Loading document...
Turning to the specifics of the proposed development there are a number of areas that I consider it necessary to examine. In terms of vehicular access to the site it is apparent that part of the visibility splay and sight line cuts across the neighbouring property on King Edward Road, known as Braemar. The applicant has submitted a letter signed by the owner of this property stating that they are willing to enter into a deed of easement or deed of covenant to require them to keep the relevant area clear of anything that will interfere with visibility. It is my understanding that the applicant and their agent are of the opinion that a 'Grampian' style condition can be imposed relating to this. However, based on my understanding of case law it is only reasonable to apply a 'Grampian' style condition in instances where there is a prospect of the requirement being carried out in a reasonable amount of time, which is usually taken to be the time limit of the approval. As in this instance any condition would have to relate to the continued maintenance of the visibility, which inevitably stretches beyond the time limit of the approval, I cannot see how any condition can be deemed reasonable. It therefore fails at least one of the tests of a condition. On that basis the site has to be considered to have inadequate vehicular access arrangements. This is obviously contrary to the interests of highway safety and reason in itself for refusal. In terms of drainage arrangements I have not been presented with any evidence to support claims that the proposed drainage and pumping arrangement will not work. On that basis I have to conclude that the proposed means of drainage is acceptable. In terms of the issue of water pressure I am satisfied that the Isle of Man Water Authority has stated that existing provision within the area is sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed development. In terms of the impact of the proposed development on public amenity I have, as already stated, concerns about the density of development, the appearance and the visual impact at the entrance to the built development of Onchan. In terms of the impact of the proposed development on private amenity I have concerns regarding the relationship of the proposed dwellings to one another. Obviously, until built and occupied no one can voice their concerns about this matter and as such it is important that the relationship is properly considered. Having read the various representations, looked at the variety of submitted photographs and undertaken a site visit I do not consider the impact of the proposed dwellings on the existing surrounding properties to be detrimental to an extent that warrants reason for refusal. Based on the submission from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Wildlife and Conservation Division it is apparent that the proposed development, and in particular the development of plot 4, will harm a lizard colony. Given that lizards are a protected species I normally consider any such harm to be reason for refusal. However, in this instance there remain undeveloped areas within the application site that could be used to create appropriate replacement habitats. If I were recommending approval I would suggest the imposition of a condition that covers this matter. ### The Applicant's Case The applicant's agent has submitted a statement to support the proposed development. This statement covers a number of different aspects of the proposal. I think it that it is appropriate to summarise the main aspects of this statement and respond to a number of their points. The statement begins by setting out the proposed development, the local plan background and the pre-application discussions that were undertaken. Section 3 of the statement relates to the application proposal and generally sets out the nature of the proposed development. At paragraph 3.1 of their statement it is stated that the "principle of the application proposal is to meet the aspirations of the Department for the residential development of the site to the east of Far End". In response to this I would suggest that the aspirations of the Department are clearly set out by the Onchan Local Plan and the accompanying Written Statement. The proposed development does not meet those aspirations and it is difficult to understand how failure to meet the requirements of a specific policy can be viewed as meeting aspirations. Paragraph 3.2 states that "visibility standards of 90m in each direction can be achieved and indeed are exceeded". In response to this I would highlight that it has already been established that the method of doing this is flawed and not achievable. Section 4 of the statement relates to the planning history. Paragraph 4.3 refers to previous planning application 01/01273/B. Their reference fails to highlight the appointed Planning Inspector's conclusions, particularly with regard to policy O/RES/P/9. Paragraph 4.4 refers to previous planning application 02/01755/B. In his conclusions the appointed Planning Inspector recognised the relevance and importance of policy O/RES/P/9. Section 5 relates to planning policy and sets out the policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Onchan Local Plan. The Onchan Local Plan is an adopted document and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is an emerging document. It is therefore necessary to allow relevant weight to the application of each document. Furthermore, the Strategic Plan deals with issues on a wider basis whilst the Onchan Local Plan sets out specific policies for the Onchan area. The applicant's statement's reference to the Modified Draft (November 2004) of the Strategic Plan appears to be incorrect as their references seem to relate to Modified Draft Written Statement (June 2004). Paragraph 5.3 refers to policy 6 and paragraph 8.7.1 of the Strategic Plan. The applicant's agent states that there is conflict between policy 6 of the Strategic Plan and policy O/RES/P/9 of the Onchan Local Plan. As the prescribing of a maximum of three dwellings through policy O/RES/P/9 has been done for good reason I cannot see or understand how there is conflict between the two policies. Furthermore, the policy within a local plan is at much more site specific level than the policy within the Strategic Plan and, as such, will inevitably deal with the particular sites in a greater level of detail. Paragraph 5.7 refers to the Onchan Local Plan and states that in assessing policy O/RES/P/9 it is relevant to consider the comments of the Planning Inspector in the Local Plan Inquiry Report. Whatever this states is ultimately of limited weight as the policy is as written in the adopted Onchan Local Plan and has been done so for good reason after proper consideration and agreement by Tynwald. Section 6 sets out the applicant's agent's assessment of the proposed development. Firstly it looks at compliance with the Onchan Local Plan, then looks at the impact on character and appearance of the area and finally looks at nature conservation. Paragraph 6.2 suggests that the proposed development is entirely consistent with the character of the surrounding area, that it is not an over intensive apartment scheme or any other inappropriate use and should be supported. In response to this I would suggest that it is not the role of the Planning Authority to support, or indeed object to, planning applications. Rather it is their role to assess development proposed by planning applications against material planning considerations. The existence of a site specific policy is a significant material planning consideration. I believe that the development of the application site has to be related to its position on the entrance to the built area of Onchan. Therefore whilst the density in general terms is not high, in terms of the specifics of the application site it is. The two proposed dwellings on the Far End part of the application site is tantamount to backland development and the lack of dividing road means that the characteristics are different to that of the surrounding area. Paragraph 6.3 attempts to justify the proposed development as being a more efficient use of land, which accords with the requirement of the Strategic Plan. In response to this I would suggest that whilst that may be an aim of the Strategic Plan it is not the intention to do so at all costs. The efficient use of land remains one of a number of considerations in the assessment of the planning application. In this instance the protection of the setting is more important. Paragraph 6.4 refers to the age of the Onchan Local Plan and highlights that policy H2 of the Strategic Plan identifies that in instances where development has not occurred within five years of designation the Department should give consideration to an acceptable alternative. In response to this I would highlight that this belief fails to identify that policy H2 refers to the preparation of Area Plans. The decision to re-visit sites should be done in a proper manner through the preparation of Area Plans not in an ad hoc manner, as is being effectively suggested by the applicant's agent. In my view the reference within the applicant's agent's statement to the housing market dictating that three dwellings are not economically viable is not relevant as the planning system is there to assess impacts on amenity not to necessarily benefit developers. Policy O/RES/P/9 is within the public realm and as such its implications were assessable to any potential purchaser of the application site. Paragraph 6.8 refers to the density of development in comparison to that of the existing surrounding area. I would question the figures put forward within the statement. Whilst in terms of comparison there are difficulties in measuring net area I am of the opinion that as roads form part of the built development and therefore some of the visual impact it is equally acceptable to use gross area for comparison. Based on the application site measuring 0.85 of a hectare the gross density of the proposed development is actually seven dwellings to the hectare. The block of six dwellings to the west of the application site occupy an area of 1.02 hectares, which equates to a gross density of six dwellings to the hectare. This is clearly contrary to the assertion that the density is less than the area to the west. Regardless of this I would repeat that whilst the density in general terms is not high, in terms of the specifics of the application site it is and that its impact on the edge of the area of built development is the important consideration. Section 7 of the submitted statement summarises the proposed development. Paragraph 7.3 states that the proposed development conforms with all local plan policies and the Strategic Plan. This is simply not correct. Conclusion Having read all the submissions and assessed the proposed development I consider the proposal to be unacceptable for the above reasons. Accordingly, I recommend that the planning application be refused. In the event that the Planning Committee is minded to approve the planning application I have to advise that I am unable to suggest conditions of approval as the issue of highway safety is not resolvable by condition and the proposed development is contrary to my professional opinion. ### Party Status I consider 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 Wildlife and Conservation Division; - The Isle of Man Water Authority; - The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service; - The owners and/or occupants of The Longhouse, Lag Birragh Drive; and - The owners and/or occupants of Fo Carrick, Lag Birragh Drive. I consider 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 Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment; - The owner and/or occupant of 137 King Edward Road; - The owners and/or occupants of 135 King Edward Road; - The owner and/or occupant of 133 King Edward Road; - The owners and/or occupants of 129 King Edward Road; and - The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe. --- ### Supplementary Report Responding To The Submitted Amendment #### Background The planning application was previously due to go before the Planning Committee at their meeting on the 25th May 2006 with the recommendation that it be refused. However, following the publication of the agenda and reports on the 22nd May 2006 the applicant’s agent requested that the planning application be deferred in order that amended drawings could be submitted and so that they could attempt to address the suggested reasons for refusal. Decision on the planning application was deferred. #### The Amended Planning Application The amendment to the planning application comprised of the submission of a drawing that re-positions the dwelling on plot 2 and a drawing that show the relevant sections through the applications site. The receipt of the amendment to the planning application was properly advertised and opportunity given for comments to be received. #### Representations To The Amended Planning Application In response to the amendment to the planning application representations were received from the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service, the Manx Electricity Authority requests and the owners and/or occupants of 135 King Edward Road. The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend that the applicant contacts them to discuss the provision of appropriate fire precaution measures. The Manx Electricity Authority request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice. The owners and/or occupants of 135 King Edward Road maintain their original objection to the planning application. ### Assessment of the development proposed by the planning application I previously recommended that the planning application be refused for the three following reasons: 1. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that the erection of four dwellings on the land to the east of Far End is contrary to the site specific provisions of policy O/RES/P/9 of Planning Circular 1/2000, which forms the Written Statement that accompanies the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000. Given the site's position on the entrance to the built area of Onchan it is considered important that the level of development respects the position and therefore the policy's assertion that the site is suitable for a maximum of three dwellings. 2. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that the erection of two dwellings on the land containing Far End results in a poorly related development that is inadequately distanced and a cramped form of development. 3. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that it fails to provide appropriate vehicular visibility splays and sight lines. As such the use of the proposed access is contrary to the interests of the highway safety. In terms of the amendment to the planning application the first reason for refusal remains unaltered as that specific part of the application site remains unchanged. After consideration and assessment of the amendment to the planning application I have concluded that the second reason for refusal also remains unchanged. My reasoning for this view remains as explained with my original report. Turning to the issue of vehicular visibility splays and sight lines following discussion with the applicant's agent and the Department of Transport's Highways Division I am satisfied that the third reason for refusal can be left out. This is on the basis that that it should be possible to ensure the provision of the vehicular visibility splays and sight lines by condition in the event that the planning application were to be approved. ### Conclusion Therefore, following assessment of the planning application and consideration of the development that it proposes I am still of the opinion that it is unacceptable. I recommend that the planning application be refused for the two following reasons: 1. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that the erection of four dwellings on the land to the east of Far End is contrary to the site specific provisions of policy O/RES/P/9 of Planning Circular 1/2000, which forms the Written Statement that accompanies the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000. Given the site's position on the entrance to the built area of Onchan it is considered important that the level of development respects the position and therefore the policy's assertion that the site is suitable for a maximum of three dwellings. 2. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that the erection of two dwellings on the land containing Far End results in a poorly related development that is inadequately distanced and a cramped form of development. ### Recommendation Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that the erection of four dwellings on the land to the east of Far End is contrary to the site specific provisions of policy O/RES/P/9 of Planning Circular 1/2000, which forms the Written Statement that accompanies the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000. Given the site's position on the entrance to the built area of Onchan it is considered important that the level of development respects the position and therefore the policy's assertion that the site is suitable for a maximum of three dwellings.
R 2. The development proposed by the planning application is unacceptable by reason that the erection of two dwellings on the land containing Far End results in a poorly related development that is inadequately distanced and a cramped form of development.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
