Loading document...
The site represents a parcel of land situated on the northern side of the B47 Surby Road, between existing properties - Victoria Lodge to the west, Surby Mount to the north and West View to the east with a terrace of three properties - Homesea, The Homestead and Thie ny Chibbyr to the south. The site has a frontage to Surby Road of 60m and extends northwards towards Surby Mount by between 70m and 30m.
The site is identified on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan as being suitable for residential development and the accompanying Development Brief within the Written Statement suggests that the development of the site should be "limited to a single dwelling" and that "Attention should be paid to the design and siting of the dwelling in order to protect the amenities of adjoining properties".
The principle of a dwelling was refused on this site under PA 88/0696.
Proposed now is the principle of the development of the site for four dwellings.
An objection has been received from the owners of Thie ny Chibbyr, opposite the site who suggest that four dwellings would result in an adverse impact on those living alongside and opposite the site, access is unsuitable for a substantial increase in traffic, there is a current problem with surface water run-off and structural movement of existing property (slippage, cracks etc) from water and roadworks, and the site is unsuitable for four new dwellings.
Objections have also been received from occupants of The Leigh, who object to the increase in traffic, the visual impact on an area of scenic value and the difficulties in safely turning right at the junction of the Surby Road and the hill,
The owner of West View which sits immediately alongside the application site objects to the application on the basis that the density is inappropriate for the area and which could accommodate four dwellings with the requisite gardens and access and parking which could result in people parking on the main road. The privacy of those in West View would be compromised as would the view which is not a material planning consideration. He suggests that the sewerage is incapable of satisfactorily accommodating the additional surface water from the development, the road network is unsuitable for further dwellings, there is no demand for further housing in this area although there is a need for grazing land. He also suggests that important information about the ownership of the site and land in the vicinity has not been given accurately, details of a previous application (detailed above) are not given and certain questions in the application form have not been answered. Finally, he suggests that
the applicant presumes that access will be afforded via the privately owned driveway between West View and Grianagh which is partly owned by him and he would not be prepared to give his consent.
The owner of Victoria Lodge reiterates the objections made by the other parties above regarding access, justification for the houses, surface water, trees which overhang the site.
The occupant of 63, Garth Avenue points out that surface water can be a problem in the area and could be exacerbated by the proposed development.
The occupant of Amberwell objects to the application on the basis of the additional traffic which the proposed development will create and the existing road network which will not satisfactorily accommodate it.
The occupants of Grianagh reiterates the objection regarding over-development of the site, traffic and access.
Rushen Parish Commissioners request a deferral until 21st January, 2009.
Manx Electricity Authority recommend that the applicant liaise with them regarding the provision of an electricity supply to the site. This is not a material planning concern and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division requests that two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling together with turning facilities within the site and access onto the public highway must provide visibility of 36m from 2.4m back into the site.
Department of Transport Drainage Division raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions regarding connection to the main foul sewer and no discharge of surface water to the main sewer.
A resident of Port Soderick reiterates that the site is designated for development but for only one dwelling but makes no recommendation in respect of the application.
The occupant of Tradewinds which lies to the south west of the site objects to the application on the basis of the impact of surface water on the road.
The roadside boundary is formed by a sod hedge which follows the line of the road which curves outward, obscuring visibility for emerging drivers. Built development in the vicinity is generally randomly positioned properties, some close to the road, others further back but none positioned so as to look directly into the windows of others or directly behind or in front of existing property. If there were to be a single dwelling as is prescribed in the Local Plan, there would be no adverse impact on adjacent property. The erection of four dwellings as is proposed would result in the new buildings being much closer to the existing adjacent properties and each other resulting in what could be an inappropriately dense development which would be out of keeping with the traditional character of the area. There are more modern elements to the landscape close to the site but this form of development is not characteristic of the original form of development around Surby Hill and should not be emulated in any new development, hence the Local Plan making provision for only one dwelling on the site.
Whilst the Strategic Plan recommends "optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials" and "ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards", this policy, Strategic Policy 1 also goes on to state that "development should make the best use of resources by being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services". This site is not one where further development is likely nor further infrastructure or services are proposed and as such it is debatable whether the principle of
ensuring efficient use of sites actually applies to this, particularly where access up Surby Hill is not ideal in that the road is narrow in places with restricted forward visibility.
The achievement of the recommended visibility splays would involve the removal of a substantial amount of hedging although the splays could be achieved. It would appear through consultation with the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division that a lower number of dwellings would still result in the provision of splays as required in this case, although the part owners of the existing access, past Grianagh, Surby Mount and West View may be more likely to accept the use of the existing access by the traffic associated with one additional dwelling and the application for one dwelling could use this access rather than the expense and visual impact of creating a splay in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division directly onto the main road.
In summary, the site is not located in a location where the services and amenities of a larger settlement – public transport, shops, employment etc are available and the increase of three dwellings above the number recommended in the Local Plan is considered inappropriate. Furthermore, the site is not considered of a size satisfactorily to accommodate four dwellings without either appearing inappropriately cramped for the prevailing existing development in the immediate vicinity and/or being uncomfortably close to existing properties and adversely affecting the amenities of those living therein.
The application indicates that surface water would be discharged into storm drains although it is not clarified whether these are existing or proposed. Department of Transport Drainage Division indicate that there should be no discharge of surface water into the main sewer and have clarified that there is an existing surface water sewer into which the proposed development could be connected. It may be that the installation of such drainage may improve the situation where water simply passes through the site uncontrolled.
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 Thie ny Chibbyr, Victoria Lodge, Grianagh and West View are alongside or directly opposite the site and should be afforded party status in this instance. The occupants of Amberwell and Tradewinds lie not immediately alongside the site but close to it and would be affected by the additional traffic generated by the proposed development and should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of 63, Garth Avenue and The Leigh are not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues regarding working practices around existing supplies, which are not material planning considerations and as such the MEA should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The site is not located in a location where the services and amenities of a larger settlement - public transport, shops, employment etc are available and the increase of three dwellings above the number recommended in the Local Plan is considered inappropriate and would represent unsustainable development, contrary to the spirit of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The site is not considered of a size satisfactorily to accommodate four dwellings without either appearing inappropriately cramped for the prevailing existing development in the immediate vicinity and/or being uncomfortably close to existing properties and adversely affecting the amenities of those living therein.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : REFUSED Committee Meeting Date : 30/01/09
Signed : A. KELLY Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ /NO
LATE VIEWS FROM : RUSHER PARISH COMMISSIONERS (GRANTED PARTY STATUS) BELLACHURKY HOUSE (NOT GRANTED PARTY STATUS)
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown