Land To Rear Of Cool Avenue And Adjacent To Beachfield Farm Lane Kirk Michael Isle Of Man
Case Officer:
Mr A Holmes
Photo Taken:
18.01.2012
Site Visit:
18.01.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Officer Delegation
The Application Site
The application site comprises a parcel of land (approximately 1.2ha) located to the north west of Cool Avenue and to the north east of Beachfield Farm Lane, off Station Road in Kirk Michael. The site is basically rectangular in shape except for some spurs of land includes an access from Cool Drive that is located approximately 90 m along from the junction with Beachfield Farm Lane. Cool Avenue is a private road that is unadopted by the Department of Transport Highways Division. The road, which is unmade and relatively narrow, serves twelve existing properties all located on its western side.
The Proposal
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on the application site.
Planning History
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, three of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Planning application 02/00042/B sought planning approval for the erection of two dwellings on the application site. This previous planning application was refused initially, refused at review and a subsequent appeal against the refusal dismissed.
Planning application 05/00014/A sought planning approval in principle for a residential development of sixteen plots, with roads sewers and access via Cool Avenue. This previous planning application was refused initially and refused at review. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was withdrawn before being heard.
Planning application 08/00945/A sought approval in principle for the erection of three dwellings on the application site. This previous planning application was refused and a subsequent appeal against the refusal dismissed. The two reasons for refusal after the appeal were:
i) The use of the proposed access from Cool Avenue would have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the adjacent properties “Cool Shellagh” and “Melmegsuelyn”, contravening part (g) of General Policy 2 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
ii) Due to the inability of the appellant to legally control the height of the existing hedge and fence located on either side of the access land at the junction with Cool Avenue, significant danger could be caused to pedestrians using that highway.
A copy of the appeal decision for this previous planning application has been placed on the file for this current planning application.
Planning Policy
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as being within predominantly residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Kirk Michael Local Plan) Order 1994. Policy 5.11 of the accompanying written statement states:
"Any future development proposals must take heed of the continuing erosion of the coastline in this area."
As shown on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Kirk Michael Local Plan) Order 1994 the "Jolliffe" line of predicted coastal erosion crosses through the very western corner of the application site. Based on the submitted site plan approximately the western third of the application site is located within land subject to the Coastline Management Act 2005. A copy of this act has been placed on the file for this current planning application.
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains four policies that are considered specifically 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."
Environmental Policy 9 states:
"A precautionary approach will be adopted for development relating to land affected, or likely to be affected, by erosion or land instability. In the case of receding cliffs, development will not be permitted in areas where erosion is likely to occur during the lifetime of the building."
Environmental Policy 11 states:
"Coastal development will only be permitted where it would not: i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes; ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development."
Transport Policy 4 states:
"The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
REPRESENTATIONS
Michael Parish Commissioners have no objection to the planning application.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.
The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application. The contents of their representation relates to non-planning material considerations.
Objections have been received from eight local residents and the MHK for Michael. The various concerns raised within these objections cover issues such as the impact on private amenity, impact on highway safety, potential loss of view, inadequate sewerage arrangements, impact of potential coastal erosion, and potential damage to roads, particularly those that are unadopted and maintainable at the expense of local residents. A number of representations refer to the refusal of previous planning applications for residential development of the application site and the failure to resolve previously identified legal and ownership issues relating to access arrangements.
Assessment
The planning application seeks planning approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on the application site. The submitted planning application comprises a location plan defining the application site in red, a site plan identifying proposed access arrangements, drainage arrangements and an illustrative footprint of a dwelling, a drawing showing visibility at the proposed access, a supporting statement and copies of correspondence from the current owners of Cooil Shelagh (6 Cooil Avenue) regarding visibility at the junction with Cooil Avenue.
The assessment of the planning application requires an examination of the basic principle of residential development and then, if necessary, an examination of site specific issues. To do this it is appropriate to have regard to the conclusions of previous planning applications.
As the application site is located within land that is designated as predominantly residential use the relevant local plan it is reasonable to conclude that the basic principle of residential development is acceptable. It would be unreasonable to oppose the general principle on the grounds of coastal erosion as only a very small part of the application site is within the "Jolliffe" line of predicted coastal erosion. More than sufficient space exists within the application site outside of the land subject to the Coastline Management Act 2005 to accommodate a dwelling. This basic conclusion was also reached by the appointed Planning Inspector at paragraph 14 of the report into the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 08/00945/A.
Having concluded that the basic principle of residential development is acceptable it is necessary to examine site specific impacts. In terms of these it is considered that the size of the application site is sufficient to allow a single dwelling to be positioned in a manner that should not unduly affect the residential amenity of existing surrounding properties. However, it can be seen that previous planning application 08/00945/A was partly refused on the grounds that the use of the access by three new dwellings would unacceptably harm the residential amenity of the two adjacent properties. After due consideration it is concluded that the reduction in overall traffic, noise and disturbance that would result from the reduction from three dwellings to one dwelling would address this previous reason for refusal.
Previous planning application 08/00945/A was also refused due to the inability of the appellant to control the existing hedge and fence either side of the junction with Cooil Avenue preventing appropriate visibility being achieved, which could cause significant danger to pedestrians using that highway. The appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 08/00945/A specifically referred to this issue at paragraphs 15 and 16 of their report. Whilst the current planning application includes correspondence from the current owners of Cooil Shelagh (6 Cooil Avenue) stating that the relevant section of hedge could be maintained at a reduced level that does not restrict visibility it remains the case that this land is outside of the applicant's control. As such, it would not be possible to ensure that this area remained unrestricted particularly as land ownerships would inevitably change at some point in the future. There is nothing within the submitted planning application relating to the visibility on the opposite side of the junction. However, it should be noted that the owners of Halcyon (5 Cooil Avenue, formerly known as Melmegsuelyn) have objected to the planning application, a clear indication that irrespective of the land ownership and control issue the provision and maintenance of visibility over this land would be unlikely to be forthcoming. Overall, as the land needed to provide visibility is still outside of the control of the applicant the second reason for refusal of previous planning application 08/00945/A still stands. This is grounds for refusal of the planning application.
In respect of other issues raised within representations to the planning application it is noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the local sewerage system could not accommodate an additional dwelling, as such it would be reasonable to refuse the planning application such grounds. As it is an
Recommendation
It is recommended that the planning application be refused.
Party Status
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
Michael Parish Commissioners;
Lyndale, Cooil Avenue;
Range View, Cooil Avenue;
Thie my Chree, Cooil Avenue; and
Halcyon (formerly Meimegsuelyn), Cooil Avenue.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division;
The Manx Electricity Authority;
Alfred Cannan MHK;
Yn Farrar, Close Cullen;
2 Close Cullen;
Yn Slyst, Close Cullen; and
1 Close Cullyn.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 19.01.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approvalN : Notes attached to conditionsR : Reasons for refusalO : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. Due to the inability of the applicant to legally control the height of the existing hedge and fence located on either side of the access land at the junction with Cooil Avenue, significant danger could be caused to pedestrians using that highway.
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 : RefusedDate : 19-1-12
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :Anthony HolmesSenior Planning Officer
Signed :Michael GallagherDirector of Planning and Building Control
Signed :Sarah CorlettSenior Planning Officer
Signed :Jennifer ChanceDevelopment Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
Source & Provenance
Official reference
11/01722/A
Source authority
Isle of Man Government Planning & Building Control
