Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00474/B Applicant: Forest Homes Developments Ltd Proposal: Erection of two dwellings with garages and field access gates Site Address: Clypse Cottages Clypse Moar Onchan Isle of Man IM4 5BG Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 30.06.2016 Site Visit: 30.06.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO HOUSING POLICY 14, BUT IT CARRIES A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land located immediately west of Clypse Mooar Road in the Clypse area of Onchan. At present the site is open and undeveloped, but until recently a pair of rather uninspiring detached dwellings sat here.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a pair of dwellings on the application site; alongside these two dwellings would be a field gate, one of which would access into the garden of one dwelling and one of which would access onto the field behind. - 2.2 This application differs slightly from an extant approval on this site in that the extant approval has a smaller site area, the siting of the dwellings are different from those approved in that the dwellings are set further apart from one another, the two dwellings are now more similar in form to one another compared to the extant approval, and finally the boundary treatment is more clearly detailed here than was previously the case. None of the previous applications on the site (summarised in Section 3 of this report) have been brought before the Planning Committee for their consideration. - 2.3 The dwellings are of similar design to one another but have subtle differences in their principal elevations. The similarities are that the dwellings have traditional fenestration with a single door at ground floor set centrally between two windows either side with three further windows at first floor level. Both would have chimneys atop each gable and an attached single garage to the side. Coping stones are shown above each of these gables with natural slate forming the roof finish, while Manx stone would finish the front elevations and smooth render to all others. Each dwelling has a two-storey 'outrigger' to the rear, the ridgeline to which is set down from that of the main body of the dwelling. - 2.4 The difference is that Plot 1 (to the south) has single storey bay windows while Plot 2 (to the north) has two-storey bay windows. Otherwise, the dwellings appear to be identical.
2.5 A Manx sod bank would provide the frontage to the site, punctuated by four entrances (one to each dwelling, one to each field access). The bank would also provide the boundary treatment between the dwellings; also shown are trees in each of the corners of the plot, while there is existing trees and hedging to both the north and south boundaries outwith the control of the applicant. - 2.6 During the course of consideration of the application, amended plans were received showing the visibility splays and also clarifying the details of the site's landscaping, as well as correcting an error that showed chimneys on front elevations but not rear. On each occasion the amended plans were circulated for information. - 2.7 The application includes a Statement from the applicant in support, which concludes with eight points considered to be in favour of the proposal, summarised as follows:
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has a very relevant and somewhat controversial planning history, albeit that different site areas have been shown in those applications. - 3.2 Planning approval for the erection of two dwellings within the application site was granted on 4th May 1951 through previous planning approval 7939. Whilst the location of the previouslyexisting dwellings and this previous approval is the same the actual design approved differs from the dwellings that actually exist on site. However, given how long these dwellings had been there they became lawful, although no application was submitted seeking formal determination of this. - 3.3 Planning application 12/00579/A sought Approval in Principle for the erection of two dwellings on a wider area of land that included the application site for the current planning application. This application was refused on the 29th May 2012. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed, with the appeal refusal issued on the 11th October 2012. - 3.4 Planning application 13/00185/A sought Approval in Principle for the erection of two replacement dwellings on the current application site. This application was approved subject to four conditions:
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that are designated as Open Space and as being "unsuitable for development owing to a danger of pollution of an existing or future public water supply" under the Onchan Local Plan; by virtue of the first zoning, the site is also zoned as an Area of High Landscape Value under Policy O/ERS/P/22 of that Plan. - 4.2 That policy states: "Outside those areas designated for residential development new dwellings will generally not be permitted within the Local Plan Area. This applies particularly to the rural part of the district where the countryside is already protected by Planning Circular 1/88 the provisions of which will continue to be applied. In addition it should be noted that the countryside in its entirety within the district is designated by the Local plan as of high landscape value and scenic significance in accordance with the provisions of the Island Strategic Plan Eastern Sector (Planning Circular 9/91)". - 4.3 The Strategic Plan contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.4 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
4.5 Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area, which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
"Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 After initially deferring comment subject to receipt of an amended plan ("The applicant is requested to provide a drawing to an appropriate scale that indicates the visibility that can be achieved over land within their control from a point 2.4m back from the edge of carriageway to the near side carriageway edge in both directions") on 06.05.2016, upon receipt of that plan, Highways offered no objection to the application on 31.05.2016, subject to the following two conditions being attached:
"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."
5.2 Onchan District Commissioners recommended the application be approved in correspondence received 25.05.2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Housing Policy 14 allows for the replacement of dwellings in the countryside on a strictly one-for-one basis. The dwellings previously on the site have been demolished and so a very strict reading of the policy could suggest that this policy does not apply. However, this would be an unreasonably strict interpretation and would fail to acknowledge the extant detailed planning approval for two replacement dwellings on what is a very similar application site. As such, there is a clear steer towards the principle of the proposal being acceptable. Some of the concerns raised with respect to the previous (2013) application on the site are intended to be addressed by this proposal, though it must be strongly borne in mind that neither the Inspector nor Minister considering that application found those concerns sufficient to warrant the application's refusal. - 6.2 As such, it is considered that to object to the application on the grounds of the appearance of the dwellings, or the highway safety issues associated with the proposed development, would be unreasonable. Of perhaps the most significant concern given the wording of Housing Policy 14 is the issue of siting. - 6.3 Before turning to that, though, it is important to consider the concerns raised by local people in respect of the flooding and sewerage issues presented by the scheme. It must be remembered, though, that what is proposed, albeit on a different siting, reflects what was in place previously. The water runoff and sewerage system associated with the new dwellings is unlikely to be materially different to that which was there previously. Though the new dwellings are undeniably larger and will have a greater area of hardstanding on a different siting further from the road, the conclusion must be that the difference between these two dwellings and those previously on the site is not so significant as to warrant an objection on this point. - 6.4 The other concerns raised in representations generally relate to matters not material to the assessment of planning applications. It is not intended that those concerns should be dismissed, but it is important to bear in mind that damage to highways or hedging are civil matters, and cannot form a part of this assessment, and nor can the loss of a view. - 6.5 In respect of the current scheme, then, it is welcome that the developer has acknowledged the limited space available on the previous application site and sought a more appropriate way forward. However, it should also be noted that this approach takes the scheme further away from complying with Housing Policy 14 inasmuch as the dwellings are now not proposed to be sited on the same footprint of the existing dwelling. It is to be remembered that a previous application relating to the Clypse Mooar Cottages was refused because the siting proposed for the new dwellings was far removed from the then-existing dwellings.
6.6 The applicant is of the view that setting the dwellings a further 3m into the site than the approved dwellings would have an improved visual - and consequently environmental - impact. He explains that setting the dwellings apart reduces their overall mass and would fit in better with the countryside vernacular. He is also of the view that the new dwellings would be far improved relative to those previously approved on the site. - 6.7 There is a lot of logic to this argument. The approved scheme would appear cramped and would provide limited amenity space; it would also result in a fairly significant massing close to the highway and potentially be a little overbearing as a result of this. The scheme now under consideration would result in a more appropriately landscaped site and one that is set out using more judicious use of the land. The dwellings' position slightly further from the road will be of material benefit to their visual appearance and also in respect of highway safety; the harm that would result from the additional encroachment into the countryside from the enlarged curtilages is balanced positively against these positive conclusions. The siting as proposed is acceptable. - 6.8 Moving the dwellings even further into the site would not address any particular deficiencies, and so it is not considered that to approve this proposal would mean that yet another subsequent application showing the dwellings even further west would be submitted - or would be acceptable were it submitted. This submitted scheme addresses visual and environmental concerns raised previously (albeit these concerns were ultimately not judged fatal to the application by the Inspector or Minister) and, consequently, it is concluded that the scheme does represent a notable improvement over the extant scheme. In so doing, it also represents an acceptable way forward in the context of Housing Policy 14, albeit that it is felt that the situation as proposed now very likely represents the furthest away from that policy that officers would be able to support - that is, any further enlargement of the dwellings' residential curtilages, or moving the dwellings further west, would be highly unlikely to received support. - 6.9 There is also the improvement in highway safety terms that the scheme will provide: the widened lane will be of benefit to all users, while it - as well as the increased driveway length - will provide greater space for vehicles manoeuvring on and off the properties' curtilages. While this did not represent a significant concern for the Inspector or Minister previously, it remains a welcome improvement over that approved, acceptable arrangement. - 6.10 The proposed field access gates seem very clearly intended to provide access to the fields at the rear. While one access would have been preferable in order to minimise the impact of the somewhat staccato nature of accesses that will result along the frontage, two are essentially unobjectionable from visual and highway impact points of view. It has previously been suggested to the Department that this land to the rear may become paddocks: this would not require planning approval, though of course any paraphernalia associated with equestrian activity could well do. - 6.11 The submitted drawings remain somewhat sketchy on the boundary treatments across the site, despite requests for this to be clarified. The frontage will, other than the accesses, be provided in the form of a Manx bank. The field gates on the submitted drawing are simply annotated "New Gate Entrance", while the boundary treatment to the rear is annotated as "Timber fence to boundary". - 6.12 The agent has indicated that a condition requiring the rear boundary fence to be post-andrail or post-and-wire would be acceptable. It is considered that the first 15m of the boundary between the two dwellings could reasonably be formed of hit-and-miss fencing in order to provide some privacy between the dwellings and their gardens at this point. Conditions relating to both these elements are recommended accordingly. - 6.13 In respect of the new gates, no details whatsoever have been provided save that the proposed gates would appear to be side hung and formed of a pair in each case. A condition requiring the submission of details of the appearance of the gate is considered appropriate in this instance.
6.14 Finally, concern is often raised about the creeping domestication of the countryside; in this instance, it is recommended that a condition be attached restricting the erection of sheds / summerhouses / greenhouses / polytunnels in the garden of the properties without the submission of a planning application in the first place. The curtilages of the dwellings are quite deep and while the position of such domestic paraphernalia might well be acceptable, a formal application is considered necessary in order to make that judgement rather than relying upon the rather loose wording of the Permitted Development Order, which is generally intended to refer to more built-up locations. - 6.15 The conditions requested by Highway Services seem appropriate. Preventing the extension of the dwellings by removing permitted development rights, in their more spacious environment as proposed, does not need to be controlled on this occasion. A similar conclusion is reached with respect to restricting the use of the garages to the parking of private vehicles. A condition requiring that the windows be sliding sash and retained as such would, however, be appropriate.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In view of the notable (though, in view of the appeal decision, perhaps unnecessary) improvement that would result from the scheme relative to the extant approval, and moreover in respect of the wording of Housing Policy 14, it is considered that the application is acceptable and is recommended for approval accordingly - subject to the various conditions discussed.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.07.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garden sheds or summerhouses shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
The development hereby approved relates to the Drawings 1001/PL101 Rev A and 1001/PL100 Rev B, dated as having been received 16th June 2016.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 18.07.2016
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
