Loading document...
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.1 The application site is part of field 534188, which is immediately adjacent to 2, Slegaby Cottages, Little Mill Road, Onchan and is located on the northern side of Ballacottier Road. The application site is approximately one third of an acre in area. The site was until recently part of an agricultural field 534188; however, fences have been erected which now separate this part of the field to form a enlarged garden which also appears to being used as such.
1.2 The south boundary of the site comprises of a sod Manx Bank with gorse hedging in certain places, all of which fronts onto Ballacottier Road.
2.1 The application seeks approval for change of use of part of field 534188 from agricultural land to domestic garden in connection with the residential property 2, Slegaby Cottages. The works appear to have been undertaken with the land separated from field 534188 by post and wire fencing. These works result in a greater level of residential curtilage than is proposed in the current application: negotiation with applicants has resulted in a reduction of proposed residential curtilage). The proposal (as shown in the amended plans) would increase the residential curtilage of the property by approximately 427 sq m to a total of 985 sq m – an increase in roadside frontage of around 10m: the existing frontage is 26m long. The previous residential curtilage was approximately 558 square metres. The proposal therefore represents an approximate 76% increase in terms of area.
2.2 It should be noted that this is not the entire extent of the fencing, as the applicant has also purchased further land immediately adjacent to the northeast of the proposed extended residential curtilage. This further area has an approximately area of 530 sq m. However, this area is proposed to be used in connection with agricultural (grazing of goats) and therefore this use and the erection of the fencing (below 2 metres in height) do not require planning permission.
2.3 It is also relevant that there is a current application for a similar extension to the residential curtilage of 1, Slegaby Cottages, the adjoining cottage to the west of the application site - PA 13/00151.
3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space under the Onchan Local Plan. 3.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:- "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, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; 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-dependent 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."
4.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- 4.2 Erection of an extension to dwelling - 12/00390/B - APPROVED 4.3 Replacement entrance porch - 08/00995/B - APPROVED 4.4 Erection of a single storey extension to rear elevation - 06/00913/B - APPROVED 4.5 Installation of uPVC replacement windows and a patio door to rear elevation 03/01033/B - APPROVED 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Onchan Commissioners have no objection to the proposal.
5.2 The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas objects to the proposal which can be summarised as; the visual change will not be beneficial to the countryside; set a precedent for similar changes elsewhere; and contrary to Environment Policy 1.
6.1 There is a policy presumption against the development as the land is designated as open space within the open countryside which is not designated for development. General Policy 3 indicates that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development unless certain criteria are met. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside and ecology for its own sake. 6.2 It is also relevant to consider a recent decision on appeal for the extension of a residential curtilage at Curlew Cottage, Scarlett, Castletown (PA 12/00999). This permission related to a proposal to extend that residential curtilage by around 750 sq m . The reporting officer recommended that the application be permitted and the Committee refused the application on the basis that the proposal would be contrary to EP 1 and would undermine the openness and rural character of the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The appeal inspector concluded however that whilst "in principle...the proposal is contrary to policy EP1...however, the policy also seeks to ensure that the development would not have any adverse visual effect and the proposal should be assessed on this basis as well as on the basis of the principle of the development" (his paragraph 11). He states that the boundary treatment would limit views of the extended curtilage which was considered by him to be appropriate for a garden use (paragraph 12) and concluded that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and quality of the landscape and the application was recommended by him for approval and the Minister accepted this recommendation. 6.3. By comparison, the same inspector concluded in respect of another application which involved an increase of an existing residential curtilage, PA 12/00832 for Cronk ny Killey in Maughold, that that proposal resulted in "a prominent and noticeable encroachment of built form into the open countryside" (paragraph 15). 6.4 As such whilst the curtilage is being expanded, what is illustrated by both examples of recent appeal decisions given in paragraphs 19 and 20 is that there is no automatic presumption against the expansion of a residential curtilage but that such proposals should be judged on their impact and in some cases an expansion of the residential curtilage can result in little or no harm and sometimes it can be considered acceptable. 6.5 The main consideration in this case is the effect that the extended curtilage would have on the character and quality of the landscape. In relation to the countryside, the proposal lies outside of any settlement and is not designated for development which includes extending a residential curtilage into agricultural land. In principle, therefore, the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. However, the policy also seeks to ensure that development would not have any adverse visual effect and the proposal should be assessed on this basis as well as on the basis of the principle of development. 6.6 The curtilage extension (which has already been undertaken) is fairly well screened when one travels along the Ballacottier Road in either direction (east and west) towards the site due to sod banking with gorse hedging above, all of which fronts on to the Ballacottier Road. The only aspect of the increased residential curtilage which would be apparent would be viewed near the vehicular access of the site. Generally, concern about extending the residential curtilage is not just regarding the erection of fencing which separates off the new curtilage from the field (albeit permission is not required for such fencing). There are other factors which can raise concerns such as the proliferation of domestic clutter (washing lines, children's play equipment, patio areas, landscape features, lawned gardens etc), which can change the appearance and character of a once open agricultural field. It was observed when
visiting the site that this had already occurred to some extent, with children's football goals being erected within the extended curtilage directly adjacent to the existing rear boundary of the site. There were also a children's slide and a garden swing seat, albeit these appeared to be located within the original residential curtilage. 6.4 In this case it is considered the proposed residential curtilage would not appear as a significant extension or intrusion into the countryside, given the roadside boundary treatment which would limit views. Furthermore, the curtilage extension proposed would not appear overly large for the property it would serve and therefore would not result in an obtrusive or harmful visual element in this part of the countryside.
7.1 For the above reasons the proposal is considered to comply with Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan and therefore recommended for an approval.
8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Onchan Parish Commissioners 8.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 8.3 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 14.03.2013
Recommendation:
C 1. This approval relates to the change of use from agricultural land to domestic garden as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 1202/01 received on 9th January 2013 and 20th February 2013.
C 2. Within one month of this approval the existing centre fence separating the garden from the field accommodating the goats must be re-positioned as shown on the submitted plan 1202/1 dated stamped 20th February and maintained and retained as such thereafter. Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt no approval is hereby given for the land to the east of the centre fence being used for residential purposes.
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 :
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown