Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00108/B
Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00108/B Applicant : Mr Robin Smith Proposal : Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of a pair of link detached dwellings with integral garaging Site Address : Burnside Cottage Main Road Union Mills Isle of Man IM4 4AG
Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken : 17.02.2015 Site Visit : 17.02.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of Burnside Cottage, a predominant single storey dwelling with roof accommodation located on the eastern side of Burnside Lane in Union Mills. The existing dwelling has stone finish to the northern elevation with a render finish to the remainder of the building. The dwelling has some roof accommodation.
1.3 Immediately to the east of the application site is a large detached industrial building which forms part of a builders/industrial yard. To the south of the application site is The Old Chapel that has recently been granted planning approval for use as a children's nursery which is now operating. Directly adjacent to the application site to the west is a lane serving the rear of Maitland Terrace. To the north west of the site is a parking area and further north/north west of the application site are open fields.
2.0 PROPOSAL
2.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings with integral garaging.
2.2 The dwellings together would have a length of 15.7 metres and a depth of 8.5 metres. The northernmost dwelling would have a ridge height of 7.1 metres and the southernmost dwelling would have a ridge height of 7.4 metres. The dwellings would be finished with a smooth render painted white with a cedar boarding panel to each front elevation. The roof would have grey concrete interlocking tiles.
2.3 Each dwelling would be set over two floors, the ground floor accommodating a hall, lounge, kitchen/diner and Utility. Each first floor would accommodate three bedrooms, a bathroom and landing area.
2.4 Externally, each dwelling would have a separate driveway, single parking space, and garden area to the front. The northernmost dwelling would have a front garden area of approximately 22sqm and the southernmost dwelling would have a garden area of around 26.95sqm. To the rear would be a patio and garden. The patio areas would have an area of
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00108/B
Page 2 of 8
10sqm. The rear garden area of the northernmost dwelling would have an area of about 15.25sqm and the southernmost dwelling would have a rear garden area of around 12.92sqm.
2.5 The development would also result in the loss of a holly and sycamore tree within the existing garden of Burnside Cottage. An email included within the planning application between the agent and Arboricultural Officer of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture states that DEFA would not object to their removal if planning permission was granted.
2.6 The rear boundary would of the northern dwelling would be situated 0.5 to 1 metres from the industrial building and the rear boundary of the southern dwelling would be between 1.1 and 1.6 metres from the building. The ridge height of the industrial building is 7.9 metres.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is an area designated as Predominantly Residential under the Braddan Local Plan 1991.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains five policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
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."
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;
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00108/B
Page 3 of 8
(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."
Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
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."
Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Braddan Parish Commissioners have no objection to the current planning application (02/03/2015).
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Services oppose the current planning application on the following grounds:
The garages are below the standard of 5m x 3m and there is only one other off road car parking space provided therefore the parking standard of 2 spaces per dwelling is not provided.
Nevertheless, Highways Services go on to state that if the application is to be approved the following condition should be attached:
"The garages and car parking spaces are to remain free from obstruction and available for the parking of a vehicle associated with the development thereafter."
Reason: to ensure that 2 car parking spaces are required. (24/02/2015)
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 There are a number of key issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application which are set out below:
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00108/B
Page 4 of 8
1) the principle of development; 2) the impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene; 3) the impacts upon the residential amenities of surrounding residents; 4) the amenity levels of future occupants of the proposed dwellings; and 5) the parking provision and highway issues.
6.2 THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2.1 As indicated within the policy section of this report the site is designated as predominantly residential. Consequently, the principle of having two dwellings on this site is acceptable. However, this does not automatically make the current proposal acceptable, as additional considerations need addressing such as whether the site can provide adequate parking provision, can external and internal amenity be provided for example. These issues will be considered later in this report.
6.2 THE IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE
6.2.1 Firstly, it is essential to comment on the loss the sycamore and holly trees and other shrubbery. As previously mentioned, DEFA would not object to their loss should planning permission be granted. It was considered during a site visit that the trees and shrubbery currently in existence did not contribute to the visual amenity of the area for their loss to warrant a reason for refusal.
6.2.2 The application site is located 34 metres north of the A1 and is situated to the rear of The Old Chapel. From the A1, it is unlikely that the development will be viewed in its entirety given the location of the application site, the narrowness of Burnisde Lane and the existing vegetation along the south eastern boundary of Orrisdale and adjacent to the south western boundary of The Old Chapel.
6.2.3 Travelling along Burnside Lane and to the rear of Maitland Terrace the new dwellings would be visible in their entirety. Any development must be considered to "respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them" as stated within General Policy 2 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
6.2.4 Visiting the surrounding area it was noted that to the east of the site is a builders/industrial yard, to the south is The Old Chapel and to the west is Maitland Terrace, a row of four terraced dwellings. On the southern side of the A1 is a mix of detached dwellings. Further west of the application site are two single storey buildings.
6.2.5 The existing building to be replaced is not considered to be of any particular architectural merit that would warrant a reason to retain the building. The building is not considered to contribute architecturally to the locality and as previously identified, is partially hidden from most public views from the A1.
6.2.6 In terms of the design and appearance of the dwellings proposed, there is not an overriding house design or form within the locality, disregarding Maitland Terrace. The application not directly adjoin, form or follow on from another residential layout, terrace or estate. The dwellings proposed are a fairly standard design and would not be of an appearance or form that would be particularly be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. The use of the cedar boarding panel on the front elevation does add a slight feature to the dwellings.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00108/B
Page 5 of 8
6.2.7 There is at present a single dwelling with a fairly large garden on site. What is proposed under this scheme is the erection of two dwellings. It is certainly the case that a single dwelling as a replacement for the existing could be accommodated satisfactorily on the site given that this is the current situation.
6.2.8 The erection of two dwellings on this site has significantly resulted in a lack of external amenity space being provided for each dwelling. In addition to this the industrial building to the east of the site would sit within extremely close proximity to the two dwellings. It is acknowledged that the amenity of the semi-detached properties would be characterised by a poor outlook from their rear elevations and would receive little daylight. They would both have a very small useable private garden and patio area to the rear dominated by the western elevation of the industrial building. The layout does result in limited private outdoor space to serve the semi-detached dwellings. Furthermore, due to the position and orientation of the semi-detached dwellings, they would have a poor relationship with other buildings and users of the locality, with particular regard to users of the builders/industrial yard, residents of Maitland Terrace and users of the children's nursery. This further undermines the acceptability of the proposed scheme.
6.2.9 Overall, the development proposed under this scheme would constitute over development of the site and would not respect the site and surroundings in terms of the layout, scale, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around.
6.3 IMAPACTS UPON THE AMENITIES OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS
6.3.1 Generally when considering potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities there are three main issues; loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. In this instance, there are no dwellings within a close proximity of the development for the aforementioned impacts to arise. The development is not considered to impact upon the amenities of the builders/industrial yard or children's' nursery, both of which are commercial operations and would most likely general disturbances to the residential properties.
6.4 THE AMENITY LEVELS OF FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPOSED DWELLINGS
6.4.1 Firstly when considering such issues, General Policy 2 (h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan requires consideration. This policy indicates that any development should provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
6.4.2 As identified previously, to the rear of the application site is a large industrial estate that would measure 500mm above the proposed dwellings and would be no more than 1.6 metres from the rear gardens and 4.3 metres from the rear elevation of the proposed dwellinghouses.
6.4.3 There would be two windows on the first floor of the rear elevation of each dwellinghouse and windows and patio doors on the ground floor plus windows to the garage. Due to the proximity and height of the industrial building the rear elevation windows of the two dwellings would not have a pleasant and clear outlook nor would the outlook and views from the rear garden be pleasant and satisfactory. In addition to this, the rear gardens are unlikely to receive a satisfactory level of natural light given the orientations of the properties and proximity of the industrial building. The dwellings may receive a little level of light as the sun is at its highest but not a great degree.
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00108/B
Page 6 of 8
6.4.4 The first floor front windows would directly face the rear of Maitland Terrace with oblique views over to the fields to the north west of the application site. The ground floor windows would directly face the front garden and rear of Maitland Terrace with again, oblique views over to the fields to the north west of the application site.
6.4.5 The external amenity space available also raises concern. Both dwellings would have little amenity space, with a small garden to the rear immediately adjacent to an industrial building, which would have little in the way of sunlight throughout the day. There would also be a small area to the fronting which is also limiting. Overall, it is considered the dwellings would not benefit from an acceptable level of external amenity space and therefore, it is considered the application represents an overdevelopment of the site given it fails to provide future occupants the required level of amenity contrary to General Policy 2 paragraph h of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
6.4.6 Whilst one might argue that the future occupiers will be fully aware of the arrangement, the proposal represents unacceptable development. The size of the plot would not accommodate two dwellings without comprising the need for satisfactory living conditions contrary to Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
6.5 PARKING PROVISION/HIGHWAY ISSUES
6.5.1 Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 states that the Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The parking standards are set out under Appendix 7 of the strategic plan and for typical residential states, "2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling."
6.5.2 In the case of this application the two dwellings would provide a parking space within a garage and parking space on a driveway. The driveway would have a length of 6 metres and width of just less than 3.5 metres. This meets the standards for a typical parking space of 6 x 3.25 metres. The garages would have an internal length of just less than 5.1 metres and width of just less than 2.8 metres.
6.5.3 As stated by Highway Services the garages are below the standard of 5m x 3m for a single garage and given that there would only one other off road car parking space, the parking standard of two spaces per dwelling is not provided. Nonetheless, Highway Services have stated that should the application be approved then Highway Services recommend that a condition be added that ensures the garages and car parking spaces are to remain free from obstruction and available for the parking of a vehicle associated with the development thereafter to ensure that two car parking spaces are always available.
6.5.4 It is recognised that the garages measure 200mm less than the standard width of a single car garage. With the average width of a medium sized car being 1.8 metres and an allowance of 800 mm for the door access and a clearance of 300 mm on the passenger's side, then a minimum width of 2.9 m is needed. The garages proposed falls short by 100mm.
6.5.5 However, the 100mm shortfall is deemed fairly minimal and whilst parking would be tight it would be achievable. It is therefore considered that the garages proposed would provide a level parking and the condition put forward by Highway Services should be added should approval be granted.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00108/B
Page 7 of 8
7.1 Overall it is concluded that the planning application fails to accord to the provisions set out in Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and therefore it is recommended it is recommended that the planning application be refused.
8.0 PARTY STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation:
18.03.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. By reasons of its siting, scale, and layout the proposed development would not provide an acceptable level of usable external amenity space or general amenity in itself in terms of outlook and would represent an over-development of the site contrary to Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 2 (b and h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
--
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused
Date : ..24.03.2015
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :... Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Michael Gallagher
Signed :...
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/00108/B
Page 8 of 8
Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal