Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 1 of 11 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 14/00349/B Applicant : Mrs Meg Cowin Proposal : Replacement of Public House with four detached dwellings with associated parking Site Address : The New Inn New Road Laxey Isle of Man IM4 7HS
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 27.08.2014 Site Visit : 27.08.2014 Expected Decision Level :
Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE HIGHWAY SERVICES HAVE OBJECTED WHILE THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is a triangular piece of land located on the western side of New Road in Laxey that includes as its only built environment the New Inn public house, which has been unoccupied for some time. The site also contains an adjacent area of hardstanding providing car parking space and an undeveloped vegetated area that contains previously contained a number of trees, all of which have been removed in the previous couple of years. Levels across the application site increase significantly from east to west - up to 12 metres in some places - although the already-developed part of the application is contained within an area that is generally flat and level with New Road.
1.2 To the immediate west, and sitting high above the public house building given the changes in levels, is the Rencell Hill highway, which is lined with dwellings to the west.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of four dwellings on the application site. It is proposed to demolish the existing public house and erect four two-storey detached dwellings with associated car parking on the overall site. The four dwellings are of an identical design and all front the highway. Two of the dwellings would be located relatively centrally and close together, while the remaining two would be set further apart to the north and south respectively.
2.2 Two highways entrances are proposed, one either side of the two centrally-located dwellings and each providing access to four parking spaces at the rear of the dwellings. No trees would be removed as part of the development, albeit in order to facilitate the works a large amount of excavation would have to be undertaken to the south / southwest of the site and this would also remove the self-set vegetation covering the banking in this part of the site.
==== PAGE 2 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 2 of 11 2.3 Amended plans and additional information have been submitted during the course of the application to reflect officer concerns in respect of (i) the proposed excavation works and how these would affect the stability of the bank, (ii) the design layout of the scheme, and (iii) issues of highway safety. An engineering report in respect of the excavation works was also provided. Although several different schemes were subsequently put before the Department only one set of plans - along with the engineering report - were formally submitted. These plans and information were duly consulted upon for the statutory 21 days.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, two of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3.2 Planning application 12/00749/B sought full planning approval for the erection of six dwellings with parking to replace the existing public house. It was refused on 20th September 2012 for the following two reasons:
o Reason for refusal 1: "The proposed development entails the removal of eight existing trees. The Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 sets out a general presumption against the removal of trees within the plan area, including instances where this is proposed in order to facilitate development. These existing trees provide a pleasant green environment that is beneficial to the amenity of the street scene and overall area. As such, the loss of these trees would have an unacceptable adverse impact on public amenity and be contrary to the provisions of Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005."
o Reason for refusal 2: "The proposed development fails to meet car parking requirements defined by Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Whilst car parking requirements may be relaxed in certain instances it is inappropriate to do so in this location as a failure to meet car parking standards will increase pressure on, and the likelihood of, on- road parking which would be harmful to highway safety in this location, especially as New Road is the main road and main coastal route through Laxey. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal, the inability to provide sufficient on-site car parking to meet the requirements of the proposed development is considered to indicate that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the land in question."
3.3 Planning application 12/01674/B sought full planning approval for the erection of four dwellings with parking to replace the existing public house. It was refused on 4th February 2013 for the following two reasons:
o Reason for refusal 1: "The proposed development entails the removal of eight existing trees. The Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 sets out a general presumption against the removal of trees within the plan area, including instances where this is proposed in order to facilitate development. These existing trees provide a pleasant green environment that is beneficial to the amenity of the street scene and overall area. As such, the loss of these trees would have an unacceptable adverse impact on public amenity and be contrary to the provisions of Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005."
o Reason for refusal 2: "Whilst the proposed development provides sufficient number of car parking spaces the size and layout of those spaces does not meet current standards. Specifically, the spaces are approximately 4.9m long with 5m between them, which results in a car park with insufficient manoeuvring space that may lead to an increase in accidents or vehicles being parked on the highway against the interests of highway safety. As such, the proposed development fails to provide adequate parking and manoeuvring space and is thereby contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
==== PAGE 3 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 3 of 11
3.4 Both of these proposals were determined under delegated authority and neither decision was appealed against.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is part designated as predominantly residential and part designated as mixed use (residential / retail) under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. The Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application:
4.2 Policy L/RES/PR/1 states: "Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general."
4.3 Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 states: "With the exception of the felling of trees planted for commercial purposes, there will be a general presumption against the removal of trees within the study area including instances where this is proposed in order to facilitate development."
4.4 The application site is immediately adjacent Laxey's Conservation Area as designated in 1990.
4.5 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains several policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.6 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (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; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them".
4.7 Environment Policy 28 states: "Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been taken".
4.8 Environment Policy 36 states: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area".
==== PAGE 4 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 4 of 11
4.9 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans".
4.10 Environment Policy 43 states: "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition".
4.11 Housing Policy 4 states (in part): "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans".
4.12 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".
4.13 Current car parking standards are set out at Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The stated car parking standard for typical residential is: "2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling".
4.14 Appendix 7 also states that car parking 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".
4.15 Community Policy 4 states: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
5.1 The Department of Economic Development advise that the developers need to consult DED should the excavation work proposed include any mineral extraction. The agent has been advised of this.
5.2 Highway Services object to the planning application. Their original concerns related to the size of the proposed parking spaces and their relationship to the proposed walls in respect of opening doors. Following submission of the amended plans, they renewed their objection on different grounds. The state (in part): "The proposal will increase the number of access points onto New Road to two. New Road is a secondary route in the roads hierarchy and as such frontage access is restricted to keep the conflict points on this busy road to a minimum. This route functions as a primary route when the mountain road is closed and as such there is a presumption against new frontage access. This application is likely to have an adverse effect on road safety and traffic flow on New Road".
==== PAGE 5 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 5 of 11 5.3 Manx Electricity Authority (as it then was) requested the applicant contact them prior to commencing works on site in order to discuss the electricity supply to the site. Following submission of the amended plans, the Authority reiterated their representation, this time as the Manx Utilities Authority.
5.4 Flood risk engineers within the Manx Utilities Authority were contacted for their comments in respect of the proposal but made no formal comment.
5.5 The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture were contacted in respect of the trees and advised that, of the eight trees on the site previously, five have been removed with the appropriate felling licence. The agent to the application has subsequently advised that the remaining three were of a size that did not require a licence to be removed.
5.6 Laxey Village Commissioners initially recommended that the planning application be refused for three reasons:
"The development amounts to over intensive [sic], 2. "The design detracts from the Village visual environment, 3. "The grounds for refusal in this matter are no different to those expressed in response to PA 12/01674/B".
Following the advertisement of the amended plans and additional information, the Commissioners recommended approval of the application.
5.7 The owner / occupier of the dwelling known as Laurel Bank, situated adjacent the site and separated from it by the highway of Rencell Hill, objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern with: accuracy in respect of the completion of the application form and submitted plans; rooflights are shown in the dwellings but no floorplans for the third floor have been provided; inadequate parking provision; impacts of the necessary excavation works. They also suggest that the recent removal of eight trees from the site appears to be a cynical way of circumventing the reasons why 2 previous applications have been declined. Following submission of the amended plans, the objector reiterated the above concerns and added additional concerns, which can be summarised as concern with: accuracy on the application form in different ways; the new plans are significantly different from the original and should not be treated as a minor amendment and, as such, the application should be considered as originally submitted; inaccuracy and inadequate section drawings; the engineering report is meaningless; a bond or insurance should be provided so any repair costs required to the objector's property during construction works are met by the developer.
5.8 The owner / occupier of the dwelling known as Yew Tree Cottage, situated adjacent the site and separated from it by the highway of Rencell Hill, objects to the planning application. They indicate that the grounds for their objection are no different to those of the response made to PA 12/01674/B, which identified concern with the height of the three- storey houses proposed, and also included their objection to PA 12/00749/B, the concern therein relating to issues of over-intensive development spoiling the visual impact on the amenity of the area, and the potential impact of the excavations on their own property. Following submission of the amended plans, the objector did not add to their original comments.
5.9 The owner / occupier of the dwelling known as Rencell House, situated adjacent the site and separated from it by the highway of Rencell Hill, objects to the planning application. Their concern relates to the excavation and blasting work required and how this could well de-stabilise the dwellings on Rencell Hill, which have shallower foundations. They also note the presence of a gas main running up the hill. They are pleased to see the number of properties has been decreased but consider that the cost of the excavation works would put
==== PAGE 6 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 6 of 11 the price of the dwellings outside of the first-time buyer category. Following submission of the amended plans, the objector did not add to their original comments.
5.10 Advice from the estate agents marketing the site states that current financial market and in particular with relation to public houses, along with the close proximity of another public house on New Road, make it highly unlikely that a new landlord could be found. The Licensing Board withdrew the licence to the public house, which (it is understood) is only done in circumstances where accounts can demonstrate that the public house is not a viable business. Comments almost to this effect were provided by the applicant's accountants. Both these pieces of correspondence were received following a specific request by the case officer.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 There was some initial concern that the application was not substantially different from the previous application, which was refused last year. On receipt of amended plans, however, the parking arrangements were sufficiently different to those previously proposed to mean that the application was different enough to be assessed by the Department. The removal of the trees between the two applications being submitted also removes from consideration the issue of tree loss identified as a substantive reason to refuse the previous application. It is noted that DEFA did not respond to either of the 2012 planning applications for residential development on this site.
6.2 The first issue to consider in terms of the merits of the proposal is whether the basic principle of the residential development of the application site is acceptable. In terms of this, it can be seen that the proposed residential use accords with the land use designation within the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005, which designates the application site as part predominantly residential use and part mixed use (residential / retail). As such, it would appear that the basic principle of residential development on the application site is acceptable. However, given that the application site contains a public house it is necessary to consider the acceptability of its loss in accordance with the provisions of Community Policy 4, which presumes against the loss of local shops and local public houses unless it can be demonstrated that those businesses are not viable and nor can they be made viable.
6.3 In this respect, and following a request from the case officer, the applicant has submitted 2012 correspondence from their accountant that states that profitability has declined every year recently, that the business is no longer viable and that it would be uneconomic for the business to continue. Correspondence to previous applications also highlights that the viability of many small public houses is decreasing and many are closing. While this provides a clear statement that the applicant's accountant considers the use is no longer commercially viable, it is noted that this is not accompanied by any supporting evidence (i.e. accounts, etc.). Nor does it make a compelling case that a new landlord could not make the business viable as no marketing information (i.e. how much the property has been marketed at; for how long; whether any incentives were issued; whether the property has been marketed for a different community use such as a shop, etc.) has been provided.
6.4 However, as the application site is located opposite another existing public house, the Queens Hotel, it is reasonable to conclude that the loss of the existing public house should not adversely affect the provision of facilities for the local community. As such, it is considered unnecessary to require further justification and appropriate to accept the loss of the New Inn public house. It is noted that a similar view was taken in respect of the previous applications on this site. Overall, the basic principle of the residential development of the application site is concluded to be acceptable. It remains necessary to consider the site specific impacts and acceptability of the proposed development.
6.5 As part of the assessment of the site specific impact of the proposed development it is necessary to consider the effect on public amenity. The main issues to consider in this respect
==== PAGE 7 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 7 of 11 are: (i) street scene; (ii) highways safety, and (iii) the issue of the retaining wall and excavations proposed.
6.6 In terms of the streetscene, the proposed development will undoubtedly change the appearance of the application site within the surrounding built environment through the introduction of four new dwellings that would front the highway. On one hand, the quality and contribution of the application site in its present form to the street scene could be said to be low as the frontage primarily consists of a somewhat unattractive area of hardstanding and a derelict public house. On the other hand, the effect of the proposed development could be said to be substantial as the level of development along the frontage is dramatically increased.
6.7 On balance, and as New Road is characterised by frontage development, it is considered that although the proposed dwellings would change the character of the site, they would not unduly impact on the streetscene itself. The form and design of the proposed dwellings is sufficiently in keeping with the locality - they more or less replicate the adjacent Osborne Cottage - and the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area should not be unduly harmed by the proposal as a result of the proposed dwellings themselves.
6.8 Turning next to the issue of highway safety, it is noted that Highway Services has twice objected to the application, on different grounds. The second objection, which relates to the amended plans, is unconcerned with the proposed parking arrangements and is instead focussed on the fact that two separate accesses are proposed onto New Road, which "is a secondary route in the roads hierarchy and as such frontage access is restricted to keep the conflict points on this busy road to a minimum. This route functions as a primary route when the mountain road is closed and as such there is a presumption against new frontage access".
6.9 Highways safety is an important consideration. New Road is indeed a busy highway, and this was observed during the site visit. Balanced against this is the fact that significant visibility splays can be provided to both the accesses (in excess of 150m in both directions, albeit that only 15m to the southeast and 22m to the northwest can be provided on land within the ownership of the applicant). Also true is that the road here is limited by law to 30mph given its built-up nature and, further to the north and just beyond the junction with Rencell Hill, the speed limit becomes 20mph. During the site visit it was observed that vehicle speeds naturally reduced south of the application site; this is perhaps due to the greater density of highway-fronting development (as described earlier in this report) that becomes apparent as vehicles approach the area in which the application site sits.
6.10 It is also to be noted that the two accesses will serve limited vehicle movements; four parking spaces are provided in each and it is therefore appropriate to assume that there will be limited use of these accesses. Additionally, these accesses will not serve any additional development in the future given the self-contained nature of the site owing to its topography.
6.11 While the views expressed by Highway Services are understandable, it is considered that an objection to the planning application on the grounds they outline could not be sustained given the counterpoints outlined above.
6.12 The parking arrangements are also considered acceptable. While none of the spaces are within the curtilage of the proposed dwellings, the spaces are shown quite well-related to those dwellings. There are also two spaces for each and they are of an appropriate size.
6.13 As such, it is considered that the previous reasons for refusal in respect of the proposed parking could not be sustained, and to object to the application because of concerns in respect of highway matters as a whole would not be appropriate.
==== PAGE 8 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 8 of 11 6.14 It remains to consider the issue of the excavation work and retaining wall, and also the general design layout of the scheme proposed.
6.15 It is noted that the main concern raised by the private objectors has been in relation to the structural stability of the hillside underpinning Rencell Hill and whether it can withstand the excavations proposed. The agent has been made aware of these concerns and an engineer's report was requested in order to assess the likely impact of the proposal. One objector has referred to the report that was provided as "meaningless" as it refers only to potential design solutions that could be used should the works be undertaken, rather than making specific reference to design solutions that have been considered and assessed for their acceptability. Given that the agent was asked to provide this information given the concern that has been raised on this point, the objector's concerns are perhaps relatively well- founded.
6.16 Officers from Building Control were consulted for advice. The advice given was based on the submitted plans and engineer's report. It was evident that since no design solutions had been proposed for the retaining wall that any advice given would be speculative, and would also not reflect any likely costings for those solutions. In essence, what is proposed could be achieved but quite likely at a significant cost. Equally, the engineering works that would be required would also require Building Control approval. Therefore, while the lack of information provided in terms of the intended solution is unfortunate from both the applicant's and Department's point of view, it is considered that a refusal on Planning grounds in respect of the proposed excavations could not be sustained.
6.17 The agent was advised of these concerns. He was also advised that the costs involved could render the entire scheme financially unviable and that there would be no way to determine this without a full and proper assessment of the potential solutions to the excavation works. He was additionally advised that any design solution used to shore up the bank would have to, when completed, match exactly the plans submitted as part of this planning application or risk being subject to enforcement action. This is a concern as, at this stage, no clear view on what is the safest (or most cost-effective) option for the shoring up works has been provided.
6.18 The agent was further advised that any of the works undertaken would, from a Building Control perspective, have to be in place prior to any of the dwellings being completed, and that those works could take approximately 6 months and that this would obviously have cost implications. Finally, it was made clear that it could be most unfortunate if planning approval was granted to this application but it could not be implemented in its submitted form due to Building Control issues, and that the Department would seek to avoid this wherever possible. The agent advised that the applicant had been made aware of the concerns but was prepared to pursue the application in any case.
6.19 The fundamental point is that the retaining wall proposed could be acceptable from a land stability point of view. Whether it is the best option for a developer to take is unknown, and this is most unfortunate from the applicant's point of view, but this in itself does not mean the Department must raise an objection. Land stability and safety with regards proposed excavation works are dealt with through Building Control rather than the Planning System. While it is of course inappropriate to approve a scheme under Planning legislation that could not also gain Building Control approval, the advice from officers of the latter indicate that the drawings as shown could be workable. A similar view to this was taken by an Inspector in considering a different scheme elsewhere on the Island (PA 09/01295/B) but that also had land stability issues. He commented: "The need to comply with building regulations would provide the 'appropriate precautions' referred to in Environment Policy 28 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore the proposal [that is, PA 09/01295/B] would comply with that policy". Although that application was subsequently refused by the Minister against the recommendation of the Inspector, that refusal related to flooding issues and not land stability.
==== PAGE 9 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 9 of 11 As such, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to raise an objection on this point from a Planning point of view.
6.20 In terms of the design layout and having regard to amounts of amenity space and boundary treatments proposed, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.
6.21 The dwellings themselves are traditional in form and reflect the streetscene in that regard. Chimneys bookend each, while green-coloured uPVC windows would be used - sliding sash to the front and casement to the rear. (Green would reflect the colour of the existing public house window frames.) The front doors would be painted hardwood. Natural slate would also be used. The originally-proposed rooflights to the dwellings have been removed, although it is noted that these could be installed under Permitted Development rights, and some do exist in the immediate area. Porches are proposed. The dwellings would be finished in sand cement render and painted a cream / white colour. The parking area would be paved with each space marked out by kerb blocks. All of these details are considered acceptable and reflect the local area. The use of traditional design features, as well as the paved parking area, is especially welcomed. Not all of this information is shown on the submitted plans, but instead via correspondence from the agent, and so some conditions would be required.
6.22 All four dwellings would have just two bedrooms; therefore, while the amount of garden land afforded them might be smaller than normally expected, this is considered acceptable for the likely occupancy level of the dwellings. The amenity land would be provided by both a yard at the same level as the dwelling and a raised garden behind. While the site is constrained in terms of the amount of garden land it could provide, clearly this is also led by the number of dwellings proposed. At four, there is considered sufficient amenity and parking space without the scheme having a "cramped" feel as was a concern in respect of the first 2012 planning application. The yard in particular would also likely be a little dark given the height of the wall behind and also the house that would sit in front of it. However, it is not considered that the amenity space in terms of amount or quality is so low as to require the application's being refused.
6.23 There would be some views from the raised rear gardens towards the rear elevations of the proposed dwellings, and, with the level of the garden being roughly the same as the level of the upper storey, this could present concerns in respect of private amenity issues. This is only really a concern in respect of Plots 2 and 3, which would be set close together and parallel, with Plots 1 and 4 set further away and at oblique angles. While the "buyers beware" argument could be applicable here, it is also true that some buyers do not always note this potential concern and it would be inappropriate to ignore the issue.
6.24 However, the principle rooms that would be overlooked would be bedrooms that have a dual aspect to front and back and also views would still be oblique to some degree given the angle that the rear windows of the proposed dwellings could be viewed from the rear gardens. There would also be dividing walls between the dwellings' gardens and these would provide some screening. For these reasons, and also taking into account that buyers of the dwellings would quite likely note this issue, it is considered that a refusal on this ground alone could not be sustained.
6.25 The large retaining wall would be concrete-based stone panelling for the lower half and with an interlocking system above with gaps to allow plant growth. Originally, a full concrete wall was proposed so the new proposal is a notable improvement.
6.26 Other matters have been raised during the course of the application. Firstly, the issue of a bond or insurance in respect of damage caused during any works is a private, civil matter and not a planning consideration. Secondly, while certain parts of the application form were completed to a perhaps slightly insufficient degree, the submitted drawings provide the detail
==== PAGE 10 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 10 of 11 against which to assess the application and these are considered adequate on which to judge the proposal.
6.27 Thirdly, it was suggested by one objector that the amended plans are so different from those originally submitted that the application should be considered as originally submitted. While an understandable concern, the original drawings showed four dwellings of slightly different design and with a different layout to the amended plans subsequently received. The fundamental nature of the planning application has not, therefore, altered to this degree. In any case, if it had, it would have been more appropriate for the current application to be withdrawn and a fresh one submitted: there is no mechanism within Planning legislation that would allow formally-submitted plans to not supersede the originally- submitted plans.
6.28 Fourthly, while their size may be appropriate for "first-time buyer" properties, there has been no intention for any of the proposed dwellings to be first-time buyer properties during the application process. Fifthly, electricity supply is not a material planning consideration.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved subject to conditions.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
o the owner / occupier of Laurel Bank, Rencell Hill, Laxey; o the owner / occupier of Yew Tree Cottage, Rencell Hill, Laxey, and o the owner / occupier of Rencell House, Rencell Hill, Laxey
8.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
o The Manx Utilities Authority o The Department of Economic Development o The Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture
Recommendation
==== PAGE 11 ====
2 October 2014 14/00349/B Page 11 of 11 Recommended Decision:
Permitted
Date of Recommendation:
17.09.2014
9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE
9.1 Planning Committee discussed the issues of highway safety and the proposed retaining wall. The outcomes of those discussions are elaborated upon in the Minutes. Committee considered that there had been insufficient information submitted to come to a view on whether the proposed retaining wall could be built in the manner shown in the drawings in the absence of a full engineer's report. They also concluded that the addition of two access points onto the highway would be contrary to highways safety, while the lack of an adequate pedestrian refuge was also unacceptable. They therefore concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policies 28 and 36, Transport Policy 6 and Strategic Policy 5.
R 1. The proposal would result in an increase in the number of access points onto New Road, which is a secondary road and as such would have an adverse impact on road safety and interrupt the free flow of traffic.
R 2. The proposal fails to take account of pedestrian safety with a lack of any footpaths or a pedestrian refuge contrary to Transport Policy 6 of the Strategic Plan.
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 : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 29th September 2014
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
