Loading document...
Our Ref:
Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN
Dear Mr Johnstone,
Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]
Russell Williams Senior Planning Officer Date 20 May 2025 PA No: 25/90046/B Proposal: Erection of detached bungalow Address: Former Pound Lane Depot, Castletown Road, Port St Mary, IM9 5LT Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.
The application was determined under Delegated Powers dated 7 April 2025. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file.
The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.
Yours sincerely,
STATEMENT OF THE
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to: Erection of detached bungalow Former Pound Lane Depot Castletown Road Port St Mary IM9 5LT Reference: 25/90046/B
Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Russell Williams Senior Planning Officer
The reasons for refusal were:
In accordance with Section 10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;
S(10)(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval…, the Department shall have regard to —
Whilst there is a statutory duty to have regard to the above, it is recognised that weight to be afforded is a matter for the decision maker.
That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan does not have primacy as it does in the UK.
However, the Strategic Plan has been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base, public consultation and inquiry and are adopted by Tynwald.
This report addresses the issues raised in the reasons for appeal directly. For a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report to Planning Committee, which would have been supplied with the initial documentation, and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting.
Having reviewed the submitted Reasons for Appeal Document, it appears that there are 4 reasons for appeal.
FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
The Appellant states that refusal reason 1 is inaccurate and the site is not unsustainable. They state that the site has all essential services adjacent and is readily within reach of shops, school, medical and community facilities and employment in Port St Mary on foot. Several bus routes pass in front of the site. The proposal complies with Strategic Policies 10 and 10, in the Appellant’s view.
RESPONSE In regard to location and sustainability, Strategic Policy 1 states that development should make the best use of resources by “(c)being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.” Strategic Policy 10 “New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
Whilst it is acknowledged that services, in regard to electricity, water and foul drainage may be accessible from the immediate area, the site is not well located in relation to services and facilities generally required for day to day living.
The Appellant contends that the site is walkable to shops, schools, medical and employment opportunities. No evidence has been submitted to date supporting this contention.
Port Erin is located to the west of the Appeal site. The nearest shops, supermarket and community facilities such as the church and dental practice are over 1.4km from the Appeal site, whilst the school and medical centre area approximately 700m away.
Port St Mary, a smaller settlement with fewer facilities, is located to the south and by road is approximately 1.75km from the village centre.
The Authority are not aware of any bus routes that run along Castletown Road.
The site is located within the open countryside and is distant from services and facilities, as described above. It is the view of the Authority that the development of a dwellinghouse on the Appeal site will foster the need to travel by private motor vehicle for the majority of travel movements.
The Appeal development is therefore contrary to Strategic Policies 1 and 10.
The Appellant states that the site was previously used for no-countryside/greenfield land use and that it falls to be classed as previously developed land and that it was inappropriate to assess the application as being agricultural/greenfield land. They state the Appeal development complies with Strategic Policy 1 in making the best use of existing resources.
RESPONSE
StrategicPolicy 1 states that“Development should make the best use of resources by:
The Authority acknowledge at paragraph 7.4 of the delegated Officer report that the Appeal site would fall to be defined as “previously developed land”, though the absence of a significant amount of buildings means that it does not meet the test laid out in General Policy 3 that might otherwise allow an exception against development to exist.
The Appeal development would, in principle, make an efficient use of the site, but this does not itself outweigh the general principle against development in the countryside, as set out within General Policy 3 and associated Housing Policies, which are discussed in paragraphs 7.2-7.9 of the delegated Officer report.
The Appellant contends that the design responds to a previous refusal on the site, and that the dwelling is no longer 2 storey in scale and fits in with the landscape of the area. They note that nearby dwellings are not traditional in design and the development would not be prominent in the landscape, with materials matching the surroundings.
RESPONSE The rationale is that they should follow a more traditional vernacular as noted in planning circular 3/91, to ensure any visual impact is appropriate for the countryside.
Strategic Policy 5 states that “New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.”
General Policy 2(b) states that development will be permitted provided that it (b) “respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;”
The Appeal site is located close to two small rendered bungalows that are of a traditional vernacular. Any other dwellings in the wider area do not relate visually to the Appeal site. The Appeal site is otherwise isolated in the open countryside, with the area characterised by open fields and the occasional residential properties located off the highway.
The Appeal development comprises a modest bungalow, with a low level hipped roof and projections to the front and rear. The building would be finished in a combination of materials, including grey stone cladding, dark grey composite weather boarding and smooth cast render to the walls, anthracite concrete tiles and anthracite uPVC fenestration.
The Appeal development is clearly at odds with Policies 2 and 3 of Circular 3/91, with it lacking a suitable proportion and form. Materials do not strictly accord with Policy 4 of the Circular and the fenestration design is similarly conflicting with Policy 5.
The site is readily visible from public vantage points along the highway and despite its proximity to two small dwellings to the West, any new build on the otherwise vacant site would form a prominent new addition within the street scene and wider landscape.
It is the view of the Authority that the design and finished appearance of the proposed dwelling are at odds with the rural character of the area and would result in demonstrable harm to the landscape and visual amenity. Detailed analysis of these matters are set out in paragraphs 7.10-07.18 of the delegated Officer report.
The Authority maintains the view that the Appeal development conflicts with Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b), as well as those policies set out in the reason for refusal.
In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the conditions and informative as set out below are utilised by the Inspector.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Informative:
1) This approval relates to the following drawings and documents received on 14th and 20th February 2025:
Dr No 1583.11 – Approval Drawing – Location Plan, Site Plan, Proposed floor plan and elevations Dr No 1583.10 Rev 1 – Approval Drawing – Existing Site Plan and Visibility Splays
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown