Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01161/A Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 21/01161/A Applicant : Miss Pippa Edmonds Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of a new dwelling, closing up of existing access, creation of new access and demolition of part of The Bungalow, addressing details of the means of access Site Address : The Bungalow Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2HB
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 06.04.2022 Site Visit : 06.04.2022 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.04.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The application is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, Paragraph 4.3.11, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016) and the site designations of the Sulby Local Plan (1998) and no 'other material considerations' have been identified that would outweigh these formally adopted policies which should be afforded significant weight having been informed by public consultation, public inquiry and adoption by Tynwald. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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 4(2):
South Grawe, Laxey
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
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01161/A Page 2 of 10
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
THIS APPLICATON IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF P&BC
0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was deferred from the previous committee meeting for a site visit. The report has not been altered.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is located to the North of Ballamanagh Road and is surrounded by agricultural land. It comprises an existing property (The Bungalow) and land to the rear. The character of the road is rural and it extends from the Claddaghs to the Ginger Hall public house.
1.2 The existing house is a large (in footprint) single storey property with a hipped tiled roof and prominent chimneys stacks on its east and west (sides) elevations that sits to the east. The property has a flat roof link extension to the west that connects onto a sizeable hipped tiled roof extension that is finished in the same format. The overall appearance is painted render. The appearance is elongated parallel with the highway rather than extending to the rear (north). The site has existing mature landscaping.
1.3 The rear half of the site is also well landscaped, both around the edges and to some extent between it and the existing house. During a site visit (6th April) there was evidence of it being used by the occupants of the dwelling (shed etc.).
1.4 The property has two accesses off the highway one formally presented with rendered walls and capped pillars and the second one with Manx stone walls splaying into a solid wooden gate approx. 2.2m wide.
1.5 A public footpath (51) runs immediately alongside the eastern boundary of the site, from the Ballamanaugh Road to join footpath 50 which leads south west to the Claddaghs and also continues on north to Sulby Village and the A3 TT Course.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a new, additional dwelling, the retention and alteration of the existing dwelling (with a previous extension being demolished to provide access for the new dwelling). All matters are reserved other than means of access.
2.2 The site plan and layout drawings shows the creation of a new access adjacent to the solid wooden gate. This access is to be blocked up and planting of new road side hedging to match the existing type of shrubs. The new driveway would be to the west of these gates with a splayed entrance into the site at approx. 5.0m wide offering visibility splays of 2.4 x 194m to the east and 2.4 x 113m to the west with new gate piers set 6m back from the edge of the highway. To facilitate this it is proposed to remove a single tree.
2.3 From this entrance the roadway would curve east and across the location of the extension to the east of the main dwelling house and follow the western boundary to the rear of the site where the agents have indicatively shown two options (either or) of where a single
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01161/A Page 3 of 10
dwelling could possibly sit. To facilitate this access road and access to the rear of the site the applicant is seeking to remove the extension of the main dwelling house and restore this property back to what it once was.
The agent notes the; "proposed dwelling design and siting is indicative only and we have shown two possible locations for the proposed dwelling. This is to demonstrate that a suitably designed dwelling could be accommodated on the site. The final design and layout would be subject to a "Reserved Matters" application should the "approval in principle" application prove successful. For a sense of scale the indicative footprint shown is 8m wide x 12m long and if two storey would provide an overall floor area of 192 square metres".
2.5 The original planning statement sets out various points (in summary): o The existing house in need of attention, and currently has an unsympathetic extension. o The statement highlights a variety of options explore for altering and extending the existing dwelling or a replacement of the existing dwelling, then notes the restoration of the original appearance of 'the Bungalow' and finally reaching the conclusion of seeking an additional dwelling in lieu of the extension and alterations to the "The Bungalow". o Believe they could demolish and replace given Strategic Plan policies but would like to retain given what they regard as its historic significance and instead built an additional house. o Rule out further extension or alteration of the existing because again, whilst they believe this could be done in compliance with policies, would require significant changes which they believe may not be a sound investment and may not respond to climate Change objectives as set out in the Bill, and would instead like to restore to original appearance. But, would like to retain a house of equivalent to existing size and so propose to build a new house. o There previously existed a second house on the site (Gaythorne) and so the proposed dwelling should be regarded as a replacement of this. The proposed new dwelling would not be on the footprint of the existing for a number of reasons, including that a new dwelling so close to the existing would comprise potential access/visibility improvements and reduce privacy/amenity for occupiers. o New dwelling would be thermally efficient, designed/located so as not to be seen from public view and would therefore accord with Strategic Plan policies that protect the countryside and they believe the site is reasonably close to amenities (less than 500m from Ginger Hall Hotel and 1,500m to the Sulby Glen Hotel and shop, St. Stephen's church and Sulby Primary School) and other housing and so the new house would not significantly undermine policies that promote sustainable development. o Other undesignated sites which have had planning approval - Allandale Farm (07/00375/A, 09/01719/REM and 15/01134/B), Sulby Glen Road (15/00991/B), Glen Mona Loop Road (18/00200/A)
2.6 The additional supporting statement sets out various points (in summary): o Explanation of the proposed work (and that this includes the principle of part-demolition of the existing property) o Comments around the description of the application - the applicants consider that the proposed new dwelling should be regarded as a replacement for Gaythorne o Potential conditioning of works to the existing property o Clarification of Residential Status of the rear part of the site and why it should be regarded as within the curtilage of the existing house - applicants have lived at property since 2007 and have provided various photographs which they consider that the area has not been used as agricultural for sufficient time for it to be immune from enforcement
3.0 PLANNING POLICY & LEGISLATION 3.1 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.1.1 The application site is identified on the Sulby Local Plan 1998 as white land or land not zoned for development. The Sulby Local Plan identifies several opportunities for residential development and clarifies in para 3.20 that it does not propose any additional residential
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01161/A Page 4 of 10
development outside those areas. The site is not within a designated Conservation Area or within an identified area of Flood Risk Zone.
3.2 THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 The following policies that are considered relevant; o Strategic Policy 1 indicates development should make the best use of resources by ensuring efficient use of sites and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. o Strategic Policy 2 - directs new development to existing towns and villages, or the countryside only in exceptional circumstances (see General Policy 3) o Strategic Policy 5 - design quality o Strategic Policy 10 - integrated transport network and related issues o Spatial Policy 4 - indicates that in certain villages (including Sulby) development should be at an appropriate scale to meet local need and that Area plans will define boundaries. o Paragraph 4.3.11 states, "While wishing to conserve the historic landscape of the Island the Department welcomes new styles of housing as long as they take into account the landscape context and the impact on the amenities of the area in which they are sited. Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development". o Spatial Policy 5 - development outside defined settlements only permitted in accordance with General Policy 3. o General Policy 2 - sets out normal 'Development Control' considerations o General Policy 3 - sets out the exceptional circumstances in which development will be approved in the countryside (none of which are considered to apply to this site) o Environment Policy 1 - protects the countryside and its ecology for its own sake o Environment Policy 2 - protects Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance* o Environment Policy 42 - seeks to prevent inappropriate backland development - supporting text defines this as, "development on the land at the back of properties" and indicates it "may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings" o Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 relate to parking standards
*The Sulby Local Plan (1998) does not include on the proposal map any Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. South of the TT course goings towards the uplands is identified as AHLVoCV&SC in the 1982 Development Plan.
3.2.2 Housing Policy 4 directs new housing to settlements other than in exceptional circumstances and cross references the policies which set those circumstances: o essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; o conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and o the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.
3.2.3 Housing Policies 15 and 16 relate to extensions to properties in the countryside
3.2.4 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5 (water conservation and management), Community Policy 7 (designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour), Community Policy 10 (proper access for firefighting appliances) and Community Policy 11 (prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire).
3.3 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE (2021)
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01161/A Page 5 of 10
3.3.1 This document 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 properties and sustainable methods of construction.
3.4 CLIMATE CHANGE ACT (2021) 3.4.1 The Act includes provisions to amend various element of planning legislation including to add the wording below after section 2(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999). Although this element of the Act has not been the subject of an Appointed Day Order, it shows the direction of travel and is capable of being a material consideration.
"(2AA)The development plan must also take into account the following climate change policies established under the Climate Change Act 202- - (a) the maximisation of carbon sequestration; (b) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions; (c) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems; (d) biodiversity net gain; (e) the need for sustainable drainage systems; and (f) the provision of active travel infrastructure".
3.5 AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST 3.5.1 Preliminary Publicity for the Area Plan for the North and West was undertaken in 2021 and a draft plan is anticipated to be published in 2022. Paper PP1 notes the outcome of the inquiry into the Area Plan for the East where the Inspector made recommendations to focus development to Douglas and Onchan and away from smaller settlements and that this is relevant for the North and West (3.4.7 and 3.4.8) and proposes an approach that focuses new housing on Ramsey and Peel. The summary of Chapter 4 (page 27) notes, "The housing need as set out in the Strategic Plan appears to have been largely met in the North and West if adjusted to take account of the findings of the 2016 Census".
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 IDO32015 (Approved on 25/02/1972) provided for the demolition of Gaythorne and its replacement with an extension of the Bungalow, with the curtilage of Gaythorne being subsumed into that of The Bungalow.
4.2 It is noted that the site plan for 32015 is clear that the other house was to be demolished and the curtilage subsumed into the curtilage of The Bungalow but also seems to exclude the land at the back as being either part of the existing or proposed curtilage of either property. It would therefore appear that the curtilage of the Bungalow has at some point been extended into surrounding agricultural land without the benefit of planning approval.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full representation can be read online) 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners (16.11.21) - support the application (no details or reasons given)
5.2 DOI (Highways) commented (19.10.21, 24.12.21 and 24.03.22) - no objection subject to conditions in relation to drainage provision and that access arrangements and visibility splays are built in accordance with Drawing No. 21 1529 01.
5.3 DEFA (Ecology) (22/10/21) does not object but requests; a landscaping replacement condition before any works on site commence and that the vegetation is only removed outside of the nesting season (March - August); they further advise the applicant seek a bat survey prior to any demolition given the proximity to the river and open countryside.
5.4 DEFA (Trees) (11.04.22) - No Objection.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01161/A Page 6 of 10
5.5 DEFA (Registered Buildings Officer) (08.04.22) sets out an assessment of the architectural/heritage value of the existing house and concludes that it is an "architectural oddity" and "would not say that it is innovative" and concludes it is, "experimental, but not executed with particular merit". He indicates it is not of sufficient architectural or historic interest to object to its loss but, "would encourage its retention where possible as it has survived until this time, but I would give it no more weight than any other average dwelling of this period". He also notes that, "I do consider however that there is scope to improve on those elements through sympathetic redevelopment of this property which could involve replacement of existing additions with new".
5.6 1 South Grawe, Laxey (11.10.21) seeks clarification on what the application proposes.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues are: o Distribution of New Housing (StP1, StP2, StP10, SP4, SP5) o Site Designation and Policies Providing for New Houses on un-allocated land (StP2, GP3, see para 3.2.2) o Impact on the Openness of the Countryside (EP1, Para 4.3.11) o Quality of Accommodation/Amenity for current/future occupants (StP5, GP2, EP42) o Impact on Residential Amenity of other properties (StP5, GP2, EP42) o Highway Issues (GP2, TP7) o Trees and Bio-Diversity (GP2) o Previous Dwelling o Curtilage o Retention/Alteration of Existing Dwelling (HP15 and 16) o Climate Change Act o Other matters (see para 3.2.4)
6.2 DISTRIBUTION AND NEED FOR NEW HOUSING (STP1, STP2, STP10, SP4, SP5) 6.2.1 The Strategic Plan indicates a low level of new housing may be suitable in villages, and that the boundaries of these should be set through Area Plans. The current Local Plan makes provision for residential development and does not include the current site. The emerging information from the Area Plan work suggests there is unlikely to be a need for new sites. It is therefore considered that no local need for additional housing on non-allocated sites near to Sulby has been identified, and that any opportunities for such development should properly be assessed through the Area Plan process. In any case, it is questionable whether a new house at the site could be considered to be properly part as Sulby as there is agricultural land dividing the application site from Sulby itself in terms of settlement pattern, and the site is some distance from the existing settlement centre.
6.3 SITE DESIGNATION AND POLICIES PROVIDING FOR NEW HOUSES ON UN-ALLOCATED LAND (SP5, GP3 AND SEE PARA 3.2.2) 6.3.1 The site is not designated for development. It does not meet any of the exceptions for new houses in the countryside as set out in the relevant policies. This is considered to be grounds for refusal.
6.3.2 There are examples where a dwelling is essentially filling in a gap between two or more properties and so not unacceptably impacting upon policies which seek to protect the countryside and in some of these cases this has been considered a material consideration that would justify setting aside the above, however that does not appear to be the case here.
6.4 IMPACT ON THE OPENNESS OF THE COUNTRYSIDE, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT (EP1, PARA 7.5.1, 4.3.11) 6.4.1 The application includes an argument that because the site is well landscaped and behind an existing house it is of limited view and as such does not negatively impact on the
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/01161/A Page 7 of 10
countryside and so complies with EP1 and EP2, and that this is also a reason to outweigh no compliance with other policies.
6.4.2 It is agreed that the site has mature landscaping on all sides (including from the road) which would reduce the visibility of any new dwelling on the site (although as part of an Approval in Principle and without indicative elevations or other details it is difficult to make this judgement with certainty). Of course, there is no guarantee that such landscaping would be retained in the long term and indeed as part of the site visit it was noted that the height of some of the vegetation gives areas of the site a 'gloomy' feel and may impact on light for both the existing and any new dwelling. It is possible that the occupiers of either dwelling may wish to reduce the extent of the vegetation to respond to this which would be likely to increase the visibility of the site, from both the road and the public footpath. Depending on this, and the actual design of the property, it is possible that it could be visible from public view.
6.4.3 If it is accepted that the dwelling could be 'hidden' by landscaping, there is a temptation to view each Strategic Plan policy as a stand-alone test, rather than to read the document as one and in context (including the supporting text). However, paragraph 1.7.2 of the plan states, "The Aim, Objectives, Policies and Spatial Strategy must be looked at as a whole. They are intended to inter-relate and should not be read in isolation". It is also noted that section 10(4) of the Act does not give primacy to the policies, and as such the supporting text is of equal weight.
6.4.4 It is noted that paragraph 7.5.1 states (in part - my emphasis), "It is recognised that all of the countryside across the Island is generally of a good quality and where development proposals are permitted by other policies of the plan, they should be designed in such a way which helps preserve the rural character of the open countryside. Accordingly, the following general policy is adopted".
6.4.5 Overall it is judged that the application does not comply with EP1. Even if it were judged that the proposal was not in-isolation, contrary to EP1, this is not a reason to set aside the policies set out at 6.3 - EP1 is an additional safeguard, not an alternative test. This is reinforced by paragraph 4.3.11 which states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development". Therefore whether or not the new dwelling would be visible is not capable of being an 'other material consideration' which could outweigh the Development Plan, because it is an issue specifically addressed within the Development Plan.
6.5 QUALITY OF ACCOMMODATION/AMENITY FOR CURRENT/FUTURE OCCUPANTS (STP5, GP2, EP42) 6.5.1 The site is not within a conservation area or is a registered building and sits detached in its own grounds. Guidance is given in EP42 for 'backland development' as noted in para 3.14 and can be acceptable if satisfactory access is achievable and adequate amenity space for existing and proposed dwellings.
6.5.2 The proposed drawings note an indicative layout to show how a single plot (two options shown) could be laid out with an internal access road from the highway that includes parking and their own amenity space. The indicative footprint of those two plots, on an either or basis, would broadly measure approx. 12m x 8m at the extremities and if two stories would provide an overall floor area of 192 sq m. At a full two stories, the site may become too dominant, however a condition limiting the dwelling to single story to eaves level does not preclude any dormer accommodation within the roof space. The drawings indicate the site is broadly level between the carriage way and the proposed footprint. This footprint would be smaller than the current property "the Bungalow" on site.
6.5.3 At this stage it is only the principle of development and the access is to be discussed but the indicative plans do give an illustration how the density of development works within the
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/01161/A Page 8 of 10
confines of the site. Any further design of the dwellings which concerns those aspects of scale, form, design, massing would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application and would need to comply specifically those aspects of Gp2b and again EP42, STP5, CP7 & 11.
6.5.4 Overall, although noting the limited detail is provided in relation to this, but the size of the plot and distance from proposed to existing results in there being no concerns here that would justify refusal of an Approval in Principle.
6.6 IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY OF OTHER PROPERTIES (STP5, GP2, EP42) 6.6.1 It is noted the nearest neighbour that would be affected by this proposal would the applicants of the site. The nearest residential dwelling house would be Close Moar (180m) to the east or Glen Villas (100m) to the West or The Dhynne (140m) to the North. All of which would not be visible from the application site.
6.6.2 This application seeks that all matters, other than the access (siting, 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 through overlooking, loss of light, over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity, 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 specifically those aspects of GP2.
6.7 HIGHWAY ISSUES (GP2, TP7) 6.7.1 Highway Services have considered the principal 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 it is noted they do not object to the principle of the means of access to this application.
6.7.2 Having considered the above, the details have shown how access to the rear of the site and off the highway can be achieved and has been designed to align with the principles of GP2 h&i and TP4&7 and CP10 and can be conditioned as per highways recommendation.
6.8 TREES AND BIO-DIVERSITY (GP2) 6.8.1 The comments from DEFA (Ecology and Trees) are noted and relied upon. It is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposal could be acceptable in this regard.
6.9 PREVIOUS DWELLING 6.9.1 Procedurally, when a building has been demolished and no longer remains on site in any capacity any 'permission' it may once had, is lost when the building is removed in planning terms and the site is treated afresh. The planning history of a site is a material consideration. In accordance with Section 10 of the 1999 Act (page 16) part(4) the Department shall have regard to (d) all other material considerations.
6.9.2 Given the very significant amount of time since the previous dwelling was demolished, the clear intention for the dwelling to not be replaced planning history and current situation the proposal is not for a replacement (extension built on footprint, curtilage subsumed) and that the new dwelling is proposed on a different (but adjacent) site it is considered that the proposal could not be reasonably considered to be a replacement. Accordingly very little weight can be afforded to the fact there was, perhaps 50 years ago, a house near to the site. 6.9.3 Furthermore, it is noted the policies within the Strategic Plan which relate to replacement dwellings refer to the "existing" (e.g. HP11, HP12, HP14 etc.), which reinforces the above view.
6.10 CURTILAGE 6.10.1 The site plan for 32015 is clear that the other house was to be demolished and the curtilage subsumed into the curtilage of The Bungalow but also seems to exclude the land at
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/01161/A Page 9 of 10
the back as being either part of the existing or proposed curtilage of either property. It would therefore appear that the curtilage of the Bungalow has at some point been extended into surrounding agricultural land without the benefit of planning approval. If this is the case, the current application could be progressed on the basis that it seeks approval for a dwelling on land which is currently on land which aerial photographs suggest has been used as residential curtilage for some time and so is perhaps immune from enforcement action, although such use remains unlawful in the absence of a certificate of lawful use.
6.10.2 It is not considered that the lawfulness of the curtilage is in itself a key material issue because it is considered that even if it is accepted that the application site is within residential curtilage, this is not in itself sufficient grounds for granting planning approval for a house on a non-allocated site. It is noted that there are cases where such applications have been approved as departures, but these have also been more closely related to the edges of existing built up areas and a higher level of existing built development (see 6.3.2).
6.11 RETENTION/ALTERATION OF EXISTING DWELLING (HP15 AND 16) 6.11.1 The removal of the newer extension is considered acceptable in principle. There may be some limited planning benefit if previous extensions to the Bungalow were removed but the main dwelling retained, however given the comments from the Registered Buildings Officer this benefit is given very limited weight (and to some extent any benefit is reduced by the current boundary treatment which reduces public view - although see earlier comments on potential for this to change). Further, it is not accepted that The Bungalow is not capable of sensitive alteration/extension and so this is not considered a reason to set aside the policy objections.
6.12 CLIMATE CHANGE ACT 6.12.1 The planning provisions within the Climate Change Act are not yet in force, and it is clear that these are to be implemented initially through changes to planning policy, and therefore they are of limited weight. However it is useful to understand the direction of travel. The concept of Sustainable Development (and arguably responding to Climate Change issues) is already centrally embedded within the Strategic Plan and many of the policies reflect this. The overall settlement strategy is aimed at supporting existing settlements and reducing the need for journeys by car. Whilst a new house in the countryside could be built to a high standard, this is not considered a reason to ignore the spatial aspects of responding to Climate Change nor the other policy issues as outlined previously.
6.13 OTHER MATTERS (SEE PARA 3.2.4) 6.14.1 No concerns are identified.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The following matters are considered to weigh in favour of the application: quality of accommodation; lack of negative impact on existing/neighbouring houses; lack of objection in terms of highways; lack of objection in terms of trees and ecology; and potential to improve existing dwelling,
7.2 The following matters are considered to weigh against the application: Site Designation and being contrary to policies in terms of new housing and protection of the countryside; distance from Sulby Centre; and intervening land uses.
7.3 The following matters are judged neutrally in terms of planning balance Housing Need; Visual/Landscape Impact; Planning History (Previous Dwelling and Questions over Curtilage); Climate Change Act; and Other Matters.
7.4 The application is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, Paragraph 4.3.11, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016) and no 'other material considerations' have been identified that would outweigh
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/01161/A Page 10 of 10
these formally adopted policies which should be afforded significant weight having been informed by public consultation public inquiry and adoption by Tynwald.
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
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
Signed : C BALMER 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