43362 — 15/01134/B | Planning Portal IoM | Isle of Man Planning Portal

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  1  of  10

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 15/01134/B Applicant : Mr Mark Bibby & Ms Joanne Christian Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling and detached stables Site Address : Land Adjacent To Allandale Farm Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man

Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 21.10.2015 Site Visit : 21.10.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE

1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site represents a parcel of land adjacent to Allandale Farm, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The site is located on the northern side of Ballamanagh Road and south of the Sulby Bridge. Presently there is a single storey Tholtan building within the site which runs parallel with the Ballamanagh Road. An application for a dwelling has been previously approved on the site, the details of which are below. The foundations and drainage pipes relating to that dwelling are evident on the site.

2.0 PLANNING POLICIES 2.1 The application site is within the area covered by the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998. Under this, the application site is recognised as being within an area of open space (including agriculture).

2.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-

2.3 General Policy 3 states: "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 2 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  2  of  10

2.4 Environment Policy 1 states: "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."

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-

3.2 Reserved matters application for the erection of a dwelling - 09/01719/REM -APPROVED AT APPEAL.

3.3 Reserved Matters application for the erection of a detached dwelling - 08/02096/REM - REFUSED on appeal on the following grounds:- "1. The dwelling would be sited unsatisfactorily close to the fence at the rear of the plot, resulting in a cramped appearance and inadequate amenity space. 2. The details of landscaping, including the boundary treatment, are in inadequate. 3. The layout of the access is not of appropriate domestic scale, and would add unnecessarily and undesirably to the visual impact of the development."

3.4 Reserved Matters application to erect a dwelling - 08/00326/REM - REFUSED on appeal on the following grounds:- "The details of reserved matters for which approval is sought would not be satisfactory, particularly in respect of siting, design, internal layout and landscaping."

3.5 Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - 07/00375/A - APPROVED

4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a detached dwelling and detached stables. The proposed dwelling would be single storey in appearance, albeit with dormers within the roof space as there would be accommodation within some of the roof space. The dwelling would have some Manx traditional design features, namely the form of the dwelling having two gables ends with chimneys, a slate roof finish and a mixture of Manx stone and render finishes.

4.2 The dwelling would have a maximum width of 21.2 metres, a maximum depth of 21.6 metres and a maximum ridge height of 6 metres.

4.3 For information, the previously approved dwelling (09/01719/REM) had a maximum width of 23 metres, a maximum depth of 21 metres and a height up to ridge level of 8 metres. The dwelling was less 'Manx vernacular' in design, having a hipped roof, although did include a mixture of render and Manx stone to the external finishes and a slate roof.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended a approval but make the following comments (received on 10.11.2015):- "Would like to note that they are very disappointed that no substantial building work has taken place since the approval of the original application in July 2010, over 5 years ago. In light of this fact, they feel a condition for this current application should be added to any approval notice stating that the dwelling should be completed within two years.

The Commissioners would also like to bring to the attention of the planning department that there is no mention of the "Tholtan" on the current application. Previously (09/01719/REM) condition 10 of the approval notice stated that "The Tholtan shall be restored, in accordance with details which shall

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  3  of  10

first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, within a period of four years from the date of first occupation of the approved dwelling". My members suggest that the applicant advise what their plans are for the Tholtan as it is now five years since the approval was granted."

5.2 Highways Division do not oppose subject to the following condition (received on 19.10.2015): "Nothing must be planted or erected within the visibility splays which may exceed 1.05 metres in height."

5.3 The owner and/or occupant of Allandale Farm, Ballamanaugh Road, Sulby, objects to the planning application, which can be summarised as, "drainage concerns; applicants received permission seven years ago and have only put footings in the grounds, they had received planning permission only on the proviso that a family member who was a child lived there for approximately two years is now an adult; applicants no longer live on the Island; the applicant's father received permission for building a dwelling at his own house(farm) in Kirk Michael area approximately two years ago for his daughter Ms Christian (applicant) and children; concern of land contamination; why hasn't the dwelling been built by now; site is too close to a working farm; the site has been tipped on and is contaminated, and trees should not be removed.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key considerations in the determination of this applictation are; o Principle of development; o Size, siting and design of the dwelling; o Potential impacts upon residential amenity of the neighbouring properties; o Potential impacts upon Highway safety/parking provisions; o Potential impacts upon drainage; o Landscaping; o Tholtan restoration/demolition; and o The stable/storage building

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.1 It is perhaps important to give a brief explanation on the history of the site.

6.2 Under planning application 07/00375/A approval was given for the principle for the erection of a dwelling on the site. This was a fairly unique application as this gave permission for a new dwelling located within "Open Space", which is against planning policy generally, on the grounds of personal circumstances. The only exceptions for new dwellings in open space normally, are replacement dwellings or dwellings for agricultural workers who have justified and proven the need or conversion of rural buildings. This application was initially refused by the Planning Committee, but that decision was later overturned by the Minister, following the Planning Inspector recommending an approval.

6.3 The Inspector commented: "There is no policy of allowing infill in Sulby. To allow development without good reason would harm the application of these policies elsewhere. However, I do observe that had the land been brought to its presently spoiled nature by some means other than agriculture, it may have been considered acceptable to development it under General Policy 3. The resulting development would become a part of the built up area, rather than an isolated development in the countryside. Furthermore, I do not consider the redevelopment of the forward part of the site would harm Environment Policy 2, since a sensitively designed dwelling should have no greater impact upon the landscape than do the present buildings. These considerations temper the harm that development may do to the policies, but they do not remove that objection."

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  4  of  10

6.4 The Inspector goes on to state: "However, planning seeks to regulate the use of land in the public interest. Few would deny that the public interest encompasses special care for those members of society who are severely and unusually disadvantaged. In this case I examined carefully the efforts made by the Appellant to find acceptable sites for the family's particular needs, and in my view there is little more they could have done. Furthermore, the need which arises from Molly's illness is a relatively long term need, and a dwelling built to meet that need could serve the purpose for several decades. In my view, a dwelling on this site would become an integral part of Sulby without significant harm to either the interest of sustainable development or the landscape."

6.5 This application was then approved by the then Minister subject to a condition being attached which stated: "C 7. The permission may be taken up, and the dwelling may be first occupied, only by the applicants and their dependents."

6.6 Since this approval there were three reserved matters applications, two being refused and the last application (09/01719/REM) being approved. It is considered that the approval has been commenced. Accordingly, whilst works on the site have ceased a few years ago, the applicants could proceed with the works at any stage in line with their planning approval. This has significant material planning weight when considering the current application.

6.7 Comments have been raised by an objector that the applicants have had permission in place for a number of years and haven't completed the dwelling, even though permission was approved on the 'person circumstances' of the applicants' daughter. These comments have been put to the applicants who make the following comments:

"The matter of Mr M Bibby & Ms J Christian can be clarified as follows. Due to a lack of work on Island and to enable the raising of the finance required to fund the dwelling build Mr Bibby has taken up employment in Newcastle ...and they are in rented accommodation. They have not made a long term commitment to a new life and are fully committed to building the home in Sulby. The Clients have made no secret of their present situation and commitment to the project. Timing of the REM conditions /approvals and financial circumstances have been the reasoning behind the slow dwelling build and site works as you are aware. Works have already commenced as previously discussed and now with the assistance of her father Mr Christian the finances are in place to continue the build. The commitment still being a home for Molly as the first occupant. Molly is indeed a young adult now and as such is why the revised application has been made to provide more suitable accommodation and a more cost effective build solution so that the works can continue. The new proposal being on the footprint of the existing approval."

6.8 The applicants in their planning statement also state: "Molly's condition continues to degenerate, with no future improvement possible due to the nature of her illness as outlined previously. The ongoing medical assessment and prognosis confirm this and her ongoing needs."

6.9 As this new application is a full detail application, consideration of the principle of the dwelling needs to be considered again. With this regard significant material planning weight is attached to the commencement of application 09/01719/REM and that this development could be undertaken at any point in the future. Accordingly, due to this reason and comments identified by the previously Inspector in paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of this report, again it is considered the principle of a dwelling on this site is acceptable.

SIZE, SITING AND DESIGN OF THE DWELLING 6.10 Whilst the site is within an area of land zoned as open space, the site is situated within the vicinity of Sulby Village, particularly to the housing estates to the north of the site. These dwellings are made up of a variety of different types and designs, which include single bungalows within Ballamanaugh Close and Carrick Park together with dormer bungalows and two storey dwellings.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  5  of  10

6.11 There are considered to be two principal issues to consider in relation to the size of the proposed accommodation. Firstly whether it is reasonable to require the applicant to justify the level of accommodation proposed (and if so whether they have done this); and secondly to consider the impact of the proposed development on the character of the locality, its visual impact and other amenities.

6.12 With regard to the first question, the Inspector who considered the previous reserved matters application (09/01719/REM) indicated that; "Bearing in mind that the family has a total of five children, the proposed 6 bedroom property is not considered excessive. It is also considered that having regard to the size of the site, the proposed dwelling would not appear out of place and would not represent an overdevelopment. Whilst it would be larger than neighbouring properties that are on smaller sites, the proposed design would mean that the dwelling would not appear out of place in its context."

6.13 In terms of the current proposal, the comments indicated by the Inspector are relevant again. Regarding the second matter, arguably the design of the dwelling is of a higher standard and more Manx vernacular in appearance. The dwelling is smaller than the previous approval, being a five bedroom property, which has a smaller footprint area and having a reduction in height/mass.

6.14 The proposed footprint would be larger than neighbouring dwellings within the surrounding locality (Carrick Park & Ballamanagh Close). However, the curtilage of the site is substantially larger than any of the neighbouring properties, and from viewing aerial plans of the surrounding area; the application site would still have far less built development density, compared to the neighbouring sites.

6.15 The proposal, due to its design, does help in reducing the massing and appearance of the dwelling. Additionally, the style and appearance would be in keeping with the neighbouring properties, and arguably an improvement to build development in the area.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES OF THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES. 6.16 The boundary treatment which runs along the north-eastern boundary of the application site, and is shared by the neighbouring dwellings Strooanane, Nonnezoshe and Argyll, comprises a number mature trees and mature hedgerows/bushes which vary from 1.5 metres to 3 metres in height (approximately). The applicant does not intend to alter the existing landscaping along the north-eastern boundary of the site.

6.17 The north-eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 23 metres from the rear elevation of Nonnezoshe and 21.5 metres from Strooanane. It should be noted these distances are the same as approved under application 09/01719/REM. Additionally, the proposed dwelling is located to the south west of the neighbouring properties; therefore the orientation of this property will not reduce a significant amount of direct sunlight to the neighbouring properties.

6.18 The height and design of the proposal, and distance between the proposal and neighbouring dwellings, would also reduce any impact upon the neighbouring properties, and it is not considered it would have an overbearing impact upon the adjacent properties. Overall, whilst the proposal would result in a gable facing wall towards these neighbouring properties; unlike the last approval which was a hipped roof design, given the reduction in height and the considerable reduction of the height over the rear winged outriggers, the amount of built development facing towards these neighbours is reduced.

6.19 It is judged that given the distance of the proposed dwelling from Strooanane and Nonnezoshe, for the single-storey eaves height of the proposed dwelling, for its location, and due to the amount of built development reducing over the previously approved dwelling, any visual impact on occupiers of Strooanane and Nonnezoshe would be negligible or minor.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  6  of  10

6.20 Regarding the possibility of overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy, there are four ground floor windows and a small first floor window (secondary window to bedroom 5) which would look directly towards the neighbouring properties. The ground floor windows are not required to have obscure glazing, due to the existing boundary treatment of the site, which provides adequate natural screening. The smaller first floor window should have a condition attached which requires the window to be obscure glazed. For these reason no significant overlooking would occur over the occupiers of Strooanane and Nonnezoshe.

6.21 In relation to potential overlooking of the neighbouring property Allandale Farm (to south of site), this property is approximately 48 metres south east of the proposed dwelling, and it is considered due to this distance, that the proposal would not have any adverse impact through overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy. Additionally, a barn has recently been erected which is sited in a position which would block the majority, if not all, of Allandale Farm when viewed from the proposed dwelling.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY/PARKING PROVISIONS 6.22 As part of the previous approval, conditions were attached which required 2 metres by 18 metres visibility splays, on-site parking provision and a turning facility to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. The applicant has again shown that such provision can be made and therefore Highway Services have no objection to the proposal.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON DRAINAGE 6.23 This issue has previously been considered in detail with Manx Utilities, Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture and the Building Control Directorate, all of whom have approved a scheme for dealing with the foul water (via bio disc) and surface water runoff, under application 09/01719/REM. This new proposal replicates this approved scheme. It is therefore considered that the applicant is aware of the drainage requirements, and appropriate drainage details will be required to comply with the relevant Building Regulations, again.

LANDSCAPING 6.24 A previous reason for refusal related to the details of the landscaping. The applicants now propose new hedge lines along the south-western boundary with a mixture of Blackthorn, Seabrook, Hawthorn and Grey Willow. The north-western and north-eastern boundary comprises of a number mature trees and mature hedgerows/bushes which vary in height (approximately). All these are to be retained.

6.25 Overall, it is considered the landscaping treatment would be appropriate in this location, although some slight realignment of the hedging will be required to provide the required visibility splays. This is a very minor alteration and easily achievable.

THOLTAN RESTORATION/DEMOLITION 6.26 The previous approved application (09/01719/REM) a condition was attached which stated: "C 10. The Tholtan building shall be restored, in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, within a period of four years from the date of first occupation of the approved dwelling."

6.27 A number of comments have previously been made on this matter which stem back to the original approval in principle application where the Inspector indicate that a benefit of the development was the potential improvement of the site which was "spoiled" and that a "sensitively designed dwelling should have no greater impact upon the landscape than do the present buildings". This comment could be considered to mean all buildings on the site which at that time there were three, two metal framed barns and the Manx stone Tholtan building. However, it is noted that in the Inspectors conclusions he states; "The Minister is recommended to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle for the demolition of existing metal outbuildings and erection of a disabled person's dwelling..."

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  7  of  10

6.28 No mention is made to the Tholtan building, only the "existing metal outbuildings". It has been argued over the course of previous applications that the Inspector considered one reason for allowing the development was the improvements to the site by the removal of all buildings on the site. However, the conclusion of the Inspector makes no mention to the Tholtan building, only the two metal framed buildings which have already been demolished to make way for the approved dwelling.

6.29 As previous applications, no structural survey has been undertaken nor existing and proposed plans for the Tholtan have been provided within this submission. Therefore it cannot be judged that the proposal would comply with Housing Policy 11 or Environment Policy 16 both of which deal with converting rural buildings.

6.30 Accordingly, it is considered a condition similar to that which the previous Planning Inspector indicated (paragraph 6.26 of this report) should be attached to this application.

STABLE/STORAGE BUILDING 6.31 The proposal does include a most timber framed and finished stable/store building which would be located to the northwest of the proposed dwelling. The proposal would have little visual impact upon the area or neighbouring amenities, and its proposed use would be acceptable. Accordingly it is considered to be an acceptable form of development.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposed dwelling in principle is acceptable and is of an acceptable size in proportion to the whole site, whilst not having significant impacts upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, or upon the visual amenities of the surrounding locality. For these reasons the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 as modified by the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015, 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 Services of the Department of Infrastructure; and (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.

8.2 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:

Allandale Farm, Ballamanaugh Road, Sulby

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  8  of  10

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE

The Committee endorsed the recommendation of the planning officer, and the suggested conditions provided a change was made to condition 5 regarding the treatment of the Tholtan on the site.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.11.2015

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. The permission may be taken up, and the dwelling may be first occupied, only by the applicants and their dependents.

Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally approved but this dwelling has been exceptionally approved solely to meet the personal needs of the applicants' daughter.

C 3. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted. Details of the soft landscaping works include additional planting along the south-east and north-west boundaries as well as existing landscaping being retained within the site and along the boundaries of the site. All planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

C 4. Visibility splays of at least 2m by 18m shall be provided at the site access prior to the first occupation of the dwelling as shown on drawing 10 and retained thereafter. No obstruction to visibility above 1 metre in height shall take place within the splays so provided.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C 5. The Tholtan building shall be restored, in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, or removed within a period of four years from the date of first occupation of the property.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 15/01134/B
                                 Page  9  of  10

Reason: In the interest of visual amenities of the area.

C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.