Loading document...
The application site represents a parcel of land adjacent to Allandale Farm, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The property is located on the northern side of Ballamanagh Road and south of the Sulby Bridge. Presently there is a total of three detached buildings within the site, all of which are in a poor state of repair.
The application site is within the area covered by the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998. Under this, the application site is recognised as being within an area of open space (including agriculture). Under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 the site is also within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
Relevant policies include:
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Reserved Matters application for the erection of a detached dwelling - 08/02096/REM - REFUSED on appeal on the following grounds:- "1. The dwelling would be sited unsatisfactorily close to the fence at the rear of the plot, resulting in a cramped appearance and inadequate amenity space.
Reserved Matters application to erect a dwelling - 08/00326/REM - REFUSED on appeal on the following grounds:- "The details of reserved matters for which approval is sought would not be satisfactory, particularly in respect of siting, design, internal layout and landscaping."
Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - 07/00375/A - APPROVED
PROPOSAL The application seeks approval of the matters that were reserved from approved application 07/00375/A. It proposes the erection of a detached dwelling which would have a width of 20.8 metres, a depth of 19 metres and a height up to ridge level of 6.2 metres.
The previously refused dwelling had the same dimensions as proposed in this new application, whilst the application previous to that (08/00326/REM) had a proposed width of 23 metres, a maximum depth of 21 metres and a height up to ridge level of 8 metres.
Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended a refusal on the following ground:- "Over development of site, questions raised concerning drainage and the use of a klargester." Highways Division have objected to the application on the following grounds:- "Visibility splays are not shown at the point of access for this de-restricted road. (minimum) are required. Splays shall be kept clear of any object, vegetation, or other obstructions of a height exceeding 1.05 m above the land of the adjacent carriageway."
The Drainage Division initially had an objection, however after consultation with the applicant they clarified the concern and now have no objection to the proposal. The applicant will require Land Drainage Consent for his connections; therefore the Division can verify the works required to be undertaken.
The owners and/or occupants of 36 Carrick Park, Sulby, object to the planning application, which can be summarised as; still appears too large, highway safety concerns; greatest concern with septic tank being installed; and drainage issues relating to the high water table in the area and proposal would add to the problem.
The owners and/or occupants of Nonnezoshe, Ballamanaugh Close, Sulby, object to the planning application, which can be summarised as, "the proposal is two storey, there would be a loss of privacy through overlooking; out of keeping; drainage issues; dwelling is sited too far from the access road; and a covenant restricting all outbuildings from commercial use on the estate."
The owner/occupier of Strooanane, Ballamanaugh Close, Sulby, has objected to the application which can be summarised as, "lack of landscaping; entrance is still too large; the size of the proposal is out of keeping with the area; loss of privacy; A bungalow owned by the DHSS in Ramsey accommodating 4 disabled persons and their carers exists, which confirms how inappropriate the size of this proposed dwelling is; septic tank sewerage will give rise to a serious risk for contaminating the streams; the land has previously been contaminated; and impact upon amenities."
The owners and/or occupants of Allandale Farm, Ballamanaugh Road, Sulby, object to the planning application, which can be summarised as, "drainage concerns; what trees are to be planted; and concerns of directly adjacent residential use next to their working farm."
The MHK for Ayre Mr W E Teare has concerns with the application which can be summarised as, "the retention of the Tholtan should not be allowed; the scale and mass of the building is out of keeping; and drainage concerns."
The proposal is a unique application as the previous Approval in Principle gave permission for a new dwelling located within "Open Space", which is against Planning Policy generally. The only exceptions for new dwellings in open space normally, are replacement dwellings, which allow the replacement to be no more than of the existing footprint, or dwellings for agricultural workers who have justified and proven the need. However, the principle for development has been approved on this site, and therefore this proposal will be judged on the Reserved Matters of the application only.
It is important to note at this stage that the application is in direct response to the previous appeal statement by the Minister, following comments by the Appeal Inspector. The previous Inspector recommended an approval subject to a number of conditions. However the Minister considered that course of action was unsatisfactory and therefore the previous application was refused for the three reasons indicated within the history section of this report.
Whilst these reasons need careful consideration, the impact upon the size and design of the dwelling, impacts upon residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, highway issues, drainage issues and landscaping also need consideration.
Size, siting and design of the dwelling. Whilst the site is within an area of land zoned as open space, the site is situated within the vicinity of Sulby Village, particularly to the housing estates to the north of the site. These dwellings are made up of a variety of different types and designs, which include single bungalows within Ballamanaugh Close and Carrick Park together with dormer bungalows and two storey dwellings.
There are considered to be two principal issues to consider in relation to the size of the proposed accommodation. Firstly whether it is reasonable to require the applicant to justify the level of accommodation proposed (and if so whether they have done this); and secondly to consider the impact of the proposed development on the character of the locality, it's visual and other amenities.
With regard to the first question, the Inspector who considered the earlier reserved matters application (08/00326/REM) noted that, most unusually, approval had been given in principle on the basis of the personal circumstances of the family for development that would not normally have been approved. He noted that the approval in principle contained a condition that only permits occupation by the applicants and their dependants. In the reserved matters scheme that was refused, some of the accommodation proposed was identified as being for a carer. The inspector identified that such a person would not be permitted to occupy the dwelling (being neither the applicant or their dependants). This formed one aspect of the Inspector's view that the accommodation proposed was of excessive scale. The accommodation now proposed does not identify any of the bedrooms as being intended for occupation by a carer and the number of bedrooms identified has reduced from seven, as originally proposed, to six in the current scheme (albeit that some would lend themselves to subdivision). The Inspector also had a broader objection to the scale of what was proposed in the earlier reserved matters application. Among other objections he felt that the provision of four bathrooms on the first floor along with a landing area of approximately 50 square metres was excessive. He concluded that "there is a public interest in ensuring that what might be perceived as unfair advantage is not taken of the situation, when considering approval of a permanent building which would continue to exist long after the family's current circumstances have changed." It is considered, bearing in mind the fact that approval in principle was granted on the basis of the personal circumstances put forward by the applicants at that time, in a location that would not normally have been considered for residential development, that the applicants should be required to justify the scale of the dwelling they propose in terms of meeting their personal needs. The applicants have not done this, however it is understood that the family has a total of five children which would suggest that six bedrooms would be a reasonable requirement, and although the overall scale of the property is large, it is not considered to be unreasonably so for a family of this size. It is considered therefore that the scale now proposed is not objectionable in principle.
The dwelling is of a substantial size, but due to the reduction in the height, the amount of accommodation which can be provided within the roof space is reduced. Although there is an increase in the ground floor footprint compared to the previous application (08/00326/REM) it is considered that the proposal would fit well within the site and would not represent an overdevelopment of this particular site.
The proposed footprint would be larger than neighbouring dwellings within the surrounding locality (Carrick Park \& Ballamanagh Close). However, the curtilage of the site is substantially larger than any
of the neighbouring properties, and from viewing aerial plans of the surrounding area; the application site would still have far less built development density, compared to the neighbouring sites.
The proposal, due to its design, does help in reducing the massing and appearance of the dwelling. Additionally, the style and appearance would be in keeping with the neighbouring properties within Carrick Park \& Ballamanagh Close.
It should also be noted that the Appeals Inspector for the previous application (same sized dwelling) did not raise any concerns with the design or size of the dwelling and therefore it is considered, as before, the proposal would be acceptable in terms of design and size.
The general siting of the dwelling was determined at the approval in principle stage when a condition was attached which stated; "This permission is for residential use of land extending to no more than of the depth of the land shown on the submitted plan".
The proposed location of the dwelling has altered compared to the last application when the Inspector commented that the dwelling should be a minimum of 8 metres from the rear boundary of the site. This has now been proposed, (the proposed previous dwelling was sited 3 / 4 metres from the boundary). Overall, it is now considered the proposal, being 8 metres from the paddock boundary, would provide adequate rear garden amenity for a dwelling of this size, and overcome the first reason for refusal.
Impact upon residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. The boundary treatment which runs along the north-eastern boundary of the application site, and is shared by the neighbouring dwellings Strooanane, Nonnezoshe and Argyll, comprises a number mature trees and mature hedgerows/bushes which vary from 1.5 metres to 3 metres in height (approximately). The applicant does not intend to alter the existing landscaping along the northeastern boundary of the site.
The north-eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 23 metres from the rear elevation of Nonnezoshe and 21.5 metres from Strooanane. Additionally, the proposed dwelling is located to the south west of the neighbouring properties; therefore the orientation of this property will not reduce a significant amount of direct sunlight to the neighbouring properties.
The height and design of the proposal, and distance between the proposal and neighbouring dwellings, would also reduce any impact upon the neighbouring properties, and it is not considered it would have an overbearing impact upon the adjacent properties. The previous Inspector commented that:- "Allowing for the distance from Strooanane, for the single-storey eaves height of the proposed dwelling, for its location, and for the fact that the roof of the dwelling would slope at a fairly low pitch away from Strooanane, any visual impact on occupiers of Strooanane would be negligible or minor." The previous Inspector also stated that:- "There would be only ground floor windows in the north-east elevation of the proposed dwelling and the existing boundary screen would prevent any loss of privacy."
Regarding the possibility of overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy, there are only ground floor windows which would look directly towards the neighbouring properties. These windows are not required to have obscure glazing, due to the existing boundary treatment of the site, which provides adequate natural screening. This would prevent overlooking of the neighbouring properties of Ballamanaugh Close. The neighbouring property Allandale Farm is approximately 48 metres south east of the proposed dwelling, and it is considered due to this distance, that the proposal would not have any adverse impact through overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy. Additionally, a barn has recently been erected which is sited in a position which would block the majority, if not all, of Allandale Farm when viewed from the proposed dwelling.
Highway issues As part of the previous approval, conditions were attached which required 2 metres by 18 metres visibility splays, on-site parking provision and a turning facility to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
The Highway Division have now objected stating they require visibility. This is contrary to the previous four planning applications and differs from the condition attached within the approval in principle application for visibility splays of . As this is a Reserved Matters application the proposal is required to comply with the attached conditions of the approval in principle. Given this attached condition and the previous comments by the Highway Division, it is considered unreasonable to require and therefore visibility of should be allowed.
The proposed application can provide such facilities and therefore comply with these conditions. The previous Planning Inspector (08/00326/REM), had concerns about the size of the access driveway, and considered it a supplementary objection, due to "over-large radii" resulting in a "bellmouth" about 32 metres wide along the road. The last application proposed reducing the width of the "bellmouth" to 17 metres. This was still raised as a concern and was the third reason for refusal. The "bellmouth" has now been reduced to 10 metres in width.
Additionally, the last application 08/2096/REM the Inspector stated; "The visibility splay would have a set-back distance into the drive of about 10 metres - more than twice the standard normally appropriate for commercial developments likely to generate large amounts of traffic."
The applicant has now significantly reduced the overall size of the entrance to the site, and now proposes a more appropriate sized entrance for a single residential property. It is considered this new proposed scheme overcomes the third reason for refusal.
The Planning Inspector (07/00375/A) commented on concerns of flooding within his report which stated; "I have noted concerns relating to flooding in the area. The Drainage Authority has not objected to the development, even though they appear to be aware of the problems in the area. In my view these matters are amenable to controls other than planning, and therefore no objection arises for this development".
Additionally the Planning Inspector who considered the previous reserved matters application (08/00326/REM) stated; "There may be some drainage problems in the vicinity of the site but from the available evidence, I do not see compelling reasons to refuse approval on drainage grounds."
The Drainage Division who initially objected, have since discussed with the applicant their concerns and consequently have now agreed a solution and have no objection to the proposal.
It is therefore considered that the applicant is aware of the drainage requirements, and appropriate drainage details will be required to comply with the relevant Building Regulations.
A previous reason for refusal related to the details of the landscaping. The applicants now proposes new hedge lines along the northwest, southeast and south-western boundary of "Griselinia Littoralis" planted at 0.5 metre centres.
The north-eastern boundary comprises of a number mature trees and mature hedgerows/bushes which vary from 1.5 metres to 3 metres in height (approximately). All these are to be retained.
Overall, it is considered the landscaping treatment would be appropriate in this location, although some slight realignment of the hedging will be required to provide the required visibility splays. This is a very minor alteration and easily achievable.
In conclusion the proposed landscaping treatment would overcome the second reason for refusal.
Tholtan restoration/demolition The Planning Committee approved the last application, but attached a condition that the tholtan should be removed prior to the commencement of the proposed dwelling. This was due to comments made by the previous Appeal Inspectors.
The applicants decided to appeal this condition and therefore the appeal for the last application also considered whether the tholtan should be demolished.
The previous Appeals Inspector stated:- "I now turn to the issue of retaining or demolishing the old "Tholtan" building. A new factor is the presence of the barn-type building to the south-west which is a quite dominant feature. Taking into account the visual impact of this new building, I now consider that it would be acceptable to retain the single storey Tholtan building in the front part of the appeal site, provided that all the other structures were removed. Any material change of use involving the use of the Tholtan building for commercial purposes, or for any other purpose materially different to, or not incidental or ancillary to the residential occupation of the proposed dwelling, would require planning approval, and I have to assume that this restriction would be properly enforced."
Further to this the Inspector recommended a condition which stated:- "The Tholtan building shall be restored, in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, within a period of four years from the date of first occupation of the approved drawings."
The Minister refused the application and therefore the condition was not attached to an approval. However, within the Ministers appeal letter, he stated that; "Any further application should include complete information which addresses not only the reasons for refusal, but also the removal of structures and, if it is be retained, details of the restoration of the Tholtan for purposes incidental or ancillary to the residential use of the new dwelling."
The applicants have indicated within the submitted plans that the existing Tholtan is proposed to be restored and used for storage and stabling ancillary to the new dwelling, but subject to a future application. No structural survey has been undertaken nor existing and proposed plans for the Tholtan have been provided within this submission.
This would seem to be contrary to what the Minister indicated within his appeal letter. However, it is important to consider whether such information can be considered at this stage. This application is a Reserved Matters application for a new dwelling, and follows the approval in principle for a new dwelling only. At no time within the approval in principle application was the restoration of the Tholtan included in the description of the proposed development. It would therefore seem such a deviation of the approval in principle application, that to considered such an issue would be inadmissible under planning procedure.
It is therefore considered a condition similar to that which the previous Planning Inspector indicated should be attached to this application.
Overall, it is considered the proposed dwelling is of an acceptable size in proportion to the whole site, whilst not having significant impacts upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, or upon the visual amenities of the surrounding locality. For these reasons the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown