Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00991/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00991/B Applicant : Mr Geoff Wood Proposal : Erection of two detached dwellings with integral garages Site Address : Field 131452 Sulby Glen Sulby Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss Abigail Morgan Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site forms the curtilage of field 131452 which is a parcel of undeveloped land located along the western side of Sulby Glen Road and to the south of the Sulby Straight. The field is split into two and is currently used for horses.
1.2 The boundaries of the site are characterised by large mature trees and hedgerows whilst the central part of each site is open with some horse fencing around the site. To the north-western corner out of the site area is an existing field gate, which currently accesses the field to the rear of the application site.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of two dwellings with integral garages and the creation of a new vehicular access and use of existing field access as residential access onto Sulby Glen Road.
2.2 The dwellings are contemporary dormer bungalows to be finished in light painted smooth plain render with sunroom, bay windows, dormers, entrance area, garage columns and as indicated elsewhere on the plans to be timber clad, with larch or cedar or similar. The roof is to dark blue/grey natural slate with concrete interlocking ridge tiles.
2.3 Each dwelling is 440sqm and is set within its own plot which is roughly half hectare. Plot 1 dwelling is set back from Sulby Glen Road by 38m and Plot 2 by 27m. The ground floor accommodation consists of a triple garage, lounge, kitchen/family room, W.C., utility room, hallway (with stairs to first floor), 2 bedrooms (one with ensuite) and the first floor consists of 3 bedrooms (one with ensuite) and general bathroom.
2.4 The proposal indicates on drawing no 3 that the majority of the existing roadside hedgerows and boundary trees would remain, with the exception of three trees along the front boundary in the visibility splays and the hedgerows would be reduced to 1.05m. Plot 2 Ash tree and Plot 1 2 elm trees.
2.5 The application has been supported by a letter from the applicant indicating that 'he has been waiting since 2007 to submit an application for these two plots, after advice from a planning consultant that at the time development need was being met and to wait for the Northern Area
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00991/B
Page 2 of 7
Review. Now the application is submitted because employment and development of the economy is being held up unnecessarily in the North of the Island because there is no prospect of a Northern Review taking place in the near future.'
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of open countryside not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; and is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is identified as 'open space' in the Sulby Local Plan 1999.
3.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
3.3 The Spatial Distribution Policies within the Strategic Plan set out the hierarchy of settlements, indicating that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the island, with other towns as supporting service centres. Some large villages are identified as service villages where appropriate increase in employment and housing should be provided to meet local needs. Sulby, is classified as not within any of those service villages and consequently Spatial Policy 4 set out that these villages should maintain the existing settlement character and be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. Area plans will define the development boundaries. Strategic Policy 3: seeks to protect and enhance individual character of towns and villages by avoiding coalescence and having regard to local materials and character in design of new development.
3.4 Environmental 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."
3.5 Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or 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 different 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."
3.6 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.
3.7 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, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00991/B
Page 3 of 7
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."
3.8 Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have refused the application on the grounds that the land is not zoned for development and they envisage traffic issues due to proximity of school entrance. Suggest one entrance to both properties which they feel should be larger bungalows, not dormer bungalows. 15.09.2015
5.2 Highways Division have no objection subject to the following conditions: "Nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within the visibility splay that exceeds or may exceed 1.05 metre in height." 08.09.2015.
5.3 Forestry have made the comment that if construction activity stays out of the root protection areas of the trees around the perimeter of the field, this proposal should have a very minimal impact on the trees. In plot 2, there is the potential for damage to an early mature sycamore to the south of the field entrance, however this tree alone is relatively insignificant and some dieback/restricted growth in this tree following construction would not have a significant visual impact. The key will be to ensure construction activity stays out of the root protection areas which should be ensured via a condition (08.09.2015).
5.5 The owners/occupants of Cott Coan ny h-Awiun, Old Sulby have objected to the application for the following reasons; field is designated as 'Open Space' in Sulby Village Plan; the Sulby Local Plan Paragraph 4.1 Preservation of Rural Village Character refers to "The rural character of Sulby is principally attributed to the significant tracts of open space that exist within the village which should continue to be preserved and protected from indiscriminate development ... Their retention as essentially undeveloped areas will provide for a visual and physical segregation between the developed areas (in this case the development close to the Sulby Cross Roads and the Old Sulby Village) and prevent an unnecessary extension of ribbon development which is considered inappropriate for the village"; this application will lead to and set precedent for ribbon development destroying the separateness of the small hamlet of Old Sulby; historically 3 separate villages it is quite unique and should be preserved as such; and the buildings proposed show little or no sympathy to Manx architecture and could be found on any new development anywhere. 25.09.15.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00991/B
Page 4 of 7
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Section (10)4 of TCP Act 1999 General Policy 1 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2007 requires decision makers to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations. The key issues in determining the application are (1) whether the proposal accords policy and (2) whether there are other material considerations that justify the granting or refusal of planning approval.
6.2 The main issue in the consideration of this application is the principle of development, the secondary issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Principle of Development
6.3 Fundamentally, in terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways. Firstly, the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted. Thirdly, the site is not identified in an adopted Area Plan as being within a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and therefore contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4. Fourthly, half of the site is zoned within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance which seeks to prevent development unless the development is essential or would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, which the proposal would fail on both counts and therefore a refusal can also be legitimately made on that basis as well.
6.4 The proposed dwellings do not serve a viable agricultural holding nor replace an existing dwelling and therefore there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against. The development proposed by this planning application is therefore clearly contrary to the current policies of the Department.
6.5 It is also important to also note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 should be part of the consideration of this proposal. Environmental Policy 1 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and 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. It is not considered the proposal would have an over-riding national need, therefore the proposal would be contrary to this policy.
6.6 As the site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance Environment Policy 2 also applies. This policy states that within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that, the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development is essential. It is not considered the proposal would comply with this policy.
6.7 With regard to Spatial Policy 4, this indicates that; "should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities". Further to this, Spatial Policy 1 & 2 indicate that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the Island and Ramsey, Peel, Port Erin, Castletown and Onchan will be Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services.
6.8 The applicant has put forward that the application is being submitted because employment and development of the economy is being held up unnecessarily in the North of the Island because there is no prospect of a Northern Review taking place in the near future. While it is unclear when
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00991/B
Page 5 of 7
this might occur the fact remains that two of the four sites designated for future development still remain, and therefore there are still available sites currently within Sulby. It is important to note both of these sites have benefited from planning approval for residential developments, seven dwellings on site 3 and four dwellings on site 5.
6.9 Approval of such a scheme would set a significant precedent for similar types of development through the countryside in the Isle of Man. The purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new housing should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the erection of two dwellings as is proposed here) it is also essential to bear in mind that the development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.
6.10 Additionally the Isle of Man Strategic Plan section 8.8 deals with groups of houses in the countryside. Whilst adding further dwellings to these groups may not accord with strategic objectives, the Department has however identified a number of these opportunities and in future Area Plans all groups of houses in the countryside will be assessed for development potential by identifying the village envelope or curtilage and providing the opportunity for appropriate development within this area. There may be some settlements where no additional dwellings will be permitted. In considering the definition of this curtilage or envelope, particular regard will be had to the value of existing spaces in terms of their contribution to the general character of the settlement or to public amenity more generally. It is important; however that such development is controlled by the development plan process rather than as ad hoc decisions taken in isolation.
6.11 It should also be noted that the fields 134341 and 134209 to the northeast of the Sulby Cross Road both had an application (06/01825/A & 06/01827/A) made on each field, for residential development. Both applications were refused at Appeal on the grounds that the land was not designated for development and contrary to the Development Plan and the Strategic Plan. More recently an approval in principle application (13/91156/A) for erection of a dwelling on land adjacent to Hill View, to the north east of the site and an approval in principle for four dwellings (14/00669/A) at Field 131356, Clenagh Road to the north of the site was both refused on the grounds of the site not being designated for development, as well as access concerns for the former application.
Character and Appearance of the Area
6.12 There is likely to be some visual impact on the street scene with the removal of some trees and the maintenance of the hedgerows to below 1.05 within the proposed visibility splays. While it is only up to 1m high in places due to the varying height within the hedge itself across the whole of its length it appears more uniform.
6.13 The two proposed dwellings are set back from the road from between 27m-38m. The dwellings in this area are a mixture of types, designs and materials and particularly along Sulby Glen Road the houses are all different. While it would have been preferable to see two different designs the proposed designs the proposed dwellings are simple in form and not especially objectionable in themselves from a design point of view. While the design of the proposed dwellings is not traditional local vernacular there is little evidence of this in the immediate vicinity of the proposals. They are essentially two identical units with some small-scale differences; notwithstanding this they do offer a particular high quality architectural treatment in terms of materials and detailing.
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00991/B
Page 6 of 7
6.14, Nonetheless this is not considered sufficient justification to tip the balance of scales in favour of the proposal nor to justify the granting of planning approval.
Other Matters 6.15 Highways have not objected to the proposed access being used nor the creation of a new access subject to a condition restricting height within the proposed visibility splays.
6.16 Forestry have not objected to the proposed removal of the trees.
Conclusion
6.17 For the reasons given above, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the relevant to strict and established planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), which seeks to protect the countryside from development.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 On the basis of the above it is recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 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 and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries are part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.
It is recommended that the owner of Cott Coan ny h-Awin does not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13.
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: 20.11.2015
Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00991/B
Page 7 of 7
R 1. Residential development on the proposed site which is located within an area not designated for development would be contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside and directing new residential development to locations that accord with sustainable development principles. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to Spatial Policy 4, Strategic Policy 3, General Policy 3, Environmental Policies 1, 2 and 24 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Decision Made : ...REF... Committee Meeting Date:...30.11.2015
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.
Signed :...J CHANCE... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the Officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal