Loading document...
Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr
Our Ref: DF10/0033 Planning Application Ref.No: 10/01602/B
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (PROCEDURE ORDER) 2005
Planning Secretary Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle Of Man
| Applicant: | Department Of Infrastructure Network Planning Section | | --- | --- | | Proposal: | Junction improvements, Main Road & Mines Road Foxdale Isle Of Man |
In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted his report. In accordance with paragraph 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed persons report is enclosed. On the 2nd June 2011, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was refused for the reasons specified in the appointed person's report.
Date of Issue: 9th June 2011
Chief Secretary's Office Government Offices Bucks Road Douglas
Mr A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator
21 JUN 2011 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Crown Division Government Offices Douglas Isle of Man
19 May 2011 The Council of Ministers Sirs
CASE REFERENCE DF10/0033 PLANNING APPLICATION 10/01602/B
Application by Department of Infrastructure Network Planning Section for planning permission for Junction improvements at Main Road and Mines Road, Foxdale.
THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED
Mines Road (A24 Foxdale – Douglas) makes a T junction with Main Road (A3 Castletown – Ramsey). Both roads have straight approaches to the junction. Mines road rises steeply to the junction, with no levelling of the approach. Main Road runs roughly north to south, with a downward gradient to the north. Mines Road runs off to the east. The locality is subject to 30mph speed restriction. The vicinity of the junction is subject to waiting restrictions at all times on both sides of Main Road. Dimensions of the roads are given in the Applicants Planning Statement of case, section 1.2.
At the south eastern corner of the junction is Bridge House, once a shop with accommodation above and to the rear. This building stands at the back of the narrow footway of Mines Road, and at the carriageway edge of Main Road. Opposite and to the south is development of terrace houses, much of it having small front gardens, but generally without off street parking. At the north western corner of the site the footway is backed by a stone wall, beyond which is the garden of Dingle Nook around a stream which issues from a culvert beneath the junction. The site is well illustrated in photographs contained within the Applicants Planning Statement of Case.
Mines Road is narrow at the junction, with narrow footways. Main road is of normal width for an urban through route. Visibility to the left at the junction is severely limited by the presence of Bridge House.
The development proposed is the improvement of the junction to provide radiused corners, wider footways and improved visibility. Bridge House would
1
be demolished, and the remnant of its site paved to provide hard standing. The stone wall at the north western corner would be replaced on a new line.
The material points are: 6. The A3 is the main route for commuting traffic between Castletown and Ramsey; A24 leads to Douglas and provides access to Foxdale Primary School. Visibility at the junction is below the required standard, being limited to 9 m to the left, and 32 m to the right when measured 2.4 m back from the edge of the Main Road carriageway. 7. The geometry of the junction is such that large goods vehicles and buses could only make the turn by encroaching onto opposing traffic lanes. Traffic on both roads travels in excess of the speed limit, particularly in the southbound direction on Main Road. 8. Between May 2005 and December 2010 there had been 9 recorded accidents in the vicinity of the junction, six of which involved vehicles entering or leaving the junction, and two involved collision with parked cars in advance of the junction. These were consistent with the poor geometry and visibility at the junction. 9. Improvement was needed, minimising the impact on the local environment, meeting the standards recommended in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, and being economically viable. 10. A range { }^{1} of options had been considered, leading to the preferred proposal of demolition of Bridge House, improvement of the junction layout and the addition of central hatching on main road. Minor improvements to gradients would be made, and footways provided around both sides of the junction. This would remove the necessity for large vehicles to encroach onto opposing traffic lanes, would increase visibility significantly, and give drivers a more confined impression of the road, leading to slower traffic flows. Improved footways would make safer access for householders. 11. The third party landowner of Dingle Nook had been consulted. Electricity and telephone wires had been placed underground, and demolition of Bridge House (purchased by DoI in 2001) had been sanctioned.
The material points are: 12. The site was located in an areas designated as predominantly residential in the Foxdale Local Plan. The site is shown on the Plan as a Building of Interest. The Plan stated in Section 8.4 that "several existing buildings or groups of buildings whilst not worthy of Registration remained largely unaltered and contributed greatly to the appearance and character of the village". It noted that several
[^0] [^0]: { }^{1} See Applicants statement p 9
Case Reference: DF10/0033
properties at the top end of Mines Road were original structures, although unsympathetic alterations were noted. Policy F/P/RB/2 stated that all of the buildings referred to in paragraphs 8.2-8.8 inclusive must, as far as possible, retain their original features and appearance.
There was a conflict between highway safety and conservation objectives. The highway benefits were set out, and had to be set against the loss of a building which was noted as being of interest, whose loss would erode the character of the area.
Assessment by the Conservation Officer² is that the building is compromised by the recent alterations, including the removal of a gable stack and replacement of windows with uPVC, and loss of historic detailing meant that the building was of insufficient interest to warrant retention.
It is concluded that, on balance the improvement to highway safety should take priority over the loss of Bridge House.
REPRESENTATIONS BY THIRD PARTIES
The material points are:
Patrick Parish Commissioners make no comment.
Mr P Lemaine, 2 Fir Cottages objects to the demolition of Bridge House. The Foxdale Local Plan set out the premise that the village should be preserved in its entirety as a heritage site. The demolition would set back work which was done in preparing the plan. The building was the Miner's Bakery. It was called Bridge House because of the bridge that crossed Miners Road about 50m away. The ovens were still in place and there were names inscribed on some of the stones of the gable. If historic buildings were to be demolished, there would be little point in the work of the Foxdale Heritage Society. Demolition would expose other resident's back yards, spoiling the outlook from Fir Cottages and its neighbours. Improvements to the junction should be confined to the Dingle Nook side of the road.
Mrs P Newton, Planning Consultant, South Cape, Laxey advises that she had been commissioned to carry out a study of certain buildings in the village, although the report required by Policy F/R/RB/1 of the Foxdale Local Plan had never been undertaken. Bridge House had been constructed to provide the town's bakery in the late 1860s/early 1870s, subsequently being a general store, butchers, drapers and latterly a fishing tackle shop. It was in a prominent position, forming a cornerstone, and was a part of a group of buildings which had been identified as Buildings of Interest in the Local Plan.
The Foxdale Local Plan, Circular 5/99 examined the traffic problems of Foxdale, and in para 3.25 stated: It is likely that any substantial development in the village will place a further burden on the T Junction of the A24 and A3 and to the A24 in general, particularly around Eairy, the Cooil and Braaid, where a
² See Statement for full Assessment
3
mini roundabout has been constructed. Such "improvements" are likely to be undesirable given their impact on the landscape. 20. The Braaid roundabout resulted in the loss of an historic building. It had to be assumed that the statement meant that the loss of buildings in Foxdale for road improvements was not favoured. There was no policy with regard to road improvements in the written statement, and unlike buildings of interest, no policy or road proposal is shown on the proposals map. 21. The plans submitted were deficient. There was no means of knowing what the area would look like after the road works were finished. No detailed consideration appeared to have been given to the structure required to extend the culvert. 22. The Highways Division did not appear to have examined the alternative approach of reducing the speed limit to 20 mph , as had been done in Laxey at the junction of Church Hill, Baldhoon Road and New Road. Traffic lights could be introduced, and the white lining included as part of the scheme could be used to reduce traffic speeds without carrying out the road works proposed. 23. Policies of the plan supported tourism. Since the adoption of the Local Plan the Foxdale Heritage Society had been founded, and was active in holding exhibitions and collecting artefacts of local significance. Its work in promoting Foxdale would be undermined if historic buildings were demolished for road schemes. 24. The plans were inadequate. It was not possible to tell from tem what the finished scheme would be like, in respect of the space left by the demolition.
which have taken place, or an analysis of how accidents would be expected to be reduced or eliminated by the works. 28. Whilst some alternative approaches have been examined, I agree with Mrs Newton that reduction of speed through this section of the village should be assessed to see whether safety would be improved. I accept that the geometric shortcomings of the junction would not be improved by reduction in speed limit, but there is no evidence that traffic flows are such that delays arise at the junction. Thus, if there is no good evidence of reductions in accidents, and no good evidence of reduction in delays, the purpose of the improvement becomes elusive. 29. Under normal circumstances, there would be little historic merit to Bridge House, and my inclination is to agree with the Conservation Officer that demolition need not be resisted. However, the approach of the Local Plan and the two objectors seems to put historic considerations on a somewhat higher plane than usual; this appears to me to be reflected in the existence of a thriving Heritage Society. 30. Taken all in all, I do not find that material considerations other than the development plan are of such weight that a decision contrary to the development plan is indicated. Permission should therefore be refused. 31. Should the Council of Ministers disagree with this conclusion, note should be taken of the objection concerning the adequacy of the plans. Bridge House is an attached building, and the Council should want to be satisfied that the raw face of the adjoining building is properly finished, and that the edges of the site are adequately dealt with. There should be detailed records of the features of Bridge House before demolition. I append a schedule of conditions appropriate in the event of approval.
I have the Honour to be
Sirs
Your obedient Servant
David Ward RSc(Hons) MICF FCIHT
1 The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision.
2 This approval relates to junction improvements including the demolition of Bridge House, Main Road and Mines Road, Foxdale, as shown by DOI BC ACT 1991 received 3 November 2010 and Planning Statement and HW/2261/P008 Rev A received 24 November 2010.
3 Prior to the demolition of Bridge House a comprehensive photographic survey must be carried out and submitted to the Planning Authority.
4 No development shall take place (including demolition works) unless plans showing the treatment of all buildings and land resulting from the demolition of Bridge House have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority; and the works shall be carried out as approved.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
