Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00539/A Applicant: Carolyn Stephenson Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking on site of existing riding arena, addressing siting and means of access Site Address: Pennybridge Stables Main Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HD Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The site is a piece of land which is currently occupied by a large equestrian building which is situated behind the fuel filling station at the northern end of Kirk Michael village. The site is 55m long and 40m wide and is served by a lane from the public highway (A3). The lane runs past the shed to the farm yard where there are two farm dwellings and stables. The former railway line runs through the site to the north west of the red line area. - 1.2 The larger site is used for stabling along with planning approval for a camp site (PA14/01001/B) and mobile catering facility (PA 14/01459/C) which is approved on the site of the current application, in front of the existing shed. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the demolition of the shed, which does not require planning approval, and the erection of two houses: initially the application had proposed four new houses. A drawing is included which shows two identical footprints alongside each other with two accesses onto the farm lane. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS - 3.1 The site lies within a thin section of Woodland which wraps around the eastern side of The Old Vicarage, an adjacent dwelling to the south west, on the Kirk Michael Local Plan of 1994. This strip of Woodland runs up the farm lane and joins an area of Predominantly Residential where the farm house sits. This residential area stops at the north eastern edge of the farm lane, the land to the north east of this, including the application site, is designated as Open Space (Agriculture). The fuel filling station is designated at "Garage". The surrounding land is identified on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance although this is not transferred into the Kirk Michael Local Plan which relates only to the built up part of the village and a small area surrounding it.
3.2 As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan, General Policy 3, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4. The Kirk Michael Local
Plan also recommends that "with the exception of areas already proposed for development use, no areas of open space should be released for development" (Paragraph 12.4).
4.1 Aside from the developments listed in paragraph 1.2 the site has been subject to a number of applications, none of which is considered relevant to the current application. The shed was approved under 96/00730/B and was approved for use as agricultural or equestrian purposes.
4.2 There have been three applications recently for the development of land which is not designated for development, for residential purposes. These are referred to later in the Assessment as they are considered relevant to the consideration of the current application.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services oppose the application on the basis that visibility splays of 2.4 x 120 metres are required in both directions, traffic data highlights that vehicles are travelling in excess of the 30mph speed limit. From the drawings provided it would appear that this cannot be achieved over land within the ownership of the applicant. The access would need to be a minimum of 4.1 metres for the first 6 metres. Lane would need to accommodate two way traffic flow and a turning area provided for larger delivery vehicles (04.06.15). Following the submission of additional information, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services no longer oppose the application subject to conditions including one requiring nothing to be planted or built within the visibility splays which would be higher than 1.05m. The visibility splays are not within land owned or controlled by the applicant so this could not properly be controlled by condition.
5.2 Michael Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development on the local plan (09.06.15 and 11.11.15).
5.3 Manx Utilities Authority request the applicant consults them on the provision of electricity to the site (22.05.15). This is not a material planning consideration. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The site is not designated for development and as such should not be considered suitable for development. However, the Kirk Michael Plan does not identify all of the farm as agricultural and in fact some of the existing stables and the farm house are within an area designated as Residential on the Plan. Perhaps of interest is a contemporaneous application for the principle of development of land at the other end of the village, alongside Cass a Lergy (PA 15/00815/A) which was refused by the Planning Committee on 21st September, 2015 and which is the subject of an appeal hearing on 8th December, 2015. At that meeting the Committee discussed whether the site was within the village and whilst the application was refused, the Committee had contemplated whether a single dwelling would have been acceptable with the site defined to go back no further than does the existing residential curtilage alongside.
6.2 Also, an application was submitted for the development of a dwelling to the rear of a small area of woodland, on the other side of the Main Road, close to the current application site. This application proposed the erection of a dwelling to the rear of the woodland but was refused for the following reasons:
"The proposal would result in the loss of an open green space which contributes to the character of the street scene which would be contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
The visibility splays requested by Highway Services cannot be provided over land within the ownership of the applicant and therefore sufficient visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the site cannot be achieved contrary to General Policy 2 part h) and i) of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the development would be detrimental to highway safety.
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to the area of trees: as such the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 3 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
6.3 Another application was submitted for the development of a dwelling off the Balleira Road, to the rear of an existing dwelling. This application was refused for the following reason although this decision has been challenged to an appeal with the hearing having been conducted and the decision is awaited:
"The erection of a dwelling on the proposed site which is located within an area not designated for development would be contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside and directing new residential development to locations that are designated for such development. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to Spatial Policy 3, General Policy
The submitted application does not demonstrate that the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 36m can be achieved in both directions and therefore the proposal would also be detrimental to highway safety to all road users and therefore fails Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
6.4 In some ways, the principles discussed at Cass a Lergy are most similar to this of the three, as the site has development on two sides and need not have resulted in an intrusion further into the countryside than is the existing situation. In none of the cases however are there existing buildings on the site whereas the application site does have, even though it cannot be taken as previously developed land. Whilst the site is not designated for development, the Kirk Michael Plan was prepared prior to the erection of the large equestrian building. The Strategic Plan makes it clear that agricultural buildings are not relevant when previously developed land is being considered as an exception to the general presumption against development in the countryside, the reason for that being that special exceptions can be made to this rule for the erection of agriculturally justified buildings on the basis that they are required for agricultural operations. To then have such buildings capable of being replaced by non-agricultural buildings as a policy would then undermine the special exception made in the first instance. The development should not, as such, be considered to be in accordance with policy simply because it is replacing an existing building in this case. - 6.5 The most important consideration is what would be the impact of the introduction of housing here, in the place of the equestrian building and in this respect, it is important that some of the other farm buildings are within the area designated as residential and that the residential area boundary is across the lane from the site. In this respect, the view of the development would be of two new dwellings between the existing garage and the existing farmhouse with The Old Vicarage in the background. In this respect, it is considered that the visual impact of the development is not objectionable nor would the introduction of two new dwellings here, represent a particularly significant incursion into the open countryside, given the buildings on each side of the site. - 6.6 The site is around 800m from the village shop and church (closer than are some of the south eastern most dwellings within the residential areas) and a little further from the local primary school, all of which are accessible via a dedicated pedestrian footway. As such, the site is considered sustainable and within convenient walking distance of the local facilities and amenities. - 6.7 As such, on balance, whilst the land use designation is an important consideration, in this case, it is considered that the limited impact of the proposed development, together with its otherwise suitable location in terms of proximity to village facilities lead to a conclusion that in this case, the local plan designation of the land as open space should be set aside and planning approval granted for the residential development of the site. - 6.8 Whilst the loss of the equestrian building is perhaps a slightly negative step in terms of removing a facility which may be useful to the local equestrian community (the Department
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
7.1 Manx Utilities Authority does not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be considered an interested person in this case.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.12.2015 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.
This approval relates to drawings 1052/PL03 received on 28th August, 2015 and 1052/PL01A and 1052/PL02A both received on 23rd October, 2015.
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:…14.12.2015
Signed : S CORLETT 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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown