Loading document...
Application No.: 21/00091/C Applicant: Mr & Mrs Brian Corlett Proposal: Change of use of agricultural land to residential use Site Address: Part Field 624032 Rear Of 1 And 2 Mount Sayle Port E Vullen Maughold Isle Of Man IM7 1AP Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.05.2021 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: Permission has been granted for use of the land for the purposes of 1 And 2 Mount Sayle only and the application has been considered on this basis only.
Visually the works would be mainly hidden given the roadside/field boundaries in the surrounding area, topography of the land in the area and existing built development. Further with a landscaping condition attached and permitted development rights removed for this section of the land; it is considered in the longer term the impacts would be largely unnoticeable, blend in with the existing landscape and countryside setting and not become a unobtrusive feature in the countryside therefore complying with EP 1 and 2 of the IOMSP.
This approval relates to the submitted documents received on 26th January 2021 and drawing SM21/538/1 REV A received on 25th March 2021.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions which relate to planning considerations:
Flood Management Division (DOI) _____________________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a piece of land incorporating a part Field 624032 which is located to the rear of 1 and 2 Mount Sayle, Port E Vullen, Maughold. The site and properties are to the southwest of the A15 road and east of Jacks Lane and west of Maughold Village. - 1.2 The two properties are a pair of traditional semi-detached properties, each have a front and side garden/driveway. Currently the properties have no rear private garden, as the Field 624032 runs directly to the rear wall of these properties.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 There are no previous planning applications associated with this site.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the change of use of agricultural land to residential use. - 3.2 The proposed extension would have a rear depth of 215m form the rears of Nrs 1 & 2 Mount Sayle and an overall width of 61.5m. This area would be split in half for each property to use. A stockproof post and wire fence would be installed along the north-west, south-west
and south-east boundaries of the new curtilages. Further along the south-east boundary it is proposed to extend the existing hedge/tree planting (already along the south-east garden of Nr 1). It should be noted that originally the application proposed to have a rear depth of 25m, but after discussion with the Department the applicants reduced to the 15m depth now proposed.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site sits within an area designated as an Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, not designated for development under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.3 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." - 4.4 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
5.1 The Garaff Commissioner make the following comments to the initial proposal (26.02.2021); "This change of use application provides contradictions to a variety of planning policy that seeks to protect agricultural land, the countryside, and areas of high coastal sensitivity and significance. The impact of further development in this sensitive location needs to be considered carefully.
In these circumstances the Commission resolved to object to the application unless conditions are placed on any approval to control and minimise the impact of the loss of agricultural land and the consequent effect on the rural character of this sensitive coastal landscape. These conditions must restrict the use of the land to use as a garden and must control the size and number of structures that can be erected, etc."
5.2 Highway Services comment(16.02.2021); "No highway interest" - 5.3 Flood Risk management Division comment (09.03.2021): "Do not oppose".
6.1 The issue in this case is whether the proposed extension of the residential curtilage would have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the property, given the rural nature of the context of the site. Residential curtilage - 6.2 Extensions to existing residential curtilages can bring with them adverse impacts where open countryside can become eroded by expansions of gardens with accompanying permitted development rights and domestic paraphernalia. However in other cases, the change is less noticeable or not adverse at all and many applications for this sort of development have been approved throughout the Island, including approvals granted on appeal. Curlew Cottage, Scarlett, Castletown (PA 12/00999) was the subject of a proposal to extend that residential curtilage by around 750 sq m. The reporting officer recommended that the application be permitted and the Committee refused the application on the basis that the proposal would be contrary to EP 1 and would undermine the openness and rural character of the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The Appeal Inspector concluded however that whilst; "in principle...the proposal is contrary to policy EP1...however, the policy also seeks to ensure that the development would not have any adverse visual effect and the proposal should be assessed on this basis as well as on the basis of the principle of the development" (his paragraph 11). He states that the boundary treatment would limit views of the extended curtilage which was considered by him to be appropriate for a garden use (paragraph 12) and concluded that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and quality of the landscape and the application was recommended by him for approval and the Minister accepted this recommendation. - 6.3 By comparison, the same Inspector concluded in respect of another application which involved an increase of an existing residential curtilage, PA 12/00832/B for Cronk ny Killey in Maughold, that that proposal resulted in "a prominent and noticeable encroachment of built form into the open countryside" (paragraph 15). Also, PA 12/01683 proposed a replacement dwelling at Mount Gawne Road which also involved an increase in the residential curtilage to accommodate the larger dwelling. The Inspector in that case found that, "...the widening of the curtilage would spread domestication further along the road and that the albeit now modest rearward extension would intrude into what is fully open countryside...the proposal would represent unwarranted encroachment into the countryside to the detriment of the character of the landscape, and would cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the area" (paragraphs 31 and 32 of the appeal report). - 6.4 Further applications for extensions of residential curtilages include Slegaby Cottages PAs 13/00151 and 13/00019 which were refused by the Planning Committee and which were approved at appeal, Thie ny Garree in Ballaragh (PA 12/00913) which was approved and Bay View in Ballaveare, Braddan which was refused twice and finally approved by the Planning Committee. Permission has recently been granted on appeal for an extension to the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling off Vicarage Road, Kirby View where the Planning Committee had felt that this was not acceptable. The inspector in this case judged that whilst the proposal would be "nominally contrary to General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, it would not conflict with the objective of Environment Policy 1 that the countryside and its ecology should be protected for its own sake" and recommended that the application should be approved on the basis that the proposal "would not cause any significant or material harm to the countryside" (paragraph 18). - 6.5 All of these examples and more illustrate that in certain circumstances extensions to the residential curtilage into the countryside can be considered acceptable but in others it is not and that each case has to be considered on its own merits and in terms of its own particular impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.
6.6 In this case the initial scheme did raise concern, namely the rear projection of 25m. Accordingly, following discussions this was reduced to 15m with the boundary features as proposes (post and wire fence/landscaping). - 6.7 It is clear visiting the site that current the properties have no rear private garden, and currently the dwellings do not take advantage of the significant expansive views to the rear of the dwellings. The applicants agent has indicated that it is hoped that if this application is approved this will give scope for a rear extension to each, which would provide additional accommodation but also take advantage of the views to the rear, rather than potentially extending the properties to the side, which would have a greater visual impact from public views. Further, the agent has advised that the applicants hope to potentially install bio-discs to each property, namely along the rear boundaries/within new gardens, which need to be 5m away from built development. While the above cannot have significant material planning weight; as they may not occur, they do give an understanding of why the works are proposed, which would seem reasonable reasons. - 6.8 As mention earlier in this report, the visual impact is arguable the main issue to consider. From the adjacent A15 road, the works in the main would not be especially noticeable, given the road side boundary (2m+ Manx sod bank), field boundaries in the area (mature hedgerows), the topography of the land in the area, and the existing built development (i.e. properties 1 and 2 Mount Sayle) . There is a potential view when stood to the east of the site, along the A15 traveling from Maughold Village towards the site, where the south-east boundary of the new garden would be apparent, as the A15 road at this point is higher than the application site. However, with appropriate conditions in place (removal of Permitted Development Order (PDO)) and with the proposed landscaping being undertaken (also needs conditioning) the proposal would in essence just appear as an extension of the existing boundary and not appear out of place or introduce a significant incursion into the countryside. - 6.9 Distant views from Jacks Lane are apparent from certain locations, albeit given the distance and as the works proposed is a low level form of development (post and wire fencing
7.1 Visually the works would be mainly hidden given the roadside/field boundaries in the surrounding area, topography of the land in the area and existing built development. Further with a landscaping condition attached and permitted development rights removed for this section of the land; it is considered in the longer term the impacts would be largely unnoticeable, blend in with the existing landscape and countryside setting and not become an unobtrusive feature in the countryside therefore complying with EP 1 and 2 of the IOMSP. - 7.2 In view of the above, it is concluded that the application is acceptable and is recommended for approval.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 24.05.2021
Signed : J SINGLETON 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 See below
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
