227071

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal: Site Address: 14/00761/B Mr William Reubens Erection of a dwelling with driveway and parking Alder Oaks Field 43i505 St Marks Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man Case Officer; Photo Taken; Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Miss S E Corlett 24.07.2014 24.07.2014 Officer Delegation Officer's Report THE SITE 1.1 This site is a small field of around half a hectare located on the western side of the St. Mark's Road (A26) opposite its junction with the Mullinaragher Road which leads east to Newtown. The field has a number of structures on it, including a stable and greenhouse (see Planning History), The field has sod hedges to the main road which have a variety of trees and shrubs on them, effectively screening what exists within the site. 1.2 The roadside boundary is characterised by a grassed hedge in which there are wild flowers, bushes and trees which all effectively screen the field behind. 1.3 At the time of the site visit, (TTiursday 24th July, early afternoon) a large blue tractor reversed into the main access into the site and can be seen in the photographs, illustrating the amount of visibility available northwards. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling on the site: this is single storey in height and with traditional in features and proportions. The external walling will be in painted render and the roofing will be in natural slate. The property will have traditionally styled chimneys at each end of the roof, a frontage of almost 19m and a depth of 7.8m and a projecting rear annex which extends the depth of the property by a further 7m. The footprint of a traditional cottage as advocated in Planning Circular 3/91 is 11m by 5.5m. 2.2 The dwelling would be situated to the south of the access into the site which will remain as existing, with the stable retained to the north of the access and two small paddocks in between. A new access is to be introduced to the south which provides visibility splays of 2.5m by 150m. This is provided by ensuring that nothing within the splay will be above Im in height which takes in around 60m in length of roadside hedge to the north of the proposed access. 29 July 2014 14/00761/B Page 1 of 6

==== PAGE 2 ====

2.3 The applicant is currently the father of a family of seven including himself and his wife, all of whom live in a three bedroomed public sector dwelling at Croit-e-Caley in Rushen. They have been in contact with the housing authority who advises that there is unlikely to be available a dwelling large enough for them and they do not have adequate funds to buy a dwelling on the open market. The children are currently aged 4, 7, 10, 14 and 16. Information has been submitted with the application from Departments of Social Care and Health, confirming that the current housing conditions are not ideal and that there are currently no alternatives in the private sector nor any plans in the near future for Government or local government to build a house large enough for their needs, 2,4 The applicant also indicates that he has health issues which are currently not worsening but nevertheless a significant worry for him and the family. He has had an apprenticeship with a local building company and would like to be involved in building his own home. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as not designated for a particular purpose. 3.2 As such the following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant: Strategic Aim: "to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, giving particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage." Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: 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". Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3". Spatial Policy 5: Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3. New development will be located within the defined settlements. Strategic Policy 10: "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." General Policy 3: 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, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current 29 Duly 2014 14/00761/B Page 2 of 6

==== PAGE 3 ====

situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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-dependant 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 1: "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." 3.3 The site falls within an area designated on the Landscape Character Assessment as Incised Inland Slopes and the APS states in this respect: "Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14) The overail strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities. Key Views Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons. Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views." PUNNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval has been granted for the erection of loose boxes (PA 02/01950), a timber greenhouse (PA 06/01051) and refusal issued for a combined greenhouse and potting shed (PA 06/00537) and an agricultural building (PA 01/02516). Refusal was also issued in respect of approval in principle sought for a new dwelling - PA 07/01272. This was refused for the following reason: "The erection of a dwelling on this site would represent an unwarranted development in the Island's countryside and would be contrary to both the land use provisions of the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Island Strategic Plan." REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development and the proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3./88 and the Department's general policies against development in the countryside. 5.2 The owners of Ballacubbon Farm which adjoins the application site to the south and east suggest that the septic tank proposed should be moved to the other side of the property such that any waste water would drain into the applicant's own land. His land is heavy and often 29 July 2014 14/00761/8 Page 3 of 6

==== PAGE 4 ====

has standing water in periods of wet weather and the waste water from a family of seven would exacerbate this. 5.3 The highway authority do not object to the application provided that visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m are provided over land within the applicant's ownership and nothing may be planted or built within the splay such that each would be over Im in height. 5.4 MEA (Electricity) ask that the applicant contact them regarding the provision of electricity. This is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in the planning decision. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of development is generally discouraged here, as with other locations in the countryside in order to promote the sustainable approach to development to ensure that residents are not dependent upon their private motor vehicles and also to promote social interaction and the support of local shops and services. As such, the principle of the development of a residential dwelling on this site is contrary to Strategic Plan policy and should not be supported, 6.2 In assessing the application, it is also relevant to consider the physical impacts of the development and this relates to the visual impact of a dwelling on this site as proposed, the impact of the creation of satisfactory visibility splays to serve the access and also the acceptability of an access to serve a residential property on this site. If any of these aspects were considered to be unfavourable, these would be additional reasons for refusal. The absence of harm in any of these respects does not, however dilute the presumption against development here. 6.3 The applicant has tried to reduce the impact of the dwelling by proposing a single storey dwelling and including traditional elements such as a slated roof, gabled end chimneys and vertically proportioned windows albeit with a disproportionately long frontage (18.9m compared with the recommended 11m) although the elevation facing towards the access is the gable and the frontage to the main road could be planted such that the actual front elevation would be screened from view which would also provide privacy for the occupants. 6.4 As such, it is considered that the visual impact of the proposal dwelling would itself not result in a prominent building. 6.5 The creation of the visibility splay would, however alter the roadside frontage in that the existing hedge would have to be altered such that all existing flowers, shrubs and trees would be removed if they interfere with the splay over a height of Im. Also the maintenance of this would also introduce an element of domestication and tidiness which is not currently the case with the site. 6.6 It would appear that it would be physically possible to create visibility splays which would comply with the requirements of the highway authority. 6.7 The applicant's personal circumstances are very unfortunate. However it is not recommended that personal circumstances justify setting aside policies which protect the environment for the long term future where the development concerned is a physical structure which may outlast the applicants. Examples are available of where the Department has made exceptions for personal circumstances - for example at Bichopscourt Farm in Michael approval was given for the erection of a completely new dwelling and also at Sulby (PAs 10/01510/B and 07/00375/A respectively) on medical grounds concerning a family member. However, there are also examples of where personal circumstances have not been accepted as justifying overruling policy - for example in Port Erin a severly handicapped person was denied planning approval for a dwelling within the curtilage of his parents' home 29 July 2014 14/00761/B Page 4 of 6

==== PAGE 5 ====

(PA 08/00431/B) but recently resolved their accommodation issues by purchasing a dwelling of poor form on the Ballamodha Road and gaining approval for a larger replacement dwelling which satisfied their requirements (PA 13/91009/B). Also, an applicant was refused planning approval for a new dwelling just south of the previous site: his argument in support of his application was that his current (local authority) accommodation was unsatisfactory for his needs (PA 00/00664/A). 6.8 This particular applicant has not only space issues with his current application but also medical issues which cannot help his other problems. It is disappointing that in recent proposals for redevelopment of public sector housing stock, such as at Janet's Corner, the opportunity has not been taken to provide larger houses which would be suitable (the applicant currently lives in Rushen which is also in the south of the Island). Considerable sympathy should be provided for the applicant. However, bearing in mind that the development proposed would result in a new building where there is not one presently and also as there is no way of permanently ensuring that the applicant resides in the property (although it is fully understood that it is the applicant's intention to live there) and as planning permission has already been refused for a dwelling on this site, it is not felt that the applicant's personal circumstances justify setting aside the policies in this case. The applicant's attempts to minimise the impact of the building are welcome but do not override the policy objections, 6.9 As such the application is recommended for refusal. PARTY STATUS 7.1 TTie local authority, Malew Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. 7.3 The owner of the adjacent field should be afforded interested person status under article 2(l)a of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013 7.4 MEA does not raise material considerations and should not be afforded interested person status. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.07.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions 29 July 2014 14/00761/B Page S of 6

==== PAGE 6 ====

R: Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals R 1. Whilst the Department has considerable sympathy with the applicant's circumstances, it is not considered that the policies which protect the countryside from development, as set out in Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan should be set aside. The site is not designated for development nor within a sustainable location and as such the development would be contrary to the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies Ic, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. R 2. Whilst the dwelling has been designed to be low level and as unobtrusive as possible, the creation of the access would result in a visual impact in itseif which would be managed and domestic in appearance due to the need to maintain the height of the hedge lower than it is presently. 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: Refused Date : Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Pianning Officer Signed ;... . Sarah Corlett Senior Pia^ing Officer ... Signed :... Michael Gallagher Signed :...J. Jennifer Ch^p/ce Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management 29 July 2014 14/00761/B Page 6 of 6