Loading document...
{{table:165319}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:165316}} {{table:165317}} {{table:165318}} Consulttee: Senior Forester Notes: No objection Consulttee: Manx National Heritage Notes: Comments received Consulttee: Wildlife & Conservation Officer Notes: Comments received
THE APPLICATION SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The application site comprises the curtilage of a detached dwelling and associated land that is located on Breeze Hill in Laxey. The proposed development comprises of the erection of a new dwelling as a replacement of the existing dwelling.
There have been three planning applications that could be considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
Planning application 03/00375/A sought approval in principle for the erection of two dwellings on land that is partially included within the application site for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially considered and refused on the 4th July 2003, with the initial refusal decision notice issued on the 11th July 2003.
Planning application 05/00148/A sought approval in principle for the creation of new access with associated driveway to the existing dwelling that is contained within the application site for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially considered and approved on the 1st April 2005, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 7th April 2005.
Planning application 05/02096/REM sought reserved matters approval for the creation of a new access with associated driveway to the existing dwelling that is contained within the application site for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially considered and approved on the 13th December 2005, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 16th December 2005.
Laxey Village Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the application site is not designated for residential development, that approval would set a precedent, that the proposed dwelling is inappropriate, that the development threatens the future of the woodland area, and that the historic/archaeological value of the site will be affected.
The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application subject to the imposition of conditions.
The Department of Transport Drainage Division do not oppose the planning application subject to the imposition of conditions.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's Forestry Division initially advised that they have no record of discussions with the applicant regarding tree felling, that tree felling licenses had been applied for and that they objected to the planning application on the grounds of unspecified tree loss. However, following on site discussions between them and the applicant they advised that they understood the impact of the proposed development on trees and no longer objected to the planning application.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's Wildlife and Conservation Division recommend that the planning application be subject to a bat survey.
Manx National Heritage advise that they recognise that the planning application represents the erection of a replacement dwelling but highlight that they would be opposed to any additional residential development within the area as this would adversely affect the setting of an archaeological site.
The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend that the applicant consults them to discuss the provision of appropriate fire precaution measures.
The Manx Electricity Authority initially recommended that the planning application be refused. However, following discussion between them and the applicant they removed their objection to the planning application.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment object to the planning application, making reference to the land use designation of the application site and the previous planning applications. They consider the assessment of the planning application to be a balanced one and indicate that their objection is the result of a split decision.
The Isle of Man Woodland Trust object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the site plan and tree survey are inaccurate. They are concerned that the proposed development results in unacceptable levels of tree loss.
The owners and/or occupants of Baytrees, which directly neighbours the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that a previous planning application was refused, that the area has natural and historic significance, that the area is not capable of accommodating more traffic, that there are existing irregularities with the driveway development, that the development may be the start of incremental development of the site, that the footprint of development differs from that of the existing dwelling, that trees may have already been felled on the site, and that the proposed development is not in keeping with the area.
The owners and/or occupants of 2 Glen View, which is located in the South Cape area of Laxey, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed dwelling is contrary to the land use designations and policies of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005, that size and design of the dwelling is out of keeping with the area, that no justification for the demolition of the existing building is given, and that there are existing irregularities with the driveway development.
The owners and/or occupants of Lyncroft House, which directly neighbours the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development is contrary to the land use designation, that the area has natural and historic significance, that the loss of trees is unacceptable, that vehicular access arrangements are inadequate, that the proposed dwelling is too large, and that a previous planning application was refused.
The owners and/or occupants of 10 Lower Cronk Orry, which is located approximately 100 metres west of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development is contrary to the land use designation, that the proposed dwelling is too large, that approval would set a precedent, that no justification for the demolition of the existing building is given, that vehicular access arrangements are inadequate, that the area has natural and historic significance, and that the development would be detrimental to the users of the coastal footpath.
The owners and/or occupants of Camilla House, which directly neighbours the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development is contrary to the land use designation, that the proposed dwelling is too large, that approval would set a precedent, that no justification for the demolition of the existing building is given, that vehicular access arrangements are inadequate, that the area has natural and historic significance, that the site plan and tree survey is inaccurate, and that the development would be detrimental to the users of the coastal footpath. A subsequent representation highlighted concerns regarding site boundary and ownership issues.
The owners and/or occupants of Maycroft, which is located approximately 100 metres south of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development is contrary to the land use designation, that the development may be the start of incremental development of the site, that vehicular access arrangements are inadequate, that no justification for the demolition of the existing building is given, and that a previous planning application was refused.
The owners and/or occupants of 2 Glen Roy Cottages, which is located approximately 200 metres south of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development would adversely affect the ecology of the area and that the design of the proposed dwelling is out of character with the area.
The owners and/or occupants of Arncliffe, which is directly neighbours the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed
development is contrary to the land use designation, that no justification for the demolition of the existing building is given, that the proposed dwelling is too large, that the design of the dwelling is out of keeping with the area, that the loss of trees is unacceptable and that the development may be the start of incremental development of the site.
The owners and/or occupants of Woodside Cottage, which is located on Breeze Hill, support the planning application. The grounds for their support can be summarised as the belief that the significant improvements have already been made to the site, that the erection of a replacement dwelling is appropriate, that the existing house is in poor repair, that the design of the dwelling reflects the mixed style of the area and is more appropriate than the adjacent mock tudor dwellings, and that any increase in traffic is not significant.
The owners and/or occupants of Ballachrink, which is located on Breeze Hill, support the planning application. The grounds for their support can be summarised as the belief that the existing house is in poor repair, that the proposed dwelling is modestly proportioned given the size of the plot, that they are many more visible houses within the surrounding area, that any increase in traffic is not significant, that the site if archaeological interest is suitably protected, and that the ecological impact is limited.
The application site is part designated as predominantly residential use and part open space under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. The site is also located within wider areas of land that are designated as a) high landscape value and scenic significance; and b) ecological interest.
There are a number of policies within the plan that could be viewed as material to the assessment of the planning application.
"Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general."
"In the interests of conserving the traditional character and appearance of the area the Department will adopt a flexible approach to the requirement for car parking in association with existing property inasmuch as where it is possible to provide car parking for the use of the building concerned the Department will expect the provision of parking for residents in the case of residential property and staff and customers in the case of commercial property. However, where the provision of car parking would be detrimental to the appearance or character of the area, car parking standards may be relaxed."
"Notwithstanding the above, the Department will require the provision of 3 car parking spaces per unit where at least one of the spaces is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. In the case of residential terraces, the Department will generally require 3 spaces per unit which is not provided within the residential curtilage should be located as close as possible to the units to be served without compromising residential amenity. In the case of apartments the Department will generally require one space per bedroom to be provided."
"There will be a general presumption against development in areas designated as open space or open space for particular purposes."
"Consultation must be undertaken within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on all proposals to alter buildings within the area plan area which bats are known to use as roost sites."
"In order to preserve those areas of interest to nature conservation within the study area, there will be a general presumption against any development which would have an adverse impact or effect thereon. This policy will apply to areas identified as of ecological interest on the plan and those which may be identified in the future as of such importance."
"No development will be permitted which would have an adverse impact on the "green" and "wildlife" corridors identified in paragraph 11.9 of the area plan."
Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 states:
"With the exception of the felling of trees planted for commercial purposes, there will be a general presumption against the removal of trees within the study area including instances where this is proposed in order to facilitate development."
The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the application site. The proposed dwelling includes ancillary 'granny flat'/guest accommodation above the attached garage.
In terms of assessing the proposed development it is necessary to have regard to the policies outlined earlier within this report that essentially cover the principle of development and the specifics of the proposed development, which effectively echo many of the representations to the planning application. With reference to the representations it is noted that there are a number of issues raised that are not material to the assessment of the planning application. Firstly, the planning application seeks approval to replace the existing dwelling contained within the application site and, as such, suggestions that the planning application seeks to erect additional dwellings on the application site are therefore erroneous and the reference to previous planning application 03/00375/A is of limited weight. The development proposed by this current planning application clearly differs from that proposed by previous planning application 03/00375/A in that, if approved, the net result remains one dwelling on the application site. Secondly, the issue of site boundaries and land ownership is a civil matter outside of the remit of planning and the control of the planning authority. Regardless of that it is apparent that the disputed land does not contain any of the built development proposed by the planning application. Thirdly, there are no evident breaches of the implementation of previously approved planning application 05/02096/REM. The driveway has been positioned correctly and it is understood that completion is being deferred pending the outcome of this current planning application. It would be illogical to complete the driveway works if the approval of the current planning application resulted in construction traffic using the driveway. As such the completion of the driveway works is dependant on the outcome of the current planning application. Fourthly, there is no requirement for the applicant to justify their decision to demolition and replace the existing dwelling. Finally, any suggestions that further development of the application site may follow on from this planning application are purely speculation. Whether founded or unfounded speculation it remains that any further development would require planning approval and therefore would be the subject of a planning application.
Turning the assessment of the planning application it is necessary to examine the principle of development and then, if the principle is accepted, to examine the specific impacts of the proposed dwelling.
In terms of the principle of development the actual siting of the proposed dwelling is part within land designated as predominantly residential and part within land designated as open space under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. This raises conflict between policy L/RES/PR/1 and policy L/OSNC/PR/1 in that the erection of a replacement dwelling is essentially acceptable in terms of principle whilst the encroachment into open space is not. Given the differences in scale between the application drawings and the area plan map it is difficult to precisely define the extent of encroachment. The simple response would be to require that the replacement dwelling be located on the footprint of the existing dwelling. However, the desire to reposition the dwelling on the application site is understandable as at present the existing dwelling is close to the site boundary and relatively shadowed by existing trees. Based on a site visit and the fact that the dwelling is positioned within a large application site it would appear that the split land use designation within the area plan is not entirely reflective of the situation on the ground. The repositioning of the replacement dwelling is suitably limited and would have a similarly limited impact on the application site. Therefore, it is considered reasonable to conclude that the principle of development, and the position of the proposed dwelling, is acceptable. It therefore remains necessary to examine the specific impacts of the proposed dwelling.
In terms of the specific impacts of the proposed dwelling it is necessary to have regard to the design of the dwelling, the impact on trees, the impact on the neighbouring properties, the impact on public amenity, vehicular access arrangements and car parking provision.
As regards the design of the dwelling there is no overriding design within the surrounding area. Indeed the surrounding area contains a variety of dwellings ranging from modest traditional cottages to large detached mock tudor dwellings. The design proposed by the planning application attempts to reflect design elements found within dwellings elsewhere in Laxey, such as the double bay windows on the front elevation of the dwelling. Whilst the proposed dwelling is significantly larger than the existing dwelling there are no grounds for this to be reason for refusal and the dwelling stands in a considerably sized plot. Reference to Housing Policy 14
of the Strategic Plan is erroneous as that policy relates to replacement dwellings in the countryside. Overall, the design is considered appropriate for the application site and is acceptable.
With respect to the impact on trees it is recognised that the proposed development requires the felling of a number of trees within the application site. Whilst policy L/OSNC/PR/6 sets out a presumption against the felling of trees resulting from development it is necessary to have regard to the views of the Forestry Division. They have advised that the trees are mostly sycamores and that some are in a poor state of health. Given this and that a significant amount of trees remain on the application site it is considered that the loss of the trees is acceptable in this instance.
In terms of the impact of the proposed dwelling on the neighbouring properties it is considered that the distances, changes in levels, tree coverage and boundary treatments are such that the proposed dwelling and its use should not unduly affect the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.
In terms of public amenity it is considered that the impact of the proposed dwelling is acceptable. The dwelling will read as an appropriately sized dwelling within substantial grounds.
Finally, in respect of vehicular access arrangements and car parking provision the proposed dwelling provides suitable arrangements and raises no specific concerns. The dwelling will be accessed via the new driveway that is currently under construction in accordance with previous planning application 05/02096/REM, which represents an improvement of the original situation. The proposed development has more than sufficient car parking provision to accord with the requirements of the area plan.
On balance and having had regard to the above it is recommended that the planning application be approved. In addition to the standard conditions it is considered appropriate to condition the demolition of the existing dwelling within one month of the occupation of the new dwelling and the use of the 'granny flat'/guest accommodation as ancillary accommodation.
It is considered 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:
It is considered 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:
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 18.07.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2.
C 3. Within one month of the occupation of the new dwelling the existing dwelling must be demolished and removed from site in its entirety.
C 4. Prior to its demolition a bat survey of the existing dwelling must be undertaken in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Dependant on the outcome of that survey, measures must be put in place to minimise the impact of demolition on bats.
C 5. The proposed development must be connected to the main foul sewer.
NOTE: A Drainage Connection Fee will be payable to the Drainage Authority on this development
C 6. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer.
C 7. The accommodation created above the attached garage must only be used as accommodation ancillary to that of the existing dwelling. For the avoidance of doubt, no approval should hereby be conferred by this approval for the use of the new accommodation as a separate dwelling.
N 1. The applicant/developer is recommended to contact the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service to discuss the provision of appropriate fire precaution measures.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 25/7/07
Signed: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
