Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01569/B Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 21/01569/B Applicant : Manx Care Proposal Erection of a care home and day care centre with associated parking and both hard and soft landscaping Site Address Cooil-Ny-Marrey Waterloo Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1EQ
Case Officer :
Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 03.10.2022
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 means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 3. 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 4. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the secure and covered bicycle store have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The secure and covered bicycle store shall be retained at all times thereafter.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.
C 5. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping (drawings PL494-PP01 and PL494-PP02) must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01569/B Page 2 of 16
following the completion of the development or the occupation of the kennel extension, 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.
C 6. Prior to the occupation of the development the 4x Schwegler 1A integrated Swift Bird boxes shown on the Proposed External Elevations Sheet 1 of 3. (Drg no. p-08 Rev A) shall be installed and retained thereafter.
Reason: to increase biodiversity within the site.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered for the reasons indicated within this report the proposal overall, would not have any significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities and would therefore comply with the relevant planning policies of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, The 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;
A801- LS-01 P01 P02 A P03 B P04 A P05 A P06 B P07 B P08 A P09 A P010 A P011 A P013 A
ITB16011-001D R - Transport Assessment Client Developer Guidance CDG2021 Cummal Mooar AIA 190722 TS-070322 TR-190722 OTP-190722
Cummal Mooar Design Statement July 2022 PL494-01 Rev A Cummal Mooar Masterplan PL494-PP01 Cummal Mooar Planting Plan, Courtyard PL494-PP02 Cummal Mooar Planting Plan, Communal Garden PL494-PP03 Cummal Mooar Tree Pit Detail
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01569/B Page 3 of 16
The Flood Risk Management (DOI) Manx National Heritage
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):
11 Marine Gardens, Ramsey 27 Claughbane Drive, Ramsey (freehold owner of 15 Marine Gardens) 4 Marine Gardens, Ramsey 10 Marine Gardens, Ramsey 2A Water Street, Ramsey (owners of 2 Marine Gardens) 62 Waterloo Road, Ramsey 59 Waterloo 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 DUE TO THE LEVEL OF OBJECTION FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises Cooil-Ny-Marrey, Waterloo Road, Ramsey which located to the north eastern side of Waterloo Road. The site is 1.45acres in size. Approach Road runs to the northwest boundary of the site and Waterloo Lane to the southwest of the site. Victoria Road runs from the Approach Road in a south easterly direction to the site. Victoria Road runs behind the neighbouring properties of Waverly Terrace and Cambridge House which are to the west of the site.
1.2 Currently the site accommodates two, two storey detached blocks within the site, one fronts Waterloo Road (referred as Waterloo House), albeit part is setback with a landscaped area in front; while the second block fronts onto Approach Road (Approach House).
1.3 The current building (Waterloo House) until recently accommodated 55 one bedroomed sheltered housing units (operated by the Ramsey and Northern District Housing Committee) which was constructed in 1981. The applicants advise while the building is structurally sound, the layout means the building no longer meets the required size standards for this type of accommodation.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a care home and day care centre with associated parking and both hard and soft landscaping. The new building would have a "U- shaped" footprint with a central courtyard which would be mainly three storeys in height, albeit with a single/two storey building to the north aspect of the new build. The new building would be sited mainly on the original footprint of Waterloo House and the front landscaped area which runs parallel with Waterloo Road. The new buildings frontage would run parallel with Waterloo Road. The existing Approach Building would be demolished and replaced with a landscaped gardens and car park.
2.2 The proposals includes; o Demolition of Cooil Ny Marrey complex;
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01569/B Page 4 of 16
o Provision of 45-bedroom residential care complex with Day care centre (cafe) to accommodate up to 20 people; o Statutory and Regulatory Compliance/Approval (Planning/Building Regulations/Regulation of Care Act 2013); o Car parking and hardscaping; o Landscaping/ private gardens with activity spaces for residents; and o Design for dementia best practice.
2.3 The applicants advise that; "The recent completion of Mayfield Apartments on Queens Pier Road has allowed the remaining tenants to relocate leaving Cooil Ny Marrey vacant and available for demolition. Ownership would be transferred from R&NDHC to DHSC."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site and surrounding land has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications; However, none are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 LOCAL PLAN 4.1.1 The application site falls within the Ramsey Local Plan and is designated as "predominately residential use". The site is not within a Conservation Area. A Registered Building Lough House to the northwest of the site.
4.2 STRATEGIC PLAN 4.2.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 4 Protection of built heritage and landscape conservation 5 Design and visual impact 10 Sustainable transport 11 Housing Needs
Spatial Policy 2 Identified Ramsey as a Service Centre 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 3 Protection of Woodland 4 Wildlife and Nature Conservation 5 Ecological Impacts 10 Flood Risk Assessments 13 No unacceptable risk of Flooding 42 Respect the local character and identity
Housing Policy 1 General need for additional housing from 2011 -2026 2 Supply of designated housing land available 3 Defined housing provision per area 4 Location of new housing and exceptions
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01569/B Page 5 of 16
Recreational Policy 3 Requirement for Landscaped amenity areas
Community Policy 6 New community health care facilities 10 Fire Fighting provisions
Transport Policy 2 Provision for new links 3 Protection of existing and former rail routes 4 Highway Safety 5 Design of Highway Network Improvements 6 Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians 7 Parking Provisions 8 Requirements for Transport Assessments
Energy Policy 5 Energy Efficiency
4.3 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE 2019 - Section 2.0 New Houses 4.3.1 This document 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 properties and sustainable methods of construction.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS It should be noted that full comments made by all representations are available on the Online Services - Planning Applications and any decision should read this in full. Further, the application has been re-advertised (26.08.2022) once in response to issues raised. The comments below are taken form the last correspondence from the relevant party only
5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection (18.02.2022).
5.2 Highway Services (DOI) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments (09.08.2022): ""Highways Development Control notes the additions and amendments uploaded on 27 July 2022, including a revised Transport Assessment to evaluate the change to the car parking arrangements on removing two spaces from Waterloo Lane and adding two off Victoria Road. This would result in a minor change to the pattern of movements. The revised swept paths indicate that car parking bays remain usable. Accordingly, the proposal remains acceptable for HDC to raise no opposition subject to conditions for the access and layout to accord with Drawing No's: P02 Rev A and P03 Rev B. As previously advised a s109(A) Highway Agreement is necessary for works in the highway after grant of any planning consent."
5.3 Agriculture & Lands Directorate (DEFA) making the following comments (26.01.2022); "The majority of trees on this site are small, or poor quality specimens which are likely to be category C trees(BS5837:2012). In the southern corner of the site, however, adjacent to the junction of Waterloo Lane and Waterloo Road there is a larger cherry tree. This tree shows good form for the species and is in good physiological condition. It is also very visible in the street scene and contributes to the amenities of the area. When in blossom, this tree is likely to be a particularly attractive feature. See attached photos. No tree survey or arboricultural impact assessment has been provided to support this application but I would suggest that this tree is a Category B tree, meaning it is the Directorate's view that it should be considered a material constraint to development.
If removal was required to make maximum/efficient use of the space available appropriate mitigation should have been considered. The proposed site plan (P-02) shows that some new
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01569/B Page 6 of 16
trees will be planted in front of the proposed building, but with planting centres being only 2m from the front of the building these will have to be very small/narrow trees which are unlikely to make a significant contribution to amenity. Details of the species/cultivar proposed for these locations are not provided.
The Directorate will therefore be objecting to this application on the basis that the proposed development includes the removal of a tree worthy of a category B classification (as defined by BS5837:2012) without proposing sufficient mitigation to replace/restore the amenity value that will be lost."
5.4 Ecosystem Policy Officer (DEFA) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments (22.08.2022): "The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are much happier with the proposed outdoor space now that more landscaping details have been provided and changes to the outdoor design have been made. The proposals now include the planting of a variety of species which are beneficial for wildlife, particularly insects, and given people a greater variety of ways to access this space. We therefore recommend that this landscaping is secured as a condition on approval as is a condition for at least a two year contractual maintenance period, as suggested in the Landscape design Statement July 2022. We are also very pleased to see that 4x Schwegler 1A integrated Swift Bird boxes have been included in the drawings on the gable wall on the proposed north east elevation - Courtyard side view. As shown on the Proposed External Elevations Sheet 1 of 3. (Drg no. p-08 Rev A). We request that these boxes are secured as a condition on approval."
5.6 The Flood Risk Management (DOI) object to the application on the following grounds (27.07.2022); "FRM do not support the building of residential properties in known flood zones. It is appreciated that the proposed plan is to raise the floors and install flood defences. There is an Emergency Evacuation Plan to evacuate vulnerable residents in advance of an event however this does not take a medical emergency during a weather event in to consideration.
Conditions - Should this planning application be permitted FRM request that all flood mitigations be conditioned"
5.7 Highway Services Highway Drainage (DOI) comment (06.01.2022); "The private drainage arrangements for the proposed development as shown in the drainage layout drawing No. 2020-047-020 Rev A will not have an impact on the public highway."
5.8 Manx national heritage make the following summarised comments (14.02.2022); the site lies in an area often referred to as old "south Ramsey" and comprises the old core of the medieval and post-medieval settlement centres around the former line of Maughold street and church street and old cross which served as the historical market place for the town. Demolition of a nearby property in 1901 revealed the survival of as large medieval carved stone cross and new research suggests that a small number of similar large cross-slabs were used elsewhere around the island as landmarks on sites which became market places and fairgrounds. it is possible that archaeological remains of the site of the market cross, or objects derived from it, may survive in the vicinity and we would request the application of a condition allowing MNH staff access to the site during the demolition to record any remains that may be present.
5.9 Inland Fisheries (DEFA) comment (24.08.2022): "This planning application has been checked by Fisheries Officers. I can confirm that DEFA Fisheries have no concerns in relation to this development from a fisheries perspective."
5.10 The owner/occupier of 11 Marine Gardens, Ramsey has objected to the application which can be summarised as (10.02.2022); This is not in keeping with the overall area; Density
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/01569/B Page 7 of 16
will degrade the standards of living in my unit and those of my neighbours with increased noise; There are a numbers of shore and other birds that frequent the communal pond at Marine Gardens; Height of the building will interrupt the view of Albert Tower and the hills and will reduce breeze and ventilation in my unit and others; My privacy and enjoyment of my home will be impacted; Additional cars and traffic to the area will create traffic congestion and increased pollution increased cars in the parking area will shine headlights into my unit; Balconies will overlook my property; and I will lose sunlight due to the increased height of the new building and the angle of the sun during most of the year will be from early morning and late afternoon.
5.11 The owner/occupier of 27 Claughbane Drive, Ramsey (freehold owner of 15 Marine Gardens) has objected to the application which can be summarised as (10.02.2022 & 14.02.2022); the proposed balcony, master bedroom with balcony and top bedroom will all overlook at the gardens at the rear and the development site beyond; the gardens are owned and managed by the South Ramsey Management CO Ltd with 16 owners and I am closest to the development; overlooking to balconies and loss of views to Albert Tower and hills; proposal will dominate the area; loss of light; inadequate landscaping; the location of the restaurant and the raised open area will result in disturbances, overlooking, atmospheric and noise pollution; light impact by cars and general traffic 24hrs a day; concerns of traffic generation; concerns of bin storage will have noise/odour issues; no details of plant equipment in terms of noise or attenuation; the detail design of this development is unacceptable; I deplore the lack of consultation with neighbouring properties affected; and contrary to General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan.
5.12 The owner/occupier of 4 Marine Gardens, Ramsey has objected to the application which can be summarised as (03.02.2022 & 22.08.2022); overuse of the development site; the proposed building is a full three stories and this will block out natural light to our communal garden at the Marine Gardens development behind the proposed new development; the rear balconies and first floor our door terrace and exercise area as these will both directly overlook our garden and our rear balconies and terraces at Marine Gardens; The proposed balconies on the rear of the proposed development (facing Marine Gardens) are located in what are likely to be highly used communal areas for residents of the new residential complex, resulting in an increase risk that existing privacy in Marine Gardens will be negatively impacted; and the whole of the rear of the proposed development appears to have been designed to overlook our existing garden here at Marine Gardens with little or no thought given to the existing residents. The revised plans raise the building by 600 in order to provide protection from any flood risk will make the building to high and overbearing; The creation of a Day Centre and turning area at the rear South East Corner of the site will create an unacceptable increase level of traffic to the rear of the building in a area that is currently a quiet backwater; The communal (dining areas) on the rear of the building currently necessitate a wall of glass being built at the rear of the building, currently, the communal dining areas in the existing Cummal Mooar Home are left switched on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so I have serious concerns of 24 hour a day significant light pollution from the rear of the proposed new development; and finally I would wish to assure the committee that contrary to the comments made by McGarrigle Architects, that the gardens at the rear of the Marine Gardens development are used regularly and greatly enjoyed by many of the residents of the terrace.
5.13 The owner/occupier of 62 Waterloo Road, Ramsey has objected to the application which can be summarised as (25.01.2022 & 31.08.2022); The proposed development would seriously reduce the amount of light to the front of my property and have a negative visual impact; The proposal is to replace a two storey building, set well back from the road beyond a large grassed area with three stories adjacent to the pavement; In the proposal there is reference to reducing the visual impact to the rear gardens of Marine Drive, most of which are set well back from the boundary, at the other side of the site. I question why the same consideration is not being applied to the residents of Waterloo Road; whilst along some sections of the road there are three story blocks opposite each other, this is not the case here. Therefore it is not replacing
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/01569/B Page 8 of 16
like with like; night time pollution due to the use of the building - lights being on all night was not an issue with Cooil ny Marrey due to the distance of the building from the road; concerns of construction works affecting structural stability of dwelling; dismayed to see nothing has changed with amendment plans; previous comments remain.
5.14 The owner/occupier of 59 Waterloo Road, Ramsey has objected to the application which can be summarised as (03.02.2022); Will have a detrimental effect on the light into our house and front garden; At present, the 2 storey building does not impact our property at all, giving us sunlight every morning in the front garden and privacy.; currently a lovely wide open space at the front of the existing building which again adds to the peaceful street atmosphere; If your building goes ahead, all of this will be lost and it will greatly detract from all current pluses that our row of terraces have enjoyed for many years; You have taken into account the affect a larger building would have at the back for Marine Gardens by only having a 1 storey building near their properties but have not afforded us the same consideration; putting trees along the roadside would only further block out any light in years to come as these trees grow in size; and concerns of construction works to our properties and this building work would certainly destabilise our homes.
5.15 The owner/occupier of 10 Marine Gardens, Ramsey has objected to the application which can be summarised as (12.02.2022); not in keeping with the area in height; increase noise from balconies and overlooking to my balcony; loss or privacy due to windows and height of building; light pollution into my bedroom and lounge; additional noise and traffic from new parking areas; loss of ventilation from the height of new building; loss of light during autumn/winter/spring periods due to height of the new building; lead to greater dependence on heating and artificial light; loss of sun to communal garden; and loss of view to Albert Tower and hills.
5.16 The owner/occupier of 2A Water Street, Ramsey (owners of 2 Marine Gardens) has objected to the application which can be summarised as (04.02.2022); The development is not replacing the current building like for like; there is an additional 3rd floor proposed; the occupiers of the 3rd floor will be able to look directly into our 1st floor bedroom and the private balcony outside it. This is a total invasion of our privacy and the ability to enjoy sunbathing on our south facing balcony; and the development has also been designed to provide substantial additional viewing by the occupants over our communal garden and our property.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT 6.1.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application: (a) Principle of development; (b) The potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area; (c) Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; (d) Potential impact upon highway safety / Parking provision / Travel Options; (e) Potential drainage/flooding issues; (f) Potential impacts upon ecology/trees; and (g) Archaeology interest
6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (Strategic Policy 1, 2, 5, Spatial Policy 3, General Policy 2 & 3, Environment Policy 43, Housing Policy 1, 4 & 6, Business Policy 9 & 10, Recreation Policy 2 , 3, 4 & 5, Community Policy 1, 2, 6, 10 & 11)
6.2.1 There are two proposed uses on the site - a care home and a day care centre which includes a café/activity room. The existing site has been used as shelter housing for a number of decades which is a form of residential use. The proposed car home use is also regarded as a form of residential use.
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/01569/B Page 9 of 16
6.2.2 The proposed day care centre arguable is not a "residential use"; however, is considered a use which is ancillary to the main use as a care home providing much needed facilities for the occupants of the care home and also person within Ramsey and the North of the Island. In terms of Community Policy 6 indicates that new community health care facilities cannot result in an over concentration of such uses in a particular area. In this case the proposal replaces an existing health care facility within Ramsey. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would comply with this aspect of CP 6.
6.2.3 Overall, while the principle of the land use is considered acceptable, it still remains necessary to assess the proposed development against other relevant planning policies and the physical constraints of the application site.
6.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA 6.3.1 In terms of the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the area, it is considered the development will be publically visible from a number of locations along Waterloo Road, Approach Road and Waterloo Lane.
Waterloo Road 6.3.2 The street scene along Waterloo Road is made up mainly of 3 to 5 storey terraces (some apartment blocks); however, in places this form of development is interrupted by more unique buildings i.e. Trinity Church, the application site, the former garage & filling station, Ramsey Youth Centre and Mysore Cottages. However, the overall character of the street scene is made up of terraced properties.
6.3.3 The existing building has little architectural interest or detail and the building itself does not especially add to the character of the street scene or the existing build form of the area. Its loss raises no concerns. The element which does add an openness feel to the site; which would be lost by the proposal, is the front landscaped area which currently makes up a large element of the existing site, with approximate two thirds of the main existing building being set back from Waterloo Road by approximately 15m to 22m, which enables the front landscaping area to run parallel with Waterloo Road; while the remaining one third of the main building being setback by approximately 3m to 4m from Waterloo Road.
6.3.4 The proposed elevation onto Waterloo Road would be a three storey building which includes projecting two and three storey bay windows (Elevation A on drawing P-08 A). The building is traditional in form with the appearance of a pitched roof (albeit has a crown roof design) which includes solar panels to pitched roof element with gable end chimneys. The buildings front elevation would run parallel with Waterloo Road, being set back approximately 4m from the back of the public footpath along Waterloo Road. A new boundary wall made up of railings (1.1m in height) with rendered clock piers ever 5m is proposed, with more decorative pillars at the main entrance onto Waterloo being included. Landscaping strip is located being the front boundary railings/pillars.
6.3.5 Without question the proposed character of the site when viewed form Waterloo Road will significantly change, from a two storey building with a large open landscaped garden, to a three storey building which has the appearance of a row of terraced properties which ruins closes to and parallel with Waterloo Road. This change in character will mainly only noted when passing the site, rather than from more distance views along Waterloo Road. However, while there will be a significant chance; as noted in paragraph 6.3.3, the character of the street scene of Waterloo Road is mainly made up of terraced properties between 3 and 5 storeys which run parallel and close to Waterloo Road. This proposal would be no different and therefore it is difficult to argue it is not in keeping the character and appearance of the area. The proposed building will also be lower than the adjacent neighbouring properties Waverly Terrace, Cambridge House and Trinity Church. Accordingly, from this perceptive the proposal is considered acceptable.
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/01569/B Page 10 of 16
Approach Road/Victoria Road 6.3.6 Currently public views from Approach Road/Victoria Road is of a single and two storey building (Approach House), again with little architectural interest which runs parallel and close to Approach Road. This area arguable has a significant change as it is proposed to demolition the existing building and the area be changes to a large landscaped area and parking area. This will significantly reduce the amount of built development on the site and will open up this section of the site within the street scene. Accordingly, from Approach Road the proposal will be an appropriate form of development.
6.3.7 From Victoria Road, again the landscaped area/parking area will be clearly seen albeit again will appreciated the loss of two and single storey buildings which ran immediately adjacent to Victoria Road. The northwest elevation of the new building will be apparent being made up of a single storey building and three storey being behind (Elevation D on drawing P-08 A). While this section of the site increases the amount of building development (from two to three storeys) it is not considered out of keeping or inappropriate, noting the neighbouring properties Waverly Terrace and Cambridge House being fours storeys in height along Victoria Road. Noted that the proposal will be lower than these neighbouring properties.
Waterloo Lane 6.3.8 Currently, the existing building along Waterloo Lane runs parallel with the road setback approximately 8 metres from the road. The elevation of the site facing Waterloo Road is made up of approximately one third of the front landscaping area (on corner of site) mentioned previously and two thirds of the two storey building. Car parking to the site is located between the Waterloo Lane and the existing building.
6.3.9 The new proposal when entering Waterloo Lane from Waterloo Road, will face a three storey gable end (Elevation D on drawing P-09 A) which is located on the corner of the site. This is compared to the landscaped area currently, accordingly, this will represent a significant change. This gable end elevation will face Trinity Church opposite. After passing this gable end, the site becomes more open with built development setback from Waterloo lane, where a proposed courtyard area of the site will be apparent. The main public entrance for the café is located in a one/two storey building. Two disable parking bays and two drop off bays are proposed between the building and Waterloo Lane. There is also a new access which provides a parking/turning provision for a minibus drop off area immediately in front of the main entrance. A substation is also located along the boundary of the site in this location.
6.3.10 While there would be a significantly change to the corner of the site (Waterloo Road and Waterloo Lane) with the introduction of a three storey gable ended building closes to the respective roads; it is not considered this would result in an adverse visual impact to warrant a refusal. The courts yard/rear elements of the proposed building further along Waterloo Lane are considered appropriate and would site well within the street scene and neighbouring buildings.
6.3.11 Overall, it is considered the design, layout, landscaping and housing sizes/types all ensure the works would not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape townscape and would respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them complying with General Policy 2.
6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 6.4.1 The residential properties potentially most impacted by the development would be those immediately to the southeast of the site Nrs 57 to 68 Waterloo Road and Nrs 11 to 17 Marine Gardens to the northeast of the housing development site.
6.4.2 Generally, the main issues relating to the impacts upon residential amenities are; overbearing impacts upon outlooks, loss of light, and or loss or privacy.
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/01569/B Page 11 of 16
Nrs 11 to 17 Marine Gardens 6.4.3 In relation to the impacts upon Nrs 11 to 17 Marine Gardens, the main elements of the proposal which would have an impact are the northern eastern, three storey gable end of the building and the single storey building with roof terrace above.
6.4.4 The three storey gable end would be located approximately 23.7m to the rear elevation of Nr 13 Marine Gardens (closest property) and 22.5m to the balcony of this property. Within this gable elevation there is a single second floor window which serves a laundry room i.e. non habitable room.
6.4.5 Regarding the first floor terrace there is a 1.8m high obscure screen along the northern eastern elevation of the terrace and therefore this would screen any views towards Marine Gardens. In terms of noise, the first floor roof terrace is for occupants of the care home and it is therefore reasonable and likely to consider that the residents are not likely to cause a great level of noise or disturbance.
6.4.6 It is important to note that the existing building/s currently run along the shared boundaries with Marine Gardens currently, and have a number of windows, especially first floor windows which look towards the neighbouring properties. It is consider in terms of overlooking the existing situation has much more levels of overlooking, compared to the currently proposal. There are 18 first floor windows within Victoria House and 10 Approach House. Which directly look towards Marine Gardens which are close to the boundaries to the neighbouring properties/gardens.
6.4.7 While the proposed development would result in a taller building compared to the existing two storey building, the amount of built development is significant less with the land currently accommodating Approach House being uses as landscaped gardens and parking area (low forms of development).
6.4.8 Overall, in relation to these aspects, it is considered given the distance the new building would be from any of these neighbouring properties, existing built development on the site, reduced level of built development proposed and the design/layout of the new building it is not considered the proposed development from theses respects would have any significant impact to warrant a refusal.
Nrs 57 to 68 Waterloo Road 6.4.9 In relation to the potential impacts the neighbouring properties along Waterloo Road are likely to be most impacted by the development. The proposal would introduce a three storey building which directly face towards Nrs 57 to 68 Waterloo Road. The new building would be approximately 17m (16.4m bay windows) to the front elevation of these neighbouring properties.
6.4.10 There is likely to be a greater level of potential overlooking, namely given the proposal would be below the generally accepted 20m distance between directly facing windows. However, as indicated within the Residential Design Guide; "In dense urban areas, where there is already a level of mutual overlooking, a lesser standard may be acceptable". The windows of the new building which face towards the neighbouring properties generally all serve bedrooms (i.e. non primary habitable rooms) so this reduces the potential overlooking concern somewhat.
6.4.11 In relation to loss of light, the proposal would not have a significant impact, namely as the suns orientation (east to west) and as the building is located northeast of the neighbouring properties.
6.4.12 The introduction of a three storey building will reduce the openness that currently exists for the neighbouring properties, which currently enjoy open landscaped gardens, albeit some
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/01569/B Page 12 of 16
directly face the existing two storey building. However, this view is not uncommon as there are other properties along Waterloo Road where terraces of this size and position directly face each other from across the street. This is a common built form on the IOM. Further, the 17m gab between the existing and the new build is consider a distance which will ensure the "overbearingness" is not significantly adverse.
6.4.13 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impacts upon existing neighbouring properties, it is considered for the reasons given the proposed development would not having an significant adverse impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.
6.5 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY / PARKING PROVISION / TRAVEL OPTIONS 6.5.1 In terms of access to the site there are currently two vehicular accesses serving the site via Waterloo Lane and Victoria Road which are to be retained with alterations. Highway Services have indicated that; "It is proposed to re-use the existing access from Approach Road/Victoria Road to serve the main car park area as part of the proposed development. This would remain suitable for the purpose. There is and would be adequate visibility for a 30mph speed limit from Approach Road onto Waterloo Road of 2.4 x 43m in each direction at a 0.5m offset..." 6.5.2 And "Approach Road/Victoria Road junction has and is to retain visibility splays of 2.0m x 30m to the left and 26m right to a 0.5m off-set which exceeds the requirements set out in the Manual for Manx Roads for vehicle speeds of 20mph of 25m..."
6.5.3 Accordingly, in relation to highway safety from the proposed accesses the proposal raises no concerns.
6.5.4 In relation to on-site parking the IOM Strategic Plan Parking Standards indicate that; "1 space per 3 residents in addition to spaces for staff and deliveries."
6.5.5 Accordingly, 15 car parking spaces would be required. There are no parking standards listed for a "day-care centre" which includes a café with in the IOMSP.
6.5.6 Highway Services comment; "On redevelopment, the available land is reconfigured. This allows car parking to increase by seven spaces to a total of 20 car parking spaces to serve the proposed care home and day centre. Of which 15 car parking spaces are to be provided in the main car park area served from Victoria Road, and six from Waterloo Lane, including two accessible parking spaces.
The IOM Strategic Plan parking standards indicate a minimum of one space per three residents for nursing, rest, and care homes equivalent to 15 spaces. Additionally, there are to be spaces for staff and deliveries. There are no specific parking standards for day centres. Instead, car parking for this use has been derived from similar operations and a car parking accumulation profile calculated for both uses to confirm numbers. This is an acceptable method and is set out within the TA. It demonstrates the proposed parking provision is adequate in operational terms, reaching a maximum of 17 spaces"
6.5.7 The site is also within very close proximity of bus stops and a few minutes' walk from the Main Ramsey Bus Station. Secure cycle storage is also provided within the site. Further a 'homes' pool car is to be parked on site and is to be used to collect visitors for the day centre as well as to escort residents to appointments, drop off samples, collect prescriptions, and undertake shopping trips. This is welcomed and would reduce the on-site vehicle parking demand. A mobility scooter store is to be provided within the care home building close to main entrance. A mini-bus is to serve the site. It is to be owned by Bus Vannin and is to be parked off-site. Accordingly, it is considered there is sufficient parking provided within the site.
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/01569/B Page 13 of 16
6.5.8 Highway Services have also consider service vehicles accessing the site and have no concerns. Further they have considered the traffic generated by the proposal upon the local road networks, road safety issues, Travel Plans for staff and accessibility and raise no objections.
6.5.9 Accordingly, it is considered the proposal in respect of these issues raise no concerns and the proposal would be acceptable complying with all the relevant policies stated.
6.6 POTENTIAL DRAINAGE/FLOODING ISSUES; 6.6.1 In terms of the relevant planning policy, Environment Policy 13 indicates that development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. The site is within a "High Risk Flood Zone (Tidal)" and there is some surface water flooding around the existing building.
6.6.2 The Flood Management Division (DOI) have objected to the application as they; "do not support the building of residential properties in known flood zones. It is appreciated that the proposed plan is to raise the floors and install flood defences. There is an Emergency Evacuation Plan to evacuate vulnerable residents in advance of an event however this does not take a medical emergency during a weather event in to consideration.".
6.6.3 The applicants have submitted a Flood Assessment as part of the submission and the conclusion states;
"The Manx Utilities 'Indicative Flood Map for Ramsey and Tributaries' indicates that the site lies within the tidal 'High Flood Risk Zone'. The Indicative Flood Map further indicates that the site is not located within an area at risk of fluvial flooding.
o Manx Utilities has provided a modelled tidal flood level for Ramsey for the 1 in 200 (0.5%) Annual Probability plus climate change event of 5.64m AD02. A review of the topographical survey of the site indicates that the site is located within the 'High Flood Risk Zone' with a maximum flood depth of 0.92m for the 1 in 200 (0.5%) Annual Probability plus climate change event in the northeast corner.
o The Hotspot Map for Ramsey, included in the National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion, indicates that the site is not within an area considered to be at risk from surface water flooding during the 1 in 100 (1%) Annual Probability surface water flood event.
o The site is considered to be at a low risk of flooding from all other sources.
o A critical design level for flood protection has been agreed with Manx Utilities as 5.94m AD02 to include 600mm freeboard on top of the above noted 1 in 200 (0.5%) Annual Probability of flooding.
o An Evacuation Plan has been drafted to ensure adequate warnings to be issued to staff, occupants and visitors as necessary and enable preparation for the flood event including evacuating vulnerable residents several days in advance.
o A surface water management strategy has been prepared by Graham Schofield Associates, Consulting Engineers in May 2020. The rainwater pipes and linear drains discharge into a wider network of surface water sewers, which discharge equally into the Manx Utilities public surface water sewers located north along Waterloo Road. Surface water restricted to 70% of the existing runoff rate. Attenuation will be provided in the form of either oversized pipes and geocellular storage."
6.6.4 While comment from the Flood Management Division are noted, the policy test (Environment Policy 13) is whether the proposal would; "...result in an unacceptable risk from
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/01569/B Page 14 of 16
flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.". The policy test is not the site is within a flood area and therefore the development cannot be approved. Furthermore, a significant consideration is the fact there is an existing residential buildings (shelter housing) on the site already, so the proposed use is not a new use, it is existing. Further, the built footprint is significantly reduced compared to the existing, so likely to have a less flood risk off the site. The proposal also increases the ground floor level of the new building to 5.94m AD02 which includes a 600mm freeboard on top of the above noted 1 in 200 (0.5%) Annual Probability of flooding. The existing ground floor Finished Floor levels (lowest points) for Waterloo House is approximately 5.58 and Approach House 5.43.
6.6.5 Accordingly, the proposal in terms of floor levels and flood measures in place is considered to be a significant improvement over the existing building/s in terms of flood defences/reliance. And therefore given the above reason it is considered the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 13 and therefore form a flooding perspective the application is considered acceptable.
6.7 POTENTIAL ECOLOGY IMAPCTS 6.7.1 Comments from the Ecosystem Policy Officer are noted, which responded to amended plans from the applicants which included more landscaping details which has a variety of species which are beneficial for wildlife, particularly insects, and given people a greater variety of ways to access this space. Further they note 4x Schwegler 1A integrated Swift Bird boxes have been included in the drawings on the gable wall on the proposed north east elevation - Courtyard side view. They seek these works be conditions. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 4.
6.8 ARCHAEOLOGY INTEREST 6.8.1 Manx National Heritage have sought access to the site during the construction on the grounds of archaeology. The applicants have no objection to this.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.0.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal has a number of issues which need to be considered. The proposal would be developing a site which is designated for residential development currently and which is an existing developed site with similar uses.
7.0.2 There are no highway safety/parking concerns raised by the development.
7.0.3 There proposal will not result in an unacceptable risk from flooding on or off site.
7.0.4 Finally, there are no adverse impacts to protect species on this site and with landscaping details which has a variety of species which are beneficial for wildlife and swift boxes proposed, the proposal this aspects from this aspect.
7.0.5 While the proposal will have an impact upon neighbouring properties; it is not considered the proposal would have a significant adverse impact to warrant a refusal.
7.0.6 Overall it is considered that the proposal would contribute to the supply of care home accommodation and being an improvement over the existing standard of accommodation within a sustainable location.
7.0.7 It is considered for the reasons indicated within this report the proposal overall, would not have any significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities and would therefore comply with the relevant planning policies of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, The Ramsey Local Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021. It is recommended that the planning application be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 15 ====
21/01569/B Page 15 of 16
8.0.1 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.
8.0.2 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.
8.0.3 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 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 : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...10.10.2022
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.
==== PAGE 16 ====
21/01569/B Page 16 of 16
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 10.10.2022
Application No 21/01569/B Applicant Manx Care Proposal Erection of a care home and day care centre with associated parking and both hard and soft landscaping Site Address Cooil-Ny-Marrey Waterloo Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1EQ Principal Planner Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report
Planning Committee 10.10.2022
The Planning Committee approved the application with the following condition attached;
C 7. The flood mitigation measure as outlined within Section 5.0 (Flood Mitigation), 6.0 (Surface Water Management), Section 7.0 (Residual Risk), Section 8.0 (Conclusion) and which includes the finished floor level being set at 6.24m AD02 of the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Graham Schofield Associates shall be full adhered to and measures retained thereafter.
Reason: in the interests of flood protection of future occupants
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal