Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00504/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00504/B Applicant : Mr Richard And Mrs Julie Cassidy Proposal : Erection of two dwellings together with shared access drive directly off Douglas Road Site Address : Part Of Field 234268 Land Adjacent To Cass-a-Lhergy Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 12.12.2019 Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.12.2019 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the occupation of the development the visibility splays shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plans and shall remain as approved for the duration of occupation of the development.
Reason: To help ensure highway safety
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the development the driveway shall be surfaced in bound and stable material over a minimum distance of 12 metres back from the highway boundary (back of footway)
Reason: To minimise the risk of loose material being carried onto the highway
C 4. Prior to the occupation of the development the access, car parking and turning around spaces shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plans and shall remain as approved for the duration of occupation of the development.
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00504/B Page 2 of 9
Reason: To minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway
C 5. Any gates should be set back at least 6 metres from the back of the footway and should not open towards the highway.
Reason: To allow vehicles and pedestrians to pass while a car is parked when the gates are being opened.
C 6. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.
Reason: To maintain the amenities of the area by minimising the level of tree canopy cover lost due to development
C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the protective measures detailed in the Tree Protection Plan (drawing TP-11719v3) and Arboricultural Method Statement, prepared by Manx Roots and submitted in support of the application, shall be fully installed and/or implemented and retained for the duration of the construction process.
Reason: To ensure that the trees marked for retention are adequately protected from construction activity which may have a detrimental impact on their health and longevity.
C 8. Replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the Mitigation Planting Plan (prepared by Manx Roots), submitted in support of the application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. Any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their planting, die are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable or in the next planting season with others of a similar size, species and number as originally approved, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development.
C 9. Notwithstanding Condition 8, no development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, gates, any additional planting (beyond that set out in the details referenced in Condition 8) and any other boundary treatments.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that these details have been fully considered and approved by the Department.
C 10. The hard landscaping approved under Condition 9 shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the development. The soft landscaping approved under Condition 9 shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. Any plants which, within a period of 5 years from their planting, die are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable or in the next planting season with others of a similar size, species and number as originally approved, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved details.
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00504/B Page 3 of 9
C 11. Unless required by Conditions 3 or 4, no part of the site may be hard surfaced unless in accordance with details which have been first approved in writing by the Department
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure that areas of the site, particularly the garden to the rear, are not hard surfaced without those details being considered and approved by the Department, particularly having regard to the visibility of the site from the road and it being approved as a departure from land use zoning.
C 12. A 1500mm opaque glass balustrade shall be installed on the edge of the balcony of plot 1 closest to Cass A Lhergy and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved plans and to prevent overlooking.
C 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the following works may not be undertaken unless expressly authorised by this approval (including the conditions):
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure that areas of the site, particularly the garden to the rear, are not subject to developments which may be inappropriate, particularly having regard to the visibility of the site from the road and it being approved as a departure from land use zoning.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following plans/drawing/information:
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00504/B Page 4 of 9
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AS IT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE LAND USE ZONING, AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVE OBJECTED, BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site located northeast of Douglas Road, Kirk Michael. The land at present forms part of the land ownership of the dwelling known as "Cass-a-Lergy", itself located northeast of the Douglas Road. This dwelling is, along with a larger pair of fields further to the northeast, edged blue on the submitted plans. To the north of the wider site area is an access track serving the Lhergyvreck Farms and some isolated dwellings.
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 eastern horizon is quite close to the highway as the land rises up quite steeply in this direction, while the topography is a little flatter towards the northeast.
1.3 The highest point is in the north-eastern corner and the lowest point is in the south- western corner. The highest point is around 7 metres higher than the highway with the lower point being approximately 3 metres lower.
1.4 The site is prominent and readily visible from the highway, which forms part of the TT course.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks full approval for the erection of two detached houses. Each is to be two storey with a projecting garage to the front, above which is a balcony area. The site currently slopes up and away from the road, and so the proposal will require excavation of the bank to create a level site, and the installation of a retaining wall.
2.2 The dwellings will share a driveway with a new access.
2.2 The application does not contain details of the excavation or construction of the retaining wall, however it does include cross sections and a site plan showing levels. The change in levels will mean the rear gardens are raised up, with tiered planting. Although details of fencing are not supplied, the site plan shows a "ranch fencing" proposed on the border between plots up to the steps, whilst a 1.8 metre timber high fence is to be installed at the change in levels between plots running between steps to rear of Plot 2 to front face of houses. To the front the proposal is to retain the Manx bank to the front (amended for visibility) and a 0.9 metre stone wall with pillars edging the access into the site.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 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)'. There are some policies in the Local Plan that are of material relevance.
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00504/B Page 5 of 9
3.2 Policy 5.9 states in full: "No further areas should be allocated for residential development. Vehicular access to any residential area must be subject to consultation with the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties. The maximum number of dwellings which could be satisfactorily served by the Slieau Curn estate road must be determined in consultation with the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties whose minimum standards must be upheld as regards the capacity of this estate road."
3.3 Policy 5.14 states: "Any development of residential areas to the east of the built environment should pay regard to the suggestion of a by-pass to the east of Kirk Michael. The feasibility and desirability of such a link should be further examined by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in association with the Michael Commissioners".
3.4 The Strategic Plan also contains some relevant policies.
3.5 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 2 reads: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages...". Housing Policy 4 reiterates this text.
3.6 Strategic Policy 10 reads in full: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement".
3.7 Spatial Policy 3 specifically identifies Kirk Michael as a Service Village.
3.8 General Policy 3 reads in full: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
3.9 Environment Policy 1 states in full: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00504/B Page 6 of 9
3.10 Environment Policy 42 reads in part: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality".
3.11 Housing Policy 1 reads in full: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 6000 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2001 to 2016".
3.12 Transport Policy 1 reads in full: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".
3.13 Transport Policy 7 reads in full: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards". Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan is clear that, for new dwellings, this is to be two car parking spaces per dwelling, with ideally one behind the building line.
3.14 The Department has published a Residential Design Guide (2019), which is capable of being a material consideration.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 PA15/00815/A for Approval in principle for residential development for two dwellings addressing siting and means of access was approved at appeal on 28.01.16. This was subject to 6 conditions - 1 to 3 relating to time for commencement/reserved matters, 4 required final ground levels to be shown, and 5-6 related to protecting trees.
4.2 The inspector's report noted that the proposal conflicted with the Local Plan and the site had not been designated as predominantly residential. However, he stated that, "...I consider that very few people would perceive two well designed and located houses on this site, fronting the road, as encouraging in any tangible way into the countryside. There are houses on both sides and opposite, and the village development boundary extends some 120m further beyond, on up the hill. The locality does have a peripheral character, certainly rural, but in my assessment is it’s within rather than outside this end of Kirk Michael. It is also within easy reach of the school, shops and local services ... other than its frontage, the sites' contribution to rural character although realm is modest".
4.3 The inspector's report goes on to note that the site is some way outside the Kirk Michael Conservation Area and that although the Character Appraisal highlights the importance of views and vistas outwards from the Conservation Area, and concludes these, "would be unaffected by this proposal".
4.4 The report notes Paragraph 8.8.3 of the Strategic Plan is more directed towards groups of houses in the Countryside, rather than within a Service Village as defined by Spatial Policy 2. He also notes that Local Plan policy 5.9 is more directed to which areas should be allocated than assessing individual applications. However, he also notes that the proposal does not accord with any of the exceptions set out in General Policy 3 to its general presumption (echoed in Local Plan Policy 12.4) against development outside areas so zoned, and that outlying areas of rural settlements come under development pressures that would undermine countryside policy. His overall conclusion however is 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".
4.5 However, he notes the proposed countryside layout indicatively provided with the approval in principle and indicates that this would be at odds with the above assessment. In
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00504/B Page 7 of 9
supporting the appeal, the Inspector noted that he had taken account of three previous appeal decisions (outlined in the original officer's report) - one in Kirk Michael (2014), another in Sulby (also 2014) and another in Newtown (2012). All three sought and gained planning approval for the residential development on land that was at least partly not zoned for development.
4.6 16/01401/B for Erection of a detached dwelling with associated driveway and access and erection of stables was refused on Appeal on 08.01.18. The application did not seek approval for the matters reserved from the Approval in Principle and was entirely separate from that of PA15/00815/A. There was a different access proposed and a different form of development from that approved under the previous application. The Inspector's report concluded,
"40. In the Appellants' favour, I have concluded that the development of this smaller site for one dwelling is acceptable in principle; that the basic designs of the proposed buildings are acceptable; that the scheme would not be detrimental to the character and appearance along its roadside boundary (through the loss of one tree and cutting through the bank) and that the proposed access would not compromise highway safety. I also acknowledge the Appellants' desire to both live on the site and to keep their horses close to the accommodation.
However, on the other hand, I have found that the siting of the buildings would result in an unacceptable intrusion into the countryside. I have also found that the cutting away of the hillside, in order to form a flat plateau for the buildings, would also be visually harmful on this particular site. These factors far outweigh my favourable findings relating to design and access to the site.
In conclusion I find that the proposal as submitted is contrary to policy GP3; EP1 and EP42 of the IOMSP and, therefore, that the appeal should be dismissed. If the Minister disagrees with my recommendation I consider that the conditions (all of which meet the necessary tests), as set out at the end of the Planning Authority Statement, should be imposed".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Michael Commissioners comment on 23.05.19 requesting deferment, on 14.06.18 confirming no objection and on 20.08.19 confirming no objection to the amended plans, subject to the land is zoned for planning and not agricultural land (N.B. The land is not zoned for development and therefore this is interpreted as an objection).
5.2 DOI Highway Services commented on 15.06.19 raising various concerns and requesting additional information/amended plans. They further commented on 26.09.19 suggesting further revisions to the drawings. They finally commented on 21.11.19 in relation to revised plans that the proposals are acceptable subject to conditions in relation to the Provision of Visibility Splays, Surfacing of Driveway and Provision of access, parking and turning areas (all prior to occupation) and any Gates being set back at least 6 metres from the highway (and opening inwards). They also note the requirement for a S109A Highway Agreement in order to construct the access onto the highway.
5.3 The DEFA Arboricultural Officer commented on 13th June 2019 providing detailed comments, in summary these were: o The design conflicts with the constraints imposed by the retained trees o There is not enough information to explain how the parking area could be implemented without having a detrimental impact on the retained trees. o The tree protection plan is not specific enough to this proposal. o The replanting proposal is lacking in detail and is unlikely to be sufficient to mitigate the loss a mature sycamore which is prominent when viewed from the road.
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00504/B Page 8 of 9
5.4 The DEFA Arboricultural Officer commented on 30th July 2019 confirming that the concerns raised previously had been addressed. He asked it to be noted that the size, age and prominence of the trees makes the suitable for registration under the Tree Preservation Act, and undertook to advice the applicant of this. He suggested that if approved three conditions should be applied in relation to tree protection (no tree removed etc. within 5 years of occupation, protective measures in place prior to works and replacement tree planting plan implemented.
5.5 No comments have been received from the owners' occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
6.0 ASSESSMENT It is considered that the key issues are: o Principle of Development o Impact on the Streetscene o Impact on neighbouring properties o Standard of accommodation for future occupiers o Highway Impact o Protection of Trees
6.1 Principle of Development 6.1.1 Although the site is not designated for development, having regard to the planning history it is considered that the principle of development on the site has been established. However, the acceptability of the proposal will depend on the design, and there is the potential for development 'creep' in the future, particularly the domestication of the land to the rear (as garden). It is also noted that there are limited details of boundary treatments etc. To this end it would be appropriate to add conditions to ensure the details of such matters are controlled (including removal of 'Permitted Development').
6.2 Impact on the Streetscene 6.2.1 It could be argued that there is no prominent style in the area. Although there are modern elements to the design, including the two storey window, the use materials and colours used help to reflect older buildings. The projecting garage to the front, and balcony above, may be unusual but are not considered inappropriate and help to make best use of the site. The key issue, as set out in the previous Inspectors' reports is the positioning of the buildings, and this is considered to be appropriate. The cutting into the bank and raised rear gardens could make the domestication of this land an issue, but this could be addressed by condition as set out above.
6.3 Impact on neighbouring properties 6.3.1 The proposed houses follow the broad line of existing development with the main living spaces facing forwards. The only property within 20 metres of a proposed dwellings is Cass A Lhergy, where with the exception of a first floor bedroom all other windows to a habitable room face other directions. The distance is over 12 metres and an opaque screen is proposed in relation to the balcony (the installation of which could be conditioned). Due to the position on the site the south east facing aspect and the distances from the neighbouring properties it is not considered that are any overbearing impact.
6.4 Standard of accommodation for future occupiers 6.4.1 The standard of accommodation, garden space, parking and outlook are all considered to be acceptable. Each dwelling has a garage and parking/manoeuvring space to the front.
6.5 Highway Impact 6.5.1 The comments from DOI Highway Services are noted and relied upon. Conditions have been proposed as recommended.
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00504/B Page 9 of 9
6.6 Protection of Trees 6.6.1 The comments from the DEFA Arboricultural Officer are noted and relied upon. Conditions have been proposed as recommended.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Having regard to the planning history, and in particular previous appeal decisions, together with the advice of consultees, the proposal is supported subject to conditions.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
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 : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...16.12.2019
Signed :...S BUTLER... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal