Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01460/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01460/B Applicant : Mrs Julie Cassidy Proposal : Change of use of part of field 234268 to residential and construction of new bungalow Site Address : Plot North East Of Cass A Lergy Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1AT
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.02.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The application site is not designated for any development and is outside of the settlement boundary on Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 and on the 1982 plan, and a proposal for a new dwelling would be contrary to established planning policies seeking to protect the countryside for its own sake and there is no exceptional circumstance or justified need to warrant overriding these policies, and the proposal would result in an adverse impact on the countryside and also increase the impact of the site compared to its vacant situation which would harm the AHLV. The application therefore fails Strategic Policies 1, 2, 5 and 10, Spatial Policies 3 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 42 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01460/B Page 2 of 6
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site forms part of field 234268 which sits on the north-eastern side of Douglas Road, Kirk Michael and behind a dwelling known as 'Cass a Lhergy' which is also under ownership of the applicants.
1.2 Access to the site is via an existing lane running along the northern edge of Cass a Lhergy and toward the field at the rear.
1.3 The red line for the site covers the access lane and a square area measuring around 330sq m.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the change of use of the land from agriculture to residential and the erection of a new dwelling on the site.
2.2 The proposed dwelling is to be two bedroom, two bathroom and single storey with an attached pitched roof single garage.
2.3 The dwelling is to have eaves measuring 2.3m and a central ridge 5.8m. Drawings detail the external finishes to be painted render and stone effect cladding with brown concrete roof tiles above. A block paviour driveway is proposed in front of the dwelling accessed from the lane.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The applicants supporting statement makes reference to PA's 15/00815/A and 18/00504/B which granted approval for the erection of two houses in part of a field not designated for development sitting directly along the main road between existing dwellings 'Cass a Lhergy' and 'Erinville'. 15/00815/A was granted on appeal. These two houses have since been built. The supporting statement also makes reference to PA 20/01025/B which was approved for seven new dwellings on land designated for residential development behind dwellings along Douglas Road and north of 'Cass A Lhergy', this land is designated for residential development.
4.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development, outside of the settlement boundary and within an area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) on the 1982 plan. The site is also not designated for development on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994. More recently the west of the Island has been included in preliminary publicity for the Area Plan for the West and on these maps the site also remains not designated for development and outside of the settlement boundary.
4.2 There is a general presumption against development on land not zoned and which is outside of settlement boundaries. Given the nature of this site and the proposal the following policies from the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 an Kirk Michael Local Plan are considered relevant in the assessment of a new dwelling on the site:
4.3 IOM Strategic Plan 2016 o Strategic Policy 1 seeks best use of underused sites o Strategic Policy 2 states "new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages...". o Strategic Policy 5 states (in part), "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island..." o Strategic Policy 10 seeks to promote a more integrated transport network o Spatial Policy 3 specifically identifies Kirk Michael as a Service Village o Spatial Policy 5 indicates development will not be permitted in the countryside other than in accordance with General Policy 3.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01460/B Page 3 of 6
o General Policy 3 outlines exceptions to development in the countryside including a) agricultural workers dwellings, b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11) and (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12 and 14). o Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake o Environment Policy 2 indicates that within AHLV, "...the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential". o Housing Policy 4 reiterates that new housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions. o Environment Policy 42 addresses back land development. o 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. o Infrastructure Policy 5 requires methods for water conservation/management to be incorporated into development proposals o Community Policies 7 and 11 seek to reduce criminal activity and spread of fire. o 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 SP. For a residential dwelling the requirement is for 2 parking spaces.
4.4 Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994: o Policy 5.9 states in full: "No further areas should be allocated for residential development. Vehicular access to any residential area must be subject to consultation with the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties. The maximum number of dwellings which could be satisfactorily served by the Slieau Curn estate road must be determined in consultation with the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties whose minimum standards must be upheld as regards the capacity of this estate road."
o Policy 5.14 states: "Any development of residential areas to the east of the built environment should pay regard to the suggestion of a by-pass to the east of Kirk Michael. The feasibility and desirability of such a link should be further examined by the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in association with the Michael Commissioners".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Kirk Michael Commissioners - OBJECTION (09/01/2023) The area is zoned as Agricultural land. The proposal is a development creep. There is nothing in either the North West Area Plan nor the current Kirk Michael or Western Plans to provide for a change of use of the land.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (21/12/2022).
5.3 Department of Infrastructure Highway Drainage - comments (01/02/2023) applicant to be reminded of their obligations under Highway Act not to allow surface water run off on to highway.
5.4 Manx Utilities Drainage - seek additional information for percolation test for proposed soak away (30/01/2023).
5.5 No comments received from neighbouring properties.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01460/B Page 4 of 6
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are (i) the acceptability of the proposal in principle having regard to planning policies; ii) the visual impact on the AHLV and streetscene, iii) impact on neighbouring amenities, and iv) whether there are any drainage issues.
Planning Policy 6.2 There is a strong policy presumption against development, such as that proposed, in order to protect the character of the countryside landscape and also to protect the AHLV. Strategic Policy 2 directs development to existing settlements but this site sits outside of the Kirk Michael settlement boundary. Housing Policy 4 makes exceptions for replacement rural dwellings, new agricultural workers dwellings or conversion of redundant rural buildings into dwelling but clearly none of these apply in this case. Spatial Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan allows for new development in the countryside if it accords with General Policy 3 but again none of these exception apply in this case. Environment Policies 1 and 2 together protect the countryside and AHLV from harmful and unwarranted development unless it is of essential need in terms of its national interest or location and would not cause harm to landscape character and quality.
6.3 The supporting information provided by the agent states that they feel the new dwelling will be less intrusive and no worse than those residential developments already approved in the immediate area. They recognise that the site is not designated for development but was approved as part of the 2015 Approval in Principle for residential development and this acceptance at appeal should weigh in favour of this proposal, however it should be noted that this site was later removed from the 2018 full application for the development of the two dwellings, and so there is no live planning application relevant to this site or any residential use.
6.4 On a strict reading of the relevant planning policies and the nature of the site not being designated for development, outside of the settlement boundary and there not being any exceptional circumstance to warrant setting these policies aside, that the proposal in principle is considered wholly contrary to established planning policies which seek to prevent ad hoc development in the countryside.
Visual Impact AHLV & Streetscene 6.5 There is no doubt that the proposed development of a single storey, single house of a modest size and situated behind Cass A Lhergy could be undertaken relatively discreetly, and with the surrounding built development also helping to limit and screen views by the general public from the main road or further afield.
6.6 Environment Policy 42 refers to backland development which this would be. Its location would interrupt the linear development of single houses along this particular side of the road, although would not break the general line of development formed by the curtilages of dwellings along Douglas Road and would not extend beyond that area approved under 20/001025/B (although no information has been provided to evidence works have commenced under this approval).
6.7 In terms of impact on streetscene the proposal would likely have a negligible effect, but by reason of the existing site being an empty field the proposal to introduce new development would naturally increase its visual impact within the AHLV, although given the specific siting being in close proximity to and clustered amongst existing development somewhat helps to reduce its harmful impact the proposal is still a negative impact beyond the existing situation and the location of the development is also not considered to be essential to outweigh Environment Policy 2.
Impact on Neighbouring Amenity
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01460/B Page 5 of 6
6.8 The proposal is not expected to result in any increased or adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity given the design, distances and angles between dwellings and minded that the applicants are the owners of Cass A Lhergy.
Drainage 6.9 Comments have been made by Manx Utilities in respect of a soak away and their being no details being provided in respect of percolation tests. Such detail is likely to be covered as part of any subsequent detailed building regulations application, however inclusion of such details would have been good practise to demonstrate how such surface water would be dealt with. Whilst this detail has not been forthcoming since submission of the comments, it is not felt that the application should be delayed any further to allow their submission minded that the application fails to meet the principle policies in the first instance.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst other development in nearby locations has been referred to in the agents supporting statement, these appear to have been on sites either designated for residential development or considered on an exceptional basis as part of an appeals process. It is not the purpose of established planning policies to allow for ad hoc development across the countryside, and so on the basis of the existing site not being designated for any development and outside of the settlement boundary on the current local plan and on the 1982 plan, and also taking into consideration that the site is also not assigned for development on future area plan, that the proposal for a new dwelling would be contrary to these established planning policies and there is no exceptional circumstance or justified need to warrant overriding these policies, and that the proposal would result in an adverse impact on the countryside and also increase the impact of the site compared to its vacant situation which would harm the AHLV.
7.2 The application is considered to fail Strategic Policies 1, 2, 5 and 10, Spatial Policies 3 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 42 and Housing Policy 4.
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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/01460/B Page 6 of 6
Decision Made : Refused Date: 09.02.2023
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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