Loading document...
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on part of the residential curtilage of an existing detached dwelling adjacent to the northern side of the Sulby River in Ramsey.
In terms of representations to the planning application comments have been received from the Ramsey Town Commissioners, the DoT's Highways Division, the DoT's Drainage Division, the DAFF's Inland Fisheries Development Manager, one public third party, the SPMCE and the Isle of Man Water Authority
Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objections to the planning application but suggest that any development should take account of the flood levels contained within the Bullen Report.
The DoT's Highways Division have no objections to the planning application subject to conditions. The DoT's Drainage Division have no objections to the planning application subject to conditions. The DAFF's Inland Fisheries Development Manager has no objections to the planning application subject to conditions.
The owner and/or occupant of no. 6 Riverside has objected to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that previous similar application have been refused on the grounds of access provision, that the access lane is not in the control of the applicant, that remedial works to the lane since the previous refusal are slight, that the area is not suited to additional traffic and that the area has previously been flooded.
The SPMCE have made no comment on the merits of the planning application but have suggested that flooding is a potential issue, the effect on trees is an important consideration and that approval may set a precedent.
The Isle of Man Water Authority made no comment on the merits of the planning application but requested that an informative note be attached to any approval.
In terms of assessing the planning application it is beneficial to assess the planning history. Planning application 88/788 that sought approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on a similar application site was refused on the 2nd September 1988 on the grounds of the condition of the access lane. More recently, planning application 98/11 was refused initially, refused at review and confirmed refused on appeal on the 26th January 1999. In their conclusions the appointed Planning Inspector made particular reference to suitability of the access onto Bowring Road and the overall condition of the access lane. They concluded that the junction with Bowring Road was acceptable and acknowledged that the access lane could be improved. However, they recognised that the ownership of the access lane was outside of the control of the applicant, meaning that a Grampian style condition could not be properly imposed. As the adequacy and suitability of a proposed access is
something to take account of in assessing a planning application the planning application was refused.
Despite the assertions of the applicant's agent that remedial works have been undertaken to the access lane the surface still remains limited and the two sharp bends remain. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the previous reason for refusal remains.
In addition to this the planning application contains no details of tree coverage across the site and fails to demonstrate that the dwelling could be accommodated without the need to remove an unacceptable number of trees.
Overall, I recommend that the planning application be refused for two reasons.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 05.12.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. By reason that the Planning Committee is not persuaded that the access lane to the application site is of a sufficient standard to be able to satisfactorily accommodate the additional traffic generated by the new dwelling without resulting in a poor environment for both existing neighbouring residents and future occupants of the new dwelling the planning application is contrary to Part 3 11. 2) a) (iv) of the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and therefore unacceptable.
R 2. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal the planning application fails to show the existing tree coverage across the application site and to appropriately demonstrate that a dwelling could be sited without requiring an unacceptable level of tree felling.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown