Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00188/B Applicant: Mr Bill Bush Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling Site Address: Site At Junction With Glen Chass Road And Howe Road Rushen Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 23.04.2015 Site Visit: 23.04.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE LEVEL OF OBJECTION AND THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.1 The site is a small piece of land which sits at the junction of Glen Chass and Howe Road. To the north west is Cronk Beg, an existing dwelling, and to the south is Collaway Cottage, both traditional Manx cottages which sit with their gables right alongside the road. The site is an undeveloped piece of land between these two dwellings which has an access onto the Howe Road. The site has a frontage of 23m onto the public highway. Opposite the site to the east sits Maynrys, a once traditional two storey property which has had a number of alterations and extensions and now has distinctive timberwork detailing on it. - 1.2 Glen Chass Road is much narrower than the roads which lead to it, being mainly a single lane width and with relatively poor forward visibility. Accesses onto it afford generally poor visibility for and of emerging vehicles and there are no stop or give way line markings on the road at the junction with the Howe Road. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling on the site. The property has a footprint of 10m by 6m and has the first floor accommodated partly within the roof, served by eaves level dormer windows in the north facing elevation, reducing the overall height to 6.1m. A pedestrian door is proposed in the roadside facing elevation and there are to be no windows or doors in any of the other elevations. The roof is to be finished in imitation slate and the windows framed in uPVC. - 2.2 The drawings submitted show visibility of 2.4m by 90m being available onto Howe Road from the proposed access. No information is provided in terms of the visibility onto Glen Chass Road. The existing roadside wall is to be retained along Glen Chass Road. This is around 1.8m high. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS
3.1 The site lies within an area which is not identified as a settlement nor for any particular purpose. The Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 discusses a number of the existing areas where there are clusters of houses and a sense of place, at Appendix Four. The Howe/Glen Chass appears here as follows: "(b) The Howe/Glen Chass:
3.2 Other areas which are also discussed are St. Mark's, Derbyhaven, Earystane, Cregneash and Ballakilpheric/Cronk-y-Dhooney. Of these, only Derbyhaven is actually shown on the development plan as Existing Residential. - 3.3 The Plan also makes specific reference to Glen Chass in the Landscape Assessment section as follows:
"Landscape Proposal 13: The buildings at Glen Chass are pleasantly and haphazardly scattered around the winding road down to Fistard. The spaces between the buildings make a significant contribution to the character of the group; any proposals to extend properties should be of subordinate scale to the parent building so as to protect these spaces."
"5.17.3 The Department also considered suggestions that there should be new Conservation Areas encompassing Glen Chass, Earystane, Surby, and Derbyhaven. However, it concluded that in none of these cases was there sufficient architectural or historic interest to warrant designation as Conservation Areas. These small settlements nevertheless have a sense of place and, in each case, an identifiable character to which regard will be had when exercising development control. Some of these areas were assessed in a separate study for their potential to accommodate additional dwellings; the findings of this study are addressed in Section 4.10 on 'Groups of Houses in the Countryside."
4.1 Planning approval has been granted for the erection of a garage on the site under PA 04/00061/B. Planning approval has been refused at appeal for the erection of a dwelling on this site under PA 01/01632/B. The inspector considered that the issues in that case were the impact of the dwelling on the visual appearance of the area, highway safety and the residential amenities of those in neighbouring residences and those of future occupants of the proposed dwelling. The prevailing land use document at that time did not designate the site for any form of development. - 4.2 The inspector concluded that the proposed dwelling would appear dominating and obtrusive in the streetscene, substantially closing the openness of at the road junction seriously out of keeping with its surroundings. It would also, it was considered, create a cramped appearance, resulting in overshadowing of the gardens to the west and there would be limited amenity space for the occupants. He also noted that vehicle parking and turning space is limited. - 4.3 That proposal differs from the current application in that the dwelling is now less tall, positioned at the southern end of the plot, resulting in more parking and manoeuvring space.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 There are objections from the owner of Adelboden, 4, Colloway (received 09.03.15) who raises concerns at the safety of the proposed access at what is a very busy junction, particularly in periods of TT and Southern 100 Course closure when many people visit the Sound - 5.2 The owner of Sunnyside, Howe Road objects to the application (12.03.15), noting that the Area Plan for the South notes that additional dwellings are not proposed for The Howe/Glen Chass which she considers is a lovely community with a strong sense of identity and should not be allowed to expand unnecessarily. Some of the buildings in the hamlet appear on the skyline and the Area Plan comments on the spaces between the buildings which make a significant contribution to the character of the group and efforts should be taken to protect these spaces. She is also concerned at the lack of adequate space for vehicular turning within the site, particularly as on-street parking is an issue in the area. She believes that this is a gateway to the Sound and Cregneash and should be protected as such. If this is approved, she wonders if this will establish a precedent and refers to a previous application alongside Glen Chass Lodge (PA 99/00603/B) which was refused and also notes that Cronk View has a garage opposite similar to this proposal. - 5.3 The owner of 3, Glen Chass Road is concerned that there is no soakaway on the site and whilst there was a well at the side of the road this is sealed in and he wonders where the water from the site will go (16.03.15). He notes that the previous application for a garage was never implemented and wonders whether it was genuine. He notes that the owner has parked vehicles on the highway which was a road safety issue and considers that the public car park further along the road is often fully utilised. He considers the proposal to be overdevelopment. - 5.4 The owners of Cronk Beg are concerned that the site is described as residential when it was originally amenity space for Maynrys but was sold off separately (17.03.15). Planning approval has been refused since then for the development of a dwelling. They are pleased that, with their agreement, the applicant has undertaken work to the roadside wall and have seen an outline of the proposed dwelling which they consider would not have a significant impact on their property. - 5.5 The owner of Geay Varrey which is some way to the west on Howe Road object to the application (18.03.15) on the basis that the road is narrow and congested and as a former police officer he has concerns regarding road safety and limited visibility from the proposed property. - 5.6 The owner of Maynrys objects to the application (19.03.15). Whilst they acknowledge that the applicant has tidied up the site in recent times, which is welcome, the access to the site is on a junction which is very busy during the summer and the parking situation around the area is already problematic with people parking very close to the junction and to the entrances to properties, reducing visibility and he provides photographs of instances where vehicles, he thinks which are associated with work at the application site are parked close to his vehicular access and close to the junction. He considers it likely that delivery vehicles are not likely to park in the car park or pull into the site. There will be a greater number of vehicles coming and going than the existing which generates only very occasional traffic and as there are no turning facilities on the site, it is possible that vehicles will be reversing out onto the junction. Finally he considers the design of the proposed dwelling to be out of keeping with a hamlet which comprises mainly very old properties and what is proposed looks like a generic estate type house. - 5.7 Rushen Parish Commissioners consider that whilst the plot is quite small, what is proposed appears to fit in quite well (20.03.15).
5.8 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services comment that this application is not straight forward as approval was previously granted for the erection of a garage on this site with no improvements made to the visibility splays. The planning application is requesting approval for a 2 bedroom residential dwelling, which will in turn increase vehicular traffic due to visitors and deliveries to the property. They note that the applicant is providing two off road parking spaces and turning area in order that a vehicle can enter and exit in a forward gear. Visibility does not meet the current standards for a new development at this location (2.4 x 54 (36 metres minimum) and note that the applicant has stated that the gated pillars will be reduced to 1.05 metres, which in turn will provide splays of approximately 2 x 36 metres towards Port St Mary, by reducing the height of the pillars will also improve visibility slightly for those vehicles exiting Glen Chass Road. They understand that if approval is granted the applicant will erect a traffic mirror opposite the site to increase visibility to the left when exiting the property to 2 x 30 metres (currently 2 x 12 metres). They consider that, weighing up both the negative and positive impacts this proposal is likely to generate with regard to highway safety and vehicle flow, with the improvements being made to the visibility, the additional increase in vehicular traffic will not be detrimental to road safety. - 5.9 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) note that there are existing electricity supplies around the site which will need to be taken into account in the development and they also seek consultation regarding the provision of new supplies to the proposed dwelling (27.02.15). Further liaison with MUA reveals that there are currently overhead low voltage supplies which will need to be relocated before the development can proceed safely. The applicant is willing to do this. ASSESSMENT
6.1 There are three issues in respect of this application which need to be considered: firstly whether the designation of the site should warrant a refusal of the application. Secondly, it is relevant whether the appearance and design of the dwelling is acceptable and thirdly, it should be considered whether the provisions for vehicular parking and access are acceptable. - 6.2 The site is not designated for development and The Howe is not recognised as a settlement in the Strategic Plan. Sustainable development would direct new dwellings to existing settlements where there are mains services and amenities which reduce the need for dependence on the private motor vehicle or travel to these facilities. The Strategic Plan also presumes against development outside areas designated for such on the basis of visual impact. However, in this case, there are a number of other houses in the vicinity which reduce the visual impact of the development and the nearest school and shops are approximately 1,000m away along a public highway with footpaths along its length except for a section of around 200m around Truggan Road. it is also relevant the site had planning approval for the erection of a garage which would have generated vehicular traffic to and from as the site is not associated with any residential property in the vicinity (at present). Whilst it is not suggested that The Howe and Glen Chass are suitable for significant more development, in this case, it is recommended that one more dwelling in the position shown within a built up frontage would not be unacceptable. It is also relevant that the previous application proposed a dwelling on this site which was not designated for development on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 but the inspector was not concerned with the principle of development on the site, just the physical impacts thereof. - 6.3 The design of the dwelling is as traditional as it can be given restrictions on the height of the building as a result of the overhead electricity line and other adjacent property. It is not considered that the design of the property is such as to warrant refusal of the application. - 6.4 Visibility from the entrance is at most 21m to the nearside and 38m to the far side to the north. To the northeast there is much greater visibility - over 100m. Visibility down Glen Chass
Road is impossible due to the existing roadside pillar and the height of the wall which would obscure approaching vehicles other than taller vans although it will be improved slightly by the lowering of the pillars and first section of the wall. Highway safety is therefore compromised in terms of limited visibility to and from the north and to and from the Glen Chass direction. This, however, needs to be considered in the light of the speed of traffic, some of which is slowing down to get to the junction of the Glen Chass and Howe Roads and also that the site had planning approval for the erection of a garage which would have generated vehicular traffic. On balance, and particularly as there is no objection from Department of Infrastructure Highway Services, it is recommended that the application is acceptable subject to conditions regarding the lowering of the wall and relocation of the overhead electricity supply prior to the undertaking of any other works.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
7.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
The residents of: Adelboden, 4, Colloway Sunnyside
7.4 Geay Varrey is some distance from the site and not directly affected by the proposal and as such the owners should not be considered interested parties in this case.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:
22.05.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
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.
This approval relates to the location plan and plans reference 1284.1, 1284.2 and 1284.3 all received on 20th February, 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:…01.06.2015 Signed :………S CORLETT………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown