Planning Officer Report Recommendations

Case Officer: Mr A Holmes Photo Taken: Site Visit: 02.05.2012 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer's Report

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises a triangular piece of land which forms part of the side garden of a detached dwelling known as Kerrowkeil that is located on Patrick Road, St John's, Patrick. The site fronts onto Patrick Road and its rear boundary is defined by an access lane serving four residential properties.

The Proposal

1. The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on the application site.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, two of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

1. Planning application 10/01632/B sought planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on the application site. This previous planning application was approved on the 22nd December 2010. However, a subsequent appeal against the approval was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 8th June 2011. The two stated reasons for refusal were:

i) The proposed development would lead to a loss of an important tree, without the possibility of suitable replacement planting, and as such would harm the rural character of the area in conflict with Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan and the aims of the St John's Local Plan.

ii) The proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site in that provision for car parking behind the frontage could not be achieved, thus conflicting with the requirements of Appendix 7 of the Strategic plan.

Application No.:	12/00371/A
Applicant:	Mr & Mrs Harry Marsden & Mr John Sainsbury
Proposal:	Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling
Site Address:	Land Adjacent To Kerrowkeil Patrick Road St Johns Isle Of Man

A copy of the appeal decision for this previous planning application has been placed on the file for the current planning application.

1. Planning application 11/01199/B sought planning approval for the erection of detached dwelling on the application site. This previous planning application was approved on the 29th September 2011. However a subsequent appeal against the approval was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 23rd January 2012. The two stated reasons for refusal were:

i) The proposed development would be likely to lead to the future loss of the visually important Ash tree on the site, due to the harmful effects that this tree would have in reducing light within the dwelling and outlook from the dwelling. In the absence of sufficient space for suitable replacement planting, the proposal would as a consequence harm the rural character of the area in conflict with Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

ii) The proposal fails to provide a car parking space behind the front of the dwelling of sufficient width to facilitate ease of parking and ease of entering and leaving a parked vehicle. Consequently, the proposal would be an over development

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within an area designated as predominantly residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (St John’s Local Plan) Order 1999. Planning Circular 6/99, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.

1. Policy RES/P/5 states:

"With the exception of appropriate extensions and alterations to existing property which will generally be acceptable, outside of development areas 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 new residential development will only be approved where this complies with Planning Circulars 1/88, 3/88 and 3/89."

1. Policy RES/P/6 states:

"No residential development will be permitted where this would adversely affect the existing historic setting of Tynwald Hill and its associated open spaces."

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

1. 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."

1. Environment Policy 42 states:

"New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

1. Transport Policy 7 states:

"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." The car parking standard for typical residential development under Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is two spaces per unit with at least one of those being retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.

REPRESENTATIONS

1. Patrick Parish Commissioners state that they have no comment to make on the planning application.
2. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.
3. The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application.
4. The owners and/or occupants of Kionslieu, which is located to the north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that it is inappropriate for an approval in principle planning application to be approved as detailed drawings are required to demonstrate that a dwelling can be accommodated that takes account of the reasons for refusal of the two previous planning applications.
5. The owners and/or occupants of Ballavargher Cottages, which is located to the north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal will cause parking problems within the area and that it will be result in a loss of open space to the detriment of the rural character of the area. As part of the representation they refer to the two previous unsuccessful planning applications.
6. The owners and/or occupants of 33 Ballaquark, which is located in Douglas, express an interest in the planning application. They question the size of the application site in terms of accommodating a dwelling.

ASSESSMENT

1. In terms of the principle of residential development within the application site it can be seen that the appointed Planning Inspectors for the appeals for the two previous planning applications (10/01632/B & 11/01199/B) both specifically discussed and commented on this issue. At paragraph 24 of their report on the appeal for planning application 10/01632/B the appointed Planning Inspector stated that "I conclude that there should be no outright bar on the development of the site which involves a single dwelling within the development areas of the plan." As for the appeal for subsequent planning application 11/01199/B the appointed Planning Inspector stated at paragraph 26 of their assessment and conclusions they stated that "The previous planning appeal decision (PA 10/01632/B) has established the principle that the site can be developed for residential purposes." and that in terms of the previous planning application "The reasons for refusal related to matters of detail, and did not invoke any objection to the principle of residential development." They further expanded on this within paragraph 27 and stated that "None of the participants at the inquiry into the current appeal gave any evidence which opposed the principle of a house being built there. The evidence given was directed at matters of detail. My attention has not been drawn to any material changes in circumstances since the previous appeal, such as might have called the principle of the development of the site into question." Taking the assessments and conclusions of these appointed Planning Inspectors into account it is reasonable to conclude that the basic principle of erecting a dwelling on the application site is acceptable.

1. Notwithstanding the above it is still necessary to make an assessment of whether a dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated on the application site. To do this it is appropriate to have regard to the two issues on which the two previous planning applications failed on, as well as general planning considerations relating to impact on public amenity, private amenity and highway safety. Whilst it has been suggested within representations to the planning application that a detailed planning application is required to assess whether a dwelling can be satisfactorily accommodated on the application site it is considered that this stance is contrary to that of the two previous Planning Inspectors and unreasonable. Those two previous planning applications were refused for specific, but not insurmountable, reasons. The purpose of this approval in principle planning application should be to consider whether the principle of development is acceptable and then if any specific issues need to be controlled by condition.

1. The two issues that resulted in the refusal of previous planning applications 10/01632/B and 11/01199/B related to the impact of development on the retention of the Ash tree located close to the southern boundary and the provision of appropriate on-site car parking provision that included provision behind the front of the dwelling. Both of these issues define the two main constraints for the development of the application site.

1. The loss of the Ash tree was concluded to be harmful to the rural character of the area within both previous planning applications, albeit for differing reasons. Planning application 10/01632/B resulted in the loss of the Ash tree as part of the proposed development, which was concluded to be unacceptable. A revised layout proposed under planning application 11/01199/B meant that whilst the Ash tree would not be felled or harmed by the construction of the proposed dwelling its proximity to the dwelling would affect light and outlook from the proposed dwelling, which in turn would be likely to lead to the future loss of the tree. The appointed Planning Inspector for planning application 11/01199/B discussed this issue in detail with paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of their report. Whilst no specific acceptable distance between the Ash tree, its canopy spread and a dwelling was specifically identified by the appointed Planning Inspector the issues that need to be considered were concisely reported. This provides helpful guidance for further assessment of the impact of a dwelling on the Ash tree and whilst not providing a specific quantitative constraint it does provide a qualitative constraint.

1. Under Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 the relevant car parking standard is a minimum of two spaces, with at least one of those spaces being retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. The appointed Planning Inspector for planning application 11/01199/B discussed this issue, and specifically the provision of a space behind the front of the dwelling and associated minimum width, in detail within paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of their report. Based on the contents of those paragraphs it is concluded that a width of 3.0 metres would be sufficient to ensure that a vehicle could be parked with sufficient ease and allow sufficient space for persons to enter or exit the vehicle. As such, a constraint of a minimum width of 3.0 metres from the boundary alongside any dwelling to allow parking behind the front of the dwelling is established.

1. To assess the suitability of the application site and whether the two main constraints can be addressed it is possible, as the application site is relatively flat, to impose the constraints on a drawing and then experiment with basic footprints to see how a dwelling could or couldn't be accommodated. Using the basic dwelling proportion of 11.0 metres by 5.5 metres, which is taken directly from the proportion and form section (page 4) of Planning Circular 3/91, as a starting point and adding a rear extension to take account of the shape of the application site it can be seen that a dwelling can be accommodated on the application site that provides 3.0 metres to the side to allow parking behind the front of the dwelling whilst achieving a distance of approximately 8.0 metres from the dwelling and the main trunk of the Ash tree. In turn this equates to an approximate achievable distance of 5.0 metres from the dwelling to the canopy spread of the Ash tree. This is concluded to demonstrate an ability to provide car parking provision in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. It is also concluded to demonstrate that a dwelling could be erected on the application site that did not unduly affect the future retention of the Ash tree, as the aforementioned distances between the dwelling and the Ash tree are more than sufficient to coexist. Those distances are significantly greater than those proposed within previous planning application 11/01199/B and it is not unusual for a dwelling to have a tree located within its front garden in a similar position and similar distance.

1. An annotated drawing that demonstrates the above has been placed on the application file for reference. In undertaking this exercise it is not contended that this is the best or only way to accommodate a dwelling on the application site. Rather, it is simply intended to show that an acceptable dwelling is possible. The resultant dwelling may be relatively small but it is still of sufficient size to form a usable dwelling, and there is no obvious planning reason why this dwelling could not be two storey in height. It is pertinent to note that the footprint of such an illustrative dwelling is larger than 1 or 2 Ballavargher Cottages. The specific design of the dwelling would remain a matter for detailed consideration as part of any reserved matters planning application, this planning approval in principle planning application simply needs to be satisfied that a dwelling could be acceptably achieved.

1. In terms of other issues to consider as part of the assessment of the planning application there are no reasons why a dwelling on the application site would unacceptably harm public amenity, private amenity, highway safety or any other obvious material planning consideration. Distances are sufficient to maintain acceptable private amenity for the existing and proposed dwellings, and there is more than sufficient space and frontage to provide appropriate on site car parking and achieve acceptable visibility.

RECOMMENDATION

1. It is recommended that the planning application be approved.

PARTY STATUS

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

Patrick Parish Commissioners (automatic status as local authority); The owners and/or occupants of Kionslieu (close enough to be potentially affected by proposal); and The owners and/or occupants of Ballavargher Cottages (close enough to be potentially affected by proposal).

1. 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 (same department as Planning Authority); The Manx Electricity Authority (non-material planning consideration); The owners and/or occupants of 33 Ballaquark (too distant from application site).

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 09.05.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

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

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.

C 2. The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.

C 3. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the dwelling, internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

C 4. This approval in principle relates to the erection of a dwelling within the land defined by red line on the location plan/site plan drawing date stamped the 9th March 2012.

C 5. Any subsequent reserved matters planning application must include an on-site turning facility for vehicles and provision for at least two on-site car parking spaces, at least one of which

must be provided behind the front of the dwelling. The minimum acceptable width of a parking space is 3.0 metres.

C 6.

No part of any dwelling proposed within any subsequent reserved matters planning application shall be located within 8.0 metres of the main trunk of the existing Ash tree that is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the application site.

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: Permitted Date: 10.5.12

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed: [Handwritten signature] Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed: [Handwritten signature] Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed: [Handwritten signature] Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed: [Handwritten signature] Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager