Loading document...
1.1 The site is within a larger area of currently undeveloped land to the south of King Edward Road, Onchan, which consists of open coastal heath land that slopes downwards in a northsouth direction towards the sea. 1.2 The site has been the subject of a varied planning history from 2001 onwards, all relating to various approvals and refusals for residential development on the wider site. The most recent approval for the entire site was issued in 2007 (under 07/02101), and granted approval in principle for four dwellings. This application was determined following the adoption of the Strategic Plan, and the officer report made reference to the Onchan Local Plan (adopted 2000). 1.3 Since that time, reserved matters applications have been approved on a plot-by-plot basis on each of the four plots. At the time of writing, two of the four dwellings approved (08/02129 and 12/00274; Plots 2 and 3) are under construction; work has not commenced on the remaining two approved dwellings (09/02073 and 09/02074), both of which are concurrently subject to applications requesting an extension of the expiry dates of those approvals. Both the approved dwellings are three-storey, four-bedroom detached dwellings of a unique, innovative and contemporary architectural style. 1.4 The agent wrote to the Planning Authority on 16th August 2013 requesting an extension to the duration of two approvals, which are both due to expire on 12th April 2014, for a further 24 months. This memorandum relates to application 09/02073 (Plot 2), although the circumstances of both these approvals are broadly similar (and, indeed, the letters requesting the aforementioned time extension are identical). The agent notes in their letter that excavations made to construct the access road to the site were taken from Plots 1 and 4, but they are unsure if this can be taken as formal commencement. It is not for this memorandum to make an assessment on what is a legal judgement. 1.5 The agent advises that the market for the dwellings approved on the site as a whole is "demanding" and the timescales and development for such dwellings is "extensive". The agent substantiates their request for a time extension by noting that the developer has, in implementing the previous approvals, invested significant money to the development of the scheme as a whole.
2.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, Statutory Document 251/05, under which the application in question was approved in 2010, states:
"13 (1) Any planning approval granted pursuant to this Order shall be deemed to be granted subject to the condition that the development must be begun -
2.2 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Statutory Document 0238/13, under which all planning applications submitted since the Order was made on 1st August 2013 are determined, states:
(1) Planning approval granted under this Order is taken to be granted subject to the condition that the development must be begun -
3.1 The agent has sought to extend the period for implementation of the approval, and has cited as reason for this the difficulty of the market in developing the dwellings within the original four year time period. These are not particularly special circumstances, although it is noted that extensions to time limits have previously been granted for residential development elsewhere on the Island where similar reasons for an unimplemented approval have been stated by the applicant or agent. 3.2 The Development Procedure Order is clear that the Department may allow an extension to the period of implementation where no material change in circumstances has taken place. The primary assessment in this regard is the extent to which (a) the land situation has changed, and (b) the planning policy situation has changed; on neither of these bases is it considered that a material change in circumstances has taken place. 3.3 It is further noted that the approved residential development at Far End is most unusual for the Island (a point drawn into relief by the apparently unique architectural design of each
dwelling approved), the market for which could reasonably be considered "niche". Equally, however, a development of this scale would, despite this and the complexities of various planning approvals, normally be expected to be implemented within the original four year period. However, in having regard to the Development Procedure Order, the principle of the request is considered, on balance, to be acceptable. 3.4 What remains for consideration is the length of time extension requested. It is more normal to request a 12 month extension and, beyond that already set out above, no special reasoning for the 24 month extension has been made. As noted, planning applications have been submitted on this site since 2001, and there has been local opposition to the development proposals throughout that period. It is not in the public interest to extend time limits for long periods, especially where local opposition to development proposals has been of a sustained and not inconsiderable level. 3.5 Moreover, since approval in principle was granted in March 2008, following which individual reserved matters applications were submitted (and approved), some of which were implemented, there has been some inconsistency in approach to the site as a whole. Time limits are applied as conditions to planning approvals to, in part, prevent uncertainty about the planning situation of a particular site and reduce the negative effect this may have on local residents. Given the planning history of the site, which now runs to some 12 years and for which approval in principle has existed for five years and nine months, and taking account of the local opposition during that period, it is considered that a 12 month extension only is appropriate. This allows some 16 months for the developer to make a commencement on site, which is already cleared, and is considered a sufficient period in which to commence development and to obtain the appropriate Building Control certificates to confirm this.
Mr Edmond Riley Director Planning \& Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
