Officer Report to Planning Committee

that the site is not secure. He has concerns that someone has tried to look into the stable building and is concerned that some of his possessions may be stolen. ### Procedure

2.1 Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning Development Procedure Order (No 2) 2013 states:

(4) The Department may decline to consider an application in any case if it considers that the application is substantially the same as an application that has been refused at any time within the previous 5 years prior to the date of the new application.

2.2 This power is not specifically delegated to the Planning Committee but may be exercised by the Director of Planning or Head of Development Management. However, as the earlier application had not been referred to the Planning Committee it is felt appropriate to refer this submission to the Planning Committee rather than determine under delegated powers whether the Department should decline to consider it.

Recommendation

3.1 The proposal is clearly contrary to policy and the applicant does not dispute that. Personal circumstances are always difficult to deal with, as clarified in paragraph 1.5 above. That earlier application was difficult to assess and this current situation regarding whether a new application which is substantially the same as that which has very recently been refused is no easier. There have been no changes in circumstances since the last application and the applicant's need for the accommodation is no less pressing. The applicant has added information regarding the security of the items on site which is the only difference between the previous application and this current one.

3.2 The provision for allowing the Department to decline to consider an application which is substantially the same as one which has been refused within the past 5 years is to avoid public and private expenditure on proposals which will be refused for the same reasons as an earlier, similar application. There can be changes in circumstances, policies or recommendations from advisory bodies which may change the recommendation and could result in a different decision. In this case there have not been any such changes.

3.3 The applicant has applied for any received approval under the Building Regulations for the development now proposed and would like the application to be determined and ultimately approved. The determination of the actual application is not before the Planning Committee at this stage, only whether the application should be considered. On the basis that there has not been any change in circumstances and the application is the same as that very recently refused, it is recommended that the Procedure Order's provision to decline to consider the application should be exercised and the application should not be determined.

3.4 Following the earlier consideration by the Planning Committee of this matter, further information has been sought from Department of Health and Social Care in respect of the availability of public sector housing for Mr. and Mrs. Reubens. They have clarified that the Department would not have the funding to amalgamate two properties in order to accommodate the family. They confirm that Mr. & Mrs. Reubens were asked if they wished to be considered for a 4 bedroom property in a particular development in the south of the Island in May 2014. At the time, they indicated that they did not wish to be considered for a dwelling in this particular estate for personal reasons. The property was subsequently rented to another family.

The Department has no 5 bedroom properties in the south, but has bedroom houses (14 outwith the area which has previously been offered to Mr. and Mrs. Reubens). Four bedroom properties are in demand and there is a low turnover. If a property became available, the Reubens would be considered, though there is no guarantee they would be allocated the property due to competition from others.

FULL DETAILED APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A DWELLING, ALDER OAKS, FIELD 431505, ST. MARK'S ROAD, ST. MARK'S, BALLASALLA, MALEW

The proposal

1.1 This application proposes the principle and details of the erection of a dwelling in an area which lies on the western side of the St. Mark's to Ballasalla Road in Malew. The proposal is for the erection of a single storey dwelling together with modifications to the existing access to the south. The remainder of the site accommodates stables and paddocks.

1.2 The application is the same as that which was considered under 14/00761/B. This application was refused under delegated powers on 4th August, 2014. The applicant requested an appeal which was considered following a hearing before an independent inspector. The inspector's recommendation was that the application should be refused and the Minister upheld that decision.

1.3 The details of that decision, together with the applicant's justification for the new dwelling are attached which provide the background to the proposal.

1.4 Following the refusal of the most recent application, the applicant sought advice from the planning officer, asking how another application may be considered to see if that would be successful. The applicant offered to make the property larger, different or smaller so that the application would be different from the original one and could be considered. The advice provided was that alterations which made the property larger may result in additional concerns being expressed that in addition to the principle of the proposal being contrary to Strategic Plan policies, a larger building may have other impacts, including visual ones which brought about additional reasons for refusal. Alterations which made the property smaller may undermine the applicant's arguments about need for a house large enough for his family. As such the planning officer did not advise that the scheme which was refused, should be altered.

1.5 The applicant has submitted the same plans as were refused previously, on the basis that insufficient weight was given to the other applications where personal circumstances were given in support of applications for new dwellings which were eventually approved. These examples were provided as part of the planning officer's report to illustrate that from time to time the Planning Committee has considered personal circumstances in the assessment of applications for development. This was as follows:

"The applicant's personal circumstances are very unfortunate. However it is not recommended that personal circumstances justify setting aside policies which protect the environment for the long term future where the development concerned is a physical structure which may outlast the applicants. Examples are available of where the Department has made exceptions for personal circumstances - for example at Bishopscourt Farm in Michael approval was given for the erection of a completely new dwelling and also at Sulby (PAs 10/01510/B and 07/00375/A respectively) on medical grounds concerning a family member. However, there are also examples of where personal circumstances have not been accepted as justifying overruling policy - for example in Port Erin a severely handicapped person was denied planning approval for a dwelling within the curtilage of his parents' home (PA 08/00431/B) but recently resolved their accommodation issues by purchasing a dwelling of poor form on the Ballamodha Road and gaining approval for a larger replacement dwelling which satisfied their requirements (PA 13/91009/B). Also, an applicant was refused planning approval for a new dwelling just south of the previous site: his argument in support of his application was that his current (local authority) accommodation was unsatisfactory for his needs (PA 00/00664/A)."

1.6 The applicant considers that his circumstances are the same if not more justifiable than these.

1.7 In e-mail correspondence following the submission of the latest application, the applicant has also advised that there are hens, sheep and donkeys on the site as well as equipment and he is concerned

Another option would be for Mr. & Mrs. Reubens to seek a mutual exchange with tenants from another housing authority, for example, Castletown. However, such an exchange would not be straightforward as it would be initially dependent on there being tenants who wished to downsize from a 4 bedroom house. They would also need to have a desire to move to the Reubens' 3 bedroom home in Colby. Furthermore, they would have to demonstrate a need for a 3 bed house, for example, have at least 2 children.

Miss Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer 2nd February, 2015