Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00750/B Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 21/00750/B Applicant : Elliott Construction Limited Proposal Erection of a dwelling with associated access Site Address Land Adjoining Ard Reayrt Laxey Isle Of Man
Case Officer :
Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation 04.11.2021
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The erection of a dwelling upon this site would be contrary to General Policy 3 and the land use zoning of "Open Space." Approval of such a scheme on land designated for "Open Space" within an urban environment would set a significant precedent for similar types of development within existing settlements in the Isle of Man.
R 2. By virtue of its scale and design, the proposed dwelling would introduce an incongruous and unsympathetic element which would harm the appearance of the site and the overall character and appearance of the street scene when considered against the overall design in the area. The proposed dwelling due to its elevated vantage point would create unacceptable overlooking and overbearing to the rear of "Wayside."
R 3. Whilst the proposal does not propose the loss of many trees, the overall level, both what is proposed within the application and that which could reasonably be assumed may well occur in future given the likely pressure from occupants of any dwelling erected on the site means the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 3.
R 4. The application is missing information which would be required to make a full assessment including details on the drawings given and an ecology report.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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): Wayside, Langley House, The Creggans, Ard Finwork, Westroyd, Fairways, Ballakneale as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00750/B Page 2 of 12
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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): No's. 2, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 32, 32A, 42, 43, 47, 50, 55, 56, 65, 66, 68, are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy
It is considered that the following Government Department should be afforded Interested Person Status as they have raised material consideration in their representations in accordance with Article 4(2):
DOI Flood Risk Management Division __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNING OFFICER (NORTH).
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land off the Ard Reayrt housing estate in Laxey. The site is heavily-treed, mainly with self-set vegetation, and is on a slope that falls away from Ard Reayrt and down towards an unnamed and unadopted rear access lane that runs behind the houses lining the main A2 road through Laxey; this lane has a number of garages along it, all of which are owned by those dwellings fronting the A2.
1.3 Both the location plan and the site plan show the verge which is not within the ownership of the applicant. The supporting letter submitted by the agent states that the relevant landowner, "...has confirmed relaxation of his conditions of no development on the verge in order to allow the driveway, along with the access our client would need to have the right to use the verge to access main services and mains drainage which exist in both road and the verge. Following consultation with the Garff Commissioners on this matter, they have indicated they are agreeable to the access crossing from the site to Ard Reayrt by either granting a right or by legally transferring the land, detail to be agreed between parties following any decision on the house application."
PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a dwelling on the site which from the Ard Reayrt side (North East elevation) will have the appearance of a single storey dwelling and from the Douglas Road side (South West elevation) will have the appearance of a four storey dwelling
2.2 The dwelling is proposed to have a decked parking area with turning area which is to be constructed using pilled foundations.
2.3 Specifications on the materials proposed have not been given as part of the application.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is one previous Planning Application upon the site which was PA14/01189/A which was for the "Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling addressing siting and means of access" and was Refused for the following reasoning;
3.1.1 Reason for Refusal 1, "The level of woodland loss - both that now proposed and that which it can be reasonably assumed may well occur in future given the likely pressure from occupants of any dwelling erected on the site - makes the application is contrary to the
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00750/B Page 3 of 12
provisions of both Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 and also Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
3.1.2 Reason for Refusal 2, "It has not been demonstrated that the application would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. The application is therefore contrary to parts "h" and "i" of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
3.1.3 Refusal 3, "The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that it fails to take account of the character and identity of the area, while the loss of the green space that would result from a dwelling's construction here would be of detriment to the visual amenity and sense of place offered by the site's tree-covered nature."
3.2 There are two previous planning applications which have been submitted in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling site, PA91/01775/A and PA00/01508/A. Both pre-date the most recent Local Plan and Strategic Plan policies. Both sought Approval in Principle for new dwellings, and both were refused.
3.2.1 PA91/01775/A carried the following reason for refusal: "The proposal constitutes what is essentially backland development access by a service lane that is unsuitable and inadequate to service the development".
3.2.2 PA00/01508/A was refused at appeal following a Review of the original decision - a refusal was issued on both occasions. The Inspector recommended the appeal be dismissed with the result that the decision to refuse - and the reasons thereof - was upheld from the Review stage. These reasons were:
Reason for Refusal 1 - "The location and site plans are not coincidental and the location plan would appear, from comparison with digitally produced maps, to be the more accurate. From this, it is apparent that there is insufficient space for the erection of a new dwelling without it being positioned almost immediately behind 'Wayside' so as to be detrimental to its amenities."
Reason for Refusal 2 - "There is no obviously safe means of access available to any new dwelling on this site - the rear lane is narrow and not suitable for further traffic and there would appear to be insufficient spaces for a new access to be formed directly onto Ramsey Road so as to have adequate manoeuvring space and visibility splays."
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 LOCAL PLANS 4.1.1 The site lies within an area of "Open Space" on the Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area. The area is within a Registered Tree Area, No.RA2057.
4.1.2 The following proposals within the Area Plan for the East are relevant;
Landscape Proposal 5 (Laxey) - the landscape of the site must be taken into consideration and demonstrate how the development is appropriate in the landscape setting Urban Environment Proposal 3 - development must make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness.
4.2 STRATEGIC POLICIES 4.2.1 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following Strategic Policies;
Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure; Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3;
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00750/B Page 4 of 12
Strategic Policy 4 - development must protect or enhance special interest areas including nature conservation; Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel; Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3; General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations; General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development; Environment Policy 3 - development must not damage trees or woodland; Environment Policy 4 - development must not adversely affect ecology; Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Housing Policy 4 - new housing will be located primarily within the existing towns and villages Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation
4.3 LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS 4.3.1 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".
4.4 OPEN SPACE 4.4.1 The site is within an area zoned as "Open Space" on the Area Plan for the East which is defined under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as, "Any land, whether enclosed or not, on which there are no buildings or on which not more than 5% is covered with buildings."
4.4.2 Chapter 20 of the IOM Strategic Plan talks about the importance of Open Space and whilst most of the context is regarding recreational space, Paragraph 10.3.1 and part of Paragraph 10.3.2 is relevant
Paragraph 10.3.1 "The presence and use of various forms of Open Space in towns and villages on the Island form an integral part of the fabric of community life. Open Space takes various forms and serves many purposes. It ranges from formally laid parks to the wide and extensive public footpath network including Raad Ny Foillan and Millennium Way."
Part of Paragraph 10.3.2 states, "Open Space forms part of our heritage as well as being an attractive and usable asset, and, in the wider context, provides visual and spiritual relief from the developed urban settlements on the Island."
4.5 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00750/B Page 5 of 12
4.5.1 It is noted that the site itself is not within a Flood Risk Zone but the road surrounding the site is within a Flood Risk Zone.
4.5.2 The Department has published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2021) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This includes specific guidance on new houses, and impacts on Neighbouring Properties.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following consultations can be seen online in full,
5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and "Do not Oppose" subject to conditions. (02.08.21)
5.3 Garff Commissioners (9.08.21) have considered the application and object, raising the following points; o Area Plan for the East and Planning Policy o Current Amenity Value of the Site o Removal of Registered Trees o Off Site Flooding o Highway Issues
5.4 The Arboricultural Officer has written in to state that they have concerns regarding the application. (10.08.21)
5.5 The Ecosystems Policy Officer have considered the application and object on the reasoning the application would be contrary to EP3 and SP 4 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and contrary to Action 21 of the Isle of Man Biodiversity Strategy 2015.
5.6 DOI Flood Management Division have considered the application and "Do not Oppose." (19.08.21)
5.7 DOI Highway Drainage Division have written in stating they require additional information prior to making comments. (13.08.21)
5.8 The following are comments made from the neighbouring properties, it is relevant to note that all of the comments make reference to the convents on the land in question, with several properties making reference to the use of the rear road which is under their ownership.
5.8.1 The owner/occupier of No. 47 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.1) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the removal of trees and impact to services and ground water.
5.8.2 The owner/occupier of "The Creggans" (Rep No.2) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the use of the rear road being unpractical for large vehicles.
5.8.3 The owner/occupiers of "The Creggans" (Rep No.3) have written in to object to the use of the rear lane for highway safety reasons.
5.8.4 The owner/occupiers of No.50 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.4) have written in to object to the application on the basis of highway safety.
5.8.5 The owners/occupiers of No.62 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.5) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the proposal does not respect the site and highway safety.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00750/B Page 6 of 12
5.8.6 The owner/occupiers of "Ard Finwork" (Rep No.6) have written in to object to the application on the basis of highway safety and ecology.
5.8.7 The owner/occupiers of "Fairways" (Rep No.7) have written in to object to the application on the basis of height and size of proposed property and land zoning.
5.8.8 The owner/occupier of "Langley House" (Rep No.8) have written in to object to the application on the basis of highway safety.
5.8.9 The owner/occupier of No.66 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.9) have written in to object to the application on the basis land zoning, height, overlooking, ecology and removal of trees.
5.8.10 The owner/occupier of No. 2 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.10) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the land not being designated, removal of trees, design and impact on the road.
5.8.11 The owner/occupier of No. 65 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.11) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the land not being designated, overlooking, land issues, removal of trees, ecology and parking.
5.8.12 The owner/occupier of No. 16 Ard Reayrt (Rep No. 12) have written in to object to the application on the basis of visual amenity, ecology, damage and removal of trees and the land not being designated.
5.8.13 The owner/occupier of No.43 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.13) have written in to object to the application on the basis of removal of trees and the flood risk implications.
5.8.14 The owner/occupier of "Wayside" (Rep No.14) have written in to object to the application on the basis of overbearing, loss of trees and highway safety.
5.8.15 The owner/ occupier of No. 10 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.15) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the land not being designated, water runoff, removal of trees and increase of traffic.
5.8.16 The owner/occupier of No. 42 Ard Reyart (Rep No.16) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the land not being designated, ecology, removal of trees, highway safety, overlooking and surface water.
5.8.17 The owner/occupier of No. 65 Ard Reayrt (Rep No. 17) have written in to object to the application on the basis of removal of trees, ecology and the land not being designated.
5.8.18 The owner/occupier of "Westroyd" (Rep No. 18) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the removal of trees, possible backland development, size and height of the proposed property, traffic and highway safety, ecology and land designation.
5.8.19 The owners/occupiers of No. 12 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.19) have written in to object to the application on the basis of land zoning, impact on existing utilities, removal of trees, ecology and the appearance within the streetscene.
5.8.20 The owners/occupiers of No. 20 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.20) have written in to object to the application on the basis of traffic and highway safety, removal of trees, the appearance in the streetscene and land zoning.
5.8.21 The owners/occupiers of No. 32 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.21) have written in to object to the application on the basis of ecology, loss of trees, highway safety and possible flood risk.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00750/B Page 7 of 12
5.8.22 The owners/occupiers of No.11 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.22) have written in to object to the application on the basis of overlooking, visual appearance, highway safety, loss of trees, possible subsidence and flooding.
5.8.23 The owners/occupiers of No.15 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.23) have written in to object to the application on the basis of land zoning, ecology and loss of trees.
5.8.24 The owners/occupiers of "Ballakneale" (Rep No.24) have written to object to the application on the basis of highway safety.
5.8.25 The owners/occupiers of No.68 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.25) have written in to object to the application on the basis of land zoning, landscape of the area, ecology, loss of trees, highway safety and overlooking.
5.8.26 The owners/occupiers of No.55 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.26) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the character of the area, loss of trees and land zoning.
5.8.27 The owners/occupiers of No.56 Ard Reayrt (Rep No.27) have written in to object to the application on the basis of highway safety and ecology.
5.8.28 The owners/occupiers of No.32A Ard Reayrt (Rep No.28) have written in to object to the application on the basis of the zoning of the land, removal of trees, ecology, and overlooking.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.2.1 Fundamentally, in terms of Planning Policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development on land not designated for development, whether it's within the countryside or on land not designated for development under the relevant local plan. As stated above the zoning for the land in question is "open space" which means that the site is not zoned for residential development.
6.2.2 As such the proposal is not in accordance with the land use zoning, this means General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42 are the most relevant policies for the land zoning.
6.2.3 When looking at General Policy 3, the proposal does not meet any of the exceptions.
6.2.4 Turning towards Environment Policy 42 it specifically states (in part) that 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." As stated with the beginning of this report the site prior to the Area Plan for the East was zoned as "Predominately Residential," with the zoning changing to "Open Space."
6.2.5 The site due to its location and the overall topography of the site is within a prominent spot in Laxey and can be seen from several locations within Laxey with clear views being awarded when on higher sites opposite the proposed site such as Upper Rencell Hill. The site
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00750/B Page 8 of 12
itself is very noticeable from the main road (Ramsey Road) below, with the site providing much needed shielding for the Ard Reayrt Estate.
6.2.6 Overall when looking at the proposal for a new dwelling on this site, the proposal does not comply with General Policy 3 or Environment Policy 42 for the reasons above.
6.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE 6.3.1 Firstly when looking at the proposed dwelling it is to be situated to the South of the site, with the removal of T2491/ T2490 and G1 (among others) proposed. The removal of these three trees due to where the property is going to be situated will open up the site completely for the proposed dwelling and the majority of the rear elevation will be seen from the areas stated above in Laxey.
6.3.2 Environment Policy 42 in part 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."
6.3.3 When the site and surrounding properties are viewed from the other side of the Laxey valley (Upper Rencell Hill side), the character of the area is very clearly dwellings set in amongst mature tree coverage, with the line of dwellings along Ramsey Road being very clear and distinctive. For where the site is proposed you have three layers of dwellings, first the properties below Ramsey Road, secondly the properties above Ramsey Road, a landscape gap of mature trees and garden and then the Ard Reayrt estate, which due to the landscape gap is read completely differently from the dwellings situated above Ramsey Road.
6.3.4 The proposed dwelling by being situated within this landscaped gap, with the removal of trees which could potentially shield the property overall and the overall height it will be (the roofline will be just below the ground floor line of the properties within Ard Reayrt). The proposed property from this viewpoint would appear to be awkward and jarring within the context of the already existing dwellings.
6.3.5 Whilst viewpoints from the Ramsey Road below the site are relatively minimal because of the height differences in the properties and the main road, the property will be situated high above the already existing building line and due to its close proximity to the rear lane of the properties along Ramsey Road, the house will be seen as a large overbearing structure.
6.3.6 Whilst it is acknowledged that the drawings show materials which could possibly help limit the overall viewpoint, these materials are not specified on the drawings and are missing, as such this part cannot properly be assessed.
6.3.7 Overall the proposed dwelling is not designed within the context of the surrounding properties and would be contrary to Environment Policy 42.
6.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES 6.4.1 Turning towards the impact upon neighbouring amenity, firstly a site visit was conducted to which the officer went to several properties with Ramsey Road and Ard Reayrt to get a wide assessment of the site.
6.4.2 From Ard Reayrt when taking into account the site, No. 68 and No.69 Ard Reayrt would be the most affected due to the proposed ingress and egress of the site being opposite their properties. When looking at the details proposed and having looked at the site, there are only to be three trees to be removed from the upper area of the site, as such the property will be shielded by the vegetation already on the site.
6.4.3 The proposed property will measure approximately 8.5m from the main road level upwards, with this and the fact that No.68 & 69 Ard Reayrt are situated at a much higher
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00750/B Page 9 of 12
elevation than the main road level, including the fact that the properties themselves are around 20m away from the main road means that there should be no effect to the residential amenity.
6.4.4 The main impact when it comes to neighbouring amenity if with regards to Wayside and Fairways, both of which are situated to the South West of the site. Whilst both these properties are further away than the recommended 20m within the Residential Design Guidance, it is noted that the site is situated upon a steep slope which affords a more overbearing aspect than would be the case for a flat piece of land.
6.4.5 When standing within the rear garden of Wayside you can clearly see the garage situated to the North West of the proposed site and due to the proposed removal of the trees in front of the property, there is no buffer available to assist in reducing any possible perceived or actual overlooking. The proposed property not only has windows to this elevation but three levels of decking and Juliet balconies which provide additional outlooks onto the neighbouring properties along Ramsey Road.
6.4.6 Whilst there is some mitigation to Wayside and the rear lane, due to the lower ground floor of the proposed property starting just slightly below the garage height, all the windows situated within the property would have vantage points over Wayside.
6.4.7 The proposed property is also to appear as three storey property from the rear of Wayside which when including the possible perceived and actual overlooking with create an overbearing impact.
6.5 IMPACT ON ECOLOGY/ TREES 6.5.1 Turning towards the proposal and the potential impact to the ecology of the area and the Registered Trees. It is first noted that the Ecosystems Policy Team are opposed to the development and several concerns have been raised by the Arboricultural Officer.
6.5.2 The Ecosystems Policy Team are opposed to the development due to a lack of information within the application and note that the woodland is of a broadleaf variety which would "support a wide variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds and roosting and feeding bats and providing refuge for wildlife in the Laxey settlement Area."
6.5.3 Whilst the Arboricultural Officer does not oppose the application they have brought forward scepticism on the proposed piling foundations to the rear parking area and state, "This is feasible in theory but there is very little technical detail available to support the application, so there is a low level of confidence in the outcome for retained trees."
6.5.4 This is especially relevant due to the removal of T2491/ T2490 and G1 (amongst others) which within the Arboricultural Assessment given these trees have no major defects which would require the felling of them and there is no work required (bar minimal maintenance) to bring them up to a suitable standard to warrant their felling. Add in the location of several tree bases being substantially close to the proposed deck, if the piling foundation does not work and the trees start to die back, the tree loss for the scheme overall would be substantial.
6.5.5 It is noted that within the planning statement includes a short statement, in reference to drawing No.4529/P1 that states an area situated next to the rear lane for the properties along Ramsey Road is proposed to be a "transition into a natural woodland environment". As stated previously in this report, the drawings given are missing specific detailing of which this area is one. It could be seen from the officer's site visit that this area already has trees and hedging, whilst the replacement and management of this section could assist the overall ecology of the area, the small space is not enough to counteract the size of the property and removal/potential removal of trees, in ecology terms.
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00750/B Page 10 of 12
6.5.6 With this in mind, it is considered that the level of woodland loss (and the subsequent loss of ecology), both that which is proposed within this application and that which may occur in future given the likely pressure from occupants of any dwelling would make the application contrary to Environment Policy 3.
6.6 POSSIBLE FLOODING 6.6.1 Whilst the site is not within a Flood Risk zone it is relevant to note that the main road in Ard Reayrt, which follows the site and provides the access onto the site is an area of Surface Water - Medium Likelihood Flood Risk Zone. No details have been provided within this application on what drainage is to be provided to intercept any surface water runoff from the site but it is noted that the proposed driveway is raised from the main road.
6.7 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY FOR ACCESS 6.7.1 Firstly when looking at the proposed property and taking note of the comments from Highway Services it can be seen that the proposed visibility splays, decking drive and available parking would be acceptable for a new dwelling and would comply with TP4 and TP7.
6.7.2 Whilst this is the case it is relevant to note that the planning statement states that the rear access lane, which serves the 9 properties along Ramsey Road and is accessed from Ramsey Road will be used from construction traffic.
6.7.3 It could be seen from the officer's site visit that the ingress and egress from the lane, due to its access can only be done from the East and as such would be unsuitable for heavy machinery. The sight line from the main road are minimal even with the mirrors. The road itself is single track, unmaintained, narrow with minimal passing/turning around places especially for heavy vehicles. This is also confirmed by the previous Planning Applications on the site for a new dwelling, all of which have comments with regards to the unsuitability of the rear access lane.
6.7.4 Highway Services do not have jurisdiction over the rear access road, due to it being un- adopted. Whilst this is the case they have stated that the rear lane would be unusable for a permanent access to the site and several of the properties along Ramsey Road have raised objections to the use of this lane.
6.7.5 To make sure that the rear lane is suitable for the proposed construction traffic a condition should be attached for a Transport Assessment to be done.
6.8 OTHER MATTERS 6.8.1 Several objectors have raised an issue with land ownership of both the upper area of the site within the Ard Reayrt estate and also with the proposed use of the rear access lane, both of these issues are civil disputes between the land owners and the applicants. Whilst these issues need to be resolved, the issue of land ownership is of no consequence to the determination of the application.
6.8.2 It is also noted that there are several parts missing from the application including the proposed materials of the property. Whilst a decision can be made without this detail (and a condition attached) it is deemed due to the amount missing, the objections received and the need for clarity that these details would be required for consultation.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, it is considered that a dwelling upon this site would be contrary to General Policy 3 and the Land Zoning. Approval of such a scheme on land designated for "Open Space" within an urban environment would set a significant precedent for similar types of development within existing settlements in the Isle of Man.
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/00750/B Page 11 of 12
7.2 Concerns are also raised with regards to highway safety, loss of woodland, loss of ecology, overall impact within the streetscene and the overbearing, perceived and actual overlooking to Wayside. This means the proposal is contrary to SP4, SP5, GP2, GP3, EP3, EP4 and EP42.
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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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 : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 15.11.2021
Signed : V PORTER 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.
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/00750/B Page 12 of 12
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 15.11.2021
Application No. : 21/00750/B Applicant : Elliott Construction Limited Proposal : Erection of a dwelling with associated access Site Address : Land Adjoining Ard Reayrt Laxey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer : Mrs Vanessa Porter
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
Planning Committee agreed with the officers recommendation of refusal with the change to the Interested Person Status in that No.68 should be awarded IPS.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal