Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01386/A Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01386/A Applicant : Mr David Hathersich-Jones Proposal : Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling addressing matters of access and landscaping Site Address : Land Adjacent To Fasque Andreas Road Ramsey Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.01.2021 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building and internal layout, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the driveway and means of vehicular access identified on "Existing and Proposed Highway Plan - Proposed Visibility Site Plan"; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 4. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the visibility splay(s) identified on "Existing and Proposed Highway Plan - Proposed Visibility Site Plan"; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01386/A Page 2 of 11
C 5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the erection of fences as shown on "Landscaping Plan and Concept Elevation" plan"; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenities (privacy/noise reduction/outlook).
C 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping as shown on "Landscaping Plan and Concept Elevation" plan"; shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and in the interests of neighbouring amenities (privacy/noise reduction/outlooks).
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous reasons for refusal in respect of access and highway safety and the impact on the living conditions of those in Fasque and therefore has no significant impact upon public or private amenities and therefore complying with Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 4, Transport Policy 7 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings PLANNING STATEMENT, EXISTING AND PROPOSED HIGHWAY PLANS, EXISTING SITE LOCATION PLAN, PHOTOGRAPHS WITH KEY PLAN, LANDSCAPING PLAN AND CONCEPT ELEVATIONS, PROPOSED SITE LOCATION PLAN and PROPOSED SITE PLAN all received on 3rd December 2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
St Bridget's, Bride Road, Ramsey, Thackeray House, Andreas Road, Ramsey and Mount Pleasant, Andreas Road, Ramsey as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the residential curtilage of Fasque, a detached dwelling which sits on the eastern side of the A9 highway which leads north out of Ramsey towards Andreas. Fasque had until recently, two entrances in front of it and a sizeable side garden to the south of the dwelling. Works are currently being undertaken to the property and the whole of the frontage has been removed. To the south of the site sits another detached dwelling, St. Bridget's and to the north is a further dwelling, Trincomalee. On the western side of the road is a dwelling, Mount Pleasant, with a further dwelling, The Croit, behind it and to the south of this is Thackeray House. St. Bridget's is a two storey house set in substantial grounds and whose rear elevation looks partly over the southern side garden of the application site.
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01386/A Page 3 of 11
1.2 The speed of traffic past the site is restricted to 30mph: a derestricted sign appears around 80m to the north of the application site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for an Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling addressing matters of access and landscaping. All other matters siting, design, external appearance of the building[s] & internal layout are not matters to consider at this stage.
2.2 The site in question is the land (553sqm) to the south of the existing residential property Fasque, which is a modern single storey detached bungalow. The new proposed dwelling would share the existing access which has a width of 9m, and would have a separate driveway which would run partially in front of Fasque (southern section) to the application site.
2.3 Submitted plans demonstrate the access services both Fasque and the new dwelling would have visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in either direction.
2.2 The application also includes detailed plans on how the landscaping between Fasque and the site would be undertaken and also landscaping fronting Fasque adjacent to the driveway which would serve the new dwelling. This is to overcome previous concerns of noise of vehicles passing the front bedroom widow of Fasque.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Ramsey Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Residential. As such, there is a presumption in favour of residential development. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
3.5 The Strategic Plan identifies a hierarchy of settlements that guide what type of development is appropriate within them. Ramsey is designated as one of the five "Service Centres" within the Island (Spatial Policy 2). This Policy states that; "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services."
3.6 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: (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;
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01386/A Page 4 of 11
(f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
3.7 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..."
3.8 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
3.9 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. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
3.10 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."
"Backland development(2)" (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings.
"Tandem development (3)" (consisting of one house immediately behind another, and sharing the same access) is generally unacceptable because of the difficulties of access to the house at the back, and the disturbance and lack of privacy suffered by the house in front.
3.11 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE JULY 2019
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a previous application, 03/01404/A for a dwelling on this same site, which was refused at appeal for the following reasons;
"R 1. It is considered that the application site is insufficient in size to accommodate a dwelling with sufficient associated residential amenity space. The development would also significantly reduce to an unacceptable extent the level of residential amenity space enjoyed by the existing adjacent dwelling known as "Fasque".
R 2. The residential development of the application site is not considered to be achievable without causing an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the two existing adjacent dwellings.
R 3. The proposed joint use of the vehicular access with the existing adjacent dwelling, known as "Fasque", is considered to be unacceptable as the visibility for emerging vehicles is unsafe and its
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01386/A Page 5 of 11
additional use would be detrimental to the residential amenity for the dwelling known as "Fasque".
4.3 The previous application and most recent application, 16/00586/A for a dwelling on this same site, which was refused at appeal on the following grounds:
"R 1. The proposal would result in an additional property using an access which will not provide adequate visibility for drivers emerging from the site. Whilst the visibility will be better than what existed previously, it is not fully in accordance with highway safety standards and is not sufficient to justify a further dwelling using this access. The proposal therefore fails to accord with General Policy 2h and 2i of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of vehicles and pedestrians passing Fasque to access the new dwelling's access and parking area, together with any vehicular manoeuvring, will result in a diminution of the privacy and general amenity for the occupants of the existing property. Whilst it is proposed to screen this activity by fencing, this in itself will restrict outlook and light to Fasque, to the detriment of the persons occupying that property."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have made the initial comments (08.01.2021): "Due to the current situation due to COVID-19 and following advice received from the Department of Infrastructure, the Board of Ramsey Town Commissioners will be unable to hold their next Board Meeting until at least Thursday 28th January, 2021.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you defer any decisions on the following applications until such time as the Commissioners have fully considered the proposals..."
5.1.1 It is noted that the previous application the Commissioners raised no objections.
5.2 Highway Services have no objection making the following comments (14.01.2021): "The application is for approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling, with all matters reserved for later approval other than access and landscaping.
Reference made to previous application 16/00586/A, which was refused on appeal.
The proposal is similar to the application 16/00586/A, to which Highway Services had objected on the grounds of poor visibility. Since then, extensive work has been carried out on the frontage of the dwelling to improve visibility in both directions.
Visibility of 43m in both directions is now achievable from a 2.4m setback. This is the appropriate visibility standard for a road subject to a 30mph speed limit.
The access width of just under 9.1m is an acceptable size to serve two dwellings for vehicular and pedestrian use.
The indicative layout shows a driveway and parking provision of two spaces as easily achievable for the proposed dwelling, whilst not impacting on the existing dwelling. There is space to turnaround to allow forward entry and exit. Any single garage should have minimum size of 6 x 3m to count as parking and facilitate the storage of bicycles and other item. Where a single garage is blew 5 x 2.8m or there to be no garage, bicycle parking should be provided in a separate, covered and secure storage facility to accommodate one space per bedroom. An electric vehicle charging point should be considered to aid low emission objectives. There is space for waste bin storage for roadside collection. The driveway is expected to operate satisfactorily as demonstrated its width for shared use and by the vehicle tracking movements, with adequate lines of sight relative to the existing unit.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01386/A Page 6 of 11
The proposal has met all highway requirements and raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no opposition to the proposal subject to a condition to cover the submission and approval in writing by Planning of full details prior to commencement of the development on planning permission being granted in the form of scaled plans or written specifications to illustrate the following:
i. Internal vehicle and pedestrian areas (driveway, parking and turnaround area) ii. Car parking in accordance with adopted standard iii. Bicycle Parking in accordance with guidance contained in Local Transport Note 1/20 or Active Travel Wales iv. Waste bin storage.
Recommendation: DNOC"
5.3 The owners/occupiers of St. Bridget's have objected to the application which can be summarised as (30.12.2020); An identical application (for the same type of house on the same site) was made in 2016 and 2004; We believe that there is still merit in the reasons behind the 2004 refusal of planning permission. The first point was that the plot wasn't big enough. Point 2 stated the new building couldn't be erected 'without causing an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the two existing adjacent dwellings'. This meant Fasque itself, and St Bridgets. Point 3 of the refusal stated 'the visibility for emerging vehicles is unsafe.' We believe that this is still the case; The most recent Appeal Inspector's judgement in 2019 raised three issues: residential amenity of Fasque and the new house, visibility splays in the highroad, and the privacy of St Bridgets. We feel that these issues have not gone away, and that any new application can't properly deal with them since they are inherent in the site itself; We feel that the area is not big enough to site another house in, without having a detrimental impact on Fasque and the new house itself; The existing house, Fasque, will now have cars driving past it on a regular basis. The combined entrance simply isn't practical. The owners of the new house will be uncomfortable about driving in front of Fasque; Room has been made in the new application for two car parking spaces at each house, but what happens if either house becomes a three car household, or if there are visitors? Presumably, the additional cars will park on the road; On the question of road access, we reiterate the point made in our December 6th 2016 objection that it is a busy road and the visibility is insufficient. The Highway Board stated on December 5th 2018 that 'there is inadequate highway visibility in both directions', and that there is an 'insufficient X distance' back from the road. The Board reiterated this in March 2019 and stated that Amended Plans submitted in January 2019 failed to remedy this. The Planning Officer stated that 'it is not acceptable to have visibility splays which cross land which is outwith the control of the applicant, and where there are clear impediments to the visibility in both directions; We note that the Highway Board have twice opposed the application, while claiming that 'the only exception would be if the applicant entered into a statutory undertaking with the adjacent third party land owners for the visibility splays to be permanently maintained across their land with no obstructions above 1 metre in height.' As we have said before, we have no intention of giving such an undertaking; and dealing with the residential amenity issue on St Bridgets, having a new dwelling 20 metres away from our house will impact on our privacy.
