Approval in principle for erection of two dwellings
Site Address:
Field 534183
Clypse
Onchan
Isle Of Man
Case Officer:
Mr A Holmes
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
Expected Decision Level:
Officer Delegation
The Application Site
The application site comprises the residential curtilages of and land adjoining two detached dwellings located in the Clypse area of Onchan.
The Proposal
The planning application seeks planning approval in principle for the erection of two dwellings within the application site. The submitted planning application states that the proposed dwellings are proposed as replacement dwellings.
The submitted planning application comprises a completed application form and a drawing (1001/PL20) that defines the application by red line. The submitted drawing shows the application site divided into two plots with the footprint of a dwelling, driveways and access points shown on each plot. No further information is provided.
Planning History
Planning approval for the erection of two dwellings within the application site was granted on the 4th May 1951 through previous planning approval 7939. Whilst the location of the existing 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 have been there they have since become lawful. There have been no subsequent planning applications for the application site that are considered material to the assessment of the current planning application.
Planning Policy
In terms of local plan policy, under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000 the application site is located part within a wider area of land designated as open space, part within a wider area of land designated as open space for particular purpose (private woodland), and entirely within a wider area of land that is designated as unsuitable for development owing to a danger of pollution of an existing or future public water supply.
Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement to be read in association with the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000, contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application. Policy O/RES/P/22 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 Easter Sector (Planning Circular 9/91)."
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 3 states:
"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, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
(c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; 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-dependent 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."
Housing Policy 12 states:
"The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
(a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or
(b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
(i) the structural condition of the building;
(ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years;
(iii) evidence of intervening use; and
(iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."
Housing Policy 13 states:
"In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost.
Where:
a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway.
This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."
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."
Representations
Onchan District Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposals are contrary to the provisions of the Onchan Local Plan and the Island Strategic Plan relating to development in the countryside.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have deferred comment on the basis that the planning application contains insufficient information to evaluate access arrangements. They advise that visibility splays of metres are required.
The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application.
The owners and/or occupants of Glen Rosa, which is located approximately 600 metres south of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the application site is within an area of land identified as being unsuitable for development due to a danger of pollution of an existing or future water supply and that an increase level of traffic generation would be harmful to highway safety. They advise that the application site is very wet and that there was a large pond where the proposed dwellings are shown.
The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage, which is located in Maughold, object to the planning application, the grounds for their objection can be summarised as confusion over the vagueness of the submitted planning application. They question what possible justification there could be for the proposal.
The owners and/or occupants of 33 Ballaquark, which is located in Douglas, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the application site is within an area of land identified as being unsuitable for development due to a danger of pollution of an existing or future water supply, that the plots are enormous and that development would be visually intrusive. They consider the proposal to represent sporadic development unrelated to any recognised settlement and also highlight that there is no physical definition to the application sites.
Assessment
The planning application seeks planning approval in principle for the erection of two dwellings within the application site. In terms of this it can be seen that the replacement of existing dwellings within the countryside on a one for one basis is a stated exception to the presumption against development set out by General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. As stated within General Policy 3 it is necessary to assess such proposals against Housing Policy 12, 13 and 14. Given that the existing dwellings have habitable status it is only necessary to consider the provisions of Housing Policy 14 in detail.
Housing Policy 14 states that where a replacement dwelling is permitted it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size unless changes in siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement. In this instance the submitted planning application proposes substantially larger residential curtilages and dwellings than that of the existing situation. The size of the residential curtilage of proposed Plot 1 (approx. 1.18ha) is around 24 times or approximately larger than the existing residential curtilage of 1 Clypse Cottages (approx. 0.05ha). The size of the residential curtilage of proposed Plot 2
(approx. 0.95ha) is around 32 times or approximately 3067% larger than the existing residential curtilage of 2 Clypse Cottages (approx. 0.03ha). In both instances, based on reasonable and logical assumptions the floor space of the replacement dwellings shown on Plot 1 and 2 (approx. 425 square metres) is estimated to be around 4 times or 280% larger than the respective existing floor space of 1 and 2 Clypse Cottages (approx. 112 square metres). Clearly the size increases both in respect of residential curtilages and replacement dwellings are vast, yet there is no explanation of why this is proposed or any case put forward to attempt to justify such proposal. It is noted that there is provision Housing Policy 14 for giving consideration to larger replacement dwellings. However, the onus for making such a case is on the applicant and no justification for the proposal has been advanced. Notwithstanding that, given the substantial increase in both residential curtilage and dwelling footprint shown on the submitted drawing and it is considered unlikely that a justified and acceptable case could be advanced. Overall, it is concluded that the consequential impact of these increases on the character and appearance of the countryside will be significant and damaging. As such, the proposal is clearly contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 14, which seeks ensure that the impact of replacement dwellings is appropriately controlled. This is grounds for refusal of the planning application. It could be reasonably said that the impact of the proposed development is actually closer to that of two new dwellings in the countryside rather than two replacement dwellings given the scale of increase and re-siting proposed.
Notwithstanding the above, the application site is also within land that is identified as being unsuitable for development owing to a danger of pollution of an existing or future public water supply. In this instance the application site is in close proximity to Clypse and Kerrowdhoo Reservoirs. Whilst the long term need and use of these reservoirs in not known at present it is understood that they are currently used for public water supply. On that basis their protection from harm is important. As new larger scale development has the potential to cause harm it is concluded that this is also a reason for refusal of the planning application.
As stated earlier in this report the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have deferred commenting on the planning application on the basis that the submitted planning application contains insufficient information to evaluate access arrangements. Whilst it is correct to say that the planning application does not contain such information it would appear that there is sufficient frontage to achieve visibility splays of 2 metres x 35 metres. It is therefore concluded unreasonable to also refuse the planning application on such basis.
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:
Onchan District Commissioners; and
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Manx Electricity Authority;
The owners and/or occupants of Glen Rosa;
The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage; and
The owners and/or occupants of 33 Ballaquark.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused
Date of Recommendation:
21.05.2012
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
R 1. The proposed increase in both residential curtilage and dwelling size together with the re-siting of the dwellings would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. Due to its location within proximity of Clypse and Kerrowdhoo Reservoirs the proposed development is considered inappropriate by reason that the development and use of the site for residential purposes would increase the possibility of the pollution of an existing or future public water supply.
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 : 29 May 2012
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
Source & Provenance
Official reference
12/00579/A
Source authority
Isle of Man Government Planning & Building Control
