Planning Committee Statement Plot 20

The principle of development here in view of the flood risk 20) The matter of flood risk has been dealt with in PA 02/0712 and it was resolved in that application that provided the flood risk and mitigation measures shown in the submission are undertaken, the residential development is acceptable and the Inspector’s comments at his paragraphs 119, 120, 129, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139 are particularly relevant in this respect. It is not appropriate to re-consider this aspect in respect of applications for individual plots within the estate. ## Prematurity pending full resolution of the flood mitigation measures 21) The matter of the flooding of this site and land in the vicinity of the site was dealt with in considerable detail in PA 02/0712. Indeed the approved drawings listed in condition 2 include the flood risk assessment, drainage calculations and associated model and figures. Condition 7 requires that the bund, flood protection wall and flood alleviation and mitigation measures specified in conditions 2 and 6 are constructed on site following the clearance of the site and prior to the commencement of building works. Condition 19 requires that prior to the commencement of any building works further details of the bund and wall and surface water alleviation tank must be submitted for approval. None of these conditions state that whatever further details are required, these are submitted or approved prior to the submission of the house types and all these conditions, and more, have been reiterated in the approval of this proposed dwelling. 22) In the matter of prematurity, the Committee sought advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers to ensure that it was proper and correct to consider this application and others for individual plots, prior to the satisfaction of the various suspensive conditions attached to PA 02/0712. The advice received confirmed that it was indeed in order for the application and others, to be considered provided that, in advance of conditions of PA 02/0712 being satisfied, those same conditions are attached to any approval granted. This advice has been provided to Mr. Welsh who sought a copy thereof. 23) Whilst it may be that any of the suspensive conditions may not be satisfied, thus preventing some or all of the development from being implemented, this is a risk which the developer may quite properly take, should he so choose to do. ## Prematurity pending the extension of the main river designation (condition 6 of PA 02/0712) 24) Again, the advice obtained from the Attorney General’s Chambers, is repeated in respect of this objection and it is not accepted as a valid reason for refusal. It is understood that the Department of Transport is presently investigating the extension of the designation of the main river, to incorporate the flood alleviation and mitigation measures referred to in PA 02/0712 and a public inquiry was held to discuss this on 22nd September, 2005 and the outcome of this and Tynwald’s consideration is yet to come. Again, this matter may not be fully satisfied and, requiring the approval of Tynwald, is outwith the control of the Planning Committee. However, the applicant has chosen to take the risk of submitting applications for the development of individual plots, in advance of the resolution of these other matters but that is the choice of the applicant. ### The piecemeal approach in submitting individual applications for each of the 22 plots 25) Whilst the Planning Committee would agree that it is more time-consuming and perhaps inconvenient to consider twenty or more applications for the individual dwelling types, rather than one application for all of the dwellings, this cannot be a valid reason for refusal. The consideration of one proposal at a time allows for full consideration of each dwelling and its impact on not only existing dwellings round and about, but also those which will be proposed within the estate. Each of the dwellings proposed to date have conformed with the footprint of the dwellings shown in approved drawing 0210/PL01H and the Committee is not persuaded that the proposed dwelling would adversely affect or prejudice the development of any adjacent proposed plot. ### The adverse impact on adjacent property 26) It has been suggested by Mr. Henthorn in his letter of 31st March, 2005 that the proposed development would adversely affect his property although he does not expand any further on how the proposed development will do this. It is difficult to see how the development of this plot will affect "Randerston" (shown as 70a, Pine Grove) at all: there are proposed properties between his property and these and some considerable distance between. ### The size, style and quality of the proposed dwelling 27) The Department, in the 1982 Order encourages the inclusion of variety in residential estates. The Order also goes on at paragraph 11.2.b.iv to suggest that there should be a “sympathetic design of the external appearance of buildings or their appropriate quality and size”. In this case the size of the buildings is very much limited by the layout of the approved estate and the size and shape of the approved plots together with the requirement for the dwellings to be “generally of a single storey height”. As such, the opportunity for introducing a range of densities and dwelling types is very limited. However, the application for each of the dwellings which have been submitted to date show a slightly different approach to the size and shape of dwelling which have been approved under PA 02/0712. The property has a dormer which breaks up the expanse of roof and a timber-detailed porch canopy, together with the use of slate on the roof and the variety of styles of property, results in a dwelling which, in the view of the Planning Committee, satisfies the general requirement for quality and style. 28) Comments have also been made regarding the decision of the Planning Committee to refuse permission for the development of part of the site for 10 dwellings – PA 04/2130, suggesting that this decision supports objections to the applications for the development of the various plots. This application proposed the residential development of part of the site without any provision for flood mitigation measures or any information on how and whether the proposed development would have any implications for flooding, relying simply on the fact that the area to be developed is outwith the flood risk area. This is a completely different application which, in the view of the Planning Committee should have had its own flood risk assessment – hence the reasons for refusal. It has no bearing on the applications for individual plots which rest on the infrastructure approved under PA 02/0712 and the conditions of which have been re-applied in this case. ### Conclusions 29) The site defined in this application has permission under PA 02/0712 as a residential building plot with guidance as to how the development should be accessed, drained and the phasing of the erection of the dwelling in conjunction with other elements of the scheme. The conditions of approval together with the nature of the layout which has been approved lead to very few matters being left to consider in terms of the detailed house types on each plot. The size of plot has been determined along with guidance on the height of the proposed building and if and where dormer windows are to be included. 30) Whilst the Committee is aware that there was a number of objections to the development of the estate, expressed in respect of PA 02/0712 and that those objectors still feel strongly that the development should not go ahead. However the fact remains that approval was granted for the layout of 22 plots, roads and sewers together with flood protection measures, and it should be reasonable to assume that if the Planning Authority is expected to enforce all conditions of that approval, it must follow that those who previously objected to the application PA 02/0712 must also accept the findings of the Inspector and the decision of the Minister in approving the layout of the development. 31) Some of the objections relate back to matters dealt with in PA 02/0712 and are not matters which can or should be considered in this proposal. Some objections relate to the validity of the timing of the consideration of the application. However it is not accepted that the applications for the individual plots, required by condition 12 of PA 02/0712, should be delayed pending the satisfaction of all the negatively-worded conditions. Legal advice which has been obtained confirms that this course of action is appropriate. 32) The existing buildings on the site are in a poor state of repair and presently appear to be being dismantled. The site is unsightly and is presently detrimental to those who live alongside the site and those who pass it. As such, it is perhaps not unreasonable that the applicant wishes to progress the detailed applications for the plots whilst at the same time progressing work on satisfying the various suspensive conditions of PA 02/0712, particularly assuming that the applications for the house types will be subject to challenge and take some time to be finalised. 33) The Planning Committee does not believe that there is a sustainable reason to refuse this application for the erection of a dwelling on this plot. As such the Planning Committee would recommend that the application is approved and the appeals are dismissed. This statement has been prepared on behalf of the Planning Committee by Miss S Corlett, Planning Officer Signed ... Date ...