Loading document...
The application site comprises of a combination of the curtilage of a detached dwelling and adjoining field, which is located on Ballamenaugh Beg Road in Baldrine, Lonan. The site can be found at the northern end of Ballamenaugh Beg Road close to Baldrine Park Estate.
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of three dwellings on the application site. Whilst the application is only in principle the submission includes a site plan showing an illustrative layout for three dwellings.
I believe that the existing dwelling contained within the application site was built after the introduction of a formal planning system. However, I have been unable to locate an approval decision notice for the dwelling and, as such, cannot verify one of the objector’s claims (see representations) that the existing dwelling was erected as an agricultural workers dwelling. Having said that I have found that this existing dwelling has been the subject of three previous planning applications; approval was previously granted for the conversion of the garage into additional accommodation in 1992, the installation of patio doors in 2001 and an extension, a garage and new driveway in 2002. I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that all three of these applications were domestic in form and are not specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application.
Lonan Parish Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the land is designated for residential development and that the dimensions of the adjacent highway raises concerns regarding highway safety.
The Department of Transport Highways Division has advised that they consider there to be no adverse traffic impacts subject to the imposition of a condition relating to the provision of visibility sprays of 2.0 metres by 70 metres.
The Department of Transport Drainage Division has advised that they have no objection to the planning application subject to the development being connected to the public foul sewerage system.
The Isle of Man Water Authority make no comment on the specific merit of the planning application but request that an informative note is attached to any approval decision notice.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the land is not zoned for residential development and that the proposed development would extend the built up area of Baldrine.
The Friends of St Adammans Church object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the adjacent road is very important to visitors to the church, that an increase in traffic will cause difficulties for visitors to the church, that the setting of the church will be adversely affected by the proposed development, that if the agricultural workers dwelling is no longer required the land should be returned to agriculture and that the erection of one replacement dwelling would be acceptable.
The owners and/or occupants of Narradale, which neighbours the application site to the north, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the
land is not designated for residential development, that the majority of the application site comprises of agricultural land, that sewage arrangements are unknown and that the resultant increase in traffic is undesirable.
The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe, which is located in Braddan and a significant distance from the application site, advises that they support the planning application on the basis that they consider that the site already has a residential use, that the use is not over intensive and that adequate drainage and access arrangements can be provided.
The application site is located within the area covered by the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. Under Map No. 2 of the plan the application site is designated as being within an area of open space/agriculture use and is also within an area of high landscape value and scenic significance.
"Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general."
In addition to the above, the Department’s general policy on residential development in the countryside is set out by Planning Circular 1/88 (Revised), Residential Development Houses in the Countryside.
"Land has been allocated for residential development as extensions of existing towns and villages to take advantage of existing infrastructure and services. The remaining areas of the Island are intended to remain substantially free from development."
"There is always a demand for houses in the countryside. Improved economic circumstances are likely to intensify this demand, but with the exception of housing to serve the needs of a viable agricultural holding it is the Department’s policy to discourage residential development in the countryside."
The planning circular continues on to identify the possibility for the erection of replacement dwellings. Such replacement is intended to be on a one to one basis and depends on the status of the existing dwelling. Paragraph 8 and 9 of the planning circular respectively state:
"There are already many dwellings in the countryside, built over the years, which are available in planning terms for those wanting to live in a rural location.
If a dwelling has retained its residential use, it may be legally occupied and any planning application for its refurbishment, extension or redevelopment will be considered in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 Development Plan Order.
Where a building’s residential use has been lost by abandonment any development thereof is likely to be discouraged.
The type of criteria to be considered in assessing whether residential use has been lost by abandonment are:
a) the structural condition and state of the building - could it be occupied? b) the period of non-use or other use; the usual minimum period of 10 years; c) any intervening or new use; often as an animal shelter, without permission; d) evidence of the intention to abandon: non-payment of rates, sealing of openings, etc."
and:
"Sympathetic treatment, alteration and redevelopment of dwellings in the countryside will generally be accepted as the gradual decay and dilapidation of such buildings would clearly be detrimental to the rural amenities. The Planning Committee will examine with particular care any proposal involving a significant increase in size and applications which create a detrimental visual impact, or which would lead to a loss of traditional character, will be discouraged."
Before setting out my assessment I feel that I must respond to the statement made in response to question 16 of the submitted application form, which states that I provided pre-application advice. Whilst I did meet someone on site a number of months ago those discussions related to the possibility of extending the existing dwelling or erecting a new dwelling to replace it. At that time, and at no time during the intervening period, have I discussed the possibility of erecting three dwellings on the application site.
In terms of assessing the development proposed by this planning application I would suggest that the key issue to examine is planning policy.
Fundamentally, the application site is not designated for residential development and represents a combination of the curtilage of a dwelling within the countryside and an area of countryside. As set out within the planning policy section of this report both local plan policy and general planning policy sets out a general presumption against residential development in the countryside. There are clearly no exceptional circumstances to warrant setting aside this well established presumption against residential development in the countryside.
The proposed development is clearly contrary to planning policy and I therefore recommend that the planning application be refused.
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The planning application is unacceptable by reason that it is contrary to the established presumption against residential development in the countryside. In this particular instance the presumption is reinforced in three ways:
i) The proposed development of three dwellings on the application site is contrary to its designation under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005, which designates the application site as being within a) an area of open space/agriculture use and b) an area of high landscape value and scenic significance. The application site is not designated for residential development; ii) The proposed development is contrary to policy L/RES/PR/1 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005, which states that residential development will generally only be approved in areas designated as proposed or existing residential use; and iii) The proposed development of three dwellings to replace one existing dwelling and to extend into the adjacent countryside is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 1/88 (Revised), Residential Development – Houses in the Countryside, which sets out a general presumption against residential development in the countryside.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made: Refused Date: 31/5/06
Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown