Loading document...
bun-troggalys
Office of the Minister and Chief Executive
Telephone: (01624) 720904 Fax: (01624) 686915 Email: [email protected] Contact: Kevin Gillespie Our Ref: NJB/RF Your ref: Date: 7th October 2013
Dear Sirs
ON APPEAL Application No: 13/00423/B Proposal: Alterations, erection of a building to provide an indoor Tennis Court, Squash Court and Gymnasium and creation of a vehicular access (from Mountain Road) at Thie Ny Strooan, Hilberry Green, Douglas, IM2 6DE
Applicant: Mumba Holdings Ltd Appellant: Mrs S Crellin
I refer to the recent appeal in respect of the above planning application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to consider this appeal.
The Minister has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, he has directed that the Planning Committee's Approval of the application should be confirmed. Formal notice of this decision is attached.
Yours faithfully
N J Black Chief Executive
Please see overleaf for circulation list/...................
Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF
Richmond Square Design Ltd Borough of Douglas Mr I Wade, Drainage Devt Control, WASA Mr & Mrs Mark Humphrey Mr & Mrs P Lawther Mr Peter Simpson Mr & Mrs F Walton Mr K D Teare Mr & Mrs W & J Cheung Mr & Mrs W R Crellin Secretary to the Planning Committee
Mumba Holdings Ltd 33/37 Athol Street Douglas IM1 1LB
In pursuance of his powers under the above Act and Order, the Minister for Infrastructure does hereby APPROVE planning application 13/00423/B by Mumba Holdings Ltd for Alterations, erection of a building to provide an indoor Tennis Court, Squash Court and Gymnasium and creation of a vehicular access (from Mountain Road) at Thie Ny Strooan, Hilberry Green, Douglas, IM2 6DE subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 13 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with drawing no's P003 rev. A, PA004, P101, P102, P201, P301, P302, X001, X002, and X003 rev. A, date stamped the 10th April 2013.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the diversion of the public sewer must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the public sewer must be diverted in accordance with those agreed details prior to the implementation of the approved development.
All tree planting shown on drawing no. P003 rev A must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development. Any tree which within a period of five years from the completion of the development dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with another of a similar size and species.
The building hereby permitted by this planning approval shall be used only in association with the residential enjoyment of the dwelling contained within the application. For the avoidance of doubt no planning approval is hereby granted for the commercial use, or use by clubs, of the building.
The vehicular access from the Mountain Road hereby permitted by this planning approval shall be used only by vehicles maintaining the building permitted by this planning approval or by emergency vehicles requiring emergency access to the application site. Private access to the building permitted by this planning approval shall be achieved internally to the application site via the Hillberry Green access only.
Prior to any works commencing on the site the access and visibility splays shown on drawing No 1111 P004 Rev A (dated 02/2012) shall be constructed and used by all construction traffic.
Date of issue: 7th October 2013
By Order of the Minister
NJ Black Chief Executive
Note 1: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.
Note 2: In respect of condition no. 3 the applicant is advised to discuss and agree the details of the diversion of the public sewer with the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority prior to the submission of details to the Planning Authority.
Appeal No: AP13/0064 Application No: 13/00423/B
Report on Planning Appeal
Written Representation Case: Site Inspection held on 9 September 2013
Appeal by: Mrs S Crellin against approval (for Mumba Holdings Limited) for alterations, erection of a building to provide an indoor Tennis Court, Squash Court and Gymnasium and creation of a vehicular access (from Mountain Road) at Thie Ny Strooan, Hilberry Green, Douglas, Isle of Man IM2 6DE.
Introduction
Site and surroundings
The appeal site comprises the large residential curtilage of Thie Ny Strooan which is located within Hillberry Green, Douglas. A dwelling house previously on the site has been demolished and a large replacement dwelling is being completed under application PA 12/01279/B. There is a small stream running from north to south in the middle of the site and to the east of this there is a mature wooded and partly open area which slopes up towards Mountain Road to the north east. The boundary with Mountain Road is formed by an earth bank and there is a timber gate at the southern end.
To the south east of the site there are three dwellings; Glen Kella, Glen Nook and Gleneagles. A brick wall forms the boundary and these houses are all accessed from Mountain Road as is a development known as The Laurels (via Hallwood Avenue) which lies to the north of the site. The nearest house on the northern boundary to the proposed new building is No 18 The Laurels and this is occupied by the appellant.
Proposed Development
The proposal is for the erection of a detached building to provide an indoor tennis court, a squash court, a gymnasium and associated facilities. The building would be positioned 30 metres from the northern boundary with No 18 The Laurels; 15 metres from the south east boundary with Glen Kella and 8 metres from the Mountain Road boundary.
The main part of the tennis hall would measure approximately 37m x 19m and is shown as being 11m in height. The other two storey part of the building (squash court, changing facilities and gymnasium) measure approximately 10m x 18m. The proposed materials comprise horizontal softwood timber cladding, with detailed Manx stone and powder coated aluminium windows.
Access to the tennis court site, from the new dwelling, would be provided by means of a new timber bridge across the stream and there is also a proposal for tree planting around the boundaries of the site. A new vehicular access on to Mountain Road is also proposed. However, this is stated as being for emergency and maintenance purposes only. Visibility splays of 70m in each direction would require the re-shaping of part of the boundary banking.
This is a fully residentially zoned area and is totally unsuitable for this huge expanse of a building for social club/sports complex use.
Due to its size and expanse the complex would be visually detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. At least 4 dwellings, as well as pedestrians and road users, would have a clear view of the complex. It would also be seen from the Bemahague School astro pitch.
There is plenty of space on other parts of the site nearer to the new dwelling house.
The facilities of the proposal for 'invited guests' is questioned. The wording of the application tries to get around the planning approval which states that it is not for commercial use. However, anyone could attend the site as an 'invited guest' and the Applicant company clearly wishes the complex to be used by far more 'guests' rather than for family use only.
Construction vehicles entering the site will be a danger to highway safety on this very fast, busy and dangerous main road.
The new school has drastically increased traffic movements and all pedestrian access points were required to be closed prior to commencement of the building works.
The visibility splays should be 90 m in each direction and not just 70 m .
The speed limit of 30 mph is not adhered to on Mountain Road and the number of times the police have used radar guns at Nook corner is testament to this.
Delivery drivers would use the Mountain Road entrance and would park on the road. This could not be classed as emergency or maintenance use.
The proposed entrance would be only 20 feet from the boundary of No 18 and every movement in and out would result in unacceptable noise, disturbance and loss of privacy. The existing entrance has not been used for over 18 years.
The access should not be allowed for maintenance purposes and should be designated for emergency use only. Otherwise it cannot be controlled and the applicant could enter and exit as they please.
There is no need, in any case, for an entrance from Mountain Road if all guests and deliveries are to gain access via the dwelling house access.
Once an entrance is provided from Mountain Road, it will inevitably be used by the invited guests and especially in inclement weather.
A previous owner of the site was informed that planning permission would not be granted for two dwellings on the site due to the issues relating to Mountain Road and that the existing gate was for agricultural use only.
Thie Ny Strooan already has two entrances available. A third entrance is not necessary.
An access from Mountain Road to the rear of No 18 would not be allowed according to the planning authority and so why should Mumba Holdings be allowed an entrance. The e-mail trail submitted creates more questions and queries relating to this proposal.
The proposal will have safety implications for the users of the new facilities as well as for existing road users.
There will be no defined hours of usage for the facility. The only ones affected are those who live nearest to the site.
Existing trees are already causing issues and there have been requests for cutting some boundary trees back. Additional boundary landscaping will reduce light even further and would be unacceptable.
With all the new lighting related to the new school any further lighting associated with the new complex would be unacceptable.
Access to the drainage system within No 18 will not be granted.
There will be a disruption to wildlife including effects on hedgehogs, sparrow hawks, pheasants and bats.
There is no desire or intention to use the facilities as a social club complex. The facilities have always been intended for private use only.
A letter of confirmation of this, from the Appellant's Solicitor to the Department of Infrastructure, has bee submitted.
Planning Condition C5 will ensure that a commercial use of the building cannot be carried out.
The proposed new entrance is to be used for maintenance purposes and Emergency access only.
The shared farm access is not viable as an alternative entrance and it is not feasible to carry maintenance equipment across the river valley.
A risk assessment clearly indicated a need for the Emergency access.
Planning Condition C6 will ensure that access is restricted to maintenance and Emergency vehicles only.
The parking area referred to is simply to provide stable ground for maintenance vehicles.
Drawing 111-P-004A correctly shows the visibility splays and the Planning Authority and the Highways Division are in agreement with the proposal.
Each case must be assessed on its merits and Clause 6 of PPG13 acknowledges that it is not always practical to comply with full standards. In any case the Highways Division clearly took into account the infrequency of usage when accepting 70 m rather than 90 m splays.
The level of noise created by and as a result of the use of a retractable roof would be negligible. Any noise created by guests would be no different to noise created by private users of garden areas.
The low level, low voltage lighting will not cause any undue light pollution.
The applicant has already agreed to the pruning and lopping of boundary trees which are causing nuisance for neighbours and agreement has been reached with the Forestry Division for trees to be removed.
The existing views will not differ greatly by the addition of proposed trees.
With regard to loss of privacy the construction period will be for only a limited period and of no greater impact that the building of the new dwelling. The occupiers of No 18 The Laurels must already hear every vehicle which uses the road and the occasional addition of another vehicle will not be significantly noticeable.
The Planning notice was displayed correctly.
Every effort will be made to ensure that wildlife is not harmed by construction or future use of the building.
The claims by the Appellant that the building will be used for anything other than private use are unfounded and speculative.
The circumstances relating to the Appellant's desire to create an access off Mountain Road are not comparable to the proposed usage.
All of the Appellant's points were considered by the Planning Authority and none of the matters raised has led to the authority refusing to grant consent for the development.
The Highways Division, after taking all matters into account, including visibility splays; accident records; the fact that the access is an improvement on the existing; the limited usage (maintenance and emergency only); a 2011 traffic survey and the submitted drawings, has concluded that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions. The conditions relate to the provision of visibility spays and restriction of usage of the entrance for maintenance and emergency vehicles only.
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority requires diversion of a sewer across the site. This is agreed by the Applicant.
The owners/occupants of 19 The Laurels object on the basis that this is inappropriate development for a residential area and claim that the proposal is for commercial usage. They are concerned about their amenities in relation to noise and disturbance; the effect of further tree planting on light to their property; the use of artificial lighting and the safety of the new access.
The owners/occupants of Glen Nook on the basis of the effect on the character of the area and the safety of the access.
The owners of 16 The Laurels object on the basis of undue noise and disturbance and the safety of the access.
The owners/occupants of Gleneagles object on the basis of the effect on the character of the area, the safety of the access and the impact of construction traffic.
The owners/occupants of Glen Kella object on the basis of the effect on the woodland setting; the overbearing effect on their property and the safety of the proposed new access.
The owners/occupiers of 17 The Laurels object on the basis of the cumulative impact of development in the area; the safety of the access; the impact on trees and the fact that the proposal appears to be commercial.
It is not surprising that the appellant and other nearby neighbours consider that a building of this size (over 1000 \mathrm{~m}^{2} ) could well be used commercially. It is much larger than an average ancillary building to a dwelling and is located well away from the new house now being constructed under PA 12/01279/B.
However, the application was made on the basis that the facilities to be provided were ancillary to the dwelling house and this is how the Planning Authority dealt with the application. Condition No 5 restricted any use of the new building to use only in association with the residential enjoyment of the dwelling and the new vehicular access on to Mountain Road was also conditioned (No 6) so as to provide for emergency and maintenance purposes only.
I have considered the proposal on the same basis as the Planning Authority and my recommendation is made in relation to the proposal being an ancillary building to the dwelling house. Irrespective of its size the building could only be used as ancillary uses to the residential enjoyment of the occupiers of the new house at Thie Ny Strooan. In my view, any attempt to use the facility (and particularly the access) for any other use, other than those covered by the approval, would be noticeable and would be likely to be the subject of complaints and enforcement action.
The main issues are firstly the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality; secondly the effect on the living conditions of neighbours and, thirdly, the effect on highway safety.
The site for the new facility is designated 'predominantly residential' under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998. The dwelling house is designated as Low Density Housing in Parkland (LDHP). The principle of an ancillary residential use on the appeal site is, therefore, acceptable and the relevant policy is GP2 of the IOMSP. This indicates that 'Development which is in accordance with land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of the Strategic Plan will normally be permitted provided it is not contrary to various criteria.
Criteria (b) and (c) of Policy GP2 relate to the effect on character and appearance. Having inspected the site and viewed it from the nearest neighbouring properties, I consider that, although extremely large, the proposal respects the site in terms of siting, layout, form, scale and design. I agree with the Planning Authority view that the new building is proportionate to the size of the site and the new dwelling house at Thie Ny Strooan.
I do not accept the contention by the appellant and others that the proposal is out of character with the locality. Nor would it cause harm to the appearance of this part of Hillberry Green. The proposal is for a large ancillary residential building on a large site and whilst accepting that the Mountain Road elevation is rather bland with only minimal openings, I consider that the design and materials are appropriate for a residential recreational building. I do not consider, therefore, that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the site itself or the surrounding residential area.
Direct views of the building from Mountain Road will be limited due to the boundary treatment and the road levels and alignment. It would be located approximately 8 m back from the road frontage and well away from the nearest dwellings. I do not consider that public amenity would be detrimentally affected by the proposal. The proposal, therefore accords with criteria (b) and (c) of Policy GP2 of the IOMSP.
Turning to the effect on 'private amenity', or the living conditions of neighbours, the building would be positioned approximately 32 m away from the Appellant's boundary ( 35 m from the house) at 18 The Laurels and approximately 15 m away from the boundary with Glen Kella. Having viewed the site from within the boundaries of these nearest dwellings I do not consider that their living conditions would be unduly compromised.
The existing boundary treatment, the existing landscaping and the proposed additional tree planting would all ensure that their was no impact relating to overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of light for the neighbours. With regard to noise and disturbance, including that caused by the use of the retractable roof and traffic noise using the access, again I am satisfied that the proposal is a sufficient distance away from the nearest dwellings and I do not consider that the use of the facility would lead to undue noise and disturbance for nearby residents. It should also be noted that the proposed access for maintenance and emergency vehicles is around 20 metres and not 20 feet from the boundary with 18 The Laurels.
The use of low level, low voltage lighting along the paths will ensure that any light pollution is kept to a minimum. Furthermore any low level lighting to the rear (Mountain Road) side of the building need only be used in association with emergency or maintenance use. Any future significant lighting installation would require planning approval. In conclusion on this issue, therefore, I consider that the proposal accords with Policy GP2 (g) in that it does not adversely affect the living conditions of local residents or the character of this part of Hillberry Green.
Turning to the highways issue, the Highways Division do not oppose the proposal providing that the new access is only used for maintenance purposes and emergency vehicles only. It is stressed that it must not be used on a daily basis for residents of, or visitors to, Thie Ny Strooan. I do not doubt that the Planning Authority would be notified by neighbours if the condition relating to the use of the access was not complied with.
Having inspected the existing 'field' access and noted the existing access from Mountain Road into the Glen Kella, Glen Nook and Gleneagles, I consider
the Highways Division's requirement of 70 m splays is necessary and that such an access should be constructed prior to any works commencing on site. The Planning Authority did not impose such a condition but, in my view, it is essential as indicated in the Highways Division's report dated 18 July 2013. I also consider that the relaxation from 90 m splays to 70 m splays is appropriate and acceptable in relation to the particular circumstances of the limited proposed access. 33. In conclusion I do not consider that the proposal (subject to relevant conditions) is harmful to the character and appearance of the locality; to private amenity and to highway safety. In my view the proposal complies with the relevant criteria of Policy GP2 of the IOMSP. The other material considerations do not indicate that the proposal should be refused. I consider, therefore, that the appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of the Planning Authority should be upheld subject to conditions 1 to 6 inclusive and the additional highways condition. 34. I have considered all of the other representations by the Appellant and other objectors to the proposal. These include references to the effect on the appearance of the area; details of the proposal and the questioning of 'invited guests'; concerns relating to the access and construction traffic; the speed limit on Mountain Road and the effect of the new Bemahague School; the planning history of the site and previous residential use considered by a previous owner; the other entrances for Thie Ny Strooan and the fact that an entrance from Mountain Road to 18 The Laurels would not be permitted. However, none of these matters carry sufficient weight to alter my conclusions and recommendation.
Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI Inspector
.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