5.4 The owners/occupiers of Thackeray House, Andreas Road, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (10.01.2021); potential for cars parking on the road if the proposed car parking is insufficient (which would appear to be likely); This section of Andreas Road (A9) is a busy section and while subject to a 30mph speed restriction, this is regularly exceeded by passing traffic. While this is obviously not the fault of the owner of the property, it is a known problem with speed enforcement officers often being located at the Grove Museum in an attempt to tackle this. I believe any cars parking on the Andreas Road at this location are potentially dangerous and it should be noted that my own property, St Bridgets, Mount Pleasant and Laurel Hill are all properties with generous amounts of parking available onsite negating any need for dangerous street parking. Any further development of the Fasque site, especially without sufficient parking provision, would increase the potential for parking on the Andreas Road (which in itself would reduce visibility) and when combined with the existing
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01386/A Page 7 of 11
poor visibility (not limited to but including at the road junction from the Bride Road and from the exit of Fasque) may create a dangerous situation for traffic on the Andreas Road, pedestrians and for existing residents (myself included) attempting to exit their properties, which would be unacceptable.
5.5 The owners/occupiers of Mount Pleasant, Andreas Road, Ramsey object to the application which can be summarised as (12.01.2021); concerns of additional traffic and parking issues; should be more than two spaces; consider people will park on the curb/roadside impacting highway safety; and it remains unclear who owns the entrance and as such there will be conflict in the future which could cause major problems to future access of both properties.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are (i) The principle of the proposal; (ii) Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions; (iii) and Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision.
The principle of the proposal 6.2 As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is designated as predominately residential use and therefore the proposal for residential development is acceptable in terms of complying with the land-use designation.
6.3 Consideration should also be given to The Isle of Man Strategic Plan which has been adopted (1st April 2016). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements; being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services and development should optimising the use of previously developed land. This proposal would meet these aims which essentially seek development within exiting settlements rather than the countryside. Spatial Policy 2 also indicates that Ramsey is a Service Centre and that this area should; "...provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services".
6.4 Accordingly, given the above reasons it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable. It is also considered the area of the site is large enough to accommodate a modest dwelling. This is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal as the other matters listed within paragraph 6.1 of this report still need to be considered and be considered acceptable.
Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions 6.5 The property most likely to be affected by the proposal is the applicants own property Fasque (currently for sale). As outlined in the planning history section of this report, refusal reason 2 stated: "The proposed dwelling, by virtue of vehicles and pedestrians passing Fasque to access the new dwelling's access and parking area, together with any vehicular manoeuvring, will result in a diminution of the privacy and general amenity for the occupants of the existing property. Whilst it is proposed to screen this activity by fencing, this in itself will restrict outlook and light to Fasque, to the detriment of the persons occupying that property"
6.6 The previous Planning Inspector (16/00586/A) commented: "56. ...Importantly, however, cars approaching or leaving the proposed dwelling would pass over the shared driveway in front of the dwelling at Fasque and be driven very close to certain of its windows. The dwelling would occupy much of the present side garden of Fasque, situated in part behind that of St Bridgets.
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01386/A Page 8 of 11
58. Nevertheless, the screen planting illustrated around the corner of Fasque to avoid overlooking, although set some 2m away from the building, would restrict its outlook. Moreover, the presence of a new residential property, partly to the rear of the side garden of St Bridgets, would give a perception of a reduction in the peace and privacy of that property.
6.7 In response to this the applicants have provided detailed landscaping proposals which show how the boundary between the proposed new dwelling and Fasque would be provided, to try to overcome these previous concerns.
6.8 to the front of Fasque, namely bedroom window it is now proposed to curve the driveway slightly away from the front of Fasque, giving a 4.3m between the new driveway and the bedroom window. Furthermore, along the eastern boundary of the new driveway it is proposed to erect decorative fencing (1.4m in height) while allows some light though but provided privacy. As well as the fencing, it is proposed to plant appropriately type/size of trees (maximum of 1.8m in height) and a hedgerow as well as other shrubs etc. to either side of the fence, to soften the impact when viewed form the bedroom window and make this section of landscaping visually pleasing, whilst also providing the function of improving privacy and reducing the potential impact of passing slowing moving vehicles. Arguably, the provision of this small garden area (4m in depth) improves the outlook form bedroom 3 compared to the existing situation which has direct views of the adjacent highway. It should also be noted that this bedroom has a secondary window to the side. Details of landscaping to the side of the dwelling will be considered shortly in this report.
6.9 It is noted that the previous refused scheme included (only indicative scheme) the erection of a 1.8m high fence within 2m of the bedroom window. If this was proposed again, then concerns would be had of overbearing impact upon outlooks of Fasque.
6.10 However, in terms of the new proposal it is considered the driveway orientation and position, together with the well thought landscape proposals would provide an important function of providing privacy and reducing noise/general disturbances to the occupiers of the bedroom. Furthermore, it is considered the scheme would be beneficial to the property Fasque over the current situation, which itself would likely cause noise disturbances/privacy issues given the existing highway.
6.11 It should also be noted since the last application that the Residential Design Guide has been approved by the Department. This outlines that bedrooms window are habitable rooms, but are not primary habitable rooms (i.e. living rooms/kitchen diners). It is noted the current proposal would have no impact upon the primary habitable rooms of Fasque.
6.12 There was some potential impact upon the side windows of Fasque (not a reason for refusal previously) which serves as a second window for the front bedroom mentioned previously, but also an additional bedroom. The latter is of particular interest in this case, given it is the sole window to this bedroom. Again there were concerns of overlooking from and into this windows form the application site. Whilst the previous application proposed a 1.8m fence at a distance of 2m away from the window to overcome privacy concerns; this was not considered acceptable in terms of the outlook for this new application. Accordingly, as part of the overall landscaping scheme submitted as part of this application, again it is proposed to have a greater distance between the window and boundary fence, which would be shared with the proposed dwelling. A gap of between 2.5m is being retained and the fence would have a height of 1.5m. To improve privacy again a well-designed landscaping plan with appropriately positioned
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/01386/A Page 9 of 11
plants/bushes/hedgerows are proposed. Again it is considered this will provided adequate screening for privacy, whilst also ensuring outlook from the bedrooms of Fasque are acceptable.
6.13 While in the overall scheme, the proposed landscaping/driveway alterations are fairly small in nature, it is considered they would be a significant improvement of previous schemes which have not been considered sufficient to overcome amenity concerns to the occupants of Fasque. However, on this occasion it is considered they would overcome the previous concerns in that they would provide sufficient level of privacy to the occupants of Fasque, whilst also ensuring the general noise of slow moving passing vehicles would be sufficiently reduced; all while ensuring the outlooks and amount of natural light from the relevant bedroom windows are protected and are pleasant. Accordingly, in respect of concerns of potential impacts upon the amenities of Fasque; it is concluded the proposal would be acceptable.
6.14 In relation to the potential impact upon residential amenities of neighbouring property St Bridgets; the Inspector of the previous application commented: "...Moreover, the presence of a new residential property, partly to the rear of the side garden of St Bridgets, would give a perception of a reduction in the peace and privacy of that property.
6.15 It is not considered traffic generate by the proposal would cause significant impacts upon the occupants of St Bridgets to warrant a refusal. Further, it is noted that landscaping (and fencing) is proposed to be undertaken along the shared boundaries of the site with St Bridgets which would mitigate any noise/general impacts by vehicles. In terms of wither a dwelling would have an impact (overlooking, loss of light, overbearing impacts upon outlook), this cannot be considered at this stage as no details of the dwelling are provided. An indicative footprint is shown and it is considered if a single storey property where propose don this indicative footprint, then this may be acceptable. Of course the taller the building (2, 3, 4 stories etc.) the greater the impacts and possible concerns. However, until a detail scheme for the dwelling is provided it is not possible to consider this aspect under this current application, and would be for a future Reserved Matters application to consider.
Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision 6.16 Previous there were significant concerns of inadequately visibility splays of the access which would serve an additional dwelling. Accordingly, the below refusal reason was given to the previous application: " R 1. The proposal would result in an additional property using an access which will not provide adequate visibility for drivers emerging from the site. Whilst the visibility will be better than what existed previously, it is not fully in accordance with highway safety standards and is not sufficient to justify a further dwelling using this access. The proposal therefore fails to accord with General Policy 2h and 2i of the Strategic Plan."
6.17 On this matter the Inspector commented: "49. Under the appeal proposals, Fasque would henceforth be served by a single vehicle entrance in place of the former two accesses, with as much visibility onto the main A9 Andreas Road as could be achieved. That would amount to an immediate improvement in road safety locally, by reducing the number of residential frontage accesses.
However, despite the assertion of the Appellant that the requisite 43m sight distance could be achieved along the road edge, I am satisfied, on the evidence of the Highway Authority with reference to the Manual for Manx Roads, that in practice it would be significantly less, especially to the north, at around 18m. It is from the north that the fastest traffic is likely to approach, potentially at or even above the 30mph speed limit on entering the restricted zone.
Visibility standards are provided for guidance and I agree with the Appellant that a balanced, common sense judgement is justified on the circumstances of each individual case as to whether
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01386/A Page 10 of 11
a development complies with GP(h) and (i) on road safety. In this connection, I note that that judgements were made to allow frontage development accesses with numerically sub-standard visibility in the examples cited at Eastfield and Grand Island Hotel.
Be that as it may, it is evident in the present appeal that the kerbside visibility distances achievable without reliance upon private land obstructed by vegetation and outside the control of the Appellant would be significantly sub-standard, even if the set-back distance were reduced to 1.9m.
It is reasonable to consider that this disadvantage would be offset by the improvement in replacing the two former access points with a single entrance.
However, it is my judgement on balance that to double the permitted use of the entrance by creating an additional residential dwelling on the appeal land would still pose a significant increased danger to road safety in this particular case, when assessed on its individual merit. That is due to the potential for increased conflict between emerging and passing vehicles, which brings the proposed development into conflict with the aims of GP2(h) and (i) to secure safe access."
6.18 Following the refusal of the last application and comments made by the Inspector, the applicants have reassessed the access and landownership, namely the grass verges/banks.
6.19 The applicants have also provided a better standard of drawings and more detail in terms of the access arrangement and visibility splays. The applicants have shown visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in either direction (and beyond), which includes a 0.5m offset (not included last time) from the edged/kerb line of the highway. They have also sought advice from Department of Infrastructure in terms of the ownership of the roadside verges and they have confirmation that it is DOI land (this is a common occurrence throughout the IOM). The submitted plans show that the visibility splays are contained within their ownership and that of the Department of Infrastructure. This is important as the DOI either maintains their own land or are happy for the applicants to maintain the land in question.
6.20 The applicants also highlight that: "It should be noted that the speed limit from Andreas just before the 30mph limit has been reduced down to 40mph. This is another positive impact upon the vehicles speed entering the 30mph zone where the site in question is located. Vehicle speed when in the 30mph is much more likely to be near 30mph due to this compared to the previous higher speed limit."
6.21 Highway Services have considered the applicant in detailed as outlined in their representations. It should be noted that Highway Services had objections to the previous application also.
6.22 Again if the previous plans/information was submitted as part of this application, there would have been concerns raised again. However, as outlined the applicants have demonstrated that the required visibility splays can be provided.
6.23 Any new dwelling requires at least two off road parking space and turning provision. While the layout of the site is indicative, it is consider the site is large enough to accommodate two spaces and turning facilities. The existing property Fasque also has such provision.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous reasons for refusal in respect of access and highway safety and the impact on the living conditions of those in Fasque and therefore has no significant impact upon public or private amenities and therefore complying with Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 4 , Transport Policy 7 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/01386/A Page 11 of 11
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 01.03.2021
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal