DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 23/01298/A Applicant: Mrs Lynne Morgan Proposal: Approval in Principle for erection of detached dwelling with associated parking addressing siting and means of access. Access to be formed from existing access gate on Rheast Road Site Address: Field 514355 And Part Field 510185 Rheast Road Santon Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The erection of a dwelling on this site would represent an unwarranted development in the Island's countryside and would be contrary to both the land use provisions of the Area Plan for the East and to the provisions of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, there are no 'other material consideration' which have been identified, nor has it been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need for the proposal. Therefore it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, Paragraph 4.3.11, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):

Ballacooper House, The Sloping Road Park Farm, Clanna Road Springside Barn, Rheast Road

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

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 mentioned in Article 6(4):

Mullinaragher House, Rheast Road as they do not satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within Field No.514355 and Field No.510185, with the proposed new dwelling being situated within the Western side of Field No.514355 and the proposed entrance being situated within the Eastern side of Field No. 510185. - 1.2 Field No. 514355 sits within a corner location where the junction of Rheast Road meets Clanna Road and covers an area of approximately 300m squared of glazing land. The Rheast Road boundary is marked by a line of mature trees and a roadside hedge, whilst the Clanna Road boundary comprises a mix of a sod bank and mature roadside hedge. A mixture of hedging and fencing mark the sites northern and western boundaries. - 1.3 The site lies in the open countryside with a number of dwellings on spacious plots with Park Farm adjacent to the north; Ballacooper House on the opposite side of Clanna Road to the east; Ballacorrin on the opposite of Rheast Road to the south; and, Springside and Mullaragher House on the opposite side of Rheast Road, to the south and south-west. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the construction of a new dwelling of which this application addresses the siting and means of access. - 2.2 The proposed access to the proposed property will be from the existing agricultural access within Field No. 510185. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are two previous applications to the site which are relevant in this assessment; PA07/01990/B - Creation of vehicular access - Permitted PA23/00517/B - Erection of a detached dwelling with parking and access to be formed from the existing field access gate - Refused for the following reasoning;

• R1: The principle of development for the erection of a dwelling is not accepted because the site lies within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled with the site not being allocated specifically for any development. The personal circumstances put forward by the applicant are not considered to be of such significance to warrant a departure from DEFA Planning's policies for the area. The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3a); Housing Policy 4a); and, Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and from "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."

• R2: The siting, design, scale and visual impact of the dwelling on the character of the site, and overall surroundings is unacceptable because the dwelling would be set in from the sites boundaries, and would appear very much as an isolated feature on the site. This would be unacceptable in this countryside context, given that the site relates more to the rural, verdant softness of its countryside surroundings, than to any of the nearby dwellings. The proposal would, therefore, fail to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 (b, c and g) in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), which seek to protect sites and their surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; and, to ensure that new development does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; or the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
• R3: Notwithstanding the above reasons of refusal, the existing vehicular access serving the site is shown as being upgraded on Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. 21/3132/02 to serve the development. However, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that vehicle - vehicle visibility splays can be provided either side of the vehicular access serving the site in accordance with the requirements of the Manual for Manx Roads. Any such access should conform to Manual for Manx Roads residential access standards as listed in Appendix B.4 and include; an access width of between 3.4m (as it appears to be shared pedestrian access also) and 6m depending on shared use for agricultural; entry splays; bound and consolidated surface for the first 5m/6m from the edge of the highway; and gates setback a minimum of 5m / 6m from the highway. Given the lack of such details to demonstrate that safe access and egress can be achieved from the proposed access location, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Transport Policy 4 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area zoned "not designated for development," and sits within a rural part of the open countryside within the Area Plan for the East, Map 11 - Newtown. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.

- 4.2 AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST

• 4.2.1 The land is also linked to Map 2S Landscape Assessment Areas; that identifies site is within a Landscape Character Area that is broadly classified as 'Gently Undulating Land', and more specifically as 'D10 Braaid'.
• 4.2.2 Within the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment written statement (July 2008) under section 3.0 Landscape Character Area (LCA), page 115, para. The key characteristics of D10 are broadly referred to as: "o Gently undulating land sloping down south-eastwards towards the coast with numerous notable rounded hill tops.

• o Rough heathland vegetation.
• o Coniferous Chibbanagh Plantation on hill tops and higher exposed areas.
• o Large open predominantly pastoral fields with low Manx hedges and gorse spreading from hedgerows into more elevated fields in numerous places creating a semi-upland character.
• o Sparsely settled area with some scattered farmhouses surrounded by trees in an otherwise
• open and treeless area.
• o Numerous historic settlements and elements such as Long and Round houses at Braaid and remains of Broogh Fort.
• o Small gullies containing burns and low vegetation cut across the fields.
• o Mount Murray Golf course and associated buildings near the small linear settlement of Newtown, extending along the A5.
• o Sunken lanes enclosed by grassed Manx hedges with some gorse and thorn bushes growing
• on the top enclosing the road corridor."

• 4.2.3 D10 Braaid notes that the: "The overall strategy should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its open large pastoral fields, its Manx hedges, its scattered farm houses fringed by trees, its sunken and enclosed rural road network and its numerous archaeological features."

- 4.3 STRATEGIC POLICIES

• 4.3.1 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following Strategic Policies;

• Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure;
• Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3;
• Strategic Policy 3 - to respect the character of our towns and villages Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel;

• Spatial Policy 1 - priority to Douglas for development
• Spatial Policy 2 - identifying Service Centres for development
• Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages
• Spatial Policy 4 - remain villages
• Spatial Policy 5 - building in defined settlements or GP3 Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3;

• General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations;
• General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development; Environment Policy 1 - the countryside must be protected for its own sake

• Environment Policy 3 - protection of trees and woodland
• Environment Policy 4 - wildlife and nature conservation Environment Policy 7 - protection of existing watercourses Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Housing Policy 4 - new housing will be located primarily within the existing towns and villages Housing Policy 7 - new agricultural dwelling Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation

4.4 LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS

• 4.4.1 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a

• consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".
• 4.5 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS

• 4.5.1 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the residential development in the countryside.

• 4.5.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) - This document provides advice on the design of new houses, sustainable construction as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery; - 5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the site access position was previously approved, is on a low traffic flow road and the site access gate is suitably set back from the public highway. A S109 highway agreement will be required for any future tie into the adopted highway for the site access." (24.11.23) - 5.3 Santon Commissioners have considered the application and state, "The Board of Santon Commissioners object to this planning application on the grounds of spurious development in the countryside on land zoned for agricultural purposes." (13.12.23) - 5.4 DEFA Biodiversity have written in to state that they object to the proposal, the reasoning being the removal of the natural habitat by removal of the sod bank and semi-natural habitat will result in a net loss of biodiversity for the site. (13.12.23) - 5.5 DEFA Environmental Protection officer has written in to request additional information regarding the foul drainage infrastructure. (20.12.23) - 5.6 The Owner/Occupier of Springside Barn, Rheast Road have written in to state they have concerns regarding the proposed access and the proposed equestrian use. (06.12.23) - 5.7 The Owner/Occupier of Ballacooper House, The Sloping Road have written in to state they have concerns with the application on the basis of Land Zoning, the proposed access and potential drainage issues. (11.12.23) - 5.8 The Owner/occupier of Mullinaragher House, Rheast Road have written in to state that the revised application has failed to address the key refusal reasons of the previous application. (11.12.23) - 5.9 The Owner/Occupier of Park Farm, Clannagh Road have written in to point out inaccuracies with the application submitted. (14.12.23) ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider with this application are as follows;

• - Preamble
• - Principle
• - Impact on the countryside
• - Impact on neighbouring properties
• - Previous dwelling

• - Highway safety
• - Drainage/flooding
• - Sustainable development
• - Trees/ ecology

- 6.2 PREAMBLE

• 6.2.1 It is relevant to note that this application follows a previously refused planning application under the no. PA23/00517/B. The agent has stated the following reasons on why the application is a difference to the previously refused application;

• - Difference in the application type, not requesting in principle not a full development.
• - The dwelling's siting has been altered
• - Upgraded planning statement
• - Redline clarification

• 6.2.2 As the application was validated the above was accepted in this application being enough of a difference to the previously refusal application.
• 6.3 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

• 6.3.1 When looking at the principle of the development it is necessary to note that the Strategic Plan indicates a low level of new housing may be suitable in villages and that the boundaries of these should be set through Area Plans.
• 6.3.2 The proposed site in question was put forward within the call for sites for the Area Plan for the East whilst this is the case, the site itself was not brought forward within the Area Plan by being a stage 1 fail in the countryside and would not be counted as part of the settlement of Newtown. With the above in mind, it is therefore considered that there was no local need for additional housing on the proposed site.
• 6.3.3 Turning towards the land zoning of the site, as stated within Section 4 of this report, it is situated within an "area not designed for development, with the proposed dwelling not serving a viable agricultural holding, nor is it the conversion of a redundant rural building/ replaces an existing dwelling (discussed below). The proposed dwelling is not location dependent development or essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry, there isn't an overriding national need and the proposed dwelling is not required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
• 6.3.4 The site is not designated for development. It does not meet any of the exceptions for new houses in the countryside as set out in the relevant policies. This is considered in itself to be grounds for refusal.

- 6.4 IMPACT ON THE COUNTRYSIDE

• 6.4.1 When looking at whether the proposal would have an impact upon the countryside, it is difficult to judge as the application is only for an Approval in Principle and does not supply any indicative elevations or other details. That being said, although an indicative site plan has been provided which shows the property being situated closer to the boundary of Park Farm, the development would still be read in isolation away from the surrounding buildings. The existing landscaping on site is noted, but this alone is not sufficient to disregard the strong policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which seek to protect the visual/ landscape character of the Island and also to protect the countryside for its own sake.

- 6.5 IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

• 6.5.1 As the application states that siting is to be assessed, it is relevant to note that the proposal within this application has changed the proposed siting of the dwelling to be closer to Park Farm's outside arena than the previous application (PA23/00517/B), and further away from Ballacooper House, Ballacorrin, Springside and Mullaragher House.

• 6.5.2 It is relevant to note that this application seeks that all matters, other than the access and siting (design, external appearance of the building, internal layout, drainage, and landscaping of the site) to be determined at the any future Reserved Matters Application. The potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities through overlooking, loss of light, over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity, potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene, and potential amenities of future occupants of the dwelling are all matters which would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application specifically those aspects of General Policy 2. This especially relevant in noting that whilst siting has been ticked, there is no information regarding on whether the topography of the land is to be altered for the proposed dwelling.
• 6.5.3 Whilst the above is the case, at this time there is no need to condition the overall height of the dwelling as any design features such as height would be assessed within a Reserved Matters application.

6.6 PREVIOUS DWELLING

• 6.6.1 The agent with the planning statement has raised the fact that there was possibly a previous dwelling upon the site, whilst not within the proposed red-line boundary it is necessary to assess as per part (c) of General Policy 3, previously developed land. Procedurally, when a building has been demolished and no longer remains on the site in any capacity, any "permissions" it may once had, is lost when the building is removed in planning terms and the site is treated afresh.

• 6.6.2 Given the time period of when the previous dwelling would have occupied the site, which is over 150 years ago, very little to no weight can be afforded to the weight it would have against the planning polies in place, especially those relating to previously development land and noting that the policies within the Strategic Plan which related to a replacement dwelling specifically refer to "existing" (e.g. Housing Policy 11, Housing Policy 12, Housing Policy 14 etc.), which would reinforce this view.

6.7 HIGHWAY IMPACT

• 6.7.1 When looking at the proposal in relation to Highway safety, it is noted that Highway Services have considered the principal merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway noting visibility splays, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it is noted that they do not object to the principle of the means of access to this application.

• 6.7.2 Considering the above, the details have shown how access to the site can be achieved and that the proposed driveway would accommodate the required number of vehicles as per Transport Policy 7 in accordance with Appendix 7.

• 6.7.3 Whilst this is the case, it is noted that the proposal states the addition of a 4m gate, but no details have been provided, as such the gate part of the application has not been assessed and should be conditioned to be added onto any additional applications if approved.

- 6.8 DRAINAGE/ FLOODING

• 6.8.1 As stated within section 4 of this report, the site is not situated within a Flood Risk Zone.

• 6.8.2 It is noted that comments have been received from the Environmental Protection Officer requiring further clarification on the discharge route for the foul drainage and, the advice that if the sewage treatment works is connected to a drainage ditch or watercourse a discharge license will be required, are noted. It is considered that in the event of an approval being granted, such mitigation details could be conditioned and would meet the provisions of General Policy 2(l); and, Environment Policies 7 and 22 of the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan

(2016). 6.9 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

• 6.9.1 Whilst the proposal is only for means of access and siting and no indicative plans have been received, the Planning Statement with the application states that the proposed dwelling would be a "high-quality," sustainable prototype.

• 6.9.2 The overall concept of Sustainable Development is centrally embedded within the Strategic Plan, with many policies reflecting this and also within the Residential Design Guidance (although focused on dwellings within settlements, it does provide information on sustainable construction). The overall settlement strategy within the Strategic Plan is aimed at supporting existing settlements and reducing the need for journeys by car. Whilst a new dwelling within the countryside could be built to a high standard, this is not considered a reason to ignore the spatial aspects of responding to Climate Change nor the other policy issues as outlined above.
• 6.10 TREES/ ECOLOGY

6.10.1 In terms of the possible impact of the proposal upon biodiversity, comments have been received from the Ecosystem Policy Team. The comments raised state in part, "The development proposals will require the removal of areas of sod bank and semi-natural habitat, with the potential for protected common lizards and breeding birds, as well as alterations to a ditch system with potential for protected common frogs."

• 6.10.2 It is noted that the proposal would result in a loss of a small area of wildlife habitat, with this application not providing any mitigation. However at this time it would be unwarranted to request an ecological assessment for the proposal, with the likelihood that mitigation can be conditioned in the event of an approval being granted, which would be required to include mitigation details that would meet the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990, and for compliance with Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, the purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new housing should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the erection of a dwelling as is proposed here) it is also essential to bear in mind that the development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.

7.2 Therefore, this application like the majority of applications the Department receives each year for new dwellings in the countryside, should be refused for being contrary to strict and established planning policy which seeks to protect the countryside from development. Furthermore, it is important; that such development is controlled by the development plan process rather than as ad hoc decisions taken in isolation.

7.3 It is considered that the proposal would be contrary with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be refused. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status

Decision Made : Refused Date : 24.01.2024 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/ customers and archive records.