Officer Report 11/01676/A

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:15282}} {{table:15281}}

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The site is a roughly triangular piece of land situated to the west of the Ramsey village boundary, to the north of the Jurby Road (A13). Immediately to the east of the site is an existing dwelling, Sheeoiil. The site is approximately 0.2 hectares in size and described as "domestic curtilage" within the application form but there is no associated dwelling defined in red or blue on the submitted plans. The site is understood to be part of the curtilage of Sheeoiil.

1. The site contains a number of trees and lawn and there is presently no boundary between the defined site and the remainder of the curtilage of Sheeoiil.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the principle of the erection of a dwelling on the site. Illustrative plans have helpfully been submitted to indicate how a dwelling could be fitted onto the site without affecting existing trees. There is an existing access into the site but this is proposed to be modified to provide greater visibility, effectively moving the access approximately 9m to the west to achieve splays of 2m by 160m in both directions as shown on the plans.

Planning Status And Policy

1. The site lies outside the Ramsey Town boundary and is within an area designated as Woodland on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982.

1. As such, there is a presumption against development in such areas, as set out in Environment Policy 1. General Policy 3 sets out exceptions to this policy as set out below:

"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, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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-dependant 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".

1. The need for development to be sustainably located is stated in the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4.

Planning History

1. Planning permission was sought and granted for the creation of a detached artist's studio in the front garden of Sheeoil closer to the existing dwelling than is the proposed dwelling in this current application.

1. Permission was sought for the principle of development on the application site under PAs 04/1595 - a single dwelling and 92/0952 - two dwellings. Both were refused. In the later appeal, the Inspector states: "The site lies in an area which is not zoned for development. Whilst the Appellant cites other developments in the area, I do not find them comparable and in any event it is normal to determine planning appeals on the merits of the proposed being considered. There is no provision for allowing development in an area not zoned for development because it would be on an infill site, and in any case, a site with a frontage of 100m does not fall easily into the definition of infill, which is normally concerned with the filling of a small gap. I agree that the site is part of a residential curtilage, and has residential use. That does not alter the fact that outside the areas zoned for development, the Island is intended to remain substantially free from development." (paragraphs 10, 11 and 12)

Representations

1. Lezayre Parish Commissioners seek a deferral until after 5th January, 2012.

1. A resident of Douglas objects to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development.

1. Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application.

1. The Manx Electricity Authority suggest that the applicant should discuss the provision of electricity to the site.

1. The Water and Sewage Authority have sought a Flood Risk Statement to prove that there is no flood risk to the proposals, and their stance is that they object to the proposal until one is carried out and shows the proposal to be satisfactory.

Assessment

1. As set out clearly in the most recent appeal decision for the site, despite the site being part of a residential curtilage, this does not bring with it a presumption in favour of further development if the site is not within an area designated for development. Since that decision, the Strategic Plan has been introduced which reiterates this presumption against development in undesignated areas, in the policies referred to above. As such, the development of this site would conflict with the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan and as such cannot be supported.

1. As there is a fundamental policy objection to the proposal it would seems unreasonable to request that the applicants undertake work to provide a flood risk statement as this would not overcome the reason for refusal. Should the applicants wish to pursue the matter they should undertake the work to address the concerns of the Water and Sewage Authority.

Party Status

1. The local authority is, 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.

1. The Water and Sewage Authority have made representations on material planning grounds and as such should be afforded party status.

1. 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.

1. The resident of Douglas is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status

1. MEA do not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this case,

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.01.2012

---

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

R 1. Despite the site being part of a residential curtilage, this does not bring with it a presumption in favour of further development if the site is not within an area designated for development which this site is not. As such, the development of this site would conflict with the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

---

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made: Refused Date: 12 January 2012

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed: ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed: ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed: ... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed: ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager