Officer Report

Application No.: 14/00872/A Applicant: Mr Stuart Blackley Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling Site Address: Land At Fo Glion, Bayr Glion Rushen Main Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 06.08.2014 Site Visit: 29.10.2013 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN AT THE PROPOSAL

THE SITE

1.1 The site is an area of land which lies between the A27 public highway and the Glen Rushen Road to the east. The Glen Rushen river abuts the application site at its south eastern corner. The site is approximately 75m long and 45m wide at its widest and longest points and

• 0.3ha in area. The site is relatively flat with steep grassed banks to the east leading up to Glen Rushen Road. The applicant owns a large parcel of land, including Fo Glion, an existing dwelling off the Glen Rushen Road.
• 1.2 Access to the public highway is via a single width lane which serves The Anchorage and Herondale, two existing dwellings which lie to the north west of the application site. This access emerges onto the A27 on a relatively steep angle. The dropped kerb is formed by a poorly lowered section of kerb which extends only across part of the vehicular opening. Turning out and left involved taking the vehicle's wheels over the full kerb edge. Visibility is available to around 60m to the north and around 49m to the far side to the south and 26m to the nearside in the same direction.

1.3 The Bayr ny Skeddan footpath runs alongside the Glen Rushen river on its western side. Between the application site and the river is a piece of undeveloped land which had planning approval under PA 00/01050/A for the principle of a dwelling. This was not implemented. Planning approval was also granted on appeal for the principle of a dwelling alongside Mountain View, some 162m as the crow flies from the application site, under PA 12/00597/A. This has been the subject of an application for reserved matters which was refused (PA 14/00408/REM). - 1.4 There are various trees around the edge of the site. The site is mainly level, grassed and clearly managed with a timber shed in the southern corner.

THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the principle of the erection of a dwelling on the site. A footprint has been provided for illustrative purposes which indicates how a dwelling may be accommodated on

the site together with an access which links in with that approved for another new plot under PA 14/01040/A. The remainder of the land in the applicant's ownership is outside of the proposed residential curtilage. The application site includes the access way onto the A27 which involves land belonging to others.

2.2 The land identification drawing indicates that the application site is "maintained lawn", the land around the site is either "natural vegetation" or "ornamental garden". The area of "ornamental garden" was not included in previous applications for Fo Glion.

2.3 The applicant indicates that historically the site has been used as the lower garden of Fo Glion. They indicate that any dwelling will be situated around 40m from the river and 2.8m above the general level of the site and the level of the dwelling could be lifted a further 300mm above this. They indicate that there is no history of flooding of this site. They indicate that all existing trees will be retained. - 2.4 They propose that the dwelling will have two storeys of accommodation under a shallow roof pitch and overhanging eaves, utilising natural materials such as slate, stone, render and timber. - 2.5 The applicant has provided further information regarding the access to the site and a land ownership statement which indicates that the lane is owned in association with other properties - Herondale and The Anchorage.

PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY

3.1 The site appears to lie within an area designated on the 1982 as Open Space and of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. This plan was drawn at a scale of 1:25,000 at this scale it is difficult to be precise with where exactly the boundaries lie. This appears to include the dwellings on the northern side of Glen Rushen Road up to and including Holly House and roughly down to the A27 where the river meets the highway. This includes the Anchorage and part of Herondale.

3.2 As such there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan. General Policy 3 sets out the exceptions which may be made to this policy.

• 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.
• Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

• a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• b) the location for the development is essential.

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, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11)
• c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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-dependant 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 9: A precautionary approach (1) will be adopted for development relating to land affected, or likely to be affected, by erosion of land instability. In the case of receding cliffs, development will not be permitted in areas where erosion is likely to occur during the lifetime of the building.
• Environment Policy 10 states: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There have been no planning applications for the site itself, but the three applications for

• the land alongside and for that alongside Mountain View are relevant.

4.2 PA 00/01050/A proposed the principle of a dwelling on the land to the south west of the application site, separated only therefrom by a tree lined hedge. This was refused by the planning committee of the day as the land was outside that designated for development. There was also an objection from the highway authority on the grounds that the access was considered deficient in terms of visibility and the gradient of the access although this was not included as a reason for refusal. The inspector confirms that the land is not designated for development on the 1982 (Development Plan Order). However, he states that the site does not have the character of open countryside and considers it more of an infill site and rounding off of existing built development in that in his view, "the proposed dwelling could be slotted into existing development without increasing in any material way either its physical extent or visual impact".

4.3 That application was approved. The application in principle for the additional dwelling in the garden of Mountain View was treated similarly. The Planning Committee refused the application on the basis that the site was not designated for development. The inspector, however took the view that the development plan is only one material consideration before them and that "the age as such of the 1982 Plan should not reduce its weight, however the absence of any subsequent Area Plan to provide an assessed and well defined settlement boundary, coupled with changes on the ground since 1982 are important material considerations to weigh alongside the 1982 map" (paragraph 14). He considered that the

• proposed dwelling in that case the site has "a strongly defined outer boundary of mature vegetation and a wholly different domestic character from the open land beyond it. The last consideration, in particular, is much more evident on the ground than on the OS plan." He concluded that there would be no actual resulting harm to the aims set out in the Strategic Plan policies which protect the countryside from development. That application was also approved.
• 4.4 Perhaps the most relevant is a very recent application for the principle of the development of the land alongside for a dwelling. PA 14/01040/A proposed this and included the means of access which involves the same access as would serve the current application but improved. This involved the alteration the access as shown on drawing 006 to provide visibility of 57m in a north west direction and 70m in a south east direction. This was considered acceptable to both the Planning Committee and Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and presumably to the neighbours none of whom objected to the principle of a dwelling on this site (the current applicant expressed concern that the plans initially included part of his land).

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Patrick Parish Commissioners express concern that the site is liable to flood and that the access does not provide acceptable levels of visibility for those in vehicles exiting the site (12.08.14). They remain concerned about the flood risk of the site and provision for access over land owned by the applicant (10.02.15).

5.2 The owners of The Anchorage also jointly own the lane which serves this site. They indicate that they have not been approached by the application as a part owner of the site and the lane is not a public right of way and has no signage. There may be issues accessing

• the lane through land which is not in the applicant's ownership. The proposal will involve the removal of a large tree. Certain of the boundaries shown are incorrect. (11.08.14). Following the submission of further information by the applicant, this party indicates that the access was never intended to be a permanent access to other land and they do not give any permission for their land to be used for access to another property (10.02.15).

5.3 The owner of Herondale queries whether there is a workable access from the applicant's land onto the lane, particularly which would not involve the removal of trees. The existing access onto the main road is unsuitable for further traffic and she will not give permission for drains to cross her land to access the watercourse. (16.08.14). Following the submission of further information by the applicant, this party adds that the "existing access" shown on the plans was only ever intended to be a temporary access when the plot was rented to allow

• them to turn to grass and to mow. She does not grant any permission for the land to be used to give access to the applicant's land. She is perturbed that the applicant and his agent have used her land to gain access to the site and taken photographs without her consent (04.02.15).

5.4 The owner of Hilary Cottage on Glen Rushen Road is concerned about an increased possibility of subsidence created through the proposed works. She also represents the owner of "Cooilincel" (possibly Cooilingel Beg) who expresses the same concerns but has no access to a computer and is a full time carer (11.09.14) - 5.5 The owner of 108, Anagh Coar Road considers this to be more ribbon development and bordering on ruination through over development and greed. He considers the site to be unsuitable for development through instability and being prone to landslip and notes that access is difficult (26.08.14). - 5.6 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) seeks consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies which is not a material planning consideration. (01.08.14)

5.7 The owner of Cooilingel Beg expresses concern at the possibility of destabilising the rear bank and flooding: in the last 34 years he has seen flooding on at least three occasions. Previously the site was known as curraghs (11.09.14). - 5.8 MUA Drainage indicate that they do not have any concern that the site will be at risk of flooding (07.01.15). - 5.9 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services no longer object to the application, indicating that nothing must be planted or erected within the visibility splay which is or may grow higher than 1.05 metres (01.04.15)

ASSESSMENT

6.1 Whilst it is often difficult to accept and may seem illogical, land ownership is not generally a material consideration in the assessment of a planning application and whilst this may eventually prove to be a fatal element in the formulation of a scheme, which results in development not being able to be implemented, it is not a material consideration in assessing whether a development is acceptable. In this particular case, if land is required to make the development happen, which is vested in other parties who are not willing to give their consent

• then the development will probably not occur. In this case the land in question is critical to the development of the site and were approval to be forthcoming, there would be a condition which required that the access is provided in full prior to the commencement of any other works which would have the effect that if the permission from other land owners were not forthcoming, the development could not be commenced. The reason for this is that land ownership and opinions may change and planning approval should not be at the discretion of third parties but should be in the public interest and on the basis of whether the use and development is acceptable in material land use terms. It is relevant in this respect that the neighbours have no objection to the addition of one additional dwelling alongside the proposed dwelling, using the same means of access, but object to this current application which would have little material difference to the impact on their amenities in terms of the adequacy of the access or the use of the private roadways.

6.2 The access has been accepted to serve the dwelling proposed under PA 14/01404/A and as such, there is no reason why the same access should not be considered acceptable to access a further dwelling and no objection has been raised by Highway Services. There would be a short section of private road shared with the plot for which approval in principle has been granted and whether the scheme can be realised will depend upon the cooperation of that party. Whilst the access as it enters the land within the ownership of the applicant is close to existing trees whose canopies spread above the proposed access route, the access could be constructed using methods which would not adversely affect the roots of these trees, similar to the methods which will be necessary to form the access to the dwelling approved under PA 14/01040/A. The site is considerably larger than that relating to PA 14/01040/A and as such capable of accommodating a dwelling which could be suitably distant from Herondale and the approved new dwelling such as to not result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of these properties. Similarly, the site is of a size as to avoid the necessity for engineering which could de-stabilise the bank above which sit other properties, including Hilary Cottage and Cooilingel Beg, amongst others.

6.3 The applicant has provided information which indicates that the site is capable of being development without adverse impact on or from flooding and it is relevant that the site is higher than and further from the Glen Rushen watercourse than is the site associated with PA 14/01040/A. - 6.4 As such it is considered that the site is capable of being accessed and drained and that a dwelling could be erected on the site without adverse impact on the living conditions of those in existing and approved nearby dwellings. Whilst the site is not designated for development

on the 1982 (Development Plan) Order it is within the effective settlement boundary and no more contrary to that policy that is the dwelling approved under PA 14/01040/A. As such the application is recommended for approval.

PARTY STATUS

7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
• (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

7.3 The following residences are sufficiently close to be directly affected by the proposal and as such their owners/occupiers should be granted interested person status under the Town and Country Planning (development Procedure) Order 2013 - Determination of Interested Person Status: Herondale The Anchorage Cooilingel Beg Hilary Cottage - 7.4 Manx Utilities Authority - Drainage raises material planning considerations and should be afforded interested person status. - 7.5 Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity does not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded interested person status. - 7.6 The owner of 108, Anagh Coar Road is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded interested person status.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:

01.04.2015

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

• N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
• O : Notes attached to refusals

- C 1.

The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.

• C 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
• C 3. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.

• C 4. Prior to the commencement of any other works on site, improvements to the visibility and access from the private lane onto the A27 which provide visibility to the south east of 70m and

to the north west of 57m both as measured 2.4m from a point 0.5m into the carriageway and that access widened to 4.1 for a length of 6m back into the private lane must all be undertaken and available for use.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

• C 5. The application for reserved matters must include details of tree protection indicating how all trees are to be retained during the construction works. Generally this should involve the erection of protective fencing beneath the dripline of the canopies and no work undertaken nor items or vehicles stored within these areas. Where work is proposed within the protected areas, the method of work must be detailed to demonstrate that the work will not damage the root systems of any of the trees. Reason: to protect the amenities of the area and in accordance with the terms of the approval.

This approval relates to drawings 1, 2 and 01 all received on 21st July, 2014 and AP received on 21st January, 2015.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Approved Committee Meeting Date:…20.04.2015

Signed : Sarah Corlett. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO