Loading document...
The application site comprises the curtilage of a detached dwelling, and associated adjacent fields, which is located in the Richmond Hill area of Braddan. The application site is accessed via a shared lane that leads off the Castletown Road.
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a two storey building, to replace an existing part single storey part two storey outbuilding, to serve as ancillary accommodation to the existing dwelling.
There have been no previous planning applications relating to the application site that I consider to be relevant to the assessment of this current planning application.
Braddan Parish Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved. Their view is made on the basis that whilst accepting that the proposal is contrary to planning policy they consider there to be no detrimental impacts arising from the proposed development. If approved they recommend conditions relating to design and controlling the use as ancillary accommodation.
The Isle of Man Water Authority makes no comment on the specific merit of the planning application but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment advise that they have no objection on the basis that the existing outbuildings are awful, the use could be tied to the dwelling by condition and precedent has been set elsewhere.
The application site is located within the area covered by the Braddan Parish District Plan. Under accompanying map no. 3 (south) the application site is designated as being within an area of woodland, which is surrounded by open space (agricultural).
Planning Circular 6/91 forms the written statement to be read in conjunction with the Braddan Parish District Plan. Policy 5.8 of the written statement states:
> “Residential development in the countryside has been the subject of Planning Circulars: > i) No. 1/88 (Revised) Residential Development – Houses in the Countryside > ii) No. 3/88 New Agricultural Dwellings > iii) No. 3/89 Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside > iv) No. 8/89 Low Density Housing in Parkland > v) No. 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside. This is a separate publication in its own right.
> The foregoing set out in detail the policy of the Department with regard to residential development in the countryside and as such must be respected. These circulars comprise appendices nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to this document.”
As highlighted within Policy 5.8 of Planning Circular 6/91 the Department’s stance and guidance on development such as proposed by this current planning application is set out by Planning Circular 1/88 (Revised), Residential Development Houses in the Countryside. Paragraph 3 of this planning circular states that:
> “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.”
Paragraph 6 of planning circular continues onto to state that:
> “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 application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a two-storey detached building to provide ancillary accommodation within the application site. The proposed building is intended to replace an existing outbuilding contained within the application site. This existing outbuilding is an unattractive structure with little to merit its retention.
Prior to setting out my assessment I feel that it is necessary to state that I do not understand the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment's apparent reference to planning application 05/1239. This particular planning application, which sought approval in principle to demolish a building within the curtilage of a dwelling in Maughold and erect a new dwelling, was refused. Furthermore, I cannot think of any recent planning applications for developments similar to that proposed by this current planning application that have been approved and could be cited as precedent.
Turning to my assessment, I would suggest that as this planning application seeks approval in principle any assessment is primarily concerned with the examination of the proposal against local plan policy and general planning policy.
Fundamentally, there is a long established presumption against new build residential development in the countryside. As identified earlier, within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in three different ways. Firstly, the application site is not zoned for residential development under the Braddan Parish District Plan. Secondly, the proposal is contrary to Policy 5.8 of Planning Circular 6/91. Thirdly, Planning Circular 1/88 sets out a general presumption against new residential development in the countryside, unless needed to serve the needs of a viable agricultural holding. As the proposed dwelling is not needed to serve a viable agricultural holding there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against. The development proposed by this planning application is clearly contrary to all three of these ways.
It could be argued, and I would suspect that the applicant's believe, that there is a benefit to be gained from the demolition of the existing outbuildings. I would agree that these outbuildings are particularly unattractive structures but that is not reason in itself to set against the well established presumption against new build residential development in the countryside. Whilst it is referred to as ancillary accommodation the proposal would effectively be a new dwelling in the countryside, with consequential traffic movements, inevitable domestic clutter and potential future conflict with the residential amenity of the existing dwelling. Indeed, I think that it is pertinent to note that the submitted illustrative drawing shows the footprint of a two storey building that is larger than the dwelling it is supposed to be ancillary to. If approved I consider the scope for setting a precedent is significant and is undesirable as this would undermine the protection of the countryside.
In conclusion, I would summarise that the application site is not zoned for the proposed development and that the proposal is contrary to both established general planning policy and local plan policy. Accordingly, I 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:
Braddan Parish Commissioners Isle of Man Water Authority
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 be afforded interested party status:
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 03.04.2006
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The planning application, which effectively constitutes the erection of a new dwelling, is deemed unacceptable by reason that:
a) the proposed development is contrary to the zoning of the application site under Braddan Parish District Local Plan map no. 3 (South), which designates the application site as being outside of an area designated for residential development; b) the proposed development is contrary to Policy 5.8 of Planning Circular 6/91; and c) the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 1/88 (Revised) – Residential Development – Houses in the Countryside, which sets out a general presumption against new 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: 03.04.2006
Signed: [Signature]
M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown