**Document:** Planning Officer Report 12/00597/A **Application:** 12/00597/A — Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2012-08-21 **Parish:** Patrick **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2729-glen-maye-garden-forming-part-new-build-dwelling/documents/1271397 --- # Planning Officer Report 12/00597/A ### Officer's Report [Table omitted in markdown export] THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1982 PLANNING SCHEME ORDER ### The Site 1. The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated off Sound Road, a local road which leads from the A27 coast road through Glen Maye to Ballacregan Farm to the south east of the main road. The road serves a number of dwellings, some of which are further south east than the application property - Laburnum Lodge, Holm Lea Bungalow and Strooan Cottage, only the first of which is served by the access road. This road also serves Brookvale, Vallicot Cott, Lane Cottage, Claddagh House and Ballachrink Mooar. 2. The application property is a modern bungalow sitting in just under 1 acre of landscaped garden. The dwelling was built in the 1980s, having been approved under 84/00133/B. Holm Lea was approved under PA 87/1728 and most recently Ballachrink Mooar was permitted following an approval for the redevelopment of a former barn on the site to living accommodation (PAs 05/0220 and 07/0095). 3. Beyond the garden of the application property, to the south is open agricultural land. A public footpath (Bayr ny Skeddan) runs to the east of the site, alongside the Glen Rushen river. ### The Proposal 4. Proposed is the principle of the erection of a further dwelling within the garden of the property. The present property is served by two accesses and one of these could be dedicated solely to the new property. It is likely that some existing trees will be removed to facilitate a new dwelling on the site, however these are domestic and ornamental garden trees rather than ones which contribute to the natural rural nature of the area as viewed by the public. 5. No details have been provided of the size or location of the new dwelling. However, it is clear that the site is large enough to accommodate a further dwelling. 6. The new property will be connected to the main foul sewer and surface will be discharged to a soakaway. ### Planning Status And Policy 7. The site lies within an area of Woodland and within a wider area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. 8. The Strategic Plan contains a policy relating to Woodland: Environment Policy 5 states: Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." Environment Policies 1 and 2 presume against development in such areas as the countryside is protected for its own sake, particularly in areas of High Landscape Value unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or the location for the development is essential. 9. General Policy 3 sets out when exceptions may be made in relation to the presumption against development in undesignated areas. ### Planning History 10. The applications which are relevant to the consideration of this application are set out at paragraph 2. Essentially, the existing dwelling was approved in 1984, after the 1982 Order designated the land as open space. Since then, other dwellings have been approved and built outside the residential area - Holm Lea - such that there is built development outwith the residential zone. 11. The dwelling which was built at Ballachrink Mooar is within the residential zone on the 1982 Plan. Access was the issue concerning the Planning Authority and the Inspector concluded that "The junction of Sound Road with the main road could safely accommodate additional traffic since its width and alignment are adequate. Sound Road, itself is generally straight and has good forward visibility to the junction with Postman's Path. It is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass but there are a number of areas of localised widening where vehicles can pass. Even if one of two are from time to time occupied by parked cars there is adequate space given the limited traffic flow on the road. Moreover, the road only serves local traffic and drivers are likely to be aware of the limitations. I conclude that Sound Road could safely accommodate the slight increase in traffic generated by the proposal" (paragraph 13). ### Representations 12. The Manx Electricity Authority seeks consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies. This is not a material planning consideration. 13. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority seek a deferral pending the submission of flood mitigation information. They subsequently advise that they have no objection to the development in principle providing that the application for reserved matters includes a full flood risk assessment. 14. A resident of Douglas objects to the application as it is not within the recognised village and would be contrary to the land use designation. If permission is granted then the new dwelling should be compliant with Planning Circular 1/98. 15. Patrick Parish Commissioners make no comment on the application. 16. Highways Division originally sought a deferral pending information on visibility splays and after the submission of further information, resolved to raise no objection to the application. 17. The owners of Ballacreggan, Ballachrink Farmhouse, Ballachirnk Mooar and Ballanea object to the application on the basis that the access is unsuitable for further traffic. In addition, the owners of Ballacrhink Farm House point out that the existing MEA junction box should not be within private land and that they do not accept the need for a further property on the site. Reference is also made to an existing water course within the site. Two of these parties make reference to the fact that Mrs. Thorpe objected to their application for a dwelling accessed by the same lane. ## Assessment 18. Whilst the site does not lie within the residential area defined in the 1982 Plan, this plan is drawn at such a scale as for it not to be accurately applicable to particular sites with any degree of certainty. For example, the applicant's existing house is not within the defined area nor is Laburnum Lodge whilst both were approved after the designation. Holm Lea is also outside the area designated as Residential on the 1982 Plan but was approved prior to that designation. The site is very well screened from public view other than from the footpath which links the village to Ballacreggan Farm and there are dwellings on the southern side of the footpath past the site of the proposed dwelling. Beyond the south eastern boundary of the property the land changes markedly from domestic garden to open countryside. It is not considered that there will be visual harm from the erection of a further dwelling as proposed and indeed none of the objections suggest that this will be the case. 19. There are objections which relate mainly to traffic and in this respect it is relevant to note the comments made in respect of the most recent application for development off this highway (PA 05/0220), both by the inspector considering the appeal and by the ht. In respect the latter, the Highways Division stated: "No adverse traffic impact. Sound Road serves in excess of ten existing properties and is wide enough for two way passage of traffic at its junction with Main Road. It is 70m from that junction to the proposed driveway and the alignment is straight and affords good visibility along its length. Vehicles can give way on the wider stretches of the road and driveways may be used as localised widening. The traffic arising from the proposed dwelling is unlikely to cause additional congestion and there is the benefit of removing traffic generated at the moment from the site. The speed on the road is low and there is a low risk of accidents resulting from the proposal" (Inspector's paragraph 7). 20. The Inspector comments: "The junction of Sound Road with the main road could safely accommodate additional traffic since its width and alignment are adequate. Sound Road itself is generally straight and has good forward visibility to the junction with Postman's Path. It is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass but there are a number of areas of localised widening where vehicles can pass. Even if one or two are from time to time occupied by parked cars there is adequate space given the limited traffic flow on the road. Moreover, the road only serves local traffic and drivers are likely to be aware of the limitations. I conclude that Sound Road could safely accommodate the slight increase in traffic generated by the proposal." 21. He goes on "Postman's Path is a narrow track which is confined by hedges and walls. Even so there is some localised widening which would enable vehicles to pass. There is a bend with poor forward visibility but it is likely that given the narrow width and poor surface vehicle speeds would be low. The track serves one dwelling and the appeal proposal would be a second. Again, I find that the combination of these circumstances and the slight increase in vehicle numbers would not give rise to a hazardous situation for users of the track whether pedestrian or vehicular" (paragraphs 13 and 14). 22. As such, it would appear that the road network is suitable to accommodate limited additional development and it is not accepted that this should justify the refusal of the application. The erection of a dwelling as proposed would not extend the existing residential curtilage and would have a limited visual impact. There are already dwellings further southeast than the application property and as such it is considered that the development would not result in any unacceptable impact on the village or the surrounding area. 23. As such, the application is recommended for approval. ## Party Status 24. The local authority, Patrick Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 25. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority is a statutory authority who raised material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this case. 27. The owners of Ballacregan, Ballachrink Farm House, Ballanea and Ballachrink Mooar all share the same access as the proposed dwelling and as such should be afforded party status in this case. 28. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 29. The resident of Douglas is not directly affected by the development and should not be afforded party status. 30. The Manx Electricity Authority does not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this case ### Supplementary Report The application would result in a dwelling built on land which is not designated for development and would effectively extend the built development into the countryside surrounding the village. Approval of this application would establish an unfortunate precedent for development within residential curtilages on land not designated for development, resulting in an expansion of settlements into the surrounding countryside. ### Recommendation **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 10.08.2012 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The application would result in a dwelling built on land which is not designated for development and would effectively extend the built development into the countryside surrounding the village. Approval of this application would establish an unfortunate precedent for development within residential curtilages on land not designated for development, resulting in an expansion of settlements into the surrounding countryside. I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 Decision Made: R Committee Meeting Date: 20/8/12 Signed: S. S. M. O. W. H. T. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☐ YES ☑ NO --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/2729-glen-maye-garden-forming-part-new-build-dwelling/documents/1271397*