Loading document...
The application site comprises a parcel of land (field no. 534102) that is located on the eastern side of the Mountain Road in the Hillberry area of Onchan.
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the creation of a vehicle park on the application site.
The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
Onchan District Commissioners, who are the applicants, recommend that the planning application be approved.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. They specify a number of conditions relating to access arrangements that should be condition in the event that planning approval in principle is granted.
Manx National Heritage expresses an interest in the planning application. They question the visual prominence of the site and suggest the proposal needs to be assessed against General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. If planning approval is granted they suggest that consideration needs to be given to the provision of appropriate screening.
The owners and/or occupant of Glen Dhoo Farm, who own land directly opposite the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern regarding traffic generation and highway safety.
The owners and/or occupants of Signpost Cottage, which is located approximately 100 metres south of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is contrary to planning policies that seek to protect the countryside. They question the impact on wildlife, the character of the area and highway safety.
The owners and/or occupants of 5 Westminster Terrace, which is located in Douglas, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern regarding the impact on highway safety and the visual impact of the proposal on the rural landscape.
The owners and/or occupants of Hunters Moon, which adjoins the application to the south, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern regarding the visual impact of the proposal, the impact on highway safety and the possible use of the site as a camping site. They also highlight issues regarding the lack of any possible screening or landscaping details and detail of how the site would be monitored.
The owners and/or occupants of 4 Ballafurt Close, which is located in Port Erin, express an interest in the planning application. They support the general principle of removing large camper vehicles from residential areas but highlight the need to do this in a manner that does not harm the Island's countryside.
The owners and/or occupants of The Beeches, which is located approximately 250 metres north of the application site, objection to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal will cause undue noise and disruption. They question who will use the site and the potential effect on residential financial value.
The owners and/or occupants of Apples Blossom, which is located approximately 350 metres north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern regarding the visual impact of the proposal on the rural landscape, the commercial use of the site and the impact on highway safety. They question how people are intended to access the site to drop off and pick up stored vehicles.
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is designated as public open space (Centenary Park) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000.
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan-2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
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:
Recreation Policy 2 states:
"Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances:
The planning application seeks planning approval in principle for the creation of a vehicle park on the application site. Based on the submitted planning application and after further clarification with the applicant it is understood that the proposal is for the creation of an area where motor homes can be securely parked so as to remove them from residential areas. It is envisaged by the applicant (see letter of 27th June 2011 for detail) that only part of the application site would be used, there would be limited changes in ground levels purely to provide a level surface, that a mesh fabric finish rather than a solid surface would be used.
It is understood that the proposed use is put forward on premise of removing large private non-commercial vehicles such as motor homes from residential areas, where they are considered to be a nuisance due to their size and frequency of use. Whilst it is understood that there is some public concern regarding the impact of such vehicles within residential areas it has to be borne in mind that the parking of such vehicles would not normally be considered to require planning approval. If this truly is an issue that needs resolving it is possibly one that has to be resolved by other means than the planning system. In this instance it is questionable how sustainable it is to store vehicles in an area that is likely to be primarily accessed by other vehicles, i.e. cars being used in the dropping off and picking up of store vehicles.
In terms of the development proposed by the planning application the main issues to consider are the appropriateness of the proposal in respect of the land use designation, the impact on public amenity, the impact on private amenity and the impact on highway safety.
As stated earlier in this report the application site is designated as public open space under the relevant local plan. As such the land is not designated for development and the proposal needs to be assessed against General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. This policy sets out a presumption against development unless the proposal constitutes one of eight listed exceptions. As the creation of a vehicle park does not constitute one of the listed exceptions it has to be concluded that the proposal is contrary to
the provisions of General Policy 3, which is reason for refusal of the planning application. In addition to this the presumption against development that would result in the loss of open space is also reinforced by Recreation Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. With this policy there are two exceptions that would allow the development of open space in certain circumstances. However, it is also concluded that the creation of a vehicle park does not constitute either of these two exceptions and therefore the proposal is also contrary to the provisions of Recreation Policy 2, which is further reason for refusal of the planning application.
In respect of impact on public amenity the main issue to consider is the potential effect of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area. The basis for the assessment of this has to be to the position of the application site, which can be seen to be elevated above the Mountain Road and prominently visible within the surrounding area. Even if the alterations to the site to make it usable as a vehicle park do not increase significantly increase the visual prominence of the application site it is considered a reasonable conclusion that the parking of numerous large vehicles on it would be of significantly increased prominence. Even if the site were kept in a tidy manner the storing of aforesaid vehicles would be unsightly and harmful to the visual amenity of the area. This is concluded to be reason for refusal of the planning application.
Turning to the issue of the impact proposal on private amenity it can be seen that there are a number of properties within close proximity of the application site. Following clarification of the area of the application site intended to be used for the vehicle park it is considered that whilst there would be some impact on private amenity the level of such impact would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application on such basis.
Finally, on the basis that the Highways Division does not oppose the planning application and suggest conditions relating to the access arrangements in the event of approval it is concluded that the impact on highway safety is acceptable. However, it is plausible that the works required to provide the appropriate visibility will significantly alter the openness of the site, thereby potentially increasing its prominence and harm to public amenity.
On the basis of the above it is recommended that the planning application be refused
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 06.07.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The planning application proposes the development of land designated as public open space under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000. As the proposal does not constitute any of the listed exceptions to allow the development of such land the proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 and Recreation Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Furthermore, in terms of site specific impact it is concluded that the parking of large vehicles on the application site would have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity given the prominent position within the area.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 7 July 2011
Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate
Signed : Jennifer Chance Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
