Planning Justification Statement

This planning application seeks permission to replace a single dwelling for one building containing two apartments at Shore Road, Bay Ny Carrickey, though to all intents it will appear as a single property in keeping with the locale.

Redevelopment will remove a poor quality and unsightly bungalow that is out of keeping with most other properties in the vicinity.

The Southern Area Plan [SAP] Residential Policy [Paragraph 4.1.1] states; Government's general policy priority in terms of housing is to "enable the provision of affordable and appropriate housing" and goes on to stress the commitment to "strive to provide sufficient and appropriate homes to meet the need of the community". This application does this.

Para 4.6.1 says (inter alia) ... It is obvious that appropriate development within existing settlements strengthens their vitality and is generally preferable to vacant or under-used land and buildings and Greenfield development. It continues ... it is evident that many sites will be more suitable to apartments than houses ... and The Department is looking to provide a mix of house types ... This application addresses those very points.

There are no, or very few, small dwellings or apartments at present in this vicinity. This application seeks to supply that need, to broaden the housing stock for this community. The Town and Country Planning Act 1999, Planning Policy Statement, Planning and the Economy states there should be a presumption in favour development for its economic benefit or role in supporting the economy. This application meets these criteria.

The Southern Area Plan also seeks [Para 3.17.iii] to avoid "any new areas of ribbon development along the southern coastline of Bay ny Carrickey" but this application does not do that. It is a developed site (what might be adjudged a brownfield site) within the existing ribbon development. The "ban" on further coastal development (Landscape Proposal 9) is between Shore Hotel and Pooil Vaaish Farm.

This modest proposal is not contrary to the SAP 3.4 Landscape Strategies and Key views for the South: Bay ny Carrickey (E9).

Whilst the area is now classed as "white" land on the SAP, such areas are not always protected from development, as even in Areas of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the 1982 Development Plan there have been exemptions /exceptions where development has been allowed.

Approved in areas of HLV&SS

• Arragon Moar, Santon [Grid Ref 301702]. A large non-traditional dwelling with 15 or more rooms, basement car parking, pool, underground parking, etc.
• Ballavartyn Equestrian Centre, Main Road, Santon [GR 326736]. New dwellings, staff accommodations, self-catering, stables and riding track, manège, etc.
• PA 12/00397/A [GR 325716]. Ballaquiggin Farm, Ballnahowe, Santon. Approval for redevelopment of the site to create a single large dwelling with associated staff and guest accommodation, including a gate lodge, and expansion of residential curtilage.
• PA 12/00355 [GR 314721] Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a replacement dwelling Ashdowne House, Ballavale Road, Santon
• Meary voar [GR 324704] Extension of residential curtilage and construction of lakes.
• Clybane [GR344764] Cooil Road, Braddan. Replacement dwelling. This site is also recognised in Planning Circular 6/91 The Braddan Local Plan as "Open Space (Agricultural)"

Approved on "white" land

• At Corvalley [GR 322767] Braaid. Buildings and manège away from farm. Adjacent Millennium Way.
• At Cordeman [GR 292753] St Mark's. A barn at some distance from the farm.
• A field shelter Field 324065, Foxdale Road, Garth, Crosby. Not related to other development.
• PA 13/00452/A: approval for demolition of a barn and build a dwelling, Robin Hill Farm, Cronk y Dhooney, Ballakilpheric, Colby.

There is a very recent approval for residential redevelopment of the old Motorlands garage site on Bay ny Carrickey (which was granted regardless of the emerging and imminent SAP). There is a recent approval for development at Gansey.

Now, whilst the question of precedent is tricky because no two applications are the same, these are all examples of approvals where development is normally not allowed; the prevailing and pertinent policy has been set aside despite obvious visual detriment to the countryside.

This current modest application will cause no visual detriment (indeed once complete it should appear as though it belongs there), is on entirely "brown" land in an existing residential area, and will provide a much needed addition to the housing mix.