Loading document...
Application No.: 09/01768/B Applicant: Mr Paul Julian Irving Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling Site Address: Callins Croft Land At Sound Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Steve Stanley Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: objection - no visibility splays are shown from point of access onto Sound Road. 04.03.10 - do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications: Note: Amended plans received showing visibility splays. Consultee: Patrick Commissioners Notes: deferred till after 14th Dec. 17.12.09 - comments It was resolved to make no further comment to that contained in their letter of December 15th 2009, regarding amended plans. 10.03.10 Consultee : Manx Electricity Authority Notes: see note 2 Consultee : Drainage Division Notes: DEFER
THE SITE The application site consists of a plot of land to the south of Glen Maye village, adjacent to the river and footpath. Access to the site would be via an unadopted laneway.
There are a number of dwellings in the vicinity of the site but these are generally to the south of the lane and not between it and the river. Within the site are the ruins or wallsteads of a former structure.
THE PROPOSAL This application seeks approval for the erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage on the site.
PLANNING STATUS The application site is located within an area identified as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance by the 1982 Development Order. The site lies outside the lands zoned as existing residential development in Glen Maye.
In the Western Sector Plan (Circular 8/91) the zonings are not particularly clear however from studying the 1982 Development Plan it is clear that the site is not zoned for development. The plan zones an area of some 9.5 acres for housing to the west of Glen Maye and the later Sector Plan (8/91) indicates that those areas have been developed.
Turning to the Sector Plan of 1991, the cartography of the published map and Figure 6 in the Written Statement are not clear with the boundaries being difficult to differentiate and whilst two small residential areas to the east of the main road are indicated, the exact extent of these areas is difficult to determine. However it is concluded that the site does not fall within an area zoned for residential development.
It is relevant to add that whilst a more recent plan for an area is generally to be preferred, the fact is that that the 1982 Development Plan has been endorsed by Tynwald whereas the 1991 Plan has not. Therefore the 1982 Development Plan must form the basis of determining the land zoning of the site.
PLANNING HISTORY The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
00/00922/A sought approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on the site. This was initially refused and this decision was confirmed at appeal.
REPRESENTATIONS The Highways Division does not oppose this application.
The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas has commented on this application regarding flooding.
The Manx Electricity Authority has provided an advisory note.
7 April 2010
The owners/occupier of Lane Cottage, Sound Road, Glen Maye objects to this application setting out that a previous application was refused, that the development would be out of character with the surrounding area, traffic issues, and an increase risk to pedestrians.
Patrick Parish Commissioners have commented on this application regarding whether the existing building should be classed as a dwelling and also pointing out a recent previous application on a different site which was refused. A Flood Risk Assessment is also requested.
The Drainage Authority requested a Flood Risk Assessment be submitted. The owners/occupiers of Claddagh House, Sound Road, Glen Maye object to this application setting out that a previous application was refused, the adequacy of the lane to cope with traffic and construction vehicles, parking, the proximity of the river and loss of trees
The owner/occupier of Hill Cottage, Lower Dukes Road, Douglas (also owner of Thie Garey) has commented on the difficulty of identifying where the application site is.
The owners/occupiers of Mountain View, Sound Road, Glen Maye objects to this application on the grounds that a previous application was refused, that the site is close to the river which floods, that the lane is too narrow to serve an additional dwelling and that the development would be over intensive.
The main issues in the assessment of this application are the zoning of the site and the effects of the development upon the amenity of the area.
As set out above, it is concluded that the site is not zoned for development. The area of woodland stretches across the river and surrounds the site. It is clear that this physical land feature defines the edge of the residential land of which the site does not form part.
Given that the site is not zoned for development, the proposal must be assessed against GP3, EP1, EP2 and HP4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
GP3 sets out the exceptions that may be made to the presumption against development in areas not zoned for development. It does not list the erection of new dwellings as one such exception and accordingly the proposal does not represent an acceptable development in this location.
EP1 sets out that the countryside is to be protected for its own sake. Whilst the proposed development would not be readily visible from a public highway, there are public footpaths in the vicinity. However any new dwelling on the site would constitute a break out of development into the narrow area between the footpath and the river and thus represent a visual intrusion which would be detrimental to the visual quality enjoyed by users of the footpath.
In terms of EP2, the development would harm the surrounding area and is not essential. The proposal fails to comply with this policy.
HP4 sets out the circumstances in which a new dwelling may be allowed outside of zoned areas, setting out agricultural workers dwellings, the conversion of redundant rural buildings and replacement dwellings as the three exceptions. The proposal does not represent any of these scenarios.
There exists on the site the remains of a building however it is clear that Callins Croft has long been abandoned and all residential use has been extinguished. It must therefore be accepted that the proposal is for a new dwelling rather than the replacement of an existing dwelling. HP13 allows for the formation of a new dwelling using the existing fabric of a building which has lost its habitable use through abandonment. However the existing structure is little more than low walls and the policy
requires at least three walls standing to eaves height capable of being retained and reused. The structure clearly fails this test and in any case, the proposal is for a new build.
It is concluded that the site is not zoned for residential development and that in terms of the relevant policies the proposal is unacceptable representing an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside to the detriment of the visual amenities of this location.
RECOMMENDATION
Refuse.
It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:
Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status:
The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.04.2010 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
R 1.
The site is not zoned for development and as such the proposal fails to comply with GP3, EP1, EP2 and HP4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 2.
The proposed development would represent an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside to the detriment of the visual amenities of this location.
26 April 2010
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 10/09, Delegation of Functions (Development Procedure), GC No 11/09 (Advertisements) and GC No 12/09 (Registered Buildings) all to the Senior Planning Officer
Decision Made : Refused Date : 23/4/10
Signed : ______________________________
Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown