Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00857/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00857/B Applicant : Daryl Blake Construction Limited Proposal : Erection of a dwelling Site Address : Pound Lane Depot Castletown Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LT
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : 09.12.2021 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.03.2022 __
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 development. Accordingly it is contrary to Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3 and 10. Also Spatial Policies 1,2,3,4 of the Strategic Plan.
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, of the Strategic Plan, 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 countryside. 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 of the Strategic Plan.
R 4. The design, size and scale of the proposed dwelling, and its finishes, are not sympathetic to the rural character of the area and is considered over development with an adverse visual impact that affects the character of the setting, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00857/B Page 2 of 8
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICTION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the southern side of the Castletown Road (A5) which runs between Four Roads, Port St. Mary and Bay ny Carrickey, Rushen. The site has a frontage to the road of 11m and the site widens towards the rear boundary.
1.2 The site has stone walls along its frontage with sections of the site elevation partly enclosed in the stone which continues towards the rear elevation. The site is grassed and generally devoid of structures or features within.
1.3 The nearest adjacent properties are two residential dwellings to the west - Douval and Brook Cottage (both small bungalow with pitched roof and bookended with chimney stacks) and on the other side of the road, slightly to the east, is the Southern Civic Amenity site.
1.4 To the west of the application site is a public right of way / footpath U203 labelled on the Govt mapping as 'Pound Lane' that connects from Castletown Road and runs south and connects onto Beach Road. To the east/ south is agricultural field ref 414765 (10.4 acres) and to the north across the road field 414026 (3.95 acres) and to the east field 411610 (1.73 acres).
1.5 It is noted on the Government maps the site is adjacent to a small stream that runs underneath the highways which flows from north to south. The site is also identified on the DOI Flood risk maps as being a High risk flood zone (River) The highway to the front (north) is identified as also High Risk Flood zone (river and Tidal).
2.0 THE APPLICATION 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling house on the site. The property is characterised by a single storey attached garage (6.6m x 6.5m) at the front of the property with a hipped tiled roof and parking to the front and side (East). The dwelling house sits to the rear (South) and attached to the rear of the garage that has a slight contemporary style, in that is it one and a half stories tall and a footprint of 11.5m x 7.5m. The internal layout would provide to the ground floor a large living / dining room a separate kitchen and utility, W/C Porch and internal hallway. To the first floor accommodation within the roof space would offer three en-suite bedrooms. At first floor the two bedrooms on the gable ends would feature small metal balconies with glazed balustrade.
2.2 Externally the property would materially be finished with, Anthracite (dark grey) roof tiles and anthracite Upvc windows and doors with high performance glazing, Black garage door, dark grey stone cladding panels to the lower proportions and the remainder painted render and dark Upvc rain water goods.
2.3 The agent notes the "Existing culverted water course site is protected at a raised level of 250mm high over stream by a random stone wall along perimeter of site adjacent to water course... The existing lane to the west contains all the services".
2.4 Access to the site would utilise the existing entrance with modification to allow for the correct visibility splays (2.4m x 47m) in both directions and an entrance width of 7.0m wide. The hedgerow and boundary wall to be kept to below 1.05m to maintain clear sight lines for visibility and whilst the land is not owned by the applicant a third party agreement letter has been provided to support the application and maintenance of the laneway.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00857/B Page 3 of 8
2.5 The owner of the site has provided a planning statement setting out; how they purchased the land from Government (DoI) as a storage compound and a parcel of land to the rear which has never been claimed for agricultural support... The land has been previously developed, noting the neighbouring dwellings, Douval and Brook Cottage and the Southern Amenity site... The proposals would be an improvement on the site and provide ample parking, turning provision, visibility splays for access and vehicle charging points...The propose home would be an "Eco-House" and built to exceed thermal values, solar roof and air-source heat pumps to minimise carbon footprint - in line with Govt Policies... Consideration has been given to the overall massing and level of finishes to soften the appearance and minimise visual impact.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as not for a particular purpose (white land) on Map 7 - Port Erin / Port St. Mary. Map 2 identifies the site as an area of Incised Slopes.
3.2 Within the written statement for the area plan for the south; the site or surrounding area is not specifically identified but being surrounded by agricultural land the overall objective in the landscape strategy is to preserve the existing rural character appearance and distinctiveness of the area.
3.3 The site is not within a Conservation area, there are no registered trees identified on site but the site is identified as being within High Risk Flood Zone (River and Tidal) on the DoI's Flood map hub.
3.4 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.5 Strategic Policy 1; efficient use of land
3.6 Strategic Policy 2; new development to identified towns and villages
3.7 Strategic Policy 3: To respect the character of our towns and villages
3.8 Strategic Policy 5: Design and visual impact
3.9 Strategic Policy 10 ; sustainable transport
3.10 Spatial Policy 1,2,3,4- designates Service Centres, towns, villages, for development.
3.11 Spatial Policy 5: building in defined settlements or GP3
3.12 General Policy 3: exceptions to development in the countryside
3.13 Whilst the land is not zoned for development, the general principles contained with General Policy 2 (a-n) offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general 'development control' and considered capable of being applied to this proposal.
3.14 Environment Policy 1: Protection of the countryside
3.15 Environment Policy 10: Potential risk of flooding
3.16 Housing Policy 4: Location of new housing and exceptions
3.17 Transport Policies: 4 Highway safety; 7 Parking provisions
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00857/B Page 4 of 8
3.18 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8 for LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS;
3.19 Definition of Previously Developed Land from Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 PA 20/00008/LAW - A previous application for Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of site for storage of equipment and materials was DECLINED for the following reason:
"It has not been demonstrated that the use of the site for the storage of materials and plant has ever been carried on in a material sense or that it has been used for such for a period of ten years". As such, the site is still considered as land not designated for a particular purpose, as there is no change in use status.
4.2 20/00996/C - Levelling of site, erection of wall up to 1.5M and laying of hardcore hard standing. Was Approved. The case officer noted the scope of works was;
"2.2.1The clearing out of rubble "infill" (hardcore) at the rear section of the site to existing site level of site frontage in order to form a level area for the entire site. This would make the entire site area level with the abutting highway. The site would be infilled with hardcore type 1 to ground area compacted to road level throughout site.
2.2.2 The erection of walls to join up the existing walls and to create a retaining wall to shore up the raised section at the rear sections of the site that are enclosed by the raised earth bank. This wall would be 1.5m high (matching the existing stone walls) with concrete coping stones on top and floated render finish to walling, and would form a retaining wall for the raised bank.
2.3 These works would be done to ensure the entire site area has the same level so that the site can be tidied up and grassed. As at the time if the site visit, the rear elements of the existing wall had been broken up with the site levelled to its proposed position, with raised bank firmly compacted".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief) 5.1 Arbory Commissioners commented (22.08.21) with a number of concerns, noting the site is not designated for residential use; limited space for parking off the main road; would ask for a strongly worded condition that garage should not be converted to residential use should the application be supported; The traffic using the main road travels in excess of the 40 mph speed limit and wondered whether this had been considered by the DoI Highways officer when they wrote their supportive comments. The Commissioners are not fundamentally opposed to the proposal but do feel that it needs careful consideration particularly in relation to the points they have raised."
5.2 Highways Services commented (03/08/21) with no objection.
5.3 Highways Drainage commented (13/08/21) seeking a private drainage scheme to avoid surface water runoff onto the highway.
5.4 DEFA Eco-systems Policy officer commented (11/08/21) don't object but note the proximity of the site being surrounded by open countryside and the potential for a variety of wildlife. There should be no net loss of biodiversity on site and give suggestion on how to achieve this. They also raise the issue over the adjacent water course only 3m away and the need to contact Inland Fisheries.
6.0 ASSESSMENT (i) Principle
(STP1,2,3 and SP1,2,3,4,5 Gp2,k). (ii) Exceptional circumstances (GP3 & HP4 & EP1).
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00857/B Page 5 of 8
(iii) Visual Impact
(STP5; GP2b c,f;j) (iv) Neighbouring Amenities
(GP2g) (v) Highway Safety
(GP2 h&I; TP 4&7) (vi) Flood Risk
(EP10; GP2l)
Principle 6.1 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the Area Plan for the South, the application site is technically within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled.
6.2 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 the site sits within either Port Erin or Port St. Mary's defined areas and is very much technically part of the open countryside as previously identified. However the site does sit on a service road where there are some residential dwellings to the south of the highway along its length and easily accessible from the highway.
6.3 Given the broad location of the site and its location, it does not sit within a remote part of the countryside where there are no provisions for accessible transport. The site is adjacent to a highway where there is public transport available and would be approx. 1.3 miles from Port Erin shops and the same from the shops and service at Port St Mary. As such it is a fine balance whether this aspect in isolation would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 (a)-(d).
6.4 When considering 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 conjointly 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 deemed 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 The agents advises that this land was sold as a depot (see planning history) and to some degree should be considered as previously developed land, the definition from the policy (para.3.19) seeks that there is or was a permanent structure on site, as there is none, other than a boundary wall for which permission was granted (see para.4.2) it would not necessarily be compliant in these terms with the definition or would adhere to that of Gp3(c) for previous developed land. Stp1 further considers previously developed land or land that is being under used and whether an efficient use of the site would be acceptable for a dwelling house.
6.6 The test is whether the proposal for a new dwelling here would be an improvement on the landscape and wider environment and whether an overriding exception can be found under Ep1 to offset development in the countryside as an over -riding national need in land use terms that are reasonable and for which there is no alternative. This concludes the application is to be assessed for the creation of a new residential property in the countryside.
6.7 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 Area Plan for the South; 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 countryside which seeks to prevent development, unless the development is for an overriding national need where there is no alternative and would not adversely affect the countryside (visual impact assessed below).
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00857/B Page 6 of 8
Unfortunately the proposal would fail on both counts and therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis.
Exceptional circumstances 6.8 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. Nevertheless, turning to the suitability of the site and noting the lack of support from the local authority, on balance, it is not considered for there to be an exception to be made in this application to create a new residential dwelling in the countryside and would be contrary to Gp3 and HP4.
Visual Impact 6.9 The proposal would be introducing an element of built development on site where at present there is none. There is no avoiding the fact that the proposed property in terms of its siting, scale, massing, height and finishes would be clearly visible from the highway and given the general flat-ish topography of the wider area, would be visible from a far. The nearest residential properties that would be considered to be the 'character of the streetscene' are only bungalows and this property would clearly be seen as dominant property on the landscape and within "the streetscene" and being of a contemporary design would exacerbate the situation. It is accepted that at either end of the Castletown Road there are properties of one and a half stores and some two stories but their distance from the site means they're not read within the same setting. When considering properties in the countryside, the rational is that they should ideally follow that of more traditional vernacular as noted in planning circular 3/91 to ensure any visual impact is appropriate for the countryside. In this case, the proposal would not be supported and would be contrary to aims of STP5 and GP2b&C where the proposal would have a detrimental visual impact upon the openness of the countryside for which EP1 seeks to protect.
Neighbouring Amenities 6.10 Turning to whether there would be any adverse impact (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, and loss of privacy) upon those nearest neighbouring properties namely, Douval and Brook Cottage. The general level and scale of development proposed here, is considered to not cause material harm the enjoyment of the neighbouring amenity given the siting of the dwelling and the design / room layout and general fenestration with window placement across both floors ensures that any aspects of overlooking or loss of privacy are kept to a minimum given the intervening distances (25m). Furthermore, there would not be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the proposed dwelling and garage, given the siting and distance to the neighbouring properties which in turn ensures there is no overbearing effect. It is further noted we have not received any objections or comments from the adjoining neighbours. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
Highway Safety 6.11 The application site already features an existing access and already serves the site. Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway noting visibility splays, 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 considered to align with the principles of Transport Policy 4 and 7 in terms of highways safety.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00857/B Page 7 of 8
Flood Risk 6.12 It is noted the site is within an area identified at risk of flooding, whilst this issue has been noted by the applicants on the drawing (para.2.3) and the proposed boundary wall as approved would offer a level of flood protection, it is pertinent to consider 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 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. While the site might have some degree of protection on three sides by a masonry boundary wall, the vehicle access to the north at 7.0m wide and the understanding that the main highway to the north is also subject to flooding, there is little evidence to the contrary that would comfortably offset the unreasonable risk of flooding to the ground floor of the dwelling house. Whilst there is a possibility an engineering solution could be found to mitigate and manage the risk of any flooding, as the initial principle of a dwelling here cannot be supported, development on this site could be seen to be contrary to Ep10 and Gp2l.
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
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 28.03.2022
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00857/B Page 8 of 8
Signed : J SINGLETON 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 See below
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