Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00841/B Applicant: Mr William Reubens Proposal: Erection of a dwelling with driveway and parking (revised planning application for PA 14/00761/B) Site Address: Alderoaks Field 431505 St Marks Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr John Michael Gallagher Photo Taken: 21.08.2015 Site Visit: 21.08.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS PLANNING APPLICATION HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING CONTROL GIVEN THE PREVIOUS PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

THE SITE

• 1.1This site is a small field of around half a hectare located on the western side of the St. Mark's Road (A26) along a frontage of about 190m. The main existing access is opposite the junction with the Mullinaragher Road which leads east to Newtown. There is also a further entrance close to the southern end of the site The field has a number of structures on it, including a stable and greenhouse at the northern end of the site (see Planning History), with part of the site used for paddocks with livestock (sheep) in them. The field has sod hedges to the main road which have a variety of trees and shrubs on them, effectively screening what exists within the site.
• 1.2 The roadside boundary is characterised by a grassed hedge in which there are wild flowers, bushes and trees which all effectively screen the field behind. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the erection of a 5 bedroom L shaped dwelling on the southern half of the site (with two of the bedrooms having dual use as bedroom / dining room and bedroom / study). It would be single storey in height and with traditional features and proportions, set back about 10m from the road frontage. The design would be conventional, with the external walling being painted render and the roofing being in natural slate. The porch would have glazing above stone plinth walls. The property will have traditionally styled chimneys at each end of the roof, a frontage of almost 19m and a depth of 7.8m and a projecting rear annex which extends the depth of the property by a further 7m. The footprint of a traditional cottage as advocated in Planning Circular 3/91 is 11m by 5.5m. - 2.2 The northern part of the site will remain as existing, with the stable and greenhouse retained to the north of the access and two small paddocks in between. A new access is to be

• introduced to the south of the proposed dwelling about 20m from the southern end of the site, which provides visibility splays of 2.5m by 150m. This is provided by ensuring that nothing within the splay will be above 1m in height (with the drawings showing the retention of the grass verge and sod hedge with hawthorn bushes / trees planted upon it). A new driveway would run north from that new southern access across the front of the dwelling to parking and turning areas. The existing northern entrance will remain.
• 2.3 Aside from the change to the dual use of two rooms (as outlined above) and moving the drainage to the north of the proposed dwelling, the details of the design and layout are identical to the previous planning application submitted on this site (14/00761/B). However the applicant has provided a significant amount of new supporting information to accompany this planning application, covering in particular their exceptional circumstances in relation to:

• - Statement of need
• - Assessment of alternatives

2.4 However it should be noted that some of this information has been redacted and not made available in the public domain at the request of the applicant because it contained personal medical information. - 2.5 In addition, the supporting information also covers:

• - Housing allowed in other locations based on personal circumstances
• - How the application addresses the reasons for refusal of previous planning

application PA 14/00761/B Applicant's Statement of Need

2.6 The applicant is currently the father of a family of seven including himself and his wife, all of whom live in a three bedroomed public sector dwelling at Croit-e-Caley in Rushen. The children (2 girls and 3 boys) are currently aged 6, 8, 11, 15 and 17. The applicant states "the family is living in space which is far too cramped and overcrowded to enable them to live happily as a family and to enable the children to grow up in a relatively stress free environment." This statement is supported by a letter from a health visitor from the Department of Health & Social Care dated 8th May 2015 (which has been redacted and not made available in the public domain at the request of the applicant because it contained personal medical information). In addition further supporting information has been provided from the family's GP and Nobles Hospital (this has also been redacted and not made available in the public domain at the request of the applicant because it contained personal medical information), which indicate that due to Mr Reubens on-going medical condition "it would greatly aid the family if they could find a single storey house large enough for their needs". Assessment of Alternatives - 2.7 The Applicant has been in contact between April and June 2015 with the DOI Housing Division and DEFA Environmental Health Officers on a number of issues which have confirmed that the family have made a housing transfer application for a larger dwelling; and that under the Housing Act 1995, that the family are not statutorily deemed to be over-crowded . However the applicant has provided information claiming that they should be classed as overcrowded based on application of UK legislation and standards. - 2.8 As part of the submitted information, emails from the DOI Housing Division in June 2015, have confirmed that they do not have any single storey 4 bed dwellings (following an email request from the applicant's agent on 3rd June 2015 specifically on whether 'any of the 4 bedroom dwellings are single storey') nor on an Island wide basis do they have any 4 bedroom houses which are unoccupied at present. In addition the applicant indicates

• (without any supporting information) that they have not been offered any alternative public authority accommodation.
• 2.9 The applicant provides information on alternatives to social housing that have been considered. Due to the age of the children and the nature of the family business, the applicant has looked for suitable 3-4 bedroomed properties to buy in the south of the Island. However the applicant claims house prices coupled with the inability to obtain a mortgage due to Mr Reubens medical condition, mean that no suitable affordable properties are available (supported by an undated printout of a search on the internet property website PrimeLocation). In addition information is supplied (supported by an undated printout of a search on the internet property website - PrimeLocation) indicating that only 38 out of 213 properties recorded as available for rent have 4 or more bedrooms, the applicant states none of these is single story and that the prices are "completely out of the range of the Reubens Family". The Undated information is provided to demonstrate that no suitable land is available for sale that is affordable to the family. Examples of the families past experience dating back to 1999 in trying to obtain land to build a house are also cited.
• 2.10 The applicant cites that the family owned land at the application site is the only available option available to them, given the applicant's past experience of working the building trade which would allow the applicant to build the property himself. The potential for legal agreement to control occupation has been suggested, but no details of a draft legal agreement have been provided by the applicant. Housing allowed in other locations based on personal circumstances
• 2.11 The applicant provides information on two previous planning applications in different locations allowing housing in the countryside on the grounds of special needs - PA 07/00375/A Claddagh Road, Sulby and PA 10/01510/B Bishops Court Farm Michael. In addition 3 other applications are cited where development has been allowed on land not specifically allocated for development at Castletown (PA 14/00291/A), Port St Mary (PA 15/00118/B) and Newtown (PA12/00643/A).

How the application addresses the reasons for refusal of previous planning application PA 14/00761/B

2.12 Detailed submissions are made on how the current application addresses the reasons for the refusal of the previous application in relation to: the application of the Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the South; design of the access; and design of the dwelling. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as not designated for a particular purpose. - 3.2 As such the following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant:

Strategic Aim: "to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, giving particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."

• Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient

• use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
• 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".

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".

Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; b) make best use of public transport, c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and d) encourage pedestrian movement."

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, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11)
• c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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-dependant 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". 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."

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:

• (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."

3.3 The site falls within an area designated on the Landscape Character Assessment as Incised Inland Slopes and the Area Plan for the South states in this respect:

"Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14)

The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities.

Key Views Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons. Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views." PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning approval has been granted for the erection of loose boxes (PA 02/01950), a timber greenhouse (PA 06/01051) and refusal issued for a combined greenhouse and potting shed (PA 06/00537) and an agricultural building (PA 01/02516). Refusal was also issued in respect of approval in principle sought for a new dwelling - PA 07/01272. This was refused for the following reason:

"The erection of a dwelling on this site would represent an unwarranted development in the Island's countryside and would be contrary to both the land use provisions of the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Island Strategic Plan."

4.2 In August 2014, an application was refused in respect of the erection of a dwelling with driveway and parking - PA 14/00761/B. This was refused for the following reasons:

"1. Whilst the Department has considerable sympathy with the applicant's circumstances, it is not considered that the policies which protect the countryside from development, as set out in Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan should be set aside. The site is not designated for development nor within a sustainable location and as such the development would be contrary to the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy

• 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

• 2. Whilst the dwelling has been designed to be low level and as unobtrusive as possible, the creation of the access would result in a visual impact in itself which would be managed and domestic in appearance due to the need to maintain the height of the hedge lower than it is presently."

4.3 This refusal was then confirmed after a Planning Appeal, when the Minister for Infrastructure on 26th November 2014 refused it for the following reasons:

"1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development lies outside of areas that are zoned for development in the recently adopted area plan for the South and as such is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the strategic Plan which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations.

• 2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development does not fall within any of the listed exceptions to the restrictions on development outside areas zoned for development.
• 3. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 10 as defined by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposal by reason of its relatively remote location for access to services and facilities in settlements would be likely to result in reliance on private motor vehicles and as such would not promote a more integrated transport network." REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Mr Skelly MHK has written as a constituency MHK to support the planning application. In doing so he stated:

"Mr Reubens and his family are well known to me and I fully accept the reasoning by the officers to deny the original application. The strategic plan is quite clear about this type of development in the countryside. However, I do firmly believe that through the process a level of discretion needs to be considered due to the extenuating personal circumstances.

One of the main priorities of this government is protecting and now attempting to enable the vulnerable. Therefore providing adequate levels of social housing is important to maintain this principle. Clearly this vulnerable family are not being protected due to the limitations of our social housing."

5.2 Mr Skelly MHK then highlighted that

• - Ideally the Rubens would like to purchase a house on the open market but do not have the funds available. However, their situation is unique as this land is available within the family and they hold the necessary skills to build an affordable purpose built home.
• - Mr Ruebens has stated he would sign a clause and guarantee he and his family will live in the home for his entire life.
• - The design of the house has also been sensitive to the local environment to ensure minimal visual impact.
• - There are a few examples where personal circumstances have been sensitively considered and decisions against normal policy overruled and requests that the same approach is adopted in this case - citing examples where planning has granted permission on similar grounds for houses built in the countryside in Sulby (PA 10/01510/B) and Michael (PA 07/00375/A).

5.3 Finally Mr Skelly MHK, requested that the confidential letters from the Housing Authority and medical practitioner (submitted as part of application) are reviewed to help understand the extent of their need. - 5.4 The Department's Arboricultural Officer based within the Food & Agriculture - Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate has made the following comments: "I have looked at the plans and photographs for this application. The applicant seems not to envisage any substantial loss of trees on the site. In addition much of the vegetation is substandard and contributes little to visual amenity. If approved I would recommend protecting any existing lines of trees (e.g. to the rear of the sod bank) and on the northern perimeter against root damage by the erection of a suitable barrier (fence) to exclude construction machinery and prevent the storage of top soil around the bases of any trees." - 5.5 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not object subject to the following condition:

• "Visibility splays of 2.4 x 120 metres in both directions over land within the ownership of the application".
• 5.6 Malew Parish commissioners object to the application stating:

"The board, by a majority, objects to this proposal as the application is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that the proposed development is an area not zoned for development in the Southern Area Plan.

Also the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that the personal circumstances of an applicant is not listed as an exception to the restriction on development outside areas zoned for development. Whilst the Commissioners have sympathy for the applicant's personal circumstances, this application is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan".

5.7 No other representations have been received. ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.1 This site lies outside of areas zoned for development in the Area Plan for the South. It is in the open countryside, and so the principle of development is generally discouraged here, as with other locations in the countryside, as it is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the strategic plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations where residents are not dependent upon their private motor vehicles and also to promote social interaction and the support of local shops and services.

6.2 As such, the principle of the development of a residential dwelling on this site is contrary to the Strategic Plan, including Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3. The proposal does not satisfy any of the exceptions set out in General Policy

3 to the restrictions on development outside of areas zoned for development.

6.3 It is very clear that the proposal is contrary to the intentions of the Strategic Plan policies to protect the countryside and to direct new development to existing towns and villages and the proposals should not be supported. - 6.4 In assessing the application, it is also relevant to consider the physical impacts of the development and this relates to the visual impact of a dwelling on this site as proposed, the impact of the creation of satisfactory visibility splays to serve the access and also the acceptability of an access to serve a residential property on this site. If any of these aspects were considered to be unfavourable, these would be additional reasons for refusal. The absence of harm in any of these respects does not however dilute the presumption against development here. IMPACT ON VISUAL AMENITY - 6.5 Whilst the dimensions of the dwelling do not conform with the principles set out in Planning Circular 3/91 "Guide to Design of Residential Development in the Countryside", relating to proportion and form, the applicant has tried to reduce the impact of the dwelling by proposing a single storey dwelling and including traditional elements such as a slated roof, gabled end chimneys and vertically proportioned windows albeit with a disproportionately long frontage (18.9m compared with the recommended 11m) although the elevation facing

• towards the access is the gable and the frontage to the main road could be planted such that the actual front elevation would be screened from view which would also provide privacy for the occupants.
• 6.6 As such, it is considered that the visual impact of the proposal dwelling would itself not result in a prominent building.

IMPACT OF THE CREATION OF VISIBILITY SPLAY AND THE ACCEPTABILITY OF AN ACCESS TO SERVE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON THIS SITE

6.7 The existing hedge is significantly above 1m in height at present and comprises some well-established shrubs and trees which screen significant parts of the site from the roadside. The creation of the visibility splay would, however, alter the roadside frontage. The existing hedge would have to be altered such that all existing flowers, shrubs and trees would be removed if they interfere with the splay over a height of 1m. Also the maintenance of this would also introduce an element of domestication and tidiness which is not currently the case with the site. The design would significantly alter the rural character and appearance of the site. - 6.8 It would appear that it would be physically possible to create visibility splays which would comply with the requirements of the highway authority. EXCEPTIONAL PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES - 6.9 As with the Planning Inspector's consideration of the planning appeal in connection with the previous planning application (PA 14/00761/B), the main issue is whether there are other material considerations sufficient to outweigh the substantial conflicts with planning policy and the intentions that underlie that policy. - 6.10 The applicant's personal circumstances are very unfortunate and merit great sympathy. The Planning Inspector's consideration of the previous planning appeal acknowledged in paragraph 22 of his report: "his family are living in unacceptable and overcrowded conditions that are not conductive to the well -being of the appellant, his wife and his children, including with regard to the potential educational achievements of the children and their social development". - 6.11 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 applicant. As highlighted by the applicant, examples are available of where the Department has made exceptions for personal circumstances. However in such instances there were very clear medical reasons for such decisions - 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. - 6.12 In terms of the two previous applications where approval was granted on the ground of special needs, it is worth considering the circumstances behind those applications and their impacts. - 6.13 The first application, PA07/00375/A, was approved on appeal. In recommending approval, the Inspector noted that the land contained a number of unsightly non-agricultural buildings which would be removed; that the family had made efforts to find acceptable sites to meet their particular needs; that the illness suffered would result in a long term need and the house would serve that for several decades; and that the resulting development would become a part of a built up area, rather than an isolated development in the countryside,

• being an integral part of Sulby without significant harm to either the interests of sustainable development or the landscape.
• 6.14 In terms of the second application, PA10/01510/B. Approval was granted on recommendation of the Planning officer as the applicant's child suffered from a rare form of epilepsy (Dravet Syndrome) which meant that constant supervision was required and the applicants hoped to be located on the family farm so that the supervision could be shared amongst family members. Initially an application was refused because it proposed new development in the countryside. The Minister at that time expressed sympathy for the family's predicament but suggested they consider extension of the family's farmhouse or conversion of an existing farm building. Both of these options were explored but were found to be unsuitable. However, the later application proposed a dwelling nearer to existing buildings, the removal of an old disused cattle shed and the closing off of an unsafe access, thereby reducing its impact in the countryside. Consequently the impact of the application from a sustainability and visual amenity point of view was minimised.
• 6.15 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/A). In this instance the proposed development was within the existing built up area of Port Erin and whilst the site lay within an area designated on the local plan as residential and where there is usually a presumption in favour of residential development, the area in which the dwelling could be erected was so limited in size and outlook that there would be inadequate amenities in terms of outlook and privacy for the occupants of the dwelling. Furthermore, the outlook and privacy of the occupants of his parents' home would be adversely affected by the erection of a dwelling in the rear yard and neither property would be left with sufficient amenity space. This would appear to represent the type of back land development which is not encouraged by Environment Policy 42. At the time the Planning officers report noted that "..whilst every sympathy is with the applicant's circumstances and those of his family, it would not appear that this is a satisfactory solution to them." Subsequently this family 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).
• 6.16 Officers have reviewed the medical evidence provided with the application (including the redacted information) and can confirm that this verifies the applicant's statements about his medical condition. However the applicant has not in this case used the supporting evidence to explain and justify why the specific circumstances of his medical condition or space requirements for his family would require a single storey 5 bedroom house being built in the open countryside in this location. In this context, very limited weight can be given to the medical information submitted (including the redacted information) as there is no supporting explanation why the applicant's medical condition explicitly requires the size, form and design of proposed dwelling in this specific location, in the open countryside.
• 6.17 The applicant has made reference to other planning applications where development has been allowed on land not specifically allocated for development at Castletown (PA 14/00291/A) and Newtown (PA12/00643/A). In each of these cases there were no exceptional personal circumstances cited in support of the application and approvals were granted based on very different circumstances. PA 14/00291/A saw the granting after appeal of Approval in principle for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and redevelopment of plot to create a residential layout with associated services at Netherby near Castletown, in which the Minister recognised the relationship of the existing dwelling on the site with adjacent development and the 'green gap' between Castletown and the existing business park. PA12/00643/A saw the granting after appeal of Approval in principle for erection of dwelling and garage at Court Farm, Main Road, Santon and related to a site accepted as being within

• the existing settlement of Newtown and noted "...Nor do I consider that a granting of permission in this case would be seen as being 'ad-hoc' or that it would set a precedent for other applications. The particular circumstances and material considerations of this case are quite unique in my view and, in any case, any future applications for dwelling houses in the countryside or other similarly designated villages, would need to be assessed on their merits and in relation to the specific material planning considerations."
• 6.18 There are many instances in the Isle of Man where families are living in smaller dwellings and / or locations that do not meet their aspirations. Many of these families will be unable to meet these aspirations due to affordability and property availability constraints. However such situations are not unique and exceptional circumstances, which would justify allowing a new dwelling in the open countryside contrary to the provisions of the development plan.
• 6.19 Whilst there is great sympathy with the applicant's personal circumstances, which are very unfortunate, these personal circumstances do not outweigh the substantial conflicts with planning policy. With no change in circumstances or policy since the previous planning application and appeal was considered, the comments of the Planning Inspector in paragraph 22 of his report are still relevant "....However it must be borne in mind that the proposal comprises a dwelling of permanent construction which would likely to be present on this site long after personal circumstances that have been sited have ceased to exist or be relevant. Moreover although it has been argued that the family's circumstances are unique, a decision to allow this appeal would very likely to make it more difficult for the Planning Authority to resist other proposals for dwellings in the countryside in areas where it is argued that the families involved cannot afford to acquire housing on the open market and that their accommodation needs can only be met by allowing development outside of areas zoned for development. That could potentially lead to cumulative harm compounding the individual harm that this proposal would cause to the countryside."
• 6.20 The applicant has indicated that they would be prepared to enter into an appropriate agreement to ensure the land remains in the family ownership for the next 20 years, they have not supplied any substantial detail on what this agreement would be and how this would operate. Without any more detail this does not present any change in the situation with the previous application, when the Planning Inspectors Report noted at paragraph 23 - "It is a further concern that no mechanism exists to ensure that if approval were to be granted the dwelling would definitely be occupied and would definitely continue to be occupied, by the appellant and his family. It would not be possible to effectively control occupation by planning condition. While it might be possible to control occupation through a legal agreement or undertaking the appellant has not put forward any such document. Although it has been indicated that he would be prepared to enter into a covenant or guarantee, the onus in the planning application and appeal process for preparing such documents lies with the applicant /appellant, not with the Planning Authority. This appellant has not tabled any such document. There is no reason to doubt his intentions to occupy the dwelling himself are genuine, or the intentions of his father as site owner to make the land available only to the appellant, but the fact remains that if the appeal is allowed the approval that would be granted would be for a dwelling with no retained ability on the part of the Planning Authority to enforce that it must be occupied to meet the specific accommodation needs of the appellant and his family." The comments of the Planning Inspector remain relevant to this application. CONCLUSION
• 6.21 Whilst the Department has considerable sympathy with the applicant's circumstances, bearing in mind that the development proposed would result in a new building, where there is not one presently and also as there is no way of permanently ensuring that the applicant resides in the property (although it is fully understood that it is the applicant's intention to live there) and as a planning application has already been refused for a dwelling on this site, it is

not felt that the applicant's personal circumstances justify setting aside the policies in this case. The applicant's attempts to minimise the impact of the building are welcome, but do not override the policy objections. As such the application is recommended for refusal.

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 and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

7.2 In this context it is recommended that Malew Parish Commissioners, Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture - Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate and Department of Infrastructure Highway Services are granted interested party status. - 7.3 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. - 7.4 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13: Mr Skelly, MHK.

The Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate is part of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture as is the Planning Authority. As such, the Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

7.5 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: 01.09.2015

Reasons and Notes for Refusal

R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

• R 1. Whilst the Department has considerable sympathy with the applicant's circumstances, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development lies outside of areas that are zoned for development in the recently adopted Area Plan for the South and as such is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the Strategic Plan which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations.
• R 2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development does not fall within any of the listed exceptions to the restrictions on development outside areas zoned for development.
• R 3. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 10 as defined by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, in that the proposal by reason of its relatively remote location for access to services and facilities in settlements would be likely to result in reliance on private motor vehicles and as such would not promote a more integrated transport network.
• R 4. Whilst the dwelling has been designed to be low level and as unobtrusive as possible, the creation of the access would result in a visual impact in itself, which would be managed and domestic in appearance due to the need to maintain the height of the hedge lower than it is presently.

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 : ………REF……… Committee Meeting Date : ..21.09.2015 Signed :………M GALLAGHER….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO