**Document:** Land Adjacent to NO.17 Royal Park Planning Statement **Application:** 20/01063/B — Proposed Erection of a 3 Bed Dormer Bungalow **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2020-12-01 **Parish:** Lezayre **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/13567-lezayre-17-royal-park-erection-3/documents/1000922 --- # Land Adjacent to NO.17 Royal Park Planning Statement ## Hartford www.hartford.im Tel: +44 (0) 1624 631000 Fax: +44 (0) 1624 631001 Visit hartford.im --- Department of Planning DEFA Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF 25th September 2020. --- Dear Sir / Madam, **Re:** Detailed planning application for a new dwelling on land next to No.17, Royal Park, Ramsey. The following information is provided in support of the above planning application: 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE PROPOSED SITE 3. PLANNING HISTORY 4. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5. PLANNING POLICY 6. DRAINAGE & SERVICES 7. ACCESS AND CAR PARKING 8. CONSULTATION 9. ANALYSIS OF THE INSPECTORS COMMENTS ON THE PREVIOUS PROPOSALS AND HOW THE CURRENT PROPOSALS ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS. 10. SUMMARY --- **Date:** 2 of 17 **Address:** Hartford Homes Middle River Douglas Isle of Man British Isles 1 W2 1AL **Directors:** A.S. Greenhalgh J.S. Greenhalgh NA Greenhalgh Inc. in the Isle of Man No. 061 408C VAT No. GS 001 0743 45 ## 1. Introduction ![A site plan showing the proposed development site highlighted in red within a residential area, indicating boundaries and surrounding properties.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153637.jpg) This planning application is for the proposed development of a single, 3-bedroom dormer bungalow, on a vacant plot of land zoned for residential use, next to No.17, Royal Park, Ramsey. This planning application has been developed on the basis that the Appeal Inspector for 18/01106/B, which was for a 2-bedroom bungalow, found that the proposed site is an 'undeveloped building plot' and the use of the land for a residential plot does not conflict with planning policy. ### 2. The Proposed Site The proposed site The proposed site is located between No. 17 Royal Park and No. 12 Rheast Moore Avenue. The northern boundary of the site measures 8.75 m in length. The site then widens moving towards the southern boundary, where it meets the road. The western boundary of the site is 40 m long and 29 m long on its eastern boundary. ![Aerial satellite view of a residential street showing detached houses, driveways, and a green plot of land adjacent to existing properties.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153638.jpg) Aerial view of the proposed site. Street View of the proposed site. 1. PLANNING HISTORY The proposed site is part of a larger area of land that benefits from two extant planning approvals; Planning Application: 04/02310/B - Approved Address: Phase One, Fields 131161, 131047 & 134070, Ormly Fields With Access Via Vollan Crescent Ramsey Parish: RAMSEY Proposal: Proposed detailed house types for phase 1 of residential development comprising 46 plots Planning Application: 04/02311/B - Approved Address: Fields 131161, 131047,134070, 131049 & 131085, Ormly Fields And Access Via Vollan Crescent Ramsey Parish: RAMSEY Proposal: Proposed residential estate layout comprising of plots, roads and sewers for 111 mixed density dwellings with associated open space and landscaping Page 4 of 17 ![A street-level photograph showing a grassy plot of land bordered by hedges and neighboring residential houses along a paved road.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153639.jpg) Following the development of Royal Park Phase 1, which was covered by the above two planning approvals, planning approval was sought for a single, two storey dwelling on the current proposed site, similar in appearance to the house on No. 17 Royal Park, but this was refused in March 2009; **Planning Application:** 08/02191/B - Refused **Address:** Plot 33A Royal Park Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 3UF **Parish:** RAMSEY **Proposal:** Erection of a dwelling A subsequent planning application was submitted in 2018, for a bungalow; **Planning Application:** 18/01106/B - Refused **Address:** Land to the west of 17 Royal Park, Royal Park, Ramsey, Isle of Man **Proposal:** Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking. This application was Refused by the Planning Department using Delegated Powers, and it was subsequently refused following an Appeal chaired by an Independent Planning Inspector. The Inspector reached the following 'Overall Conclusion'; **70. Overall, despite a lack of objection on residential amenity and some benefits of a new dwelling making use of vacant land, I conclude that the substantive objection with respect to character and appearance is the overriding consideration, justifying dismissal of the appeal.** Reference will be made to the Inspector's report later in section 9 of this statement, together with an explanation of how the current proposals address the Inspector's concerns. **4. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT** This current proposal is for a single, 3 bedroomed dormer bungalow, which has been designed to address the reasons for refusal of the previous planning application (PA18/01106/B), whilst maintaining all the elements that the planning Inspector found acceptable with the previous proposals. The dormer house style will be similar to the property opposite, and it will use the same elevational detailing and construction materials as the rest of Royal Park Phase 1, to integrate it into the estate. Separation distances to the adjacent properties would comply with the standards set out in the Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) published by the planning department. The site is separated from No. 12 Rheast Moore Avenue, by an existing hedge, which will be tidied up and retained, to maintain the screening separation between the two estates. Proposed elevation ![The image displays a proposed site plan showing the layout of a new detached bungalow on a plot, along with an elevation drawing illustrating the front facade of the proposed dwelling and its relation to neighboring p...](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153640.jpg) ## 5. Planning Policy The principle planning policy documents relating to this application are; - The Ramsey Local Plan (Planning Circular 2/99) - The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) ### Zoned Land The proposed site is on land zoned for residential development so complies with IOMSP General Policy 2. ### Best use of resources The site isn't currently put to any particular use. The proposed development will make the best use of resources, in compliance with IOMSP Strategic Policy 1. ### Affordable Homes This proposal is for a single bungalow, therefore Housing Policy 5 is not applicable. ### Public open space As this proposal is for a single dwelling, it is not proposed to provide any additional public open space. There is a L.A.P. (Local Area of Play), at the end of the road, and large areas of Public Open Space are being provided as part of the development of Royal Park Phase 2, which is currently under construction. Moorage Park is also very close by. ### 6. Drainage And Services Storm and Foul water disposal will be into the existing underground drainage system. Utility services are available next to the site. ### 7. Access And Car Parking The site fronts onto an adopted highway and two off road car park spaces will be provided, in compliance with standards set by Manx Manual for Roads. The car parking area has a minimum size of 7.5 m wide and 6 m deep. The site is close to a bus route on Rheast Mooar Lane and is within easy walking and cycling distance of Ramsey Town Centre. There are also good footpath links to Mooragh Park and the Promenade, as well as to the three schools in Ramsey. ## 8. Consultation During discussions with Mr Andrew Igoea of DEFA for the previous planning application, PA18/01106/8, he suggested the inclusion of specimen trees in the front garden, would make a positive contribution to the streetscape. This current proposal includes the provision of the suggested trees. The applicant also discussed the current proposals with Mr Chris Balmer in September 2020, who confirmed that the Inspector's comments regarding the status of the front of the site, was very helpful. ### 9. Analysis Of The Inspector'S Comments On The Previous Proposals And How The Current Proposals Address His Concerns. The following are extracts from the Appeal Inspector's Report for PA18/01106/8, shown in green, with our notes underneath; ### Planning Issues 54. I consider that the main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposed development on: i. the character and appearance of the site and surrounding part of the Royal Park estate, with respect to the loss of open space within the site and with regards to the wider street scene, ii. the amenity of the three adjacent properties with respect to dominance, overshadowing, outlook and privacy, and iii. any effect on highway safety. 55. It is also appropriate to consider any planning benefits that would result from the proposed development. ## Appearance and Character 56. It is necessary to consider the present proposal on merit and in current circumstances. The appeal site is now an underdeveloped building plot in an otherwise established estate. Although the front part of the site was shown as landscaped open space on the original approval for this part of the Royal Park development in accordance with the RLP, it is not designated as public open space for protection. There are other open spaces contributing to the character of the surrounding area, not least opposite the appeal site but also elsewhere within the estate. As proposed, the development would perpetuate the use of the front part of the site as landscaped front garden, including new feature trees. Therefore, I do not consider that the loss of the forward part of the appeal site as open space would, in itself, be objectionable, either in strict policy terms or with respect to the appearance of the site or the immediate area. In this sense there would be no conflict with EP42 of the SP to protect open space. [our emphasis] The Inspector accepted the proposed site is an 'undeveloped building plot' and the use of the land for a residential plot does not conflict with planning policy. The currently proposed site is the same as previously proposed and the layout of the site and the positioning of the proposed dwelling is similar to the previous application, on which the Inspector was commenting. 57. I accept the conclusion of the former case officer that the bungalow would broadly follow the building line towards the bend in the estate road of Royal Park, as related to the position of No 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue in the adjacent part of the estate. I also accept that the overall distances between the proposed and existing buildings would be broadly consistent with the layout of the estate as a whole. [our emphasis] The Inspector accepted the proposed position of the previously proposed bungalow, and the separation distances between the proposed and existing building, was consistent with the layout of the estate as a whole. The dormer bungalow, now proposed, is similarly positioned on the site to the previously proposed bungalow. 58. However, as was noted by the planning Authority at the hearing, the bungalow would extend close to its site boundaries, leaving only a narrow walkway. In contrast, the spaces at the side of the dwelling withing the adjacent curtilage of No 17 Royal Park are considerably larger, equivalent to width of a car. The same is true of the other properties to the east along the frontage. The Inspector's concern that the previously proposed bungalow was too wide for the site has been addressed by this current proposal, with the proposed dwelling being narrower, thereby leaving a greater separation to the boundary. The distance between the proposed dwelling and the side boundaries is as illustrated on the following plan. This relationship is common in residential development and allows for future maintenance of the property. ![A technical site plan showing the proposed dormer bungalow layout with dimensions, boundary lines, and a shadow cast analysis area.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153641.jpg) The following CGIs show the proposed dwelling in relation to its neighbours. Note that there is little overlap between the proposed house and the side elevation of No. 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue; ![A street-level photograph showing a residential road with detached houses, parked cars, and a street lamp under a cloudy sky.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153642.jpg) ![A street-level photograph showing a residential road curving to the left with a parked car and neighboring houses under a cloudy sky.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153643.jpg) 59. Existing dwellings in this part of the estate are generally of two-storey, semidetached design. An exception is a dormer bungalow opposite the appeal site. By comparison, the modest appeal bungalow 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. 60. As a result, although the bungalow would be detailed and finished to complement other buildings on the estate, I consider that it would be out of keeping and unacceptably harmful to the appearance and character of the established street scene of this part of Royal Park. 61. I find that the development would be contrary to the requirements of GP2b and c and EP42 of the SP to respect the site and surroundings and not affect adversely the character of the townscape including in its siting, layout, scale, form, design and the space around buildings. This current proposal is for a dormer bungalow, which will be similar to the dormer bungalow located opposite the proposed site. The existing dormer bungalow opposite the proposed site. The height of the proposed house will provide a good transition from the full two storey No. 17 Royal Park, to No. 12 Rheast Mooar Avenue, which is a bungalow. ![A photograph showing a detached bungalow with a pitched roof featuring two dormer windows and an attached single garage. The property includes a paved driveway, a small front lawn, and is situated in a residential area.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153644.jpg) The proposed dormer bungalow will be narrower than the previously proposed bungalow, so will sit more comfortably on the plot. The materials and detailing of the proposed dwelling will match the rest of the houses in Royal Park. Propose street elevation and section showing relationship with next door properties. 63. I accept the carefully reasoned evidence of the Appellant Company that the modest and low level, pitch-roofed bungalow would avoid any undue dominance or overshadowing of any of the tree adjoining properties. This is demonstrated by a submitted shading diagram and cross section. This current application also includes a shading diagram. There is no shadow cast over No. 12 Rheast Mooar as the proposed site is positioned north of No. 12. Also, the shadow cast onto the side of No. 17 Royal Park, is limited to the side of the house and most of its garden remains unaffected. It should be noted that the shadow cast illustration shows the total shadow cast throughout the day. In reality, only parts of the shadow will be cast at specific times during the day, following the path of the sun. On overcast days, there may not be any shadows cast at all. ![Architectural elevation drawing showing a proposed two-story dwelling with dormer windows situated next to existing houses at 17 and 16 Royal Park.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153645.jpg) Shadow cast illustration. 64. Clearly, there would be some noticeable effect on outlook and privacy at all three properties. However, the development would maintain more than the accepted 20m minimum separation distance between facing windows and leave reasonable overall distances between buildings. In the absence of any side windows in the bungalow and no primary side windows at No.17 Royal Park, there would be no direct overlooking between the dwellings nor any undue impact on their outlook. From the gardens the new development would be more evident. [our emphasis] The following drawing shows the separation distances between the proposed and existing dwellings and also a site section showing the relationship between the proposed dwelling and No. 12 Rheast Mooar. The separation distances comply with the standards set out in the Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) published by the planning department. ![A site plan showing the layout of a proposed detached bungalow with dimensions, boundary lines, and a shadow cast analysis.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153646.jpg) The proposed dwelling will be set well back from the front of No 12 Rheast Mooar, with very little 'overlap' between the two buildings. This will mean that the side outlook for 12 Rheast Mooar, as well as its front and rear outlook, will be little impacted upon by the proposed dormer bungalow. Furthermore, the ground floor level of 12 Rheast Mooar is approximatly 1.5 m higher than the ground level of the proposed dwelling and the existing hedge between the two properties will be retain, which will all help to maintain the prevacy of 12 Rheast Mooar. 65. Overall, however, I find the reasoning and conclusion of the former case officer unpersuasive. It was not substantively defended at the Hearing and, on a fresh independent view, I judge that the effects of the proposed development on local residential amenity would be acceptable in the prevailing urban context of the locality. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposed development would accord with GP2g of the SP. [our emphasis] Highway Safety ![A site plan showing the proposed location of a new bungalow on a plot, surrounded by existing properties and marked with visibility splays.](https://images.planningportal.im/2020/09/153647.jpg) 66. I note the concerns expressed by DOI Highways and neighbours about highway safety. However, the development would provide two off-street parking spaces to meet acceptable parking standards. With respect to visibility, part of the roadway to the right would strictly be outside the requisite $2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 43 \mathrm{~m}$ vision splay for the 30pmh speed limit. However, the practical speed and volume of traffic on this residential estate road are likely to be relatively modest and the site entrance would be on the outside of the bend offering otherwise clear views both ways. From inspection and experience, I find no substantive highway safety objection and regard the proposal as compliant with the requirement of TP4 of the SP to accommodate vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated, in a safe and appropriate manner. [our emphasis] Highway matters remain unchanged from the previous planning application, so should remain acceptable. ## Overall Conclusion 70. Overall, despite a lack of objection on residential amenity and some benefits of a new dwelling making use of vacant land, I conclude that the substantive objection with respect to character and appearance is the overriding consideration, justifying dismissal of the appeal. [our emphasis] We believe the inspector's concerns with respect to the 'character and appearance' of the previous proposal for a bungalow (PA18/01106/B) have been address by this current application. This proposal for a dormer bungalow, opposite an existing dormer bungalow, and constructed in the same materials as other properties in Royal Park Phase 1, will fit in well. ### 10. Summary We believe these proposals are compliant with Planning Policy and the Ramsey Local Plan, and will provide an attractive infill home. The style and size of the dormer bungalow fits well into its location, and addresses the concerns raised by the Appeals Inspector for the previous proposals. The Inspector accepted the proposed site is an 'undeveloped building plot' and he did '....not consider that the loss of the forward part of the appeal site as open space would, in itself, be objectionable, either in strict terms or with respect to the appearance of the site or immediate area'. The proposed dwelling will make good use of available resources and will not have a negative impact on its neighbours. We trust that we have provided sufficient information for this planning application to be determined, but should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. Yours faithfully, Redacted For and on behalf of Hartford Homes Ltd. Page 17 of 17 --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/13567-lezayre-17-royal-park-erection-3/documents/1000922*