Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00785/B Applicant: Mr Mark Quirk Proposal: Variation of condition 2 of PA 13/00918/A Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling and equestrian centre to extend the period of permission by two years Site Address: Springwaters Ballamodha Straight Ballamodha Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AZ Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The site defined in red is an area of land situated to the east of the A3 Foxdale/ Ballamodha Road. The area edged red amounts to around 10 acres of land including an existing house, Springwaters, which is a traditional cottage that has a conservatory which has been added to the front elevation and a single storey side elevation to the west and a single storey flat roofed annex at the rear. The core of the cottage is a vernacular Manx cottage with a basic footprint of 9.4m by 8m. The conservatory, side and rear extensions add further floor space, resulting in a total overall floor area of 269 sq m. - 1.2 In addition to the main dwelling, there is another small bungalow which has a floor area of around 44 sq m and a block of three garages attached to a former cottage and additional garage. The main dwelling sits a little distance from the other buildings which are grouped together some 10-20m to the north east. A further dwelling, Close Clark lies within the site at the junction of the access lane with the northern spur towards the application site and its other buildings. This has a collection of outbuildings alongside it. - 1.3 Access to the buildings is via an existing lane which runs to the south of the buildings from the A3 towards Close Clark. The lane reaches Close Clark then turns either north towards the application site, or south along a public road to The Gate, a small collection of buildings around a crossroads. - 1.4 Between Close Clark and the A3 is a field which does not belong to the applicant and which is used to house cattle and horses. There is a collection of buildings on the site - stables and a cattle shelter/hay store: planning permission has recently been granted here for a further cattle shelter (PA 12/01694). - 1.5 There is no clearly defined residential curtilage visible in association with the existing buildings: there is a planted area with grass and trees to the north west and west of the buildings which have a hard straight edge facing the A3 and which is visible therefrom. To the east of the buildings appear to be grassed areas with some fencing, an area which looks as if it has been used at some time as a track, approximately 60m by 50 to the north east of the garage block.
1.6 Along with the land defined in red, additional land is defined in blue, indicating that it is within the ownership or control of the applicant, extending the site to around 34 acres. - 1.7 The site was the subject of a previous application, PA 13/00918/A, for the principle of the redevelopment of the site, removing Spring Waters and the outbuildings and replacing them with a single large house, garaging and equestrian facilities, hay barn and staff accommodation together with a new access onto the A3 Foxdale Road. This application received support from the Department of Economic Development on the basis that the applicant was intending to relocate some of his businesses to the Island but first required to identify a home for himself and his family, conveniently close to the airport. The conditions of that approval required that the application for the reserved matters be submitted prior to 17th September, 2015. THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSAL
2.1 Approved was the principle of the replacement of all of the existing buildings on the site, including Close Clark (which was to be retained in the previous applications) and their replacement with a new principal dwelling, garaging and equestrian facilities and a replacement for Close Clark
2.2 There was to be a detached garage block which was shown to be further towards the road than the existing house, the principal dwelling and further attached garaging were to be located roughly where the existing dwelling is sited and all to the roadward side of the existing lane which runs through the site, to the east of which lie Close Clark and its outbuildings and the outbuildings associated with the existing dwelling. It is these dwellings which are visible from the longer view towards St. Mark's. Existing trees were to be removed between the current Springwaters and Close Clark buildings and new trees planted to the west and north of the new principal dwelling. The new dwelling was to have a backdrop of existing conifers which were to be retained. An existing overhead run of electricity line is to be undergrounded. The access through Close Clark was to be blocked off and all site traffic directed through the new access onto the A3. - 2.3 The house as shown had a floor area of 1526 sq m including 266 sq m of "leisure" space and was between 8.5m and 10.5m in height. The building was to be finished in stonework with what looks like a slated roof which has rooflights within it: the depth of the dwelling and its height would suggest that there would be sufficient headroom in the roofspace to provide additional accommodation. The garaging proposed represents around 216 sq m attached to the dwelling and a further 200 sq m in a detached structure to the south of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling represents an increase in floor area of 467% over and above the existing. - 2.4 Also proposed was the creation of an equestrian facility for use by the applicant and his family only, which incorporated a building which is shown as being around 75m in length and between 13m and 21m wide and between 8m and 11m in height, finished in stonework and sheeted roofing which will accommodate an indoor arena and stabling with an outdoor manège in front (to the
"I suggest that solely for consistency purposes, the Area Plan retain the existing LDHP designations, but not to contain any additional LDHP sites. That would mean amendment to Appendix 4 to delete Proposed LDHP sites, as well as an explanation within the text of Chapter 4 to explain that the issue of LDHP sites and accommodation for "high net worth individuals" should be the subject of a transparent debate and assessment as part of the Review of the Strategic Plan. Unless this process is adopted, there would be the situation whereby the LDHP provision of this Area Plan would apply to one part of the Island and the 1982 Development Order and Circular 8/89 would apply to the remaining areas" (paragraph 4.27).
2.8 The Department accepted this general conclusion and did not identify on the proposals map any sites suitable for consideration as Low Density Housing in Parkland. The applicant has investigated those on the original list and indicates that the majority are unavailable. - 2.9 The applicant also pointed out that the site is close to The Isle of Man Airport which is important to him as his business is global and he requires efficient access to London and the international connections therefrom. They considered that the site is not conspicuous and has a backdrop of trees resulting in what they consider is a minimal visual impact from a public perspective. They explained that three dwellings and outbuildings occupy the site currently and will be demolished. - 2.10 The applicant also explained that whilst there are properties currently for sale on the Island, which would provide the amount of land required to support his proposed equestrian development, the land associated is already farmed and as such, the proposed equestrian facility would be in contravention of the Strategic Plan policy which requires that the development of equestrian facilities will only be acceptable where there is no loss of high quality agricultural land (EP 20). The application includes a list of six properties which are for sale and reasons for their rejection, including too small a landholding, limited potential for expansion, not an ideal location or the property would require considerable expansion. They stated that the site is not within an area of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance as referred to in EP20 and that the
existing access offers poor visibility but which serves three properties and a storage area for an adjacent property: the proposed new access will remove two of these properties from using this access.
3.1 Now proposed is the extension of the period in which the reserved matters should be received by a further 2 years. The applicant has not been in a position to prepare the detailed proposals due to the passing away of his mother and the suffering of a serious illness by his wife. They suggest that the circumstances surrounding his desire to return to the Island, together with the economic benefit and support from DED are still as they were at the time of the earlier approval.
PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS Area Plan for the South
3.0 The site lies outside of any of the settlements within the countryside. Isle of Man Strategic Plan 'Towards a Sustainable Island' June 2007 - 3.1 Given the land-use designation, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1:
General Policy 3: 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 1: "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."
3.2 In addition, Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services". - 3.3 Strategic Policy states 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3".
3.4 Spatial Policy 5 states: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." - 3.5 There is specific provision for the replacement of existing dwellings with new residential properties in Housing Policy 14 and the Plan explains the reasoning behind this as follows:
Paragraph 8.12.2 "Extension to properties in the countryside As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form extensions to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property In the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this."
Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
3.6 The Strategic Plan contains policies specifically guiding the development of equestrian-related facilities as follows:
designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular cavity-wall construction should not be used."
3.7 Previously developed land is referred to in General Policy 3 and by the applicant in the description of their site. This is defined in the Plan as:
"Appendix 1: Previously Developed Land 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,
3.8 The Area Plan for the South includes reference to the draft Planning Policy Statement on Landscape Character Assessment. This identifies the site as within a much wider area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is given: "Overall Strategy
7.14 The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields." - 7.15 The Landscape Character Policy Strategy that will be applied in relation to the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes is as follows:
"Landscape Character Policy Statement 4: Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced. New farm buildings must not compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes. New development must be located so that it avoids the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors.
D Incised Inland Slopes Key Views
7.16 When assessing the impact of development or forming proposals for the Area Plans consideration will be given to the following key views... D14 Ballamodha and St Mark's
3.9 The draft PPS was the subject of consultation but no further draft has been issued nor the document adopted.
4.1 There have been three planning applications on this site prior to the approval of PA 13/00918/A which were relevant to the consideration of the most recent application.
4.2 PA 06/01915 proposed alterations and extensions of the main dwelling. The amount of floor space to be provided was 877 sq m. The Inspector considering that case looked both Housing Policies 14 and 15, both of which generally constrain enlargements to 50% of the existing floor area. The Inspector felt it appropriate to consider the existing floor area calculation to include both dwellings on the site (ie 313 sq m of floor space) but concluded that an increase of over double this size was not justified as the main house which was effectively to be lost in the proposed extensions was "of traditional form and it is only the replacement of unsympathetic additions which is of benefit". He considered that the "vast scale" of the proposed replacement/enlargement - set it aside from traditional design" (paragraph 31). He concludes that the appeal proposal "fails to take sufficient, if any cognisance of the policy approach to rural building, due to its scale and failure to respect the traditional style of rural building" and goes on "As to whether there are any exceptional reasons to permit an increase of more than 50% in the floor areas on the site, taking a flexible approach still leaves a building twice the size of that which would normally be permitted under the policies. It is claimed that the Government approach to encouraging wealthy new residents to the Island is a reason for making an exception to the policies of the SP. However, the SP is of very recent approval by Tynwald. It would be unreasonable to assume that Tynwald was not being consistent in its policy making, and thus the policy to attract wealthy new residents (if it be such) should not be seen as overriding to policies of the SP (paragraph 35)." - 4.3 That application was refused for the following reasons: "In terms of size and scale, the proposed development fails to comply with the Strategic Plan policies in respect of either extension to dwellings in the countryside or replacement dwellings in the countryside", and "The design of the proposed extensions would be inconsistent with the appropriate policy guidance in the Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91; the development would thus adversely affect the character and appearance of the area." - 4.4 A further application was then submitted, by a different architect with a different architectural approach. PA 09/01803 proposed a replacement dwelling with a floor area of 78% larger than the existing (excluding the attic space above the garage shown as being accessible) and would have been 2m higher than the existing. That application also included the creation of a new access similar to that proposed in the current application.
4.5 The Inspector considered that "the normally accepted threshold of 50% would be significantly exceeded and I do not consider that the circumstances of the case would justify an exception to the normal requirements of Housing Policy 14" (paragraph 29). - 4.6 He refers to the floorspace calculations and states, "I would agree with the Planning Authority that it is inappropriate to take account of the area of the abandoned cottage when calculating the existing residential area". He states that "Although the existing house has been extended its basic form is traditional in appearance. The same cannot be said of the outbuildings but these are low rise ancillary structures and whilst they can be seen in distant views from the east, their visual impact is small. Whilst care has been taken in the detail and materials of the proposed replacement house to reflect traditional building techniques the end result would not be a traditional Manx farmhouse but a much grander structure. Furthermore, although in time the impact may be reduced by additional planting, with the proposed siting I consider that a building of the footprint and height proposed would be more clearly seen in distant views from the east than is currently the case with the existing low rise ancillary buildings and the visual impact on the rural scene would be greater" (paragraph 28). - 4.7 He comments on the proposed new access and states, "I have concerns in relation to the appearance of the proposed new vehicular access, which would involve significant works at the junction with the A3, including the removal of a length of Manx hedge. This would also impact on the rural scheme. Whilst the visibility that would be provided by the new access would be superior to the existing, the existing track to the south provides access to other properties and would remain if development was to proceed" (paragraph 30). - 4.8 More recently, a planning application was submitted for the erection of a replacement dwelling. PA 13/00339 proposed a dwelling very similar to that approved under PA 13/00918/A, but in a different location and with a number of other changes and was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting of 29th May, 2013 for the following reason:
"Due to the planning history of the site and the inability to guarantee the off-site economic benefits which could result from this development as outlined by Department of Economic Development, it is concluded that the application should not be permitted as it is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 21 through the creation of a greater visual impact than what currently exists on site and particularly through the extension of the residential curtilage into open countryside."
