222811

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal : Site Address : 14/00074/B Mrs Lorna Johnson Erection of four detached dwellings with associated parking Land Adjacent To Number 72 Slieau Curn Park Kirk Michael Isle Of Man Mr Edmond Riley Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE (i) BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, (ii) BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF OBJECTION RECEIVED, AND (iii) BECAUSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED BUT THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL. 1.0 THE SITE The application site is an irregular-shaped parcel of land located to the east of Kirk Michael and at the end of the existing Slieau Curn Park residential estate. To the northeast is 72 Slieau Curn Park (a dwelling known as Sheeoil), A fence lines the site's northeastern boundary with the highway, while to the rear there is no boundary between the site and the larger area of land within the applicant's control, which is edged in blue on the Location Plan. This larger area is bounded by Baltic Road to the northeast and an unnamed stream to the southeast; it also runs to the rear of Nos. 72-75 Stieau Curn Park. To the northwest, the site borders open fields, the boundary being tree-lined. 1.1 Behind the aforementioned timber fence, which the applicant advises the former owner erected to prevent fly-tipping, no built environment is within the site, where continuing, if low-level, fly-tipping is evident. Grasses and soil mounds are present. 1.2 The architecture of Slieau Curn Park is uninspiring and, in the immediate area of the application site, comprises dash-rendered detached and semi-detached bungalows that perhaps reflect a 1970s design but were in fact constructed during the 1990s. Some rooflights have been installed, 1.3 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Planning approval is sought for the erection of four dwellings on the application site in a fashion that would continue the building line formed by Nos. 72-75 Slieau Curn Park. Two dwelling types are proposed: Type A (of which one unit is proposed) is a 3-bedroom bungalow, while Type B (of which three units are proposed) is a 2-bedroom dormer bungalow with the dormer windows to the rear. Type A, which would be set in more generous grounds than the three Type B dwellings, is located to the southwest of the application site, adjacent 2.1 14/00074/B Page 1 of 16 20 May 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

the existing hammerhead, while the Type B dwellings are located to the northeast of the hammerhead. The proposed dwellings would be finished as follows: smooth render; double-glazed uPVC doors and windows (with concrete cills) to match the adjacent properties; brown uPVC soffit boards with eaves ventilation, with interlocking rooftiles above. No colours for the render or rooftiles are identified. 2.2 Type A has two off-road parking spaces shown while the Type B dwellings each have three. There are no garages proposed. An existing pavement, which terminates at the application site, would be extended to provide pedestrian access to the proposed dwellings. No boundary treatment, nor proposed garden materials to the front or rear, is 2.3 2.4 detailed. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY Those applications considered materially relevant to the determination of the current application are summarised below: TTie site has been the subject of a long and varied planning history. 3.1 • PA 95/01552 - Change of use from agricultural use to garden area, land adjacent to Phase 3, Slieau Curn Park, Kirk Michael - refused at Appeal • PA 00/00815 - Change of use of land to create garden 'Sheeoil' Slieau Curn Park, Kirk Michael - Approved at appeal • PA 01/00474 - Change of use of land for residential use. Phase 3, Slieau Curn Park, Kirk Michael - refused at appeal on 11th March 2002 • PA 04/01933 - Residential estate layout for ten dwellings, roadway and associated service land adjacent to Number 72 Slieau Curn Park - the Planning Committee declined to consider the application as it was similar to a previous one submitted within five years. • PA 05/01201 - Approval in principle to erect three chalet-style bungalows and extension to existing roadway on land adjacent to 72 Slieau Curn Park - refused at appeal on 22nd May 2006. • PA 07/00703 - Residential estate layout for ten dwellings - refused 15th June 2007. It is perhaps worth noting the four reasons for refusal to the most recent application, the site of which comprised an area broadly similar to the land within the ownership of the applicant (that is, the land edged blue on the Location Plan): Reason 1: "The majority of the site does not fall within an area zoned on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 as predominantly residential but rather is located within an area of Open Space (Agriculture) not designated for development. "The proposal to develop this land for residential purposes would therefore be contrary to Policy 5.9 of the Local Plan which states that other than those areas specifically identified, "no further areas should be allocated for residential development" and Policy 12.4 which states "no areas of open space should be released for development". There is no justification to now warrant the setting aside of these policies." Reason 2: "The proposed layout would be contrary to Policy 5,10 of the Kirk Michael Local Plan and Recreation Policy 3 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan (April 2007) in that the development does not provide adequate open space provision within the proposed layout." Reason 3: Page 2 of 16 14/00074/B 20 May 2014

==== PAGE 3 ====

"The proposed layout does not provide sufficient separation distance bet\ween a two and a half storey dwelling-house and a two storey dwelling-house. This will result in overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing to the detriment of the future occupiers of the two storey dwelling-house," Reason 4; "Insufficient detail has been submitted to demonstrate how private motor vehicles will access/egress from each of the plots. Furthermore, insufficient detail has been provided to show where the parking spaces will be accommodated within each of the plots. The Planning Authority is unabie to assess whether the parking provision is adequate for the development." 4.0 PLANNING POLICY Some of the application site falls within a residential aliocation and the remainder falls outside of that allocation and within an area designed as Open Space (Agriculture) of the Kirk Michael Local Plan (adopted 1994). More detail on this is outlined in the Assessment section of this Report. Policies referring to open space and developed areas are, therefore, applicable. 4.1 The Kirk Michael Local Plan contains five policies that are considered relevant. Policy 5.9 states: "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." 4.2 Policy 5.10 states: "Future residential development proposals should incorporate 4.3 appropriate areas of open space as part of overall landscape schemes". Policy 5.12 states: "Future residential development should include the provision of housing for first time buyers in addition to semi-sheltered and sheltered housing in order to respond to the needs of persons resident in this area". 4.4 Policy 5.13 states: "If at the end of the five year life of this document, detailed applications for the development of residential areas allocated have not been approved, then consideration will be given to the removal of such areas from development purposes". 4.5 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 iink should be further examined by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in association with the Michael Commissioners". 4.6 Policy 12.4 states: "With the exception of areas already proposed for development 4.7 use, no areas of open space should be released for development". 4,8 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains several relevant Policies and Objectives. Strategic Objective 3.2(c), which is one of a number of Strategic Objectives that provide the basis for the policies that follow, reads: "To guide most new development to existing settlements, thus making the optimum use of existing and planned infrastructure and services". Strategic Objective 3.3(1) reads: "To protect the countryside and coastal areas for their own sake". 4.7 Strategic Policy 1 reads in full: "Development should make the best use of resources 4.8 by; Page 3 of 16 14/00074/B 20 May 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under­ used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." 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. 4.9 4.10 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 3 reads: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character." 4.11 TTie relevant extract of Strategic Policy 4 reads: "Proposals for development must: (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature consen/ation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance". 4.12 Strategic Policy 5 reads in part: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island". 4.13 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". 4.14 General Policy 2 reads in part: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways. and (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan" General Policy 3 reads in full: "Development will not be permitted outside of those 4.15 areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of; 14/00074/B Page 4 of 16 20 May 2014

==== PAGE 5 ====

(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(l) 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." Environment Policy 42 reads in part: "New development in existing settlements must 4.16 be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality". Environment Policy 43 reads in part: "The Department will generally support proposals 4.17 which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans". 4.18 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". Housing Policy 3 reads in full: "The overall housing provision will be distributed as 4.19 follows: • North 1,200 • South 1,300 • East 2,500 • West 1,000 • All Island 6,000" Housing Policy 5 reads in full: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for 4.20 residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more". Transport Policy 1 reads in full: "New development should, where possible, be located 4.21 close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes". Transport Policy 7 reads in full: "The Department will require that in all new 4.22 development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards". The standard specified in Appendix 7 is as follows: 14/00074/B Page 5 of 16 20 May 2014

==== PAGE 6 ====

Typical Residential: 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. It is also worth noting the contents of paragraph 1.4.4: "In the case of any 4.23 inconsistency between the provisions of the Strategic Plan and the provisions of an Area Plan, whichever came into force later will prevail". 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS Highway Services request that the construction of the pavement shall be in accordance with Manx Roads. They also request that the applicant shall contact them prior to the carrying out of any such works. 5.1 Michael Commissioners object to the planning application. They would like assurance that all the properties are inside the land designated for development and that the existing road and pavement width will be retained. The most southerly property appears to be on the road and the turning circle/hammerhead appears to be being used as a driveway for the property, in which case the Commissioners would have a strong objection. Mr Alfred Cannan MHK, Member of the House of Keys for Michael, objects to the planning application. His letter reads in full: "It is my understanding that the above planning application is sited on land zoned for agricultural purposes. I would therefore support objections to the proposal on this basis". 5,2 5.3 The applicant and her agent were advised of the concerns regarding the zoning line and commenced further work on this matter, presented in the form of what essentially comprises a Planning Statement in support of the application. This states that the existing disuse of the site does not comply with Environmental Policies 1 or 27. It also points to the Inspector’s Report into the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 outlining the need to reconsider the allocation of greenfield sites and a general preference towards rounding off and infilling over previously undisturbed agricultural land for residential housing purposes, The dwellings proposed incorporate many of the existing designs and details of the adjacent area. Work to build the dwellings could be set at hours to minimise the impact on neighbours. Various lines are shown on plans submitted that could represent the true location of the zoning line, although little certainty is given with regards any of these. 5.4 Seven owners/occupiers of dwellings in Slieau Curn Park wrote letters in objection to the planning application with similar wording; some of the letters were identical. Some unique points were added by some objectors. The following common ground concerns were raised: 5.5 • the land is designated as agricultural land • the site has been left in a polluted and littered condition • there will be an increase in noise and air pollution from the development • there have been four previous applications on the land that have been refused [one representation identifies five such applications] • there are several health and safety implications with the proposal that will affect residents of Slieau Curn Park • the proposed development will benefit the developer and not the village of Kirk Michael Kirk Michael does not need residential development outside of the area zoned for development • a recent refusal, PA 12/00573 [for "Residential development of 95 dwellings with highway and drainage infrastructure, new school field and playground, public open space and landscaping"], is also pertinent to this application Page 6 of 16 14/00074/B 20 May 2014 I

==== PAGE 7 ====

The following unique concerns were raised: there will be an increase in congestion the land could be used in other, better ways the plans have been laid out to leave an option to facilitate further development this proposal provides options for even more houses behind the current plot the proposed development will have traffic safety implications Siieau Curn Park cannot handle more traffic than it already has 5.6 Four further letters of objection were received from local residents. Each of these was unique and is summarised below. The owners/occupiers of 22 Siieau Curn Park object to the planning application. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: if permission was granted, this could open the floodgates for more building in the area; there would be lots of heavy traffic in and out of this small estate and, apart from congestion, would be a danger to children; the land is zoned for agricultural and if a change has to be made, why not build a playground for the children to play in safety? 5.7 TTie owners/occupiers of 56 Siieau Curn Park object to the planning application. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: the land is designated as agricultural land; noise and air pollution, heavy goods vehicles driving up the estate and a "playground" in the form of a building site; the repetitive nature of the applications implies the developer are hoping to continually put in the forms and eventually planners will grant the application; Kirk Michael is a beautiful village and the proposal will do nothing to improve that standing. 5.8 The owners/occupiers of 60 Siieau Curn Park object to the planning application. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: the estate is primarily one of young families with children or elderly/infirm persons and increased traffic could pose a risk to their health with increased noise and pollution; the roads are already congested; there is no need for further residential building in Kirk Michael - 7 properties are for sale and over 30 more within the village; these new properties would serve no meaningful purpose to the village and would destroy a piece of land which is for agricultural use and inhabited by wildlife; the Isle of Man could end up looking like Jersey, an island of dwellings with the loss of its rural heritage and beauty. 5.9 5,10 The owners/occupiers of "Sheeoil", 72 Siieau Curn Park object to the planning application, Their representation can be summarised as concern with: the site is designated as agricultural land in the 1995 Kirk Michael Local Plan; the properties are not in keeping with the surrounding properties, which are all bungalows; the properties have bedrooms overlooking the bungalows opposite; they look overcrowded/too close together; the fourth bungalow at the end is not in line with the others and overlooks the rear of all the other homes on that side of the street. They subsequently submitted a second representation following a meeting between the case officer and some residents of the area. This representation comprises a letter and various plans, letters, deeds and an Appeal Statement and Inspector's Report, both of these last two relating to the retrospective approval of the change of use of agricultural land to the rear of Sheeoil to garden land. The plans all show the zoning line, and the representation goes on to state that if the zoning was as it is now in the current plans, that change of use would not have been needed. The representation concludes by saying that it would be unfair to allow the development until this land is re­ zoned or given permission by the Minister and should not be allowed just to tidy up the street. 5.11 Two letters of support for the proposal have been received. These are summarised below: Page 7 of 16 14/00074/B 20 May 2014

==== PAGE 8 ====

5.12 The owners/occupiers of 73 Slieau Curn Park support the planning application, stating that they would like to see the estate finished off once and for all, especially if first-time buyer accommodation is to be provided, and this would also help prevent fly-tipping and the parking of motorhomes in the area, finally stating that they believe this to be a genuine attempt by the applicant to finish off and tidy up the estate. 5.13 The owners/occupiers of 16 Kerrocruin, Kirk Michael support the application on the basis that it includes provision for first-time buyer accommodation, stating that it Is very difficult to get on the property ladder and this planning application would enable him to so do. 6,0 ASSESSMENT The Principle Perhaps the best starting point for the assessment of this application is the refusal most recently Issued on the application site. Four reasons for refusal were attached to the Decision Notice to PA 07/00703, and these were set out at paragraph 3.1 to this report. It is worth re-statIng that the application site was larger and the proposal different: 10 dwellings were then proposed. 6.1 Reason 1 stated that: "The majority of the site does not fall within an area zoned on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 as predominantly residential but rather is located within an area of Open Space (Agriculture) not designated for development. The proposal to develop this land for residential purposes would therefore be contrary to Policy 5.9 of the Local Plan". No clarity was provided - either in the reason or in the Officer's Report - as to what part of the site was within, and what part without, the 'predominantly residential' zoning shown on the Local Plan Map. The zoning line does traverse the application site, and it is noted that a great deal of opposition to development on the site in the local area, and from the Commissioners and local MHK, stems from this issue. 6.2 It is therefore appropriate to consider where the zoning line actually runs; to the east of this line the land is within an 'Open Space (Agriculture)' designation, while to the west is a land allocation for residential use and within which the Slieau Curn estate has been developed. As such, this Is perhaps the central issue in assessing the acceptability in principle of the proposal. On this point, it is worth being very clear that the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states at Section 10(4)(a) that the development plan - which in this case comprises the Kirk Michael Local Plan (1994) and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2007) - should be had regard to when assessing planning applications. It is a generally accepted principle that the development plan is the primary material consideration. It is worth noting that the Kirk Michael Local Plan had a five year lifespan at the point of its adoption. The ageing of a Plan does not automatically mean that it ceases to be part of the development plan or that the material weight that can be placed on Its policies falls away. The more recent adoption of the Strategic Plan as well as the decisions Issued to planning applications since the adoption of Local Plan does, however, serve to change the amount of weight that can be applied. These matters are expanded on further in this Report. 6.3 Unfortunately, the location of the zoning line cannot be clearly identified on contemporary plans. The following paragraphs reflect on this matter in some detail, As noted, there Is strong local opposition to the proposal, and the issue of the location of the zoning line has formed a key part of that opposition. Information in respect of previous planning applications adjacent to the application site has been provided by objectors, which shows the zoning line as going through the site rather than around or alongside it. This line is also shown In a legal agreement provided by the objector at Sheeoil, who advised that planning approval was granted for a change of use from agricultural land to residential garden at Sheeoil in 2000. (This approval, which was retrospective, was granted following an appeal and is discussed in further detail later in this report.) 6.4 20 May 2014 14/00074/B Page 8 of 16