Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00815/A
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00815/A Applicant : Mr Richard & Mrs Julie Cassidy Proposal : Approval in principle for residential development for two dwellings addressing siting and means of access Site Address : Land Adjacent To Cass A Lergy Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 27.08.2015 Site Visit : 27.08.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is a dog-leg-shaped parcel of land located northeast of Douglas Road, Kirk Michael. The land at present forms part of the land ownership of the dwelling known as "Cass-a-Lergy", itself located northeast of the Douglas Road. This dwelling is, along with a larger pair of fields further to the northeast, edged blue on the submitted plans. To the north of the wider site area is an access track serving the Lhergyvreck Farms and some isolated dwellings.
1.2 The site is at present primarily given over to grass and is lined by trees to the highway and hedging elsewhere, although trees are found sporadically along the boundaries. The eastern horizon is quite close to the highway as the land rises up quite steeply in this direction, while the topography is a little flatter towards the northeast.
1.3 The site is prominent and readily visible from the highway, which forms part of the TT course.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the erection of a pair of dwellings on the site; access is one matter seeking determination at this stage, and this would be provided off the existing access to Cass-a-Lergy, which is currently accessed directly off Douglas Road. The other matter for determination now is siting: the submitted plan shows the two identical dwellings of roughly 175sqm in size sat at right angles to one another and sharing an area of hardstanding
2.2 The application has been substantiated by a Supporting Statement, which argues that the age of the Kirk Michael Local Plan, as well as the site being "ideally situated to support infill development of two houses", is such that the application should be approved.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00815/A
Page 2 of 9
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site lies within an area not zoned for any form of development on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994; it is within a wider area zoned as 'Open Space (Agriculture)'. There are some policies in the Local Plan that are of material relevance.
3.2 Policy 5.9 states in full: "No further areas should be allocated for residential development. Vehicular access to any residential area must be subject to consultation with the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties. The maximum number of dwellings which could be satisfactorily served by the Slieau Curn estate road must be determined in consultation with the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties whose minimum standards must be upheld as regards the capacity of this estate road."
3.3 Policy 5.14 states: "Any development of residential areas to the east of the built environment should pay regard to the suggestion of a by-pass to the east of Kirk Michael. The feasibility and desirability of such a link should be further examined by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in association with the Michael Commissioners".
3.4 The Strategic Plan also contains some relevant policies.
3.5 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 2 reads: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages...". Housing Policy 4 reiterates this text.
3.6 Strategic Policy 10 reads in full: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement".
3.7 Spatial Policy 3 specifically identifies Kirk Michael as a Service Village.
3.8 General Policy 3 reads in full: "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, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; 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-dependent 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."
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00815/A
Page 3 of 9
3.9 Environment Policy 1 states in full: "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."
3.10 Environment Policy 42 reads in part: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality".
3.11 Housing Policy 1 reads in full: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 6000 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2001 to 2016".
3.12 Transport Policy 1 reads in full: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".
3.13 Transport Policy 7 reads in full: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards". Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan is clear that, for new dwellings, this is to be two car parking spaces per dwelling, with ideally one behind the building line.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Neither the site nor the adjacent land has been the subject of any applications considered to be of material relevance to the determination of the current application.
4.2 However, it is perhaps worth noting three appeal decisions, one in Kirk Michael (2014), another in Sulby (also 2014) and another in Newtown (2012). All three sought and gained planning approval for the residential development on land that was at least partly not zoned for development. Some extracts from the Inspectors' Reports are worth reflecting upon, but in doing so it should be acknowledged that there were very particular circumstances applying to both cases - these are discussed below.
4.3 PA 14/00074/B sought planning approval for the erection of four dwellings at Slieau Curn Park in Kirk Michael. The site was at the edge of a housing estate and also formed part of the eastern edge of the village at that time. Previous applications to develop a larger area of land (but including the application site as defined under PA 14/00074/B) had been refused on grounds that the larger site fell, at least in part, outside of the settlement boundary. The application was approved by Planning Committee, and an appeal lodged by neighbouring residents. The appointed Inspector recommended the Minister dismiss the appeal, who duly agreed with that recommendation.
A pair of relevant extracts from the Inspector's report is set out below; the bracketed numbers refer to his paragraph numbers:
"As things stand, this end of the estate looks and feels unfinished. Standing on the ground, there is no apparent reason why this side of the road should conclude with a patch of land rather than dwellings facing those opposite. The existing layout offends recognised best practice in residential layouts by just petering out...with no clear conclusion... Nor is the land in question particularly attractive, enclosed by a utilitarian fence that only deters rather than
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00815/A
Page 4 of 9
stops items being dumped there. There is a pejorative acronym for such land: SLOAP, or Space Left Over After Planning." (22)
"As it affects the appeal site, the imprecise Predominantly Residential boundary as shown on the 1994 Plan is outdated, overtaken by changed circumstances, which amounts to a material consideration in the term of Section 10(4)(d) of the 1999 [Town and Country Planning] Act. Its slavish application would conflict with the more recent and therefore higher priority aims and policies of the Strategic Plan to focus development sustainably at towns and villages, to protect the countryside and to achieve design standards that respect townscape and residential amenity..." (30)
4.4 There are some important points here. Firstly, the recommendation to approve the application had very close regard to the nature of, and visual impression offered by, the site. Secondly, the Inspector noted that the Strategic Plan has greater material weight (which is indeed stated at its paragraph 1.4.4) than the Local Plan, but equally does not state that the Local Plan has no or limited material weight in decision-making. Thirdly, there is an implicit acknowledgement that Kirk Michael as a settlement is sustainable - again, something that the Strategic Plan is clear on at.
4.5 PA 14/00687/A sought Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling on garden land associated with a dwelling at Kella Road in Sulby. The land is not zoned for any form of development, and the application was refused by the Department (following two earlier refusals on the same parcel of land). The decision was appealed against, and the appointed Inspector recommended the appeal be allowed - a recommendation with which the Minister agreed. Some relevant extracts from the Inspector's report is set out below:
"On the [principle of development within this part of the countryside] it is contended on behalf of the applicant that the site is within a defined settlement area. However, it lies outside of the settlement boundary of Sulby and is within the HLCVSS [area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance] and zoned as an Area of Private Woodland. It has to be assessed, therefore, as being in the countryside and the proposal for this site cannot be said to accord with GP3 of the IOMSP [Isle of Man Strategic Plan]." (16)
"...[Environment Policy 1] also seeks to ensure that development will not have any adverse visual effect on the countryside. This part of the policy, therefore, can allow consideration to be given to proposals in the countryside which are not strictly in accordance with zoning or other policy requirements." (17)
"The site forms a separately accessed garden to 'Kella Sheear' and has been in such use for around 30 years. Because it once formed part of the 'West Kella' orchard it is now surrounded by the residential curtilages of 'Kella Sheear' and West Kella'. It doesn't have any boundary, therefore, with the fields and open countryside to the west. This results in it being seen and perceived as part of the residential land along this part of Kella Road, rather than being in the 'open countryside'. Other than from the lane, it is difficult to see the site and the densely landscaped gardens of the existing dwellings, together with the heavily treed lane, preclude any long distance views of the garden." (19)
"...therefore, I do not consider that the site is perceived as being in the open countryside. Due to its physical positioning and its enclosed and screened nature and appearance, it is my view that there would be no noticeable adverse visual impact caused by an appropriate dwelling being built on this confined site. I am also satisfied that the quality of the surrounding landscape and the character of the countryside in this part of Sulby would be preserved and not harmed in any way. I considered that the particular material circumstances in this case can, therefore, outweigh the strict policy interpretation." (20)
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00815/A
Page 5 of 9
"...the site is within close proximity to the village [of Sulby] and within a relatively easy and convenient walking distance to the local shop, school and church. I also noted that there is a bus stop about 200m from the site. [I]t appears to me, therefore, that there can be no significant objection on the basis that the site is unsustainable." (27)
"The site is as sustainable as the adjacent existing residential sites along this part of Kella Road." (28)
4.6 Again, several points are worth noting. Firstly, the Inspector had very close regard to the specific nature, position, historic use and visual prominence of the application site, concluding that the site appeared as forming a part of the residential area of this part of Kella Road, rather than in the open countryside. Secondly, he concluded that on this basis there would be no harm to the character of the countryside in the area. Thirdly, he concluded that the distance from some services was such as to make the site sustainable.
4.7 PA 12/00643/A sought Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling on a field associated with a Farm; the field fronted the A5 highway to the west, while there is a former Methodist Chapel to the south, other detached houses nearby and the then-under construction Ballavartyn Equestrian Centre towards the east. The land is not zoned for any form of development, and the application was refused by the Department. The decision was appealed against, and the appointed Inspector recommended the appeal be allowed - a recommendation with which the Minister agreed. Coincidentally it was the same Inspector considering both the Sulby and Newtown applications. Some relevant extracts from the Inspector's report is set out below:
"The main issue is the effect that a dwelling on this site would have on the character of this part of Newtown having regard to its location within the HLCVSS and other relevant planning policies." (12)
"In Policy terms, Newtown is now listed as a village in Spatial Policy 4 and Appendix 3 of the IOMSP. The site is no longer, therefore, outside of a settlement... This was accepted by the planning authority during the Inquiry and that Policy EP1, which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake, is not applicable to this case." (13)
"The 1982 Order designation is still the starting point for consideration of this proposal. The site is not zoned for development... It is therefore contrary to policy GP3." (15)
"There are existing buildings to the north which include Court Farm, plus the dwellings along the west side of the main road. The former chapel (now granted permission for conversion to a dwelling) lies immediately to the south and there are other houses to the south clustered around the road junction. Finally, the Ballavartyn complex is being developed to the east. The overall result is that, in effect, the developments over the years have resulted in the appeal site being perceived to be more like a large infill site within the village boundary rather than as a field and paddock being more closely related to the open countryside." (15)
"Having viewed the site and the surrounding area from both near and distant viewpoints, I do not consider that the siting of a single dwelling on this particular site would be harmful to the character and appearance of the HLCVSS. The site us extremely well landscaped and screened and these features could be controlled at the detailed planning application stage. The site would, in my view, still be perceived as an infill site. The development would maintain the existing settlement pattern of Newtown and would meet a local need for a dwelling."
4.8 It is again to be noted that the Inspector had very clear regard to the particular and evolving nature of both the site and its surroundings in making his assessment as to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. He is also clear that the
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00815/A
Page 6 of 9
zoning defined in the Development Plan remains the starting point for the assessment of a proposal.
4.9 An overall point to take from the Inspectors' Reports is that each case is to be treated on its own merits, but in circumstances where a site is not perceived to be within the countryside this represents a material consideration in the assessment of the principle of new development in such locations.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure commented as follows on 4th August 2015: "In principle the visibility sightlines and off road parking can be achieved. Highways will comment in full if planning approval is approved."
5.2 Michael Commissioners initially reserved comment until it was confirmed that the site is zoned as agricultural; in comments received 9th September 2015, the objected to the application on this basis.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The application site falls outside of the residential zoning as shown on the Kirk Michael Local Plan. As such, and given the naturalness of its setting, it must be considered as falling with countryside, which is to be protected for its own sake and where development is strictly controlled as outlined in Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan and Policy 5.9 of the Kirk Michael Local Plan.
6.2 As with the case at Sulby discussed above, the Strategic Plan makes no provision for a new dwelling in this location. However, in view of the approaches taken by the Inspectors as outlined above, and also acknowledging the applicants' agent's Supporting Statement, it is considered appropriate to reflect on whether there are material circumstances applying here that, to use the Inspector's words, outweigh the strict policy interpretation.
6.3 Such an assessment requires the consideration of the appearance and prominence of the site, and how the surrounding area might best be characterised.
6.4 The site is not in active use as a garden. While owned in conjunction with Cass-a- Lergy, the land is agricultural in appearance if not necessarily actively used as such. It is very green, and lined with trees but not to an extent that the field itself cannot be discerned through these. The feel of the area, despite it falling between two other areas of defined residential development and opposite a third, is of an edge-of-village location. The dwellings in the area are sporadic and many are hidden behind or screened by the land's topography, trees, hedging and the occasional Manx stone wall. The immediate area is characterised in this way and, as a whole, forms something of a 'transition' area between the open countryside to the south of the Kirk Michael and the fully built-up part of the village itself. It is not, therefore, and by contrast with the other sites discussed in section 4 above, perceived as an infill site - although it is noted that its situation on the submitted plan does give something of that impression.
6.5 The application site through its natural, green and undeveloped appearance therefore forms an important characteristic of this edge-of-village location. Its development for housing would fundamentally alter its appearance and character, and would consequently prevent the site from continuing to successfully and valuably contribute to the edge-of-village feel. The loss of a piece of natural environment such as the application site could be said to result in the outward expansion of the village and result in the gradual erosion of the 'transitional' nature of the immediate vicinity.
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00815/A
Page 7 of 9
6.6 In view of the above, the proposal could therefore not be said to have anything other than a negative impact on the visual appearance of the site and, perhaps more importantly, of the area in which the site lies. It is therefore concluded, having had regard to the nature, use and position of the site, that there is no good reason to balance the proposal positively against Environment Policy 1: the redevelopment of the site would adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside here.
6.7 Its development for housing would undermine the established policies that are intended to concentrate new development to within areas zoned for such development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan and Policy 5.9 of the Kirk Michael Local Plan.
6.8 The sustainability of the site, access and parking as well as the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity must also be considered.
6.9 The site is located close to Kirk Michael and its wide variety of services, and therefore the site has good sustainability credentials. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Strategic Policies 2 and 10.
6.10 In terms of the second issue, the Supporting Statement includes a plan showing two access options - one from the existing access to Cass-a-Lergy and the other via the main Douglas Road. The submitted plan, however, clearly demonstrates that the former access is formally proposed. The second option would be wholly unacceptable for three reasons: firstly, this would provide a new access onto the TT course, which it is understood it is generally presumed against; secondly, there would need to be a loss of trees from the site in order to provide an access with adequate visibility, and thirdly, if there were no trees to be removed, there is no information as regards to how adequate visibility could be provided.
6.11 Highway Services consider that the needed visibility can be obtained, albeit that it is not immediately clear how this should be given the presence of trees discussed above. However, and in any case, it is considered that the access shown on the submitted plan would be acceptable for the reasons outlined above.
6.12 The site is sufficiently far from neighbouring dwellings such that there is not considered to be any reason that the proposed dwellings would have an unduly harmful effect on neighbouring living conditions. The only dwellings really likely to be affected are those of the applicants and also the adjoining Erinville.
6.13 The southernmost of the proposed two plots would only be 15.5m from Cass-a-Lergy, and although there is some boundary treatment here that would screen the two dwellings from one another, this distance is noticeably below the 'rule of thumb' 20m interface distance that is normally sought. The dwellings would also face one another fairly directly. Indeed, that figure might normally be expected to be rather larger in more rural areas such as this and where larger grounds are more common. However, it should not be ignored that Cass-a- Lergy is the applicant's own dwelling and the site has presumably been designed having close regard to their expectations and requirements. In any case, it is considered feasible that the southernmost plot could be designed in such a way as to not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the applicants.
6.14 The relationship between the northernmost Plot and the adjacent Erinville is rather more comfortable. The dwellings would sit angled from one another and at a distance of 25m. Moreover, Erinville is sat noticeably higher than the northernmost Plot would be, and so the living conditions of the occupiers of that Plot would probably be more affected by Erinville than the other way around, though the existence of various trees in the grounds of Erinville are such that the relationship between the two dwellings would almost certainly be satisfactory.
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/00815/A
Page 8 of 9
6.15 Another point worth exploring is the applicants' desire to erect dwellings meeting the Passivhaus environmental standard. Unfortunately no information has been submitted on how this would be achieved, except some text taken from the internet as to what the Passivhaus standard is and what sort of design techniques can be used to achieve it. Nothing site-specific has been provided. In any case, it would be very difficult indeed - if not impossible - for a condition to be worded that would meet the tests of necessity, reasonableness and enforceability required to make the condition lawful and thereby ensure the dwellings proposed at the Reserved Matters stage were built in line with that standard.
6.16 As such, very limited material weight can be given to this element of the proposal, albeit that the intention on behalf of the applicants on this point is strongly welcomed.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Although the access and siting are considered acceptable, the principle of new dwellings in this location has been found to be contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan and Policy 5.9 of the Kirk Michael Local Plan. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused on this ground.
7.2 Were Committee minded to recommend approval to the application, a condition requiring the better of the two accesses be used would be appropriate to attach. Committee may also like to consider whether or not an Energy Statement, with respect to seeking a high level of energy efficiency, should be sought by condition as part of any reserved matters submission.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.09.2015
Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The application site sits within an area not zoned for development on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994. There are insufficient material grounds on which to set aside the presumption against new development on land not zoned for such and, as such, the proposal is concluded to be contrary to Policy 5.9 of the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 and also contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
==== PAGE 9 ====
15/00815/A
Page 9 of 9
--
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 : REFUSED
Committee Meeting
Date:...21.09.2015
Signed : E Riley 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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal