**Document:** Officer Planning Report
**Application:** 05/92137/REM — Reserved Matters application for the erection of three detached dwellings, associated parking, landscaping and access
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2006-02-16
**Parish:** Arbory
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/79826-arbory-level-garage-site-reserved-matters/documents/1459648

---

# Officer Planning Report

## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations W J & Mrs C Gelling<br/> J S & M Quirk<br/> Mrs D Leece ### Consultations ### Policy

## Officer's Report

The site represents a parcel of presently vacant land which was up until recently occupied by a repair and car sales garage (The Level Garage). The site is located on the western corner of the junction of the Croit-e-Caley Road (B33) and the Ballagawne/Colby Main Road (A7). The site is designated as Retail on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan which was adopted by Tynwald in 1991. This designation reflects the former use of the site for the sale of motor vehicles.

Previously, planning permission was granted for the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes PA 04/0146. No numbers were cited and no specific conditions attached to that approval, other than a note requiring that 8m must be maintained between the development and the nearby stream and another advising that there are no known surface water sewers in the area and that surface water may not be discharged to the main foul sewer.

Subsequent to this, a planning application was submitted for the erection of 7 dwellings. This was refused - PA 04/2420 for various reasons relating to over-development, the design of the dwellings, the presentation of the development to the main road and the amount of amenity space.

A further application was submitted for 6 dwellings: this was refused for reasons relating to the inadequate provision for car parking and traffic circulation in a manner which would create unneighbourliness for the occupants of the proposed new dwellings.

Now proposed is the development of three detached dwellings.

I had met with the applicant prior to the submission of this application and recommended revisions to the layout which was shown to me, the layout generally as shown in this application, such that the dwelling on the north eastern end of the site was turned to face the corner, presenting a frontage to on-coming vehicles. The application shows this property facing south east and backing onto Ballagawne/Colby Main Road as does the plot alongside. The third property facing north east. It is a relatively dense form of development which provides two parking spaces per dwelling with garaging. All house types are virtually identical, despite trying in earlier meetings to achieve some variation in the appearance of the dwellings. The house types are traditionally styled with substantial chimneys and vertically proportioned windows which all complement the prevailing style of dwellings in the vicinity which are of a mixture of sizes and styles. The houses are shorter in frontage than the larger of the houses built at Strawberry Fields to the south of the site.

The application also proposes road works in the form of the introduction of an island and traffic separation for traffic moving up and down the Croit-e-Caley Road, a right turning lane for those travelling east along the Ballagawne/Colby Main Road and reduction in the width of the entrance of the Croit-e-Caley Road onto the A7. In my opinion the proposed development does not justify any requirement in the conditions of any approval to require the roadworks to be undertaken: no such requirements were involved in the development of Strawberry Fields or Meadows which both involve more dwellings and potentially more traffic using this junction.

There are views from:

Rushen Parish Commissioners who are concerned at the size of dwellings and what they still regard as over-development of the site. They also express concern at the rears of two of the properties backing onto the main road and domestic paraphernalia ending up alongside this, the confusing impression brought by the provision of the grassed area outside the domestic curtilages, the omission of streetlighting, lack of opportunities for maintenance of the water course through the introduction of fencing alongside the same. They also point out that houses 2 and 3 share a boundary although whether or why this should be an objection is not clear.

Isle of Man Water Authority who raise no objection subject to the imposition of the standard note 2 (SN23) regarding connections to the main supply.

DoT Drainage Division who raise no objections subject to the inclusion of conditions dealing with foul sewerage connection, surface water discharge, adoption of the drainage works, construction details being required by the DoT prior to work commencing on site and the provisions of the Land Drainage Act 1934 which deals with culverting.

The occupants of "Puffins" who object to the size of dwelling being out of keeping with the area (indicating that 1 dwelling would be appropriate) and inadequate car parking provision.

The occupants of "Oldbrook" who object on the grounds of their inference from the approval in principle that only one dwelling would be permissible, bearing in mind the requirement for the buffer strip, insufficient car parking, the rear elevations facing the road, road safety, how maintenance of the watercourse will be maintained with the fencing which is proposed, disturbance of the watercourse through culverting, the lack of need or justification for the highway alterations and the urban impact thereof.

The occupant of "Wattlee" who raises a number of concerns regarding the provision and location of the bollards and traffic control and the impact which this will have on this property and access thereto, what is considered over-development of the site, the absence of a scaled site plan (the plan is drawn to scale but bears the normal advice to accept figured measurements rather than scaled dimensions), the size and design of the properties, the fact that they will back onto the Main Road, loss of view, insufficient parking, obstruction of the visibility splay by the proposed fencing/walling alongside the junction and that the development encroaches onto the public highway.

I think the latter conclusion may be based on the fact that the applicant is offering to landscape this area as part of the visibility splay although it is not within the defined site, is within the ownership and control of the Department of Transport and could be undertaken, along with the other highway works, under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005.

There are no objections from Department of Transport Highways Division who recommend the imposition of a condition which requires that the carriageway markings around the hatched areas are intermittent to permit vehicles to enter this area whilst waiting to pass waiting vehicles.

In my previous discussions I enquired whether the Department of Transport would require these highway improvements to be undertaken by and funded by the developer even if the development was reduced in scale to only 3 dwellings. The applicant has included the highway improvements in the application, even though they are not within the defined site and do not require planning permission under the above Order. The development could be implemented without the proposed highways improvements and within land which is controlled by the applicant.

The applicant has also confirmed that the Department of Transport still require the highway works, despite the reduction in the number of dwellings. The applicant has attempted to reduce costs of the development by standardising the house types and components thereof. They have tried to use stonework and variations in the windows.

The applicant has clarified to me that the reconfiguration of the north eastern property was proposed following concerns regarding the outlook and amenities of this property which would have had either the roadside wall, the parked cars or the adjacent property very close some of which would come close to falling foul of the previous reasons for refusal.

The applicant has also clarified that maintenance of the bank will be carried out by a management group formed on behalf of the new residents to maintain the roadway and communal areas including the banks. The applicant would be happy to culvert the stream but adjacent owners did not respond positively.

It would be possible to maintain the banks within the scheme as proposed: whether this will be undertaken is little, if any different than if the banks were maintained by the adjacent property owner, who would be perfectly entitled to erect a fence as is proposed here, under the provisions of the Permitted Development Order. The stream (that running north east/south west) is presently heavily overgrown in parts and it would be difficult to access parts of it from the site at the present time. The shrubbery does not appear to be being removed which will mitigate against the inter-visibility between the site and the properties to the south.

Whilst I can understand the concerns of those that the development involves the erection of larger houses rather than three of the smaller house types which were proposed previously, the houses are not excessive in size in themselves, are smaller to some degree than some of the new houses in Strawberry Fields which have also been built in close proximity to each other in a mews type arrangements.

There will be windows in the southern elevation of the southernmost house which will look towards "Oldbrook": one serving a ground floor lounge and one directly above this, serving a first floor bedroom. The site however, is higher than this property and these windows will not only be obscured by existing vegetation but will also not be looking directly into the front windows of "Oldbrook". Additional, reinforcement of the planting at this point of the boundary may assist in preserving the privacy of both properties (the proposed southernmost house and "Oldbrook").

The proposal in my view accords with the approval in principle: whilst there is not 8m maintained between the houses and the watercourses, this was required not as a condition but as a note and the requirement for this emanated from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry who have not objected to this application on this basis.

The residential use of the site accords with the approval in principle and makes good use of a presently derelict site in a prominent position within the elongated settlement of Colby/Croit-e-Caley. The site is also well-placed to make convenient use of the public transport system.

The material considerations are therefore whether the development is over-intensive, whether the development would fit in visually into the streets cene and whether there is any adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

The site represents 0.1167ha (0.288 acres) so the proposed density (a little over 10 dwellings per acre) cannot be considered as excessive. Each property has a small area of front garden, rear garden space and adequate car parking which is in accordance with the 1982 Order (1.5 spaces behind the building line) and the emerging Strategic Plan (2 spaces per dwelling). The proposed dwellings are traditional in style and design. The development in the vicinity comprises a mixture of modern and old, two and single storey properties.

The properties are arranged such that the rear elevations face onto to the main road: these are the principal elevations and the direction from which most who view the development will do so. This is unfortunate but I accept the explanation of the applicant regarding the difficulties of providing a layout which works inside and out so to speak on this site which has two building lines.

Whilst the proposed roadworks may well affect the properties around the site, particularly those on the main road, these works are not within the defined site and may be undertaken on behalf of the Highway Authority without planning permission under the provisions of the Permitted Development Order 2005.

The proposed dwellings will have sufficient and satisfactory amenities in themselves and will not, in my view adversely affect the amenities of the surrounding properties sufficient to warrant refusal on these grounds. I would also recommend the inclusion of a condition which suspends the provisions of the Permitted Development Order in order to control further extensions and alterations which, either

individually or cumulatively, may result in over-development or an adverse impact on the amenities of the existing or proposed dwellings. I would recommend that the following parties are afforded interested party status and may request an appeal of the decision: Rushen Parish Commissioners and Department of Transport Highways and Traffic and Drainage Divisions all of whom are statutory consultees. The Isle of Man Water Authority who is a statutory undertaker and who submitted views within the appointed time and

The occupants of "Puffins", "Oldbrook" and "Watlee" all of whom reside close to the site and could be considered to be directly affected by the proposal and whose views were received within the appointed time.

### Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 19.12.2005

### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval
N : Notes attached to conditions
R : Reasons for refusal
- : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the erection of three dwellings with associated landscaping and parking all as shown in drawings reference K065/P/10-01, -02, -03, -04, -05 and -06 and K065/P/11-01 all received on 7th November, 2005.

C 3. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer. C 4. The proposed development must be connected to the main foul sewer. NOTE: A Drainage Connection Fee will be payable to the Drainage Authority on this development

C 5. The windows must be installed as shown in the approved drawings and retained as such and may not be replaced other than with the written permission of the Planning Authority.

C 6.

Prior to the occupation of "house 1" the applicant must introduce a scheme of planting to reinforce the existing vegetation between the property and the water course to the south. Such planting must first be shown in a plan to be approved by the Planning Authority.

C 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval.)

N 1. For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact Isle of Man Water Authority Customer Services, telephone 695949.

N 2. If the developer requires the proposed sewers and associated drainage works to be adopted, the Division recommends that the developer enters into an adoption agreement with the Division prior to work commencing on site, in accordance with Section 8 of the Sewerage Act 1999.

N 3. Full construction drawings for this development are required by the Division prior to any work commencing on site. These drawings must include the proposed manhole details and full longitudinal sections for the foul and surface water sewer: all works must be designed in accordance with "Manx Sewers for Adoption".

N 4. The applicant is advised that under section 35 of the Land Drainage Act 1934, written permission is required from the Department of Transport for any work carried out on any watercourses throughout the Island, the applicant is therefore requested to contact the Land Drainage Engineer within the Drainage Division to discuss the proposed culvert replacement and submit a full method statement for the same.

N 5. It should be noted that the highway works which are shown as being undertaken are outwith the defined site as shown in drawing reference K065/P/10-01. As such they do not form part of the approved works. Permission would not be required for these works, however, planning permission would not be required for these works if they are undertaken by or on behalf of the Department of Transport, under Class 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005.

Decision Made : ...
Committee Meeting Date : ...

---

*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/79826-arbory-level-garage-site-reserved-matters/documents/1459648*