Loading document...
Appeal No: AP14/0019
Application No: 13/91465/A
Inquiry held on: 10 June 2014
Site Inspection held on: 9 June 2014
Martin Perry against refusal for approval in principle to replace existing Nissen Hut with a dormer bungalow at Field 614992 adjacent to Riverside Cottage, Glen Roy, Laxey, Isle of Man
Present:
The appeal site comprises two small parcels of land (plot titles numbered 61-00435 and 61-00436), totalling approximately 0.08 hectares and located within the Glen Roy valley, at the foot of the mountain to the west of Laxey and within the countryside. It is positioned on the outside, and to the north west, of a tight bend on a narrow country lane. It is also adjacent to a bridge over the Glen Roy River. There is an overgrown stone wall along the north eastern boundary.
Glen Roy is a small rural hamlet with dwellings interspersed along the valley sides. The site is surrounded by woodland to the side and rear, where the land rises steeply. The nearest property is 'Riverside Cottage', which lies to the south east on the opposite side of the river. 'Riversdale Cottage' and 'Ballalheannagh Gardens' are located further to the south east.
There is an old Nissen Hut on the site (4m long by 4.1m wide), with what is referred to as a 'de-mountable vehicle back' attached. Until 1995 the Nissen Hut and the land were associated with 'Riverside Cottage'. There is a hard standing which is used as a parking area and this is accessed directly from the road. There is a smaller concrete hard standing closer to the river and the stone bridge. At the time of my visit various vehicles, including a recovery vehicle and a white van were parked on the site. There was also a small wooden box structure and some timber pallets and corrugated sheeting on the site.
supplied. An additional submitted plan (BD-MP-2) provided a survey of the site with existing and proposed levels.
The site lies within the countryside where development is strictly controlled and where the countryside should be protected for its own sake (Policy EP1).
The IOMSP requires that such development is limited to circumstances set out in Policy GP3. In this case the only possible exception is criterion (c) which relates to proposals on 'previously developed land'.
The site has an ambiguous history and it is considered that because of the unauthorised change of use of the land in 2012 it is highly unlikely that any lawful use of the site can be established.
The Nissen hut is understood to have been used for Forestry purposes in the past and the IOMSP specifically excludes Forestry buildings from the definition of 'previously developed land'.
Even if the land could be accepted as being previously developed, it is considered that criterion (c) of Policy GP3 does not apply because the site does not contain a 'significant amount of building' as the Nissen Hut is small.
Moreover it is not considered that the proposal would 'reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape and the wider environment' and would not 'result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment'. It is contrary to Policy GP3 (c).
The impact of a dwelling on this site would be much greater than that of the existing Nissen Hut.
The IOMSP makes no provision for a dwelling in this location. The site is unsustainable and remote from shops, services, jobs and public transport.
The proposal would be harmful to the rural character and appearance of this part of Glen Roy and is contrary to IOMSP policies.
The pattern of built development is sporadic and the Nissen Hut is a low key building of some charm: examples of which can be seen elsewhere on the Island.
The proposal would be far more intrusive and would appear cramped on this small rural site. The front of the dwelling would be dominated by hard standing and would result in an unattractive setting overall. There is inadequate amenity space or garden area.
The site lies within an AHLCVSS and protection of the landscape is the most important consideration. The proposal will significantly harm the character and appearance of this part of the AHLCVSS. It fails, therefore to accord with Policies EP1 and EP2 of the IOMSP.
The untidy nature of the site with its parked vehicles should not have a direct bearing on the consideration of the appeal. The use of the land for the purpose of the vehicle recovery business is unauthorised.
There are no grounds to refuse approval on highway grounds and nor would there be any detriment caused to the amenities of neighbours.
The Flood Risk assessment submitted satisfies the Water and Sewerage Authority and DEFA is satisfied that there would not be any adverse impact on the watercourse or fish population.
Reference is made to Circular 3/91 'Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside and in particular Policies 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the document. The proposal is contrary to these policies.
The proposed new building would not be well integrated into the landscape.
Indicative elevations show a non-traditional design contrary to all of the advice in Circular 3/91. The illustrative design has no architectural merit and would not be of sufficient design quality for this prominent rural location.
Case for the Appellant
reached my conclusions on the principle of whether or not approval should be granted for a single dwelling house on this particular site. 19. There was also considerable discussion at the Inquiry about the current lawful use of the site. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the lawful use is residential. However, apart from the references to the storage of domestic furniture and the garaging of cars in association with Riverside Cottage prior to 2004, no firm evidence was submitted to the Inquiry to demonstrate that the site had a lawful residential use. 20. The Planning Authority stance is that the site currently has a 'Nil Use'. This view is based on evidence submitted with the previous LDC application which was refused in 2013; that the site has been used unlawfully for vehicle recovery purposes and that an enforcement notice had been served in relation to this unauthorised use of the land. 21. On the basis of the submissions and the discussions during the course of the Inquiry I find that there is simply insufficient evidence to conclude what the lawful use of the land was prior to its unauthorised use for vehicle recovery purposes. The planning history is relevant and it would appear that sometime in the past the site and the Nissen hut had been used in conjunction with Riverside Cottage and prior to this had been used as some sort of local authority rural depot or workshop. However, whatever the previous lawful use, the question now is whether or not approval should be granted in principle for a single dwelling house on the site. 22. The main issues relate firstly to whether or not the site is in a sustainable location and, secondly, the effect that a new dwelling on this site would have on the character and appearance of this part of the countryside within the AHLCVSS. 23. On the first issue the appeal site lies within the open countryside where development is strictly controlled and where land should be protected for its own sake. The proposal would not be development which would be located within any existing town, village or urban extension. Furthermore it would not fall into any of the exception criteria set out in Policy GP3. Although there has been some 'previous development' of the land, in the form of the old Nissen Hut, I do not consider that it meets criterion (c) of Policy GP3 since the site cannot be described as one which 'contains a significant amount of building' and nor would redevelopment 'reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment' or 'result in improvements to the landscape'. I consider, therefore, that the proposal is contrary to Policies SP1, SP 2 and GP3 of the IOMSP. 24. Because of the isolated position of the site I also consider that the principle of a dwelling house in this particular location is contrary to Policies SP10 and Sp5 of the IOMSP. These, amongst other things, respectively seek to ensure that new development is located such as to promote a more integrated transport network and to ensure that new development is located within defined settlements. The proposal would not 'minimise journeys especially by private car' and nor would it 'encourage pedestrian movement'. It is not within, or even close to, a defined settlement and would result in unsustainable development. Policy Sp5 also indicates that development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with Policy GP3 and again, none of the exception criteria of GP3 are met. 25. The pattern of built development along this rural lane is sporadic. The Nissen Hut cannot be said to be attractive but it is perceived as being a typical low key storage building in the countryside. In terms of the size of the site it does not look out of place and sits reasonably well against the green backdrop of the woodland area. I consider that some form of similar sized building, appropriate to this countryside location could also be visually acceptable on this site.
However, the clearing of the site and the erection of dwelling plus the necessary access and hard standing, together with all of the usual residential paraphernalia associated with a dwelling house would have a major visual impact in this isolated and rural location.
On behalf of the appellant it was indicated that the site was of sufficient size to accommodate a small traditional Manx cottage and I acknowledge that it might be possible to produce an innovative and minimally visually intrusive building on the land. However, this would have to be granted as an exception to normal policy relating to new dwellings in the countryside.
Although the erection of a small traditional house was discussed there was nothing submitted either prior to, or during the course of, the Inquiry to indicate what the appellant or his advisors had in mind. In the absence of any suitably appropriate scheme, I share the Planning Authority's concerns that a single dwelling would be much more intrusive on the site than the existing structure. In any case, on sensitive sites such as this in the countryside, I consider that full information is required at the application stage in relation to proposals and that in this case an application in principle is not appropriate.
Without firm evidence to indicate otherwise, it seems to me that the redevelopment of the site for a single dwelling house would result in a cramped site which would be harmful to the character and appearance of this rural setting. The necessary open hard standing and access required for a dwelling would be likely to exacerbate the obtrusive appearance of the development and I consider that it would have a significantly detrimental impact in this part of the countryside.
It follows in my view that it would harm the appearance of the AHLCVSS where the protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration. There is no overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect such areas and the proposal would be contrary to Policy EP1 of the IOMSP. It would also be contrary to Policy EP2 since it would cause harm to the character and quality of the landscape and it cannot be argued that the location for the development is essential.
There are no objections from the Lonan Parish Commissioners or the Highways Division and the Flood risk assessment appears to be acceptable. However, in my view, these favourable findings do not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of this part of the countryside by this unsustainable proposal, in principle, to build a dwelling on the site. The appeal fails therefore on both main issues and I do not consider that planning approval ought to be granted.
Recommendation.
Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI
Inspector
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
