Loading document...
APPEAL: AP14/0016
PLANNING APPLICATION: 13/91346/A
Report on a Planning Appeal being dealt with by the written procedure
Site visit: 19 May 2014
Appeal made by Lonan Parish Commissioners against the decision of the Planning Authority to grant planning approval in principle to Gary Alan Brain for the erection of a detached dwelling on land adjacent to Westdene, Croit-E-Quill Road, Laxey.
The site and its surroundings
Westdene is a dwelling on the east side of Croit-E-Quill Road in Laxey, near the junction with Ballacollister Road. The appeal site comprises the northern and larger half of Westdene's curtilage. It is garden land, bounded to the west by Croit-E-Quill Road, to the north east by a tree-lined stream, to the south east by the rear garden boundaries of Pinfold Cottage and Ivy Bank, and to the south by the remaining part of Westdene's curtilage. The site slopes steeply down, away from Croit-E-Quill Road, towards Pinfold Hill (A2).
Croit-E-Quill Road is a narrow one-way lane. There is an existing vehicular access into the appeal site, with space for up to 4 parked cars. At the front of Westdene there is a short driveway with space for a single car.
The proposed development
Approval in principle is sought for a detached dwelling. Details of the dwelling's access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale have not been provided; they remain as reserved matters. A plan showing the footprint of a detached dwelling is purely indicative.
A tree survey submitted with the application shows 15 mature sycamores alongside the stream, a single birch on the site's southern boundary, and 2 sycamores near the centre of the site. The 2 sycamores are identified for "possible removal". In addition, the site has many shrubs and young self-set trees not shown on the tree survey.
The case for the appellants, Lonan Parish Commissioners. The main points are:
A similar proposal on the same site was refused in 2007. There has been no significant or material change in circumstances since then, and the Commissioners continue to oppose the principle of building a dwelling on the site.
The proposal is contrary to policy L/RES/P/1 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 (the "Local Plan"), a policy that restricts residential development to designated sites. The appeal site is not a designated site.
Most of the site lies within an area identified in the Local Plan as being in "Predominantly Residential Use". A small part near to the stream is identified as "Open Space". The stream, Strooan ny Quill, is identified in paragraph 11.9 of the Local Plan as a "green" or "wildlife" corridor and, as such, it is protected by policy L/OSNC/PR/4. The value of this wildlife corridor would be denigrated by the proposed dwelling.
Appeal: AP14/0016
Planning Application: 13/91346/A
The proposal is also contrary to policy L/OSNC/PR/6, the policy that establishes a general presumption against the removal of trees. If the proposed dwelling were to be built, it is likely that the roots of some of the trees alongside the stream would be affected by building works. It is also likely that, in the future, applications would be made to DEFA for the removal of additional trees because of their proximity to the proposed dwelling or the darkening effect of their canopies. Applications for felling licences are decided by DEFA; neither the Planning Authority nor any other third party has a say in the matter. Furthermore, the loss of garden area would be contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IoMSP).
Croit-E-Quill Road operates one-way northwards. The narrowness of the road makes it awkward for drivers turning into the site.
The privacy of nearby residents, particularly those living on lower ground alongside Pinfold Hill, could be prejudiced by the presence of the proposed dwelling on the higher ground above.
In summary, the proposal amounts to overdevelopment. The site is restricted by its trees, a poor access, the close proximity of the stream and the presence of nearby dwellings. If built, it would have an adverse effect on its surroundings. The public amenity offered by the openness of the site would be lost.
For these reasons, the approval in principle should be overturned.
Objectors who wrote at the application stage.
The resident of 2 Glen View submitted a letter of objection. She also submitted a witness statement for the appellants, Lonan Parish Commissioners. The contents of both submissions are much the same. I have already incorporated them into my description of the appellant's case (paragraphs 5 to 12 above) and, for that reason, I do not repeat them here.
The resident of Ivy Bank strongly objects. The site is unsuitable for development, existing drainage issues would be worsened, trees might have to be felled, and the last remaining bit of privacy at Ivy Bank would be ruined. Croit-E-Quill Road already has traffic-related issues, and development at one of its narrowest points would be lunacy.
The resident of Grawe (who made the unsuccessful planning application in 2007) wrote to say that planning policy has not changed since 2007. He therefore questions the recent decision to grant approval in principle.
The case for the Planning Authority. The main points are:
The site is in an area recognised in the Local Plan as being "predominantly residential". Policy L/RES/PR/1 is quite positive in respect of new residential development in such areas.
The Highways Division has not objected. There is sufficient space within the site to provide the required number of parking spaces: 2 for the proposed dwelling, and 2 for Westdene. Moreover, the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority (IOMWSA) has not objected. Concerns about flooding are therefore unsubstantiated.
DEFA's forester has advised that there is no strong argument to retain the 2 sycamores in the centre of the site identified for "possible removal" in the applicant's tree survey. Moreover, the possible loss of the birch (No 16 on the tree survey)
Appeal: AP14/0016
Planning Application: 13/91346/A
would cause a minimal impact on the local environment. The loss of trees is not therefore a substantive reason for resisting residential development on the site.
At this stage, in the absence of details, it is not possible to assess the proposal against the criteria of General Policy 2 of the IoMSP. This would have to be done when and if an application is made for approval of the reserved matters. However, the Planning Authority considers that it would be possible to design and site a dwelling in such a way that the relevant criteria of General Policy 2 could be satisfied.
There are differences between the refused 2007 application and the approved current application. For example, in the 2007 application there was no mention of the IoMSP in the Case Officer's report or the reason for refusal. Unlike the 2007 application, the current application has a tree survey and DEFA has made a favourable response in respect of the site's trees. The IOMWSA has also made a favourable response in respect of flooding. It should also be noted that planning approval has recently been granted for a new dwelling (known as Ocean View) on the other side of Westdene. In common with the site for the current application, the plot for Ocean View was part of Westdene's curtilage.
Taking all these matters into account, the Planning Committee decided to grant approval in principle for the proposed dwelling.
The case for the applicant. The main points are:
Contrary to the opinion of the Lonan Parish Commissioners, the site is not too small. In fact it is 0.16ha (0.4 acre), certainly big enough to take a house whilst retaining a large amenity area alongside the stream. The trees and quiet ambience of the wildlife corridor alongside the stream would be unaffected. With sympathetic architecture, a family-sized house could easily be fitted into the slope of the land elsewhere on the site.
Croit-E-Quill Road is a quiet one-way lane. The proposed dwelling would have its own access and a parking/manoeuvring area for at least 3 cars. The existing dwelling at Westdene would continue to have its own access and driveway, but they would be widened and enlarged so there was space for 2 cars and a turning area.
The steep slope of the site is typical of this part of Laxey. Surface water flows down to the stream. Despite recent extreme weather conditions, the stream has never flooded in the 7 years that the applicant has lived at Westdene. Flooding is therefore not an issue.
The residents of Ivy Bank have expressed concerns about loss of privacy, but the proposed dwelling would not look directly down to their house. In fact the application site abuts only a very small section of their rear garden. No other nearby residents have objected.
The appeal should therefore be dismissed, and the approval in principle upheld.
Inspector's assessment
Appeal: AP14/0016
Planning Application: 13/91346/A
The first issue - the principle of development
Local Plan policy L/RES/PR/1 seeks to restrict residential development to areas that are designated as proposed and existing residential. The site is existing residential, designated in the Local Plan as "Predominantly Residential Use". Moreover, I note that land similarly designated, on the other side of Westdene within 20m of the application site, has recently been granted approval for a dwelling known as Ocean View. To my mind, these matters give considerable support to the principle of the proposed dwelling.
General Policy 2 of the IoMSP states that development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning will normally be permitted. This, too, gives support to the principle of the proposed development.
I acknowledge that a small part of the application site alongside the stream is designated in the Local Plan as Open Space and identified as a "green" or "wildlife" corridor protected by policy L/OSNC/PR/4. However, in my view, the site is sufficiently large for this part of the site to remain undisturbed as garden land.
Taking all the above into account, I have reached the view that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable. I accept that this is not what was concluded in 2007, when a similar application was refused. However, there are differences between the 2007 proposal and the current proposal. The differences are described in the Planning Authority's case above. In any event, whilst being mindful of the earlier refusal, it is right that I should consider the matter afresh.
The second issue - the effect on highway conditions, trees and nearby residents
The application has been made for approval in principle. There are no details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed dwelling. Indeed, these details are not required in an application of this kind.
Nevertheless, there are some matters about which there can be some certainty. The access to the site already exists and there is sufficient space to provide at least 2 parking/manoeuvring spaces for the proposed dwelling. There is also sufficient land in front of the existing dwelling at Westdene to widen and enlarge its access and driveway so that there would be parking and turning space for 2 cars at that property as well. Croit-E-Quill Road is narrow, but in view of the fact that there would be sufficient on-site parking and manoeuvring space, I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on highway conditions; a view shared by the Highways Division.
I acknowledge that policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Local Plan has a general presumption against the removal of trees. The site has many trees, most of which are around its edges. In particular, the site's north east boundary is a tree-lined stream. The land alongside the stream is designated in the Local Plan as Open Space, and as a "green" or "wildlife" corridor. In my view, there is plenty of room on the site for a dwelling to be positioned far enough away from the stream and its trees so as to leave this important area undisturbed. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that any of the site's boundary trees would be threatened.
However, 2 sycamore trees, centrally positioned on the site's higher ground, would almost certainly have to be removed. I note that Environment Policy 42 of the IoMSP seeks to protect the landscape features of the immediate locality, but the loss of these 2 sycamores would not, in my view, have a material effect on the landscape features of the immediate locality of this site. Furthermore, if future residents of the site wanted to fell any more trees I am comforted by the fact that DEFA has regards
Appeal: AP14/0016
Planning Application: 13/91346/A
to the visual amenity of trees, not just their health, when assessing applications for felling licences.
Finally, the site is sufficiently large, and the separation distances sufficiently generous, to convince me that a dwelling could be sited and designed in such a way that the living conditions of nearby residents would be unaffected.
I have therefore concluded on the second issue that, with careful siting and design, it would be possible to build a dwelling on the site without causing an unacceptable adverse effect on highway conditions, trees and nearby residents. The relevant criteria of General Policy 2 of the IoMSP could be satisfied.
In the light of the above, I conclude that the Planning Authority's decision to grant approval in principle should be upheld, and the appeal should fail. If the Minister were to take an opposite view, I recommend that the application be refused along the same lines as the 2007 refusal (for convenience, I have quoted its wording at the end of my Report).
Recommendation
Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTR1 Independent Inspector
30 May 2014
The reason for refusal of the 2007 application (PA07/00905)
By reason of its size, its relationship to adjacent properties, the level of existing tree coverage and its overall contribution to the character of the surrounding area, it is concluded that the residential development of the application site would be unduly detrimental and therefore unacceptable. The proposed development is contrary to policies L/RES/PR/1 and L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005.
Appeal: AP14/0016 Planning Application: 13/91346/A
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
