Loading document...
Appeal No. AP14/0060 Application No. 14/00761/B REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY MR WILLIAM REUBENS AGAINST REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE ERECTION OF A DWELLING WITH DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AT ALDER OAKS, FIELD 431505, ST MARKS ROAD, ST MARKS, BALLASALLA, ISLE OF MAN
THE APPEAL SITE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The appeal relates to a field of about ½ha on the west side of St Marks Road (A26), to which it has a long frontage of about 190m. The main existing access is opposite the junction with Mullinaragher Road. There is also a field gate close to the southern end of the frontage. The site tapers to a point at its southern end, from where it widens northwards roughly to the mid-point of the frontage before tapering again further northwards. The maximum depth of the site back from the road is about 42m. There are hedged boundaries. There are some stables and sheds on the northern part of the site.
A single storey dwelling is proposed on the southern half of the site, with the main front elevation about 10m back from the frontage and the front porch some 1.5m closer to the road. The dwelling would have 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms (1 en-suite), lounge, dining room, study, breakfast kitchen, utility room, and a cloakroom with WC and wash basin. The design would be conventional, with a natural slate roof and rendered walls. The porch would have glazing above stone plinth walls. The proposed access would be about 20m from the southern end of the site, with visibility splays of 2.5m by 150m. A new driveway would run north from that access across the front of the dwelling to parking and turning areas. The northern boundary of the dwelling's curtilage is shown to be about 95m from the southern boundary. The remaining area to the north is indicated to remain open, save for the existing stables.
THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT
The main points are:
It is not argued that the proposal accords with planning policy. The case is made based on the unique personal circumstances of the appellant and his family, which should override planning policy. As a Manx man from a Manx family it is disheartening not to be able to build a home on the Island. The proposal is not for financial gain, unlike other cases such as a dwelling which was approved at Corlea Farm (PA13/91094/A). The intention is to provide the family with a suitable home. The appellant's father owns the land and is willing to make it available for that purpose.
The family live in a 3-bedroom "Local Government Board Property" which does not meet their needs. The appellant has 2 daughters aged 16 and 4, and 3 sons aged 14, 10 and 7. The sleeping arrangements are unacceptable. The boys share a bedroom, the elder daughter has a box room and the younger daughter sleeps in a cot bed in the bedroom of the appellant and his wife. There is only 1 toilet and a bathroom with a bath and sink. The cramped conditions and inadequate toilet/washing facilities cause arguments and upset. The family cannot eat together, and there is no space for the children to do homework quietly or to have friends around. The proposal would provide suitable accommodation and
Appeal No. AP14/0060
Page 1
a healthier lifestyle. It would relieve the children's mental anguish and allow for their social development. The family's existing house could be allocated to another needy family. 6. The appellant has had a brain tumour, requiring an operation and radiotherapy away from the Island. His illness has been a strain on and upset for the family. Having received welcome news from an MRI scan, he proceeded with the planning application. It was upsetting to read the Planning Officer's remarks that the dwelling might outlast the applicants. 7. The Housing Officer has confirmed that there are no larger properties available or likely to be available. The family cannot afford to buy a property. There is no way of meeting their needs except to build the dwelling, for which resources are available as family members want to help and can provide the trades needed. The appellant is a time-served mason/bricklayer and would undertake much of the work. 8. The dwelling would be a modest home with 3 bedrooms and a study and dining room that could be used as bedrooms. The design would not be obtrusive and would not affect the landscape. The dwelling would be screened by trees/hedges. The site would not be overdeveloped. The property would not be resold for financial gain. The appellant is open to any changes that could help to secure approval. The family deserves a break. They are hard-working, do not rely on welfare and have kept their laundry business going during the appellant's illness. With respect to Mr Garrett's comments, Mr and Mrs Garrett are happy with the proposal as long as the drainage matter is sorted out, which can be achieved. 9. Minister L D Skelly MHK supported the proposal in writing and at the inquiry. He knows the family well and offers support as a constituency MHK. The Planning Officers' reasoning and recommendation were appropriate as the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan") is clear about this type of development in the countryside, reflecting that the Manx people do not want the countryside ruined. However, discretion should be considered due to the extenuating personal circumstances. It is a Government priority to protect the vulnerable. This family are not protected due to the limitations of social housing. Their living conditions are unacceptable. The appellant does not have the funds to buy a house, but his situation is unique as land is available within the family and they have the skills to build an affordable home. The appellant would sign a clause to guarantee that he and his family will live in the dwelling for his lifetime. The sensitive design would ensure minimal visual impact. There have been other cases where personal circumstances have been sensitively considered and decisions taken against normal policy. The same approach is requested in this case, which presents a unique opportunity to break policy for a social purpose. 10. Minister H Quayle MHK supported the proposal in writing. He stated that building in the countryside should follow planning guidelines but that this proposal should be treated as one of the occasional exceptions to the rule. If it can be proven that there is no suitable public sector house available, and that the family are deemed as overcrowded under the Housing Act 1955, approval should be granted. 11. A letter of support has been submitted by Mr A Dixon (who also presented the appellant's case). He has known the appellant for over 20 years. He reiterates the shortcomings of the family's current house. The personal circumstances should be taken as justifying setting aside policies that protect the environment, as people matter more. The appellant's father has owned this site for many years, and wants to help by developing it for a home. This is not a case of a developer trying to exploit a situation for profit, but a compassionate act. The appellant would be agreeable to enter into a covenant so that he could not sell the property within a certain number of years without compensating the Government for the benefit received. It is a valid point that the property would stand long after Mr Reubens is gone, but
the difference that approval would make now is more important. The benefit to the family must outweigh the impact on a small piece of countryside which most people will not notice.
A letter of support was submitted at application stage by the family's health visitor, drawing attention to their cramped living conditions and the adverse effects on their mental health/emotional well-being and in being socially impeding. The appellant submitted a letter at that stage from the Housing Officer, Department of Health and Social Care. This stated that there are no 5-bedroom properties in the South of the Island - with no plans to construct this type of house - that the limited number of 4-bedroom properties are fully occupied and that demand for these outstrips supply.
It is requested that the appeal should be allowed and that planning approval should be granted.
THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY
The main points are:
The site is in an area not designated for a particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South (2013). The Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan are relevant. The site is in an area designated on the Landscape Character Assessment as Incised Inland Slopes. The principle of developing this dwelling is contrary to Strategic Plan policies that seek to avoid development in the countryside and promote sustainable development.
The impact would be reduced by the single storey form and the inclusion of traditional elements - a slate roof, gable end chimneys and vertically proportioned window - which reflect the design principles in Planning Circular 3/91 (Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside). The building would have a disproportionately long frontage of 18.9m, with a depth of 7.8m, compared with the footprint of a traditional cottage advocated by that Planning Circular of 11m by 5.5m. The long elevation could be screened by planting, which would provide privacy for the occupants. The proposed dwelling would not be prominent. It would probably be as low and modest as could be achieved. The creation of the visibility splay would require the removal of existing flowers, shrubs and trees that would interfere with visibility over the splay at a height of over 1m. That would affect a length of about 60m of the roadside hedge. Although it would be physically possible to create visibility splays to meet the Highway Authority's requirements, the maintenance of the splays would introduce a harmful element of domestication and tidiness which is not currently found on this site.
There is great sympathy for the appellant's personal circumstances, which are very unfortunate. It is disappointing that the public sector housing scheme cannot provide suitable accommodation. However, personal circumstances are not generally accepted as reasons for setting aside planning policies which seek to protect the environment for the long term future, particularly where, as here, the development concerned is a physical structure which may outlast the applicants' needs. There is no existing dwelling on this site to provide the basis for extension or redevelopment, both of which are provided for in the Strategic Plan. There are examples where the Department has made exceptions for personal circumstances, but there are also examples where such circumstances have not been accepted as justifying overruling policy. Examples were given in the Planning Officer's report. None of these involve directly comparable personal circumstances to those cited in this appeal.
It is unfortunate that recent proposals for redevelopment of public sector housing stock, such as Janet's Corner, have not taken the opportunity to provide larger houses. However, bearing in mind that the proposal would result in a new building where there is not one at present, that there is no way of permanently ensuring that the appellant lives at the property, and that a dwelling has already been refused here (PA 07/01272), the personal circumstances cited do not justify setting aside the policies.
Appeal No. AP14/0060
Page 3
With respect to the example cited by the appellant of a dwelling approved in the countryside at Corlea Farm, that proposal involved a replacement dwelling and so was not directly comparable.
THE CASE FOR MALEW PARISH COMMISSIONERS
The main points are:
OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
This site lies outside of areas that are zoned for development in the recently adopted and up-to-date Area Plan for the South. It is in the countryside, and so the proposal is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the Strategic Plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations. Policies of particular relevance include Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3. The proposal for a dwelling does not fall within any of the exceptions in General Policy 3 to the restrictions on development outside areas zoned for development. In the context of Strategic Policy 10, this site is not located such as to promote a more integrated transport network. With respect to that policy's aims, the relatively remote location of this site for access to services and facilities in settlements would not serve to minimise journeys, especially by car, or to make best use of public transport. It is likely that residents of the proposed dwelling would be largely, if not wholly, reliant on private motor vehicles. Consequently, it is unequivocally clear that a decision to approve this proposal would be contrary to the intentions of the Strategic Plan to protect the countryside and to direct new development to existing towns and villages.
The sole main issue is whether there are other material considerations sufficient to outweigh the substantial conflicts with planning policy and the intentions underlying that policy. I concur with the Planning Authority that the personal circumstances of the appellant and his family merit great sympathy. This family are living in unacceptable and overcrowded conditions that are not conducive to the well-being of the appellant, his wife and his children, including with regard to the potential educational achievements of the children and their social development. However, it must be borne in mind that the proposal comprises a dwelling of permanent construction which would be likely to be present on this site long after the personal circumstances that have been cited have ceased to exist or be relevant. Moreover, although it has been argued that the family's circumstances are unique, a decision to allow this appeal would be very likely to make it more difficult for the Planning Authority to resist other proposals for dwellings in the countryside in cases where it is argued that the families involved
Appeal No. AP14/0060
Page 4
cannot afford to acquire housing on the open market, and that their accommodation needs can only be met by allowing development outside of areas zoned for development. That could potentially lead to cumulative harm compounding the individual harm that this proposal would cause to the countryside.
It is a further concern that no mechanism exists to ensure that if approval were to be granted the dwelling would definitely be occupied, and would definitely continue to be occupied, by the appellant and his family. It would not be possible to effectively control occupation by planning condition. While it might have been possible to control occupation through a legal agreement or undertaking, the appellant has not put forward any such document. Although it has been indicated that he would be prepared to enter into a covenant or guarantee, the onus in the planning application and appeal process for preparing such documents lies with the applicant/appellant, not with the Planning Authority. This appellant has not tabled any such document. There is no reason to doubt that his intentions to occupy the dwelling himself are genuine, or the intentions of his father as site owner to make the land available only to the appellant, but the fact remains that if the appeal is allowed the approval that would be granted would be for a dwelling with no retained ability on the part of the Planning Authority to enforce that it must be occupied to meet the specific accommodation needs of the appellant and his family.
In all these circumstances, I have concluded that the personal circumstances cited do not outweigh the substantial conflicts with planning policy. I have taken into account that the single storey design of the dwelling, incorporating some elements of traditional design, would serve to reduce the visual impact. However, its dimensions do not accord with the principles in the Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside relating to proportion and form. Furthermore, introduction of a residential curtilage in this location, and the modifications to the hedgerow required to facilitate the necessary visibility at the access, would significantly alter the rural character and appearance of the site. The nature of the design does not provide a sufficient reason to override the policy objections.
In my assessment the conflicts between this proposal and planning policies which seek to protect the countryside from development, and to direct development to towns and villages, and the harm that would be caused to the rural character and appearance of the area must be the determining considerations. I have taken account of all other matters raised but I have found nothing of overriding significance. I intend to recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning approval be upheld for the reasons given on the original decision notice. Whilst it lies outside the scope of my task, it seems to me that further representations need to be made to the housing authorities to urgently investigate how the needs of the appellant and his family can be met through social housing provision or other means which do not conflict with planning policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector
Appeal No. AP14/0060
Page 5
.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
