Loading document...
| Application No.: | 13/00054/B |
| Applicant: | Yorkfields Limited |
| Proposal: | Residential estate layout of roads, plots and sewers and concrete lining to existing stream |
| Site Address: | Fields 333135,335000,334999 And 334998 |
| Land Opposite | |
| Springfield Terrace | |
| Foxdale | |
| Isle Of Man |
1.1 The site defined in red is a parcel of land situated on the southern side of the A24 road which links the Eairy with Foxdale village. The site is presently undeveloped and slopes upward towards the south by around 15m over a distance of around 210m. The site edged red is around 8 acres (3.2ha) and the area edged blue is part of an area which was the subject of a previous application, PA 12/01053 for the erection of a dwelling with associated landscaping and restoration works relating to ground which has previously been identified as contaminated as a result of previous mining activities.
1.2 The site has a frontage to the A24 of around 176m. On the northern side of the road from most of this frontage are residential properties - 1 - 9 Springfield Terrace, some semi-detached and mostly detached dwellings. Number 9 has associated with it boarding kennels on the land alongside the dwelling. To the west of Springfield Terrace is a developing estate of 31 dwellings known as Springfield Rise - a development amounting to approximately 9 dwellings per acre.
1.3 After consultation with the applicant regarding certain elements of the scheme, including concern that the public open space is not adequate, the layout has been amended to provide additional open space which lies outside the site defined in red and which is also outside the area designated on the local plan as being suitable for residential development.
2.1 Proposed is the development of roads, sewers and plots for residential use on the land. In total 48 plots are shown (the amended plans show a reduction of one): the drawings show some plots with indicative house footprints on them - twelve in number and terraces of three on plots 27 - 38. The plots become larger in width as one proceeds southwards within the site and the plots on the eastern side of the central estate road are slightly wider than those to the west. The amended plan shows a reduction in density of one dwelling in the eastern part of the site such that the density changes from approximately 14 dwellings per acre to the west of the new main spine road at the front half of the site within the development, to 10 per acre to the east.
| Case Officer : | Miss S E Corlett |
| Photo Taken : | |
| Site Visit : | |
| Expected Decision Level : | Officer Delegation |
2.2 An area of Open Space, which it is assumed is intended to be Public Open Space is shown in the southern corner of the site: this area is around 2700 sq m . As stated above, the applicant has added to this to the south to provide an area of 4600 sq m to accord with the requirements of the local plan but this is outside the area edged red and outside the area designated for residential development. 2.3 The scheme shows the introduction of a new access from the A24 - a highway 5.5 m wide with visibility splays of 2 m of 70 m . The scheme also provides a footway along the full length of the site. 2.4 The existing watercourse will be culverted with a concrete channel lined with "concrete canvas" on which plants can grow and spread. 2.5 The information submitted with the application in respect of contamination - namely "Land at Foxdale Isle of Man Contamination Review and remedial Strategy" dated November, 2010 draws upon information and data from two previous detailed studies of the site - The Wolverhampton Polytechnic Report of 1991and the earlier study by Richards Moorehad and Laing in 1986. Further reference is made to the RPS study in 1989, the Smith grant Partnerships report in 1994 and the Wardell Armstrong Mining Desk Study report in 2008. No further more up to date sampling has been undertaken as part of this application. The report explains the impacts and constraints of contamination by heavy metals. It recommends that detailed geo-environmental site investigation, geophysical investigation and inspections and testing of soil cover and depth be undertaken.
3.1 The site containing the Open Space and plots is within a wider area that also extends to the west which is designated as Predominantly Residential. This designation includes land to the west which is not within the site which is presently undeveloped fields. This part of the residential land does not extend back as far as does the application part. A development brief accompanies the designation, in the Written Statement, Planning Circular 5/99. The Local Plan also refers to density at paragraph 3.11 which states "At the density recommended by the Sector Plan of 8 dwellings per acre, the current land use designations could result in a further 119 more dwelling units added to the village, if all approvals and zoned land are developed in full". The specific development brief for the site is as follows:
3.51 The Department is aware that the ownership of this land extends further east to include the area known as the Louisa Mine site. It is considered that the development of some of this area, opposite Springfield Terrace to "Kiondhooag" would not be detrimental to the policy of containing new development within an established village perimeter. However, it has been stated that there should not be any further estate-type development within the village and that development should be restricted to small-scale pockets of land within the village's natural boundary. Whilst within the visual boundaries of the village, the site represents approximately seven acres - not necessarily a small-scale site. It should also be borne in mind that the school's capacity is already limited. 3.52 The Department considers, however, that as the current land-ownership extends beyond the area indicated as being potentially suitable for residential development and includes the Louisa Mine site, then this may present a valuable opportunity by which to secure the reclamation of the mine site for the benefit of the village as a whole. As such. if a proposal for residential development were accompanied by a proposal for the reclamation and restoration of the Mine site, then development of the site for residential purposes may be considered favourably by the Department.
3.53 It should be noted that development of the site will not be permitted to commence until such times as the Louisa Mine site has been reclaimed and restored in a safe and attractive manner, to the satisfaction of the Department of Local Government and the Environment. 3.54 It is considered appropriate therefore that development of the site may be permitted in accordance with the following development brief:
3.2 In addition to the provisions of the local plan, the Strategic Plan, which was adopted after the local plan, contains the following policies which are considered relevant to the consideration of this application: the site lies within an identified settlement and the site is designated for development so the polices relating to sustainably located development are taken to be satisfied:
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: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; 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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." 3.3 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." The applicant has submitted an amended plan which includes traffic calming elements, following discussion with the Highways Authority. 3.4 Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species." 3.5 Housing Policy 5: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more." The applicant indicates that the provision of affordable housing has been discussed with DSC and "the present preference is for a commuted payment".
3.6 Recreation Policy 3: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity pace in accordance with standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan." 3.7 Recreation Policy 4: "Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport." 3.8 Appendix 6 of the Plan sets out the standards for the provision of Open Space in association with residential developments. This requires that open space is provided at the following rates: For a one bedroomed unit 27 sq of formal open space, 9 sq m of children's play space and 12 sq m of amenity space (a total of 48 sq m ). For a two bedroomed property 36 sq m of formal space, 12 sq m of children's play space and 16 sq m of amenity space (a total of 64 sq m ) and for properties with three bedrooms or more, 54 sq m of formal open space, 18 sq m of children's play space and 24 sq m of amenity space (a total of 96 sq m ). Assuming that the 21 smallest plots will accommodate two bedroomed properties and the remainder three bed or larger, this would result in a requirement for a total of 3936 sq m of open space split into 2214 sq m of formal open space, 738 sq m of children's play space and 984 sq m of amenity space. 3.9 As the applicant indicates that "The area in general is flooding problems [sic]" (paragraph 7 of the additional information), it is relevant to consider Environment Policies 10 and 13:
Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."
Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." The applicant states that the clearing and cleaning of existing watercourses and the provision of a concrete lining thereof will "alleviate virtually all flooding in the area" and that only a small part of the site is liable to flood which is related to incapacity of the existing culvert and also that flooding in this site does not lead to flooding in the wider area.
4.1 No planning applications have been considered in respect of this site. Planning permission was granted for the remediation of the land to the north east through PA 12/01053: the application site abuts this and the area defined in blue is part of the land to be reclaimed as part of the 2012 application.
5.1 The owner of 4, The Clocktower asks whether there is a need for further houses in the village and points out that there have been significant flooding issues following the development at Springfield Rise and considers that there are too many houses and the most dangerous part of the highway still has no pavement (outside the Clock Tower). 5.2 DEFA Fisheries Division express concern regarding the proximity of the works to the water course and request that the applicant complete the Development Within 8 m of a Watercourse form provided. 5.3 The owner of 6, Springfield Terrace (Fuchsia House) objects to the application, not on the grounds of principle as they accept that the site is designated for development, but that the
density of the development exceeds the 8 dwellings per acre recommended in the Foxdale Local Plan and that the development includes building upon areas of the site which are set aside for landscaping in the local plan resulting in a hard edge and unsympathetic form of development. He asks whether the development will comprise traditionally designed properties in accordance with the plan and whether the required geotechnical and geochemical reports have been provided. He suggests that the development is not split into phases and that the development will increase congestion in the village and adversely affect road safety and that the development may compromise the road widening previously proposed along the frontage (PA 90/00204). They suggest that a positive step would be to underground the existing overhead electricity lines. He suggests that the scheme should be fully tested against flood risk. 5.3 The owner of 8, Springfield Terrace objects to the application on very similar grounds to the above objection, adding that an increase in population resulting from the development could overload the services available in the village and that the development includes development on areas which are identified in the plan as not being suitable for development. This objector has written to the IOMWSA and has provided photographs of flooding in the area. 5.4 The owners and occupants of 3, Springfield Terrace object to the application on the basis of potential overlooking and spoiling of their view (which is not a material planning consideration). They add that the development will add to the traffic and drainage problems which have arisen since the Springfield Rise development has been undertaken. They point out that the school is close to the site and there are many children and parents who walk to school and who would be endangered by the proposal. 5.5 The owners of Eairy Mount which is some 400 m to the east, object to the application on the basis that there are to be buildings in areas shown in the local plan to be landscaped and suggest that the development is premature pending a more up to date plan (Western Area Plan) based upon updated calculations for housing need. They suggest that the development is out off keeping with the village, that the junction of the A3 and A24 as highlighted in the Plan is substandard, there will be flooding and that as shown some of the properties which are on very small plots, will have their backs to the main road, which is not acceptable on the main entrance to the village. No design statement has been provided and access from the site to the school will involve a section of road which does not have a complete footway. 5.6 The owner of 1, Springfield Terrace objects to the application on the basis that the development is "excessive" for the infrastructure of the village, Springfield Terrace is narrow and the development will make traffic congestion and danger even worse and query whether the road and drainage infrastructure can satisfactorily accommodate the development. 5.7 MEA indicate that the applicant should contact them regarding the electrical supply to this development. No reference is made to the overhead electricity lines which are on the other side of Springfield Terrace. 5.8 Patrick Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the development as shown would encroach onto land shown in the local plan as for landscaping and an area to be reclaimed/restored. They consider that the density of the development is too great and consider that the required number of houses for the West has already been exceeded so there is no requirement for additional houses here. They are of the view that the A24 is in poor condition and additional traffic on the road should not be encouraged and flooding is a major concern and do not believe that the culverted stream will accommodate the additional run off from the development. Where the stream emerges near the school the banks and river bed are in poor condition and the Commissioners believe that the development would exacerbate this flood risk. 5.9 The owner of Kionslieu Farm objects to the number of houses, lack of tree planting and the layout of the scheme which involves the backs of houses facing the road, and question the
need for so many new houses over and above what is indicated in the Strategic Plan. They query whether the local facilities could cope with additional population as would result from the proposed development. 5.10 The owner of 4, Springfield Terrace (Ballahig Farm) is also the owner of number 3 and makes the same comments as the submission made in respect of that property. The occupier of 4, Springfield Terrace objects to the loss of view (which is not a planning consideration). They also refer to the increase in traffic which would result from the development and potentially increased flood risk. 5.11 The owners of 2, Springfield Terrace (who reside at Cronk Breck Farm in Greeba) object to the application on the same basis as the points raised by the owners of 3, Springfield Terrace. 5.12 Hon David Anderson MHK for Glenfaba indicates that he does not generally become involved in individual planning applications but in this case feels that the development falls so far out of line with the adopted local plan which was generally well supported by the local community. He supports the points raised by the residents of Springfield Terrace, particularly in relation to the density and points out that drainage is a local issue. 5.13 The owner of 7, Springfield Terrace objects to the application on the basis that the development does not follow the prescriptions in the local plan in terms of density, building on areas designated for landscaping, phasing, provision of children's play space and also points out that road widening opportunities may be removed if the development goes ahead as shown and there is a current flooding problem which has not been addressed in the application. 5.14 The owner of Lake View on the Lhoobs Road, which is over 700 m away as the crow flies, but who is purchasing a property on the Springfield Rise estate (not specifying which one) objects to the application on the basis that the local plan does not take account of the development which has occurred in the village since the plan was approved, the development does not provide a sympathetic edge to the village as required by the local plan, no information is provided about the required reclamation, there is insufficient detail in the application to enable proper consideration, there is insufficient information on flooding and no dimensioned information on road widening and parking areas. 5.15 Highways Division recommends that whilst the road layout does not meet the criteria set out in Manx Roads but that with the installation of traffic calming measures this could be addressed. They state that the application provides adequate visibility splays and road widths. 5.16 Department of Social Care recommends that the development should make provision for affordable housing at a ratio of of the proposed houses: this could be either in the form of a commuted sum, provision of commuted land amounting to the number of houses required or provision of of the proposed dwellings as affordable units. 5.17 IOMWSA have been consulted and following information submitted by the applicant in the form of a report on land drainage and a statement in respect of flooding both of which satisfy the Authority that the site can be acceptably drained and will not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding nor cause any other unacceptable risk of flooding elsewhere.
6.1 Full and proper assessment of the impacts of this application is difficult if not impossible due to the lack of information on house types: for example some of the plots are very narrow less than 7.5 m wide which would lead to a strong likelihood of these plots accommodating terraced properties but there is no illustration or confirmation of this and the applicant's agent has stated that he feels that the inclusion of footprints is not necessary. It is also impossible to
assess whether the plots are large enough to satisfactorily accommodate the requisite amount of car parking: for example plots 1-8 and 26-31 do not appear generally to have enough space for parking alongside which could lead to a streetscene dominated by front gardens which are totally hard surfaced and occupied by vehicles which could lead to undesirable outlook from these properties and a very urban and unfortunate streetscape in this part of the estate. Whilst terraced properties with a narrow width can be acceptable - for example plots 8,9,12,13 and 14 of the development on the other side of the road, this requires a layout which provides sufficient garden space and areas for parking which retain a reasonable level of amenity. These plots are generally longer than those shown in the current application and do not include a frontage onto a main road, which would generally involve a greater set back than from an estate road. 6.2 It is also not possible to assess whether the development would result in an acceptable decrease in density such that the development would comply with the requirements of the local plan. Whilst the plots may be larger, the larger plots are more likely to accommodate larger properties resulting in a similar density of built development in ratio to plot size to that of the smaller plots. 6.3 It is not possible in the absence of house types to determine the impact on the main road and whether there is sufficient depth within the roadside plots to result in a development which will present an interesting and attractive streetscene at the entrance to the village. The development provides for plots alongside the main road which are in the main significantly more dense than the development on the opposite side of the road. 6.4 The amount of open space is now, within the amended plan commensurate with that which would be likely to be required by the Strategic Plan, possibly in excess of this. However it is now proposed partly on land which is not designated for development and as such the development now spreads beyond the area indicated as suitable for development on the Foxdale Local Plan. 6.5 It would appear through consultation with Highways Division and IOMWSA that the site can be satisfactorily accessed and drained and would not be at any unacceptable risk of flooding nor cause flooding elsewhere. 6.6 The site is designated for development and could release additional residential development for the village which would help sustain local amenities and services. However, there must be sufficient information contained within the application to demonstrate that the site can be developed satisfactorily and in accordance with the development brief in the local plan as well as the general principles of good planning as set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. In this case there is limited information about the plots and what could be accommodated on them such that it is not possible to determine whether the development complies or could comply with these provisions and in addition, it is very clear that the Public Open Space is not contained within the development area, for which there is no provision within the local plan. 6.7 As such the application is recommended for refusal.
The local authority, Patrick Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture and Department of Social Care are statutory authorities who raise material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
4, The Clocktower Numbers , Springfield Terrace are directly opposite the site and as such the owners (including those who live at Ballahig Cronk Breck farms) and occupiers should be afforded party status in this case.
Eairy Mount is some distance to the east and is not considered directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.
Kionslieu Farm is 300 m to the north and separated from the site by the Springfield Terrace properties. As such it is not considered that this property is directly affected by the development: having a view towards the site is not sufficient justification for awarding party status in this case.
Lake View is some distance from the site and this party should not be afforded party status in this case.
Manx Electricity Authority does not raise material planning issues and as such should not be afforded party status in this case.
The Highway Authority is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the Planning Authority is part. As such, the Highway Authority cannot be afforded party status in this case.
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority is a statutory authority which responds to material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of 08.11.2013
Recommendation:
R 1. It is not possible from the information submitted within the application to be satisfied that an acceptable form of development could be provided on this site, which would result in an acceptable streetscene and where each dwelling would have satisfactory levels of amenity and parking space available to it.
R 2. It is also not possible to assess whether the development would result in an acceptable decrease in density such that the development would comply with the requirements of the local plan. Whilst the plots may be larger, the larger plots are more likely to accommodate larger
properties resulting in a similar density of built development in ratio to plot size to that of the smaller plots.
R 3. It is not possible in the absence of house types to determine the impact on the main road and whether there is sufficient depth within the roadside plots to result in a development which will present an interesting and attractive streetscene at the entrance to the village. The development provides for plots alongside the main road which are in the main significantly more dense than the development on the opposite side of the road.
R 4. The public open space is proposed partly on land which is not designated for development and as such the development now spreads beyond the area indicated as suitable for development on the Foxdale Local Plan.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 20-Nov-2013
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed : Signed : Signed : Anthony Holmes Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Signed : Michael Gallagher Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager
13 November 2013 13/00054/8 Page 10 of 10
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown