**Document:** APL Planning Statement
**Application:** 20/01386/A — Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling addressing matters of access and landscaping
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2021-03-02
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/6898-lezayre-fasque-new-dwelling/documents/925440

---

# APL Planning Statement

## Planning Application Statement

### Date: December 2020

Site in question: Land Adjacent to Fasque, Andreas Road, Ramsey, Isle of Man Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of a new detached dwelling on land to above site. Previous Application:

- - 16/00586/A = Refused 3rd April 2019. Appeal Application:

- Lodged = 23rd April 2019

- - Appeal Inquiry Meeting = 23rd July 2019
- - Appeal Refusal = 23rd October 2019

This planning application has been compiled as a follow on to the appeal refusal listed above in 2019.

Appeal refusal reasons outlined by Minister:

- 1. The proposal would result in an additional property using an access which will not provide adequate visibility for drivers emerging from the site. Whilst the visibility will be better than what existing previously, it is not fully in accordance with highway safety standards and is not sufficient to justify a further dwelling using this access. The proposal therefore fails to accord with General Policy 2(h) and 2(i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
- 2. The proposed dwelling, by reason of its configuration within the site, would fail to respect its surroundings in terms of siting and layout and would adversely affect the residential amenity of Fasque and St Bridgets contrary to Policy R/E/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan 1989 and Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2(b) and 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

The below statement for this proposal directly relates to numbered points made in the Appeal Inspectors Report (2nd September 2019) for clarity. Please note Inspectors points shown in blue.

50. However, despite the assertion of the Appellant that the requisite 43m sight distance could be achieved along the road edge, I am satisfied, on the evidence of the Highway Authority with reference to the Manual for Manx Roads, that in practice it would be significantly less, especially to the north, at around 18m. It is from the north that the fastest traffic is likely to approach, potentially at or even above the 30mph speed limit on entering the restricted zone.

1.1 Visibility now achieves the 43 metres required. This can clearly be seen in the video footage, photographs and plans. We believe the 18 metres mentioned within the appeal report was not correct. The point upon which the boundary moves into land not in ownership of the applicant was not clear due to the vegetation overgrowth.

1.2 The vegetation has been cleared on the applicant site and as such it is a drastic improvement on what was there previously and it is now clear that visibility is achieved.

- 1.3 Multiple video meetings have been had with Sheila Henley from The Highways Department throughout this application preparation to ensure that we are proposing a suitable application that the Highways Department are happy with. Dates video calls were had are 6th, 12th and 21st October 2020.
- 2

1.4 Adam Dunlop from The Highways Department visited the application site on Friday 16th October 2020 via Sheila Henley’s request to assist with marking out the 43m visibility points and assess they were achievable. Sheila has since confirmed that both herself and Adam are happy that 43m visibility is achievable in both directions.

- 51. Visibility standards are provided for guidance and I agree with the Appellant that a balanced, common sense judgement is justified on the circumstances of each individual case as to whether a development complies with GP(h) and (i) on road safety. In this connection, I note that that judgements were made to allow frontage development accesses with numerically substandard visibility in the examples cited at Eastfield and Grand Island Hotel.

2.1 Correct. Those developments are substandard and are bigger developments than the one proposed here at The Fasque.

2.2 This point raised by the Inspector is now redundant as the current site complies with GP (h) and (i) on road safety.

- 52. Be that as it may, it is evident in the present appeal that the kerbside visibility distances achievable without reliance upon private land obstructed by vegetation and outside the control of the Appellant would be significantly sub-standard, even if the setback distance were reduced to 1.9m.

3.1 The sod hedging to the edge of the Highway is set back approximately 700mm. Approximately 500mm of this is ground level vegetation before the sod banking rises in height.

3.2 The plan shows that the visibility splays at 43m do NOT run across land outside the ownership of the applicant.

3.3 Ruth Black, Highways Record Officer assisted with sourcing the current records map of the area. This correspondence was had from 13th-16th October 2020.

3.4 It should be noted that the speed limit from Andreas just before the 30mph limit has been reduced down to 40mph. This is another positive impact upon the vehicles speed entering the 30mph zone where the site in question is located. Vehicle speed when in the 30mph is much more likely to be near 30mph due to this compared to the previous higher speed limit.

## 53. It is reasonable to consider that this disadvantage would be offset by the improvementin replacing the two former access points with a single entrance.

4.1 Please see visibility plan. The new entrance is a dramatic improvement on the old double access points that were sub standard.

4.2 During pre application advice and assistance from 6th September 2020 to date, The Highways Department are happy with the new proposal and that it achieves 43m visibility splays required.

## 54. However, it is my judgement on balance that to double the permitted use of theentrance by creating an additional residential dwelling on the appeal land would still posea significant increased danger to road safety in this particular case, when assessed on itsindividual merit. That is due to the potential for increased conflict between emerging andpassing vehicles, which brings the proposed development into conflict with the aims ofGP2(h) and (i) to secure safe access.

- 5.1 The entrance to the site has a sweeping 900mm high wall approx 9.1m wide that allows adequate space for a vehicle to exit the site at the same time as a vehicle entering the site.

- 5.5m wide is general width for small scale developments. Please see highways visibility drawing.

5.2 A significant reduction on danger to road safety has been created.

5.3 Due to the improvement to the access point, conflict between emerging and passing vehicles will be eliminated even if additional vehicles were to utilise the site and as such does not conflict with the aims of GP2(h) and (I) to secure safe site access.

- 55. It is not disputed in this appeal that there is sufficient space within the present curtilage of Fasque to accommodate a modest additional dwelling, together with parking, turning and private amenity or garden areas.
- 56. Importantly, however, cars approaching or leaving the proposed dwelling would pass over the shared driveway in front of the dwelling at Fasque and be driven very close to certain of its windows. The dwelling would occupy much of the present side garden of Fasque, situated in part behind that of St Bridgets.

- 6.1 The drive area has been laid as gravel and paving as outlined on the plans, that creates a visible route for both vehicles and pedestrians to manoeuvre to the proposed plot past The

- 4

Fasque. The layout of this area means the closest a vehicle or pedestrian can get to the 3rd bedroom window is approximately 4.4 metres.

6.2 The orientation/location of the proposed indicative dwelling has been amended to a more optimum position for the dwelling itself, The Fasque and St Bridget's.

6.3 An average distance of 10.5m would be present to The Fasque and a distance of 18m approx would be present to the nearest window of St Bridget’s.

- 57. I accept that cars passing Fasque would generally be moving slowly and that only comparatively minor bedroom windows would be directly affected. I also accept that the proposed bungalow could be sited some 10m from a 1.8m fence at the boundary and some 20m from the corner of the main house at St Bridgets. This would maintain reasonable separation distances, given the designation of the area in the RLP as Predominantly Residential.
- 58. Nevertheless, the screen planting illustrated around the corner of Fasque to avoid overlooking, although set some 2m away from the building, would restrict its outlook. Moreover, the presence of a new residential property, partly to the rear of the side garden of St Bridgets, would give a perception of a reduction in the peace and privacy of that property.

7.1 A proposed 1 metre high planting box is proposed across the bedroom window area. This will have gap fencing up to approximately 1.5 m in height. This fence is a minimum 2metre distance away from the window up to a distance of 3.1m and will be planted up with various shrubs to soften the barrier between drive way and bedroom window whilst still giving a clear, pleasant outlook. It should be reiterated that this window is a secondary window to the third bedroom and as such is not being utilised much for viewing purposes.

7.2 Please see Landscaping plan and elevation with this application.

7.8 The landscaping plan shows that a new residential property could merge within the surroundings nicely and not take away any peace and privacy to St Bridget’s.

Conclusion 8.1 It is felt that this application shows the improvements and changes that now align and accord with General Policy 2(b), 2(g), 2(h) and 2(i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy R/E/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan 1989 that were the reasons for refusal previously.

## 6

---

*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/6898-lezayre-fasque-new-dwelling/documents/925440*