Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00823/B Applicant: Richard James Morris Proposal: Erection of three detached dwellings with associated parking Site Address: Field 434035 Adjacent to Gardenfield and Irwell Malew Road Castletown 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 REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT BRIEF IN THE AREA PLAN FOR THE SOUTH, AND ALSO GIVEN THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is a roughly rectangular shaped piece of land which lies on the northern side of the Steam Railway line and the A5 Bypass road and to the west of Malew Road from which the site is accessed via an unmade lane. To the immediate east of the site there are the remains of greenhouses: to the west is an existing dwelling, Gardenfield and to the north are the rears of two properties which front onto Malew Road - Norville and Mill View. - 1.2 The site is approximately 100m long (slightly longer towards the east), 70m wide and

1.8 acres in area. - 2.0 PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 The site has been the subject of a varied and extensive planning history, stretching back to 2004, with perhaps the most relevant application from which being approved in April

1. PA 14/00209/B sought and gained full planning approval for the erection of three identical dormer properties on the application site, albeit that one of the dwellings was shown handed. This form of development was described as "disappointing" by the case officer at the time, but the application was approved by Planning Committee and on her recommendation to approve nonetheless. Her assessment in full read as follows:

• "6.1 There is a requirement in the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as well as the Strategic Plan to make the best use of sites. The Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 states, "To this end, the Department will ensure that a density level on the sites is realised which makes best use of the available land and seeks to optimise the number of dwellings on the site. This should not be taken to be an opportunity to seek maximisation of the site but more a considered approach to ensuring that the best use is made of the site taking full consideration of all material considerations."

• "6.2 It is also relevant that the site is largely screened from public view and the exact density of development is unlikely to be fully appreciated other than by those living very close to the site, none of whom have objected. Similarly, no objection has been raised regarding the increase in the number of vehicles using the lane or the access. The Airport has been consulted by the applicant and there is no objection raised in respect of the implications for operational airport safety.
• "6.3 As such, whilst there is provision within the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 for two dwellings only on this site, the application proposes three dwellings which are disappointingly similar in design, but nevertheless have sufficient amenity space and outlook available to them and are otherwise acceptable. On balance, it is considered that the requirement to make the best use of sites should override the development brief requirement for only two dwellings in this case, bearing in mind the otherwise acceptable form of development hereby proposed."

2.2 Other applications on the land were determined prior to the adoption of the Area Plan for the South 2013. Although by no means immaterial to the assessment of the current proposal (see below), they are not considered to raise issues that outweigh the decision issued to PA 14/00209/B. - 2.3 For completeness and for reference, that history is set out below:

• o PA 04/00349/A sought, but was refused, Approval in Principle for the erection of two dwellings on the site. This was refused at appeal for reasons relating to access.
• o PA 06/01597/A sought and gained Approval in Principle for two single storey dwellings and widening of the access to the site under. This permission required that the application for reserved matters must demonstrate parking for at least 2 vehicles per dwelling with turning facilities, visibility splays of 2m by 70m onto Malew Road, the lane between the site and Malew Road is widened and that no development should take place within the public safety zone. The applicant was advised to consult the Airport with respect to the Public Safety Zone.
• o PA 07/01251/B was withdrawn before a decision could be issued on the proposed three dwellings for the site. The suggested reasons for refusal related to the principle of three rather than two dwellings on the site, the fact that all three dwellings were identical and clearly not designed for the plot, and would have been unneighbourly to each other.
• o PA 07/02288/B approval for the erection of two identical properties on the site. These were the same height as these approved under PA 14/00209/B, but had dormer accommodation with pitched roofed dormer windows and a larger footprint.
• o Finally, PA 11/01505/B sought and gained planning approval for the erection of two identical dwellings on the site; these were bungalow with dormer accommodation but with rooflights instead of pitched dormer windows.

- 3.0 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of three identical dwellings, albeit that one is handed. The dwellings would be on a very slightly smaller footprint than those granted approval under PA 14/00209/B and, although they would be 0.5m higher in order to provide full two-storey properties, the roofs would be hipped so the overall mass of the dwellings would probably actually be fairly similar. There is no evident rhythm or pattern of fenestration throughout the proposed elevations, while the proposed render band between storeys and around windows / doors are welcome features. - 3.2 Each property has an integral two vehicle garage. - 3.3 The dwellings will be finished in the same materials as one another: slate effect tiles on the roofing, render on the walls and white plastic framed windows and doors.

3.4 The applicant has included a supporting letter with the application, which is helpful in understanding the amended design proposed - essentially in order to make the dwellings more in line with market demand. He also points to the distance of the proposed dwellings from those nearby and also the natural screening in the area. He suggests that a condition requiring the lane from Malew Road to the cattle grid at 'Gardenfield' to be made up with tarmacadam before any dwelling is built above damp proof course level would be acceptable, while he also indicates an intention to commence work soon and would consequently agree to a two year commencement condition.

- 4.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as 'Proposed Residential'. The Airport Safety Zone runs through the southern part of the site as shown in the application drawings. There is a development brief within the Written Statement which states the following:

• "1. A maximum of two dwellings may be accommodated on the site, both of which must be located entirely outside the Airport Runway Public Safety Zone (PSZ).
• "2. Two storey dwellings will not be permitted on this site although dormer bungalows may be considered.
• "3. The part of the site which lies within the Airport Runway Public Safety Zone (PSZ) may be used as garden space in association with the two properties.
• "4. The development scheme must include improvements to the access lane and junction of the access lane with Malew Road; no development may commence on site until such time as these improvements have been completed including the making good or erection and completion of any garden walling around the property known as "Irwell"."

4.2 The works to the access referred to at point 4 above have been completed. - 4.3 The Strategic Plan also contains a number of policies and related text considered relevant. - 4.4 Strategic Aim: "to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, giving particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage". - 4.5 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." - 4.6 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 4.7 Environment Policy 42: "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. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

4.8 Energy Policy 2: "Land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development." - 4.9 General Policy 2 (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure comment as follows: "Visibility splays onto the lane of 2.4x23 metres in both directions over land within the ownership of the applicant.

"Nothing must be planted, erected which may exceed 1.05 metres in height. "Turning heads must be able to accommodate larger vehicles such as refuse, oil tankers. "NOTE: Visibility onto Malew Road from this lane was improved in an earlier application which provides good visibility for this application." These comments were received on 10.08.2015.

5.2 Castletown Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 04.08.2015. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 First of all, it is worth noting that the development plan policies as outlined have not changed since the previous application was considered, and nor have there been other applications or appeal decisions considered material to the determination of the current proposal.

6.2 The use of three identical designs remains disappointing and represents a significant missed opportunity for what is a notable edge-of-settlement site. Although, as previously noted, the site remains well-screened from its surroundings and the site layout is such that this similarity will not be immediately discernible, the proposal does demonstrate an unfortunate lack of creativity for a site that could accommodate three bespoke and interesting dwellings. The scheme submitted does not reflect especially strongly on any traditional Manx or Castletown design cues.

6.3 However, the designs are, on balance, no worse than those previously approved on the site. While the window arrangement is decidedly haphazard, the use of render detail is a

• welcome touch and the overall massing of the dwellings of a full two-storey form is judged a slight improvement over the previous approval.
• 6.4 The dwellings would not affect the living conditions of those living nearby, nor vice versa, and there is adequate parking space and visibility from the access is acceptable.
• 6.5 The condition requested by Highway Services is understandable and a similar one was applied previously; a similar condition on this occasion is therefore recommended. Comments regarding the turning heads are new to the site and it is not fully understood why these have been raised on this occasion.
• 6.6 While no tracking diagrams have been provided, such that consideration of this concern is difficult, it would probably be inappropriate to require amended drawings to address this query in view of the extant approval on the site. The proposed access lanes and driveways are a minimum of 6m in width. The entrance to the site itself is also quite wide and it is conceivable that were there to be turning difficulties within the site that larger vehicles might be more easily able to access the site by reversing into it; in view of the fact that only three dwellings would be accessed off the main lane, which itself appears unadopted, this would be unlikely to cause a highway safety issue.
• 6.7 The condition suggested by the applicant in respect of the main lane from Malew Road is welcomed and recommended accordingly. Although this lane is, according to the submitted details, outside the control of the applicant, such a condition would be appropriate in this instance, not least since the applicant has himself suggested it.
• 6.8 Additionally, the suggested shorter implementation period is probably not necessary in this case. While the applicant's intention to commence work soon is noted and also welcomed, there has been no concern raised locally with the proposal and so it is not considered necessary to require the works to commence earlier than would normally be the case.
• 6.9 The dwellings would all fall outside of the important Public Safety Zone relating to Ronaldsway airport, and no other material concerns have arisen from the consultation.
• 6.10 The site arrangement and density would remain as acceptable as previously, and noting the expectation as set out in the Strategic Plan that 'best use' of land should be made, it is concluded that the proposal represents a well-considered use of the land available and which would provide an appropriate density of housing for this site on the edge of Castletown.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the previous decision issued on the site and the (on balance) favourable assessment of the proposal against the relevant development plan policies, it is considered that an objection to the scheme in the context of General Policy 2(a) would be inappropriate. This conclusion is reached having regard to the otherwise acceptable nature of the proposal when viewed against, in particular, Environment Policy 42 and the zoning of the area. As such, a recommendation of approval is made, subject to the conditions discussed. - 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;

• o Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.08.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. No obstruction within the visibility splay shown on Plan 03/2014 may exceed 1.05m in height unless set back by a minimum of 2.00m form the adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
• C 3. Prior to any of the dwellings hereby approved being built to damp proof course level, the access lane from which the site will be accessed shall, from its junction from Malew Road and the cattle grid adjacent to the dwelling known as 'Gardenfield', be made up with a Tarmacadam basecourse. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

The development hereby approved relates to the following plans and information, datestamped as having been received 22nd July 2015: 03/2014 and 04/2014.

- 9.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

9.1 At the meeting held on the 7th September 2015 the Planning Committee determined to approve the application subject to the proposed Condition2 of the approval being amended to reflect Highway Services' comments more fully, as shown below.

C2 Visibility splays measuring 2.0m x 12.0m in both directions from the junction of the approved site layout with the access lane from which the site will be accessed off Malew Road shall be installed and retained. Nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within those visibility splays that exceeds 1.05m in height.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

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: 7.09.2015

Signed E Riley Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). YES/NO See Supplementary Report at Paragraph 9.0 above.