Loading document...
ARRAGON, SANTON, ISLE OF MAN
IN-SUPPORT OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS REQUESTING RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR A. CREATION OF SINGLE POND FROM EXISTING 3 PONDS, B. QUARRY EXCAVATION WORKS AND INCREASE TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE.
RECEIVED ON 06 DEC 2013 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Chartered Town Planning Consultants 36 Woodlands Park, Guildford, Surrey. GU1 2TJ. Tel: 01483 570982 Email: [email protected]
November 2013
1.1. This Planning Statement is provided in support of the two planning applications submitted on behalf of Meary Voar 1 Limited (“the Applicant”) which seek retrospective approval for;
A. The creation of a single pond from 3 existing ponds and B. Quarry excavation works together with an increase to the existing residential curtilage.
The proposed works relate to the Applicant’s property located at Meary Voar, Arragon, Santon.
1.2. By letter dated 9th October 2012, the Applicant was informed by the Department that it had received a recent enquiry relating to the property concerning the material alteration of the ground when creating one lake from 3 existing ponds. In addition, the Department also referred to significant excavation works on the property to create a quarry together with an increase to the existing residential curtilage. As these works constitute “development”, the letter indicated that planning consent would be required.
1.3. Following a site meeting between the Applicant’s representatives and the area planning officer on 2nd September 2013, it was agreed to submit two separate planning applications seeking retrospective approval for the above referred unauthorised works. A site meeting was also undertaken with the representative from DEFA on 11th November 2013.
1.4. The retrospective applications comprise;
A. Creation of Single Pond from 3 Existing Ponds.
B. Quarry Excavation Works and Increase to Existing Residential Curtilage.
2.1. The application site is located in Santon to the south of the A25 immediately west of Santon Head. The boundaries of the application site relating to the two applications are identified in red on the submitted location plans with adjoining land in the ownership of the Applicant outlined in blue.
2.2. The submitted location plans identify the position of the recently constructed main house relative to both areas the subject of the retrospective planning applications.
2.3. In relation to the single pond, this is located directly south of the main house below the main terraced area and essentially forms part of the overall garden and amenity area associated for the main house. The submitted photographs confirm that the pond is surrounded by areas of lawn and is well maintained. The pond acts as a drainage area for the extensive areas surrounding the main house and other parts of the property. The pond also attracts birdlife throughout the year.
2.4. With regards to the existing quarry area which is located to the immediate south west of the main house, the extent and site conditions of the quarry and immediate environs are also illustrated on the submitted photographs.
3.1. It is proposed to retain the single pond without any alterations the details of which are illustrated on the submitted plans and photographs.
3.2. At some future date, and in consultation with DEFA, planting may be provided around the perimeter of the pond as part of improvements to the existing landscaped areas throughout the property. If undertaken, this could provide added attraction to birdlife that presently frequent the pond.
3.3. With regard to the existing quarry, the submitted location plan confirms the boundaries of the quarry and the extent of the excavation works that have been undertaken for which retrospective approval is sought.
3.4. The Applicant estimates that approximately 75,000 tons of mineral have been extracted from the quarry. He further estimates that of this total, approximately 1000 tons has been used in the construction of the main house, approximately 69,000 tons has been used on works throughout the property mainly on roads and on extensive drainage works and the balance of approximately 5000 tons remains at the quarry.
3.5. The Applicant confirms that he does not intend to undertake any further extraction unless this is first the subject of an approved planning application.
3.6. At this stage, the Applicant intends to leave the quarry in its present state subject to any security fencing considered necessary by the Planning Committee for safety reasons, notwithstanding the fact that the quarry is on private property and a considerable distance away from any points of public access. The Applicant proposes to provide a post and wire safety fence around the perimeter of the quarry as indicated on the submitted plan. Should the Planning Committee consider it appropriate for the Applicant to provide more substantial security, it is suggested that such a requirement be included as a condition of any approval that might be granted.
3.7. The submitted location plan also indicates the proposed residential curtilage boundary for which retrospective approval is also requested.
3.8. In summary, retrospective approval is sought for;
A. The creation and retention of a single pond created from 3 ponds sited to the immediate south of the main house. B. Quarry excavation works together with a proposed increase to the existing residential curtilage of the main house.
4.1. There have been a number of planning applications since 1991 that have approved a variety of proposals for the overall property. The most relevant application is the approval for replacement of the previous farm house.
4.2. On the recommendation of the area planning officer, by decision notice dated 20th December 2005 the Planning Committee granted approval for the replacement of the existing farmhouse on the application site details of which are provided in application PA. 05/01851/B. The approval included an extension to one of the outbuildings to provide a storage and boiler room.
4.3. Whilst the replacement dwelling has been completed, the works relating to the extension to the outbuilding have not been undertaken. As referred to above, stone was extracted from the quarry area for use in the construction of the replacement dwelling as well as other works on the property principally road and drainage works.
4.4. In addition to the above application, by decision notice dated 24th July 2012 approval was granted by the Planning Committee for the replacement of the existing large building sited to the immediate east of the main house details of which are provided in PA. 11/01715/B. To date however the approved proposals have been implemented.
5.1. The site, the subject of the retrospective applications, is not located in any part of the Isle of Man that is the subject of an approved Local Plan and therefore the relevant “Area Plan” is the 1982 Development Plan (“the 1982 Plan”).
5.2. In the 1982 Plan, the application site lies within an broader area designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. In addition, the property lies on the boundary of the area identified in the 1982 Plan where there are building height restrictions.
5.3. With regard to the designation of the application site as part of a broader area of Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, the Applicant acknowledges the importance of this designation in protecting the rural landscape character of the general area.
5.4. The Applicant is of the opinion that the creation of a single pond from 3 separate ponds does not adversely impact the landscape character of the area. In addition, the Applicant will continue to maintain this area to the highest standards as it essentially forms an integral part of the main house and provides an extension to the existing garden amenity area to the south,
5.5. In addition to the provisions of the 1982 Plan, the application sites are also subject to the policy requirements of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Whilst there is guidance provided on all development proposals at the strategic level, it is considered that in relation to both retrospective applications the main policies that need to be reviewed are Environment Policy 1 (“EP1”) and Minerals Policy 1 (“MP1”).
5.6. EP1 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 A3.6 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 alternative.”
5.7. It is considered that the proposals for which retrospective approval is sought do not have an adverse affect on the countryside and are not therefore contrary to Environment Policy1. Due to their isolated locations away from public view, the completed works relating to the pond and quarry works do not adversely impact the visual amenities of the broader rural area. Furthermore, there will be no adverse impact resulting from the increase to the residential curtilage which reflects on site conditions and establishes the correct boundary to the area considered as residential curtilage to the property.
5.8. MP1 states;
“Development involving the winning and working of minerals will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the minerals which cannot be met through the provision of secondary aggregates. Applicants will be required to demonstrate also that;
(a) there would be no unacceptable adverse effect on local residents in terms of visual amenity, dust, noise or vibration as a result of the on site operation itself (including development, maintenance and restoration) or the traffic generated thereby;
(b) there would be no unacceptable adverse effect on: (i) landscapes and geology/geomorphology features of special interest or attraction; (ii) Ancient Monuments or their settings; (iii) Registered Buildings or their settings; (iv) The character and appearance of a Conservation Area; (v) Sites of archaeological interest; (vi) Sites containing species or habitats of international, national and local importance; (vii) Land drainage and water resources; and (viii) Designated National Heritage Areas.
(c) The proposal is acceptable in terms of access arrangements and highway safety; (d) Working will be in accordance with a phased scheme of restoration and landscaping; and (e) The proposal does not sterilize other significant mineral deposits.
Exceptionally, national need for a particular mineral may warrant setting aside one or more of these constraints."
5.9. The Applicant confirms that he required the quarried stone for road and drainage works on his property together with the construction of the main house. Clearly, it made economic, environmental and logistical sense to use the stone located on site within the boundaries of his property.
5.10. With regard to requirement (a), to the Applicant’s knowledge there have been no unacceptable adverse effects on local residents. Furthermore, the quarrying operations have not had any unacceptable adverse effect of the requirements listed i to viii of subparagraph (b) of MP1.
5.11. In relation to subparagraph (c), as the quarry works are contained entirely within the Applicant’s property there have been no issues of access or highway safety. Regarding requirement (d), there is no phased scheme of restoration or landscaping as it may be that at some future date the Applicant may, subject to planning permission, wish to further excavate parts of the quarry. The quarry is set well away from public view and there is presently no adverse visual impact on the surrounding area. Furthermore, the quarried works do not sterilize other significant mineral deposits as referred to in requirement (e).
5.12. Finally, there has not been any request for an Environmental Impact Assessment as referred at the conclusion of MP1.
A. Creation of a single pond from 3 ponds, B. Quarry excavation works and increase to existing residential curtilage.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown