Loading document...
BACKGROUND
The planning application seeks approval for the erection of six detached dwellings on a parcel of land accessed off Groudle Road in Onchan.
Under the Onchan Local Plan the application site is part zoned as low density housing in parkland and part zoned as open space (private woodland or parkland). The application site forms part of the larger land between Lakeside and Groudle Glen (Area 6) housing site, the majority of which have been built (see planning history set out later). As low density housing in parkland the dwellings are required by Planning Circular 8/89 to be set in grounds of at least 1 acre. Based on simple measurement I calculate the sizes of all the plots to be over 1 acre (approximate measurements 1A = 1.12 acre, 2A = 1.01 acre, 3A = 1.09 acre, 4A = 1.56 acre, 5A = 1.25 acre and 6A = 1.53 acre).
Onchan District Commissioners have advised that whilst they do not have any objection to the development of six dwellings as previously approved by previous planning applications 97/00772/A and 99/0430 they do have concerns about the impact of this development on the designated public open space. They have suggested alterations could be made to the proposal to make it potentially acceptable and requested that amendments be sought. Amended plans were submitted subsequent to these comments but no further comment from the Commissioners received.
After discussions with the applicant and the DoT Highways Division advised that they considered there to be no adverse traffic impacts subject to conditions.
SPMCE initially advised that they considered the proposed development to be an inevitable outcome of the local plan and the previous approval in principle. After the submission of amended plans and further examination they changed their stance to strongly objecting to the planning application on the grounds of the encroachment into designated public open space.
DAFF's Wildlife and Conservation Division highlighted the ecological value of parts of the application site and suggested that protective conditions should be imposed on any approval.
The owners and/or occupants of 27 Windermere Drive have objected to the planning application. The grounds of their objection can be summarised as concern regarding the perceived non-compliance with the Onchan Local Plan, the perceived impact on the dwellings on users of the glen and the perceived effect of the loss of designated open space.
Andrew Jessopp advised that he supported the planning application on the grounds that he considered the proposal to be in accordance with the zoning and the proposed house types to be acceptable.
The Fire Safety Officer made no comment on the planning application but recommended that if approved the applicant consult with them regarding appropriate fire precaution measures and that the dwellings have smoke detectors installed.
The Isle of Man Water Authority made no comment on the planning application but requested that an informative note be attached to any approval.
Approval in principle for the residential development 97/00772/A of Area 6 was granted at appeal on the 2nd December 1998. The detail of this previous planning application is somewhat complex but in terms of the site proposed for six detached dwellings and the adjacent open space the appointed Planning Inspector concluded that the correct means of controlling this was through a Section 18 agreement. Such an agreement was signed by relevant parties on the 23rd November 1998. The plots for the dwellings proposed by this current planning application encroach into the area that is defined as public open space under the Section 18 agreement that was drafted in association with the approval of 97/00772/A. It is pertinent to note that in coming to this conclusion the appointed Planning Inspector stated, at paragraph 128, that "If planning permission is granted however it is important that the area shown as open space on Dwg 01/1 Revision C (Plan H) remains unbuilt upon."
I should highlight that it appears to me that the area designated for low density housing in parkland within the Onchan Local Plan, which was adopted in April 2000, includes land that was designated as public open space under the Section 18 agreement, which was put in place in November 1998.
Full approval was subsequently granted through 99/0430 for the residential development 67 plots, road and sewers and the erection of 61 dwellings on Area 6. The six unaccounted dwellings relate to the six plots now proposed. The extent of the boundaries for these six plots appears to respect the extent of the designated public open space defined by the Section 18 agreement.
The encroachment raises two issues to consider. Firstly, whether the loss of designated public open space is acceptable and secondly whether it is actually possible to grant approval in the knowledge that the proposed contravenes a previous legal agreement. In the first respect I consider the amount of public open space that would be lost through the proposed development is too great and is therefore unacceptable. In the second respect I believe that, even if minded to, it is not possible to grant approval for something that clearly contravenes a previous legal agreement and the best that could be possibly achieved is a decision to be minded to approve subject to legal agreement. I would suggest that the correct approach may be to amend the legal agreement prior to making the planning application. However, as the Department would be one of the parties to the legal agreement there is an obvious potential conflict with the Planning Committee this seems illogical.
It has been suggested to me by Heritage Homes that the encroachment is a result of the constraints of the site meaning that ensuring each plot is at least an acre is difficult. With particular reference to the area of this current application site the appointed Planning Inspector into the previous planning application, 97/00772/A, commented about the actual practicalities of building on the site stating that if “problems are found to be insuperable, the numbers of houses at the eastern end of the site might have to be reduced...”. I concur with this view.
Given my own view that the loss of public open space is undesirable, the importance placed on retaining the land as open space by the previously appointed Planning Inspector and the actual issue of approving something that is contrary to a pre-existing legal agreement I have to conclude that the proposed development is unacceptable. Accordingly, I recommend that the planning application be refused.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 15.11.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. By reason of its encroachment into an area of open space, as defined by the Onchan Local Plan, the proposed development is deemed unacceptable. Specifically, the Planning Committee considers the extent and location of this area of open space is important to the protection of both the specific visual and the public amenity of Groudle Glen and its wider context in the surrounding area.
R 2. The proposed development is unacceptable by reason that approval of the planning application would result in the encroachment of residential development into land that is designated as public open space under the legal agreement enacted in association to a previous planning application that covers the application site. This legally binding designation is viewed as a material planning consideration and the Planning Committee neither considers it appropriate to permit such encroachment nor do they consider it to be appropriate to make a decision that is clearly contrary to such designation.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
