Inspector's Report

APPEAL NO: AP18/0038 APPLICATION NO: 18/00200/A_________________________________________________________ Report of an inquiry into a planning appeal Date of Inquiry: 24 October 2018 Date of Site Inspection: 22 October 2018

Appeal by Leonard Leslie Brindley, against the decision to refuse planning approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling in Field 624255, Glen Mona Loop Road, Glen Mona, Ramsey.

The Site and Surroundings

• 1 The appeal site is an area of undeveloped land, with a frontage of approximately 45m to the east side of the Glen Mona Loop Road, and a maximum depth of about 105m. The land here slopes downward from west to east. To the north, the appeal site is bounded by the curtilage of ‘Barony View’, a detached residential property owned and occupied by the appellant and his wife. Beyond this, there is a further detached dwelling, called ‘Archallagan’. ‘Barony View’ and ‘Archallagan’ each stand in extensive grounds. To the east, the appeal site is bounded by open countryside. To the south of the appeal site, there is a row of four detached dwellings fronting the Glen Mona Loop Road.
• 2 The Manx Electric Railway crosses the Glen Mona Loop Road at a level crossing, immediately adjacent to the appeal site. To the south of the level crossing, an isolated bungalow occupies land between the west side of the Glen Mona Loop Road and the Manx Electric Railway. To the west of the railway, there is open countryside. The main built-up area of Glen Mona lies about 160 m north-west of the appeal site, on the opposite side of the Manx Electric Railway.

The Proposed Development

• 3 Approval in principle is sought for the erection of a dwelling. All matters of detail are reserved. An indicative plan shows a possible footprint for the proposed dwelling located centrally on the site, in line with the existing dwellings to the north and south.

The Case for the Appellant

• 4 Glen Mona is listed as one of the villages to which Spatial Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 applies. This policy indicates that development should maintain the existing settlement character, and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs. Otherwise, it does not preclude development within the village.
• 5 The appeal site is within the village of Glen Mona. It constitutes a narrow infill gap in a ribbon of eight dwellings, which extends southwards from the main built-up area of this settlement, along the Glen Mona Loop Road. Its development, as proposed, would not extend this line of buildings or encroach into the countryside. Ribbon development is a feature of Glen Mona,

• and is a part of that settlement’s character. The Government’s Landscape Character Assessment of 2008 describes this area as having ‘a scattered settlement pattern of isolated farms and hamlets’. The proposed development would not have a negative effect on that character.
• 6 When the 1982 Development Plan was prepared, there was only a single house on this stretch of the Glen Mona Loop Road. The appeal site was not designated for development, but was included in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. However, subsequently a number of additional houses have been approved here, to establish the present ribbon of development. There is therefore a precedent for further development of the same kind.
• 7 A further precedent, supporting the development now proposed, is the appeal decision on planning application 12/00643/B, concerning a site in Newtown Village, Santon (Doc 2, Appendix 1). Like the present proposal, that application was for development on an infill plot in a village listed under Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan; and the site had been shown as unallocated ‘white land’ in the 1982 Development Plan, and included in an Area of High Landscape Value. The Inspector who held the inquiry into that appeal concluded that the proposed development would not cause harm to the appearance of the Area of High Landscape Value; that it would maintain the existing settlement character of Newtown; and that it would meet a local housing need.
• 8 The development now proposed would meet a local housing need. It would be occupied by the appellant’s son, Mr A Brindley and his family. They would be on hand to care for the appellant, who is aged 85. Mr A Brindley and his family currently live in Groundle Glen, in a property that would not be suitable for this purpose. The appellant has lived in Barony View since 1986. Mr A Brindley grew up in Glen Mona, and has strong family ties with this village.
• 9 Although the application is for approval in principle, it is intended that the development would entail the erection of a two-storey detached house, sited away from the road. As the land slopes down here, much of the proposed building would be hidden from the roadway, in a similar fashion to Barony View, next door. Aesthetically, it would be in keeping with the styles of building construction in this area.
• 10 Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan each restrict development in the countryside, and are all cited in the reason given for refusing planning approval for the development now proposed. However, the appeal site is not within the countryside, being bounded on three sides by residential development. The references to these policies in the reason for refusing planning approval are therefore invalid.
• 11 Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is also cited in the reason for refusal. It provides that in Areas of High Landscape Value, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration, unless the proposed development would not harm that character; or the location for the development is essential. However, in the present case, the proposed development would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the landscape. In its existing state the appeal site is not beneficial to the surrounding area. The

• natural vegetation would be retained to screen the proposed building in the view from the Glen Mona Loop Road and the Manx Electric Railway. Substantial development has already been permitted on adjacent land, which already affects the character and appearance of the landscape in this part of Glen Mona.
• 12 The reason for refusing planning approval also refers to Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan. This provides that new development should be located so as to minimise journeys, especially by private car; and make best use of a public transport. The proposed dwelling would comply with this policy. It would be within walking distance of both Glen Mona Halt on the Manx Electric Railway, and the main bus route between Douglas and Ramsey. The Highways Services Division has raised no objection to this development.
• 13 At a previous 2009 planning appeal (AP09/0125) concerning the appeal site, the Planning Authority had argued that ‘… housing provision in Glen Mona would be defined when the Northern Area Plan was drawn up in 2011’. However, in 2018, work on the Northern Area Plan has not yet started. The 1982 Development Plan is now over 36 years old and does not reflect today’s circumstances. Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the Area Plan will define the development boundaries of Glen Mona, a village that is designated for development to meet local needs. However, lack of progress on the production of the Area Plan should not stifle such development.
• 14 The proposed development would help meet the aims of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Paragraph 8.4.4 of that plan highlights issues associated with the care of an ageing population. The occupation of the proposed dwelling by the appellant’s son and his family would ensure that help would be on hand for the appellant and his wife during their old age. Paragraph 8.5.1(c) and (d) of the Strategic Plan asserts that residential development in villages could help promote the provision of social facilities, such as shops, public houses, cinemas, opportunities for sports, and public transport. Paragraph 8.8.2 of the Strategic Plan refers to the possibility of adding further dwellings to groups of houses in the countryside, in order to maintain social and family associations, and assist in sustaining the rural economy. The proposed development would contribute to such outcomes.
• 15 In the circumstances, the Minister is requested to allow the appeal and grant planning approval in principle for the proposed development.

The Case for the Planning Authority

• 16 The appeal site is not designated for development in the Isle of Man Development Plan 1982, but is included in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 indicate that development will be permitted in the countryside only in accordance with General Policy 3. General Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development in the appropriate Area Plan (except in certain specified circumstances, none of which applies in the present case). Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan states that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted, unless there

• is an over-riding national need. Environment Policy 2 provides that, in an Area of High Landscape Value, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration, subject to certain specified exceptions.
• 17 There is a clear open view of the site, and the countryside beyond, from the Glen Mona Loop Road. The erection of a dwelling on this land would be likely to block this view, which is of significant quality. The proposed development would therefore be harmful to the landscape, and would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
• 18 The intention of Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan is to direct new development toward sites that are within the development boundaries of existing settlements. These are to be defined in Area Plans. As the appeal site is not zoned for development, it should be regarded as being in the countryside, outside the village of Glen Mona. A previous planning application for the erection of a dwelling on this land was considered at appeal in 2009. The Inspector who considered that appeal commented as follows:

… the site is away from the built-up area of Glen Mona. This small settlement lies north of the Glen Mona Hotel. The small, broken ribbon of development that runs along the Glen Mona Loop Road, containing 6 properties, is not part of the built-up area of Glen Mona. The appeal site is part of this broken ribbon of development. This ribbon is surrounded by countryside, and itself is part of the countryside.

• 19 It is accepted that the site is close to Glen Mona, being within walking distance of the Glen Mona Hotel and the Dhoon School. However, the same could be said of any parcel of land in the vicinity of this village. It does not provide an automatic reason for granting planning approval contrary to development plan policy.
• 20 Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan refers to the possibility of adding further dwellings to groups of houses in the countryside, which do not form part of any defined settlement. However, paragraph 8.8.3 makes it clear that these groups will be identified in Area Plans. The appeal site is not within a group of houses that has been identified in this way.
• 21 Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan seeks to minimise journeys, especially by private car. It is reasonable to suppose that the vast majority of journeys to and from the proposed dwelling would be by this mode. There are no shops or services within the village of Glen Mona, other than a public house and a school. Accordingly, the appeal site is not considered to be a sustainable location for residential development.
• 22 In summary, the proposed development would be contrary to established planning policies, would be in an unsustainable location, and would have an adverse effect on the character of the countryside. As a permanent structure, the proposed house would continue to exist long after the appellant’s current personal circumstances have ceased to be material. The Minister is asked to dismiss the appeal, and uphold the decision to refuse planning approval. However,

if the Minister is minded to allow the appeal and grant planning approval, the following conditions are suggested:

• 1 The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013

• 2 Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance and internal layout of the dwelling, the means of access, and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. The details for approval shall include, but not be limited to:

• (a) The provision to be made for the parking and turning of vehicles within the site;
• (b) The surface treatment of any access, parking area or amenity space, and any other parts of the site which will not be covered by buildings;
• (c) All external materials to be used in the development;
• (d) Visibility splays;
• (e) Existing and proposed ground, floor and ridge levels;
• (f) Details of boundary treatments;
• (g) Hard and soft landscaping.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, this is an approval in principle and these matters require detailed consideration by the Department in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 3 The development hereby approved shall be limited to a single dwellinghouse.

Reason: This is an approval for a single dwelling as shown on the submitted illustrative drawings, and any greater density would be out of keeping with the character of the adjacent properties and the surrounding area, and would require additional space for parking and amenity areas.

Inspector’s Assessment

• 23 I consider the main issues in this appeal to be first, whether the proposed development would be consistent with the settlement policy set out in the statutory development plan; second, the effect of the proposed development on the countryside; third, whether the proposed development would be consistent with the objective of minimising journeys, especially by car; and fourth, whether there are any special circumstances that should tell in favour of the proposed scheme.

Settlement Policy

• 24 Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle Man Strategic Plan 2016 indicate that new development will be located primarily within existing settlements, and that development in the countryside will be permitted only in the exceptional circumstances identified in General Policy 3. General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan, subject to certain specified exceptions.
• 25 The appeal site is not zoned for development in any development plan. None of the exceptions listed in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan applies in the present case. It follows that the proposed development would be contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.

Effect on the Countryside

• 26 Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan seeks to protect the countryside, which is defined as all land outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 of that plan, which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Glen Mona is included as a settlement in Appendix 3; but the question of whether the appeal site is within that settlement was considered in a 2009 planning appeal (AP09/0125). In paragraph 18 of his report on that appeal, the Inspector concluded that neither the appeal site, nor the ribbon of residential properties along the Glen Mona Loop Road, came within the built-up area of Glen Mona. I am aware of no subsequent change of circumstances which would lead me to any different conclusion. It follows that, in my view, the appeal site must be regarded as being within the countryside; and that its development as proposed would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
• 27 The appeal site lies within an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan provides that, in such areas, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration, unless the development would not harm the character or quality of the landscape, or the location of the development is essential. I consider that the proposed development would consolidate the existing ribbon of building along the Glen Mona Loop Road, and would have the effect of partially obstructing a view from that road, across a most attractive area of countryside toward the distant sea. It seems to me that it would render this area less rural and more

• urban in character. There is no evidence to suggest that the development in this location is essential. Accordingly, I consider that the proposed development would be contrary to Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
• 28 Housing Policy 4 reiterates that new housing will primarily be located within existing settlements, or in planned extensions to settlements identified in Area Plans. It states that new housing in the countryside will be permitted only in specified exceptional circumstances – to provide essential accommodation for agricultural workers; to make use of redundant buildings in the countryside; or to replace existing dwellings. The proposed development would not comply with any of these criteria, and would therefore be contrary to Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
• 29 Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan refers to the possibility that further dwellings may be added to existing groups of houses in the countryside that are too small to be recognised as villages. However, such groups are to be identified in Area Plans. In my view, it would be premature to assume that the existing housing in the Glen Mona Loop Road would be so identified in the Area Plan for the North.

Sustainability

• 30 Apart from a public house and a school, there are few facilities in Glen Mona, and prospective occupants of the proposed dwelling would probably have to make long journeys for employment, for shopping, and for a range of other social and economic activities. Although the appeal site is close to Glen Mona Halt on the Manx Electric Railway, I understand that that service does not operate during the winter. A reasonably frequent bus service links Glen Mona with Douglas and Ramsey, but I suspect that prospective residents would probably be highly reliant on private motor transport. In view of this, I consider that the proposed development would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Special Circumstances

• 31 I note that the proposed dwelling would be occupied by the appellant’s son and his family. The appellant and his wife are an elderly couple, who live next door to the appeal site in Barony View. It would clearly be advantageous to them to have members of their family nearby, to provide support in their old age. I also note that the appellant’s son grew up in this area and has local connections. However, in my view, personal circumstances of this sort are seldom, if ever, sufficient to justify the erection of buildings, which would contravene planning policy and permanently change the landscape. If approved and erected, the dwelling now proposed would remain in place long after the present personal circumstances of the appellant and his family had ceased to be material.
• 32 I fully understand the appellant’s frustration at the delay in the production of the Area Plan for the North. However, in itself, that delay does not seem to me to provide any grounds for setting aside the long-established provisions of the 1982 Development Plan, or the policies in the more recent Strategic Plan of 2016.

Conclusion

• 33 Accordingly, I consider that the appeal should be dismissed; and that the decision to refuse planning approval should be upheld. However, if the Minister is minded to allow the appeal and grant approval, I would support the imposition of planning conditions along the lines outlined in paragraph 22 above.

Recommendation

• 34 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed; and that the decision to refuse planning approval be upheld.

Michael Hurley BA DipTp Independent Inspector 3 November 2018

Appearances

FOR THE APPELLANT Mr A Brindle Appellant’s son FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY Mr C Balmer Principal Planner, DEFA

Documents

• 1 Attendance List
• 2 Mr Brindley’s Statement
• 3 Mr Balmer’s Statement