Loading document...
Application No.: 20/00637/REM Applicant: Mr & Mrs Paul Wheeler Proposal: Reserved matters application in association with PA16/00650/B for the erection of two detached dwellings with attached garages Site Address: Plots 2 & 3 Land Adjcent To Beechfield Glen Auldyn Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2020 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and the approval in priniple on which this application relies, and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development is considered to accord with the provisions of the approval in principle, Planning Circular 8/89, the Residential Design Guidance 2019 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
This decision relates to drawings 15 1146/P2 07, 15 1146/P3 07 received on 16th July, 2020 and 06 received on 17th August, 2020.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Auldyn Holme, Gill Rhennee and Fernside as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy, Fernside is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy, they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
Whilst a number of names have been submitted with the petition (by and dincluding the resident of Freshfield), this clearly relates to the development proposed under 16/00650/B, Appeal 3/AP18/00007 so cannot be considered to relate to the current application. None of the names on the petition is therefore proposed to have Interested Person Status in respect of this current application. _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.1 The site is part of a larger holding of land situated on the eastern side of Glen Auldyn. The site has to its immediate south an approved dwelling which has yet to be constructed and to the north is land which is part of the curtilage of Beechfield which also sits to the north of the application site. - 1.2 The site is presently open and undeveloped. - 1.3 The application is a reserved matters application which relies upon planning application 16/00650/B which was approved subject to a requirement that plots 2 and 3 were subject to a reserved matters application. The red line originally submitted only related to the two plots in question but need to relate to the re line of the original application and an amended plan reflecting this has now been received. PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 Planning approval was granted for the principle of three plots and the details of the erection of a dwelling on one of them under 16/00650/B at appeal. The application had been approved by the Planning Committee following which an appeal was requested by the owners of Gill Rhennee. The inspector appointed to consider the appeal recommended that the development, by virtue of its scale and design would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the visual appearance and character of the area, contrary to General Policy 2 and Enviornment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. The Minister disagreed with that recommendation and approved the application, agreeing with the inspector that the development would not have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity, highway safety, flood risk or drainage, but suggesting in terms of the visual impact of the development, that the land use designation leads to substantial properties and complies with Planning Circular 8/89 and notes the proposed landscaping and that design is often a subjective matter. - 2.2 This approval was subject to the following 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.
2.3 The Inspector appointed to hear the appeal concluded that the scheme was unacceptable:
"Even so, I consider that, with their modern architectural style and finishes and the overall much greater scale of each property, the development would still appear to dominate the immediate area of Glen Auldyn.
Moreover, the development, with its denser and more formal boundary tree screening, would substantially block valued open views, especially from the present entrance gate, across the field toward the hills and the Albert Tower in the nearby AHLV. Furthermore, despite the spaces around them, the three houses would potentially give the impression, from more oblique viewpoints, of a continuous mass of built development. To my mind, the development would not sit comfortably and naturally within its setting, as required by C8/89 for LDHP. The result would be a failure to conserve the Narrow Upland Glen landscape, the value of which is recognised in the LCA of 2008.
Overall, I am persuaded that the development proposed in this appeal would be an incongruous addition to the built form of Glen Auldyn and would not be sensitively located in the valley bottom of the Narrow Upland Glen. It would fail to respect its surroundings in siting, layout, scale, form and design, adversely affecting the character of the surrounding landscape, in terms of GP2(b) and (c), or to take account of the particular character and identity of the immediate locality, as required by EP42."
2.4 The inspector found no fault with the scheme in respect of other policies within the Strategic Plan. - 2.5 The Minister disagreed with this conclusion and approved the application subject to the conditions above. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site lies within an area of Proposed Low Density Housing in Parkland on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. Development within such areas is guided by Planning Circular 8/89 - Low Density Housing in Parkland which generally requires houses to sit in at least 1 acre of their own grounds and be well designed. General Policy 2 sets out general standards for development and the Residential Design Guidance 2019 encourages good design and sets out how the impact of development on existing adjacent dwellings may be measured. - 3.2 There are other policies within the Strategic Plan which provide guidance on flood risk (Environment Policies 10 and 13), impact on ecology (EP4) and highways/parking (Tranport Policy 4 and 7). Some of these issues were addressed in the parent approval. THE PROPOSAL
4.1 Proposed is the erection of two dwellings on the plots which were approved in principle. The dwellings are in similar positions to those shown in the parent approval but the houses are not only different from each other but different from that which had approval under 16/00650/B (having hipped roofs) but with a consistently modern character and using modern materials - a mix of stone, timber cladding and render. - 4.2 The access is in the same place as approved under 16/00650/B. - 4.3 Details of the landscaping have been provided in the form of drawings 15 1146/P2 07 and 15 1146/P3 07 which refer to the avoidance of Schedule 8 species and the inclusion of native species which are supportive of wildlife such as blackthorn, elder, gorse, hazel, shrub roses and willow as well as non native species more frequently found in domestic gardens and with the majority of the plot laid to lawn.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners seek a deferral of determination until after their meeting on 6th August, 2020 (17.07.20). They submit their comments on 07.08.20, stating that the
application was Refused 4-1 Majority adding that it is the Commissioners' opinion that this style of property is not in keeping with the existing properties in the Glen and that any properties on the site should be built further into the plot. They objected to the original planning application PA16/00650/B for the same reason. They are also aware that many of the residents in the Glen have raised objections to this development.
5.2 Highway Services report that the access was approved under 16/00650/B and adequate parking and turning is to be provided but recommend the provision of electric vehicle charging points (15.07.20). - 5.3 Manx National Heritage do not have too much concern for the impact of the development on ecology but refer to the Wildlife Act and its provisions for the protection of nesting and breeding birds (20.07.20). - 5.4 Manx Utilities point out that there are potable water mains in close proximity to the site and seek conditions that no damage is done to these during the development. They also seek conditions regarding the connection of the development to the mains and connection fees (27.07.20). All of this relates to the Sewerage Act 1999 and can be enforced under that legislation. - 5.5 Manx Utilties also comment on flood risk, suggesting that only the proposed access routes
5.5 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Office request one change to the planting proposals and that is the removal of cotoneaster from the shrub planting list noting that cotoneaster is listed on Planning Circular 1/93, cotoneaster is a Schedule 8 species under the Wildlife Act 1990. They also refer to the Wildlife Act 1990 which protects nesting and breeding birds (28.07.20). - 5.6 The owners of Auldyn Holme refer to the inspector's concern that the development was too large and out of keeping with the area and suggests that the three buildings would appear as one continuous mass with which the inspector took issue (21.07.20). - 5.7 The owners of Fernside are aware that the site was designated for development in the 1980s but consider that what is proposed is turning the Glen into a residential estate and the site would be better as an open field. Reference is also made to the water pipe which runs through the site(29.07.20). - 5.8 The owners of Gill Rhennie object to the application, suggesting that the Strategic Plan takes precedence over the 1982 Development Plan Order and they refer to 09/00094/B and 00/01782/B and they refer to the comments made by the inspector who considered and recommended refusal to 16/00050/B. They suggest that they should be afforded interested person status as their property directly overlooks the site. They refer to "the views of a sitting Minister given the transitional nature of their roles within Government", suggesting that the decision in this case should rest with the relative merits of the application. They refer to the North Eatern Sector Plan of 1999 and the Landscape Character Assessment which calls for sensitively located housing and notes the small scale nature of development and vernacular character of buildings an bridges. They suggest that the Commissioners are "resolutely opposed" to the development and refer to a petition which was prepared by 52 local residents in relation to the previous application, which is submitted with the current application, suggesting that these petitioners were not accepted in the earlier application and felt let down by the appeal, concluding that the findings of a "busy Minister" which were "contrary to the expert advice commissioned " and which "risks denuting the process of its legitimacy and should only be used in exceptional circumstances" and "to act otherwise would be to defeat the
Garee Veg (21.04.18) The Haven (21.04.18) The Apiary (21.04.18) Woodmead (21.04.18) Fernside (21.04.18) Larch Lea (26.04.18) Drakes (26.04.18) Shee (26.04.18) Rydings (undated) Glas Choille (19.04,18) Dingle Villa (19.04.18) Far End (19.04.18) Glen Auldyn Lodge (19.04.18) Covertside (21.04.18) Dreem Rhennee (21.04.18) Auldyn Holme (21.04.18) Armstrong Cottage (19.04.18) Hill Cottage (19.04.18) Audin Cottage (19.04.18) Rose Villa (19.04.18) Thie ny Struan (19.04.18) Ballymena (20.04.18) Wheatstone (19.04.18) Rustlings (19.04.18) Fuchsia Cottage (19.04.18) Fern ny Cregga (19.04.18) Hollybank (26.04.18) Freshfield (26.04.18) Race Cottage *27.04.18) Hillview (30.04.18) Graham Cottage (13.05.18) Hunters Moon (15.05.18) The Old Mill (15.05.18) Gill Rhenee (15.05.18) Crofton (09.05.18) Lane End (12.05.18) Yew Tree (12.05.18) The Barn (13.05.18) illegible (15.05.18) St. Benedict's (15.05.18) Arua (15.05.18).
6.1 Whilst it is fully understood that many of the local residents objected to the previous application and that these concerns in respect of the impact on the landscape were shared by the independent inspector appointed to hear the appeal into the approval of that application, the principle of the erection of two dwellings here has been accepted by the Minister on appeal under 16/00650/B. The status of the Minister and his time in office is not a relevant consideration and it is not considered that there is justification for setting aside this decision. The issues are therefore whether what is now proposed complies with the conditions of the approval in principle. These are:
6.2 The conditions included requiring the blocking up of the existing field access and the details of the drainage being approved before any development commences carry through automatically from the approval in principle so does not need to be repeated in the conditions appertaining to the reserved matters application. - 6.3 It is also appropriate to consider whether the development has an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings and whether there is sufficient provision for car parking in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 (2 car parking spaces per dwelling). - 6.4 The design of the properties is similar but not identical to the approved dwelling on plot one and neither are they identical to each other but will provide an element of architectural and visual continuity throughout the three plots. The levels are consistent with those approved for plot 1 and the provisions for car parking and access within the sites are considered acceptable. As the dwellings have garages, it is not considered that there is a need for a condition or note requiring electric vehicle charging points as such could be provided within the garage without the need for planning approval or the owners could use the existing sockets to charge the vehicle without needing a charge point. - 6.5 The visual impact of the development is therefore considered to be acceptable. - 6.6 Comments have been made by Manx Utilities about the position of the access. This was approved under the earlier application and cannot now be changed as that approval is capable of implementation. Their comment about the position of the property on plot 3 is not clear but appears to suggest that as proposed the postion of the house is acceptable. In the previous application, they commented that "only the proposed access routes at the north-west corner of the site are shown to be at risk from fluvial flooding. The modelling has also indicated that the development will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere". The development is therefore not considered to be contrary to EPs 10 or 13.
6.7 Whilst no comments have been made which suggest how the development will directly affect the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, it is important to ensure that the standards of development in this respect, are being achieved. The dwellings will be at closest, 47m from the nearest dwelling facing the site which is far in excess of the required 20m which ensures that both dwellings will have an acceptable level of privacy. This distance also ensures that there will be no adverse impact on the outlook from any existing dwelling in terms of light and space. "Outlook" does not extend to whether someone finds their view pleasing or what they see is attractive The RDG provides this explanation of outlook:
"7.4.1 Any development should ensure that existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being impacted by an overbearing building/structure. The positioning, design and scale of an extension/new build dwellings should not be dominant or have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that may be present in a neighbouring property."
6.8 It is considered that the development satisfies this requirement.
7.1 It is considered that the development accords with Planning Circular 8/89, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, the terms of the approval in principle and the Residential Design Guidance.
7.2 The conditions of the parent approval set out when the development of plot 1 must occur but not that on plots 2 and 3, only when the application for the reserved matters must be submitted. It is usual for approvals in principle to require that the development must be commenced either within 4 years of the date of the approval or within two years of the date of the approval of the reserved matters. In this case the approval in principle was granted on 04.09.18 and as such both the 4 and 2 year periods referred to both expire on or around 04.09.22 so this development should be required to be commenced prior to this date by condition of this approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination - of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
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:…24.08.2020
Signed :S CORLETT 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 NO See below
Application No. : 20/00637/REM Applicant : Mr & Mrs Paul Wheeler Proposal : Reserved matters application in association with PA16/00650/B for the erection of two detached dwellings with attached garages Site Address : Plots 2 & 3 Land Adjcent To Beechfield Glen Auldyn Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The reporting officer amended her recommendation for IPS having received additional correspondence from the owners of Freshfield and Gil Rhennie and these parties were recommended to have and received IPS.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and the approval in priniple on which this application relies, and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development is considered to accord with the provisions of the approval in principle, Planning Circular 8/89, the Residential Design Guidance 2019 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
