Loading document...
the north of Plot 14 and more or less parallel to it. The gable to gable distance would be about 9 metres. Plot 14 would have some impact on the rear garden of No. 18 in terms of loss of light, but it is felt that the separation distance are sufficient for there not to be any unacceptable impacts on amenity. In summary, it is considered that the development would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties on Furman Close.
Nos. 1 to 4 Marine View Close 43. Plots 1 and 15 are the closest dwellings to the nearest houses on Marine View Close. However, both would be gable end on at a distance of 7 metres (Plot 15) and 11 metres (Plot 1) to the boundary with Marine View Close. This relationship is acceptable given that the facing gable ends of the dwellings are blank. Elevation to elevation distances are around 14 metres, which again is acceptable given that it is blank elevations presenting themselves towards Marine View Close. It is considered that there is sufficient separation between the houses such as to not result in unacceptable overlooking, overbearing or loss of light to Nos. 1 to 4 Marine View Close.
Approval for 24 sheltered apartments 44. Regard is had to the previous approval for the erection of 24 sheltered apartments on the site, granted at appeal in 2009 (08/00909/B). Whilst the approval is no longer extant, it remains relevant, especially since there have been no significant changes in policy or other material considerations since the decision. The sheltered apartments were to be built in three main blocks; with two large blocks at the front and rear, and a smaller block in the centre. The block at the front was particularly large, partially dug into the ground, and provided three storeys. The block at the rear was a smaller building but had three storeys. The smaller block in the centre was single storey. The footprint of the blocks is helpfully shown on the proposed layout for the current scheme for comparative purposes. 45. As discussed, the relationship of Plots 5 to 9 with the properties on Kirkway is considered to be more marginal in terms of its general acceptability (but found to be satisfactory). However, it is considered that the scheme for the sheltered apartments would have had a far greater impact on Nos. 8 to 10 Kirkway. The rear block of sheltered apartments would have been three storeys and generally much closer to the boundary with Kirkway. The current scheme is considered to have a far better relationship than the previous approval for the sheltered apartments. This point is material to the consideration of the current proposal and further supports its acceptability. 46. The sheltered apartments would have had in some cases a far greater impact on Nos. 18, 23, 24 and 25 Furman Close than the current proposal. 47. It is considered that the sheltered housing block at the front of the site would have a much greater impact on Nos. 1 and 2 Marine View Close than the current proposal.
Standard of amenity within the site 48. It is considered that the dwellings themselves would be afforded acceptable levels of amenity. Elevation to elevation distances within the development would be at least 19 metres which is satisfactory. Each dwelling would have decent amenity space, although Plots 5 to 8 have relatively small gardens.
Access and parking
providing the open space on the site. The result was that a sum of around £ 19,000 was advised by the Commissioners (based on the original scheme for 18 dwellings). 57. The scheme was subsequently revised and reduced to 16 dwellings, as described in the report, and the Commissioners were asked to review the sum in the light of the changes. In reporting back to the Planning Authority, the Commissioners stated that there had been an error in the original calculations and the sum should be around £ 41,000, broken down as follows:
| Open space | | Sq. metre | £ / sq. metre | Total | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Formal | 864 | £13 | £11,232 | | | Amenity | | 384 | £6 | £2,304 | | Children's | | 288 | | | | (Swings) | | 87 | £9,221 | | | (Roundabout) | 73 | | £7,427 | | | (See saw 2) | 35 | | £4,348 | | | Todlers multi | 46 | | £6,590 | £27,586 |
£41,122 58. For several months, up until only recently when the revised figure of £ 41,000 was given, the applicant was under the impression that a commuted sum of £ 19,000 would be acceptable to the Planning Authority. Onchan District Commissioners have stressed that they are satisfied with the earlier figure of £ 19,000 and have said that they have no plans for development of open space in the area for the foreseeable future. The latter point is not crucial because commuted sums normally only need to be spent within a five or ten year period. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal with the applicant having now been given three different figures for the commuted sum - £ 9,000, £ 19,000 and now £ 41,000. 59. Unfortunately, the issues have not been assisted by the lack of clarity in the Strategic Plan about how commuted sums should be calculated or the availability of good practice guidance. In this instance, and to be reasonable to the applicant, it is felt that the lower sum of £ 19,000 would be acceptable. This was suggested to the applicant who has responded by agreeing to pay the sum. The applicant has however queried why children's play equipment should be provided for the children's open space (this contributes to £ 27,500 of the overall figure of £ 41,000 ), when they argue the Strategic Plan doesn't require it. The Strategic Plan, however, defines children's open space as being a: 'Designated area for children containing a range of facilities and an environment that has been designed to provide opportunities for outdoor play; and casual or informal playing space within housing areas.' Having regard to this definition, it is considered appropriate that the cost of play equipment is included in the commuted sum. In any event, the applicant has agreed to pay the sum of £ 19,000, which is the amount felt to be reasonable under the circumstances. The commuted sum will need to be secured by way of a Section 13 agreement.
Other issues raised during the consultation process 60. Drainage - the conditions recommended by the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority duplicate existing building regulations and other legislation, and are unnecessary. 61. The effect of a proposal on the value of property is not a material planning consideration.
The local authority, Onchan District Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
| Recommended Decision: | Permitted | | --- | --- | | Date of Recommendation: | 11.02.2014 |
18 February 2014 16 13/00575/B Page 14 of
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans: Drawing Numbers 117/001 (site location plan), 117/002 (figure/ground location plan), 117/003 (existing site plan), 117/004 (proposed site layout), 117/006 (site sections), 117/007 (landscape plan), 117/010a (House Type A), 117/011 (House Type B) received on 23 December 2013.
Natural slate shall be used for the roof materials.
The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
The proposed first floor bathroom windows in the rear (south) elevation of Plots 5 to 9 inclusive shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent. The window shall also be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. The windows shall be permanently retained as such.
No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas in positions to be indicated on plans to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant, equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.
The applicant/developer is reminded that this approval is subject to a Section 13 legal agreement which secures commuted sums towards affordable housing and open space.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ..... Committee Meeting Date : ..... Signed : ..... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
| Application No. : | 13 / 00575 / B | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant : | Mr Trevor McCullough | | Proposal : | Erection of sixteen dwellings with associated infrastructure | | | including roads and drainage | | Site Address : | Former Follies Cabaret Restaurant | | | Harbour Road | | | Onchan | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM3 1BG |
Case Officer : Mr Edward Baker Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : 26.06.2013
Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN VIEW OF THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND BECAUSE A SECTION 13 AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED IF APPROVAL IS GRANTED.
12/00384/B - application for seven detached dwellings withdrawn in 2012. 09/02055/B - approval granted in 2010 for the erection of replacement substation. The approval appears to have lapsed on 09 February 2014. It is understood that the substation was required in connection with the scheme for the sheltered housing apartments.
08/00909/B - approval granted at appeal in 2009 for 24 sheltered housing apartments, wardens apartment and ancillary accommodation.
07/00883/B - application refused at appeal in 2007 for 22 sheltered housing apartments with wardens and ancillary accommodation.
06/00960/B - application refused at appeal in 2007 for 26 private sheltered housing apartments with warden, ancillary.
06/00057/B - application refused in 2006 for four apartment blocks to provide 30 private sheltered housing apartments with wardens and ancillary accommodation. 14. There are a number of earlier applications relating to the previous use of the site as a restaurant, but which are not considered relevant to the current application.
Policy O/RES/P/19: 'The erection of new residential properties may be permitted within areas designated for residential use where these would fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings.'
Policy O/RES/P/20: 'Except where required otherwise by the Local Plan, car parking standards of at least three spaces per dwelling which may include a garage will be applied to all new residential development within the Local Plan area. Permission will not generally be forthcoming for extensions or conversions which result in a loss of parking space behind the building line.' 17. The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are relevant:
Strategic Policy 1: 'Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.'
Strategic Policy 2: 'New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.'
Strategic Policy 5: 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will
require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.'
Strategic Policy 10: 'New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement.'
Spatial Policy 2: 'Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services
Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement.'
Spatial Policy 5: 'New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.'
General Policy 1: 'The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations.'
Whilst General Policy 2 does not strictly apply given the zoning of the site for tourism, the principles contained within General Policy 2 are sound planning principles that ensure good development, and in this regard is relevant: '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 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; (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 unacceptable 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; (1) 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.'
Housing Policy 4 states: 'New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.'
Housing Policy 5: 'In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25 % of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.'
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 space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.'
Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 states: 'The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.'
Onchan District Commissioners - recommend approval.
Highways Division - formal comments awaited.
DEFA (Arboricultural Officer) - no objection: 'From a tree point of view I would divide the site into two parts.
The perimeter trees which constitute the bulk of the tree cover and which are largely unaffected by the development (except in so far as protection will be required during engineering works) and
The trees within the site which are marked for removal.
DEFA has no objection to the removal of the trees and shrubs within the site, many of which are overgrown and relatively unimportant. The developer expressed an interest in trying to relocate the mature 'Manx' palms and their loss from the site is acceptable.
With regard to the perimeter trees there is really a mixed bunch here. Careful monitoring of the mature specimens on the NE boundaries (Harbour Road and behind the houses on Marine View Close) will be required over the long term as these may prove difficult to retain once the houses are occupied. They are however past their best and the whole nature of the site will allow for garden landscaping to replace what trees may be lost in the future. I don't see them as being a concern during the development phase.
The sycamores on the remaining boundaries should be kept if possible and pruned if necessary although, again, this may be done at a later date when residents move in. The line of cypress trees on the southern boundary behind the properties on Kirkway are not important and could be removed in the long term.
I would suggest that protective fencing be erected in line with the canopy spread of all the trees to be retained. This should be seen as creating a construction exclusion zone and no storage of materials or soil should be allowed inside it. Once the development is complete this can be removed.' 21. Department of Social Care - formal comments on the revised scheme are awaited. 22. Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority - no objection, subject to conditions. 23. Manx Electricity Authority - advisory notes. 24. The following comments have been received from local residents about the revised scheme:
Owner/occupier of No. 1, Bank's Howe, Onchan - comments as follows:
Owner/occupier of No. 22, Turnberry Avenue, Onchan - objection
Owner/occupier of No. 2 Fairway, Onchan - objection
Owner/occupier of No. 1, Bank's Howe, Onchan - objection
Owner/occupier of No. 2, Bank's Howe, Onchan - objection
Owner/occupier of No. 3, Marine View Close, Onchan - objection
Owner/occupier of No. 2, Marine View Close, Onchan - comments as follows:
Agrees that something should be built on the site and was quite happy with the scheme for 7 dwellings (which was withdrawn).
18 affordable homes is too many for the site.
Devaluation of local property.
Loss of views.
The houses are too close to my property.
Loss of privacy.
Insufficient parking.
Whether this is a suitable location in principle for housing 29. The site is situated within the midst of a very large area of housing in the settlement of Onchan. However, having regard to the previous use of the site as a restaurant, it is identified as being in tourism use by the Onchan Local Plan 2000. The proposal for housing is at variance with the land-use zoning for the site. 30. Notwithstanding, planning approval was granted at appeal in 2009 for the erection of 24 sheltered housing apartments on the site. The appeal was made by a third party against the Planning Authority's decision to grant planning approval, and the Inspector raised no issue about the appropriateness of redevelopment of the site with sheltered housing. On the matter of the principle of development, the Planning Authority took the view that the previous use of the site as a restaurant had caused environmental problems for nearby residents. There had been no proposals to redevelop the site for tourism. The site was surrounded by housing and there seemed no good reason why the site could not be developed for residential purposes. The proposal would make effective use of previously developed land and no objections had been raised by the Inspectors presiding over the previous appeals about redevelopment of the site for sheltered housing. For these reasons, the principle of development was considered acceptable. 31. It is considered that the reasoning equally applies to the current proposal. The site is located within an established urban area and is surrounded by housing. The proposal would make effective use of a brownfield site in a sustainable location, with good access to shops, services, jobs and public transport. The Planning Authority has previously accepted that redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is acceptable and there has been no substantial change in circumstances that should lead it to a different conclusion this time around. The site is felt to be eminently suitable for housing, despite its zoning for tourism use, and the development of the site for housing is therefore acceptable in principle.
The effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the area 32. A substantial amount of effort has been put into revising the scheme by both the agent and planning officer over many months of discussions. The resulting scheme is
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
