Loading document...
The application site comprises of a parcel of land that is located between existing residential development on Lezayre Road in Ramsey. The site effectively represents part of the garden of the neighbouring dwelling.
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the residential development of the application site.
The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that I consider relevant to the assessment of this current planning application.
Ramsey Town Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the development would cause highway problems, that the development would lead to a loss of amenity space for the children’s home and that development would be contrary to local plan policy.
The Department of Transport Highways Division object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern at the fact that the planning application proposes the formation of an access onto a primary distributor road, which is contrary to their policy.
The Isle of Man Water Authority makes no comment on the merit of the planning application but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The application site is within the area covered by the Ramsey Local Plan. Under this the application site is within an area recognised as being in predominantly residential use and is not designated for any specific purpose.
Planning Circular 2/99, the written statement that accompanies the local plan, states at paragraph 7.4 that:
"With regard to existing residential areas, it is considered important that backland and/or garden areas are protected from inappropriate residential development, particularly where such development would result in the loss of existing trees or hedgerows."
Policy R/R/P3, which relates to the development of infill and backland sites, states:
"Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such site should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to the submission of any application."
In order to assess the planning application I would suggest that it is necessary to look at principle behind development. To do this I suggest that it is appropriate to look at issues of local plan policy, the size of the site and highway safety. The proposed development was discussed with the applicant's agent prior to the submission of the planning application. At that time I recall advising that I thought the general principle of development would be acceptable subject to the opinion of the DoT with regards to highway safety issues.
In terms of planning policy the consideration of Policy R/R/P3 has been previously considered through the assessment of planning application 04/02353/A, which proposed the residential development of a parcel of land situated at the corner of Glen Elfin Road and May Hill. This site is located approximately 250 metres from the application site for the current planning application. This previous planning application was the subject of an appeal and in the conclusions of their report the appointed Planning Inspector stated that "there is logic in attempting to use suitable remaining urban land rather than continuing to expand into rural areas" and continued on to say that they were "aware of the presumption against developing such land as set out in Policy R/R/P3 of the Local Plan, but given the condition of the site and its location within an urban area, I support the principle of developing the site with housing".
Whilst I do consider this previous conclusion to be relevant I am of the opinion that as each site has different characteristics there is a need to consider each planning application on its individual merits. It is my view that at a basic level the application site could be developed in a manner that does not unduly affect the character of the area and the amenity of the existing surrounding properties. To my mind the application site represents a natural building plot between existing residential development. I believe it is reasonable to say that the Department's stance on the use of urban sites has evolved since the publication of the Ramsey Local Plan and Planning Circular 2/99. Local plan policy is another material consideration in the assessment of a planning application and as always policy can only ever act as guidance in any such assessment. Taking account of the conclusions of the previously appointed Planning Inspector I can see logic and a wider benefit to making best use of sites within urban areas. As such, in terms of planning policy I consider the residential development of the application site to be acceptable.
In terms of the size of the application site I am satisfied that it could accommodate residential development without causing unacceptable harm on the amenity of the existing surrounding properties. Whilst the development of the application site would cause the loss of an amenity area for the adjacent children's home I do not believe this to be reason for refusal as the children's home would still have its own amenity space. As such, in terms of the size of the application site I consider the residential development of the application site to be acceptable.
In terms highway safety I have to have regard to the objection from the DoT. Having spoken to Derek Sewell I understand that their concerns are based on the formation of a new, or amended, access onto a primary distributor road. Further discussion has highlighted that if access were to be acceptable that visibility splays of a minimum of 2 metres by 70 metres would be required to satisfy DoT standards. It appears to me that it would not be possible to provide such visibility splays. For reasons of highway safety I believe that these two issues have to form reason for refusal of the planning application.
I recommend that the planning application be refused on the basis of the objection from the DoT.
I consider that all parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 14.07.2006
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The residential development of the application site is contrary to the interests of highway safety and therefore unacceptable by reason that:
a) the extent of the application site frontage onto Lezayre Road is inadequate to provide visibility splays of a minimum of 2 metres by 70 metres; and b) the formation and use of a vehicular access onto Lezayre Road is contrary to the policy of the Department of Transport’s which precludes the formation of minor frontage access on primary distributor roads.
Highway Division
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made: Refused Date: 14.7.06
Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control in the absence of the Director.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown