Loading document...
Application No.: 14/01189/A Applicant: David Redpath & Jean Nile Proposal: Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling addressing siting and means of access Site Address: Land Adjoining Ard Reayrt Laxey Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 29.10.2014 Site Visit: 29.10.2014 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land off the Ard Reayrt housing estate in Laxey, which has an access shown to the Ard Reayrt highway although none is currently present. - 1.2 The site is heavily-treed, mainly with self-set vegetation, and is on a slope that falls away from Ard Reayrt and down towards an unnamed and unadopted rear access lane that runs behind the houses lining the main A2 road through Laxey; this lane has a number of garages along it, all of which are owned by those dwellings fronting the A2. - 1.3 Two site plans have been submitted; on one, the red line includes the aforementioned highway access, while on the other this access is shown in a black line. This proposed access is not within the ownership of the applicant. The supporting letter submitted by the agent states that "we have obtained outline approval for a single driveway access, from the Ard Reayrt Road, over the verge owned by L.V.C., such driveway would be predominantly for car access…". The land to the east is annotated as "Verge - Laxey Commissioners".
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the erection of a dwelling on the application site. All matters, save for highway access and siting, are reserved. The proposed plans show clearly those trees to remain and those to be lost in order to facilitate the proposal, along with existing and proposed levels. - 2.2 A position for the dwelling is shown on the submitted plans, and this siting is a matter required for assessment as part of this application. As such, if this application were to be approved, the siting would be fixed for any Reserved Matters application that may be subsequently submitted.
3.1 Two previous planning applications have been submitted in the vicinity: one on the site (91/01775/A) and one adjacent (00/01508/A). Both pre-date the most recent Local Plan and Strategic Plan policies. Both sought Approval in Principle for new dwellings, and both were refused. Copies of the decision notices and reports into these applications are appended to the application file for reference. - 3.2 The earlier application carried the following reason for refusal: "The proposal constitutes what is essentially backland development access by a service lane that is unsuitable and inadequate to service the development". - 3.3 The later application was refused at appeal following a Review of the original decision
The site: "The application site is a parcel of land that is located on the eastern side of Croit-eQuill Road, close to the junction with Ballacollister Road, in Lonan. It is within the same ownership as Westdene, an adjacent property and home to the applicants. From Croit-E-Quill Road, the site slopes away quite significantly to the South East, and although it is lined with mature vegetation only two trees of similar maturity are located within the centre of the application site."
The proposal: "The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on the application site. No details of the design of the dwelling have been provided, although an indicative footprint is shown on the submitted plans. A Tree Survey accompanies the application."
Extracts from the assessment: "On the basis that DEFA's Forester advises that there is 'no strong argument to retain' the two trees earmarked [for removal], it is no longer considered that the loss of trees can be used as a substantive reason for resisting residential development on the site…
"While it is considered possible that further trees could be sought for removal should a dwelling eventually be built on the site - which is noticeably dark due to the tree canopy there are separate controls in place for this, not least the felling licences that must be issued by DEFA. It is important to note that, in DEFA's assessing of the merits of a felling licence application, regard is had to the visual amenity provided by a tree and are not purely its health."
4.1 In respect of the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan, the site is partially within an area zoned as "residential", while the access route is within an area zoned as both "Private Woodland or Parkland" and an "Area of Ecological Interest". - 4.2 The Local Plan contains several relevant policies. Policy L/RES/PR/1 states: "Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general." - 4.3 L/OSNC/PR/6 states: "With the exception of the felling of trees planted for commercial purposes, there will be a general presumption against the removal of trees within the study area including instances where this is proposed in order to facilitate development." - 4.4 L/OSNC/PR3 states in part: "In order to preserve those areas of interest to nature conservation within the study area, there will be a general presumption against any development which would have an adverse impact or effect thereon. This policy will apply to areas identified as of ecological importance on the Plan…". - 4.5 It is also appropriate to consider General Policy 2, Environment Policies 3 & 42 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
4.6 Environment Policy 3 states in full: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." - 4.7 Environment Policy 42 reads in full: "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". - 4.8 Housing Policy 6 reads in full: "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in
the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive".
Paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan contains General Policy 2, the relevant extract of which has been provided above.
4.9 There are other policies that refer to restrictions in respect of housing development outside of existing built-up areas (Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4), and these policies are designed to ensure sustainable patterns of development. The site, albeit falling outwith a residential zoning, is reasonably considered to be within Laxey as a village and, as such, it is judged that an assessment reflecting on these policies would not be wholly appropriate.
5.1 Highway Services originally requested a visibility splay of 2.4m x 90m in each direction but subsequently amended these comments on the understanding that the access to the site was to be on Ard Reayrt. They advise, in an email received 11th November 2014, that they do not oppose the application subject to a condition as follows: "Visibility splays of 2 x 36 (23 minimum) metres over land within the ownership of the applicant must be provided. Nothing must be planted or erected within the visibility splay which exceeds or may exceed 1.05 metres in height". - 5.2 In response to concerns raised by local residents with respect to the issue of drainage, the Manx Utility Authority was contacted for their views. The Flood Risk Management Engineer commented as follows in an email dated 5th December 2014: "We have not had any reports of flooding in this area and Ard Reayrt has its own surface water system that discharges to the river. It appears that this is surface water flow issue which should be addressed by the applicant in their detailed submission demonstrating how the site will be drained and where it will be drained to. If more evidence comes to light regarding flooding please let me know". - 5.3 In response to concerns raised by local residents with respect to ecological and biodiversity issues, the Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture was contacted for their views. In an email received 18th November 2014, he advised as follows:
"I looked at this application, though I haven't seen the site personally, and I noted that our early 1990s habitat survey categorised the site as native deciduous woodland. However, the planning application states that it is a disused garden and, being ash and sycamore of smaller stature than the boundaries, it sounds as if this is the case, though clearly naturalised. I decided not to request a bat survey on the basis that the larger trees will be maintained, with continuity to other areas, though retaining the woodland may well be of general benefit to the wildlife in the area. I haven't had bush crickets in that area, so far, which is a protected species. I concluded that, though it would be beneficial to wildlife to continue to allow woodland to further develop on the site, I did not have any specific, justifiable reason to object to this proposal.
"It is therefore not specifically a Wildlife Act matter but of how much greenspace/wildlife space should be retained in this area versus how much more housing is required, which is a planning policy balancing.
"I believe that there may be relevant tree protection considerations, which will have been detailed separately."
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority, in correspondence received 10th November, request the applicant contact them to discuss electricity supply at the property. - 5.5 Laxey Village Commissioners, in correspondence dated 12th November 2014, stated that the Board sought legal advice in respect of a covenant affecting Authority-owned land. In subsequent correspondence, dated 20th November 2014, they advised as follows: "…the Board cannot approved the proposed development on the grounds the construction of the access across the Commissioners owned land would clearly breach Burden 3 of the Title deed, which states: 'No building or development as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1934 (as amended) shall be undertaken on the plots'. Further clarification can be found in section 6(1)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999…" They then go on to outline the definition of 'development' in the 1999 Act. - 5.6 A number of private representations have been received. The addresses of the representors, and dates their representations were received or date-stamped as having been received (as appropriate), are provided below:
5.7 The issues raised by these objectors are as follows:
5.8 Steve Rodan MHK, in a letter date-stamped as having been received 13th November 2014, comments in part as follows: "I share and support concerns of the access across the rear lane by construction vehicles which is narrower in places than the 4.5m suggested.
"I would highlight the proposed removal of trees and the direct impact on the adjacent property 'Wayside' as an interested party, and ask that these points are also carefully considered."
6.1 This planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on the application site. As such, the planning application seeks to test the principle of erecting a dwelling on the site and is not concerned with the detail of any particular dwelling. If the principle is accepted, and planning approval is granted, a further planning application would be required to assess the specifics of siting and design. - 6.2 In coming to a view as to the acceptability of the principle of the proposal, the zoning of the site will be assessed relative to the policies presuming against the loss of woodland areas of public amenity value. Although the site is primarily within an area zoned as residential, it cannot be ignored that it is fairly covered with trees. Zoning and tree coverage - 6.3 Policy L/RES/PR/1 of the Laxey Local Plan relates more to the principle of residential development rather than the detail, and it is not considered that the current application would necessarily be considered contrary to that policy, which reads quite positively in respect of new residential development where it is proposed on land that is zoned as "predominantly residential", which the application site is. - 6.4 However, the issue of the existing tree coverage is important. The Forestry Officer's views are especially instructive, and are clear that the existing woodland - and it is considered appropriate to refer to the land as such, despite its self-set nature - provides public amenity value now and for some time into the future if properly managed. Felling licences would, on this basis, seem unlikely to be issued. Taking this into account, it is considered that any parallels that could be drawn with the Approval in Principle issued on Croit E Quill Road are sketchy at best. The situation there was wholly different in that the plot was more easily accessible, not readily viewed from further afield and, in any case, only two trees were proposed for removal and these were of such a condition that the Forestry Officer could make no strong argument to retain them. Even more than this, every application should be assessed on its own merits. - 6.5 With this in mind, it is considered that the level of woodland loss - both that now proposed and that which may have to occur in future given the likely pressure from occupants of any dwelling erected on the site - makes the application is contrary to the provisions of both Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 and also Environment Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. This is considered to be a substantive reason to refuse the application. - 6.6 Although the principle of the proposal is unacceptable for the reason outlined above, it is still important to consider the likely impact of the proposal on nearby residential amenity and also reflect on highway safety matters. Neighbouring residential amenity
6.7 It is never straightforward to assess the impact of a proposal on neighbouring residential amenity when no details of the dwelling have been provided. It is not known how many storeys the dwelling would have. In such cases, a precautionary approach should be taken and it must be noted that a number of residents have raised concerns in respect of the proposal's impact on their privacy. However, a position for the dwelling is shown on the submitted plans, and this siting is a matter required for assessment as part of this application. As such, if this application were to be approved, the siting would be fixed for any Reserved Matters application that may be subsequently submitted. (It does not, however, require any future Full application to site the proposed dwelling on that particular location.) - 6.8 In its proposed location, the proposed dwelling would be some significant distance from nearby dwellings. As no proposed site plan that also includes the surrounding development has been submitted, it is difficult to be wholly accurate as to the distances involved, but the nearest dwelling would be Wayside at approximately 40m to the southwest. There are other dwellings in the area, but these are either angled from the application site or so much higher than, or well-screened from, it that they could not be said to significantly affected in privacy terms by the proposal. - 6.9 In respect of Wayside, then, while the distance of 40m is normally considered easily sufficient to protect private amenity - the rule of thumb distance between principal elevations is 20m - it is noted that the site's situation on a steep slope is such as to provide a more overbearing aspect than would normally be the case. However, the distance is such and the proposed siting - which would separate the proposed dwelling from Wayside by an existing garage and therefore provide a good level of screening between the two dwellings - is such that an objection on this ground could not be sustained. While it is acknowledged that the proposal would have privacy and overbearing issues, and that these would be felt most strongly by the occupants of Wayside, it is not considered that these would be so severe as to warrant the application's refusal in principle. However, it does raise the important point that any design for a new dwelling on this site will need to be respectful of these issues. Highways safety - 6.10 The condition requested by Highway Services is fairly reasonable but cannot be attached to any approval notice: the applicant has control on only part of the land within the visibility splay and therefore can have no control over the use to which that splay is put. As such, it has not been demonstrated that the application would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. The application is therefore contrary to parts "h" and "i" of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. - 6.11 The site, although on a significant slope, could probably provide adequate parking provision and therefore no objection is raised on this point. Character of the area - 6.12 An extract from Environment Policy 42 reads thus: "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". - 6.13 Viewed from the other side of the Laxey valley, the character of the area is very clearly one of dwellings set in amongst mature and robust tree coverage. While the line of dwellings along Ramsey Road is fairly clear when viewed from across the valley, the Ard Reayrt dwellings above and beyond are rather more haphazard. However, these are in many ways 'above' the horizon and read quite separately from the dwellings of Ramsey Road itself. Although these views are long-distance, it is considered that the positioning of a dwelling
condition requiring a bat survey be carried out as part of any subsequent Reserved Matters application.
Other matters
6.21 The issue raised by objectors in respect of land ownership are not very material to the determination of the application. While clearly the issue of land ownership for the access would need to be resolved, the issue of land ownership to the rear and its use to provide construction vehicle traffic is of no consequence to the determination of the application. In terms of the point raised latterly by the Commissioners, while their own Title deed with respect to the land in question prevents any building being erected or development taking place on that land, a similar conclusion applies. - 6.22 Disruption caused by construction traffic is not a material Planning consideration, and nor is the effect of a proposal on property values.
7.1 Approval in Principle is sought. However, even without full details of the proposal, it has been seen that any dwelling on the site could not be assured of adequate highways visibility and would result in an unacceptable level of tree removal. There are policies in place to protect against development in such circumstances and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused on these bases. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
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.
8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
All of these are owners/occupiers of dwellings or buildings that sit adjacent or overlooking the site.
8.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
8.4 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
These are owners/occupiers of dwellings that are neither adjacent to nor overlooking of the application site.
8.5 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation:
08.12.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 9th December 2014 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed :…………………………………….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
