Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling ("Mill House") located at the south eastern end of The Dog Mills in Bride. The site, which is divided by an access lane, contains an existing detached dwelling and two detached garage blocks. The existing dwelling is a split-level building that changes from two storey to three storey following changes in levels within the site. Given its unusual shape, partly due to its split-level nature but also due to various historic additions, Mill House was probably never a traditional Manx dwelling. Its finishes (cream roughcast render and grey slate tiles), however, give some lie to this conclusion. Mill House is, on the evidence of the site visit, unoccupied.
1.2 Agricultural land borders the site to the south, while to the west (beyond Bride Road) and north lies sporadic residential development amongst further agricultural land. To the immediate east lies the Island's coast, which at this point has a beach through which the Raad ny Foillan runs. The land here offers a very small and short valley, running west-east, formed by an existing culvert, and the land here is steeply-sloping in a number of directions.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for landscaping works associated with the new dwelling approved on the site (see Planning History section for full details). These works include the provision of retaining walls formed of gabion baskets. The works would essentially result in a flattening of some of the land to the rear of the approved dwelling in order to provide a flatter garden area than would be the case without the works.
2.2 The area of land that would be flatter would be roughly 185sqm - it is an irregular shape so hard to measure accurately - with the southern curve being partially lined with the gabion baskets that are cubic metres in size (that is, they measure one metre in distance in all dimensions). The gabion basket wall would be 3m in height and 1m in depth, and would run
| Application No.: | 14/00505/B |
| Applicant: | Mr & Mrs Brian Charlesworth |
| Proposal: | Landscaping works involving retaining walls, cut and fill levels in association with proposed new dwelling (PA 13/91221/B) |
| Site Address: | Mill House |
| Dogmills | |
| Ramsey | |
| Isle Of Man | |
| IM7 4AD |
roughly 15m in distance, but for the majority of this (roughly 12m) would be grassed over. The stone within the gabions would match that of the approved dwelling.
2.3 The existing culvert would be covered over, with the water directed in the same position via a new pipe.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of two previous planning applications considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2 There is also an application (14/00458/B) currently under consideration for the erection of a replacement dwelling, which comprises elevational alterations to the dwelling approved under 13/91221.
4.1 In terms of land use, the application site is not designated for any site-specific purpose but is located within a wider area of land classified as high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 does not contain any specific policies relating to cut and fill within a residential garden. The fact that the site is in residential use but zoned as falling within countryside means the provisions of General Policies 2 and 3 are useful to have regard to, while Environment Policies 1 and 2 are also helpful.
4.3 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:
4.4 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:
4.5 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative".
4.6 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
5.1 Highway Services do not oppose the planning application.
5.2 The Waste Management and Minerals Officer requested details in respect of the material proposed to be removed in terms of type and amount, and where (if applicable) the excavated material would be taken. An engineer's report in this respect was provided, and showed that the material proposed for removal is primarily sand. The agent also provided some calculations in this respect, with the advice being that 887 cubic metres would be cut with 460 cu metres to remain on site, with 427 cu metres to be removed from the site. The Waste Management and Minerals Officer stated that this would equate to 700-800 tonnes of material to be removed, and circa 50 vehicle loads (100 movements). If these amounts are correct, a mining agreement would be required between the applicant and the Department of Economic Development to enable the sand to be removed off-site, but in any case a landfill option would not be sustainable as sand is a non-renewable primary aggregate, which has value.
6.1 The key issue to assess is the visual impact of the proposal. There must be some concern that the proposal would result in the "urbanisation" of what is a relatively natural site at the moment. In that sense, the introduction of what appears to be a relatively manicured lawn area into a seaside area is a little unfortunate.
6.2 This concern must be balanced against the harm this would cause, however, and in the first instance it should be noted that the site is (perhaps quite surprisingly) not especially visible from further afield. From the highway to the south, the existing house is itself not wholly visible - the garden land is wholly invisible. To the north, meanwhile, there is plenty of natural vegetation and other built development screening the site, while from the west the house itself (whether the existing or the approved dwelling) screens the garden from view. The main view for assessment, then, is perhaps that from the footpath that runs west-east and also from the Raad ny Foillan that runs along the site to the east.
6.3 From the beach, the top storey of the dwelling is visible from certain positions - and invisible from others - but the garden itself is, again, wholly invisible. The beach is set some way down and so views of the garden itself are not possible until one has made a full ascent of the steps up from the Raad ny Foillan and onto the west-east footpath. For a short length of this footpath, the site is fully visible. At this point, the garden would be filled - that is, raised - by up to 4.6m in some places and this would, inevitably, make it more visible and prominent from certain angles. It would not seem, however, that very much of this extra prominence would be visible from the Raad ny Foillan as the garden land would still be approximately 20m from the beach itself, which would still have a steep bank running along much of its length and which provides the screening to the existing dwelling and its setting.
6.4 It should never be assumed that because a site cannot be readily viewed, no attention should be paid to the appropriateness of what is proposed for that site. As such, it is worth briefly considering the details of the proposal.
6.5 Those details are quite limited, and the main physical features will be a large garden bounded on one side by a gabion basket wall, which will itself be largely grassed over. The materials are therefore acceptable and would not be inappropriate for the approved dwelling, nor for this coastal location.
6.6 Essentially, then, the assessment must hinge on whether this proposed works would have a harmful impact on the character of the landscape, as required by Environment Policy 2. The land here is relatively overgrown through a lack of use / inhabitation in recent years, but the small bridge across the culvert and the existence of stone walls, concrete pavers in the existing garden and various fence posts and panels belies the fact that it has had more active use at some point in the past. There is, therefore, something residential in nature of the site and the approved dwelling will inevitably result in a return to more active residential use, both in terms of the new dwelling and the garden already approved as part of that dwelling.
6.7 The scale of what is proposed is quite extensive, although not necessarily inappropriate for a dwelling of the size approved here. It is therefore considered that, on balance, while the scale might be greater than preferred, and the nature of the proposal overall would introduce an element of urbanisation into a coastal area, the general lack of visibility of the works proposed means that the development would not be unduly harmful to the landscape to a degree that would warrant the application's refusal on this ground.
6.8 As the application seeks planning approval for landscaping works, and is not primarily for the extraction of minerals, no reference to Minerals Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan has been
made. Nonetheless, it is plain that some material will be removed from the site. The use of that material is controlled by the Department of Economic Development, and an agreement will be required with that Department in respect of the management and disposal and / or use of the excavated materials. It is therefore recommended that an advisory note outlining this fact be attached to any approval notice that may be forthcoming.
7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved, subject to conditions.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 28.07.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
The applicant is strongly advised to contact the Department of Economic Development in respect of the material that will be required for extraction to carry out the approved development; this is in order to discuss the agreement that will be needed with that Department because of those extraction works.
This approval relates to the following plans date-stamped as having been received 28th April 2014:
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: Approved Committee Meeting Date: 2014
Signed: [Signature] Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
