Loading document...
| Application No.: | 14/01040/A |
| Applicant: | Mrs Annette Eio |
| Proposal: | Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling addressing means of siting and access |
| Site Address: | Land Adjacent To |
| The Anchorage And Herondale | |
| Main Road | |
| Glen Maye | |
| Isle Of Man |
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of a plot of land adjacent to The Anchorage and Herondale. The site is accessed off a private lane which is accessed off the Main Road which 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, there are a number of trees and shrubs on the site, and 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.
2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage and improvements to the access.
3.1 There was an application in 2000 which was for approval in principle for erection of a dwelling PA 00/01050/A this application was refused. The application was refused for the following reasons:
R1. The proposed development lies outside the area designated for residential development in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, this being the current plan for the area.
R2. The development would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88 Residential Development - Houses in the Countryside.
3.2 In 2012 there was an application for approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling in the garden of Mountain View, Sound Road, Glen Maye PA 12/00597/A, this site is also in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and was approved at appeal.
3.3 The Inspector in his assessment and conclusion states:
| Case Officer: | Miss Laura Davy |
| Photo Taken: | 17.09.2014 |
| Site Visit: | 17.09.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Planning Committee |
"Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires that applications be determined having regard (amongst other matters) to the development plan and other material considerations. The 1982 Development Plan Map is to a small scale and, although it more indicates than precisely defines the south-eastern extent of the Glen Maye settlement, a close examination confirms that Mountain View does lie just beyond rather than within it. The age as such of the 1982 Development Plan should not reduce its weight, however the absence of any subsequent Area Plan to provide an assessed and well defined settlement boundary, coupled with changes on the ground since 1982 are important material considerations to weigh alongside the 1982 Map. Dwellings have since been approved and erected a little beyond the 1982 limit which, together with others that already stood beyond that limit, has effectively extended and consolidated Glen Maye southeast of what was indicated by the 1982 Map to a clear, well defined extent. This concludes in the vicinity of Holm Lea Bungalow, Laburnum Lodge and the farmhouse at Ballacreggan Farm."
4.1 The application site is in 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 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions² of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
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.
New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with 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:
a) Essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); c) Previously developed land¹ which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; d) The replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); e) Location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; g) Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and h) Buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
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 overriding 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.
The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) 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:
a) The development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) The location for the development is essential.
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:
a) All watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; b) Details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; c) All engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and d) Development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species.
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.
Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions¹ 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:
a) Essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and c) The replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.
5.1 Highway Services do not oppose but recommend that the applicant contact them prior to works commence. These comments were in a letter received 17th September 2014.
5.2 Patrick Commissioners have concerns that the site is liable to flooding. They also have concerns regarding the visibility. They feel that it is not clear how acceptable visibility splays can be provided. These comments were in a letter received 10th September 2014.
5.3 Fisheries Division of Department of Environment Food and Agriculture has no objection to the proposal provided that there is no adverse impact on the watercourse. These comments were in a letter received 22nd September 2014.
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority recommends that the applicant contact the Authority to discuss electricity supply for the property. These comments were in a letter received 3rd October 2014.
5.5 Senior Biodiversity Officer of the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture has some concerns that there is Japanese Knotweed present on the site. If there is Japanese Knotweed on site there needs to be a plan submitted with the detailed application regarding its removal. These comments were in a letter received 6th October 2014.
5.6 The owner/occupier of Fo Glion, Glen Rushen Road, Glen Maye who are also the owners of the adjoining garden have written in as an interested party, they have indicated that part of the application site is within their ownership and they were not notified of the intention to apply for planning permission on this piece of land. These comments were in a letter received 23rd September 2014.
5.7 An amended plan has been received showing the correct curtilage of the site. This appears to overcome the concerns raised by the owner/occupier of Fo Glion.
6.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage and associated access alterations. 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.
6.2 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.
6.3 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.
6.4 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.
6.5 The site is outside the area zoned for development and therefore General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 are relevant, these policies are aimed at protecting the countryside. Given that the site is within the development envelope of Glen Maye it is judged that a dwelling on this site could be accommodated without resulting in an unacceptable intrusion into the countryside given that it the site is enveloped by existing development it is considered that a modest dwelling would not push the development boundaries further into the open countryside.
6.6 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.
6.7 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.
6.8 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.
6.9 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.
6.10 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.
6.11 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.
6.12 On balance the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
7.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, and Manx Utilities Authority (Drainage) as their comments have been deemed material;
Highway Services, and the Local Authority, Patrick Commissioners in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
7.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
7.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
The Planning Committee approved the application but wished to see the trees protected as part of any reserved matters application. It was suggested that a condition be attached to the application regarding the protection of the trees.
After the presentation to the Committee, the members were updated regarding the comments from Manx Utilities Authority (Drainage Division) and it was recommended that a condition be attached to the approval concerning the finished floor level. The following conditions are recommended:
C5. Any application for reserved matters shall include a tree protection plan. This approval is on the basis that only the existing hedging and leylandii identified on drawing 008 date stamped 30th September 2014 are to be removed.
C6. The application for the reserved matters must demonstrate that the dwelling hereby approved will not be at unacceptable risk of flooding. It is recommended that the approved floor level of the dwelling is 600mm above the peak projected floor level.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 17.10.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1.
The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
C 2.
Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 3.
Details of the siting, design, external appearance, internal layout and landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.
C 4.
The approved access alterations as shown on drawing 006 date stamped 3rd September 2014 shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any other works.
Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety.
C 5.
Any application for reserved matters shall include a tree protection plan. This approval is on the basis that only the existing hedging and leylandii identified on drawing 008 date stamped 30th September 2014 are to be removed.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
C 6.
The application for the reserved matters must demonstrate that the dwelling hereby approved will not be at unacceptable risk of flooding. It is recommended that the approved floor level of the dwelling is 600mm above the peak projected floor level.
Reason: To protect the dwelling from flooding.
This approval relates to drawing Numbers 001 Rev A, 002 Rev A, 005 Rev A and 008 Rev A date stamped 30th September 2014 and 003, 004, 006, 007 and 009 date stamped 3rd September 2014.
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 : BSP Committee Meeting Date : 27/10/14
Signed : L. DAYY Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
| Application No. : | 14/01040/A |
| Applicant : | Mrs Annette Eio |
| Proposal : | Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling addressing means of siting and access |
| Site Address : | Land Adjacent To The Anchorage And Herondale Main Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man |
| Case Officer : | Miss Laura Davy |
| Photo Taken : | 17.09.2014 |
| Site Visit : | 17.09.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level : | Planning Committee |
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of a plot of land adjacent to The Anchorage and Herondale. The site is accessed off a private lane which is accessed off the Main Road which 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, there are a number of trees and shrubs on the site, and 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.
2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage and improvements to the access.
3.1 There was an application in 2000 which was for approval in principle for erection of a dwelling PA 00/01050/A this application was refused. The application was refused for the following reasons:
R1. The proposed development lies outside the area designated for residential development in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, this being the current plan for the area.
R2. The development would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88 Residential Development - Houses in the Countryside.
3.2 In 2012 there was an application for approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling in the garden of Mountain View, Sound Road, Glen Maye PA 12/00597/A, this site is also in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and was approved at appeal.
3.3 The Inspector in his assessment and conclusion states:
"Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires that applications be determined having regard (amongst other matters) to the development plan and other material considerations. The 1982 Development Plan Map is to a small scale and, although it more indicates than precisely defines the south-eastern extent of the Glen Maye settlement, a close examination confirms that Mountain View does lie just beyond rather than within it. The age as such of the 1982 Development Plan should not reduce its weight, however the absence of any subsequent Area Plan to provide an assessed and well defined settlement boundary, coupled with changes on the ground since 1982 are important material considerations to weigh alongside the 1982 Map. Dwellings have since been approved and erected a little beyond the 1982 limit which, together with others that already stood beyond that limit, has effectively extended and consolidated Glen Maye southeast of what was indicated by the 1982 Map to a clear, well defined extent. This concludes in the vicinity of Holm Lea Bungalow, Laburnum Lodge and the farmhouse at Ballacregan Farm."
4.1 The application site is in 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 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions² of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
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.
New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with 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:
a) Essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); c) Previously developed land¹ which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; d) The replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); e) Location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; g) Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and h) Buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
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 overriding 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.
The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) 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:
a) The development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) The location for the development is essential.
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:
a) All watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; b) Details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; c) All engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and d) Development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species.
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.
Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions¹ 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:
a) Essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and c) The replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.
5.1 Highway Services do not oppose but recommend that the applicant contact them prior to works commence. These comments were in a letter received 17th September 2014.
5.2 Patrick Commissioners have concerns that the site is liable to flooding. They also have concerns regarding the visibility. They feel that it is not clear how acceptable visibility splays can be provided. These comments were in a letter received 10th September 2014.
5.3 Fisheries Division of Department of Environment Food and Agriculture has no objection to the proposal provided that there is no adverse impact on the watercourse. These comments were in a letter received 22nd September 2014.
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority recommend that the applicant contact the Authority to discuss electricity supply for the property. These comments were in a letter received 3rd October 2014.
5.5 Senior Biodiversity Officer of the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture has some concerns that there is Japanese Knotweed present on the site. If there is Japanese Knotweed on site then needs to be a plan submitted with the detailed application regarding its removal. These comments were in a letter received 6th October 2014.
5.6 The owner/occupier of Fo Glion, Glen Rushen Road, Glen Maye who are also the owners of the adjoining garden have written in as an interested party, they have indicated that part of the application site is within their ownership and they were not notified of the intention to apply for planning permission on this piece of land. These comments were in a letter received 23rd September 2014.
5.7 An amended plan has been received showing the correct curtilage of the site. This appears to overcome the concerns raised by the owner/occupier of Fo Glion.
6.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage and associated access alterations. 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.
6.2 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.
6.3 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.
6.4 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.
6.5 The site is outside the area zoned for development and therefore General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 are relevant, these policies are aimed at protecting the countryside. Given that the site is within the development envelope of Glen Maye it is judged that a dwelling on this site could be accommodated without resulting in an unacceptable intrusion into the countryside given that it the site is enveloped by existing development it is considered that a modest dwelling would not push the development boundaries further into the open countryside.
6.6 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.
6.7 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.
6.8 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.
6.9 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.
6.10 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.
6.11 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.
6.12 On balance the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
7.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture,
as their comments have been deemed material; Highway Services, and the Local Authority, Patrick Commissioners in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
7.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
7.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 17.10.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 3.
Details of the siting, design, external appearance, internal layout and landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.
C 4.
The approved access alterations as shown on drawing 006 date stamped 3rd September 2014 shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any other works.
Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety.
This approval relates to
Drawing Numbers 001 Rev A, 002 Rev A, 005 Rev A and 008 Rev A date stamped 30th September 2014 and 003, 004, 006, 007 and 009 date stamped 3rd September 2014.
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: Approved Committee Meeting Date: 27/10/14
Signed: [Handwritten signature] Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ YES / ☐ NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown