Loading document...
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the residential development of a parcel of land in the Quines Hill area of Port Soderick in Braddan. Although the actual application purely seeks approval in principle for residential development on the defined application site an indicative layout has been submitted that shows a layout for six dwellings.
Braddan Parish Commissioners have objected to the planning application on the grounds that they consider the proposal to be premature until such time that the revision of the local plan has been completed. They also consider the illustrative layout to be unacceptable.
The Department of Transport Drainage Division has advised that the area is not served by public drainage and that the proposed biodisc treatment works would not become part of any future sewerage system, having to remain private at all times.
The Department of Transport Highways Division has advised that they consider there to be no adverse traffic impacts subject to the imposition of conditions.
There are a number of objections from local residents. The grounds for their concerns can be summarised as an understanding that the land not being zoned for residential development, that the proposal is an over intensive use of the site, that the proposed development is out of character with the surrounding area, that there are drainage issues, that the level of traffic generated by the proposal would be detrimental, that vehicular access to the site is difficult and that there are problems with utility service provision
SPMCE object to the planning application on the grounds that they consider there to be uncertainty regarding the zoning of the land and that they cannot find any reference to its potential zoning within the emerging revision of the Braddan Plan.
Comments have been received from the Isle of Man Water Authority requesting that an informative note be attached to any approval. The Disability Access Officer have requested that the needs of disabled access be taken into account.
In terms of planning policy the existing Braddan Local Plan, adopted by Tynwald on the 10th July 1991, defines the application site as being open space (agricultural), albeit located within area 4 (Quines Hill). Paragraph 5.6 recognises that there is scope for limited infill and that further examination of the area should be undertaken. As with other areas no such study was ever undertaken, something that was recognised by Planning Circular 2/92. This Planning Circular sets out an interim policy stating that:
"In respect of those settlements which have been identified in Sector Plans and the Braddan Local Plan as warranting further study, additional dwellings may be permitted, pending the completion of such studies, where development would comply with the following criteria:
a. the development would not extend the settlement beyond its existing boundary with the countryside; b. the development could be satisfactorily serviced by existing infrastructure; and c. it is self-evident that the proposed development would not prejudice the outcome of any study or Local Plan process."
The Planning Circular continues on by further expanding on how to apply these criteria.
Under the emerging update of the Braddan Local Plan, which has been through its public inquiry, the application site is specifically zoned for residential development (area 21). This recognises the fact that the Department's belief that the land could be developed without detriment to the adjacent properties. The specific policy, B/RES/PR/20 related to this states that "This site is considered suitable for development of detached dwellings of a variety of types, sizes and designs each with its own frontage onto or toward the Old Castletown Road."
It is apparent to me that a number of the objectors are not aware of the plan background to the site and I believe that the issue of layout would be controllable through conditions leading to assessment at a later date. However, whilst I can see the potential implications of the interim policy and the emerging policy I am conscious that similar circumstance elsewhere have been refused on the grounds of prematurity. For instance, land at Clay Head Road that was zoned residential in the emerging Laxey and Lonan Plan was refused awaiting its confirmation as residential land through the adoption of the plan. There is always the danger that despite the emerging status of a site that Tynwald may chose not zone it. I view the decision as being finely balanced and ultimately being a matter of how much weight is attached to an emerging local plan but after consideration I recommend that the planning application be refused on the grounds of prematurity.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 21.11.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. At present the land is not zoned for residential development and as such the proposed development is contrary to well established planning policy based on a presumption against new build residential development in the countryside. Whilst the Planning Committee recognises that the application site is zoned for residential development within the emerging revision of the area plan the fact remains that this plan has not been considered by Tynwald and as such an approval for development on the site has to be judged to be premature until the area plan process has been exhausted.
R 2. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal the planning application does not provide sufficient information regarding the means of foul sewage disposal from the site, which is within an area that is not served by public mains sewerage.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown