposed development is over intensive and there are traffic issues in the vicinity of this site. 5.2 Malew Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application but suggest that no more than seven dwellings should be constructed on the site. 5.3 A resident of Douglas objects to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the South. 5.4 Manx National Heritage indicate that they do not oppose the application but seek confirmation that appropriate safeguards would be put in place to ensure that any features of archaeological interest are preserved and also seek assurance that the existing trees will be retained. 5.5 The owners of the land to the side and rear of the site note that their land will be required to provide an acceptable access and that the internal roads could be made wide enough to link into the development of the land to the side and rear. They also note that the drainage of the site will involve land outside the applicant's ownership (this is not in fact the case as the site will be served by its own self contained system). 5.6 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) seek consultation regarding the provision of electricity, which is not a material planning consideration. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site is not designated for development on the relevant Area Plan. It is relevant to be aware that the development potential which has been accepted in the Plan on the land to the rear was opposed by the residents of Brookfield Avenue and the current applicants and as such, it is perhaps unsurprising that no development proposals were put forward for the further development of Netherby at the time of the Area Plan by the owners of the site. The 6 May 2014 14/00291/A Page 6 of 10
==== PAGE 7 ====
acceptance of the principle of development of the (and to the rear came into the Plan relatively late on in the process although it was proposed by the land owner at an earlier stage. In proposing the development of the land to the rear, the Department did not elect to change the status of Netherby and as such its designation as Open Space as it appeared on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 remains in the current Area Plan, 6.2 It does however have a dwelling upon it, and as such, the Open Space designation is not completely reflective of the status and character of the site, which is entirely residential In the form of a large dwelling and its associated garden. 6.3 However, where a dwelling is sited within an area which is not designated for development, there is no presumption in favour of further dwellings. However, rather than a site which sits in open countryside, in this case the site has existing development, which is acknowledged as Residential, with all the presumptions in favour of further residential development, immediately alongside in the form of Brookfield Avenue. 6.3 Whilst there is development potential realised in the Area Plan for the land to the side and rear of the application site, it is also relevant that this can only be realised when it can be demonstrated that there is strategic need for the business park development. If that site were already developed, then the context of the application site would be significantly different and it would be easier to accept arguments regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of the Open Space designation of the site. As it is, the site is not developed, there are no current plans lodged with the Department for the development of the site and there will need to be demonstrated a strategic need for the land before development should be contemplated. As such, it would not be appropriate to treat the application site as if the land to the rear had already been developed for business park purposes. 6.4 It is relevant, however that the Brookfield Avenue properties are designated as Residential, some of which abut the site. It is also relevant that the existing dwelling is sited in one corner of the site and that this represents relatively inefficient use of this site. It would not be contrary to policy to consider the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new one, which technically would be considered on the basis of Housing Policy 14. 6.5 It is relevant to consider the actual impact of development on this site. The site is heavily vegetated which will help screen development here other than as seen directly from the access. It should be remembered that the development will necessitate a new access which could be designed such that it curves into the site, screening any buildings, rather than a straighten access drive, similar to the existing, which allows the buildings on site to be clearly seen. As such, it is not accepted that development of this site wouid necessarily compromise the "green gap" or reduce the openness between existing built development in the vicinity. 6.6 The development could retain the existing trees and vegetation between the proposed development and the Brookfield Avenue properties. This would result in a separation distance of at least 20m from the boundaries of these properties, with the effectiveness of the vegetation to assist privacy. As such it is not considered that the development of the site would compromise the amenities of the Brookfield Avenue properties alongside the site such that it should result in refusal of the application for this reason. 6.7 If development were considered acceptable on this site, perhaps the most sympathetic form of development of the site would be to try to make an association with the existing development to the west. Brookfieid Avenue has an almost Arts and Crafts character to it, accommodating detached and semi-detached dwellings which are single storey, dormer bungalows and two storey properties with decorative veranda features, red Rosemary roof tiles, square sided dormers and bay windows, overhanging eaves with black painted timber detailing and rough cast rendered walling, some with smooth rendered decorative 'Tudor" Page 7 of 10 6 May 2014 14/00291/A
==== PAGE 8 ====
style banding above the windows. There is a very informal boundary between the application site and Brookfield Avenue and the development would appear more sympathetic if it tried to tie in with this and appear as an extension of it. This isn't directly what is shown in the application. It would also need to retain the landscaped grounds feel to the development which perhaps isn't achieved with the number of dwellings which are proposed. 6.8 The existing trees need to remain, which would reduce the amount of developable space to around seven dwellings, as suggested by the local authority. This could take the form of a pair of single storey dwellings, like "Stowells" and number 2, or "Benha" and "Tir-nan-og" towards the front of the site, almost like a pair of lodge houses, with taller properties, pairs of semi-detached dwellings and detached dwellings taking their lead from the design characteristics of Braemar and the older houses in Brookfield Avenue. The retention of the existing vegetation would necessitate development being at least 20m away from the boundary with Brookfield Avenue properties, thus protecting their privacy. It is noted that the plan which shows the height restriction of development on the site includes the annotation "single storey flat roof only". Flat roofed development is unlikely to be found acceptable on this site. If development were considered to be acceptable on this site, it would be appropriate to consider a development that takes the form of a parkland setting which retains all of the existing trees along and close to the western and eastern boundaries. 6.9 The introduction of a new access would not result in an additional access, but rather a replacement for the existing and one which provides acceptable visibility as required by Department of Infrastructure Highway Services. Visibility from the existing access is not ideal, particularly in the Castletown direction. It is not accepted that the access or the additional traffic generated by the proposed development in respect of a new access with satisfactory visibility splays, justifies refusal of this application. 6.10 A new drainage system will be required which will need to be approved by the Building Control authority and which will have to meet accepted standards. As such, it not accepted that this will lead to unacceptable impact on either the Brookfield Avenue properties or the new dwellings within the site and as such it is not accepted that this would justify refusal of the application. 6.11 There are clearly many issues to weigh in the balance considering the above: there are many arguments in favour of the development and against those objections which have been raised. It is also accepted that an appropriate form of development here could retain significant amounts of open space within it, thus not compromising the character of the site or the overall separation of Castletown from Ronaldsway. However, the site is not designated for development and there could be other sites where similar arguments are made for development, thus undermining the recently adopted Area Plan. Whilst the Inspector was critical of the amount of housing land which the plan provides in respect of Castletown, it is not necessarily the case that a site outside the settlement boundary would be acceptable and an approval of this application could be seen as pre-empting and/or undermining any study undertaken to identify further land suitable for residential development associated with Castletown. 6.12 As such, the application is recommended for refusal solely on the basis that the site is not designated for development on the recently adopted Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 and to approve development which would be contrary to such a recently adopted plan would undermine the provisions of the plan and the weight which can be afforded to it. PARTY STATUS 7.1 The local authority, Malew Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 6 May 2014 14/00291/A Page 8 of 10
==== PAGE 9 ====
7.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Pianning (Deveiopment Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. 7.3 The residents of Ngong, Braemar, Numbers 2 and 3 and Tir-Nan-Og, Brookfieid Avenue and the owners of the iand to the side and rear are aii adjacent or very dose to the site and as such shouid be afforded party status in this case. 7.4 Siiverburn and Bourne Court are at the other end of Brookfieid Avenue and are not directiy affected by the proposai and as such should not be afforded party status in this case. 7.5 The resident of Douglas is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case. 7.6 Manx National Heritage is a statutory authority which raises material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status under Article 6(4)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 7.7 MEA does not raise material pianning issues and should not be afforded party status in this case. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.04.2014 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 R 1. The site is not designated for development on the recently adopted Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 and is outside Castletown's settlement boundary identified therein: to approve development which would be contrary to such a recently adopted plan would undermine the provisions of the plan and the weight which can be afforded to it. 6 May 2014 14/00291/A Page 9 of 10
==== PAGE 10 ====
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. Committee Meeting Date Decision Made: Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required, signing officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO Ip CK.^pCU^ 15 (pjOiyJ-eci -fLc cie-tA ■ KjZ 6 May 2014 14/00291/A Page 10 of 10
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
