Loading document...
Application No.: 08/00183/A Applicant: Mr J C & Mrs E A Potts Proposal: Approval in principle to erect a dwelling Site Address: Land To Rear Of Cotswold Ballafurt Road Port Erin Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 27.03.2008 Site Visit: 27.03.2008 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Objection Consulttee: Port Erin Commissioners Notes: Oppose Consulttee: IOM Water Authority Notes: Note received
The site defined in red represents a piece of land situated between the rear of "Cotswold" - an end of terrace property situated on the western side of Ballafurt Road - and the rear of "Wits End", "Shore View" and "Raldis" which sit on the southern side of Dandy Hill. Access to the application site is by the side of Cotswold.
The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990 as "Res" (Predominantly Residential). There are no written policies in the Plan which are relevant to the consideration of this proposal.
There have been no previous planning applications submitted in respect of this site.
Proposed now is the principle of the erection of a dwelling on the site. No details of the position, size or type of dwelling which is proposed other than the application form which suggests that the building will have two storeys. A subsequent letter from the applicant, dated 30th January, 2008 indicates that the property will have a ground floor plus one storey.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division object to the application on the basis that the access to the site is too narrow to permit the passage to two vehicles side by side which could result in traffic reversing out onto Ballafurt Road.
A resident of Port Soderick has no objection to the principle of development but wonders whether Strategic Plan Environment Policy 42 can be satisfied.
The occupants of Glen Shoggill, Ballafurt Road object to the application on the basis of despoilation of their view, the reduction in the value of their property (neither of which is a material planning consideration) and the impact which an additional property would have on traffic, congestion and road safety (which are material planning considerations).
Port Erin Commissioners object to the application on the basis that there is insufficient information to satisfy the Board that there is satisfactory access to the development and feel that the development would be an over-intensive use of the site.
The occupants of 3, Ballafurt Close object to the proposal on the basis of the impact on their view and the value of their property which are not material planning considerations) and their privacy (which is a material consideration).
The occupant of Wits End, Dandy Hill indicates that he has attempted to contact the applicants to discuss the application but has not had any success. He expresses concern that there is insufficient information to allow him to be satisfied that the development would not affect the privacy of his raised garden area. He points out that he would like at some point to extend his property like his neighbours already have and that this may affect or be affected by any property on the application site.
The occupant of Shore View, Dandy Hill indicates that he has no objection to the proposed development provided that a fence will be erected to provide privacy for his property and that his right of access to Ballafurt Road will be retained.
Manx Electricity Authority recommend a note regarding the provision of electricity supplies to the development.
The occupant of Cashtal Vanannan object to the application on the basis that a dwelling on the site would affect the privacy and light of and to his property, that development of this rear garden area may represent a precedent which others may follow and finally that there are three properties which have a right of access over the lane to Ballafurt Road.
Isle of Man Water Authority recommend a note regarding the provision of water supplies.
The site is within an area designated for development and as such there should be a presumption in favour of development. The Strategic Plan contains policies which are relevant to the consideration of this application, as follows:
Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3".
Spatial Policy 5:"New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3."
Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; b) make best use of public transport, c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and d) encourage pedestrian movement."
General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j)can be provided with all necessary services;
k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
Also, as is pointed out by the resident of Port Soderick, Environment Policy 42 deals specifically with backland development, where it states "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans".
In principle there should not be an objection to the proposal as it lies within an area of Residential Use on the prevailing Local Plan. As an area of open space, the site contributes nothing to public amenity and little to private amenity other than as a break between buildings and in some cases as an access way. It is not considered therefore that the principle of development of this site breaches Environment Policy 42. However, if a dwelling were erected on the site, this may have an impact on the adjacent dwellings in a number of ways, some of which could be affected by the size, design and location of the dwelling, others not.
In terms of the character of the area, this is unlikely to be affected as there is a very close relationship between some of the properties in the area and those which appear behind them - for example Belvedere and Belmont on Ballafurt Road sit very close to Baljean and The Cottage on Dandy Hill and the relationship of the Ballafurt Road and Dandy Hill properties and the application site are similar to this.
The development will not affect any area of importance to wildlife nor prevent or adversely affect any public view of the sea.
However, in terms of the impact on adjacent properties, the site is so close to existing adjacent properties as to result in some difficulty in achieving a 20 m separation from proposed and existing windows which could result in an invasion of privacy of those in existing adjacent properties and a general lack of privacy of those in the new dwelling. The properties in Ballafurt Close are higher than the application site and separated from the application site by hedging which presently do not prevent a view over the hedge into the site from these properties. If the proposed dwelling were single storey with any attic accommodation served only by rooflights rather than dormers, there could be a dwelling erected on the site without imposing on the privacy and amenities of other adjacent properties. However, this would be a very modest property with limited amenity, parking or turning space.
Access to the site is via a narrow lane over which at least three other properties have a right of access. The lane is not wide enough to accommodate two vehicles side by side although as the land immediately to the north of the access is also owned by the applicant, it may be possible to widen the lane. If this does not happen, it may be that the driveway/parking area of 1, Ballafurt Close is used unlawfully by vehicles waiting to access the site if there is another vehicle exiting the site at the same time.
Visibility available to those in vehicles emerging from the site onto Ballafurt Road is limited to around 8 m to the south, provided that there are no vehicles parked in front of the garage of 1, Ballafurt Close and virtually nothing to the north as there is a hedge and service pole in the line of site. This could be increased to closer to 20 m if the existing hedging were removed. Neither situation is acceptable in terms of providing a safe access.
At the time of the site visit, (mid-afternoon on Thursday 27th March, 2008) there was only one parking space on Ballafurt Road. This situation will, presumably worsen at weekends and in the evenings as people return home from work. If there were sufficient car parking spaces provided on site - the Strategic Plan requires 2 spaces per dwelling - then this situation would not be affected in policy terms.
In summary, whilst there is generally a presumption in favour of development of un-built areas within existing settlements, in this case, access to the site is not such which can safely or satisfactorily accommodate further development. A similar case was recently considered at Appeal on Castletown Road in Gansey (PA 07/1392 refers and a copy of the Inspectors report has been placed on the application file).
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupants of Wits End, Shore View, Cashtal Vanannan, 3, Ballafurt Close and Glen Shoggill are either alongside the site or the access to the site and should be afforded party status in this instance.
Manx Electricity Authority and The Isle of Man Water Authority raise issues associated with the provision of a water supply, which are not material planning considerations and as such the Water Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The resident of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 31.03.2008
Whilst the property lies within an area which is designated for residential use on the Port Erin Local Plan, the access to the site is via a narrow lane which cannot presently accommodate two way traffic and with visibility to those emerging from the site which is well below a standard which is satisfactory or safe.
In the absence of plans which would illustrate how the development could be laid out, the site would appear too small to satisfactorily accommodate a dwelling together with the required parking and
turning and the right of way available to some properties on Dandy Hill, and where such development would not be detrimental to the outlook and privacy of those in adjacent properties and/or where those in the proposed dwelling would not have satisfactory privacy or amenity space.
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown