Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal : Site Address: 14/0H19/B Mr Mark Pearce Creation of a temporary construction access Land Off Station Road St Johns Isle Of Man Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Miss S E Corlett Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE AND DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE HIGHWAY SERVICES RECOMMEND THAT THERE IS NO HIGHWAY SAFETY ISSUE AND THE APPUCATION IS BEING REFUSED FOR REASONS RELATING TO THIS THE SITE 1.1 TTie Site is an artificially defined strip of land which leaves Station Road in the centre of St, John's between the post office and the Coach House and runs through the land to the east to join land to the south of two fields to the south of the main road and which continue to the south of the Balladoyne housing development. This area is undeveloped but identified as suitable for development on the St. John's Local Plan of 1999. The site is 145m long and generally 3m wide although at the Station Road end the site widens out to 12m, 1.2 The site is stated in the application form to be owned by Diane Marchment however the application drawings seem to imply that the site, or part of it, is owned by Isle of Man Government. It understood that the Government does not own any of the application site. Fo Chrenk (plus its garage). West View (plus its garage) Reayrt Juys (plus its garage) and the Central Stores and Post Office all have a right of access over the proposed construction route area. There is also a pedestrian right of way beside Fo Chrenk to the school which is required to be maintained. THE PROPOSAL 2,1 Proposed is the construction of a route for construction related traffic associated with the development of the land to the east of the site to use during development. The road will be generally 3m wide and wider at the entrance from Station Road where it will be 6m wide. The road follows the route into the site as shown on earlier applications for the development of two plots on the main part of the site (see Planning History). However, it then extends Hirther east to join the site to the east. 2.2 Visibility at the exit from the site onto Station Road is given as 2m by 36m although this can be blocked by parked vehicles. This visibility has been enhanced through the lowering of the wall on the southern side of the access following a recommendation in an earlier application (see Planning HistoY)- 14/01419/B Page 1 of 9
==== PAGE 2 ====
2.3 The application is proposed as the development land to the east is landlocked with no other feasible or available means of access to the site for construction traffic. Once development of that land is complete, access for the occupiers of the dwellings can be through Balladoyne estate to the north. The application states that the access will be closed off once development is complete. There are no drawings or indications that any of the access road will be taken back up, only that the access will be closed off. They confirm that the principle of residential development on the application site has been found acceptable under PA li/00690/B which was refused but not for reasons relating to the principle of residential development on the site and other applications have found favourable the principle of the development of the land to the east for six dwellings: as such they believe that the sole issue in this current application is the suitability of the effect of the construction traffic on highway conditions in Station Road. Since the previous decisions on this site, the applicant has achieved the lowering of the roadside wall to the south of the entrance and has observed that road markings including double yellow parking restriction lines have been introduced which has significantly improved access into the site. 2.4 Whilst the access Is intended to be temporary it is anticipated that due to market conditions it may be in place for up to 18 months. Of the six houses, two are "already spoken for" and the applicant has had enquiries about the remaining four. It is their intention to build the dwellings on the land to the east to the highest standards of environmental friendliness, constructed traditionally to the sub base and then timber framed above. The timber frames and associated materials will arrive on flat bed trailers or wagons - two per house for the walls and roof and each dwelling taking 6 months to complete. 2.5 Construction traffic will enter and leave the site from and to the south. When larger vehicles are anticipated banksmen will be employed for their access and egress. Signage will be erected to warn of vehicles accessing and egressing the site. The applicant states that if required access could be through the Department of Infrastructure car park opposite, thus obviating the need for turning into and out of the site. The applicant states that the site boundary will be secured by 1.8m high fencing. The applicant company is involved in other developments close to school premises and consider themselves "well placed" to carry out this work. 2.6 No material is to be removed from site and the works which will be serviced by the construction route would be stripping of the site, levelling of the site, construction of the access road to base level with kerblines, footways and the road surface, dig and construct foundations and erection of the dwellings. Once heavy machinery has been brought to the site, it will remain there for the duration of the works.The applicant indicates that the Balladoyne Road will not be used to give access to and within the site until the houses have been certified complete by Building Control. 2.7 Hours of work are anticipated as being 0730-1730hrs on weekdays and 0730-1300hrs on Saturdays. Sunday is not anticipated as being used for working, although may be required "for certain operations". Deliveries will be between 0915hrs and 1200 and i300-1500hrs and 1600-1730hrs with vehicles turning within the site (presumably the housing site). 2.8 The applicant will ensure that access to the properties which have a right of access over the site will have access at all times, The applicant indicates that peak times for south bound traffic on Station Road is between 0800 and 0900hrs and northbound is between 1700hrs and ISOOhrs. Peak time traffic in both directions equates to 3 vehicles per minute. Traffic generally travels within the speed limit although around 7% of traffic has been observed exceeding this, all within 1200 and 1300hrs. 6.8% of traffic in both directions comprises buses or trucks, PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY Page 2 of 9 14/01419/B
==== PAGE 3 ====
3.2 The site lies within an area designated on the St. John's Local Plan as Proposed Primary School. This was one of two sites identified, the other being the one which was developed for this purpose. 3,3 The Plan contains the following development brief: "AREA 6: LAND SOUTH OF EXISTING SCHOOL It is now likely that proposals for the development of a new primary school are to be 2.15 pursued on the car park site (see paragraph 2.14 above) and as such the future of the land to the immediate south of the existing school should be considered as this will probably not now be required to be reserved for educational purposes (see paragraphs 7.3 and 7.7.). It is considered that the site would be capable of accommodating two dweilings as an acceptable form of infill development with vehicular access provided from Station Road." 3.4 The land to the rear of Balladoyne is identified in the Plan as suitable for development, but subject of a number of conditions, including the following: "d, The application for the development of the site must include an indication of the temporary route to be used by construction traffic and such route must not be through the Balladoyne estate. Such a temporary route must be removed and the site made good when construction works are completed. Permanent access to the site after the development is completed may be taken through the Balladoyne estate," e, 3.5 The Strategic Plan contains policies which are considered relevant in this case: 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." Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users." 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: g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality and i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways". PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications, some associated with the development of the land to the east and others not. 4.2 Most recently PA 14/01203/B proposed the erection of a detached dwelling with associated garage and was approved but an appeal is in process. This application included access through the current application site but only as far as the proposed dwelling. The decision included the following condition: 4. There shall be no access for construction traffic through to the adjoining land to the east and access to the 2 dwellings shall be taken only from Station Road. 14/01419/B Page 3 of 9
==== PAGE 4 ====
Reason: in the interests of highway safety and the safety and convenience of those living in the vicinity of the site. 4.3 PA 14/00652/B proposed the erection of a dwelling with attached garage and was refused on 17th July 2014. This was refused on the basis that the plans did not include any Information on existing trees within the site and why so many were shown as being removed. PA 14/00653/B proposed the erection of a detached dweliing with associated garage on the other plot and was refused for the same reason. 4.4 PA 11/00690/B proposed residential estate layout of six plots, roads and sewers including temporary construction access to site off Station Road. This was refused at Appeal on 2nd April, 2012. The reason for refusal of this proposal was "The proposed temporary construction access would have a materially adverse effect on highway conditions in Station Road, to the detriment of the safety of pedestrians and drivers". The inspector comments that considering market conditions, the access is likely to be in place for more than a year (paragraph 24) and In her view, conditions in Station Road were already dangerous and the use of the access by construction vehicles would increase the dangers. In her opinion the risk of an accident is too real and too serious to be tolerated for the length of time that it would take to build an estate of 6 dwellings. She noted that on her site visit it was necessary for her to pull right out into the carriageway beyond the cars parked on the roadside in order to check for on-coming traffic which she considered dangerous, made worse by the fact that, within the visibility splays there is a shop, a post office and a footpath used frequently by young school children (her paragraph 23). She concluded that, "The proposed temporary construction access would have a materially adverse effect on highway conditions in Station Road, to the detriment of the safety of pedestrians and drivers" (paragraph 29). There were no objections to the application from the ht. 4.5 PA 11/00241/B proposed an estate layout for two detached dwellings and garages with associated access road, drainage and other services and access for construction traffic to adjacent land which was approved at Appeal. This approval was subject to a number of conditions including the following: 3. Notwithstanding what is shown on Drawing no 0725/PL100 Rev C, there shall be no access for construction traffic through to the adjoining land to the east. 4. No approval is granted for the siting, size or orientation of the dwellings' footprints shown on Drawing 0725/PL100C. 5. All existing trees and hedges within the application site, with the exception of those shown to be removed on Drawing No 725/PLlOOC, must be retained and afforded adequate protection during the development of the site, in accordance with a tree protection scheme that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. 6. Prior to the commencement of works, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority showing the trees to be planted as replacements for those proposed to be removed, together with a timetable for their planting. The trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme. If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, another of the same species and size shall be planted at the same place. 7. Access to the 2 dwellings shall be taken only from Station Road. Page 4 of 9 14/01419/B
==== PAGE 5 ====
==== PAGE 6 ====
area are becoming more successful, particularly ones which do not have their own parking facilities. 5.3 The owners of Brushwood in Balladoyne indicate that the plans show that the road outside their property is to be widened (this is outside the red line area) and they indicate that they own this land (letter dated 08.01.15). They suggest that the yellow lines which are suggested by the applicant as being introduced since the last application were in fact in place before then and where the inspector recommended that the access was not suitable. The time controlled parking areas do not extend to the south of the access and as such have no bearing on the safety of the proposed access, They suggest that the applicant has not demonstrated that they have control over the roadway and footway such as to ensure that visibility splays are kept free from obstructions. They do not believe that the applicant owns all of the site necessary to implement this approval. They believe that the noise and disturbance generated by the construction traffic will be disadvantageous to the health of their family. 5.4 The owners of 10, Balladoyne indicates that there is no stated need for this development (07.01.15) and if approved this could imply that the development of the land to the rear and side of Balladoyne is acceptable, 5.5 The headteacher at Bunscoill Ghaelgagh objects to the application (07.01.15) on the basis that children walk along the public footpath which is a safe route to their school facilities. She makes reference to the height and design of buildings which is not relevant to this current application which does not proposed any built development, and the removal of trees and hedges which would be detrimental to the wildlife of the area. They advise that as a school, they are likely to generate noise which may affect those living alongside, which again is not relevant to the current application. 5.6 The owners of Struan Beg object to the application (15.01.15). They suggest that the plans are confusing in terms of which trees are to be removed and the principle of having a construction access through this land has previously been refused. The recommended works to improve the visibility available at the access - ie reducing the height of the wall have not been implemented in full and the distribution box and pole also impede visibility. Small children will not be visible on the approach from the south. In addition, vehicles park illegally around the entrance and the applicant cannot control the visibility splays to remain available. The situation in St. John's is changing, with increases in housing development in Peel and the resultant traffic passing through the village, operations at the DEFA Sawmill have been centralised, creating more traffic, businesses within the village are becoming more successful and the main road has been closed in the past, resulting in more traffic using this part of the village. They are concerned that there is no mention of where vehicles will turn within the site. If construction vehicles will be coming to the site from the car park opposite, this may be even more dangerous as visibility from that side is limited and emerging vehicles will have to encroach into the road to see anything approaching. They believe that there should be a hazard identification and risk assessment undertaken which determines whether the access is suitable. 5.7 German Parish Commissioners express concern about road safety and feel that ingress and egress into the access road will cause problems. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of an access into this land for construction in relation to land further east has already been considered in at least two previous applications, PAs 11/00690/B and 11/00241/B both of which determined that a construction access here would be unacceptable (see paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5). As such, this is a material consideration, and arguably the starting point for the consideration of this application, and it is relevant to consider what, if Page 6 of 9 14/01419/B
==== PAGE 7 ====
any changes there have been since those decisions which would justify a different decision in this case. 6.2 There have been changes to the road network in that there is now an H-bar marking which indicates that parking is not acceptabie across the entrance to the car park. Whiist there is a suggestion that doubie yeiiow iines have been introduced to the south of the site, these are clearly visibie in the photographs provided for the 2011 appiications aithough they may have been iengthened since to come closer to the entrance, Notwithstanding this, on the planning officer's site visits, vehicles have been seen parked on the double yellow lines to the south and obscuring visibility. The enforcement of the parking restrictions is therefore an issue. In any case, visibility to the south is still hampered by the lamp post, electricity pole and the service box, Visibility to the right is open to being restricted by legally parked vehicles although the view of approaching pedestrians is better than to the south. V/hilst the stone wall has been lowered to promote better visibility to the south, health and safety requirements have resulted in this not being lowered to the full extend originally required by Department of Infrastructure Highway Services although the service box and poles remain and impede visibility somewhat. 6.3 The area which is to provide access is used for access by those with properties alongside and is also used by those using the shop, for car parking on a temporary basis. On the last site visit there were two vehicles using the area, one intending to park and the other emerging from the rear of the site. If the area is used for a construction route, it will not be possible to park in the area without potentially coming into contact and potential conflict with construction traffic, and the safety of other vehicles using the rear lane will be compromised. There will not be enough space left over outwith the area reserved for the construction traffic route for vehicles to be able to turn without encroaching into the construction traffic route. Whilst a banksman may be present to assist traffic flow (and this is not something which could be effectively controlled by planning condition), this person is unlikely to be able to control traffic movements within the area or to prevent vehicles entering the area, which they may well not have the authority to do. 6.4 In addition to the concerns about highway safety above, the route for the construction traffic comes close to a number of trees. However, following clarification of the position of the trees, by way of a further plan, 1030/PL100 received on 5th February, 2015 which reconciles the tree trunks and canopy spreads, it is clear that there is sufficient space at the east of the site to accommodate construction traffic withou damage to the trees, providing that the trees are adequately protected, This could be covered by condition, The remaining trees to the west will be affected during the construction of a dwelling on plot 2 and would be affected no more by what is proposed here. 6.5 It is fully understood that the development site which is to be accessed is allocated for development in the St. John's Local Plan and there appear to be limited, if any means of accessing this, given that the development brief for the site specifically prohibits the use of Balladoyne as the construction access route and that subsequent applications for this have been refused. It is also appreciated that the applicant has endeavoured to improve his proposal by restricting the timing of deliveries to avoid school opening and closing times, However, these periods do not avoid the morning and evening peak traffic times and include part of the lunchtime period when more people may be visiting the various catering facilities in the area. The restriction of deliveries does not restrict other heavy traffic - for example excavators or other plant or machinery. The restrictions on the realisation of development land does not mean that an access route which is considered unacceptable has to be granted approval and the owner of the land must have been aware of the access issues when the site was purchased. The most recent decisions which refer to the construction route through the application land also make it clear that there is a significant issue with using the Station Road access. Whilst approval has been granted for the use of the access for the servicing of two 14/01419/B Page 7 of 9
==== PAGE 8 ====
dwellings and their associated development, it is not considered that this goes on to justify the construction access for a further 6 dwellings, Indeed, the 2011 applications deal with this very issue. 6.6 In summary, whilst there is sympathy with the owners of the land which is indicated in the St. John's Plan as being suitable for development in not being able to take up this designation, the highway safety issues resulting from the creation of a construction route through the application land are such as to justify refusal of the current application. PARTY STATUS 7.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "Interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. 7.3 The following parties own land which abuts the site and should be considered interested persons in this case: The residents of Struan Beg, the owners of Balladoyne Farm The owners of St. John's Post Office and General Stores 7.4 The head teacher of Bunscoill Ghaelgagh is affected by the proposal in that some of her pupils use the construction access as a route to the school and as such is considered to be affected by the proposal such as to warrant being considered an interested person 7.5 The residents of 7 and 10, Balladoyne are not alongside the site and whilst the plans submitted show works to the roadway outside their property, this is not part of the development proposed in the current application nor within the application site. As such they are not considered to be interested persons in this respect. Both of the 2011 applications had sites which extended across to Balladoyne whereas the current application does not and as such the interested person status assessment is subject to different criteria. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.01.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 ; Notes attached to refusals R 1. It has not been demonstrated that there will remain available to users of the access visibility splays onto Station Road in both directions which will render the access safe for both vehicles Page 8 of 9 14/01419/B
==== PAGE 9 ====
and pedestrians using Station Road and the associated footways, due to the presence of electricity pole, streetlight, service box and parked vehicles (those parked both legally and illegally). The use of this area for the construction traffic associated with land to the east has been considered at least twice previously (PAs 11/00241/B and 11/00690/B) and has found to be unacceptable. The changes which have occurred since then are not considered to have overcome these objections sufficient to now consider the access suitable for construction traffic. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Transport Policies 4 and 6 and General Policy 2g and i. This decision relates to drawings 01 andl030/PL100 and received on 11th December, 2014, and 1030/PL101A and 1030/PL102A both received on 29th December, 2014. 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 : Committee Meeting Date :.. Signed :... Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). YES/NO Signatory to delete as appropriate 14/01419/B Page 9 of 9
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
