Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00078/A Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00078/A Applicant : Mr & Mrs Nick Crowe Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling to determine siting and access Site Address : Field 210313 Land Adjacent To Ballakeenan Beg Jurby West Crossroads Jurby West Isle Of Man
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : 09.02.2021 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.03.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal is not within a named settlement in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and would encourage unsustainable use. Accordingly it is contrary to Spatial Policy 3 & 5; Strategic Policy 2 and 10.
R 2. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposal is considered to undermine General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
R 3. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The creation of a new residential dwelling in an area not zoned for development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): East Nappin, Jurby West West Nappin Smithy, Jurby West
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00078/A Page 2 of 10
The Old Smithy,(Yn Chardee) Church Road Cornerways Cottage,Jurby West Ballamenagh Barn, Jurby Road Church View Cottage, Jurby West Ballakaneen Beg, Jurby West
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Olrig, Faaie Craine, Ballaugh; as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a parcel of land, formerly identified as 210313 (then 0.79 acres) that is to the north of the highway and sits between two residential properties 'Cornerways 'to the south west and 'Ballakeenan Beg' to the north east. Opposite the site to the south west of the highway is 'Church View Cottage'. The A10 highway sits to the south east and Jurby church road to the south west. The area is characterised as Jurby West cross roads with dwellinghouses within 50m of the application site. To the northern boundary is agricultural field 210276 (6.38acres).
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the principle for the erection of a detached dwelling. The applicant seeks that only the 'Siting' and 'means of access' are to be considered as part of this application.
2.2 The site plan shows an area in red measuring approx. 0.41 acre or 1644m2 and shows an indicative traditional two storey dwellinghouse with a pitched roof, and cat slide roof to the rear. The siting is set back from the edge of the highway to the south east and would measure approx. 12m x 12m (when scaled of the submitted drawings at 1/500 scale) with gardens surrounding on all sides.
2.3 The proposed access is shown onto Jurby Church Road with parking to the south of the and rear of the proposed house for a minimum of three cars and space to turn a vehicle around to allow existing the site in a forward gear. The drawings indicate the access would involve the removal of the existing roadside hedging and previous vehicle access reinstated.
2.2 The application is accompanied with an 11 page planning statement from the applicants' agent that highlights; o The site and its parameters, noting the characteristics of the site, the topography and boundary treatments.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00078/A Page 3 of 10
o Refers to the site as a infill plot and proposes a traditional designed dwelling as referenced in Planning Circular 3/91 with stone facing and pitched roof with a cat slide roof to the rear, irregular windows fenestration. To the side a subordinate extension to indicate a modern extension to a traditional property with marginally more glazing. o Property would offer modest accommodation with a living room, dining room, and kitchen, upstairs would see the bedrooms and bathrooms with a lift between the floors. o Refers to the access arrangements in and out of the site as well as manoeuvring within the site and exiting in a forward gear. o References the personal requirements of the applicant, they live in the immediate area and don't wish to move out of this, have a local business on Jurby Industrial estate (Northern Fuels), few opportunities to purchase a dwelling in Jurby and a shortage of properties available. o The internal layout is to accommodate an occupant who has mobility restrictions and the halls and landings are wider than normal to accommodate easy wheel chair access, the ground floor rooms are open plan to make access easier and the lift to he first floor help with access to the bedrooms. o The site is level throughout which provides easy manoeuvrability. o Setting is within a collection of dwellings and small community. o House would be custom made to suit their particular needs and offer a better quality of life. o Refers to the planning history of the adjacent property 'Ballakeenan Beg' that was approved for a farm workers dwelling in 2008. States that the site was edged in red (garden of the dwelling) and the land use is in fact residential. o References the land designation and pertinent planning policies; Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5; General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1 and 2; the design is reflective of that noted in Planning circular 3/91. o Drainage would be to a Klargester Bio-disk sewerage treatment unit o Can connect to all the mains services o Concludes, that whilst the site is not zoned for residential development it should be considered an 'infill plot' within an existing residential development forming a community around Jurby West Cross roads. The former outline planning permission clearly defined the land in red and of the opinion the residential status is applied to the whole site of 'Ballakeenan Beg' and not just the parcel of land which 'Ballakeenan Beg' sits. Proposal would have no detrimental impact on the countryside given the site is flanked by two dwelling houses and the sympathetic design would sit comfortably between these properties. o This proposal would create a family home for the occupant with mobility issues and their family within Jurby where they have grown up and established their own business on the industrial restate and would help address the housing shortage in the area by freeing up their own home within Jurby.
2.3 The applicants have provided a personal letter to draw attention to their particular circumstances and reasons for applying which echoes elements of the agents details above but further emphasises; o Their long term residency in the local area of Jurby and the personal circumstances with regard to mobility issues. o The site is close to their work and within walking distance. o The design is a traditional cottage and would be eco-friendly and landscaped accordingly. o Would facilitate their personal requirements and disabilities and a home that is fit for purpose.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being within an area of 'white land' or not zoned for development; the site is within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not within a designated Conservation Area.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00078/A Page 4 of 10
3.2 The north east part of the site is identified on the DoI's Flood map hub as partially within an area identified as being a flood risk from surface water as a high / medium likelihood.
3.3 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.4 Strategic Policy 1 states: "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(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
3.5 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
3.6 Spatial Policy 3 states: "The following villages are identified as Service Villages: o Laxey o Jurby o Andreas o Kirk Michael o St Johns o Foxdale o Port St Mary o Ballasalla o Union Mills
3.7 Spatial Policy 5; "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3".
3.8 The relevant parts of General Policy 3 state; "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 5 ====
21/00078/A Page 5 of 10
3.9 Environment 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.
3.10 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.
3.11 Environment Policy 10: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.
3.12 Housing Policy 4 states; "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions 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."
3.13 The strategic plan gives guidance on the interpretation of; "Infill development(1)" (in the sense of filling a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage) may be acceptable in built up areas, but the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements.
3.14 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
3.15 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 07/02333/REM - Field 210313 Adjacent To Cornerways - Reserved matters application for the erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling. APPROVED with conditions;
C.1 The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. C.2 This approval relates to the dwelling and alterations as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 06 0030/15 and 06 0030/18 all received on 19th December 2007.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00078/A Page 6 of 10
C.3 The dwelling may be occupied only by a person or persons engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. C.4 The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate. C.5 On completion of the new access, the existing access is to be blocked off and hedging to be planted. All hedging is to be planted in the first planting and seeding seasons. Any trees or shrubs which within 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation. C.6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, no, extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval). N.1 There are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in you Planning Application. Please contact our Network Operations Department, Manx Electricity Authority, (Tel. 687687) to discuss working practices around Cables and Overhead Lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site. Contact the Manx Electricity Authority for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 & GS6. N.2 For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact Isle of Man Water Authority Customer Services, tel. 695949.
4.2 06/01565/A - Field 210313 Adjacent To Cornerways - Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling. Refused but APPROVED at appeal.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full representations can be read online) 5.1 Jurby Parish Commissioners Commented (09/02/21) object as they consider this to be overdevelopment of a limited green space; conflicts with highway useage on the A10 and a dangerous corner due to vehicle speeds; There is no known access on site; there are alternative sites for 21 dwellings being proposed by government and better relates to the built up area of Jurby as an alternative.
5.2 Highways Services have commented (05/02/21) with no objection and provides explanatory commentary on the existing access configuration, and the visibility splay at the highway is acceptable in each direction. They also list five conditions to attached to any approval.
5.3 Flood Risk planning department commented (09/03/21) with no objection.
5.4 The department has received a number of objections from the following properties that have been listed and numbered as they appear online for ease of reference;
Comment 1, 1.1 East Nappin, Jurby West
Comment 2, 2.1,2.2 West Nappin Smithy, Jurby West
Comment 3
The Old Smithy,(Yn Chardee) Church Road
Comment 4
Cornerways Cottage,Jurby West Comment 5
Olrig, Faaie Craine, Ballaugh Comment 6
Ballamenagh Barn, Jurby Road Comment 7
Church View Cottage, Jurby West Comment 8
Ballakaneen Beg, Jurby West
5.5 Their reasons for objecting have been thematically listed below;
o Site is not zoned for development and area of High Landscape Value.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00078/A Page 7 of 10
o This section of highway is under review by the Police Traffic and Road Traffic Division for speeding. o Would lead to an increase in vehicular traffic in the area o Jurby initiative is providing 21 dwellings, and the Threshold has available plots both more suitable locations as an alternative to this location and within the village. o Development on this site would alter the biodiversity and pose a risk to lizards and other wildlife habitants. o Increase vehicle usage by HGV's is running the verges given the width of the vehicles and the narrow country roads. o Flooding of the site and the surrounding fields and highway. o Proposed access is contrary to application condition reference 06/01565/A o References case law surrounding construction and building control issues. o Highways are incorrect regarding Church Road, which is not as they describe and is far more busy than they account for. o Site visibility splays don't take into account the dangerous junction o Impact on the verges and area during the construction phase. o Any soak-aways and tail drains from a Klargester won't work due to flooding in the area and clay ground conditions. o Flood risk department are wrong in their assumption and provided photographic evidence of 'Ballakeenan beg' flooded and the site under water. o 'Ballakeenan Beg' was only permitted for a farm workers dwelling. o Loss of outlook across the fields o The drainage tail drains that serve 'Ballakeenan Beg' would run underneath the proposed siting of the dwellinghouse. o The site does not flood, nor does the fields the rear, as identified in the document 'agricultural soils of the isle of man' o Detrimental impact on the surrounding properties and their outlook. o 'Ballakeenan Beg' occupants confirm their property floods every year since the house was built
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) the broad location of the development - (StgP2; 10 and SpP 3; 5). (ii) whether exceptional circumstances exist to the principle of development within the countryside - GP 3 & HP 4. (iii) the level of impact on the countryside in general and the Area of High Landscape Value (EP 1 and 2). (iv) impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions (v) impact on highway safety for access (TP 4 & 7) (vi) Flood Risk (EP10)
(i) The broad location of the development
6.2 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the 1982 Development plan, the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled. The site sits outside of what could be considered the Jurby Village approx. 1km to the north east. Whilst the agents claims that this land is the garden to a residential dwelling 'Ballakeenan Beg' and by proxy is not a field or agricultural but zoned residential, the department would disagree. As noted by planning condition 3 of 07/02333/REM (para 4.1) the limitations of this dwellinghouse is for an agricultural worker and the severance of a proportion of the land to allow for a new residential dwellinghouse is not substantiated by the agents theory and the land designation is agricultural. This concludes the application is to be assessed for the creation of a new residential property in the countryside.
6.3 In considering this application, Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 identify areas of development to be located, generally within existing towns and villages. It cannot be said that
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00078/A Page 8 of 10
this part of Jurby is within a named service village or within an existing town and is very much part of the open countryside as previously identified, by virtue the remoteness of the application site, it would be considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 and its aims to promote integrated transport network through (a)-(d).
6.4 Through Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5, development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, as detailed in paragraph 6.3 of the Strategic Plan, which is General Policy 3 as referenced in Spatial Policy 5. However, when assessed against Spatial Policy 5 and Strategic Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan it is considered that the proposal would not be a sustainable location for 'development' and would be contrary to those policies, if an exception is not achievable through GP3 that allows exemption for development in the countryside.
6.5 To summarise, As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways; 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 Area Plan being a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and there for contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4; Fourthly, 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 therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis.
(ii) Whether exceptional circumstances exist to the principle of development within the countryside.
6.6 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. General Policy 3, and Housing Policy 4 both identify potential exceptions for development within such areas. More specifically, both General Policy 3 (paragraphs a, b & d) and Housing Policy 4 identifies three potential circumstances where residential development may be allowed. Firstly, if there is an essential need for an agricultural workers dwelling (agricultural condition attached requiring the property to be used only by full time agricultural workers only, which is proven to be justified); second, conversion of existing rural properties (i.e. traditional Manx stone barn); and thirdly the replacement of an existing dwelling with a new dwelling.
6.7 From the level of information supplied, the applicant is not an agricultural worker as was the case in allowing planning consent for ' Ballakeenan Beg' and I sympathise with the occupants physical demands on mobility, and the desire to create a bespoke interior layout to accommodate, not just their needs, but those of the supporting family. However, there is no policy that allows for such an exemption. (However if approval was to be recommended, this would be contrary to policy and would have to be considered by the planning committee). Nevertheless, turning to the level of objections received and the suitability of the site, on balance, it is not considered for there to be an exception to be made in this application to create a new residential development in the countryside and would be contrary to Gp3 and HP4.
(iii) the level of impact on the countryside in general and the Area of High Landscape Value
6.8 It is perhaps important to also note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 where 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.
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00078/A Page 9 of 10
6.9 In consideration to any 'no reasonable and acceptable alternative' Isle of Man Government has submitted plan for a new residential development on land designated as residential, under planning application ref; 20/01516/B - Erection of 21 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, and amenities. Bretney Infill Housing Development Temp Site Supply, The Bretney, Jurby. Currently pending consideration.
6.10 Also proposed is another planning application on land designated for development, Ref; 21/00278/OLA - Field 210401 , Ballagarraghyn, Bretney Road - Detailed planning application for residential development comprising 23No Dwellings with associated access, parking, open space and landscaping. Currently pending consideration.
6.11 Either of those site described above would be closer to the applicants place of work and with adequate community facilities already in existence and being proposed would provide for a growing family and support network to facilitate their needs better as opposed to being situated in a more remote rural setting on land not designated for development.
6.12 With regard to the pragmatic views that the sitte could be 'infill' between two existing dwelling houses within a small cluster of properties, guidance is taken from the strategic plan which gives guidance on the interpretation of; "Infill development(1)" as noted in para 3.13 of the this report. Here is places emphasis on "the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements". It is clear this green space offer a visible break in the rhythm of housing and whilst not within a built up area and a more rural setting, it would be difficult to consider the site suitable for infill on a policy basis.
6.13 As the principle of the development fails to satisfy the test of EP 1 and 2 which set out the exceptional forms of development allowed in the Countryside, and there being no over- riding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. The proposal is considered to undermine those policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and is contrary to Ep1 and 2.
(iv) impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions
6.14 The application seeks that all matters (design, external appearance of the building, internal layout, drainage, and landscaping of the site) to be determined at the any future Reserved Matters Application. The potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities, potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene; and potential amenities of future occupants of the dwelling; are all matters which would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application and specifically considered against those aspects of Gp2.
(v) impact on highway safety for access/parking 6.15 The application site already features an existing access and already serves a dwellinghouse at the top of the driveway. Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and as they do not object, the proposal would be aligned with the principles of Transport Policy 4 and 7.
(vi) Flood Risk 6.16 From the public consultation there has been a number of comments received regarding flooding in the area and photographic evidence has been submitted an available to view online showing 'Ballakeenan Beg' underwater and also a statement from the occupier of said property confirming their property floods every year. Whilst the Flood Risk planning team do not object as noted in para 5.3, their own flood map shows the site is partial to flooding as noted in para.3.2 as 'being a flood risk from surface water as a high / medium likelihood'. On balance, whilst this issue has not been addressed by the applicants, it is pertinent to considered whether an additional dwelling here with hard surfaces and non-permeable surfaces, roofs and driveways would have an adverse impact. Judging from the information available, the proposal
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00078/A Page 10 of 10
can only exacerbate any possibility of flooding in an area already evidenced at risk of flooding and could not be supported as a site viable for development without significant mitigation measures, but this could then exacerbate the situation to the neighbouring properties which is unacceptable.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 23.03.2021
Determining officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal