Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
14/01198/B
Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 14/01198/B Applicant : Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal : Erection of a development of five detached dwellings with associated garages Site Address : Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 06.11.2014 Site Visit : 06.11.2014 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE, AS THE COMMITTEE HAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED A SIMILAR SCHEME AND AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMEND FOR AN APPROVAL CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF HIGHWAY SERVICES
INTRODUCTION This application was part of a previous Planning Committee agenda with a recommendation for refusal. However, prior to its consideration, the applicant requested a deferral to see if he could overcome the recommendation for refusal. The Committee agreed to this. An amended proposal has been received and has been subject to re-advertisement. This report now considers whether these amendments are appropriate.
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application relates to land adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The site is located to the eastern edge of the village of Sulby. The site is currently only accessed from River Meadowland, a rural lane passing along the south side of the village. The entrance to the site is from the north side of the lane, not far from the junction with Ginger Hall Corner.
1.2 The site is bounded on its north side by the rear of a row of detached bungalows on Carrick Park. On the east side, the site extends to the west side of the A3 main road and then tapers inwards where it adjoins the Ginger Hall Hotel and its car park. To the south is River Meadowland Lane. On the west side, the site adjoins the rear of two detached houses on a small residential cul-de-sac to the west.
1.3 The site has an area of approximately 0.55 hectares (ha) and is broadly square shaped although it tapers inwards on its south east side. The site is undeveloped land and is mostly overgrown. There are a number of trees and bushes along the west boundary. The site falls in a north westerly direction towards the rear of the houses on Carrick Park. There is a low fence on the north side and the site is relatively open to the rear of the properties on Carrick Park. There is a drainage ditch on the inside of this north western perimeter of the site which then runs underneath the A3 main road to the east. On the east side, next to the Ginger Hall
==== PAGE 2 ====
14/01198/B
Page 2 of 13
Hotel, there is a high fence. On the south side, next to River Meadowland Lane, is a roadside lane with a field gate where the access to the development will be located.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a development of five detached dwellings with associated garages.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The land is zoned under the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 as being 'Predominately Residential Use & Woodland'. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
3.2 Due to the site's location, land use designation and the type of development proposed, the following Planning Policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Sulby Local Plan are relevant when determining the application:
3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "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."
3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "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."
3.5 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 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; (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."
==== PAGE 3 ====
14/01198/B
Page 3 of 13
3.6 Housing Policy 1 states: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 6000 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2001 to 2016."
3.7 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."
3.8 Sulby Local Plan (NO.2) Order 1998 - Development Brief states: "3.15. It is recommended that the development of this area shall be undertaken in accordance with the following brief. 1. The residential development of this area shall be limited to two single storey dwellings with plot boundaries designed to allow the maximisation of car parking space for use by the hotel. 2. Any future development proposals shall ensure the retention of the existing trees along the boundary with the Claddagh Road. (B8). 3. Vehicular access for any residential development shall be from the B8. 4. Any development proposals whether for detached houses or hotel car park, shall include a landscaping buffer along the boundaries of the property. 5. The dwellings must be connected to the main foul sewer and no tree planting should be introduced over any part of the foul sewer which crosses the site."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
13/91035/B - application for erection of five detached dwellings with associated garages. The application was refused at appeal for the following reasons:
The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of its cramped and contrived layout, would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.
The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of the inadequately of visibility to the south west, would not be served by a safe and convenient access and thereby would be detrimental to the interest of highway safety.
12/01125/B - application for six dwellings refused in January 2013. The grounds for refusal were:
That the development would result in a cramped and awkward layout that fails to provide adequate levels of amenity space and insufficient space for any landscape buffer.
Insufficient visibility at the access to serve 6 dwellings 2.4m x 36m is required.
11/00155/B - approval granted in 2011 for four dwellings.
09/00504/B - application refused at appeal in 2010 for four plots.
99/02118/B - approval granted in 2006 for two bungalows.
95/01092/A - approval in principle granted at appeal in 1996 for two plots.
==== PAGE 4 ====
14/01198/B
Page 4 of 13
91/00838/A - approval in principle refused for five plots.
90/01993/A - approval in principle refused for plot layout.
89/00755/A - approval in principle granted for dwelling and annex.
88/01528/A - approval in principle refused for four dwellings.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected to the application (received on 13.11.2014, 12.01.15 & 11.08.2015) for the following reasons:
"My Commissioners feel that the proposed 5 dwellings would be an over development of the site, too dense.
They would like to make some further comments in relation to the plans submitted.
The plans submitted are the same plans but with alterations, to those used for the previous application (13/91035). Some of these are quite confusing as the previous information still remains.
Drawing 30 shows the site layout with the altered road. The road would now require the removal of an electricity pole, but no mention is made regarding this in the application.
Drawing 100 which shows surface water drainage still shows the road in the position shown on the previous application. Should the drawings not be consistent with each other?
Drawing 35 shows the new access with a traffic mirror, but the hatched splays are still shown from the previous application as drawing number 09/0513/4. This plan also showed that trees would need to be removed. No mention is made on the current application for the removal of trees.
Mr Sweeney has tried many times to seek permissions to erect dwellings on this site. He has previously used amended drawings with some of these applications. It would be clearer for those judging the application if all drawings gave accurate clear information.
12.01.15 - Same comments as before. 5 dwellings would be an overdevelopment of the site. The Commissioners note that PA 11/00155/B for 4 dwellings was approved on 1st April 2011 is still live."
11.08.2015 - "5 properties developed on this site is too dense. No access to TT course as previously stipulated. Access to this development area is from the Claddagh only."
5.2 Highways Services (received on 10.11.2014 and 16.01.15) object to the application for the following reasons:- "This application has been submitted with a vehicular access designed to overcome the second reason for refusal off PA 13/01035/B that states:
"The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of the inadequacy of visibility to the south west would not be served by a safe and convenient access and thereby would be detrimental to the interests of highway safety."
The access has been relocated to the north east of the site and is therefore able to achieve visibility of some 25m to the south west. This is still below the required visibility splay of 36m. As a result of this the visibility to the north east has been reduced to some 10m over land
==== PAGE 5 ====
14/01198/B
Page 5 of 13
within the applicant's control; basically transferring the reduced visibility from the south west to the north east and achieving no improvement over the previous application.
The frontage of the site is approximately 28m, there is no footway and as such full visibility of 36m in each direction is not possible over land within the applicant's control.
This was recognised during previous applications and an increase in dwellings from 2 to 4 was accepted only on condition that the maximum visibility splays were provided along with a traffic mirror to assist visibility.
This application has provided, overall, less visibility than the previous application that was refused at appeal and therefore Highway Services recommend that the application is refused on the following grounds:
"The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of the inadequacy of visibility would not be served by a safe and convenient access and thereby would be detrimental to the interests of highway safety."
16.01.15 - "The proposed improvement to visibility is over land not within the applicant's control and there is no change to previous comments"
08.06.15 - "This site has a long history of applications with Mr Sweeney adding houses. I have attached my report for the last appeal when the application was also for 5 houses that clearly explains the reasons for my objection. If the applicant wishes to submit the new access layout for 4 dwellings then I will be happy to assess it, but as my report makes clear, the only reason we accepted an increase from 2 dwellings to 4 dwellings was because the original access was incredibly poor and work had started on site; therefore the additional dwellings were offset against an improved access for all. The change in improved visibility from left to right is not significant enough to justify adding more traffic to the access.
Access through plot no 5 would be strongly resisted as this would constitute a new access onto the TT course and is in direct contravention of the Department's Policy Relating to the Hierarchy of the Island's Road Network that has a presumption against new frontage access. If an access was to be permitted at this location then full PPG13 standards would be required; visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m if traffic is travelling at 30mph.
The applicant is fully aware of our stance on all these points as I have discussed each of them with him on several occasions."
5.3 The Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity (received on 10.11.2014) makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
5.4 The owner/occupier of The Shop, Sulby Bridge, Sulby (received on 05.11.2014 & 05.08.2015) has objected to the application which can be summarised as; The village plan has not altered which indicates two dwelling on the site; five dwellings is an over intensive for this site and not in keeping; concerns with surface water and maintenance of field ditch; objects to plot 5 vehicular access of the main road; and proposed access is adjacent to popular bus stop, which will obstruct vision for access and egress, and the stopping of busses.
5.5 The owners/occupiers of Esfahan, Ballamanagh Close, Sulby (received on 18.11.2014) have made the following comments which can be summarised as; a number of trees in site where plot 1 is proposed, a property there would require trees to be removed; selling property may also be difficult due to shade of trees; if scheme is approved as many trees on
==== PAGE 6 ====
14/01198/B
Page 6 of 13
site should be retained; and some self-seeded trees could be removed and replanted with more suitable trees.
5.6 The owner/occupier of 41 Carrick Park, Sulby, has objected to the application which can be summarised as (received on 26th and 27th October 2014 and 2nd, 10th & 24th November 2014 and 3rd, 4th, 5th August 2015); concerns raised for surface water due to capacity of stone culvert under road being blocked by overgrown ditch preventing water to discharge from drainage ditch along boundary of site; main sewer system blocked (6th & 7th November 2014) as flood water had overrun the sewerage works nearby; surface water runoff from the site would run quicker due to hard surfacing proposed which would increase water runoff to the rear drainage ditch which would probably be too fast for the gullies on the development to collect the water; proposed sewer and surface water schemes would fail; a possible solution would be to have a very large drainage pipe which collects the developments storm water into the main storm water pipe that has been installed in the main road; the proposed solution may be cheaper for the developer but not for local residents; maintenance concerns of drainage ditch not been cleared by DOI but by local residents; concerns of applicants company address; does not believe if application is approved that works would be undertaken by applicant and would sell of plots without any services; access is near to a bus stop and we understand a bus shelter too as the area has been prepared for one; access may be above services; and he should get permission for four and start building as the site is a mess.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The following material planning issues should be considered: 1. Principle of Residential Development; 2. Number of Dwellings within the application site; 3. Character and appearance; 4. Highway Issues; 5. Drainage Issues; and 6. Potential Impacts upon Neighbouring Residential Amenity
Principle of Residential Development 6.2 As indicated within the 'Planning Policy' section of this report, the site is designated for residential development; therefore it is considered that the principle of residential development is acceptable.
Number of Dwellings within the Application Site 6.3 The previous Planning Inspector when considering application 13/91035/B for five dwellings accepted that whilst the Sulby Local Plan limited the site to have only two dwellings, a previously approved application (11.00155/B) had allowed four dwellings on the site. The Inspector also considered that the site was in a sustainable location within a village, and the proposed development of five dwellings would make good use of under-used land, therefore according with Strategic Polices 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 4. It was concluded that in principle five dwellings on this site was acceptable. Accordingly, it is considered the principle of five dwellings on this site is acceptable.
Character and appearance 6.4 Whilst the principle of five dwelling is acceptable, consideration is still needed to whether five are achievable. Whether the site can accommodate a dwelling on each of the proposed five plots was an area of concern with the previous application. The Inspector for that application commented that:
"I find the proposed layout to be contrived and cramped. For example, the bungalow on Plot 5 would be tucked into a corner with outlook over the rear of the bungalows on Plots 1 and 2; and the outlook from the bungalow on Plot 3 would be towards the side of the bungalow on Plot 2."
==== PAGE 7 ====
14/01198/B
Page 7 of 13
6.5 This new proposal does involve the alteration of the plots so that all the front elevations face onto the main estate road. The layout is considered a vast improvement over the previous schemes each dwelling having front and rear gardens and each dwelling would have clear and pleasant outlook not overlooking each other as previously commented. Potential plots 1 and 2 would ideally be positioned further forward to provide each dwelling with a greater rear garden; however, this is not considered to be a significant issue to warrant a refusal.
6.6 In terms of design, each of the proposed dwellings is identical in footprint, height, design and finish. Each dwelling would have a maximum width of 13.5 metres, a depth of 10.6 metres, and a ridge height of 6.7 metres.
6.7 The proposed dwellings would be single storey bungalows with a modern fenestration. There would be projecting bay windows to the front elevations. The frontage of the bungalows would be finished with a Rustic facing brick or stone, whilst the three remaining elevations of each dwelling would have painted render. The roof would be finished with natural slate. Each dwelling would also have a chimney stack, again finished with Rustic facing brick or stone.
6.8 The dwellings in terms of design, proportion, form and finish would follow similar lines to modern properties within Carrick Park and Ballamanagh Close.
6.9 In terms of the design and size of the properties in relation to the street scene, the dwelling sited on Plot 5 would be the most apparent from public view. The dwelling would be angled in relation to the adjacent highway and therefore the front and gable elevation would be apparent form public views. The dwelling would be located approximately 9.8 metres from the public footpath which runs along the north-eastern boundary of the site. In terms of built development along the Sulby Bridge (i.e. along the pubic highway) there are a number of properties which are similar in distance to the proposed dwelling, as well as a number of properties which directly adjoin the highway.
6.10 The proposed siting of the dwellings also takes into account the existing foul sewerage pipe which runs through the site, which requires a 6 metre service corridor set centrally (3 metres either side) where no built development is permitted. A surface water retention device is also included within the site.
6.11 In terms of design, concerns were raised by the previous Inspector (13/91035/B) that the five bungalows appeared "monotonous, with scant regard to local distinctiveness". Whilst the new proposals are of the same design, scale and form the finish of the dwellings has been altered with plots 1, 2 and 3 being finished in rustic brick and painted render, which plot 3 and 5 being finished with a mixture of stone and painted render. Whilst comments made by the Inspector are relevant, it is considered given these slight alterations to the finishes and as permission for similar scale, form and finishes was accepted under application 11/00155/B; it is considered the design of the dwellings are acceptable. Consequently, it is considered that the proposals would be appropriate and would not have an adverse visual impact upon the visual amenities of the area.
Highway Issues 6.12 As part of the submission, alterations are required to be undertaken to the existing entrance. As indicated previously the entrance accesses onto the stretch of the Ballamanagh Road, which is within a 20mph zone and is also just before the junction to Lezayre Road (A3).
6.13 The applicant's plan shows that 2.4m x 19.5m visibility splays can be achieved in a south-westerly direction (i.e. when leaving the site looking towards the Claddagh Campsite),
==== PAGE 8 ====
14/01198/B
Page 8 of 13
whilst splays of 2.4m x 36m can be achieved in a north-easterly direction (when leaving the site looking towards the Ginger Hall Pub).
6.14 This access is identical to the previously approved access under application 11/00155/B for four dwellings. It is again proposed that four dwellings would utilise this access. To achieve the splay in a westerly direction (2.4m x 36m) requires the removal of two trees and the lowering of the bank/hedge to 1.05m. The removal of these two trees would be contrary to the Development Brief within the Sulby Local Plan which states:-
"2. Any future development proposals shall ensure the retention of existing trees along the boundary with the Claddagh Road."
6.15 However, from previous discussions with the Forestry Division on site, it was determined that one of the trees was approximately 90% dead, whilst the other tree had little quality and they would have no objection to the removal of the trees. All remaining trees along the boundary are to be retained.
6.16 A point which the Forestry Division raised and the applicant has indicated on the submitted plan is additional tree planting in the vicinity of the existing trees so to mitigate the loss of the two trees. The applicant has indicated an area adjacent to the existing, were more trees could be planted without affecting the visibility splays or the development.
6.17 It should be noted that the current entrance to the site was undertaken as approved in application 99/02118/B, which was for two dwellings. That application, which as been formally commenced by the construction of this access, considered the matter at length and was approved with required visibility splays of 2.4m x 2.4 m. This access has been started, although the tarmac has not been laid. This provides very little visibility, albeit it was for two dwellings and therefore it could be argued these would generate less traffic than the now proposed four dwellings.
6.19 However, it is considered that the proposed improvement to the visibility splays would improve highway safety, even though more vehicles would use the access. This issue was previously addressed by the Planning Committee in detail and was not a reason for refusal of the previous application (09/00504/B) and was considered acceptable when application 11/00155/B for four dwelling was recently approved, again by the Planning Committee. Highway Services also have no objection to this aspect of the proposal.
6.20 Arguably, one of the main issues with this current proposal is the inclusion of a new vehicular access onto the Main Road (TT course) which would serve the dwelling within plot 5 only. This new access would be located adjacent to the Ginger Hall Pub car park. The access would provide the required visibility splays of 2.4m by 90 metres in both directions. It is noted that the visibility from this access is greater than the required 90 metres in both directions. Accordingly, in terms of visibility the access would be acceptable.
6.21 The issue which raises significant concern form Highway Services is the creation of an additional access onto a 'primary distributor routes'. Highway Services have indicated that the policy is against new frontage access onto primary distributor routes in towns and presumption against new on strategic routes in rural areas or district distributors in towns. The reason is that these routes are primarily for through traffic and each access point provides a possible conflict point due to turning vehicles. Each conflict point increases the risk of collisions or delay along these routes. Furthermore, they indicate that they try to locate access points onto local residential roads or collate them together so that a single access serves several properties. Accesses onto these higher level routes also require longer visibility splays as drivers have a longer reaction time when travelling on commuter type routes rather than residential roads.
==== PAGE 9 ====
14/01198/B
Page 9 of 13
6.22 Whilst the Planning Directorate acknowledges the reasoning for not wishing new access on 'primary distributor routes', in this case there are considered arguments for allowing the proposed access. Firstly, the access is within Sulby Village where a number of existing road junctions and residential access in the immediate locality to the site. Accordingly, the character of the area is one where a number of accesses are and persons travelling along this stretch of road would be aware of persons potentially wishing to turn in or out of their access/junction. Second, the site is immediately adjacent to the Ginger Hall Pub car park which has two points of access onto the same Main Road and again persons would be awre of potential from traffic to turn or exit from. Thirdly, the site is within a 30mph zone, between two bends and therefore traffic speeds are relatively low. Fourthly, the access meets the requirement for visibility when exiting the site; but it is also important to note that persons travelling along the Main Road from either direction of the access, would have good visibility of the access and any vehicle exiting/turning in or from the access. Accordingly, whilst the proposal would result in a new access onto a 'primary distributor routes', for the reasons given, it does not considered the access would have a significantly adverse impact upon highway safety to all road users to warrant a refusal.
6.23 Overall, it is considered both access would be acceptable and therefore considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Drainage Issues 6.21 One main concern from a number of nearby residents relates to concern of the soakaways/surface water drainage which could lead to future flooding of the surrounding area.
6.22 The MUA have previously had detailed discussions with the applicant during the consideration of earlier applications. These applications were not refused on drainage issues.
6.23 The applicant has employed Structural Engineering Services Ltd to carry out drainage calculations for the proposal. The surface water is indicated as being collected in a piped system and then discharged into the existing drainage ditch located along the North West site boundary. The report also indicates that the existing drainage ditch to the north is to be cleaned out and its profile regularised. The discharge will be via a vortex device and retention pipes. Vortex flow control devices use an air-filled core to limit the volume of water flow to a designed constant rate while the head builds up. They are constructed with stainless steel with no moving parts and operate by directing the flow to rotate inside a cylindrical vessel towards a central outlet. This generates a vortex with an air filled core which allows the openings to be larger than the equivalent conventional orifice, reducing the likelihood of blockages. As the cross-sectional area of the outlet of the Hydro-Brake Flow Control can be up to six times that of the equivalent orifice plate, maintenance is far easier and there is much less risk of blockage.
6.24 A surface water retention device (oversized pipes or culvert sections) is also proposed in conjunction with the Vortex discharge device to restrict outfall to 3.8L/s, in compliance with Manx Sewers.
6.25 The report has also indicated that during the detailed design stage (Building Regulations Application) exploratory methods of reducing the volume of attenuation by utilising soakaways, swales, permeable paving (gravel is proposed for driveways) and the collection and recycling of roof drainage (rain water harvesting),will be examined.
6.26 This method of drainage has previously been approved under application 11/00155/B, albeit for four dwellings not five. However; this scheme was again submitted as part of the last application for five dwellings where the Inspector stated: "In reaching that view I have taken into account all other matters raised, including neighbour's comments about drainage. However, in my view, this is something that could be resolved by a planning condition"
==== PAGE 10 ====
14/01198/B Page 10 of 13
6.27 The Inspector recommended the following condition:
"No development shall commence of the ditch until details of surface water drainage, including arrangements for the drainage of the ditch on the north west boundary of the site and a programme for implementation, have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall not be carried out unless in full accordance with the approved details."
Potential Impacts upon Neighbouring Residential Amenities 6.28 The main issues to consider regarding the impacts upon neighbouring amenities are loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
6.29 Visiting the site and considering the plans it is considered given the design, size, height and distance to proposed dwellings would be from neighbouring properties, the proposal would not result in significant impacts to warrant a refusal. The existing boundary treatments and the proposed would further ensure the protection of existing neighbouring amenities by the development.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Based on the information provided as part of this application, it is judged that the proposal would comply with the majority of the relevant planning policies indicated within the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 and all the relevant policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, with the exception of paragraph 1 of the Development Brief which states; "The residential development of this area shall be limited to a maximum of two detached dwellings".
7.2 However, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the remaining planning policies, particularly, Strategic Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which due to the inconsistency between the provisions of the Strategic Plan and the provisions of the Sulby Local Plan are the prevailing policies to consider. It is therefore considered that whilst the proposal is contrary to part of the relevant Development Brief, the development would optimise the use of the land, comply with the aforementioned policies and comply with the majority of the Development Brief.
7.3 Furthermore, the proposals would provide a suitable layout for the estate, have no significant impacts upon neighbouring amenities; provide dwellings of an acceptable design in this area, and provided access which would not adversely impact upon highway safety Accordingly, the application is recommended for an approval.
8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 as modified by the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered
==== PAGE 11 ====
14/01198/B Page 11 of 13
to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: The owner/occupier of The Shop, Sulby Bridge, Sulby The owners/occupiers of Esfahan, Ballamanagh Close, Sulby The owner/occupier of 41 Carrick Park, Sulby
8.3 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 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: The Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity
"With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order".
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.08.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular accesses have both been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 3. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials and any fencing. The hard landscaping works shall be completed
==== PAGE 12 ====
14/01198/B Page 12 of 13
in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
C 4. Prior to any works on site, a traffic mirror shall be erected opposite the southerly most access to the site to assist the visibility of traffic approaching from the south west. The mirror should be maintained in perpetuity to assist visibility.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated 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.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
C 6. 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 landscaping. 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.
Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.
C 7. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 8. Prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwelling on Plot 5 the access as shown on drawing 36, date-stamped as having been received 4th September 2015, must be completed in accordance with this approved plan. Furthermore, visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 90 metres in both directions are required to be provided by this access serving Plot 5 and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
--
This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 14, 16, 09 0513/3, 15 A, Preliminary Drainage Calculation all received on 17th October 2014; drawings reference number 11 received on 24th November 2014; drawings reference number 100 C received on 1st December
==== PAGE 13 ====
14/01198/B Page 13 of 13
2014; drawings reference numbers 6, 7, 13 received on 30th December 2014; and drawings reference numbers 09 0513/4 A and 36 received on 3rd July 2015.
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 : ...PER... Committee Meeting
Date:...07.09.2015
Signed :...C BALMER... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
The Committee endorsed the recommendation subject to adding an additional condition of approval (numbered 8) relating to the access to the site at plot 5. Visibility splays as demonstrated must be maintained and kept thereafter.
Wording of the condition was circulated and endorsed via the committee minutes
EJC 9/9/15
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal