Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00679/A Applicant: Mr Roy & Mrs Susan Tilleard Proposal: Approval in principle for a residential development of three dwellings addressing means of access and siting Site Address: Arbory House And Fields 424934,424935,424936 Glen Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4HW Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 07.07.2015 Site Visit: 07.07.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE LEVEL OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling, Arbory House and an additional living unit which is accommodated in converted outbuildings, which all lie on the eastern side of Colby Glen Road, together with additional land which is currently a paddock, to the east of the dwelling. Arbory House is a traditional stone faced dwelling with outbuildings which are linked to the dwelling, all abutting the main road. There are trees within the site - mainly alongside the road and another small group to the east of the dwelling. - 1.2 Access is from a point to the north of the house and via a driveway which leads south to the dwelling. To the north of this is a stand of conifers which provide a dense roadside feature with a wild cherry on either side of the existing gated entrance through which the paddock can be see, including a copper beech, more conifers and cherry trees. - 1.3 Immediately to the south of the site are Holly Bank (Reayrt Aalin) and Middle Field, to the south west is Nhee Aalin and to the north west are Thie ny Chibbyr and Avistine. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the principle of the erection of three new dwellings to the east of the house together with the provision of a new access to serve all four dwellings. The dwellings have between 2,000 sq m and 3,000 sq m in plot sizes and will be served by a new sewage treatment works, details of which are not provided at this stage. Surface water will be directed to new soakaways. - 2.2 Approval is being sought for the number of new dwellings (3), their siting and means of access. Access will be via a new entrance around 18m to the north of the existing which will be blocked off. A number of trees will be removed to facilitate the new access. This new access will provide visibility splays of 90m by 2.4m in both directions. - 2.3 The applicant describes the existing access as inadequate in terms of visibility and what is proposed will assist highway safety by providing enhanced visibility. - 2.4 The applicant describes the development as complying with the spirit of the larger houses referred to at Policy 8 of Planning Circular 3/91 which talks about "the more fashionable features of the 19th Century found in the isolated larger house, form a visual impact which is established and

• familiar in the Manx countryside". It goes on, "These features, given sensitive and restrained application, could, with advantage, be used in certain circumstances today. They should, however, be limited to the larger house standing in its own grounds".
• 2.5 The applicant also refers to the Strategic Plan, particularly the introduction to the residential section which explains that the principal aim of the Government's housing policy is to ensure that sufficient housing to appropriate standards is available to meet demand.
• 2.6 They suggest that the development will not be visible from Colby Glen Road.
• 2.7 The applicant has provided a Tree Survey prepared by a qualified arborist who describes the site as having suffered from the trees not being managed and as such, many of the trees are competing and struggling for light. He identifies a number of trees which should be thinned and a number whose loss would not be opposed due to their quality or structural condition. A small number of cherries, Cupressocyparis and two beech are identified as of category B quality: the two beech are within the proposed line of the new access and would have to be removed. PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY

3.1 The site lies partly within an area on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 which is identified as residential - the residential curtilage of Arbory House which lies to the south of the access: the remainder of the application site lies within an area not designated for development. The residential designation includes the two dwellings to the south of the application site - Holly Bank and Ballakelly but excludes the dwelling to the east of these - Middle Field. - 3.2 The site which is the subject of this application was put forward in the call for sites in the Area Plan process but was rejected by the Department for the reason that, "Development would be contrary to this policy and those which direct development towards existing settlements - the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policy 1, 2, 10, Spatial Policies 2 and 5 and Housing Policy 4". PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The house has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations and extensions and for the conversion of what were formerly two dwellings into a single dwelling. Planning approval was refused for the principle of three dwellings on the application site under PA 02/01926/A. The reason for refusal was that the site was not designated for development and also that as a consequence of the road alignment it is not possible to provide acceptable sight lines within the limitations of the site, and therefore the development would be contrary to the interests of road safety. - 4.2 Planning approval is also currently being sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling across the road at Thie ny Chibbyr which is also in the applicant's ownership (PA 15/00678/A) as is Avistine. REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 There are representations from local residents from the following properties:

Nhee Aalin (formerly Horizon House) (15.07.15, 22.07.15 27.07.15, 05.11.15) Middlefield (10.07.15, 17.07.15, 24.07.15, 05.11.15) Reayrt Aalin (17.07.15, 23.07.15, 01.11.15) Ballakelly (13.07.15, 02.11.15)

5.2 These parties all object to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development on the relatively recently approved Area Plan for the South, development would result in an unsafe access with additional traffic generated and there are concerns raised about the proposals for dealing with sewage from the site - why the development is not to be connected to the main sewer - as well as surface water, and the loss of a number of trees which would be perceivable from the public highway. Reference is also made by some parties to objections which

• were previously made by the applicant to proposals for development in the area and the fact that development has been refused here in the past and earlier applications which were refused here as well as concern for other areas of infrastructure - schools, Government spending on additional population demands and whether there is a need for further housing. Some parties feel they will be overlooked and their amenities compromised by the development and that the value of their property will be adversely affected (which is not a material planning concern and on which basis alone an objector would not be afforded interested person status).
• 5.3 The owner of The Malt House, Bridge Street, Castletown (13.07.15) states that the site is not designated for development and as such, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of the Strategic Plan and should be refused.
• 5.4 Arbory Parish Commissioners object to the application as the site is not zoned for development and what is proposed cannot be considered minor infill (28.07.15).
• 5.5 DEFA Forestry have undertaken detailed consideration of the proposal and have liaised with the applicant to obtain more detailed information and the identification of trees which have amenity value and which should be retained (25.06.15, 20.08.15). Their view is that the proposed driveway runs through a stand of principally early mature spruce trees which are currently unmanaged and most of these trees are not of high quality although collectively they contribute to the amenity of the area. They do not object to the removal of several of these trees and whilst the root protection areas of other trees which are not to be removed would be affected, he does not object to the removal of these either, perhaps with the introduction of new attractive semi-mature trees to flank the new driveway which would improve the appearance of the area in the longer term. As it is important to retain the greenery of the roadside adequate steps will need to be taken to ensure the root protection areas of the trees to be retained (numbers 133, 130, 129, 128, 127, 122, 121, 120, 110, 108) whilst the roadside wall is built which is possible.
• 5.6 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not object to the application (01.07.15) ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues in this case are whether the principle of development is acceptable here taking into account the land use designation of the land in the Area Plan and any other policies or material considerations which could over-ride this if the development is not acceptable in this respect. It is also relevant to consider whether the proposals for access, drainage and the visual impact of the changes in access and the erection of new buildings, are also acceptable. - 6.2 The land is not designated for development, has been rejected for development previously and was rejected for inclusion for development in the Area Plan. As such, there is very much a principal objection to the application. The supporting statement does not make any reference to the land use designation and as such does not make any suggestion why this should be overridden. Furthermore, whilst reference is made to Policy 8 of Planning Circular 3/91 which provides advice on the design of residential development in the countryside, this clearly points towards single dwellings in their own grounds whereas this application proposes a small estate of three dwellings in addition to Arbory House. Whilst the design approach advocated in 3/91 may be useful to take into account, it was clearly referring to individual houses, which is not proposed here. - 6.3 Whilst the visual impact of the development may be limited due to existing vegetation, the overriding aim is to promote sustainable development and in this respect, the Area Plan has judged that the settlement boundary of Colby does not extend any further north than the northern extent of Ballacriy Park, some 500m to the north of the Main Road (A7). The application site sits a further 800m to the north of this. As such, the site is not considered to be sustainable and further development would result in a greater dependence of more people on the private motor car due to the distance from the properties to services and facilities. Whilst the Strategic Plan promotes choice in places to live, it is not being suggested by the applicant, nor is there any other evidence that

• there is a shortage of opportunities for housing in the South nor any particular lack of opportunities for living in existing properties outside existing settlements (both Avistine and Arbory House are currently advertised for sale).
• 6.4 The creation of the new access will involve the removal of trees but these are conifers whose amenity value is not significant and to which there is no objection from the professional Forestry Office who also advise that the future of the trees to be retained which contribute to public amenity value, can be achieved with appropriate construction methods. Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have also indicated that the access is acceptable and as such, it is considered that there is no objection to the application on these grounds. Summary
• 6.5 The application is recommended for refusal as the site is outwith the area designated for residential use and as such what is proposed would extend built development and residential use into the countryside contrary to the aims of the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South. It is not considered that there are any reasons why the land use designation should be set aside, particularly in terms of prevailing need, considering that Avistine and Arbory House are currently available for sale, addressing any need in the category of large houses in their own grounds in this immediate area.

PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, in this case, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Forestry is within the same Department as the planning authority and as such cannot be afforded interested person status.

In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

In this instance, it is recommended that the owners of the following property have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

Nhee Aalin (formerly Horizon House) Middlefield Reayrt Aalin Ballakelly

In this instance, it is recommended that the owner of the following property do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13: it may be useful to explain why.

The Malt House, Castletown

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: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.10.2015

R 1. The introduction of new residential development on this site which is outside the area designated for residential use and development, would be contrary to the provisions of the Area Plan for the South and those which direct development towards existing settlements - the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policy 1, 2, 10, Spatial Policies 2 and 5 and Housing Policy 4.

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 : REFUSED Committee Meeting Date:…16.11.2015

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

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.