Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01113/A Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 21/01113/A Applicant : Mr Mark Casson Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of a new dwelling addressing siting, design, and means of access Site Address : Field 614795 Ballamenagh Road Baldrine Isle Of Man
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.04.2022 __
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.
R 5. The proposal could be seen to have an adverse visual impact that would be detrimental to the overall setting of the Registered Building as it would be introducing a built form and massing where presently there is none and would be read against what Strategic Policy 4(a).
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01113/A Page 2 of 11
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
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 application site as identified in red, is part of Field 614795 (1.40 Acres) that sits to the East of the Highway 'Ballamenagh Road'. The parcel of land also sits on the junction that serves further properties; 'Lhekerroo'; 'Kiwi Lodge' 'Ballakilley Farm' and St Adamnan's Church (RB-No.13). The boundary with the highway mainly consists of a soil/grass embankment approx. 1.5m High.
1.2 The site is currently used as a builders yard and has been levelled and sits proud of the surrounding topography making the upper proportions of the containers on site visible from the Highway. Access into the site is from the junction with the Ballanemagh Road and a hardcore track leads into the site. To the South of the site is a stream at a much lower level.
1.3 To the South East of the site (approx.180m) is the Registered Building No.13 which is 'Old Kirk Lonan (St. Adamnan's) Church', Ballamenagh Road, Lonan. The building sits within an open and rural part of the countryside.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the principle for the erection of a detached dwelling. The applicant seeks that only the siting, design, and means of access are considered.
2.2 The proposed dwelling would be a contemporary approach to design, where the proposal would be approx. one and a half - two stories in height and would have the appearance of three buildings conjoined together. Internally the property wold offer three bedrooms, open plan living area and large kitchen and dining room. It would also offer a disabled lounge, en-suite bedroom and attached garage.
2.3 The property would measure at its tallest 6.0m high to the ridge tile of the main house; 4.5m to the kitchen / dining room and 4.0m to the garage. The extents of the property would be 17m at the widest and 17m longest adjacent to the highway. The agent notes the property provides 200.6 Sq m to the ground floor and 78.3 Sqm to the first floor, totalling 278.9Sq m or 3000SqFt.
2.4 The building is proposed to be finished with Manx stone Cladding to the gable ends and painted rendered walls; Vertical Cedar cladding to feature walls; Doors and windows to be anthracite or dark grey colour; zinc / aluminium standing seam roof; Anthracite or dark grey aluminium gutters and down pipes.
2.5 The application is accompanied with a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal prepared from Manx wild life trust dated July 2019 that concludes there is 'high' likelihood of common lizards (although para 3.26 notes there were no common lizards recorded on site) on site and recommends site supervision and the creation of a habitat for them; also two species (Montbretia and Spanish Bluebell) of Schedule 8 invasive non-native plans are found on site and will need safe disposal. There was no evidence of bats or secondary evidence of bats was identified; no common frog was found, and no hedgehogs were found on site. They
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01113/A Page 3 of 11
recommend avoiding illuminating the eastern and western boundaries so as not to deter bats; recommend using artificial bat bricks and nesting boxes for birds; creation of semi-natural grassland habitats.
2.6 Also accompanying the application is a 19 page Planning and design statement prepared by the agent that covers; the history of the site, previous planning consultation, flood management consultation, highways consultation, Ecological Impact Consultation, pertinent planning policies, design statement for the house, notes on energy efficiency and summary.
2.7 The agent notes the site is previously developed land and has been used as a builder's yard for many years. "The applicant has been using it as such for at least 15 years and has knowledge that it was used in the past for tipping of building hard core by the Isle of Man Government Highways Board. It is also noted that the site has not been used for agricultural use in living memory, if ever, as the slope of the land has made it impractical for agricultural use".
2.8 The applicant has also noted in their statement the specific rational for the new house is to; "accommodate the current and future needs of an immediate family member with Downs Syndrome in the applicants care... She has lived on Ballamenagh Road her entire life (60 years) as her father managed the land as part of Ballamenagh Mooar and held the key for the Isle of Man Government Highway Board to tip building/highway hard core over a period of many decades... The current property does not provide the necessary space for her needs and is not possible to adequately alter their current home to accommodate her specific needs given the size of the plot provided a number of supporting letters confirming the private needs or exceptional circumstances as to why a new house is needed... She is increasingly less physically and mentally able, as she also suffers with Alzheimer's and Hydrocephalus... This dwelling will allow the applicants the opportunity to create a house suitable to her needs. Therefore, the new residence will predominantly be on one level with her bedroom, living room and bathroom specially equipped for disabled users whilst giving the opportunity her to be part of family life".
2.9 Further supporting information has been submitted from family members (brother / brother in law), Laxey and Village Walk health care practitioners; a statement from the applicant about her sister; a statement from the day care providers Praxis; a statement from the day care support provider from Premium Care Limited; a supporting letter from their podiatric care; a supporting letter from Manx care rheumatology Clinic. They all support the applicant's propositions for a new dwelling.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY The site is identified as within an area recognised as being within 'white land' or land that is not zoned for development, use under the Area Plan for the East. Map No. 3 (Proposals). The site is not within a Conservation Area or identified as being prone to flood risks.
3.1 On the Landscape Character Assessment, the area is recognised as Incised Slopes - the most common of the land use character types. The intention of the latter is to protect the countryside and its rural character through a strategy of conserving and enhancing.
3.2 Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
3.3 Strategic Policies; 1(a) previously development land 2 development directed to existing urban and rural residential areas 4(b) protection of Registered Buildings 5 Design and visual impact 10 sustainable transport
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01113/A Page 4 of 11
3.4 Spatial Policy; 1 Priority to Douglas for development 2 Identified Service Centres for development 3 Identifies those Service Villages 4 Remaining villages 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3
3.5 General Policies 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside 2 General development control principles
3.6 Environmental Polices; 1 Protection of the countryside 2 Protection of AHLV
3.7 Housing Policies; 4 Location of new housing and exceptions
3.8 Transport Policies; 4 Highway safety 7 Parking provisions
3.9 Residential Design Guidance (2021) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 20/00405/LAW - Certificate of Lawful Use for the siting of containers for storing of equipment and materials; a poly tunnel and open storage of materials. AGREED.
C.1 This Certificate of Lawful Use is for the siting of containers for storing of equipment and materials; a poly tunnel and open storage of materials as defined in red on the attached plan, to Field 614795, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine. Isle of Man.
C.2 The evidence submitted sufficiently demonstrates that the placement of the three containers have been in situ for a period in excess of 10 years, a small part of the site has been used for the transient storage of materials in the area highlighted in red on the attached plan based on the 2009 aerial imagery and not to the extents as shown on the application details.
4.2 19/00098/A - Approval in principle for erection of dwelling and ancillary shed addressing siting, design, and means of access. REFUSED.
The proposed erection of a dwelling, in the open countryside is not considered acceptable in principle. The proposal would unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing site, the character and quality of the landscape within the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and the rural character of the surrounding countryside. The proposal therefore conflicts with Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the access that would serve the development would be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner. The proposal therefore conflicts with Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01113/A Page 5 of 11
3. The applicant has not provided sufficient ecological information to adequately determine that the proposed development would not result in an adverse and/or significantly harmful impact to protected species or their habitats, which are either directly using the site and/or the existing watercourse, or in the surrounding area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Environment Policy 4 and Environment Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
4.3 05/00047/B - Levelling of land and creation of boundary hedge. REFUSED at appeal.
4.4 99/00337/A - Approval in principle for erection of dwelling. REFUSED at appeal.
4.5 95/00360/B - Infilling of land and top filling of soil & grass seeding. REFUSED.
4.6 87/01531/A - Approval in principle to erection of two private dwellings. REFUSED.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Garff Commissioners commented (12.10.21) and objects for a number of reasons citing, visual impact, sensitive rural location, land designation not zoned, increase in traffic movements.
5.2 Highways Services commented (19.10.21) at length noting the proposed visibility splays as being suitable, its location from the junction, local traffic, the need for a S.109 agreement, access width, the need for drainage to prevent run off water entering the highway and the garage internal dimensions and the provision for parking spaces and EVCP. "The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements to accord to drawing No. PA 001. An advisory for a S109(A) Highway Agreement to apply too."
5.3 DEFA Eco-systems Policy (14/10/21) commented confirming their acceptance to the Manx Wildlife Trusts Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and that it is suitable level of assessment and suggests 4 appropriately worded conditions for an Ecological Clerk of works to be employed; the need for a lizard hibernaculum, a soft landscaping scheme and bird nesting boxes.
5.4 Manx National Heritage commented (05/10/21) seeking appropriate protection for the general wildlife in the area, the woodland corridor and potential for bats during and after construction.
6.0 ASSESSMENT The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.0 ASSESSMENT (i) Certificate of lawfulness
(TCP Act 1999) (ii) Principle
(STP1,2,10; SP3,5; Gp3.). (iii) Exceptional circumstances (GP3 & HP4 & EP1,2). (iv) Visual Impact
(STP5; GP2b,c) (v) Neighbouring Amenities
(GP2g) (vi) Highway Safety
(GP2 h&i; TP 4&7) (vii) Impact upon Registered Building(STP4a) (viii) Any other consideration
(i) Certificate of lawfulness As noted in the planning history, the site benefits from a certificate of lawfulness. This only prevents the department from taking any formal action through the courts to seek removal of the containers and associated paraphernalia. The site, its use and the items placed on site would be defined as 'development' as defined in the Section 6 of the 1999 Act and do not
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01113/A Page 6 of 11
benefit from a valid planning approval. As such no weight can be placed on the fact the site is immune from enforcement action, and there cannot be any additional work or other items placed on site otherwise as this would be deemed a breach of planning control. The application site has no existing residential use rights.
(ii) Principle 6.1 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the Area Plan for the East, the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled and the site is not allocated for development.
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 a defined areas and is very much part of the open countryside as previously identified and would be contrary to those policies.
6.3 The site does sit on a service road where there are some residential dwellings along its length and easily accessible from the highway. Given the broad location of the site and its location, it does sit within a remote part of the countryside where there are no provisions for accessible public transport. The nearest service villages would be either Onchan or Laxey. As such this aspect would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 (a)-(d).
6.4 When considering Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5 that directs development to designated towns or villages, development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, which is detailed in General Policy 3 and cross referenced in Spatial Policy 5. The proposed development does not come within any of those exceptional circumstances. In particular, it would not entail the provision of essential housing for an agricultural worker, or the conversion of a redundant rural building. There is no evidence of any building having taken place on this land. The proposed development would not entail the replacement of an existing dwelling. Neither would it be required for the working of minerals, or for agricultural or forestry operations. It is not considered that it would serve any over-riding national need - the need for it is essentially personal to the appellants. Finally the proposed dwelling is not required for the interpretation of the countryside, or its wildlife or heritage. 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.
6.5 The agents advises (para.2.7) that this land was previously used as a builders compound for at least 15 years (see planning history ) and for tipping of building hard core by the Isle of Man Government Highways Board as a should be considered as previously developed land.
6.6 Through GP3(c) consideration can be given for previously developed land and also referred to in Strategic Policy 1(a) to optimise the use of such land. For an exception to be made through Gp3c there needs to be a significant amount of buildings; and; their continued use is redundant; and; where development would reduce the impact of the current situation of the landscape or wider environment; and where development would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. In this instance, there is not a significant amount of buildings on site. Those containers on site do not benefit from any planning consent only a certificate of lawfulness in that the Department won't take any formal enforcement action through the courts. Technically planning consent is still required for them. It cannot be argued the builders compound / storage area is redundant, if it was the containers and alike could be removed immediately if they are no longer needed. The erection of a dwelling on site cannot be argued to reduce the impact of the current situation as it would be introducing an element of built development where at present there is none and their removal would improve the landscape and wider environment. As such the proposal cannot be considered to comply with GP3c.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/01113/A Page 7 of 11
6.7 Tuning to the definition of previously developed land in the appendix, the applicant places weight on the notice that the site was previously used as landfill. Again this never benefited from the any planning consent despite trying (see planning history) and was carried out in breach of planning control where it would not be possible to have any restoration made through the development control process as required within the definition.
6.8 To qualify for previously developed land, it seeks that there is or was a permanent structure on site and any fixed surface infrastructure, as there is none, it would not necessarily be compliant in these terms with the definition or would adhere to that of Gp3(c) for previous developed land.
6.9 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 where there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. This concludes the application is to be assessed for the creation of a new residential property in the countryside.
6.10 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 East; 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). The erection of a dwelling house on this site would fail on both counts and therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis in contravention of the established policy presumption against development in the countryside.
6.11 Furthermore Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan refers to the possibility that further dwellings may be added to existing groups of houses in the countryside that are too small to be recognised as villages. The Strategic Plan stresses that additions to small groups of dwellings in the countryside should be controlled by the development plan process, rather than through ad hoc decisions taken in isolation. As such groups are to be identified in Area Plans and this site is not identified. As such the present proposal would be contrary to the Strategic Plan policies (STP1,2,10 and SP3,5 and Gp3) which govern development in the countryside, and would be unacceptable in principle on that count.
(iii) Exceptional circumstances 6.12 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; o 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); o Secondly, conversion of existing rural properties (i.e. traditional Manx stone barn); and o 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.
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/01113/A Page 8 of 11
6.13 The special circumstances of the applicant finds themselves in is unfortunate. However, it is necessary to assess whether these personal circumstance are sufficient to outweigh the arguments against the proposed development. Importantly, General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan makes no provision for purpose-built housing for disabled people to be treated as an exception to the general presumption against development in the countryside. It is noted that the proposed dwelling would be occupied by the applicant's sister (60 years old) with varying forms of degenerative disabilities. It could be advantageous to have a purpose built house to provide the support as their health deteriorates in their old age. It is also noted that the applicants grew up in this area and would have local connections. However, in considering those personal circumstances as a material consideration, of this sort, are seldom, if ever, sufficient to justify the erection of a permanent building in the countryside, which would contravene planning policy and permanently change the landscape. If approved and erected, the proposed dwelling would remain in place long after the present personal circumstances of the applicant had ceased to be material and its effect on the rural landscape would continue to be apparent. Unfortunately there are no grounds to set aside the Strategic Plan of 2016, or the policies in the more recent Area Plan for the East where personal circumstances should outweigh the established planning policies for this site.
(iv) Visual Impact
6.14 The proposal would be introducing an element of built development on site where at present there is none. Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan provides that, in the absence of an over-riding national need, development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted. Environment Policy 2 applies to proposed development in an AHLV. It indicates that in such areas, the protection of the character of the landscape will normally be the most important consideration which are clear and consistent.
6.15 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 topography of the wider area, would be visible from a far. The application site is in a highly visible location, adjacent to a main road in an Area of High Landscape Value. Its development would add to the mass of buildings in the countryside and detract from the openness of the rural scene.
6.16 The nearest residential properties that would be considered to be the 'character of the streetscene' are too far away to be read in the same context and this property would clearly be seen as dominant property on the landscape and being of a contemporary design would exacerbate the situation. There are no neighbouring residential curtilages where the site could be seen as an infill development within the surrounding pattern of residential development along this part of the Highway and would be read as a new dwelling in the open countryside.
6.17 Section 7.34 of the Strategic Plan, which applies to existing settlements, indicates that 'infill development' may be acceptable in built-up areas. However, the application site is not within an existing settlement as identified in Appendix 3 of the Strategic Plan. Those settlements must have the characteristics of towns or villages, and be served by mains drainage systems. The site does not qualify on either count. There is no policy in the Strategic Plan that supports 'infilling' as an exception to the general policy presumption against development in the countryside.
6.18 Along the length of this section of the road has seen dwellings built, (pre strategic plan 2007 and 2016) many are of traditional vernacular, however greater protection in line with the planning policies seek to prevent unwarranted development. When considering properties in the countryside, the rational is that they should ideally follow that of more traditional vernacular to fit in with the age when general development was emerging on the Island in the 80's 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
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/01113/A Page 9 of 11
of STP5 and GP2b&C where the proposal would be overdevelopment for the site and have a detrimental visual impact through its design.
6.19 Furthermore the site is designated on the 1982 Development Plan as one of an Area of High landscape Value, and any development here should not harm the character and quality of the landscape or the location of the application is deemed essential. The proposal would further be considered to have an adverse visual impact upon the openness of the countryside for which EP1 seeks to protect and would in turn also fail Ep2 on both accounts.
(v) Highway Safety 6.20 The application site already features an existing access that already serves the site. It is noted highways do not accept the existing access as being suitable as it would proposed a number of conflicting movements. The proposal is seeking to create an additional / new access onto the highway with creating visibility splays (cutting back of Manx Hedge) of 25m in either direction which would result in a loss of 3.5m of existing Manx hedgerow. 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 noted and they do not object specifically on highway safety.
6.21 However, a balance has to be taken and as noted, the proposals would be seeking to create an additional entrance and as there are no proposals to sever the existing entrance to the site as shown on the plans, only the notation that "the orange line indicates section of site covered by CLU as a Builders Yard" one has to assume the existing would be retained for part of the site. Nevertheless, whilst if an approval was forthcoming this could be conditioned. However, as there would be a loss of Manx hedgerow to create this new entrance, it could not be supported as this would visually alter the character of this section of the highway and would further lead to domesticate the site rather than utilising an existing access. As such this aspect of the proposal would be considered to adversely affect the countryside and contrary to EP1 and SP4(b).
(vi) Impact upon Registered Building 6.22 The Registered Building (No.13) of the former Lonan Church sits approx. 180m to the south east and is accessed from the adjacent highway. From Ballamenagh Road, the RB with its surrounding walled graveyard and mature trees on the boundary are clearly is visible as it sits within the open countryside. The proposed building would be visible from within the grounds of the RB and vice versa as there is no intervening topography or structurers in between. As such the proposal could be seen to have an adverse visual impact that would be detrimental to the overall setting of the RB as it would be introducing a built form and massing where presently there is none and would be read against what Strategic Policy 4(a) is trying to achieve in protecting the setting of registered buildings when viewed from the highway.
(vii) Any other considerations 6.23 In instances such as this, consideration should be given to the conversion and adaption of the current residential accommodation; 'The Paddock' Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine. This property is a bungalow and initial gained consent under 93/00894/A - Approval in principle for erection of dwelling and garage and was latterly erected under 93/01431/B Erection of dwelling and garage having gained planning consent subject to a number of conditions. It is further noted this property has an agricultural workers' condition attached to the property and attempts were made to remove the condition under 98/01095/C - 'Change of use from agricultural workers dwelling to residential dwelling' that was refused, however on review (equivalent to an appeal) was permitted in March 1999 to be used as a private residence.
6.24 Internally those plans showed the subdivision of space with labelling; garage, utility room, kitchen, dining room, lounge, 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms (1 en-suite). The dwelling house is characterised as a bungalow with a footprint broadly measuring 17.7 x 14.0, with an area of 158sqm and a garage of 41sqm. The dwelling was further extended in 99/00197/B -
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/01113/A Page 10 of 11
Erection of a conservatory off the south elevation (lounge) measuring 4.8m x 3.7, giving an additional 18sqm. This offers a total (158+18) 176sqm or 1894sqft.
6.25 Within the supporting letters from the applicants, (received 18.02.22) they describe the context of their current house and raise the points, about the unsuitability of the existing house, the layout no longer works for them, how the garage cannot be converted and not fit for purpose, the property cannot be extended as they are bounded on all sides with no room to extend, they have no funds or monies to convert the property, require more space for care of a relative, want to remain in the area and to fund this; "We will also have the funds to finance it a very close family member will buy our current property and allow us to live here until a new build is ready".
6.26 It is further noted on the planning history, no attempts have been made to further extend the property since 1999 to generate additional floor space, despite there being space within the residential curtilage to facilitate this or an upward extension.
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: 09.05.2022
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/01113/A Page 11 of 11
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