Loading document...
The application site comprises a parcel of land located on the eastern side of Little Mill Road in Onchan. The site, which is bounded by trees on three sides and the road on the remaining side, contains an old building that is mostly finished in dark-coloured corrugated sheeting with timber doors to the front.
The proposed development comprises the erection of a dwelling on the application site.
The planning application is before the Planning Committee as it proposes a new dwelling in the countryside.
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, one of which is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Planning application 08/01263/B sought planning approval for the erection of a dwelling on the application site. This previous planning application was refused on the 11th December 2009 for refused for the four following reasons:
Whilst it is considered that the site would comply with the definition of previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building, it is not considered the redundancy of the building has been proven sufficiently. Additionally, given the design, size, height and massing, the proposal would not reduce the impact nor improve landscape or wider environment therefore contrary to General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
By reason of the inappropriate and non-traditional proposed proportions and form of the property and its fenestration, the proposal would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside and would result in a harmful and urbanising effect on the countryside.
The proposed development could lead to an adverse impact upon the aquatic and bankside habitats and species of the watercourse, and therefore would be contrary to Environmental Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
The proposed new bio disc and surface water soakaway are not indicated as being within the applicant's ownership. Additionally, the pipes from the dwelling to these units require infrastructure which cross a public highway. No information has been submitted which permits such works. Consequently, it is considered the proposal does not adequately show how drainage provisions can be provided.
An appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 21st April 2010. A copy of the decision notice and appeal decision for this previous planning application has been placed on the file for this current planning application.
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority do not oppose the planning application. The owners and/or occupants of The Meadows, which is understood to be located approximately 300 metres north east of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is contrary to the local plan which states there should be no more residential development on Little Mill Road, that the existing building is not redundant and that the granting of planning approval would set an undesirable precedent. They suggest that whilst the design of the dwelling is more in keeping with the countryside than the previous planning application it is still positioned too close to the watercourse, that there is insufficient on-site car parking proposed and that the size of the application site is unduly small in comparison to other existing dwellings within the area.
The owners and/or occupants of Glen Rosa, which is located approximately 500 metres north west of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is contrary to the local plan which states there should be no more residential development on Little Mill Road.
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000. Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains one policy that is considered material to the assessment of the planning application. Policy O/RES/P/22 states: "Outside those areas designated for residential development new dwelling 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 Eastern Sector (Planning Circular 9/91)." It should be noted that the provisions of Planning Circular 1/88 have effectively been encompassed within planning policies contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and that the Island Strategic Plan Eastern Sector (Planning Circular 9/91) was never formally adopted by Tynwald and is now time expired.
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two 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:
Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
In respect of General Policy 3, Appendix 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 defines previously developed land as: "Previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:
There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a dwelling on the application site. The proposed development comprises a two storey dwelling of traditional proportion and design, which is sited within part of the footprint of the existing building contained within the application site. The submitted drawings show on-site car parking for two vehicles, there is remaining space within the application site for manoeuvring and additional on-site parking if required.
As stated earlier in this report there has been a previous planning application that sought planning approval for the erection of a dwelling on the application site. This previous planning application, and in particular the appeal decision and appointed Planning Inspector's report, is a significant material consideration in the assessment of this current planning application.
In terms of the principle of development the appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 08/01263/B concluded, at paragraph 13 of their report, that the site is clearly
previously developed land as defined by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and that it contained a significant amount of building. Based on the original use, intervening use and current use they determined that the continued use is redundant for the purposes of Strategic Plan policy. Further reading of the appeal report shows that the appointed Planning Inspector basically concluded that previously proposed development was unacceptable on the grounds that the redevelopment would not reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment. It therefore did not satisfy the stated exception to the presumption against development outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan under criterion (c). The central matter in assessing the current planning application is therefore whether the proposed development 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.
The footprint of the proposed dwelling is smaller than that of the existing building contained within the application site and significantly smaller than that of the dwelling proposed by previous planning application 08/01623/B. The existing building has an approximate footprint of 109 square metres, the previously refused dwelling an approximate footprint of 135 square metres and the proposed dwelling an approximate footprint of 79 square metres. The proposed dwelling is set further back from the highway than the existing building and the previously refused dwelling. The existing building is approximately 6 metres high in comparison to the 7.6 metre ridge height of the proposed dwelling. The proportion and design of the dwelling is traditional and appropriate for the countryside location. Whilst the proposed dwelling is taller than the existing building the footprint and overall size of building is significantly smaller. It is concluded that the redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment. Furthermore, the existing appearance of the application site and the building contained within it is unsightly and detrimental to the area. The proposed development represents an appropriate means of improving the visual appearance of the application site and therefore it is concluded that it would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. As such, the development proposed by the planning application accords with the provisions of criterion (c) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and constitutes an exception to the general presumption against development outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan.
In other respects the proposed development is significant distance from the nearest existing property and therefore will not harm private amenity. Unlike the previously refused planning application this current planning application includes details of drainage (utilising a small area of land on the opposite side of the highway) that are appropriate. It can be seen that with the exception of small corner of the dwelling the proposed building is more than 8 metres from the adjacent watercourse. This inclusion within the 8 metre is very modest and given the minor size of the watercourse it is considered that this acceptable.
Overall, having regard to the above it is recommended that the planning application be approved.
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 Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division (same department as Planning Authority); The owners and/or occupants of The Meadows; and The owners and/or occupants of Glen Rosa.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.06.2010
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This approval relates to drawing no.s 0720/PL019, 0720/PL020 and 0720/PL021 date stamped the 19th May 2010.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005.
Decision Made: .......................... Authority Meeting Date: ................................
Signed: .......................... Presenting Officer:
Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
