Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00593/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00593/B Applicant : Mrs Carol Crane Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling with attached garage Site Address : Rheast Mooar House Andreas Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3UA
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.08.2021 __
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. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
C 3. Obscure glazing (Pilkington level 5 or equivalent) shall be installed in the following windows and shall be maintained as such thereafter;
North Elevation - first floor Ensuite rooms x 2
Reason: In interests of neighbouring residential amenities.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an Arboricultural Method Statement, adhering to the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The agreed protection measures and programme of arboricultural supervision detailed within shall adhered to in full.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00593/B Page 2 of 9
Reason: to provide a level of technical detail sufficient to provide a high level of confidence in the outcome for retained trees on the site.
Note: The AMS should address (where applicable) the specification of the protective fencing to be used around trees, the removal of existing structures and hard surfacing, the installation of temporary ground protection over portions of RPA not within a CEZ, excavations within portions of RPA not within a CEZ, and how the project arboriculturist and/or construction manager will carry out arboricultural site monitoring, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or inspection
C 5. For the purposes of undertaking the required arboricultural supervision, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the appointment of a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist to the role of Project Arboriculturist (PA) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The Department shall be notified in writing if person appointed to the role of PA changes.
Reason: to provide a level of technical detail sufficient to provide a high level of confidence in the outcome for retained trees on the site.
C 6. No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (tree planting) showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must 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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the has no significant impacts 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, Ramsey Local Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers all received;
02.06.2021 NB/Crane/401 NB/Crane/402 NB/Crane/405 NB/Crane/404 NB/Crane/406 NB/Crane/407 Design and Access Statement
11.08.2021 Arboricultural Impact Assessment - 13th July 2021 TP-130721 - Outline Tree Protection TS-130721 - Tree Constraints TR-130721 - Tree Impact
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00593/B Page 3 of 9
02.06.2021 Drawing NB/Crane/403 is not approved. Drawing NB/Crane/408 is not approved. __
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 4(2):
70 Ormly Road, Ramsey 6 Thornhill Close, 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
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site forms part of the residential curtilage of Rheast Mooar House. The application site is square in shape. The site is located to the east of Andreas Road and north Rheast Mooar Lane to the south. Access is via an entrance to the south corner of the site onto Andreas Road.
1.2 The site is mainly characterised by a flat parcel of land with a number of large mature trees along the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Until recently the dwelling Rheast Mooar House was in place which was a traditional two storey property, with dormer accommodation within the roof space and with single storey wings to both gable elevations. The dwelling has full two storey projection bay windows to the front elevation. The finish was painted render with a slate roof finish. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor is the property Registered. However, since the submission of the application the dwelling has been demolished.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for an for the erection of a detached dwelling with attached garage. The dwelling is a two storey dwelling of traditional form but with a more contemporary design, namely given its finishes and widow styles. The dwelling does not sit on the original footprint of dwelling, but now sites more centrally within the site, to the west of the former dwelling. No trees are proposed to remove any trees to facility this development.
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;
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00593/B Page 4 of 9
(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; (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
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00593/B Page 5 of 9
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 2021
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There have been a number of planning application associate with the site; however, only the following are considered relevant. These namely relate for an additional of a new dwelling to the former front lawn of Rheast Mooar House which has recently been completed: 4.2 Erection of a single dwelling on land adjacent to Rheast Mooar House - 19/00009/B - APPROVED 4.3 Approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling and creation of a vehicular access for Rheast Mooar House - 15/01095/A - APPROVED
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have made the initial comments (23.06.2021): "Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to this proposal. Whilst it was recorded that Ramsey Town Commissioners were disappointed to see the loss of a historic property, they were happy to see a modern sustainable property being put in its place."
5.2 Highway Services make the following comments (12.08.2021): "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking. Electric vehicle charging points should be provided to aid climate change objectives. The Applicant is advised to consider installing an electric vehicle charging point to aid climate change objectives."
5.2.1 Further comments received (14.08.2021); "Highway Services note the additional information uploaded on11 August 2021 and the advice, in part, to prune trees overhanging the highway. This is likely to require use of the highway to enable completion of such a task, for which a highway licence necessary. As such licencing is under legislation separate to the planning development process, we continue to apply no opposition to this proposal."
5.3 The Senior Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) initially so objected to the application due to the lack of application does not include an arboricultural impact assessment or tree protection plan and had concerns to impact upon mature trees on the site. However, following additional information being provided the Senior Arboricultural Officer made the following comments;
11.08.2021 "Further to my comments below, additional information has now been submitted to address these concerns. The report provided demonstrates that the development could be implemented without having a significantly detrimental impact on the health of the retained trees.
If this application is approved I recommend that the following condition is applied:
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an Arboricultural Method Statement, adhering to the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The agreed protection measures and programme of arboricultural supervision detailed within shall adhered to in full.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00593/B Page 6 of 9
Reason: to provide a level of technical detail sufficient to provide a high level of confidence in the outcome for retained trees on the site Note: The AMS should address (where applicable) the specification of the protective fencing to be used around trees, the removal of existing structures and hard surfacing, the installation of temporary ground protection over portions of RPA not within a CEZ, excavations within portions of RPA not within a CEZ, and how the project arboriculturist and/or construction manager will carry out arboricultural site monitoring, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or inspection.
In a separate condition, it would be useful to have the applicant confirm the appointment of a Project Arboriculturist prior to commencement, as this would provide a point of contact and confidence that tree protection is being taken seriously. I'm afraid I don't have a model condition which covers this."
5.4 The owner/occupier of 70 Ormly Road, Ramsey has commented to the application which can be summarised as (22.06.2021); "I have purchased the neighbouring property just over 2 years ago and am currently commissioning a Solar PV system to be installed during my ongoing refurbishment of the property. The solar PV system by its nature requires a full splay of sunlight in order to work efficiently. The survey undertaken before design took into account all trees and properties within the vicinity. In Drawing NB/Crane/408 referred to as 'tree survey' it proposes planting of 1x Hornbeam and 2x Copper beeches along the boundary wall. As Copper beeches are usually referred to as large shade casting trees, I believe they will cast heavy shadow in Years to come reducing the efficiency of our Solar PV system. We do not object to the planting of trees or to the development its self but I would request that a small species be selected that would not impact ourselves."
5.5 The owners/occupiers of 6 Thornhill Close, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (07.06.2021); Even though the existing house is closer to our mutual boundary than will be the proposed dwelling and has a larger footprint; the existing house contains no windows which look directly towards our property and the only window which can be seen from our conservatory is one of the angled bay windows which does not afford a significant view of our property and there is no perception of being overlooked from it; the proposed dwelling, whilst further away will have two large bedroom windows at first floor level within 20m of the windows of our conservatory. Not only will this result in actual overlooking of our conservatory (there is actually a person shown standing at the window in the proposed elevations) according to the Department's Residential Design Guidance, but also a perception of being overlooked even if there is no-one standing looking out of these windows, where none currently exists; in addition, the single storey annex on the northern elevation with its significant glazed doors, is only 15m away from our conservatory and just less than 20m away from the windows in the main part of the rear of our house; if the proposed dwelling and garage were turned through 90 degrees such that it faced south west, which would also afford more of the property more sunlight there would be less impact to our property; Concern of the removal of Registered trees marked 3, 4, 5 & 6 are Registered as a group; the replacement of these Registered trees somewhere else on the site which is not with the Registered Tree Area will not mitigate the loss of the trees and their contributions to the Registered group. If permission is granted, a Tree Protection Plan should be submitted to and approved by the Department prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that no damage is done to the Registered trees which are to be retained if not also for the other trees on the site; and there also does not appear to be a proposed site plan and no details of levels - proposed or existing. 5.5.1 Further to these comments the applicants submitted a tree protection plan and additional tree information. The owners/occupiers of 6 Thornhill Close, Ramsey made the following summarised comments (16.08.2021); I note that the amended plans do not alter the position, size or design of the proposed house, so our objections as previously stated still stand; whilst I note that no trees are now going to
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00593/B Page 7 of 9
be removed which is welcome, we seek confirmation from the department Arboricultural Office that as stated in the Manx Roots report 'There will be no tree-related visual impact as no trees are being removed or severely pruned' as we are concerned that pruning and lifting the crowns of some of the trees as proposed will have some visual impact on these registered trees. If work is to be undertaken as proposed we would appreciate consideration given to removal of the large overhang of tree 4667, which over hangs our conservatory.
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. Further, until recent there has been a dwelling on the site for a significant period of time. It is also considered the area of the site is large enough to accommodate a 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 detached bungalow Nr 6 Thornhill Close which is to the north of the site/application dwelling. To the rear of Nr 6 is a rear single storey conservatory (living room). This property has a rear and side gardens which run along the part of the northern boundary of the application site. There is a mature hedgerow shared with the application site and there are a number of mature trees which run parallel with this boundary.
6.6 The main issues are the potential of overlooking, potential of loss of light and/or potential overbearing impacts upon neighbouring amenities. The proposed dwelling closest aspect (rear single storey outrigger) would be located between 15.3m and 18m to the rear conservatory of Nr 6 (between 17.6m and 21.7m to rear of main dwellinghouse). The main concerns of the owner/occupiers is the overlooking/perception of being overlooked. The Residential Design Guide 2021 which is a useful document to ascertain the likely impacts of development to neighbouring properties. Within this guide (and a long established planning rule) it indicates that directly facing windows should generally be 20m. In this case the ground floor windows do not raise concern, given the boundary landscaping which screens any significant views into the neighbouring property. The potential cause of concern is the four, first floor windows which serve two bedrooms and two en- suites (the latter could be conditioned to be obscure screened). These windows would be between 20m to 22.8m to the rear conservatory. The closest first floor window is 14m away from the shared boundary of the site. Visiting the neighbouring property (Nr 6) it is acknowledged that the proposal would
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00593/B Page 8 of 9
introduce the potential for a greater level of overlooking that previously occurred. The previous dwelling on the site which has been demolished, had a side bay window which was closer to what is current proposed; albeit the level of glazing and give the new properties orientation, i.e. facing more towards Nr 6; the impact is considered greater under the current proposal. However, as outlined within the Residential Design Guide and long standing practice, the windows in question are 20m or more from the rear conservatory windows/rear windows within main dwellinghouse and therefore comply with these standards.
6.7 It should also be noted since the Residential Design Guide outlines that bedrooms window are habitable rooms, but are not primary habitable rooms (i.e. living rooms/kitchen diners); with the latter potential having a greater level of use and raise the potential impacts, whereas habitable rooms have a reduce use generally and therefore less potential impact.
6.8 Therefore, while there is a potential greater impact than what previously occurred, it is considered the potential of overlooking is not so significant to warrant a refusal, for the reasons given.
6.9 In terms of overbearing impacts; arguably, the demolition of the former dwelling which was larger, and sited much closer than the current proposal, would have a far greater visual impact and overbearing impact compared to the proposed new dwelling, especially given the new dwelling is smaller in footprint, scale and setback away from Nr 6. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable from an overbearing perspective.
6.10 In terms of loss of light, again given the size, scale and proximity of the previous dwelling in relation to Nr 6; it is consider the proposal would likely improve light to Nr 6, given its siting, size and reduction in scale over the previously dwelling.
6.11 In terms of the comments made by 70 Ormly Road, the applicants have amended the scheme and removed the proposed trees which where proposed to be planted along the boundary of 70 Ormly Road. No further, comment/s was received by the owner/occupier following the amendments.
Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision 6.12 Highway Services have considered the applicant in detailed as outlined in their representations and raise no concerns. It should be noted the access was previously approved recently and provided the required visibility splays i.e. the property is not reusing an existing older access which can have poor visibility.
6.13 Any new dwelling requires at least two off road parking space and turning provision. The proposal meets both these requirements.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the has no significant impacts 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, Ramsey Local Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
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;
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00593/B Page 9 of 9
(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.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 09.09.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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