Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00198/A Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00198/A Applicant : Mr David and James Lewin Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling addressing siting and means of access Site Address : Westwood Douglas Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4EF
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.06.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The erection of a dwelling on this site would represent an unwarranted development in the Island's countryside and would be contrary to both the land use provisions of the Area Plan for the South and to the provisions of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. 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 be against Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 2 & 10, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Transport Policy 4 & 7 and therefore should be refused.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): Owner/Occupier of Brookfield, Douglas Road Owner/Occupier of 83/83A Ballanorris Crescent Owner/Occupier of 107 Ballanorris Crescent As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (January 2020).
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00198/A Page 2 of 6
__
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land situated to the rear of Westwood, Douglas Road, Ballabeg and part of the existing driveway of Westwood.
PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of Westwood with siting and access being assessed.
2.2 The proposal will encompass the existing driveway to the South East elevation.
2.3 Indicative drawings show a property measuring 10m by 7m with a large driveway to the front elevation.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The previous Planning Applications are not relevant in the assessment of this application.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 LOCAL PLANS 4.1.1 The majority of the site lies within an area of "Not designated for development" on the Area Plan for the South, with part of the driveway being situated within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential." The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
4.1.2 The following proposal within the Area Plan for the South are relevant; Landscape Proposal 16 which states any new residential development within Colby and Ballabeg should include a tree-planting scheme.
4.2 STRATEGIC POLICIES 4.2.1 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following Strategic Policies; Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure; Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3; Strategic Policy 4 - development must protect or enhance special interest areas including nature conservation; Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel; Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3; General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations; General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development; Environment Policy 1 - protecting of the countryside for its own sake; Environment Policy 3 - development must not damage trees or woodland; Environment Policy 4 - development must not adversely affect ecology; Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Housing Policy 4 - new housing will be located primarily within the existing towns and villages
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00198/A Page 3 of 6
Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation
4.3 LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS 4.3.1 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".
4.4 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS 4.4.1 The Department has published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2021) which 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. This includes specific guidance on new houses, and impacts on Neighbouring Properties.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following consultations can be seen online in full, below is a short summery;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state in part, "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 the relevant legal agreements to maintain the visibility splays free from obstruction for the lifetime of the development being granted." (16.03.22)
5.3 Arbory and Rushen commissioners have considered the application and object for the following reasoning, "It was felt that the access to an already fast and busy road was not suitable for this proposed new dwelling." (23.03.22)
5.4 DOI Highway Drainage have written in to state they do not oppose to the application. (24.03.22)
5.5 The owner/ occupier of Brookfield, Douglas Road, have written in to object to the proposal on the basis of removal of party wall hard and soft landscaping, surface water run off and overlooking/ overbearing feeling.
5.6 The owner/ occupier of 83 and 83A Ballanorris Crescent, have written in to object to the proposal on the basis of access, trees and possible flooding.
5.7 The owner/ occupier of 107 Ballanorris Crescent, have written in to object to the proposal on the basis of drainage, disruption to wildlife, fauna and flora and access.
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00198/A Page 4 of 6
6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.2.1 Fundamentally, in terms of Planning Policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development on land not designated for development, whether it's within the countryside or on land not designated for development under the relevant local plan. As stated above the main part of the proposal is situated within an area "not designated for development," which means the most logical Strategic Policy, is General Policy 3
6.2.2 Firstly it is relevant to note that within the Planning Statement, that the agent on behalf of the applicants state the following regarding assessing the application under General Policy 3, "Reference to General Policy 3 is appropriate only if considering the site in the context of the settlement boundary. As previously advised we consider the settlement boundary to be drawn in error in the location that it is as it is simply not appropriate to split an existing residential property within its curtilage. Accordingly we submit that GP2 is that which should prevail."
6.2.3 Whilst the agent states this, it is relevant to note that the land zoning of the part of the application which is not zoned for development, has been not zoned for development, throughout the local plans and then onto the Area Plan for the South. This could only mean that the parcel of land was not to be zoned for residential purposes. This is especially noted within PA41056 and PA83/01045/B, both of which were for dwellings in the "fields" adjacent to the proposed site, of which their reason for refusal included the following, "The site should be retained as an area of open space at the boundary of the existing Friary Park Estate as was intended when the residential development of this site was previously refused under I.D.O. 25488 and approval granted for the development of such Estate under I.D.O 25979."
6.2.4 Taking the above on board, and whilst noting that a long time period has gone past since the above applications, the Area Plan for the South was not altered to include the land in question as part of the residential zoning, as such it can only be deemed that this land was excluded to prevent any built up structures being situated upon it.
6.2.5 As such the principle of the application is assessed under General Policy 3 as per the land zoning of the site. With this in mind the information provided for the application is minimal and there is nothing to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling is there to serve a viable agricultural holding or is there evidence of an agricultural need for the property. There is also not an existing dwelling which the proposed property could replace and there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3.
6.2.6 It is then considered that the proposed property would not have an over-riding national need in land use planning terms to outweigh the requirements to protect the Islands countryside as set out in Environment Policy 1.
6.3 SITING 6.3.1 Whilst the overall principle of the proposal isn't acceptable it is necessary to assess the siting and means of access (below) as these are part of the application.
6.3.2 With regards to the siting, what has been received is an indicative proposal of a dwelling measuring 10m by 7m, there is no mention of height of the proposal within the application.
6.3.3 Due to the proposed location of the property and the existing mature hedging surrounding Brookfield, the impact of a new dwelling would be lessened on the overall streetscene, with the likelihood of the proposed dwelling being seen from the main road when driving from East to West being minimal and the dwelling on majority being seen when driving from West to East.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00198/A Page 5 of 6
6.3.4 As such from the information provided, the siting is deemed acceptable and at this time, no conditions should be attached to limit the height of the proposal.
6.4 MEANS OF ACCESS 6.4.1 Following on from the representation received from DOI Highway Services, it is deemed that there are no issues with regards to the proposed use of the driveway. Whilst an objection has been received regarding the proposed removal of boundary treatments between properties, and a question of ownership, this would be a civil matter between the land owners.
6.4.2 It is also relevant to note that whilst the proposal is using the driveway of Westwood, Westwood does have parking available on the front of the property for two parking spaces.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, the purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new housing should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the erection of a dwelling as is proposed here) it is also essential to bear in mind that the development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.
7.2 Therefore, this application like the majority of applications the Department receives each year for new dwellings in the countryside, should be refused for being contrary to strict and established planning policy which seeks to protect the countryside from development. Furthermore, it is important; that such development is controlled by the development plan process rather than as ad hoc decisions taken in isolation.
7.3 It is considered that the proposal would be contrary with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be refused.
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 __
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00198/A Page 6 of 6
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 21.06.2022
Determining officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal