Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00956/A
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00956/A Applicant : Mr Michael Osborne Proposal : Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling on site of former tholtan Site Address : Part Of Field 434311 Ballamodha Straight Ballamodha Ballasalla Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 09.09.2015 Site Visit : 09.09.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the western side of the A3. The site has a frontage to a small lane which is a public road and footpath (part of the Bayr ny Skeddan long distance footpath) and dimensions of 47m by 37m. On the site are the remains of a cottage, now just the remains of the four walls. The dwelling was last occupied as a dwelling in 1928. Also on the site are trees around the sides and rear of the tholtan.
1.2 From the lane, the rear of the former dwelling forms a stone wall parallel with the side of the lane. From the field, there is little if anything left of the other walls of the former dwelling. A small pile of stones lies to the west of the gate perhaps the remnants of an outbuilding on the site.
1.3 Visibility from the site onto the lane is reasonable considering the likely level of traffic using it. Where the lane meets the A3, visibility is very good in both directions once one has crept out slightly, which can be done safely.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling on the site. The applicant's intention is to building something which would achieve a Code 6 Sustainable Homes rating but reflecting a traditional design to reflect what may have been there originally. The applicant believes that the site falls within the existing character of dwellings within relatively close proximity to each other and would recreate the pattern of rural living in former times and on which infrastructure such as public transport would have been based.
2.2 The applicant would wish to develop a traditionally designed and proportioned building in line with Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside with Manx stone walls, slated roof, chimneys and sliding sash windows. They would also like to incorporate renewable energy recovery - solar panels, grey water recovery, ground source heat pumps.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00956/A
Page 2 of 4
2.3 The applicant suggests that the development would not affect any existing trees, walls, or hedges and would utilise the existing access. Public transport passes the site and is accessible on a hail basis with various key employment and amenity sites being within 20 minutes by bus and even shorter time by private car.
2.4 As the development is intended to be carbon neutral, the applicant believes that it will accord with all of the Strategic Plan policies which strive towards sustainable development and would prefer to think of the development being rejuvenating the site to its previous use rather than developing a new dwelling in the countryside. The applicant believes that the development will enables a second generation of farming family whose parents live locally to run a fully functioning farm a (although no details of who will occupy the property have been provided nor which farm they will work or who currently works this land and from where). They believe that an occupied dwelling on this site would be preferable to the currently derelict site on which unwanted activities appear to be taking place.
PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS 3.1 The site lies within an area of open space on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. As such there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3. Other Strategic Plan policies set out the commitment to sustainable development - Strategic Aim, Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 10, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4. The countryside is protected for its own sake as set out in Environment Policy 1.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 A previous application on this site is particularly relevant. PA 06/01534/A proposed the principle of the erection of dwelling on the site of a former settlement - effectively the same proposal as the current application. This was refused at appeal. The inspector took into account the provisions of the 1982p which was the prevailing land use document at the time, along with Planning Circulars 1/88 which sets out the presumption against development now encapsulated in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 3. The inspector considered that whilst the applicant (the same applicant as in the case of the current application) has a good record in the renovation of traditional buildings, could restore this abandoned site sympathetically to residential use with a Manx dwelling of traditional rural design and finishes and that such a development could be readily assimilated into the countryside on this secluded site. However, he goes on to explain that planning policy makes it clear that the rebuilding of ruins is not sanctioned and that as little of the former building remains on site and the granting of approval would be tantamount to a breach of policy which could be cited as a precedent on many similarly secluded sites of abandoned houses throughout the countryside.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services does not object to the application provided that visibility from proposed vehicular access would need to meet today's standards of 2.4 x 36 metres in each direction (24.08.15).
5.2 Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application as it is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the IOM Strategic Plan, in that the proposed development is in an area not zoned for development in the Southern Area Plan (07.09.15).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The policy framework has changed since the consideration of the 2006 application but the principles are still the same. Added to the simple presumption against development as set out in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and the various Planning Circulars, the Strategic Plan now emphasises the need to pursue sustainable development and whilst the site is within walking distance of a request bus stop, it is much less likely that residents in a rural location such as this would be likely to rely upon public transport than a
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00956/A
Page 3 of 4
private motor car than if the dwelling was within walking distance of services and amenities such as within a village or town. Also, whilst the applicant is intending to develop a dwelling which is carbon neutral or as far as is possible, the location of the dwelling is unsustainable and will generate the need for visitors who will almost certainly rely upon the private vehicle. The site is not believed to have mains electricity or sewerage and as such the development will require the provision of this and in the case of sewage treatment it will be highly likely that there will need to be infrequent collection of the sewage.
6.2 It is clear from the previous decision that the visual impact of the development is not the critical issue and that due to the secluded location of the site, it is not likely that the development would result in a significant visual impact although those using the public footpath will be able to appreciate that the site has been redeveloped.
6.3 The access to and from the site from the A3 is not considered to be dangerous or a reason for refusal.
6.4 However, the site is not designated for development and the proposal does not comply with any of the exceptions to the presumption against development set out in General Policy 3. There is so little of the former dwelling still on the site that approval to this application would not only render the requirements of Housing Policy 11 irrelevant but would also suggest that it is acceptable to erect a new dwelling in the countryside without there being any structure there at all - essentially rendering General Policy 3 irrelevant. As such, it is recommended that the proposal is contrary to Strategic Plan policy and should not be approved.
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, in this case, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word ‘Department’ to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation:
14.09.2015
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00956/A
Page 4 of 4
Reasons and Notes for Refusal
R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The site is not within an area designated for development and what remains of the former dwelling on the site is so little as to preclude the re-use and renovation of existing fabric. As such, the proposal cannot comply with any of the exceptions listed in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan to the presumption against development in the countryside and would represent unwarranted and unsustainable development in the countryside, contrary to Environment Policy 1, the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 10, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4.
--
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 : ...REF... Committee Meeting Date : ..21.09.2015
Signed :...A MORGAN... 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