Loading document...
| Application No.: | 14/00624/A |
| Applicant: | Matthew Joseph Astall |
| Proposal: | Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling |
| Site Address: | Field 411029 |
| Adjacent To Two Ways | |
| Ballafesson | |
| Port Erin | |
| Isle Of Man |
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies behind an existing property, "Two Ways" which in turn lies 50m to the north east of the Ballafesson/Honna Road as it skirts the settlement of Ballafesson. Ballafesson is described in the Strategic Plan as a "remaining village" which is not a service village, service centre or urban area and where "development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities."
1.2 The application site has a frontage to the lane of around 46m and is around 53m in depth, contiguous with the boundaries of Two Ways. Across the lane to the north west is Cronk my Chree and to the rear of this are Calella and Sunnyside and continues parallel to Surby Road to the farmland to the north east.
1.3 The site is currently used for the storage of containers, vehicles and tractors, none of which appears to be actively or recently used. The site has tall metal fencing at the entrance to prevent access.
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of Two Ways. An illustration of the position and size of the property has been included to demonstrate that the site is large enough to accommodate a dwelling. This need not be the final position, size or shape of the property which could be controlled by condition.
2.2 The application also proposes the alterations of the access at the junction of the lane with the Ballafesson/Honna Road. This involves the lowering of the stone wall to the west to a height not exceeding 1.05m to provide visibility splays of 36m in this direction and to the south east there will be a 50m splay through the removal of the existing gate pillar.
| Case Officer : | Miss S E Corlett |
| Photo Taken : | 30.06.2014 |
| Site Visit : | 11.06.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level : | Planning Committee |
2.3 The application is accompanied by letters from the owners of the land alongside the access to the property which is required to improve visibility therefrom, indicating that he is happy for the improvements to the access to be made, and also from the owners of Two Ways and Calella who all consider that the proposed new dwelling is acceptable in principle and would tidy up the site and improve the junction, which would be to their benefit. The owner of Calella also indicates that the owner of Cronk my Chree is also in agreement.
2.4 The applicant would like to have a dwelling so that he and his daughter who is five, can have a home which is large enough to accommodate his parents who are elderly and who require care as they become older. The applicant and his parents currently live in Fistard in separate properties.
3.1 The site lies within an area of Open Space on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. The existing properties around the site are also within this designation and the residential designation lies on the western side of the Ballafesson and Surby Roads. There are sites which are identified as suitable for residential development within the immediate area: Areas 18 and 19. One of these, Area 19 was identified as suitable for development on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan and is confirmed in the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. The other is a small parcel of land on the northern side of the Surby Road north of Garth Avenue and is included as whilst "Surby is not listed within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as an area where new development should be directed. However, the development of this plot would be seen as being within an existing group of buildings."
3.2 Development in areas not designated for such are considered in light of General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan:
"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, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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-dependant 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"
4.1 Planning permission was refused for the principle of a dwelling on this site under PA 10/01613. This application also included provision for the improvement of the access. The reason for refusal was that:
The site is not designated for development on the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan which is the extant development plan for this area, or on the draft Southern Area Plan. As such, development would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan and General Policy 3 of that Plan."
No appeal was sought in this respect.
4.2 Other relevant applications which could be considered include the following two. The principle of the development of a new dwelling was sought alongside Court Farm which is within Newtown which falls into the same settlement category as Ballafesson. This application, PA 12/00643 proposed the principle of a completely new dwelling in the paddock between Court Farm and the former Methodist Chapel which is now a dwelling (PA 11/00153). The application was refused by the Planning Committee but approved on appeal, the Inspector concluding that the key issue was the effect that the dwelling would have on its location within the area of high landscape value. He notes that there have been "significant" changes in policy in that Newtown is now identified as a village and as such the site is not outside of a settlement. He then questions whether such a development could have an impact on the countryside. He concludes that the site appears more as a large infill site than an area of countryside and that there would be no harm in permitting a development on this site. He also states, "Nor do I consider that a granting of permission in this case would be seen as being 'ad hoc' or that it would set a precedent for other applications. The particular circumstances and material considerations of this case are quite unique in my view and, in any case, any further applications for dwelling houses within the countryside or other similarly designated villages, would need to be assessed on their merits and in relation to the specific material planning considerations."
4.3 A very recent application for the redevelopment of an existing residential curtilage in Malew, alongside Brookfield Avenue opposite the Airport was refused by the Planning Committee for the reason that: "The site is not designated for development on the recently adopted Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 and is outside Castletown's settlement boundary identified therein: to approve development which would be contrary to such a recently adopted plan would undermine the provisions of the plan and the weight which can be afforded to it."
5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners support the application. They indicate that they requested the inclusion of the site in the Area Plan for the South and have never understood why it was not included as in their view it is an infill site. They see no reason for the application to be refused as the neighbour does not object, the site is an eyesore and the development will improve the access.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services does not oppose the application.
6.1 The application proposes development on a site which is not designated for development within a recently adopted plan. As such, and as the development does not comply with any of the exceptions set out in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. Whilst there are structures on the site, they are not buildings and as such the site would not comply with the definition of "previously developed land".
6.2 However, the development of the site is not contrary to the wishes of those who live alongside and would bring about an improvement to the access which would benefit those who use it. This of course is not the only means of improving the access but it would ensure that the works are undertaken. It is also relevant that the local authority are in support of the development, although of course it is also relevant that their request to have the site included for development was not accepted. The site was proposed by the applicant for development during the formulation of the Area Plan for the South and the Commissioners also proposed other sites in the Ballafesson area. These sites were rejected from inclusion for the reason that it is not within a defined settlement and would represent unwarranted development in
the countryside. It was not considered to be true infill development as there is not development on each side and was considered to be a prominent site.
6.3 The two applications referred to in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate that planning approval can be granted on land which is not designated for development but also that where an area plan has very recently been adopted, the Planning Committee is generally reluctant to take decisions which contravene that.
6.4 As such, it is considered that, on balance, the application should not be recommended for approval on the basis that the site is not designated for development in the relevant area plan and particularly as it was rejected as part of that process. It is relevant however that the application is not without its merits, including the tidying up of a presently untidy site (although the owner could tidy it up without introducing built development upon it) and the development would bring about the improvement of an existing access which offers limited visibility and is used by at least four households.
6.5 If the Committee is minded to consider that the application should be approved, conditions should be attached to ensure that the improvements shown to the access are undertaken prior to the execution of any other development on the application site.
7.1 The local authority, Rushen Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 30.06.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Whilst the development would bring about improvements to an existing access which offers limited visibility to existing users, the site proposed for development is not allocated for such and was considered and not accepted as suitable for development in the formulation of the
Area Plan for the South. As such the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4.
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 : A Committee Meeting Date : 21-7-14 Signed : S. M. O. H. T. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
Mr. Ash211:
Mr. Gunn:
reason: min. misc. impact - similar - proposed to Two ways.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
