Loading document...
The application site comprises of a parcel of land that is located at Howstrake in Onchan. The site previously contained a holiday camp and derelict remnants of that previous development remain (an outline of history of the site is set out with the planning policy section of this report).
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling on the application site.
The application site has been subject of a number of previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Planning application 86/00317/A sought approval in principle to develop A) part of site for residential use and b) part of site for tourist use. This previous planning application was refused in 1986.
Planning application 87/00637/A sought approval in principle to development of land to form 12 residential plots and 25 self-contained tourist chalets. This previous planning application was refused in 1987.
Planning application 88/04256/A sought approval in principle to 150-bedroomed hotel/conference/health facilities and 200 residential units. This previous planning application was approved in 1989.
Planning application 94/00816/B sought approval for the erection of hotel with associated parking. This previous planning application was refused in 1994.
Planning application 94/00817/A sought approval in principle for the erection of 200 dwellings. This previous planning application was refused in 1994.
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be refused. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the application site is not zoned for development.
The Department of Transport Highways Division objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the planning application fails to demonstrate that car parking spaces can be provided in accordance with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, that access drive arrangements to permit a motor car to turn around within the site so that a vehicle can emerge from the site in a forward gear are not demonstrated, and that minimum visibility splays of are not shown at the point of access onto the highway.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's Wildlife and Conservation Division object to the planning application. They advise that the application site is within an area of semi-natural habitats consisting of coastal grassland, neutral semi-improved grassland, dry and coastal heath, scattered scrub and continuous bracken and that the proposed dwelling is sited on an area of neutral semi-improved grassland surrounding the derelict buildings of the holiday camp. They further state that whilst there are no specific wildlife issues at this exact location it is their view that the development would be contrary to the Onchan Local Plan (1/2000 April 2000) because it is an area designated as open space and it provides a valuable area for nature conservation. They highlight that they have records of Common lizards in the area just to the east of the proposed development and from around the disused holiday camp buildings. As Common lizards are listed as a scheduled species under the 1990 Wildlife Act it is their view that a detailed lizard survey should carried out on before a decision is made in order to advise on the possible location for a dwelling. They suggest that although the site contains derelict buildings it would be better for the flora and fauna if the area was maintained as a coastal semi-natural habitat. They state that the area provides a wildlife corridor between the coastal habitats from the edge of Onchan to Lag Birragh and on to Port Groudle and beyond, and thus to allow this development would contravene Environment Policy 4c of the Strategic Plan which aims to protect such landscape corridor features.
Manx National Heritage objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that a dwelling would be intrusive and that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Onchan Local Plan, Planning Circular 1/2000 and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application. The owners and/or occupants of 44 Howe Road in Onchan object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern regarding the impact of development on the area and the enjoyment of the site by the public.
The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage in Maughold express an interest in the planning application. They suggest that there is a potential conflict between Strategic Plan policy and Local Plan in terms of the proposal.
The owner and/or occupant of 33 Ballaquark in Douglas objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is contrary to the land use designation.
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that designated as i) open space; and ii) ecological interest/semi natural vegetation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan
Local Plan) Order 2000 Map No. 1. The site is annotated as area 5 on the local plan and is specifically referred to within Planning Circular 1/2000 (the written statement that accompanies the local plan) at paragraphs 3.13, .
Paragraph 3.13 states: "The Howstrake Holiday Camp (Area 5) has a previous history as having been used for tourism and is in dire need of attention and restoration. The 1989 Onchan Local Plan provided for the development of the site for tourism with some residential: however this policy was accompanied by a provision which permitted a five year period for an application to be approved in detail for such a development: failing this the site would revert to having an accepted use as Open Space where development would not be approved. Since that five year rule became applicable the site has remained derelict with the buildings falling further into disrepair and the site remaining as unattractive as it has been for the previous decade and before. The Department initially considered that rather than the site remaining derelict and unattended, some development may achieve the restoration of the site for the benefit of all who may view it. However, after careful consideration, the Department considers that the benefits of restoring some of the site would be outweighed by the permanent presence of buildings on the site, in a position where such buildings have not been for considerable time. The Department is aware this is one of the few headlands in Onchan which has not been subject to development and as such, the Department would wish to continue the policy contained in the previous Onchan Local Plan that, having failed to secure a detailed approval for a sympathetic development on the site within the five year life of the previous local plan, that the site return to Open Space. The Department would encourage the possible future use of the site for purposes of Public Open Space with provision of a public right of way through to Groudle Beach and Glen."
Paragraph 4.8 states: "This site lies alongside the King Edward Road just to the south east of the Groudle Holiday Village. The site once accommodated a holiday camp but the site has long since been used as such: latterly the buildings have fallen into disrepair and dereliction and when viewed from the King Edward Road, Groudle headland or the Ballameanagh Road do little to contribute positively to the appearance of the coastline."
Paragraph 4.9 states: "The Onchan Local Plan adopted by Tynwald in 1989 included a policy which indicated that the site may be suitable for the development of tourist accommodation but required that a detailed application was to be approved within five years of the adoption of the plan or the site was to revert to a status of Open Space with a presumption against development. No detailed approval was granted. The Department resolved in the first draft of the revision of the local plan to identify development opportunities in order to achieve some tidying up of the site. The Department has received views on this proposal and has reviewed its initial decision in the light of these comments."
Paragraph 4.10 states: "The Department reconsidered the options which could be pursued with respect to this site: the stance of designation of the site for Open Space could be continued (see also paragraph 2.7) which would have the advantage of protection of the site from the development of new buildings which would limit the visual intrusion on views of the site and limits any destruction of habitat for wildlife (the site is valuable for ecology - see Section 10 Open Space and Nature Conservation). The downside of this policy is that it is unlikely that the existing unsightly buildings would be removed or tidied up without some incentive and that the current state of affairs would continue indefinitely."
Paragraph 4.11 states: "Another option would be to continue the zoning of Tourism on the site and restrict development on the site to that area which is already built upon. This would have had the advantage of tidying up the site and possibly securing a public right of way across the site, thus presenting some opportunity for public amenity. The drawbacks of this policy include a risk that nothing would happen on the site, bearing in mind the changing nature of tourism and that the site would continue to deteriorate as it has for the past decade or so. Also, any new development would be likely to have a significant visual impact and may have had an adverse impact on the wildlife of the area."
Paragraph 4.12 states: "A further alternative option would be to encourage a limited amount of residential development on the site instead of tourist accommodation. This may have the advantage of limiting to a smaller area the part of the site to be built upon and which may secure a better style of development. Disadvantages include a possible detrimental impact on ecology from domestic curtilages and constant human presence on the site and the obvious visual impact of houses on the coast where there has been none previously."
Paragraph 4.13 states: "It is concluded that the most appropriate option for the Howstrake Holiday Camp site is to designate the land as Open Space. Whilst this does not achieve an instant improvement of the site in visual terms which was the option preferred by the Department in the first draft and something to which the Inspector hearing the public inquiry would aspire, it does not change what many have become accustomed to see. The Department considers that whilst there may be benefit from tidying up the site and reclaiming part of it, the cost of this is the permanent visual impact of dwellings on the site where there has been none previously. Few if any of the headlands in Onchan remain free from development and, bearing in mind its exposed and rural location, the Department considers that this too should remain free from new development. The Department would encourage use of the site as Public Open Space with public rights of way through the site to Groudle Glen and the beach."
Planning Circular 1/2000 also includes two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.
Policy O/RES/P/22 states: "Outside those areas designated for residential development new dwellings 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 Planning Circular 1/88 has been superseded by the publication of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and that the Island Strategic Plan Eastern Sector (Planning Circular 9/91) was time limited for five years and is now expired.
Policy O/NC/P/2 states: "In order to preserve the areas of interest for nature conservation within the study area, there will be a general presumption against any development which would have an adverse impact or effect on any area of ecological interest including both those identified in this document and others which may be subsequently identified as of interest or value to nature conservation."
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains four policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
General Policy 3 state: "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 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling on the application site. The submitted planning application comprises the a location plan that defines the application site in red, a set of completed forms, a supplementary statement that expands on the questions contained within the application form and a number of photographs of the site. It should be noted that the location plan shows an indicative, and as stated by the applicant not to scale, position of a dwelling within the application site.
As the planning application seeks approval in principle the starting point for the assessment is the land use designation under the relevant local plan and planning policy contained within any relevant document. As stated earlier in this report the application site is located within a wider area of land that designated as i) open space; and ii) ecological interest/semi natural vegetation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000 Map No. 1. It is also annotated as area 5 and specifically referred to within Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement that accompanies the local plan, with the planning history and planning status of the application site being summarised within paragraphs 3.13, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 \& 4.13 of that document. Taking this into account it can be seen that the proposed development in contrary to the provisions of Policy O/RES/P/22 and Policy O/NC/P/2 of Planning Circular 1/2000, which set out a presumption against development at a local plan level. This is concluded to be reason for refusal of the planning application.
The presumption against the development of areas such as the application site is further reinforced by planning policies contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Indeed, General Policy 3 states unless a proposal constitutes one of eight stated exceptions that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan. Given the specific references within Planning Circular 1 / 2000 to the application site and the potential impact of residential development it is concluded that the proposal does not constitute one of the eight stated exceptions. Similarly, in terms of Housing Policy 4 the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the policy and does not constitute one of three exceptional circumstances stated. The overriding presumption against development within such areas in terms of the protection of the countryside from unwarranted development is set out by Environment Policy 1. The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of this policy and this is concluded to reason for refusal of the planning application. In addition to this, given the known ecological interest within the application site the proposal is also contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 4. This is also concluded to be reason for refusal of the planning application.
As regards the objection from the Department of Transport Highways Division it is not accepted that the planning application should be refused on the grounds that it fails to demonstrate car parking provision and onsite turning facility. Given the size of the application site is considered self-evident that these facilities could be reasonably provided. However, the failure of the planning application to demonstrate that minimum visibility splays of can be achieved from the application site onto the adjoining highway is considered to be reason for refusal, as it is reasonable to expect an approval in principle planning application to demonstrate that an application site can be accessed in a manner that is not detrimental to highway safety. This is therefore concluded to be reason for refusal of the planning application. Similarly, it is also reasonable to expect an approval in principle planning application to demonstrate that surface water and foul sewage can be disposed of in appropriate manner. The failure of the planning application to do this is concluded to be reason for refusal of the planning application.
In conclusion, having had regard to the above it is recommended that the planning application be refused.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Onchan District Commissioners; The Department of Transport Highways Division; The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's Wildlife and Conservation Division; and Manx National Heritage. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
The Manx Electricity Authority; The owners and/or occupants of 44 Howe Road, Onchan; The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage, Maughold; and The owner and/or occupant of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1 . The proposed development represents unwarranted development that is contrary to the land use designation of the application site as i) open space; and ii) ecological interest/semi natural vegetation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000 Map No. 1 and the presumption against the development of such areas set out within Planning Circular 1/2000 and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Specifically, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy O/RES/P/22 and Policy O/NC/P/2 of Planning Circular 1/2000 and the provisions of General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 4 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2 . Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal the planning application a) fails to demonstrate that minimum visibility splays of can be achieved from the application site onto the adjoining highway; and b) does not provide sufficient information regarding the means of surface water and foul sewage disposal from the application site.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made: ................................................. Committee Meeting Date: 12/2/02 .......... Signed: ................................................. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YAS/NO
28 July 2009 09/01041/A Page 7 of 7
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
