148892

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  1  of  11

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 16/01401/B Applicant : Miss Andrea Cassidy & Mr Johnathan Richards Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling with associated driveway and access and erection of stables Site Address : Land Adjacent To Cass A Lergy Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION SITE.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land situated within a slightly larger area on which extant planning Approval in Principle for two dwellings exists. It is an almost L- shaped site, situated northeast of Douglas Road in Kirk Michael, and positioned between two dwellings: Cass A Lergy to the northwest and Erinville to the southeast. The former dwelling is edged blue on the submitted plans, as is a pair of fields to the northeast of the application site.

1.2 The site is at present primarily given over to grass and is lined by trees to the highway and hedging elsewhere, although trees are found sporadically along the boundaries. The horizon to the northeast is quite close to the highway as the land rises up quite steeply in this direction. The eastern corner of the site is the highest part: it is roughly 7m higher than the highway, while the northern corner of the site is actually 3m lower than the highway.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 Of clear relevance is the approval issued to PA 15/00815/A, which sought for Approval in Principle for the erection of two dwellings on the site and with access and siting to be approved at that stage. The access to the two dwelling was proposed to be through the existing access to Cass A Lergy, while the proposed siting for the dwellings showed one situated more or less in the building line established by the existing dwellings and a second situated to the rear (northeast).

2.2 As the site is not zoned for development in the Kirk Michael Local Plan, Officers recommended the application be refused. Members accepted that recommendation albeit that the minutes of the meeting note that:

"...the development of one property might be acceptable but two, with pushing back the building line into the agricultural field behind, was inappropriate."

2.3 Indeed, the Chairman requested "that the minutes reiterate the views explained by Mr Evans reflecting concern with regard to the definition for 'infill', and also that one dwelling might be more appropriate for this site."

2.4 The application was refused for the following reason:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  2  of  11

"The application site sits within an area not zoned for development on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994. There are insufficient material grounds on which to set aside the presumption against new development on land not zoned for such and, as such, the proposal is concluded to be contrary to Policy 5.9 of the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 and also contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."

2.5 That decision was taken to appeal, and the Inspector recommended that appeal be allowed: the Minister accepted that view. It is worth noting some of the following points from the Inspector's assessment of the scheme; the numbers refer to the paragraphs of his report:

"24. On the ground, I consider that very few people would perceive two well-designed and located houses on this site, fronting the road, as encroaching in any tangible way into the countryside."

"25. The frontage bank and trees contribute significantly to the streetscene and rural character here."

"27. ...the proposal does not accord with any of the potential exceptions in General Policy 3 to its general presumption (echoed in Local Plan Policy 12.4) against development outside areas so zoned. I also keep firmly in mind that frequently it is the outlying areas of rural settlements that come under development pressures in ways that would undermine countryside policy."

"28. My overall conclusion, therefore, could not be more finely balanced. It is, however, that subject to a number of safeguards two well-designed and sited houses could be erected here without significant harm to the important underlying aims of planning policy to safeguard the Manx countryside, and the fringes of rural settlements, from ad hoc development."

"29. This could not be said, however, in my view with respect to the courtyard layout and siting submitted with the application. The underlying rationale for an approval here is that the new houses would form part of the established residential frontage. The courtyard layout would be at odds with that, and by being sited deep and high at the back of the site the houses would intrude visually into the countryside beyond. Also practically all of the garden land would be between the houses and the road, so that in time it could take on the character of back gardens, containing domestic paraphernalia, whereas as agreed at the inquiry the character and appearance of front elevations facing front gardens would be essential. If the Minister disagrees with my view that the initial layout may be treated as illustrative only, so making it subject to further detailed consideration, then I would have no hesitation in recommending refusal."

3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling with an associated detached double garage and also for a stable on the application site. As the application is not seeking approval for the matters reserved from the Approval in Principle, the current application is entirely separate from PA 15/00815/A and can, accordingly, propose a different access and also a different form of development as that approved under the 2015 application and, moreover, does not need to comply with the conditions attached to that approval.

3.2 That being said, the dwelling would be sited in a more or less identical position to the rearmost of the two dwellings shown on the drawings submitted with PA 15/00815/A. The access, however, is different, and is proposed to be sited between existing trees facing onto the Douglas Road and would be provided by creating an opening in the existing bank. The access is intended to provide a shared driveway, which is shown as serving a second dwelling that would be the subject of a separate planning application. (At the time of writing, no such has yet been application submitted.) This access would require the removal of one that already has a felling licence.

3.3 The dwelling proposed is two storeys in height and would present a gable wall punctured with four windows to the Douglas Road. To its front (eastern) elevation it would have an off-centre

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  3  of  11

porch, and to the rear elevation there is an off-centre gable feature. The dwelling is finished in a mixture of white render and stone accentuation, while the roof would be finished in reconstituted slate. The dwelling would have five bedrooms. While it has some traditionally rural vernacular elements albeit without complying with Planning Circular 3/91, the dwelling is a bespoke design.

3.4 To the southeast would be the detached double garage. This would have a single, double- width door finished in timber, with white-coloured rendered walls. It would be 6.4m wide and 6.3m deep, with a pitched roof also finished with reconstituted slate. The garage door would face down towards Douglas Road, with the roof pitch sloping away from that door.

3.5 To the northeast of the dwelling and northwest of the garage would be the stable block. This is to be finished entirely in timber boarding. It too would have a pitched, slated roof, albeit shallower than the garage, and would provide for a pair of individual stable rooms and also a tack room. It would have a footprint of 9.7m by 4.0m.

3.6 All three structures would be set somewhat within the slope of the site, which would be cut- and-filled somewhat to provide a common level for these: each would be surrounded by block paviours to provide the parking / manoeuvring areas.

3.7 The application includes an extensive design statement outlining why it is felt the proposal complies with the Development Plan and, in particular, General Policy 2 where each criterion is noted and comments made that indicate the provisions of each is met. Some extracts from the statement are set out below:

"After due consideration of the site layout, its proximity to neighbours, the amenity needs of new and existing houses, the impact bringing an access road in behind Cass A Lergy would have on Cass A Lergy and the need to create a road frontage aspect as raised by the appeal inspector, the optimum solution is for the two plots to be accessed via a new independent driveway with access off Douglas Road...

"The house to plot ratio of both properties is consistent with others in the area...

"Positioning the houses in the manner proposed has less impact on the street scene than locating two houses side by side would have, and ensures there is enough room for horse boxes to access the field and proposed stable in a level access manner."

3.8 Continued reference is made to the dwelling's eco-credentials throughout the statement, with the architect noting that the design incorporates an air-source heat pump, highly insulated walls and windows, a mechanical ventilation system, air-tightness far in excess of current guidelines and A-rated electrical appliances and LED lighting throughout.

3.9 The application includes a photomontage showing the proposed house from Douglas Road, behind existing trees.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 As noted, the site lies within an area not zoned for any form of development on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994; it is within a wider area zoned as 'Open Space (Agriculture)'.

4.2 Some members of the Committee may recall that the application seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of two dwellings here was assessed against those policies relating to the principle of new residential development - both in general and on land not zoned for development - to include Policies 5.9 and 5.14 of the Local Plan and Strategic Policies 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 3, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 1 and Transport Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  4  of  11

4.3 While the Minister approving the principle of residential development on this land in line with the Inspector's recommendation might, on some readings, mean that the principle of residential development here is accepted and acceptable, the Inspector's conclusions (not disputed by the Minister) were that that the acceptability of that principle turned on the siting of the dwellings. As such, and being mindful of the nature of the detailed proposal now before the Committee, it remains appropriate to assess the principle of the siting of a dwelling here.

4.4 The dwelling's location in Kirk Michael has been concluded to be acceptable. The issue of principle here does not relate to the sustainability of the site, as set out in Strategic Policies 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 3, Housing Policy 1 and Transport Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan, and also Policies 5.9 and 5.14 of the Local Plan. It instead relates to the visual impact a dwelling here would have, as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. Such an assessment will be linked to Environment Policy 42.

4.5 Those policies relating to detailed considerations of design, impact on the character of the built environment of the area and neighbouring living conditions, highway safety and the protection of trees are, in this case, judged to be General Policy 2 (parts (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (k) thereof), Environment Policies 1 and 42, and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.

4.6 Separately, and in terms of the stable building proposed, there are two relevant policies in the Strategic Plan: Environment Policies 19 and 21. As these are policies not often before the Committee, it is worth noting them in full here:

o EP19: "Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2)."

o EP21: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI initially sought a deferral of the application on 21st February 2017. They noted some eight separate concerns with the proposed access arrangements. Following extensive discussions between the architect and that team, amended plans were submitted and, in respect of these, Highway Services offered no objection to the application on 08.08.2017, while still requesting it be deferred. They commented that the amended plans address almost all of their concerns, with the exception of the plateau proposed back of the highway within the site:

"Amended plans received with a design that satisfies almost all of the highway issues. The only outstanding issue is the 6m plateau at the start of the driveway. This has been measured from the front of the footway rather than the back of the footway and will lead to vehicles obstructing the footway when waiting for the gates to open if gates are erected at the proposed position of the gate posts.

"If the application is to approved the following conditions should be attached:

"1. Prior to any construction the access shown on AIM drawing no 16/027/01 rev C dated May 17 shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  5  of  11

"Reason: In the interest of highway safety

"2. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

"3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the access road and footpath between the highway and dwelling shall be completed and maintained free from obstruction thereafter

"Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interest of highway safety.

"4. Permitted development rights in respect to the erection of gates shall be removed.

"Reason: To prevent obstruction of the footway in the interests of highway safety."

5.2.1 The Arboricultural Officer sought a number of additional details in respect of this application in comments received 9th January 2017. In brief, he sought (a) a plan, to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal, showing the position of every tree (or group of trees) on the site or on land adjacent to the site that could influence or be affected by the development, indicating which trees are to be removed; (b) a schedule listing the information specified in paragraph 4.4.2 of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations) and a schedule listing any proposed pruning, felling or other tree related work; (c) details of grounds levels and excavation work in relation to every existing tree identified as being retained; (d) tree protection measures, and (e) an arboricultural method statement.

5.2.2 Following the submission of a tree survey and report, the Arboricultural Officer offered no objection to the application on 3rd April 2017. He stated that the proposed cultivar would be inappropriate - noting that the "site is located in a rural location characterised by native/semi-native trees such as elm and sycamore" - and suggested an alternative. [Case officer note: this could be required by condition.]

5.3 Kirk Michael Commissioners objected to the application in comments received 11th August 2017, commenting in full as follows:

"The Commissioners feel that the two back-to-back houses are not acceptable. The two side by side that had been recommended by the Inspector and Minister, which are fronting onto the A3 road and carrying on the building line, would be far more in keeping for the area."

5.4 The owners / occupiers of "Keeill Vian", a dwelling roughly 65m to the southeast of the application site, write in support of the proposal. Their comments, received 23rd January 2017 and 31st July 2017, are supportive of the proposal because they feel the design will fit in well with the local environment, and they consider it essential for the school, shops and post office of Kirk Michael that young people are encouraged to live in the village.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 During an exchange of correspondence during the pre-application stage, the architect was advised of the Inspector's comments regarding the inappropriateness of the 'back-to-back' layout and siting proposed under PA 15/00815/A, and she was further advised that any application submitted on this site that did not propose two dwellings side-by-side fronting Douglas Road ran a very significant risk of being refused in view of the Inspector's comments. It was explained that the Inspector's view that, should the siting of dwellings as proposed be retained, "[he] would have no hesitation in recommending refusal", would likely be a fundamental consideration in the assessment

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  6  of  11

of a detailed application seeking approval for dwellings in this location. The architect was again advised of this upon the Department's receipt of the application but before it was formally registered, with the advice that such a siting would be highly likely to result in a recommendation for refusal.

6.2 However, the architect decided to pursue with the site in the manner described in this report. Given that it was apparently agreed at the Inquiry into PA 15/00815/A that two dwellings sited side-by-side would be an acceptable way forward - and that this was apparently agreed by all parties - it is surprising and a little disappointing that the application has been submitted in the form it has.

6.3 Matters of principle, highway safety, impact on trees, design of the dwelling and impact on neighbouring living conditions, and also the acceptability of a stable in this location all need separate assessment.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

6.4 While noting that the case officer was of the opinion that "the proposal could...not be said to have anything other than a negative impact on the visual appearance of the site and, perhaps more importantly, of the area in which the site lies", the Inspector's view was that "very few people would perceive two well-designed and located houses on this site, fronting the road". This latter assessment, which was accepted by the Minister, is such a clear material consideration that it is considered to be the starting point for the assessment of this application. While only one dwelling is proposed on this occasion, it is proposed to be sited at the rear of another dwelling to be the subject of a future application as shown on the submitted drawings.

6.5 Again, it is worth remembering the Inspector's view on the tandem-style siting as proposed under PA 15/00815/A:

"The underlying rationale for an approval here is that the new houses would form part of the established residential frontage. The [proposed] courtyard layout would be at odds with that, and by being sited deep and high at the back of the site the houses would intrude visually into the countryside beyond. Also practically all of the garden land would be between the houses and the road, so that in time it could take on the character of back gardens, containing domestic paraphernalia, whereas as agreed at the inquiry the character and appearance of front elevations facing front gardens would be essential."

6.6 That which is proposed here would, if approved, by the rearmost of two dwellings. To approve this application would therefore confirm the Inspector's fears and result in a dwelling sited intrusively into the countryside given its position there but also the courtyard-style arrangement of the built development proposed. While it is noted that the three structures would be built somewhat into the steeply rising bank, thereby reducing the intrusion somewhat by reducing the amount of the massing that would break the skyline, this does not make the application acceptable. It must also be remembered that the land is not zoned for development and therefore there is no presumption in favour of any form of development here.

6.7 It is also noted that the character of the built environment here is formed largely by single dwellings fronting onto Douglas Road behind trees and banks. This presents something of an 'avenue' as Kirk Michael is approached from the south, and particularly so to the east of the highway where this character is particularly predominant given the number of dwellings that follow this pattern. The dwelling proposed here would not reflect that pattern of development by virtue of its proportionally significant set-back from the established building line.

6.8 The dwelling proposed would, therefore, result in development being sited so as to intrude visually into the countryside. Accordingly, the application fails to comply with General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 42 of the Strategic Plan. On this occasion, there are no material

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  7  of  11

considerations to set against this conclusion since the siting proposed has been found to be harmful by a Planning Inspector and, by extension, the Minister who agreed with that Inspector's report and conclusion.

6.9 In addition to the above, the dwelling proposed would encourage the creation of inappropriate backland development as it would no longer be possible to locate another dwelling anywhere here except to the front (west) of that proposed. It is the Department's responsibility to guide and manage development in the most appropriate manner. While it has been accepted that two dwellings can be accommodated on this piece of land without causing undue harm to the sustainable development principles set down in the Strategic Plan, if the dwelling here proposed is erected the only way to accommodate another dwelling here would be between that proposed and the highway, something the Inspector was at great pains to avoid. Accordingly, approving the current application would be contrary to part (k) of General Policy 2 and, by extension, Environment Policy 42.

6.10 The proposed loss of the bank is also concerning. While there are breaks within the bank line on the east of the highway to the north, and also one to the south, that proposed here would be set within an established landscape feature that contributes to the transitional character of this part of Kirk Michael, between more open countryside to the south and the village to the north. It must be borne in mind that the site is not zoned for development. The Inspector in concluding that the impact of the development would be acceptable, noted that his conclusion "could not be more finely balanced". The impact of the loss of this stretch of bank acts, it is judged, to further tip the balance away from concluding the application is acceptable. It is therefore concluded that the creation of a highway access in this bank would be harmful to the character of the area, contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.

Dwelling design and impact on neighbouring living conditions

6.11 It is important to assess the design of the dwelling proposed. The architect states that the dwelling will be environmentally friendly. Many of the points in its favour to this end fall outwith the control of Planning, while it is likely that as many as four air-source heat pumps may be needed to facilitate the heating and cooling of the dwelling (more than the one stated as being proposed). Also, air-course heat pumps are usually installed on the exterior of a dwelling and it is not clear from the submitted drawings where the pump(s) would be situated, lending some concern to this element of the proposal. That the walls of the dwelling would not be particularly wide to provide the necessary insulation is a further related concern. While the intention to create an environmentally friendly dwelling is clearly to be welcomed as a general principle, the details submitted do not give a great deal of comfort to this end, while moreover the impact of these on the design and appearance of the dwelling should not be to its detriment.

6.12 The orientation of the dwelling and the position and size of the windows - all apparently designed to contribute to the environmentally friendly nature of the dwelling - have resulted in what is judged to be a dwelling of a disordered and confused design. The side gable wall faces towards the highway, which is unfortunate but probably not a significant enough concern to warrant refusal. However, the main concern is that the principal elevations offer no coherent architectural language. The windows in the front elevation are of different sizes, resulting in a lop-sided appearance, while the top-heaviness of the roof is exacerbated by the windows (particularly the smaller ones) sitting immediately below the eaves. The use of a mixture of apparently arts and crafts detail along with more rural Manx vernacular via render, (apparently) slate and stone detailing, do not blend together comfortably and result in a design approach that is neither one thing nor the other.

6.13 Several parts of General Policy 2 require the design of new development be appropriate. However, this policy only relates to land zoned for development, and accordingly there is some question as to whether or not this policy should be used in a reason for refusal in this case. However, it is equally considered that, were the siting of the dwelling judged acceptable, reference to this policy would be essential. In this case, then, it is concluded that the design of the dwelling is

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  8  of  11

lacks coherence and would affect the character of the surroundings such that it is contrary to part (b) of General Policy 2, and also (and again) to Environment Policy 42.

Highway safety: the access

6.14 Highway Services are content with the proposal. They set out a number of conditions that are appropriate to attached should the application be approved. The architect has stated that the concern related to the plateau can be provided on the site, or can be addressed by way of condition preventing gates being installed at the communal entrance.

6.15 It is still not immediately clear as to why Highway Services are content with the proposed new access onto the TT course, something that in other cases has resulted in an objection. It is understood that this may relate to the fact that the site is one situated amongst several other residential accesses. This in turn may mean that the creation of a new access is not in itself objectionable. In this case, then, while it is not fully understood why there has been no objection received, that Highway Services have sought a significant amount of detailed and technical advice that has been provided to their satisfaction is such that an objection on this ground and in this case would, from a Planning point of view, be unreasonable.

Impact on trees

6.16 The Arboricultural Officer is content with the details submitted. These include drawings showing where protective fencing would be located during works and also where new trees would be planted in mitigation for that one proposed to be lost. Given his view in this respect it is not appropriate to object to the loss of the single tree proposed. However, this is judged to be unfortunate from a visual amenity point of view, not least since it has been concluded that the loss of the bank is objectionably harmful to the character of the area. It is therefore considered that, while the tree itself may not necessarily be worthy of specific protection, it nevertheless forms a key part of the value of the roadside frontage that the previous Inspector noted as contributing "significantly to the street scene and rural character".

6.17 Were the tree proposed to be removed as part of an otherwise acceptable proposal, it is likely that there would be no objection to its loss. However, given the relationship between this tree and the bank, it is considered that its loss is presumed against by part (f) of General Policy 2.

6.18 Were the application otherwise acceptable, it is likely that the introduction of mitigative planting would address this concern.

The proposed stable

6.19 Environment Policy 21 sets out a slightly different test, specific to equestrian buildings, than those policies relating to other development in the countryside. However, the fundamental point that new buildings must not result in harm to the countryside by reason of siting, design, size or finish of those buildings does apply.

6.20 It is not known if the stable block would be built were the house not also built. However, it also cannot be ignored that the two buildings are distinct and, should this application be approved, there would be nothing stopping just the stable (or just the dwelling) from being built. Were the application otherwise judged to be acceptable, the stable block would be largely hidden behind the dwelling and associated garage, and this would ensure that public views - from Douglas Road - would be limited. It would be possible to require by planning condition that the stable not be built until the dwelling was substantially complete, but equally the countryside should be protected for its own sake.

6.21 However, given that the application is concluded to be unacceptable owing to the impact of the proposed dwelling on the countryside it must also follow that the proposed siting of the stable

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 16/01401/B
                                 Page  9  of  11

itself is unacceptable. Was the application seeking approval for solely the stable then, noting the larger area of land in the control of the applicant, it is likely that the Department would have opened negotiations with a view to a re-siting of the stable to a less conspicuous location. That is not the case, however, and it is accordingly concluded that owing to the unacceptability of the siting for the proposed dwelling the proposed stable would also harmfully impact on the countryside by reason of its siting, contrary to Environment Policy 21 of the Strategic Plan.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Given the concerns raised with respect to several, some interrelated, elements of the proposal, it is recommended that the application be refused.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should therefore not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

o The Arboricultural Officer, who sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate, and o The owners / occupiers of "Keeill Vian", Douglas Road, Kirk Michael, which sits too far from the application site to be materially affected by the proposed development.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2017

Reasons for Refusal:

R 1. A dwelling sited in the position proposed would harmfully intrude upon the open countryside to the rear (northeast), contrary to the protection afforded land not zoned for development as set out in General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 2. A dwelling in the position proposed would prevent another dwelling being located on this site except between it and Douglas Road, resulting in inappropriate backland development. Accordingly, the application is contrary to both part (k) of General Policy 2 and to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 16/01401/B                                      Page  10  of  11

R 3. The design of the dwelling proposed lacks a coherent architectural approach and the application is accordingly contrary to part (b) of General Policy 2 and also to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 4. The loss of the tree and the section of bank as proposed would have a harmful impact on what have been judged to be key features of the rural character and street scene to which the application site strongly contributes. Accordingly, the application is contrary to part (f) of General Policy 2, to General Policy 3, and to Environment Policy of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 5. The proposed stable building, were the proposed dwelling not constructed, would sit further into the open countryside than would the proposed dwelling and would be poorly related to the existing surrounding buildings. It would, therefore, have an unduly harmful impact on the character and appearance of the countryside in and of itself, contrary to Environment Policy 21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused

Committee Meeting Date: 21.08.2017

Signed : E RILEY 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 11 ====

                                                 16/01401/B                                      Page  11  of  11

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 21.08.2017

Application No. :

16/01401/B Applicant : Miss Andrea Cassidy & Mr Johnathan Richards Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling with associated driveway and access and erection of stables Site Address : Land Adjacent To Cass A Lergy Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man

Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee noted that the siting of the stable would likely be acceptable were the proposed house judged to be acceptable, and therefore sought further clarification on this be made in the fifth reason for refusal.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. A dwelling sited in the position proposed would harmfully intrude upon the open countryside to the rear (northeast), contrary to the protection afforded land not zoned for development as set out in General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 2. A dwelling in the position proposed would prevent another dwelling being located on this site except between it and Douglas Road, resulting in inappropriate backland development. Accordingly, the application is contrary to both part (k) of General Policy 2 and to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 3. The design of the dwelling proposed lacks a coherent architectural approach and the application is accordingly contrary to part (b) of General Policy 2 and also to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 4. The loss of the tree and the section of bank as proposed would have a harmful impact on what have been judged to be key features of the rural character and street scene to which the application site strongly contributes. Accordingly, the application is contrary to part (f) of General Policy 2, to General Policy 3, and to Environment Policy of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 5. The proposed stable building, were the proposed dwelling not constructed, would sit further into the open countryside than would the proposed dwelling and would be poorly related to the existing surrounding buildings. It would, therefore, have an unduly harmful impact on the character and appearance of the countryside in and of itself, contrary to Environment Policy 21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.