Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01271/A Applicant: Mrs Annette Eio Proposal: Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling including remodelling of existing vehicular access Site Address: Land Adjacent To Herondale Main Road Glen Maye Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 23.11.2016 Site Visit: 23.11.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY ON THE SITE AND ALSO BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a plot of land adjacent to two detached dwellings, 'The Anchorage' and 'Herondale'. The site is accessed off a private lane that is itself accessed off the Main Road that runs through Glen Maye. The private access lane is owned by the applicant and the owners of The Anchorage. The site is currently used as garden associated with Herondale, and there are a number of trees and shrubs on the site with a particularly handsome ash tree present. A path runs through the middle of the site to provide access to the eastern side of the site. The site is approximately 1.1 acres in size. The Glen Maye River runs along the southern boundary of the site. - 1.2 The site is not zoned for any form of development. - 1.3 There is, in the form of Japanese knotweed, an invasive species present on the riverbank of the site. Section 14(b) of the Wildlife Act 1990 makes it an offence to plant Japanese knotweed or allow it to grow and, while there is no indication that it was intentionally planted by the applicant, the point is that the species is one on which very strict legal controls are placed and its removal would therefore, in principle, be welcomed. It is understood that some endeavours have been undertaken to remove the knotweed from the site in the past but that this has proved unsuccessful.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the erection of a dwelling on the site. Detailed approval for the siting, means of access, and landscaping are all sought now, leaving the design of the dwelling, its external appearance and its internal layout as reserved matters for a future application should the current one be approved. - 2.2 The application also proposes a re-modelling of the access via the removal of leylandii and holly trees, which would increase visibility to the northwest from 15m to 57m and to the southeast from 21m to 70m. The access lane would also be widened to 4.1m in width for a distance of 6m back from the highway via the removal of a wall and pillars; one pillar would be added to the south. - 2.3 The application includes a comprehensive tree survey. A number are proposed to be removed from the site, some due to their being of poor quality, some in order to provide improved
visibility, and some in order to provide access to remove the Japanese knotweed - however, that is not proposed under this current application.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Both the application site and the neighbouring land have a very relevant planning history. - 3.2 In respect of the application site itself, until 27th October 2016 Approval in Principle existed for the erection of a dwelling under PA 14/01040/A. The issued approval expired on that date. Although the architect came to the Department with a view to extending the implementation period via an application seeking to vary the time limit condition, by the time this request was received there was insufficient time to address an issue on neighbouring land, which was highly material to the assessment of any such application here, and which will be outlined below. - 3.3 It is worth noting some relevant extracts from the case officer's assessment of that application, which was approved in line with her recommendation by the Planning Committee on 27th October 2014:
"The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the principle of development, the impact upon the character and appearance of the site, the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties, the impact upon the river, the impact upon highway safety and the impact upon flood risk.
"Whilst the site is not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan it is within the developed envelope of Glen Maye which is identified as a village under Spatial Policy 4. Strategic Policy 2 states that development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages.
"The settlement boundary of Glen Maye is not clearly defined on the 1982 Development Plan but it is clear that the site does not fall within this when viewed on the map. Dwellings have since been approved and erected beyond the 1982 limit. The changes on the ground since 1982 are also material considerations. Given the extent of development it is considered that the settlement boundary has changed quite significantly since the adoption of the 1982 Development Plan. Looking at the changes on the ground and being on the application site it could be argued that the application site falls within the development boundaries of Glen Maye village.
"Taking the view that the site does fall within the settlement boundary of Glen Maye the proposal would be in accordance with the aims of Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5."
"The site is set down from the highway and therefore is not overly visible from the public thoroughfare; it is judged that a modest dwelling could be achieved without having an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside and without the significant loss of trees.
"The orientation and siting of the neighbouring properties means that a dwelling could be erected on the site without having an unduly harmful impact upon the amenities of those occupying/owning the adjacent dwellings.
"The Glen Maye River runs adjacent to the application site and therefore the impact upon the river and fisheries is an important consideration of the application. The agent has provided a completed "Development within 9m of a watercourse" form which has also been submitted to the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture. The Inland Fisheries Manager has no objection to the proposal providing that there is no adverse impact on the watercourse, but notes that the applicant needs to liaise with Fisheries once a full/detailed application is submitted.
"The existing access serves two properties but it is fairly poor in terms of the visibility achievable in both directions. In order for the access to serve another property it is considered appropriate for the access to be altered to improve visibility in both directions. By altering the access as shown on
drawing 006 the splays would be increased to provide visibility of 57m in a north west direction and 70m in a south east direction.
"Given the proximity of the site in relation to the Glen Maye River the site is within the Flood Risk area and as such a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application.
"The Flood Risk Assessment sets out the conclusions and recommended flood mitigation measures. The report recommends that the dwelling floor level is to be sited 600mm above the peak projected flood level, at a minimum of 57.9m. Due to the topography of the site they consider there to be no risk to the proposed development site from the Glen Maye River. Surface water is to discharge directly into the Glen Maye River; they are of the opinion that attenuation would not be necessary given the small flows. Foul water is to flow in to a package treatment plant; treated effluent will discharge into the Glen Maye River.
"On balance the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval."
3.4 From the minutes of the Committee meeting at which the application was determined, other than various clarifications being noted by Members, it is worth also bearing in mind the following:
"In clarification of the key issues the Members suggested that the trees must be noted for specific consideration and protection within any reserved matters [application]."
3.5 The case officer, in her supplementary report following the application's determination, also noted that there was discussion regarding flood risk and how this should be mitigated via condition. - 3.6 On the basis of the case officer recommendation and Member discussion, the application was approved subject to the following six conditions:
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.
3.7 One of the submitted - and approved - drawings with PA 14/01040/A was clear that the trees shown on the proposed site plan were to be retained. - 3.8 Following the grant of this approval, the applicant found a prospective purchaser for the land. The prospective purchaser submitted their own application (PA 16/00831/B), which related to the same application site as PA 14/01040/A and also the current application. PA 16/00831/B seeks for the removal of stretches of the riverbank and their replacement with gabion baskets: this is intended to result in the eradication of the Japanese knotweed. This application proposes the removal of several trees (including some proposed to be retained on the drawing referenced in paragraph 2.2.6, above) in order to make sufficient space for the necessary equipment to enter the site and undertake the works proposed in the application. Approval to PA 16/00831/B would, then, make it impossible for any reserved matters application to have been lawfully submitted in respect of PA 14/01040/A. It would also make it impossible for an application to be submitted to vary the time limit condition alone; it is possible one could have been submitted seeking to vary conditions 1 and 5 as attached to PA 14/01040/A, but in any case that is more or less what the current application is seeking. - 3.9 It became clear that the aforementioned ash tree would need to be removed in order for the plant needed to eradicate the knotweed to be able to access the relevant part of the riverbank, and moreover that the removal of this tree would be unacceptable to the Arboricultural Officer. Unfortunately, it appears that a resolution to this matter is not possible to achieve in a way that would result in clear support from both the Arboricultural Officer and the Senior Biodiversity Officer, and so the applicant in respect of the current application has requested that it be determined now. The applicant and agent are aware that approval to the current application - which, as noted, is more or less identical to PA 14/01040/A but has been submitted with a more comprehensive tree survey - would result in little more than a 'stay of execution' with regards the presence of the knotweed and the potential developability of the application site as proposed under the current application. - 3.10 This is a slightly problematic position to be in since, on the basis of the information provided under the application seeking approval to remove the knotweed / riverbank, the ash tree would need to be removed in order to provide proper access to the site. As such, approval to the current application would not resolve these identified issues and, in some ways, would fail to demonstrate that the site can readily accommodate a dwelling: this, after all, is largely the purpose of the Approval in Principle process. However, all that being said, it is also believed to be the case that alternative methods of treating the knotweed do exist and which would not necessarily require the removal of the tree. Much of this has become understood following discussion with the relevant officers in DEFA after the submission of this application. - 3.11 Previously, there was also an application submitted seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling on this land in 2000 (PA 00/01050/A), but this was refused on grounds that the application site was not zoned for development.
3.12 In terms of the neighbouring land, PA 14/00872/A was submitted, seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling to the north of the current application site. That proved rather more controversial application than PA 14/01040/A, but the case officer concluded that the application was acceptable. The access would be the same as that for PA 14/01040/A and there was sufficient space on the site for a dwelling to be provided. She noted that, while land ownership itself is not a material consideration, it may yet prove fatal to any dwelling being located there even if the issuance of planning approval should remain a decision based on the public interest rather than at the discretion of third parties. She concluded her report as follows:
"As such it is considered that the site is capable of being accessed and drained and that a dwelling could be erected on the site without adverse impact on the living conditions of those in existing and approved nearby dwellings. Whilst the site is not designated for development on the 1982 (Development Plan) Order it is within the effective settlement boundary and no more contrary to that policy that is the dwelling approved under PA 14/01040/A. As such the application is recommended for approval."
3.13 The Planning Committee accepted the recommendation, and the application was approved on 22nd April 2015. In addition to the normal conditions relating to time limits and details of reserved matters, conditions requiring the access to be improved and tree protection defined were attached to the approval notice. It is worth noting the wording of the final condition:
"The application for reserved matters must include details of tree protection indicating how all trees are to be retained during the construction works. Generally this should involve the erection of protective fencing beneath the dripline of the canopies and no work undertaken nor items or vehicles stored within these areas. Where work is proposed within the protected areas, the method of work must be detailed to demonstrate that the work will not damage the root systems of any of the trees.
"Reason: to protect the amenities of the area and in accordance with the terms of the approval."
3.14 No reserved matters application has yet been forthcoming.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The application site sits within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance identified on the 1982 Development Plan. Given the nature of the application, it is appropriate to consider Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 4, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, Environment Policy 7, Environment Policy 10, Environment Policy 13 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. These are set out below. - 4.2 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 4.3 Spatial Policy 4: "In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. These villages are:
"Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character."
4.4 Spatial Policy 5: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." - 4.5 General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
4.6 Environment Policy 1: "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." - 4.7 Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) 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:
4.8 Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
4.9 Environment Policy 10: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4." - 4.10 Environment Policy 13: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." - 4.11 Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Arboricultural Officer within the Department commented on 21st November 2016 as follows: "I am confident that it would be possible to protect the retained trees during construction. However, the tree protection plan submitted in support of this application would have to be reviewed as part of a reserved matters application. I therefore recommend the following condition:
" 'In relation to every existing tree identified as being retained, the plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition [X] shall include details of all appropriate tree protection measures required before and during the course of development in accordance with paragraph 5.5 and 6.2 of BS5837:2012.' "
5.2 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the application on 9th December 2016 subject to the attachment of a condition:
"The proposal is construct a new single family residential dwelling sharing an existing shared access onto the public highway. The access is to be upgraded in width and improvements made to the visibility splays. There is adequate space to provide car parking and turning to facilitate vehicles entering and leaving the site in forward gear.
"Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:
5.3 The Senior Biodiversity Officer noted on 9th December 2016 that there is Japanese knotweed on the site and that he recommended a condition be attached that linked any development to the destruction or removal of this species, which is listed under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Act. He also noted that he believed a plan for dealing with it was provided with the previous application, but this would not appear to be the case.
5.5 Patrick Commissioners initially sought for the application to be deferred on 29th November 2016, and then on 14th December 2016 formally offered no objection. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The principle of residential development has previously been established, though the planning approval confirming this has since expired. In cases such as this, with such a recent approval that is a clear material consideration, it must be determined as to whether or not there has been any change in circumstances since the previous application was determined in order to warrant a different recommendation.
6.2 Although the issue of Japanese knotweed was known about previously, there was no proposal to eradicate it: this has now been submitted in the form of a separate planning application, but has itself raised a number of issues already discussed in Section 3 of this report. - 6.3 The applicant is keen to progress with the determination of their own application and while, ideally, the situation would be resolved across both applications (indeed, and again ideally, only one application would have been submitted), it is reasonable for someone to seek a determination on an application they have submitted when all the required information is present. Approval to the
7.1 In view of the above, it is concluded that the only change since the previous application was submitted allows for a fuller assessment of the principle of the proposal than previously, and this moreover allows greater weight to be given to the conclusion that the application is acceptable. It is absolutely not forgotten that the proposal represents development in what is, in Planning terms, the countryside, and therefore any recommendation in such a scenario requires careful balance. However, for the reasons already set out, the balance in this case is judged to be more weighted towards an approval was the case when the Planning Committee previously approved the application on officer recommendation.
7.2 A number of conditions are again required. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.04.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.
2017) shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.
The development proposed relates to Drawings 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, and 009, all date-stamped as having been received 14th November 2016.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 24.04.2017
Signed : E Riley 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
Application No. : 16/01271/A Applicant : Mrs Annette Eio Proposal : Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling including
remodelling of existing vehicular access
Site Address : Land Adjacent To Herondale Main Road Glen Maye Isle of Man Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report A typographical error in Condition 4 was noted and agreed to be amended. The word "floor" needs to be changed to "flood".
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.
2017) shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.
The development proposed relates to Drawings 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, and 009, all date-stamped as having been received 14th November 2016.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown