Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01320/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01320/B Applicant : Mrs Julie Blackburn Proposal : Variation of condition 1 of approval for dwelling (PA 19/01095/B) to extend permission for a further 3 years Site Address : Agricultural Building Robin Hill Farm Cronk Y Dhooney Ballakilpheric Colby Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.01.2023 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision notice.
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 and to reflect the nature of the application.
C 2. All external facing rendered parts of the dwelling shall be finished in a white coloured render and maintained thereafter.
Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) there shall be no works undertaken under the following classes (other than those expressly authorised by this approval):
Class 13 Greenhouses and polytunnels Class 14 Extension of dwellinghouse Class 15 Garden sheds and summer-housesClass 16 Fences, walls and gatesClass 17 Private garages and car ports
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01320/B Page 2 of 8
Reason: to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 4. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access, parking and turning areas have been provided in full accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for access, visibility, off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Whilst not designated for development the proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable on an exceptional basis minded of the planning history of the site and the recognised merits which are considered to be a material consideration in this specific case and also minded of the siting within the existing group of houses in the countryside. On this basis the application is considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact on the immediate surroundings and the wider landscape to meet with the tests of Environment Policy 1, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 5 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and with Landscape Proposal 14 and Appendix 4 (a)(c) of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawings and information all date stamped and received 05/10/2022:
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application relates to an existing site located amongst a cluster of properties known as Cronk y Dhooney, to the east of the Ballakilpheric Road (B44). The site was once approved for the replacement of an existing industrial styled agricultural building. Planning history indicates this building had a footprint of 21m by 18m and 6m in height and finished in rendered blockwork with a corrugated sheeted roof and various horizontally proportioned windows.
1.2 To the north of the site is Rose Cottage, an existing dwelling. To the south of the site is Robin Hill Farm which accommodates a farm house, stone outbuildings which have recently been converted to tourist accommodation, stabling, and a manege.
1.3 The site was recently approved for a variation of condition under 19/01095/B for Variation of condition 1 of approval for dwelling (PA 15/00682/REM) to extend permission for a further 3 years.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01320/B Page 3 of 8
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application now seeks a further variation of condition 1 of 19/01095/B for a further 3 years.
2.2 Similar to the officer's report for 19/01095/B, the original Reserved Matters related to 13/00452/A for the replacement of an agricultural building with a dwelling, garage and garden, and addressed siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access and landscaping and was approved subject to the following conditions:
o C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
o C 2. All external facing shall be finished in a white painted render and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
o C 3. All of the existing building on the site must be removed prior to the commencement of any works on the proposed replacement dwelling. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining land users and the surrounding area.
o C 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, polytunnels, walls, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, garages, car ports, may be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval). Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
2.3 It should be noted that despite being an REM application, the conditions imposed simply require the development to be commenced within four years from the date of the notice rather than relating back to the approval in principle which has now expired. This REM application effectively required the development to commence prior to 22nd September, 2019.
2.4 In terms of the application proposal, the dwelling proposed is two storey and traditionally designed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91. The dwelling is approximately 9.5 x 6 metres with a rear sunroom extension and front porch. The dwelling would have a ridge height of 7 metres. The dwelling would be finished in a painted smooth render with a dark grey interlocking manmade slate roof. The windows would be white UPVC sash type windows with reconstituted stone cills. The dwelling would be over two floors and would be orientated as such so that the front elevation faced the highway, to the west.
2.5 To the south of the dwelling would be an area of hardstanding, driveway and parking area providing two parking spaced measuring 6 x 3.25 metres. To the front of the dwelling, between 800mm and 1.8 metres from the highway, would be a 1 metre high stone wall.
2.6 The 2019 application sought a variation of condition 1 to allow a further 3 years for the commencement of the development. The applicant explained the personal circumstances which had delayed the commencement of the approved scheme, concerning the health care of her husband and financing thereof which has taken some time. In this period the main house has been sold off which is not relevant to the current application.
2.7 The circumstances now have been explained in a supporting statement stating that "In practice, these circumstances have taken longer to resolve and finalise indicating that these circumstances have taken longer to resolve and finalise than anticipated and the situation is almost now such that development could commence or the site sold but there is
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01320/B Page 4 of 8
insufficient time remaining for Building Regulation approval to be sought before the planning approval expires." "In addition, the COVID 19 pandemic has not assisted the situation in enabling the development to be expedited or the applicant's circumstances to be promptly resolved."
2.8 The drawings submitted are the same as those approved under the 2015 REM application including drawing 02 Rev 02 which shows a wall along the boundary next to the road and which is referenced in the 2015 officer report too. The officer for the 2019 application said that the plans submitted showed a wall running along the northern edge of the site which was not shown in the earlier application and as the PDO was to be suspended and planning approval would be required for this wall, no approval can be granted and this should be referred to in the decision notice. However on review of the 2015 drawings and the 2019 drawings the annotation and drawing details for this northern boundary wall remains the same between drawing numbers 09-J089-03 Rev 4 and 02 - Rev 2 and so it is not quite certain why a condition was added to this effect.
2.9 The application now is a variation of condition one of 19/01095/B, although the application is to be assessed from a fresh and so consideration may be given to any and all existing and proposed conditions.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The most relevant previous applications are 13/00452/A, 15/0682/REM and 19/01095/B as referred to in more detail in paragraphs 1.3 and section 2.0 above. For the avoidance of doubt the conditions actioned on the most recent 19/01095/B application are:
o C1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: to comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals and to reflect the nature of the application.
o C2. All external facing shall be finished in a white painted render and maintained thereafter. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
o C3. All of the existing building on the site must be removed prior to the commencement of any works on the proposed replacement dwelling. Reason: to protect the amenities of adjoining land users and the surrounding area.
o C4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, polytunnels, walls, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, garages, car ports, may be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval). Reason: to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
o C5. No approval is granted to the wall shown in drawing 02 Rev 2 as this was not shown on the originally approved drawings and this current application seeks only for a variation of the condition relating to the commencement of works. Reason: to ensure that the development reflects what is shown in the application.
3.2 This decision related to drawings 09-JO89-02, 01, 02 Rev 2, 5 and 09-J089-03 Rev 4 all received on 20th September, 2019.
3.3 The decision was issued on 20th November 2019.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01320/B Page 5 of 8
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area not designated for development under the Area Plan for the South 2013. The site also lies within a wider area recognised in the landscape character area of Incised Slopes and Appendix 4 identifies groups of houses and buildings in the countryside including Cronk y Dhooney and states:
"(c) Ballakilpheric/Cronk e Dhooney: (i) Description: Grouped quite compactly to the west and east of the still-active chapel are two collections of dwellings and farm buildings, some of which are comparatively modern. The group is some 1.5 km from the Colby main road, up a winding and sometimes narrow road. The sense of place arises largely from the chapel at the crossroads, but there are no other public facilities or amenities. (ii) Assessment: Whilst a small number of additional dwellings could be added without visual detriment to either the group or its setting, the group is not sustainable, is served by a poor access road, and is not distant enough from Colby to generate a valid local need for housing. Additional dwellings are not therefore proposed."
4.2 In terms of Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 the relevant policies in the assessment of the application are: 4.3 Strategic Policy 1 and 2 states that development should optimise and make best use of land, resources and existing infrastructure and directing all new development to existing established settlements. General Policy 3 sets out the exceptions to development in the countryside and Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
4.4 Strategic Policy 5 encourages development to make positive contribution to the environment and General Policy 2 sets out normal 'development control' considerations, including the siting, layout, scale, form and design of buildings, impact on the surrounding landscape, amenity, highway safety, reducing energy consumption etc.
4.5 Infrastructure Policy 5 requires methods for water conservation/management to be incorporated into development proposals, and Community Policies 7 and 11 seek to reduce spread of fire and reduce criminal activity.
4.6 Transport Policy 7 notes that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards as set out in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. For a residential dwelling the requirement is for 2 parking spaces.
4.7 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
4.8 Minded of the planning history of the site, what was approved was considered to be acceptable as the most recent use of the building to be replaced was not agriculture and as such, the provisions of GP3 in respect of previously developed land were considered relevant and sufficient to justify approval of the application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners - in support (21/11/2022).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (02/11/2022) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/01320/B Page 6 of 8
Applicant is advised to consider the installing cycle parking and an electric vehicle charging point.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
Planning History 6.1 The application site has been subject to a number of previous applications relating to its redevelopment for a single dwelling. The most recent 2019 application sought to vary condition 1 of the 2015 reserved matters application for a further 3 years allowing the applicant more time to implement the scheme which was delayed due to personal reasons. The officer for the 2019 application had assessed the application on whether there had been any changes to planning policy since the previous 2015 approval which would justify a different decision being reached, the officer concluded that there had been no changes and so the application remained acceptable.
6.2 The 2019 officer's report and the 2019 submitted drawings both made reference to the existing building which was to be demolished, however on review of all the information for this application and visiting the site it is clear that the building has already been demolished. Aerial images dated 2015 and 2018 both show the site being empty and the building demolished. The last aerial image showing the building still in place is the 2012 aerial and prior to the 2013 approved application.
6.3 The 2013 approval followed from a 2010 refusal where the Inspector considered there so be some merits of the proposed replacement dwelling but that the principle of the loss of the agricultural building was unacceptable. The next 2013 application was provided with additional information to overcome this issue demonstrating it not being used for agriculture, and it was considered on an exceptional basis that the use of the existing agricultural building was more akin to an industrial use rather than agricultural and was therefore considered previously developed land. They also considered the same merits of the previous Inspector remained and that the new dwelling would be more appropriate within the cluster of existing dwellings.
Proposal 6.4 Demolition of a standalone building wouldn't normally constitute development requiring an application (unless attached to something else which wasn't being demolished or being a building in a Conservation Area or Registered Building), and generally once something is demolished and gone, it can no longer be taken into consideration when seeking to have anything 'replace' it. The building here has already been demolished.
6.5 In this case the existing agricultural building would naturally have to be demolished to allow the new dwelling to be built on the same footprint, and so a condition for its demolition would not be required. However an anomaly in this instance is that the 2015 REM reserved matters application specifically required the existing building to be removed by condition before they could start any works on the new house (Condition 3), so essentially the 2015 REM application was making the applicant demolish the building. In accordance with this condition they have demolished the building except they haven't managed to start building the new dwelling yet. Given that they have sought to comply with that condition it would perhaps be somewhat unreasonable to say that just because it is gone that it couldn't now be taken into consideration in this specific case.
6.6 It is clear that the Strategic Plan outlines a presumption against any kind of development in the countryside and that it should be protected for its own sake. It is also clear that whilst the Cronk-y-Dhoony area is recognised as a group of houses in the countryside, the Area Plan for the South 2013 specifically states that it is not sustainable and no more dwellings are to be proposed. The proposal would be contrary to these established policies, however minded that this applicant duplicates exactly the specific dwelling design, location, access and
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/01320/B Page 7 of 8
parking as that originally approved in 2015, and it being sited in the same place as a specific building which was made to be demolished by a previous condition, that given this specific instance, the specific planning history and the specific circumstances arising from a previous condition that on a very exceptional basis it would be unreasonable to now reach a different conclusion of the erection of this dwelling on this site.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons set out above specifically taking into account the planning history for this site which is a material consideration in this case, and that the area is recognised as a group of houses in the countryside and minded of the previous merits of a dwelling here instead as set out by the appeal inspector of the 2010 application and the planning officer of the 2013 application, and minded that there have been no changes to planning policy since that the 2019 approval, that the development is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions relating to approval period being for another three years and modifications to those relating to external finishes, access and walls and the the revocation of the PDO.
7.2 As per paragraph 2.7 of this report there is no reason to add a condition relating to the wall however a condition requiring the access, boundary wall and parking area being provided prior to occupation would be appropriate. For the avoidance of doubt the condition relating to external finishes being in white shall be refined to define the rendered walls being white noting that some of the finishes are to be stone, and also now the removal of the demolition condition as the building is already gone and thus no longer required.
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. __ I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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 : Permitted
Date: 25.01.2023
Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/01320/B Page 8 of 8
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