Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00240/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00240/B Applicant : Haven Homes Limited Proposal : Extension to building to provide three apartments including associated parking Site Address : Murdoch House Showroom Warehouse & Premises North Shore Road Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 3DY
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 18.03.2015 Site Visit : 18.03.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION'S ORIGINAL PRESENTATION TO PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 15TH JUNE 2015, AND THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DEFERRED WITH RESPECT TO AMENDED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS, AMENDED PLANS TO THIS END HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. THESE HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES FOR THEIR COMMENTS, WITH A DEADLINE FOR RECEIVING THOSE COMMENTS BEING 15TH JULY.
THE REPORT THAT FOLLOWS HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED FROM THE REPORT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE; A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT IS ADDED AT SECTIONS 6.21-6.24 INCLUSIVE.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is a dog leg-shaped parcel of land immediately south of North Shore Road, and is largely taken up with a shop unit, currently occupied by Paul Dedman Performance motorcycle shop, where it is understood that both sales and repairs are undertaken.
1.2 The building is cuboidal in shape and largely devoid of architectural merit, having no external features of interest or especial quality. It appears to have been constructed during the 1960s or 1970s, and is two storeys (6.6m) in height, with a footprint of approximately 75sqm.
1.3 Also within the site are two areas of parking / open space - one to the street frontage, and one to the rear - and a pair of cherry trees.
1.4 Immediately west of the site is an access lane, and thereafter a terrace of dwellings, which at the far west are two storeys in height but gradually and by degrees increase towards
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00240/B
Page 2 of 11
the east in the direction of the application site to being three storeys in height. Beyond North Shore Road to the north is Ramsey football club and Mooragh Park, while to the east is the harbour. Due south lies the defunct Ramsey Gasworks, which is currently being redeveloped for housing; indeed, the site actually overlaps the rear gardens of approved Plots 28 and 29 on that scheme. Part of the approval of that scheme, which included the current application site in its entirety, involved the painting at ground floor and external cladding at second floor of this building. These approved works have not been undertaken at the time of writing.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension above the existing shop unit, comprising three independent flats. The new second floor of the building would have two no. two-bedroom units mirrored against one another, while the new third floor would have a single three-bedroom unit. Each of the units would be generously- proportioned - the two-bed units measure roughly 85sqm internally and the three-bed unit roughly 125sqm - and each would have its own separate terrace.
2.2 The extension itself would 'step back' away from the full footprint of the building on each of its two storeys, with this set back on each level providing the space for the aforementioned terraces.
2.3 Also proposed is an independent pedestrian access, which would require an extension to the side of the building, and a bin store - although there do not appear to be any elevations of the bin store provided as part of the submitted documents.
2.4 Parking would be provided at the rear of the site, accessed off the side access lane (albeit that this is not included within the application site), and would be on land that has approval to be used as garden space for Plots 28 and 29 of the redevelopment scheme for the Ramsey Gasworks site. Two parking spaces and manoeuvring room would be provided here, while two additional spaces would be provided on land currently used as part of the car park / open storage area to the rear of the Paul Dedman Performance business unit.
2.5 As noted, approval exists for the external alteration of the existing unit. This is again proposed here. The extension above would be clad in a mixture of vertical and horizontal timber cladding, while the balconies would be bounded with glass balustrades. The extension to form the stairwell access would be clad in terracotta clay, and attached to the main building with a glazed link.
2.6 The application is substantiated by a Design Statement, which explains the design (although not the design evolution) and also the Policy context and Planning history and precedent in the area. A number of helpful photomontage images have also be supplied.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The Paul Dedman Performance business unit has itself been the subject of one application considered to be of material relevance to the determination of the current application. The sale and repairs undertaken are done in line with approved planning application 01/00833/C, and this carried the following two relevant conditions:
C 3 "No repair or servicing of motorcycles may take place outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Saturday, or at any time on a Sunday or Bank Holiday".
C 4
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00240/B
Page 3 of 11
"The existing on-site vehicle parking must be available for staff and customer parking at all times."
3.2 However, there are a number of applications in the area that certainly are relevant. The Ramsey Gasworks scheme (PA 13/91461/B) has already been mentioned: that scheme, for 30 new dwellings of both market and affordable housing, was approved in July 2014 and is currently well underway. Work has yet to commence on either Plot affected by the current application, however.
3.3 PAs 09/01982/B, 10/00740/B and 12/00982/B were applications to sub-divide dwellings on North Shore Road into separate apartments (the 2010 application was actually an approval to sub-divide an existing flat into two). Each was approved despite the lack of parking provision to be made being raised by the case officer on each occasion.
3.4 The 2012 application was approved following refusal to PA 11/01766/B, which proposed the demolition of the building and its replacement with one providing five apartments. The decision carried a single reason for refusal:
"The development, by virtue of the amount of development and the number of apartments proposed, would result in an over-development of the site, resulting in inadequate and unsatisfactory amenities for the occupants of the apartments and a requirement for car parking which cannot be satisfactorily accommodated on site or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposal therefore fails to comply with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan."
That decision was confirmed at appeal, with the reason for refusal being:
"The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that it involves overdevelopment of the site and would, if permitted, result in unacceptable damage to residential amenity which would harm the living conditions of prospective residents through poor outlook and that provision for car-parking cannot be made which can adequately serve, either on-site and/or within the immediate vicinity, the proposed development."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
Local Plan Policy
4.1 The site is designated for 'light industrial' use in the Ramsey Local Plan (No.2) Order 1998, a land use designation which covers the entirety of the land south of North Shore Road despite that area including several residential streets.
Strategic Plan Policy
4.2 Strategic Policy 1 reads in full: "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 and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
4.3 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 2 reads: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages...". Housing Policy 4 reiterates this text.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00240/B
Page 4 of 11
4.4 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 3 reads: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
(b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."
4.5 Strategic Policy 5 reads in full: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies".
4.6 Strategic Policy 10 reads in full: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement".
4.7 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
(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; (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; (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".
Although it is arguable as to whether this policy applies since the proposal does not accord with the Local Plan zoning for the site, it is judged to be wholly appropriate to reflect on the relevant provisions of General Policy 2 in the assessment that follows.
4.8 Environment Policy 26 reads in full: "Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses".
4.9 Environment Policy 42 reads in part: "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".
4.10 Housing Policy 1 reads in full: "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".
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00240/B
Page 5 of 11
4.11 Housing Policy 3 reads in full: "The overall housing provision will be distributed as follows:
o North 1,200 o South 1,300 o East 2,500 o West 1,000 o All Island 6,000"
4.12 Transport Policy 1 reads in full: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".
4.13 Transport Policy 2 reads in full: "The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems".
4.14 Transport Policy 6 reads in full: "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".
4.15 Transport Policy 7 reads in full: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards".
The standard specified in Appendix 7 is as follows:
Typical Residential: 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.
Other matters
4.16 It is worth noting that the site falls just to the west of the extent of the river and tidal flood risk zones affected by the Sulby River.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services initially raised concern with the submitted parking survey. On receipt of an expanded survey, they advised on 28th April 2015 that "The parking survey carried out clearly shows that [at] weekends/evenings there is less available on street parking. It would be advisable that any future development within this area undertake similar parking surveys", but did not object to the application.
5.2 The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture advised on 13th March 2015 that "the proposed flats/apartments must, on completion of the intended works, comply with the requirements of the Housing (Registration) Regulation 2013 and be registered thereafter under the same Regulations PRIOR to any of the flats being occupied".
5.3 Ramsey Town Commissioners objected to the application in correspondence received 24th March 2015. They commented: "This application fails to meet the requirements of Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which requires a minimum of 6 car parking spaces for the proposed development. The layout presently indicates four car parking spaces which are accessed from a rear service lane which is considered inappropriate and the access to the four parking spaces is deemed to be problematic and therefore provides a poor parking layout for this development".
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00240/B
Page 6 of 11
When the Commissioners were contacted by the agent asking the objection to be withdrawn on the basis of the updated and expanded parking survey, the Commissioners advised as follows:
"As you will see from the attached copy letter the Commissions objection makes no reference to the availability of on-street parking, but is concerned with the compliance with the Strategic Plan in regard to parking spaces and the Commissions views that the location and access arrangements to the proposed dedicated parking is problematic and poor."
The Commissioners did formally reconsider the application, however, commenting that "The additional information provided in respect of available on-street parking spaces has not convinced Ramsey Town Commissioners that the required number of fully accessible spaces within the site boundary should be relaxed, therefore the Ramsey Town Commissioners previous objection still applies". This correspondence was received 26th May 2015.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 In the first instance, it is considered that basing an assessment of the principle of the proposal on its extant land use zoning is inappropriate. While the site itself is not in residential use, the area is evidently characterised by its mixed use nature. The assessment of the proposed re-development of Ramsey Gasworks took a similar approach, albeit that a number of other issues relating to the loss of the previous land use were also under consideration on that occasion: this current proposal would retain the existing use.
6.2 However, before accepting the principle of residential development here, it cannot be ignored that the extension proposed would sit above an existing business use that involves both the sale and repair of motorbikes. Both of these elements are specified clearly in the planning approval for the site and therefore can continue lawfully. While there is likely to be sufficient protection under Building Regulations to ensure that noise, dust, vibration and other related disturbance is kept to a minimum in such circumstances where near-industrial uses are co-located with residential uses, the fact remains that the nature of the business lawfully operating from the site is not one that sits comfortably cheek-by-jowl with residential uses.
6.3 It is accepted that North Shore Road has a number of residential dwellings nearby the site, and that the planning approval for the business unit was granted some time after those dwellings were erected. Equally, new approvals for additional dwellings have been approved, whether new build or conversion, in recent years. However, none of these points can be given substantial weight: the current application seeks approval for new development literally on top of this unit and the disturbance felt by occupiers of those residential units would be far greater than any of the other, nearby residents. Motorbike engines can be very loud, and these will be coming to the business and being tested there, and even though the hours of the repair work is limited by condition, this still enables such works to be undertaken on six days per week, but also does not prevent the shop itself being open 24 hours per day, seven days per week.
6.4 There is the argument that 'buyer beware', and anyone moving into the proposed flats would of course need to be mindful of the potential disturbance that they could be subject to. However, this argument is also a simplification since it is not always known how much a disturbance might come to affect a person, and people may under-estimate the effect the operation of the business might have on their living conditions / wellbeing. Equally, any complaints that residents may make under environmental health legislation could, if upheld, result in the business being forced to cease operation. Clearly this is a circumstance that is best avoided for both residents and the operators of the current business, and one which must be addressed.
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00240/B
Page 7 of 11
6.5 On balance, it is concluded that the size of the unit and nature of the business is such that the level of activity - whether that be through comings and goings of staff / patrons or repair to or servicing of motorbikes - is unlikely to be of a level sufficient to unduly harm the residential amenity of those living above. No complaints have been received about disturbance regarding the operation of the business and, while the likelihood of complaints being made is considered to be greater if the current application is approved and implemented, this suggests that to refuse the application on this basis alone would probably be overly cautious. However, it is not an issue that is to be taken lightly.
6.6 Turning to the details of the scheme, then, it is judged that there are four separate issues to take account of: (a) design; (b) highway safety and parking; (c) effect on trees, and (d) contaminated land.
Contaminated land
6.7 In addressing the latter issues first, it is noted that the site is nearby a former gasworks and also Ramsey harbour. The ongoing re-development of the gasworks site for residential dwellings will remove the majority (if not the entirety) of the contaminants. The site is sufficiently far from the watercourse to mean that concern regarding the pollution of that watercourse would be unfounded. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is not in conflict with Environment Policy 26.
Trees
6.8 The comments from the Forestry Division are welcome for their clarity and accepted for their content. A condition requiring the retained tree to be protected during construction and thereafter would be appropriate to attach if the scheme were otherwise judged acceptable.
6.9 The remaining issues, of highway safety / parking and design, are more complex to assess.
Design and streetscene
6.10 The existing building is not attractive: in fact, quite the opposite. Its cuboidal shape is reminiscent of a modernist approach to architecture that, set against the North Shore Road residential terrace, is defiantly out of context (as was the intention with modernist architecture in general). But it does not sit comfortably against that context. Its loss - although not proposed here - would not be lamented, and the cladding scheme approved under PA 13/91461/B is very welcome in reducing the building's visual impact. However, the approved cladding scheme is just that: cladding. It cannot be said to have any appreciable impact on the building's mass or form relative to its surroundings and, as such, if implemented, the cladding scheme could only be said to make a poor situation slightly better. Notwithstanding the above it should not be ignored that there is no condition attached to PA 13/91461/B requiring the cladding of the building within any timeframe.
6.11 The key point is that the existing building is of poor form and inappropriate mass, and any proposed alteration of either of these should, in order to be acceptable in design terms, be judged to result in either a neutral or overall improvement to the existing situation.
6.12 It is accepted that the existing building contrasts sharply with the terrace it sits alongside, and the applicant's statement that "it could be argued that the existing building is out of scale in this regard" is also accepted. An appropriate scale for a building in this location would be one of similar height to the adjacent terrace: a building one storey higher
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/00240/B
Page 8 of 11
or lower than the three storey unit at the end of the terrace could, in this regard, probably be accommodated successfully here. The proposed building is, roughly, half a storey higher than no.18 North Shore Road and therefore acceptable purely in terms of its proposed height. However, this is overly simplistic. Any assessment of scale must also take account of depth, positioning and proportions of new development relative to its context. In this, the existing building is set back slightly from the existing terrace line, which admittedly is not uniform, and presents only perpendicular lines: the terrace presents a vertically-defined streetscene and, although there are height changes, the general proportion and form is clearly one of a Victorian-style terrace with associated detailing, bay windows and pitched roofs. The existing building, and the works proposed for it, reflect none of this context. The use of similar cladding to that found on the nearest approved dwellings on the Gasworks site is understandable in an attempt to tie together the visual appearance of the dwellings, but this does not overcome the very serious concerns regarding the form, mass and scale of the proposed extension.
6.13 To take a non-contextual approach is not necessarily negative. It appears that the architect has not made an attempt to try and integrate the scheme with the existing terrace, and is instead apparently making an effort to integrate it into the approved scheme currently under construction. Again, this is not an inherently inappropriate response but a problem arises where the site for such a proposed 'statement' does not lend itself to such an approach, which is considered to be the case here. The 'statement' has, in effect, already been made on the approved redevelopment of the Gasworks site; this point is returned to below. It is unfortunate that the submitted Design Statement does not make reference to any of the policies relating to design (General Policy 2 (in part) and Environment Policy 42) in the Strategic Plan, so there can be limited understanding of the evolution of the submitted scheme.
6.14 The site is prominent and currently 'reads' very strongly against the terrace alongside which it sits. The eventual completion of the Plots to the east of the Gasworks site will result in a site that 'reads' against those dwellings as well - but primarily from long-distance views. The most sensitive view of the site is therefore judged to be from the North Shore Road. While the Gasworks site is under construction, and it is reasonable to conclude that what is approved there will be constructed, there can be no absolute certainty attached to this. This gives further weight to the conclusion that the site should be considered more strongly relative to the North Shore Road context than relative to the context of the east of the Gasworks re-development site. Neither context should be ignored, but it is the former that is most important and relevant.
6.15 In this, the proposed additional mass, although clearly attempting some reticence through the setting back of the proposed new upper storeys, is unduly out of keeping with a streetscene characterised by a vertically-proportioned Victorian terrace, and which is the dominant streetscene against which to judge the proposal. The use of sheer lines, no detailing, no pitched roofs, horizontally proportioned format, and contemporary finishes, all result in a design that fails to respect its surroundings. The proposal is therefore harmful to the streetscene. To increase the visual impact of an existing building of already self-evidently poor form, even though the proposed cladding is considered acceptable, would be contrary to parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42. This is considered to be a substantive reason to refuse the application.
Highway safety, parking and parking access arrangements
6.16 Turning to the highway safety and parking issues, it is noted that Highway Services do not object to the proposal. The proposed parking area is within the application site but the access lane to this is, surprisingly (given its heavily unmade nature), an adopted highway. It is also noted that the parking survey is quite extensive and this showed quite a number of
==== PAGE 9 ====
15/00240/B
Page 9 of 11
spaces available throughout the week, although with the pressure being greatest at weekends and evenings. That being said, the parking proposed is considered sufficient for the proposal given the site's location in an otherwise very sustainable location, with good access to Ramsey's shops, services and also public transport. The shortfall of two parking spaces - which would still allow for each apartment to have access to at least one space, and this could be required by Planning condition - is in this case not considered sufficient reason to object to the application.
6.17 However, the lane is narrow and should one car be accessing the parking area and another be exiting it, this would require one car to reverse along this lane. The lane is not especially long (around 22m), and at the position of the car parks does widen out, but it is unmade, with refuse bins not uncommon, and the overall access arrangements must therefore be considered as, at best, awkward. The comments of the Commissioners are well- founded, and it is considered that the proposed access and parking arrangements would be sufficiently problematic as to object to the proposal on this ground alone.
6.18 The visibility is extensive, even if it is likely to be curtailed somewhat by parked cars on North Shore Road here. It is not considered that this would be a viable reason to object to the application alone.
6.19 Related to the above - given the proposed location of the four parking spaces - is the effect the proposal would have on the approved Gasworks redevelopment. The parking spaces would be provided for by way of removing a proportionally significant amount of garden land approved to Plots 28 and 29 of the Gasworks scheme. It is considered that there would have been significant officer concern raised at the time of that proposal's consideration had it been intended that the rear garden space (and acknowledging that neither Plot has any front garden) would be slightly less than half of that now proposed via the new scheme. Indeed, it is considered that a revised layout for the entire scheme would have been sought were the two proposals before the Department at the same time. The loss of this garden space as now proposed is considered to have harmful impacts on the living conditions of future occupants of Plots 28 and 29, although it is accepted that those dwellings are not yet complete, let alone lived in. It is therefore concluded that the application should also be refused on the ground that it fails to comply with parts (g) and (k) of General Policy 2.
6.20 While true that this issue could be fully resolved by the removing of proposed parking in this area, the knock-on effect would be a stronger objection in terms of parking provision. While the proposed parking is considered to be very balanced as outlined above, the removal of all parking from the scheme would tip that balance towards a formal objection on highway grounds. While there is always the expectation that assessments of planning applications should be taken from a balanced viewpoint, the concerns relating to the location of the parking and the effect it would have are not able to be balanced against sufficient defined positives that would outweigh this concern. Indeed, as already discussed, the design proposed is considered inappropriate and the scheme is already recommended for refusal on this basis alone.
Amended plan submission
6.21 It is considered that the amended plan showing alternative pedestrian access to the site, to include low level lighting and a finish to tie in with the existing building, is a welcome improvement on the scheme. While the amended plan does not overcome Planning Officer concerns with respect to vehicular movements into and out of the site, it does still represent an improvement in that respect as well since any interaction between pedestrian and vehicles on the access road should be far more limited than was previously the case.
==== PAGE 10 ====
15/00240/B
Page 10 of 11
6.22 Although Highway Services raised concerns with respect to the access at the application's first hearing at Planning Committee, following discussion with the agent and further consideration, this objection was removed, and the amended plan was submitted with the agreement of the Highway engineer.
6.23 The use of appropriate hardstanding materials to protect the attractive cherry tree on the site is very much welcomed.
6.24 No further comments were received following the circulation of this amended plan.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The proposal is considered to be unduly harmful to the streetscene and also fail to provide adequate and safe access to the proposed parking spaces. It is therefore concluded that the application is contrary to the provisions of parts (b), (c), (g), (h), (i) and (k) of General Policy 2, as well as Environment Policy 42.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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 (in this case, the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture); (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
9.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
9.1 Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting of 27th July 2015 and determined to overturn the officer recommendation to refuse the application.
9.2 Members felt that the design was acceptable for the streetscene and would complement the approved redevelopment at the adjacent, and at present under construction, former Gasworks site. They also considered that the reducing in size of some of the gardens for the Gasworks site as a result of the scheme would not form a reason to refuse the current application since the occupants of those dwellings had yet to move in, and also having regard to the fact that often dwellings are approved with small gardens in modern times.
9.3 The amended access route to provide a pedestrian route into the site was noted and praised and the access was, as a whole, judged to be acceptable.
9.4 In view of this, Members determined to approve the application.
9.5 Officers recommended that a condition be applied to the approval notice, requiring the external cladding to the entirety of the building be finished prior to the occupation of the first
==== PAGE 11 ====
15/00240/B
Page 11 of 11
residential unit on the site as approved. Another condition, specifying the period within which the development had to be undertaken, would also be attached to the approval notice.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.07.2015
R 1. To increase the visual impact of an existing building of already self-evidently poor form through the increase in height and mass as proposed is contrary to parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. The proposed parking area is located in such a position that accessing it would be problematic and potentially cause a highway safety hazard given the narrowness of the access lane and the fact that only one car can either enter or exit this parking area at once. This would lead to reversing down an unmade and unadopted highway and would therefore have an unacceptable effect on road safety and traffic flows on North Shore Road. This, coupled with the inadequate parking and manoeuvring space, is contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 3. The proposed parking area is located in such a position and is of such a size that it would result in inadequate garden space being provided to two of the Plots to the approved housing estate currently under construction to the rear (south). This is contrary to part (g) and (k) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
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 : APPROVED Committee Meeting Date: 27.07.2015
Signed :E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
YES See Paragraph 9 above and conditions of approval below.
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 external cladding to the existing building as shown on the approved plans shall be completed prior to the occupation of any of the three residential apartments hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area. The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 3rd March 2015 and 25th June 2015: 1295-000, 1295-001, 1295-002A, 1295-003, 1295-004B, 1295-010, 1295-011, 1295-012 and 1275-055.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal