Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00520/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 22/00520/B Applicant : Hartford Homes Proposal Proposed erection of dwelling Site Address Land To The West Of 17 Royal Park Royal Park Ramsey Isle Of Man
Case Officer :
Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 05.09.2022
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. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied 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.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00520/B Page 2 of 10
C 5. No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting showing, type, species, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, 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 and protecting biodiversity
C 6. Details of the secure cycling storage, as showing no drawing no. 10-01 shall be approved by the department in writing before its erection or installation and maintained thereafter.
Reason; for the avoidance of doubt.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. This application is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide July 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the documents, planning statement, design and access statement and drawing nos. 10-01, 10-02, 12-01 and 12-02 which were received on 10th May 2022. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
Owners/Occupiers of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, Ramsey Owners/Occupiers of 17 Royal Park, Ramsey
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE OFFICER'S RECOMENDATION IS CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the land to the west of 17 Royal Park, Ramsey.
1.2 The site is a rectangular vacant plot of land of some 300sqm (10 x 30m) at Royal Park on the northern bend of this road within a predominantly residential area of Ramsey.
1.3 The west boundary is with 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue. Trees and hedges are screening the side boundary of the site abut the garden, which sits at a slightly elevated position to the west of the site and has a patio window and kitchen window facing onto the site.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00520/B Page 3 of 10
1.4 The east boundary is with 16 and 17 Royal Park, a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Further towards the east are a terrace and more semi-detached dwellings sharing similar characters with 16 and 17 Royal Park.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposed work is the erection of a dormer bungalow. It sits closer to the west boundary of the site.
2.2 The dwelling consists of a pitched roof main dwelling and a mono-pitched roof front porch. The main dwelling is approx. 5.4m wide, projects approx. 9.4m and has a height of 7.4m. The roof overhand would add another approx. 0.8m in width and 0.6m in projection.
2.3 The proposed dwelling will have a living/dining room, a kitchen and a toilet on the ground floor. There will be three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor.
2.4 The site will have a driveway on the north boundary and in front of the dwelling. There will also be a front garden formed with lawns and new plantations.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Phase One, Fields 131161, 131047 & 134070, Ormly Fields with access vie Vollan Crescent - Proposed detailed House types for phase 1 of residential development comprising of 46 plots was APPROVED under PA 04/02310/B.
3.2 Fields 131161, 131047, 134070,131049 and 131085 Ormly Fields with access vie Vollan Crescent - Proposed residential estate layout comprising of plots, road, and sewers for 111 mixed density dwellings with associated open space and landscaping was APPROVED under PA 04/02311/B.
3.3 Erection of a dwelling was REFUSED under PA 08/02191/B. The reason was the proposal would create a negative impact on the amenity of 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue and result in the loss of an area of public open space and detract from the character and amenities of the estate.
3.4 Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking was REFUSED at Appeal under PA 18/01106/B. The proposal is of similar mass to that of the PA 20/01063/B but the design is different.
3.5 Proposed Erection of a 3 Bed Dormer Bungalow was REFUSED at Appeal under PA 20/01063/B. The proposal is approx. 1m wider and 1.3m lower than the current application. They share a similar projection. The proposal consists of a two-storey dormer bungalow with an extension pitched and a front and rear dormer.
3.6 The Inspector's Report list the reason for recommending refusal as the proposed dwelling "looks cramped on this narrow site" and therefore it "adversely affects the spacious nature and character of this part of the estate". The final reason for refusal on the decision notice is that the proposal would "be out of keeping and harmful to the appearance and character of the streetscene in this part of Royal Park, contrary to General Policy 2(b) and 2(c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Proposed Residential in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. However, the surrounding area has been developed for residential use. This is reflected in the draft of the Area Plan for the North, which designated the area as predominantly residential. The Area Plan is currently under public consultation. Therefore, the area, in general, will be assessed as Predominantly Residential.
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00520/B Page 4 of 10
Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
Principles of Developments 4.3 General Policy 2, which provides an overall requirement for all development, 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: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (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 unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (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."
Visual Design 4.4 Strategic Policy 3 and Housing Policy 6 focus on the visual design of developments, they state that the design should take account of the local materials, character and identity of its immediate locality, in terms of buildings and landscape features.
Environment 4.5 Strategic Policy 5 states: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island."
Parking 4.6 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
4.7 Appendix 7.6 states that for typical residential development, there should be 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.
Other 4.8 Community Policy 7, 10 and 11 state that the design of new development must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to existing best practise such as to prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour and outbreak and spread of fire. In addition, development should also provide proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes."
4.9 Infrastructure Policy 5 particularly states that "Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources."
PPS and NPD 4.10 There is no relevant Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive that applies to this application.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00520/B Page 5 of 10
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) guides the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property, as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
5.2 RDG 2.0 sets out key considerations regarding achieving sustainable development both in the design and the physical construction process.
5.3 RDG 3.0 sets out key considerations regarding design issues for new homes.
5.4 RDG 3.1.3 states: "Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area."
5.5 RDG 5 sets out key considerations regarding architectural details. These include window details and external finishing. The general idea is that development should fit in with the street scene and the building itself.
5.6 RDG 6 "The Wider Site" sets out some key considerations regarding boundary treatment, trees, the driveway, and the front garden.
5.7 RDG 7 sets out key considerations regarding the impact on neighbouring properties. These include the potential loss of light/overshadowing, overbearing impact upon outlook and overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners objects to this application (04.07.2022). The comment states that "The application site was not included for development when the estate was initially laid out, being intended as public open space. The proposed dwelling does not respect the site and the surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale form, design and landscaping of buildings and spaces around them as set down in General Policy 2(b) and 2(c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. In addition, it would adversely affect the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. The proposal has the appearance of a property which has been squeezed into a narrow plot and will always look out of keeping with the rest of the estate."
6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (23.05.2022). The comment states that there are no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues.
6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team does not object to this application (07.06.2022). The comment states that the proposed native landscaping and bird brick are more than enough to make up for the loss of the existing hedge and these biodiversity provisions should be conditioned.
6.4 Owners/Occupiers of 1 Royal Park (04.06.2022) and 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue (08.06.2022) wrote in objection to this application. The material considerations include negative impacts on outlook and privacy and a sense of overbearing.
6.5 The comments mentioned in section 6.4 also contain these non-material considerations: disturbance caused by the construction of the proposal and disruption to hedges along the boundary.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00520/B Page 6 of 10
7.1 The main considerations for this application are the principle of the development (particularly its land use), its impact on the character and streetscene of the area, on parking and neighbouring amenities.
Principle of the Development 7.2 One contention surrounding the site is its land use designation. Previously, PA 18/01106/B was initially refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in the loss of an area of public open space, which was within the approval of PA 04/02310/B. However, this reason was not included in the reason for refusal by the Minister at the time.
7.3 The inspector for the 2018 application also noted that although the front part of the site was shown as landscaped open space in the original 2004 approval, it was not designated as a public open space for protection. Since there are other open spaces within the surrounding area, and the proposal would still have a landscaped front garden, the 2018 proposal is not considered to negatively impact the appearance of the site and the immediate area because of its proposed front garden.
7.4 The comments and the recommendations of the Inspector have significant planning weight and are a material consideration which must be taken into account when determining this current application. The decision made by the Minister carries even more planning weight. Accordingly, it is considered that a refusal on the grounds of the loss of "Open Space" in itself would not be advisable, nor could it be sustained in an appeal.
7.5 Similar comment was given within the appeal of PA 20/01063/B. The inspector agrees with the previous inspector's report and also noted that material planning considerations have changed since the 2008 refused application.
7.6 In summary, it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential use is acceptable. It is to be noted that this is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal, as its impacts on other matters in this report still need to be assessed.
Character and Streetscene of the Area 7.7 This is arguably the main issue of the previous two proposals and the reason these previous applications were refused. The previous application proposed a dormer bungalow property that had a greater footprint than the current application. It also had a narrower gap to both the west and east boundaries (with 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue and 17 Royal Park).
Character and Streetscene - Previous Applications 7.8 The inspector for the 2020 application states that "the detached bungalow would appear both diminutive in relation to its two-storey and more substantial neighbours and that it would appear to be cramped on the narrow plot. It was, therefore, considered to be out of keeping and harmful to the appearance and character of the street scene in this part of Royal Park."
7.9 The inspector continues to state that: the spaciousness character of this part of the Royal Park is a result of the semi-detached houses and the two end-terraced houses keeping a good distance from their respective boundaries on their open sides. The eastern wall of the proposed dormer bungalow, on the other hand, cannot mimic the western wall of No. 17 to leave as wide a gap as those between the pairs of semi-detached houses and the terraced houses." In addition, the inspector points out that the proposed would be the only detached house in this part of the Royal Park.
7.10 While the narrow gap around the boundary would harm the character of the area, the inspector also considers that "the proposed detached dormer bungalow would still look cramped on this narrow site."
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00520/B Page 7 of 10
7.11 In summary, the concern was around the form (detached), scale and layout (width of the house compared to the width of the site) of the proposal.
Character and Streetscene - Current Application 7.12 The current proposal is different from the 2020 application in terms of scale and layout. The proposal is taller but narrower. The height of the dwelling (7.3m) is similar to the height of 17 Royal Park (7.7m), and the width is also similar to that of 17 Royal Park. The space between the boundary and the dwelling wall is also similar for these two properties (2.8m for the proposal and 3.2m for 17 Royal Park). These amendments make the proposal sharing more similarities with the existing dwellings in scale and layout.
7.13 While still being detached, the proposal has a very different approach to design compared to the previous application. The proposal has the gable facing the road, while the previous proposal has a pitched roof the same as the existing one. There is no dormer on the roof but the proposal does keep the mono-pitched porch to increase resemblance with 17 Royal Park.
7.14 In summary, compared to the previously refused application, the current proposal has much more resemblance to the other existing dwellings on Royal Park. Therefore, it is considered that there is no negative impact on the character and streetscene of Royal Park.
7.15 It is also closer to its western boundary. The minimum distance to the west boundary has been reduced to 1m compared to the previous 1.5m. Considering the hedge on the 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue side has a screen the property from being visible at the Royal Park side. It is considered that there is no negative impact on the character and streetscene of Rheast Mooar Avenue.
7.16 In summary, it is considered that the proposed dormer bungalow would sit better than the previously proposed bungalows. Furthermore, the design of the bungalow and its size, form and layout, while still smaller compared to other properties in the street scene, is now of a size which overcomes the comments of the Inspector who had concerns that the bungalow design "would appear both diminutive in relation to its two-storey and more substantial neighbours but, at the same time, would appear to be cramped within the width of a narrow corner plot". Overall; while a balanced decision, it is considered the proposal would fit much better with the street scene, whilst not appearing cramped within the site.
Parking and Traffic 7.17 The proposal contains two off-road parking spaces and there is no objection from highway services. Therefore, it is considered that there is no negative impact on parking or traffic.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.18 1 Royal Park is located to the north of the proposed dwelling at least 20m away from the new dwelling. Between the two properties is a fence which is to be retained and new landscaping is proposed to be planted along this boundary. Within the southern elevation of this neighbouring property, there are a total of six windows (three at ground level (kitchen dinner) and three dormer windows (bedroom/bathroom). The new dwelling would have a single bi- folding door at ground floor level (kitchen diner) and two dormer windows (bedrooms). These would be greater than the general guide (Residential Design Guide) which seeks a 20m gap to be retained between directly facing windows, especially primary habitable rooms (lounges/kitchen diners). In this case, this gap would be retained and with the existing fence line and future landscaping proposed; overlooking would not be so significant to warrant a refusal. Again, given the distance the proposal is from the neighbouring property and given the size/scale/height of the proposed dwelling; it is not considered the proposal would have significant adverse impacts through loss of light and/or overbearing impact.
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/00520/B Page 8 of 10
7.19 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue is located to the southwest of the proposed dwelling measuring between 7.8m and 12.4m to the new dwelling. Between the two properties is mature hedgerows (approximately 2.5m to 3m in height) which are all to be retained. The applicants have also indicated that the floor level of the neighbouring property would be 1.5m above that of the ground level of the new dwelling. The proposed dwelling is also set back from this neighbouring property; therefore the side kitchen window of Nr 12 would not be impacted in terms of overbearing impact upon outlook, albeit the existing landscaping current prevents significant views outside the site. Furthermore, the applicants have also undertaken the '45 degree approach' (as outlined within the Residential Design Guide) and the height and position of the new dwelling would not cause concern in this respect. The sun's orientation (east to west) and the position of the new dwelling in relation to Nr 12; again raise no concern to warrant a refusal. There are also no proposed windows which have direct views into any window of this property to also cause concern. Overall, while there will be an impact of a dwelling upon the occupants of Nr 12, it is not considered the impacts are so adverse to warrant a refusal.
7.20 The current proposal is approx. 1.1m higher than the previous proposal. To 1 Royal Park, the distance between dwellings does not change; to 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, the impact of the proposal still does not outweigh the impact of the existing hedges. Therefore, it is considered that the impact on these neighbours did not change and the assessment from the 2020 application still stands.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide July 2021. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS
9.1 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 which 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.
9.2 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. __
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.
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/00520/B Page 9 of 10
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 26.09.2022
Signed : P SHEN 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 10 ====
22/00520/B Page 10 of 10
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 26.09.2022
Application No 22/00520/B Applicant Hartford Homes Proposal Proposed erection of dwelling Site Address Land To The West Of 17 Royal Park Royal Park Ramsey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer Mr Peiran Shen Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report
In response to questions from the members, a condition has been attached to ensure the installation of the bird and bat box:
Reason: to maintain and encourage wildlife protection and biodiversity within the area.
The Members noted that there had been a typographical error in the Interested Persons recommendation, which should have referred to 1 Royal Park, Ramsey rather than 17 Royal Park, Ramsey.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal