224253

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal: 14/00337/C Mr Mark & Mrs Rosina Casson Variation of conditions two and three of PA 11/01777/A to extend the permission by one year Land At Fairfield House Fairfield Avenue Ramsey Isle Of Man IMS 2LS Site Address : Mr Edmond Riley Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Officer's Report 1.0 THE SITE The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Fairfield House, which lies at the southern end of Fairfield Avenue. The overall curtilage is 1.2 acres (0.5 ha). To the northwest is Ramsey Grammar School and to the southeast residential dwellings Manor House and The Greens. To the east of the access road is Cheshire House, a facility for the physically disabled. Fairfield Avenue leads north to meet Lezayre Road and opposite Bircham Avenue. 1.1 The application site contains the existing house and identifies part of the site as being suitable for the erection of a dwelling and becoming a separate residential curtilage. There are established trees within the site. 1.2 The access to the site is via a tree lined lane, which provides a narrow laneway to the dwelling and the application site. To the west of the access lane are the playing fields of the Grammar School. 1.3 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Approval is sought to vary conditions 2 and 3 to an Approval in Principle granted for the erection of a dwelling in the grounds of Fairfield House in April 2012; if approved, the application would extend the period for the submission of the application for the 'reserved matters’ to that original approval in principle. 2.1 This situation has arisen following pre-application discussions between the applicant (the owner/occupier of Fairfield House) and the Planning Authority with respect to the design of the future dwelling and with which the Planning Authority raised serious concern. Owing to the time limit (imposed by condition) on the submission of those reserved matters - 2nd April 2014 - this application, if approved, will enable the continuation of those pre-application discussions without the existing approval in principle expiring. 2.2 Proposed is the principle of the creation of a second dwelling within the curtilage of Fairfield House. The site defined amounts to approximately 0.2 ha. The new property would, by necessity, need to share the main access with the existing principal house for the majority of its existing length. 2.3 Page 1 of 8 14/00337/C 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

A stretch of a river (Strooan ny Craw) is within the southeast of the application site. The previous application included an indicative site plan with a dwelling footprint shown, which would have resulted in the removal of 6 trees, but none are shown for removal on the site plan here proposed. 2.4 2.5 The trees on the site are a mixture of coniferous and deciduous specimens of varying heights and ages. Many of the firs are very tall and some would be within falling distance of the new dwelling although they appear to be good and healthy specimens, which do not currently pose a risk of falling and, being coniferous, would not result in leaf drop such as to warrant a nuisance which would iead to requests for their removal. The trees approved for removal were smaller specimens. The application as submitted included just a site plan with a red line shown; the applicant subsequently confirmed that they wished the current application to take account of the previously-submitted plans in respect of the previous Approval in Principle, and include these in the decision-making process. The Report is therefore written on this understanding, although it is noted (and seen below) that the previous approval issued made no reference to the submitted plans in the issued conditions, which is not uncommon. 2.6 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY As referred to in some depth, approval in principle was granted for the erection of a dwelling here; the five conditions attached to that approval are set out below: 3.1 C 1. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. C2. The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to tfie Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission. C 3. The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the resen/ed matters, whichever is the later. C4. The application for the reserved matters must include a full and accurate tree survey including the positions, canopy spreads, heights, species and conditions of all trees together with a method statement indicating how the works will be undertaken whilst adequately protecting all trees to be retained, in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 - Trees in relation to construction. C 5. The application for reserved matters must include all engineering works for access, services and pipework and drainage details together with sufficient information to demonstrate that these will not adversely affect either the structural stability of the stream bank or the ecology or water quality of the watercourse. This approval would have expired on 2nd April 2014 had the current application not been submitted, and registered on 27th March 2014. Were the current application refused, this previous planning approval would expire. That application was considered by Planning Page 2 of 8 14/00337/C 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 3 ====

Committee as Ramsey Town Commissioners had objected to the application while the officer recommendation was for approval. Fairfield House was also the subject of an application for alterations and extensions under PA 10/0903, which was approved. This does not have an impact on the current application. 3.2 4.0 PLANNING POLICY The site is designated as Predominantly Residential on the Ramsey Local Plan of 1999. The development brief within the plan relates to the development of the land to the north east which has now been developed In the form of the facilities for the physically disabled. 4.1 The Local Plan contains a policy which guards against backland development - R/E/P3 states: "Backland Development and Development in the Grounds of Houses: there shall be a general presumption against backland development and development within the grounds of large houses on those sites which are well landscaped within ample tree coverage". 4.2 There is a presumption in favour of development in such areas as set out as follows in the Strategic Plan General Policy 2: "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: 4.3 a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." There is also a policy, similar to that in the Ramsey Local Plan, regarding backland development: Environment Policy 42 states: "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. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." 4,4 Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan protects wildlife and watercourses and states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. 4.5 14/00337/C Page 3 of 8 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners do not object to the planning application. It should be noted that they objected to PA 11/01777/A. 5.2 Highway Services do not object to the planning application. No response has been received from the owner of 4 The Greens, which is adjacent the site. A representative of the owners of this dwelling provided a holding response expressing an interest in PA 11/01777/A, pending the owners’ return to the Island following a holiday. Following the decision to approve the application, an appeal was also submitted on behalf of the owners of 4 The Greens. This appeai was subsequently withdrawn, No direct correspondence has been received from the owner/occupier of 4 The Greens then or now. 5.3 6.0 ASSESSMENT The application is to vary a pair of conditions that, respectively, seek to restrict the time limit for the implementation of the application and also the time limit for the seeking of the reserved matters to the original approval in principle. This would have the effect of adding an additional year to both conditions 2 and 3 of planning approval 11/01777/A. 6.1 The principal issue in the assessment of this application is whether there have been any material planning matters (e.g. policy changes / land used designations / Local Plan adoption / new or altered legislation, and so forth) that have changed since the approval of the last application, and the extent to which those changes indicate a different decision should be taken on this occasion. It Is useful to make such an assessment through the planning application process as this allows comments to be received from third parties. Such a position is especially useful here as the previous application was the subject of some concern from both the Local Authority and a local resident (albeit this was by proxy). No such concern has been raised to this application, with no private representation being received and with Ramsey Town Commissioners explicitly indicating their lack of objection. 6.2 Since the initiai approval there have been no material planning changes which have arisen. The Ramsey Local Plan and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan have not been superseded and therefore continue to comprise the Development Plan. The policies contained therein have not been the subject of appeal decisions or decisions related to planning applications that indicate a different approach to those policies should be taken. No new legislation has been brought into force. And, as noted, no objections have been received. 6.3 It is noted that rather less information has been provided on this occasion than was the case with respect to the previous planning application. This should neither advantage nor disadvantage the assessment of the merits of the proposal since, as discussed earlier, the applicant has requested the current application make reference to plans and information submitted as part of the previous application (11/01777/A). The current submission includes 6.4 14/00337/C Page 4 of 8 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 5 ====

no information on the proposed access, the effect on trees, or the proposed dwelling's indicative size or location. A full assessment of the principle of the proposal is still required. Previous discussion with the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's Forestry Officer indicated that they would not oppose the removal of the trees shown to be removed on the drawings previously submitted, but it would need to be demonstrated that the remaining trees are sufficiently protected from future felling requests through appropriate siting of the new dwelling, Without full details of the proposed dwelling even then it was not considered the case that a dwelling would need to be constructed in too close a proximity to the watercourse or trees. The applicant also previously pointed out that there are many people who are comfortable living close to trees and that such an environment could be pleasing and acceptable and need not result in a future demand for tree felling. 6,5 Conditions were attached requiring details to be submitted in respect of the drainage of the site and also requiring the provision of a full tree survey for the site. This is helpful; if such conditions had not been applied previously then it could be argued that to attach them on this occasion would not be reasonable. This foresight is welcomed and should be noted for future reference. 6.6 A further point on this matter is that the previous application was approved, which indicated that there was not such serious concern about the existence of trees and the proximity of Strooan ny Craw to the application site as to require the application be refused. On the basis that no other material planning considerations have changed to any significant degree since that original approval, it is not considered that any objections on these two matters could be sustainable. 6.7 There are policies both in favour of and guarding against residential development on this site - the presumption in favour of development is set out in General Policy 2 must be set against the Ramsey Local Plan and Strategic Plan Environment Policy 42, which guard against development that would remove open space contributing to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area. The site is tucked away at the side of Fairfield House and cannot generally be seen. The previous judgement that the trees to be removed are not ones which make a significant contribution to public amenity can no longer be relied upon, but this issue has been dealt with above. As such, the previous argument made, which stated that whiie the development involves the erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of an existing large house and judged the impact of this is not unduly harmful to public amenity, could justifiably be re-made in respect of the current application. As such, the development, when assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan, is not considered likely to result in demonstrable harm if implemented. 6.8 Also previously considered was whether or not the proposal could result in any harm to the setting of Fairfield House as well as the dwelling's character or appearance. The site of the proposed dwelling previously had its curtilage defined quite tightly around the proposed footprint; the case officer did, however, note that it need not be as tightly defined as shown in the application drawings. While there would probably still be trees within falling distance of any new dwelling located here, there are already very tall trees on site that the applicant advises are within falling distance of other houses; this should not be a reason for refusal. 6.9 6.10 On balance, and having close regard to the previous approval, it is considered that the impact of the potential removal of trees and the erection of a dwelling would not be detrimental either to the amenities of Fairfield House or any other dwellings in the vicinity, and nor would the removal of trees result in undue harm to public amenity. While development should generally not be within 8m of a watercourse, the applicant has previously discussed this matter with DEFA who have advised that the development need not adversely affect the watercourse and the wildlife it supports. Other legislation exists to control discharges into the watercourse. 3 June 2014 14/00337/C Page 5 of 8

==== PAGE 6 ====

6.11 A final matter to consider is exactly what has been applied for - an extension of time in both the submission of details and also the commencement of development. The extension sought is 12 months. This is not considered to be unacceptable, and indicates that the applicant understands the need to act expeditiously in proceeding with a reserved matters application. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION It has been seen that, on balance and with appropriate conditions, a new dwelling can be successfully accommodated within the application site without causing undue harm to local residential amenity and also without causing undue harm to the natural environment or unduly negative effects on public amenity. No significant material circumstances have altered since the original approval in principle was issued just over two years ago. 7.1 It is therefore recommended that the variation of conditions 2 and 3 to planning approval 11/01777/A be approved, and that the other three conditions previously attached to that approval be carried forward here with some wording changes, should this recommendation be accepted, 7.2 Reference should be made in the decision notice to the plans submitted in respect of the earlier approval in principle and also in respect of the current application. 7.3 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8.1 Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.06.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N ; Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals 14/00337/c Page 6 of 8 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 7 ====

C 1. Details of the (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013. C2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 shall include details of: (a) the provision to be made for the parking and turning of vehicles within the site; (b) the surface treatment of any roadways and other parts of the site which will not be covered by buildings; (c) all externa! materials to be used in the development; (d) visibility spiays, and (e) existing and proposed ground and floor levels. Reason: This is an approval in principle and these matters require detailed consideration by the Planning Authority. C3. The application for approval of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 shall be made to the Planning Authority prior to 4th April 2015 and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved, Reason; To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C4. The development to which this approval relates shall commence prior to 4th April 2017 or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason; To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C5. The application for the reserved matters must include a full and accurate tree survey including the positions, canopy spreads, heights, species and conditions of all trees together with a method statement indicating how the works will be undertaken whilst adequately protecting all trees to be retained, in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 - Trees in relation to construction. Reason: To safeguard the trees within the development site in the interests of visual amenity. C6. The application for reserved matters must include all engineering works for access, services and pipework and drainage details together with sufficient information to demonstrate that these will not adversely affect either the structural stability of the stream bank or the ecology or water quality of the watercourse. Reason; To safeguard the ecology of and water quality within the watercourse as well the stability of the stream bank. 3 June 2014 14/00337/C Page 7 of 8

==== PAGE 8 ====

This approval relates to the site location plan, date-stamped as having been received 27th March 2014, and also to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 29th December 2011: 119.5.1, 119.5.2 and 119.5,1. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Permitted Date : Determining ofYicer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Placing Officer Signed :...L Jennifer Ch^e Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer ft Signed :... Michael Gallagher 14/00337/c Page 8 of 8 3 June 2014