Loading document...
Patricia S. Newton BSc. Dip TP-MRTPT Town and Country Planning Consultant Phone/Fax: 01624 861560
2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey, 9sle of Man, 9M4 7HY.
Email: [email protected]
5 While a further condition required that all reserve matters should be the subject of one application my client considered that the location of the access would significantly affect the layout of the site including curtilage boundary, landscaping, turning area and parking (possibly including a garage). So far as possible my client does not want to have the latter two in front of the building itself. It was therefore decided to submit the application for the new access as a reserved matter on its own to determine if this was acceptable to the Planning Committee. Moreover my client anticipated that given their opposition to the earlier scheme it was likely that Onchan Commissioners would object to this proposal.
Proposal
6 Condition 4 of PA 02/00986 stipulated
> "the detailed application must involve the demarcation of the domestic curtilage of this new dwelling which should be roughly the site of 'Ballacashin' adjacent together with the means of access past 'Ballacashin' on to the main road / drive".
7 Condition 4 was imposed at review on 13th February 2003 when PA 02/00986 was approved. Onchan Commissioners subsequently took this approval to appeal but did not challenge the wording of this condition. It is not logical that an access goes first to the main road and then to a (private) drive on Ballacashin. The clear implication to my client is that an either / or alternative is being given.
8 The proposal is therefore to take the access from the public highway north-westwards along the edge of field 534327 and then north-eastwards followed by north-westwards along field 534328 until it comes parallel to the building to be renovated. The route utilises and existing access into field 534327 and follows an older route established when it was used to serve both field 534327 and 534328 in the 1950s by the then next door farmer Mr Clelland. It was then used until the 1980s by Mr Moore and Mr Harvey and later by Mr Cowell (see Appendix B) to gain access to the fields above Ballacashin. The Rural Committee of Onchan Commissioners appears to have been misled by its Rural Commissioner which my client understands to be his neighbour Mr Watterson with his comment that "the existing track has only been created of recent when a digger was put into the field to clear the undergrowth". Mr Watterson is believed to have only lived in his current house Slieau Ree, Lanjaghan for about 10 years and may well not have known of the track's earlier existence and use. As effectively acknowledged in the Onchan Commissioners submission of the 11th December 2003 the route's former continuation across to the north-east was effectively blocked by the building of the current farmhouse. As acknowledged in paragraph 2 above (and as shown in the photographs to which the Commissioners refer to in said letter) the track was overgrown.
9 Throughout its length the proposal follows and makes use of existing hedgerows on one side or the other. New Manx hedges will be created on the side of the route where they do not already exist.
10 This proposal is acceptable to the Department of Transport. The proposal has been approved both initially and on review on 16th January and 26th March 2004 respectively by the Planning Committee subject to the conditions inter alia that
3 'The hedges to be introduced on the eastern side of the new land must be constructed in accordance with Planning Circular 1/98 - Manx Hedges
4 The hedging at the southern end where it meets the Abbeylands Road must be lowered in height to enable drivers of emerging vehicles to be able to see oncoming traffic from a point 2.4m from the junction.
11 Such conditions are acceptable to my client and can be provided without difficulty.
12 Onchan Commissioners have objected to the proposal and the approvals, initially and at review, and have elected to take the decision to appeal. It is significant that there are no other objectors either in terms of individual neighbours / interested parties or environmental organisations including the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)
13 DAFF specifically commented to Mr Owen (see Appendix C) with regard to the proposal
'The upgrading of the existing farm track through Field 534327 was not considered to be of detriment to the adjacent area of marshy grassland.'
Considerations
Condition 4 of PA 02/000986/A
14 My client would emphasise that this application recognises Condition 4 of the approval of PA 02/00986/A. While Onchan Commissioners may wish to argue that the proposal represents a variation of this Condition 4 and should have been proposed / advertised as such, my client would emphasise that any such justification is 'de minimis' given the wording of the Condition; the end result is the same and the proposal for a different access route has been properly submitted.
Policy Designation
15 The area was designated white land in the 1982 Development Plan; it was NOT within an Area of High Landscape Value or Scenic Significance. In the Onchan Local Plan November 1999 the land is part of a very wide area simply shown as open space, there is no specific policy relating to it. However Policy O/NC/P/5 does state
'10 20 With the exception of the felling of trees planted for commercial purposes, there will be a general presumption against the removal trees within the study area where this is proposed in order to facilitate development.'
The proposal more closely adheres to the sentiment behind this policy than would the original proposal in front of Ballacashin farmhouse.
"Visibility"
16 The Planning Committee at the appeal on PA 02/00986/A may well have pointed out that the old building at Ballacashin could be seen from a considerable distance and therefore that its renovation would be beneficial on the landscape. My client would respectfully point out that the old building is not only probably some 7m high to its ridge, its ground level is some 1½ - 2m higher than that of the newer single storey Ballacashin farmhouse which is in turn is some 2m higher than the level of the south east corner of field 534328 (see photographs). The ridge of the old building may therefore be up to 11m higher than the general ground level in the vicinity. It is therefore not surprising that the old building is therefore a particularly upstanding element in the landscape. It does not mean that the new access now proposed will also be very visible.
17 The visibility of the earlier proposal was being considered from the east. From both this direction and the Abbeylands Road the proposal will be screened at its higher level in field 534328 by the existing field boundary hedge with field 534327. In the lower level the proposal involves the change of essentially a grass track to a hard core track. The proposed harder surface will be screened by the provision of new Manx hedges whilst retaining an access to the remainder of field 534327.
18 A route across field 534327 in front of Ballacashin farmhouse would neither have any such existing screening nor the status of being a pre-existing track.
19 To create this route (see photographs) would involve
20 The combination of these would not only be extremely expensive it would needlessly open up visibility of the whole area and as the route progressed westwards would be particularly obtrusive as an artificial creation on the landscape.
21 C. B. G. Contractors have provided written estimate dated 27th February 2004 (Appendix D) of the cost of both routes; the difference between the proposal (Route A) and (Route B) is substantial - almost 100%. The fact that a significant proportion of the increase is attributable to labour / plant costs is indicative of the major construction works involved and therefore of the likely physical impact of Route B.
22 The Commissioners have suggested a further alternative on the north-western side of Ballacashin farmhouse. In considering this option further it should be noted that
area lie on top of bedrock. The paved area between the eaves of the dwelling and the wall narrows down to about 2.5m at its western end (see photographs); and
23 It is thus impossible to provide a route to the rear of the existing dwelling without felling retaining wall, bank and possibly trees, incurring major physical obstructions where bedrock is encountered and demolishing the hen coup and run. Physically any route along here has therefore the potential of being highly visible due to the amount of demolition it would necessitate. Moreover the resulting route would run immediately behind Ballacashin farmhouse causing maximum disturbance to the latter's occupants.
24 As the Commissioners appear to be primarily concerned with the fact that the current proposal does not match that submitted in PA 02/00986 /A my client is unable to comprehend their further suggestion of another route which not only does not tie in with PA 02/00986 but which clearly would result in maximum physical change on land which is clearly higher and more visible than that now proposed.
25 Running in a direction of north-north-west and then zigzagging along long established boundaries the current proposal follows the pattern of virtually all the farm tracks taking access from the north side of the Abbeylands Road and, by following the existing network of field boundaries is sculptured into the landscape; moreover it may also gives the impression of being naturally connected to the existing buildings at Strenaby on adjacent land (Appendix E). The route in front of Ballacashin farmhouse offers no such comforts.
Effect on Marshy Grassland
25 The whole of the field in which both the current proposal and the earlier one is contained is within a marshy grassland area denoted in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken by DAFF (Appendix F). The north-eastern end of the area contains orchids which are protected under the Wildlife Act 1992 and is a natural breeding ground for pheasants. The field has its main slope down from north-west to south-east; secondary slopes occur over part of the field from the west in an easterly direction. Therefore as is perfectly visible and appreciable on the ground the current proposal follows the existing hedgerow and is on comparatively dry land. By comparison the whole of the earlier suggested alignment cuts across wet marsh. The potential for this other route to greatly impinge on the status of the area is far greater than that currently proposed.
26 Miss Aline Thomas, Conservation Assistant of DAFF, confirmed that the proposal is not considered to be of detriment to the adjacent area of marshy grassland (Appendix C). My client has no plans to reutilize this field and therefore it will remain as a wildlife area.
27 The approval of PA 02/00986 was on the basis that it was a redundant building that was not only capable of being renovated it already looked like a house. Given that the former eastern part of the former track to this building simply does no longer exist it is far more compatible with the principle of renovation to make use of and upgrade an alternative grass track and extend it on a slightly different, but traditionally styled alignment than to cut down into the ground and create a whole new section of track across a field at right angles to this more traditional alignment.
28 My client would draw attention to PA 02/1143 whereby a similar pre-existing track was permitted to be extended and upgraded to a house site (Greeba Hall) that was being wholly redeveloped in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance adjacent to Greeba Bridge and the TT course. While that track was partly shown on an older plan it was clear that it had been replaced by a much more recent track which being at right angles to it across the hillside was much more intrusive (Appendix G).
29 There would not appear to be any logic to the Commissioners suggestion of putting a track to the rear of the house where its provision would cause maximum physical impact on the existing site and its general visibility in the landscape in comparison with the comparatively minor upgrading of an older track and its extension beside an existing hedgerow which do not require any deep cutting into the ground.
30 My client respectfully requests that the Planning Inspector recommends supporting the Planning Committee's decision on review and approval of the application.
Patricia S. Newton
16th June 2004
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