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 In the case of PA 13/00918/A Department of Economic Development submitted a letter of support for the application. They emphasised that they are "working hard to further the Government's strategic aim of economic growth and diversification, and resources are focused upon attracting and developing business prospects which will benefit the Island's economy" and consider that "it is vital for Government to allow new and developing existing businesses the opportunity to flourish and display their full potential whilst also being mindful of the environmental impact of new development".
5.2 The applicant had a series of meetings with DED in respect of his prospective business proposals and the proposal for his dwelling and equestrian facilities. They acknowledge that the applicant is Manx born and is keen to return to the Island to a property which meets his and his family's aspirations and requirements which require him to be close to the airport. They described the applicant as an entrepreneur and has a track record of generating economic activity from his various global business interests. The Department recognised the benefit which could accrue from this development in terms of:
the Exchequer benefit (VAT) for the Island from the construction cost alone including the estimated direct tax benefit (NI and ITIP) from the temporary local labour element is £519,719
the project fees with local professional firms are estimated at £884,040 from which further employment taxes will be applicable additional spend with local suppliers will also be required which is estimated at around £392,000 per annum. 7 full time and 1 part-time job will be created as a result of the proposed development creating an annual salary bill to the applicant of around £157,000 (stable hands, gardener, housekeeper and general maintenance).
5.5 They also indicated that they had reviewed the applicant's financial information and are confident that he has the resources and access the finance to be able to satisfactorily complete the proposed development. They were also aware that the applicant has significant business interests on the Island and has indicated that more of these will be conducted from the Island if and when he has become resident. He is one of the founders of a financial services company which already employs 14 people in Douglas for which the aim is to grow by a further 11 - 25 people by the end of the year. The Department of Economic Development was acutely aware of the need to foster opportunities such as this which offer the opportunity for growth and are often less risky ventures than brand new start up ventures. The Department would not wish to lose the opportunity for growth or see the business decline altogether should the applicant decide not to live in the Island. - 5.6 They advised that the applicant has indicated his intention to set up two further business on the Island - one Corporate Service Provider to exploit new opportunities generated from some of his other existing business activities including an established group involved in providing wealth management, investment management and trust and fiduciary services to a worldwide business and individual client base. The group has a base in London and other offices worldwide and employs in these businesses over 150 people from which new opportunities are continually emerging. 3 new jobs would be required as a start for this business with the potential to grow it much further. The second business would be a worldwide recruitment business creating 4 new jobs again leveraging links and connections from his existing other business activities and has made reference to other possibilities for new businesses but these are as yet undeveloped. - 5.7 They considered the application worthy of their support and consider that the proposal will generate "significant economic benefits to the Isle of Man" and hopes that the application will be supported. They acknowledged that the development will create not only a high level of Exchequer benefit from the one-off construction cost but also from the ongoing sustainable economic benefits from employment and business activity from the occupation of the new dwelling and from potential business activity associated with the applicant's various business interests. - 5.8 It is the position of Department of Economic Development that their position is the same as it was with the original application (30.11.15). - 5.9 Malew Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not object to this current application (07.08.15).
6.1 The key issue is whether there have been any changes in circumstances since the granting of the approval in principle to warrant declining an extension of the period in which the reserved matters should be received and whether the circumstances surrounding the granting of the approval are still applicable to the proposal.
6.2 There have been no changes in policy nor any planning related decisions which would affect the decision which was taken previously. Whilst the scheme does not accord with policy, the Planning Committee felt then that the characteristics of the site and the personal aspects of the proposal and economic benefits which could accrue therefrom justified approval in this case. Whilst is it disappointing that the reserved matters application has not been progressed, the applicant has experienced unfortunate issues which have prevented him from doing this and it is considered that
on this basis the application should be approved allowing a further period of two years for the reserved matters application to be submitted.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.12.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
REASON: The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 and an exception is being made on the basis of the particular circumstances of the applicant in relation to economic benefit.
REASON: To control the amount of traffic using the proposed new access in the interests of highway safety.
This approval relates to drawings SC1197-P-10-01, SC1197-P-10-02, SC1197-P-10-03B, SC1197-P10-04, SC1197-P-10-05, SC1197-P-10-06 and SC1197-P-12-01 all received on 13th July, 2015.
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:…14.12.2015
Signed : S CORLETT Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
