Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01160/A Applicant: The Treasury Proposal: Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling Site Address: - Land Adjacent To East View - Sulby Bridge - Sulby - Isle Of Man - IM7 2EU ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss Laura Davy Photo Taken: 07.09.2010 Site Visit: 07.09.2010 Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations - Ard Na Mara House Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal - Riverside Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal - Sulby Bridge Cottage Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man | Interest expressed ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Consultee: Lezayre Parish Commissioners Notes: Defer - until after meeting to be held on 9th September 2010 13.09.10 - refused 4-1 majority. Consultee: Manx Electricity Authority Notes:** Comments received
The application site represents the curtilage of the land adjacent to East View, Sulby Bridge, Sulby, Lezayre. The existing site is adjacent to East View which is to the South of the site and Riverside which is to the North.
THE PROPOSAL The application seeks for the approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling.
PLANNING HISTORY The previous planning applications are not specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES The application site is within an area zoned as "Residential" identified on the Sulby Local Plan 1999. It is appropriate to consider Policy RES/P/3 of Planning Circular 1/99, it is also appropriate to consider the relevant points from General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
CONSULTATIONS Highways Division have made the following comments: "The applicant intends to access the site via Carrick Park, as such Highways have no objection, but ask that a condition is attached that access must be from Carrick Park. No access should be given off the TT course, it goes against the Highways access policy and there is insufficient visibility."
Lezayre Commissioners have made the following comments: "The Commissioners have concerns as to how a property would be positioned on this plot of land. The Treasury should listen to the neighbours and shje the land between them. In a previous planning application (PA 97/1986) which included the area of this individual site, only three properties were allowed. Development should not be allowed as this would be against a previous planning decision."
Manx Electricity Authority have made the following comments: "There are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in you Planning Application. Please contact our Network Operations Department, Manx Electricity Authority, (Tel. 687687) to discuss working practices around Cables and Overhead Lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site. Contact the M.E.A. for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 & GS6. Contact the M.E.A. Planning Department (Tel. 687781), to discuss the electricity supply for this application." Further correspondence has been received from the M.E.A indicating that there are underground cables along the access from Carrick Park, access to these cables is required at all times, and may result in the excavation of the access, and that access should be off the main A3 Sulby Bridge Road.
The owners/occupiers of Ard Na Mara House, Quines Hill, Port Soderick who are also the owners of Plot 6 Carrick Park wish to object. In summary the following comments were made: The area in question was laid out as a green area for recreation in the original site plan. They purchased the land to the rear of the site, and have since built three properties; they have approached the Treasury to purchase the site in order to keep the site as a "green area". They had full support from Lezayre Commissioners. When No.6 Carrick Park was built, it was kept as far forward as possible as they were asked by the Planning Inspector to build the houses in a way which would not block the light or views from adjoining properties (this being Riverside). In 1997 they applied for planning for six houses, but this was rejected; one of the main reasons being that there could not be more than three dwellings on that area of site. They have not seen any layout of the site but when the 20m rule is applied from the rear of No.6 Carrick Park it cuts down area for building. There does not seem to be any access roadway which would pass Highways requirements. Sewers and surface water must also be considered as they were informed that they could not connect more than three dwellings to the existing area.
The owners/occupiers of Riverside, Sulby Bridge wish to object to the proposal, in summary the application gives no details of the proposed access to the site, in line with previous decisions relating to the development of Carrick Park, it would not be acceptable to have further vehicular access off the main road on the approach to Sulby Bridge. This means that the only access to the site for
vehicles would be from Carrick Park, along the narrow strip of land which runs the full length of the rear of Riverside. They are particularly concerned as the turning/parking area would be outside their bedroom window. The line of the presumed access to the site follows the line of an old drainage ditch for the field. They are concerned with the dispersal of rainwater from the access drive, especially because any additional hard covering for the drive would take it above the level of the airbricks at the back of Riverside. They cannot conceive of any design for a modern residence alongside a row of cottages which date back a hundred and fifty years or more.
The owners/occupiers of Sulby Bridge Cottage, Sulby Bridge do not object to the approval in principle, but indicates that repairs should be completed before granting permission. The design of the building should also be restricted to be in keeping with the existing cottages. Further correspondence was received from the owners/occupiers of Sulby Bridge Cottage in relation to the rights of access of the site.
Given the nature of the proposal, it is appropriate to consider Policy RES/P/3 which states: "Outside the defined boundaries of development Areas 2 to 5, new residential development may only be approved where it complies with Planning Circulars 1/88, 3/88 and 3/89."
It is also appropriate to consider General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which states: "(a) is in accordance with the deign brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
Environment Policy 42 should also be considered: "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."
Housing Policy 6 is also relevant in the assessment of the application: "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in
paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
The application site is within an area zoned as "Residential Use" identified on the Sulby Local Plan, therefore the proposed use would be acceptable in principle.
There are existing properties to the rear of the application site, as well as to the North and South of the site. It is appropriate to consider the potential impact to the neighbouring properties as well as the impact to the street scene and surrounding area.
The site does not have an existing access off the A3, but can be accessed from Carrick Park. To access the site from Carrick Park this would involve passing a number of properties within Carrick Park, including the newly built No.6. When entering the site, the existing access runs the length of the rear elevation of Riverside which is a traditional row of cottages.
From the rear elevation of Riverside there is approximately 1 m to the boundary of the application site. This would mean vehicles entering the site would have to pass the rear windows of Riverside if the access was to be via Carrick Park. It is considered that this would result in the noise and disturbance to the owners/occupiers of Riverside. If access was to be from Carrick Park it is judged that vehicles would be travelling along the boundary which is shared with Riverside and would be approximately 1.5 m from the windows which serve bedrooms. It is considered that this would result in unacceptable disturbance and may result in the loss of privacy. The Manx Electricity Authority has advised that an access of the A3 would be more acceptable as there are underground cables along the access from Carrick Park, which the M.E.A has advised that they will require access.
An access off the A3 would be more acceptable in terms of impact to neighbouring properties, however the Highways Division have advised that an access off this road would be unacceptable and would be against the Highways Division's access policy, it also has insufficient visibility.
One of the main considerations is the potential impact to the neighbouring properties in terms of loss or privacy, loss of light and the impact to the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area.
Any windows in the proposed dwelling which look directly towards windows in neighbouring properties, there should be a distance of approximately 20 m between them. This would reduce potential overlooking, and would minimise the impact of the property as viewed from the existing neighbouring property.
It is considered that the erection of a dwelling may result in the loss of light to Riverside and also result in the loss of privacy, depending on the distance between the properties and the location of the windows.
The site is of a size which could accommodate a detached dwelling of similar size as East View, however there is not sufficient information regarding the access to the site, and it is unclear if a safe access could be provided.
For the above reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The following are also afforded party status:
The Manx Electricity Authority — NET 64. 90% The owners/occupiers of Sulby Bridge Cottage (East View), Sulby Bridge The owners/occupiers of Ard Na Mara House, Quines Hill, Port Soderick, as the owners of Plot 6 Carrick Park The owners/occupiers of Riverside, Sulby Bridge
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.10.2010 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. Whilst the area is designated for residential development, the planning application does not adequately demonstrate that a dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated within the constraints of the application site, particularly providing a safe and convenient access and manoeuvring space which would not adversely affect the neighbouring property Riverside in terms of noise and loss of privacy.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date : 7/12/10 Signed : ______________________________ Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown