Loading document...
Application No.: 21/00078/A Applicant: Mr & Mrs Nick Crowe Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling to determine siting and access Site Address: Field 210313 Land Adjacent To Ballakeenan Beg Jurby West Crossroads Jurby West Isle Of Man Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Site Visit: 09.02.2021 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.03.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposal is not within a named settlement in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and would encourage unsustainable use. Accordingly it is contrary to Spatial Policy 3 & 5; Strategic Policy 2 and 10. - R 2. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposal is considered to undermine General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. - R 3. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The creation of a new residential dwelling in an area not zoned for development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): East Nappin, Jurby West West Nappin Smithy, Jurby West
The Old Smithy,(Yn Chardee) Church Road Cornerways Cottage,Jurby West Ballamenagh Barn, Jurby Road Church View Cottage, Jurby West Ballakaneen Beg, Jurby West
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Olrig, Faaie Craine, Ballaugh; as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is a parcel of land, formerly identified as 210313 (then 0.79 acres) that is to the north of the highway and sits between two residential properties 'Cornerways 'to the south west and 'Ballakeenan Beg' to the north east. Opposite the site to the south west of the highway is 'Church View Cottage'. The A10 highway sits to the south east and Jurby church road to the south west. The area is characterised as Jurby West cross roads with dwellinghouses within 50m of the application site. To the northern boundary is agricultural field 210276 (6.38acres).
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the principle for the erection of a detached dwelling. The applicant seeks that only the 'Siting' and 'means of access' are to be considered as part of this application. - 2.2 The site plan shows an area in red measuring approx. 0.41 acre or 1644m2 and shows an indicative traditional two storey dwellinghouse with a pitched roof, and cat slide roof to the rear. The siting is set back from the edge of the highway to the south east and would measure approx. 12m x 12m (when scaled of the submitted drawings at 1/500 scale) with gardens surrounding on all sides. - 2.3 The proposed access is shown onto Jurby Church Road with parking to the south of the and rear of the proposed house for a minimum of three cars and space to turn a vehicle around to allow existing the site in a forward gear. The drawings indicate the access would involve the removal of the existing roadside hedging and previous vehicle access reinstated.
2.2 The application is accompanied with an 11 page planning statement from the applicants' agent that highlights;
2.3 The applicants have provided a personal letter to draw attention to their particular circumstances and reasons for applying which echoes elements of the agents details above but further emphasises;
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being within an area of 'white land' or not zoned for development; the site is within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not within a designated Conservation Area.
3.2 The north east part of the site is identified on the DoI's Flood map hub as partially within an area identified as being a flood risk from surface water as a high / medium likelihood. - 3.3 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 3.4 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.5 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.6 Spatial Policy 3 states: "The following villages are identified as Service Villages:
3.7 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". - 3.8 The relevant parts of General Policy 3 state; "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
3.9 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. - 3.10 Environment Policy 2: 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:
3.11 Environment Policy 10: 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. - 3.12 Housing Policy 4 states; "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:
3.13 The strategic plan gives guidance on the interpretation of; "Infill development(1)" (in the sense of filling a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage) may be acceptable in built up areas, but the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements. - 3.14 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 3.15 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
4.1 07/02333/REM - Field 210313 Adjacent To Cornerways - Reserved matters application for the erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling. APPROVED with conditions;
4.2 06/01565/A - Field 210313 Adjacent To Cornerways - Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling. Refused but APPROVED at appeal.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full representations can be read online)
5.1 Jurby Parish Commissioners Commented (09/02/21) object as they consider this to be overdevelopment of a limited green space; conflicts with highway useage on the A10 and a dangerous corner due to vehicle speeds; There is no known access on site; there are alternative sites for 21 dwellings being proposed by government and better relates to the built up area of Jurby as an alternative. - 5.2 Highways Services have commented (05/02/21) with no objection and provides explanatory commentary on the existing access configuration, and the visibility splay at the highway is acceptable in each direction. They also list five conditions to attached to any approval. - 5.3 Flood Risk planning department commented (09/03/21) with no objection. - 5.4 The department has received a number of objections from the following properties that have been listed and numbered as they appear online for ease of reference;
5.5 Their reasons for objecting have been thematically listed below;
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the 1982 Development plan, the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled. The site sits outside of what could be considered the Jurby Village approx. 1km to the north east. Whilst the agents claims that this land is the garden to a residential dwelling 'Ballakeenan Beg' and by proxy is not a field or agricultural but zoned residential, the department would disagree. As noted by planning condition 3 of 07/02333/REM (para 4.1) the limitations of this dwellinghouse is for an agricultural worker and the severance of a proportion of the land to allow for a new residential dwellinghouse is not substantiated by the agents theory and the land designation is agricultural. This concludes the application is to be assessed for the creation of a new residential property in the countryside. - 6.3 In considering this application, Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 identify areas of development to be located, generally within existing towns and villages. It cannot be said that
6.6 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. General Policy 3, and Housing Policy 4 both identify potential exceptions for development within such areas. More specifically, both General Policy 3 (paragraphs a, b & d) and Housing Policy 4 identifies three potential circumstances where residential development may be allowed. Firstly, if there is an essential need for an agricultural workers dwelling (agricultural condition attached requiring the property to be used only by full time agricultural workers only, which is proven to be justified); second, conversion of existing rural properties (i.e. traditional Manx stone barn); and thirdly the replacement of an existing dwelling with a new dwelling. - 6.7 From the level of information supplied, the applicant is not an agricultural worker as was the case in allowing planning consent for ' Ballakeenan Beg' and I sympathise with the occupants physical demands on mobility, and the desire to create a bespoke interior layout to accommodate, not just their needs, but those of the supporting family. However, there is no policy that allows for such an exemption. (However if approval was to be recommended, this would be contrary to policy and would have to be considered by the planning committee). Nevertheless, turning to the level of objections received and the suitability of the site, on balance, it is not considered for there to be an exception to be made in this application to create a new residential development in the countryside and would be contrary to Gp3 and HP4.
6.8 It is perhaps important to also note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 where Environmental Policy 1 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and 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.
6.9 In consideration to any 'no reasonable and acceptable alternative' Isle of Man Government has submitted plan for a new residential development on land designated as residential, under planning application ref; 20/01516/B - Erection of 21 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, and amenities. Bretney Infill Housing Development Temp Site Supply, The Bretney, Jurby. Currently pending consideration. - 6.10 Also proposed is another planning application on land designated for development, Ref; 21/00278/OLA - Field 210401 , Ballagarraghyn, Bretney Road - Detailed planning application for residential development comprising 23No Dwellings with associated access, parking, open space and landscaping. Currently pending consideration. - 6.11 Either of those site described above would be closer to the applicants place of work and with adequate community facilities already in existence and being proposed would provide for a growing family and support network to facilitate their needs better as opposed to being situated in a more remote rural setting on land not designated for development. - 6.12 With regard to the pragmatic views that the sitte could be 'infill' between two existing dwelling houses within a small cluster of properties, guidance is taken from the strategic plan which gives guidance on the interpretation of; "Infill development(1)" as noted in para 3.13 of the this report. Here is places emphasis on "the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements". It is clear this green space offer a visible break in the rhythm of housing and whilst not within a built up area and a more rural setting, it would be difficult to consider the site suitable for infill on a policy basis. - 6.13 As the principle of the development fails to satisfy the test of EP 1 and 2 which set out the exceptional forms of development allowed in the Countryside, and there being no overriding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. The proposal is considered to undermine those policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and is contrary to Ep1 and 2.
6.14 The application seeks that all matters (design, external appearance of the building, internal layout, drainage, and landscaping of the site) to be determined at the any future Reserved Matters Application. The potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities, potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene; and potential amenities of future occupants of the dwelling; are all matters which would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application and specifically considered against those aspects of Gp2.
6.15 The application site already features an existing access and already serves a dwellinghouse at the top of the driveway. Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and as they do not object, the proposal would be aligned with the principles of Transport Policy 4 and 7.
6.16 From the public consultation there has been a number of comments received regarding flooding in the area and photographic evidence has been submitted an available to view online showing 'Ballakeenan Beg' underwater and also a statement from the occupier of said property confirming their property floods every year. Whilst the Flood Risk planning team do not object as noted in para 5.3, their own flood map shows the site is partial to flooding as noted in para.3.2 as 'being a flood risk from surface water as a high / medium likelihood'. On balance, whilst this issue has not been addressed by the applicants, it is pertinent to considered whether an additional dwelling here with hard surfaces and non-permeable surfaces, roofs and driveways would have an adverse impact. Judging from the information available, the proposal
can only exacerbate any possibility of flooding in an area already evidenced at risk of flooding and could not be supported as a site viable for development without significant mitigation measures, but this could then exacerbate the situation to the neighbouring properties which is unacceptable.
7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 23.03.2021 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown