**Document:** Officer Report and Recommendation
**Application:** 08/02040/A — Approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2009-02-20
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/86695-braddan-land-abutting-opposite-garage-dwelling/documents/1536487

---

# Officer Report and Recommendation

## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export]

## Officer's Report

### The Application Site And Proposed Development

The application site comprises land north of Braddan Bridge between Peel Road and the River Dhoo, opposite Braddan Church in Braddan. The site is relatively level until it slopes steeply down to the river on its eastern boundary.

The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage on the application site.

### Planning History

The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

Planning application 94/00296/A sought approval in principle for tourist accommodation for disabled persons with associated facilities on land at and adjacent to Ballafletcher Cottage, Peel Road, Braddan. This previous planning application was refused on the 19th July 1994.

Planning application 94/01007/A sought approval in principle for provision of self-contained tourist units for the disabled on land adjacent to Ballafletcher Cottage, Peel Road, Braddan. This previous planning application was refused on the 8th December 1994.

Planning application 95/00622/a sought approval in principle for the erection of self-contained tourist apartments for disabled and people with special needs on land adjacent to Ballafletcher Cottage, Peel Road, Braddan. This previous planning application was refused at review on the 14th March 1996.

Planning application 96/01174/A sought approval in principle for two detached dormer bungalows on land adjacent to Ballafletcher Cottage, Peel Road, Braddan. This previous planning application was refused at appeal on the 18th September 1997. A copy of the appeal refusal decision for this previous planning application has been placed on the file for the current planning application.

Planning application 04/00731/B sought approval for a highway improvement scheme including the creation of a mini roundabout on land at the junction of Braddan Church, Peel Road and Saddle Road,

Braddan. This previous planning application was approved on the 30th June 2004. A copy of the approval decision notice for this previous planning application has been placed on the file for the current planning application.

Planning application 07/00486/A sought approval in principle for the erection of three dwellings with associated roads and sewers on land abutting Peel Road opposite Braddan Church, Braddan. This previous planning application was refused on the 2nd July 2007. An appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 23rd October 2007. Copies of the refusal decision notice and appeal refusal decision for this previous planning application have been placed on the file for the current planning application.

### Representations

Braddan Parish Commissioners object to the planning application on the grounds that the land is not zoned for residential development. They believe that any development would be against General Policy 3 and potentially against General Policy 2(d) and Environment Policy 7(d) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application subject to the provision of visibility splays of  metres at the point of access and those splays being kept clear of any object, vegetation, or other obstructions of a height exceeding  above the land of the adjacent carriageway.

The Chief Environmental Health Officer expresses an interest in the planning application. They have commented on the proposed means of foul sewerage disposal. They have discussed the matter directly with the applicant’s agent, who has clarified the issue and advised that a License to Discharge would be sought if planning approval were granted.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Inland Fisheries Division expresses an interest in the planning application. They suggest that development must be a minimum distance of 8 metres from the watercourse in order to minimise the risk of damage or disturbance to the river banks and river bed and that due to the close proximity of the river measures must be in place during construction works to safeguard the watercourse from run-off and sedimentation.

The Department of Transport Design Services Division express an interest in the planning application on the grounds that there are potential enforcement implications that involve them in the event that the planning application is refused. They advise that they have been in discussion with the applicant regarding the matter.

The owners and/or occupants of 1 Braddan Bridge, which is located east of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as believe that the development would be contrary to the land use designation under the Braddan Parish District Plan 1991 and policies contained within Planning Circular 6/91 and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. They are particularly concerned about the impact of development on the trees and woodland setting, the potential for overlooking and subsequent effect on privacy arising from the development, the impact on long distance footpath and cycle way, and the general adverse visual impact from the development of the site. They considered that there are no material circumstances to override the reasons for refusal of previous planning application 07/00486/A. Furthermore, they are concerned about the current use of the application site for the storage of Department of Transport materials.

The owner and/or occupant of 2 Braddan Bridge, which is located east of the application site, objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as believe that the development would be contrary to the land use designation under the Braddan Parish District Plan 1991 and policies contained within Planning Circular 6/91 and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. They are particularly concerned about the impact of development on the trees and woodland setting, the potential for overlooking and subsequent effect on privacy arising from the development, the impact on long distance footpath and cycle way, and the general adverse visual impact from the development of the site. They considered that there are no material circumstances to override the reasons for refusal of previous planning application 07/00486/A. Furthermore, they are concerned about the current use of the application site for the storage of Department of Transport materials.

The owner and/or occupant of 3 Braddan Bridge, which is located east of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as believe that the development would be contrary to the land use designation under the Braddan Parish District Plan 1991 and policies contained within Planning Circular 6/91 and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. They are particularly concerned about the impact of development on the trees and woodland setting, the potential for overlooking and subsequent effect on privacy arising from the development, the impact on long distance footpath and cycle way, and the general adverse visual impact from the development of the site. They considered that there are no material circumstances to override the reasons for refusal of previous planning application 07/00486/A. Furthermore, they are concerned about the current use of the application site for the storage of Department of Transport materials.

## PLANNING POLICY

In terms of local plan policy, the application site is designated as open space under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 – Plan No. 2. Planning Circular 6/91, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains one policy that is considered potentially material to the assessment of the planning application. Policy 5.4 states:

"With the exception of an area to the south of Cronkbourne Village, it is felt that no further areas should be recommended for residential development in order to avoid encroachment into an essentially rural area."

In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains five policies that are considered potentially material to the assessment of this current planning application.

### General Policy 2 states:

"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

- (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
- (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
- (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
- (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
- (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
- (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
- (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
- (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
- (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
- (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
- (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
- (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
- (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
- (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

### General Policy 3 states:

"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

- (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
- (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
- (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
- (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
- (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
- (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
- (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
- (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

### Environment Policy 3 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 Policy 7 states:

"Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

- (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
- (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
- (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
- (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."

### Transport Policy 3 states:

"New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes."

## Assessment

The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage on the application site. The submitted planning application comprises completed application form, location plan defining the application site in red, an illustrative site plan, an illustrative elevation of the dwelling, a measured site survey and supporting statement.

In terms of assessment, as stated earlier in this report, there have been a number of previous planning applications that sought residential development of the application site. Whilst the most recent one of those (07/00486/A) related to the erection of three dwellings on the application site the underlying principle of development is the same. As such, the conclusion of that previous planning application, and in particular the appointed Planning Inspector’s report, is considered to be a significant material planning consideration in the assessment of this current planning application. Assessment of the planning application is therefore primarily based around those conclusions.

Turning to the report of the Planning Inspector appointed to assess the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 07/00486/B it can be seen at paragraph 15 that the Planning Inspector clearly identified that the abandoned Braddan Plan is not a material planning consideration. They stated that “the main issue, bearing in mind the policy of the adopted plans, is whether the site, once restored after its temporary use, would continue to contribute to the amenity of the locality and whether that amenity would be unacceptably harmed by the proposal.”. Through paragraphs 16-24 of their report the appointed Planning Inspector made his assessment of the development proposed by that previous planning application. Some of this assessment relates to the specific implications of developing the application site for three dwellings, whilst some relates to the broader issue of residential development of the application site. It is therefore necessary to take account of what relates to the specific development of three dwellings and what relates to overall development when taking the conclusion of the appointed Planning Inspector’s report into consideration.

At paragraph 16 they state that “Adopted planning policy is clear – the site is not allocated for development and it is to be considered against General Policy 3. It conflicts with that policy. Strategic Polices(sic) 1 and 2, as their title implies, set a broad strategic context within which the other policies sit. Similarly the broad parameters within housing provision is to be made provide a context like any other undeveloped land not zoned for development on the edge of a settlement. Of course being in conflict with the development plan is not, of itself, enough to justify refusal of planning permission as one has to go and ask whether there are material considerations that justify permission not in accordance with the development plan and whether actual planning harm would be caused beyond that arising from conflict with policy.”

At paragraph 17 they refer to the conclusions of a previous Planning Inspector appointed to assess the refusal of previous planning application 96/01174/A, who stated at paragraph 25 of their report that “Indeed it is the size of the site and its contribution to the local scene that is the most striking. It seemed to me that the trees and open space of the appeal site do add a significant and highly valued dimension to the local scene and that this contribution is that which the policies of the Local Plan intend to protect.” The appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 07/00486/A surmised that “it is relevant to ask what has changed since then to justify a different conclusion.” In this respect, at paragraphs 18 the appointed Planning Inspector stated that “Certainly, the site is narrower at its southern part and trees have been lost as a result of the road improvement scheme but the outcome in the longer term will be restoration of the roadside belt of trees. There is no evidence before me to suggest additional residential development has been permitted in the vicinity such that the character of the area has change, the previous Inspector took into account the buildings on the opposite side of the road, Ballafletcher Cottage and Braddan Bridge House. I accept that the latter may have seen some development in recent years in terms of refurbishment/redevelopment but I am not convinced that has changed the character of the area.” He continued on to state at paragraph 19 that “The contribution the appeal site makes and will make in its undeveloped condition is to be assessed from two principal locations: the area around Kirk Braddan and along the Heritage Trail. The two churches, associated buildings and nearby dwelling make a characterful grouping which is enhanced by the roadside trees and open nature of the appeal site. When approached from any of the three directions it is perceived as a small and historic group separate from more recent development and in a sylvan setting. Of course the roadside trees would provide some screening for the proposed houses so that their visual impact would be softened. However they would still be clearly visible through the roadside trees, particularly in winter. Moreover, there would be views along the length of the site from Braddan Bridge to the south, although I do accept that additional planting behind the protected zone for driver visibility could ameliorate that impact.” The implications of those conclusions are largely self-evident and it is considered that in those respects the impact of the development of the application site is unchanged.

Paragraph 20 of the appointed Planning Inspector’s report primarily deals with the implications of developing the application site for three dwellings, as was proposed by previous planning application 07/00486/A. It is considered reasonable to conclude that the site specific impacts of developing the application site for one dwelling are significantly different to three dwellings. For example, the previous concerns regarding the level of amenity space provided for the three dwellings should not be a concern for the development of the application site for one dwelling. Similarly, subject to the specifics of siting and design it is concluded that given the distances involved, the changes in levels and existing mature trees the development of one dwelling on the application site would not cause unacceptable harm to the private residential amenity of surrounding properties. It is also concluded that one dwelling would not necessarily have the same detrimental impact as three dwellings on character and appearance of the banks of the

river and the public enjoyment of the Heritage Trail and that sufficient space exists to ensure that built development would be further than eight metres from the River Dhoo. However all of this does not set aside the issues regarding the principle of development of the application site in respect of the land use designation under the local plan and the implications of relevant planning policy.

Having regard to the land use designation, the relevant planning policy and the impact of the development of the application site the appointed Planning Inspector for previous planning application 07/00486/A stated at paragraph 21 of their report that “The development conflicts with planning policy and the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality. There are no material circumstances to outweigh that harm caused.” Those findings have not materially changed since the refusal of that previous planning application and it is therefore concluded that the development of application site remains contrary to the land use designation within the local and contrary to the relevant planning policy. The impact of the development of the application site on the locality is unacceptable.

It is recommended that the planning application be refused for the similar reasons as previous planning application 07/00486/A.

### Party Status

It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:

- Braddan Parish Commissioners;
- The Department of Transport Highways Division;
- The Chief Environmental Health Officer;
- The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Inland Fisheries Division;
- The Department of Transport Design Services Division;
- The owners and/or occupants of 1 Braddan Bridge;
- The owner and/or occupant of 2 Braddan Bridge; and
- The owner and/or occupant of 3 Braddan Bridge.

### Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 18.02.2009

## 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 development of the application site as proposed would be contrary to:
- (a) land use designation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 – Plan No. 2; and
- (b) planning policy set out within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007; and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 31/07 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Decision Made : Refused Date : 19/12/09

Signed : [Handwritten signature] Senior Planning Officer

---

*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/86695-braddan-land-abutting-opposite-garage-dwelling/documents/1536487*