Officer Planning Report 12/01316/B

• I — .— . - • • • I Et E • •i i• • • • - I • E_ I ] - • • • ._ • • • - • - - - .1 • • E - - • • I • • • • • I • • • - • - - - - • • - ] - • • -$ I I • • • • • • - L. • U •• _ • I •1•• 1II • - • I_ • •_ •_ •J - - - . :!: tf u ii__. I • •_ _• .1.1. t I - I • • • • ••• • • • • - • I • • •• - • - I • • • • • - i .' d. • I - 'I •• I • I - • • I••• 't •• • I - • -: i • - • :-•Ili. 4& • •I • • • • • • • •. I. • -• • I • • • L iI . - • - •_ • •_ • • • :'j-• - •:— .•1i - . • _• •• . j • _I •_ • 1_ - •1 — I. - • • . •_•Iu.• •- •. • • • • • • _. - - • • • ri • • • • • I I__•• • ML •_ I • • • • • ]• I • • • • • • I I 1 .1. • __I lI • • - I I I • • • • I . I • • -- • I • •• • - •. • I•_ I • • - • I • • • E II I - L • • • -. • • • • - .1 - • •• • • • • • • • • _• • •_ I I • - • - • • - • - I • I t - _•• •I - •. I• _• • •• • • •I I • I •• • • -• _ ••• •r • • • • • • • ] • •• • - • • - • - • - • I I. •I I - • • • • I •_ a • I . ] . • • - • • • I - _ - • • I • • I - - • • • • • • • • w-m I_j_ - - + • _1 • i • _• • F • • • I_ • • • - *IIIFFL'I • - -•.i%• • •• I! •_II• TI fL - r - • •• -- •1 I- I 4._ • A•• •i i..I•t I. • • • • _. • - • •i•.I_. • I • I__ • • • • • • •.. M • • - • •1 !Ir,. • • • • • • • I • • • • I IL' ". I • .1 ME • • .i_ i F1i- •i.• 6 . I i • F. •j. ME F - I • III - - • . • F - - • - E M M.1 • _• I - • ••• F. •• I Mb i • ••• m m m 0 ELMI _I _'. i•. • . - _ail. . i'.- ': ti - m m • • ME • • I I;+ ri M Mc 9s4zN . • • - . — — • • • •.i - i_.I•. In bi • MEE - •L L..I'1.lI! lilt• - '- _F --• I • I•I.I. • • • • • • • • - • - i• - 1_I • • - _ • — •• ] - a - • • --1 • • I - •1 _. •_ • I •_• I •__ • • • • I• I • I E _I I• _c • - - - - • L I. - • •• • • i • • • I - - I.,. • P • I _I M • • - - .l. % - I - - - 1 I] - • - - •• Mi • I I. • • •• • • - • • I - • • • - _ • I • • - E _••I •I - • • I _] - •' • I •• - • - I - • - -- - - - ] • - • • - _• - — • _ _u • - - M EME • -_. • - • I • _• -I I • • • • • • • - I - • - I _i - .- MEE - - : i-i i- _ •• -- - . _.- I I - I • I -$ I ] it 1:1 ## Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:24468}} {{table:24467}}

Officer's Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

The Application Site

1. The application site is the residential curtilage of Sarah's Cottage, a two storey detached property south west of the A15 coast road around Maughold and to the north west of the minor road which runs between this and Cornaa, passing over the electric railway line.
2. The main dwellinghouse is a traditionally styled property which was granted planning permission to replace a much smaller cottage. The existing dwelling is finished in a painted render and has a pitched slate roof. The existing property has a projecting porch to the front elevation with a threefold vernacular window layout to the first floor; both of which are elements of a traditionally styled property. The application site property is bounded by a stone and slate wall to the highway. There is also a detached property situated 25 metres south west of the main house.
3. The surrounding area is characterised by open space with few properties, of a mix of designs, forms and layout.

The Proposal

1. This retrospective planning application seeks approval for the creation of a new vehicular access and erection of a wall at the front of the dwelling.
2. The wall leads from the existing hedgerow at the north eastern end of the application site south to the existing ruin. The vehicular access sits adjacent to the garage and has a width measurement of 3.5 metres and is erected inwards 2 metres form the highway.
3. The front elevation wall is constructed slate and stone work and is at different levels given the topography of the landscape. At the highest point the wall measures 1.5 metres high and at the lowest point the wall is 0.9 metres.

1. The erected wall is in its entirety and is erected between 0.2 metres from the highway at its shortest distance and 3.2 metres at the furthest point from the highway. The approved visibility is 2.4 x 43.2 metres. The whole front wall is the vehicular access and pillars are within the visibility.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of ten previous planning applications that are all considered materially relevant to this planning application:

PA 11/01557/B: Retention of existing central roof light to rear elevation. This previous planning was permitted.

PA 11/01116/B: Variation of conditions 4 and 6 of approved replacement dwelling PA 11/00542/B to allow roof lights to be installed under the Permitted Development Order 2005, and the retention of existing roof lights. This previous planning application was permitted.

PA 11/00542/B: Erection of a replacement dwelling (retrospective) (Amendments to PA 09/01978/B & PA 04/01353/B). This previous planning application was permitted at Planning Committee as the proposed dwelling was over the 50% floor space threshold than the dwelling to be replaced.

PA 11/00539/B: Erection of a detached garage (retrospective) (Amendment to PA 04/01353/B). This previous planning application was refused.

PA 11/00032/B: The erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was refused.

PA 09/01978/B: The erection of a replacement dwelling (amendments to PA 04/01353B). This previous planning application was permitted at Planning Committee as the proposed dwelling was over the 50% floor space threshold than the dwelling to be replaced.

PA 08/01822/B: Creation of vehicular access. This previous planning application was permitted. PA 04/01353/B: Erection of two storey dwelling to replacement existing cottage. This previous planning application was permitted. PA 03/00900/PART: b) Approval in principle for the erection of a new dwelling. This previous planning application was refused on review. PA 03/00900/A: a) Approval in principle for the replacement of existing dwelling. This previous planning application was refused on review.

Planning Policy

1. The application site is not designated for any site specific purpose but is located within an area of land that is classified as being an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the periphery of an area designated as Woodland under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan.

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains four policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

General Policy 3 states:

"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 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 states:

"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 overriding 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".

Environment Policy 2 states:

"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) the location for the development is essential."

Environment Policy 3 states:

"Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."

Representations

1. Maughold Parish Commissioners have commented on the current planning application noting the number of retrospective applications that have been submitted regarding the property and have requested that all future development is approved by Planning before commencement. The Commissioners also note that more of the existing Manx Hedge has been removed than the 2004 plans indicated and that is it is regrettable given the planning guidelines that seek to protect traditional hedgerows. Maughold Parish Commissioners have also noted the representation made by the Highways Division regarding visibility splays.

NB: Maughold Parish Commissioners made comment on the amended plans submitted, the proposed reduction in height of a section of the walling, and reserve to comment on the retrospective planning application and defer their consideration.

1. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division require that anything within the set visibility splay must be no more than 1 metre in height or otherwise demonstrated that the development would not obstruct the drivers vision. Amended plans were required as the erected wall measures between 0.9 and 1.5 metres in different sections. The amended plans submitted to the Planning Department detail a 1 metre section of the wall to the left of the vehicular access lowered to below 1 metre. Measurements actually detail that from ground level the wall height measures between 1.3 metres and 1.4 metres and therefore does not comply with the requirements of the Highways Division. No further evidence was presented demonstrating that the erected wall does not obstruct the drivers vision as one is sat 2.4 metres back from the highway.

Assessment

1. The application site is in an area not designated for development and as such there is a presumption against built structures and development as set out in Environment Policy 1. In terms of the principle of the erection of walling, General Policy 3 sets out the instances in which it may be acceptable to set aside the presumption against development in the countryside. No provision is made for the erection of walling. The site is, however an established residential curtilage where there are other domestic features visible from the public thoroughfare.

1. It is therefore necessary to assess the impacts of the front boundary wall and associated vehicular access on the appearance of the character and quality of the landscape and to ensure that the erected wall would not conflict with vehicular and highway safety.

1. In terms of the impact of the front boundary wall on the visual appearance of the surrounding area, whilst the wall is visible and prominent from a main public thoroughfare, the wall in situ represents a feature of a residential property where development can be expected. The wall is finished in natural stonework and replicates a similar finish to that of the porch and additional walling within the curtilage of the main dwellinghouse. However, one must take regard of the visual features of the surrounding area.

1. The surrounding area is sparsely populated and primarily characterised by agricultural land bounded by Manx sod hedges and natural vegetation along with belts of trees. Dwellings to the south of the application site property are further set back from the highway bounded by large mature trees of the woodland of Ballaglass Glen. Whilst one could argued that Croit-E-Ben, located 60+ metres south of the application site, has walling forming part of the boundary, one must recognise that this is of a lesser scale to that of Sarah’s Cottage and is erected above a grass bank with additional planting.

1. To the east of the application site is a group of four detached dwellings that front the A16 that have a mix of front boundary treatments. The boundary of Kairdee, is most familiar to the boundary of Sarah’s Cottage. The front boundary is a low level stone wall, however is of a much smaller scale than what has been erected at Sarah’s Cottage and is not as prominent given the smaller scale of development. In addition, Ballasloe House and The Old Farm House are erected adjoining the highway and limits the impact of the front boundary wall of Kairdee.

1. In 2008 planning approval was granted for the creation of a vehicular access to Sarah’s Cottage from the A16 road, which runs north of the application site 20+ metres from the application site dwelling. The previously approved scheme maintained the boundary of a Manx sod hedge. In this current scheme, the vehicular access is in a completely different location and has taken away a traditional boundary treatment along with interrupting an existing hedgerow and offers a more urbanised impact in the area. Overall, the erection of the stone walling is out of keeping within the immediate locality and appears overbearing and an incongruous feature

within the area and does not respect the character and quality of the Maughold landscape particular as one travels south towards Ballaglass Glen and Cornaa.

1. With regards to the impact of the walling on vehicular movement and safety, given that the wall is within the visibility splay in either direction the wall should be no more than 1 metre high. The original submitted plans and amended submitted plans detail that the only section of the walling that is either 1 metre or below is a stretch of 2.9 metres of the wall that is adjacent to the window on the right side of the front porch as one looks at the property. The remaining sections of the wall are all above 1 metre and therefore would obstruct the drivers' vision causing an adverse impact on highway safety.

1. The applicants agent has been informed that the wall needs to be below no higher than 1 metre if it is within the visibility by both the Planning Division and Highways Division and it has been suggested to reduce all sections of the wall in order to comply or the planning application may be refused. The applicants agent explained that visibility was not obscured as photographs were taken looking in both directions from within a 4x4 motor vehicle and given the sloping of the highway from north to south visibility was not a problem if the applicants were to be turning left out of the property as one could easily see cars travelling south from higher ground. The applicants agent also explained that due the the topography the walling did measure 1 metre or below if the difference between the topography was taken from the height of the wall.

1. It is considered that this information is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the erected wall does not obstruct drivers vision as a) not all people will be exiting the property in a 4x4; and b) from the ground level the wall measures above 1 metre in height in specific sections.

1. Overall, it is concluded that the planning application does not accord to the provisions set out in Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2 and Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and in addition poses an adverse impact on highway safety.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be refused.

Party Status

1. The local authority is, Maughold Parish Commissioners, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is also part. As such, the Highways Division should not be afforded separate party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 25.02.2013

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1. Due to the size and style of the walling, the development is unduly obtrusive and over elaborate for the purpose it is intended for, and judged to be out of keeping within the locality and as such would be detrimental to the amenities of the area contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

R 2. The proposed walling would conflict with vehicular and highway safety as the walling measures above 1 metre within the visibility splay and as such would conflict and obstruct the drivers vision exiting the application site which poses a detrimental impact on highway safety. In addition no evidence has been put forward by the applicant to demonstrate that the erected wall would not cause any visibility issues along the whole length of the approved splays of 2.4 x 43.2 metres.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : Refused Committed Date :

Signed : M. McKenzie Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO