Loading document...
Officer's Report</h2> <h3>THE SITE</h3> The site represents a piece of land which lies between an access lane which leads from Malew Road (A3) to Malew Football Club grounds and stadium and the southern part of a field which borders the steam railway line as it runs parallel with the Castletown Bypass (A5). The site has an existing dwelling to its west - Gardenfield - and a line of properties to the east all of which front onto Malew Road, together with greenhouse which sit on a smallholding immediately to the south east of the site.
PLANNING STATUSOn the Castletown Local Plan of 1991 the site is designated as Open Space/Agricultural with the residential properties to the east and west picked out as Residential. During the preparation of an Area Plan for Castletown, this site was proposed and accepted for residential development and in the draft Area Plan of 2001, which proceeded no further than a draft and was not the subject of a public inquiry, the site is designated as Residential and within the Written Statement there is a reference to the site and a development brief which states the following:
"Gardenfield (Area L)
The dwelling known as "Gardenfield" is located on the northern side of the By-Pass Road, with two small fields situated between the dwelling and the houses which front onto the western side of Malew Road. The revised Public Safety Zone for the airport
| Seacliffe Old Castletown Road Ballaveare Braddan | Interest expressed |
| Irwell 12 Malew Road Castletown Isle Of Man | Interest expressed |
crosses the southern part of the western field (nearest Gardenfield) and almost all of the eastern field (nearest to Malew Road). The site is very well screened from the By-Pass Road, and although the access lane onto Malew Road is poor it may be capable of improvement so as to accommodate any traffic generated by limited residential development. As such it is considered that the western field may be capable of accommodating two detached dwellings, each one single storey and set in generous gardens to reflect the character of Gardenfield.
i. a maximum of two single storey dwellings may be accommodated on the site, both of which must be located entirely outside the defined Airport Public Safety Zone (PSZ). The part of the site which lies within the PSZ may be used as garden space in associated with the two new units.
ii. Any proposed development of the site must include improvements to the access lane from Malew Road to the satisfaction of the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division".
Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan states the following "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality..."
The Strategic Plan also states at General Policy 2 that "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief".
Planning permission has been sought three times for the development of this site, following the publication of the draft Area Plan. PA 02/2133 proposed the principle of the erection of two dwellings on this site. This was refused at appeal where the Inspector made the following observations: "Given the stage of the Draft Local Plan, I have concluded that significant weight should be given to the proposal to designate the land for two dwellings..." but recommended that the application be refused for reasons relating to inadequate access to the site.
Another attempt was made to obtain permission for the principle of development of the site for two residential building plots under PA 04/0349 where access was to be onto the By-Pass Road via an existing field gate and across the railway line. This was refused again for reasons relating to access and the Inspector makes the following comments on the Local/Area Plan situation: "The appeal site lies within land presently designated agricultural open space on the currently adopted Castletown Local Plan (Circular 5/91). However, some 13 years has elapsed since this plan was adopted and therefore its importance has diminished with the passage of time and changing circumstance. The emerging plan for Castletown states that two single storey dwellings may be accommodated on the site outside the public safety zone but this is predicated on improvement of the access lane onto Malew Road. The emerging plan is still at a comparatively early stage in the review process and is still available for challenge in whole or in part at an Inquiry. On the other hand the Planning Committee decision not to grant approval in principle is grounded solely on the issue of the access and not the principle of the zoning or prematurity. It may be inferred, therefore that had the proposed development included a satisfactory access, it is likely that approval in principle would have been granted, albeit it subject maybe to conditions aimed at
protection of the public safety zone. Whilst Castletown Heritage submits that the proposed development is premature, the Society is not opposed to development of the lands in principle and its concerns relating to visual impact and airport safety are issues that would be addressed through the use of appropriate conditions and approval of the reserved matters. There is no argument here as there was at Cooil Road, Braddan (PA 02/0810) or Clay Head Road, Baldrine (PA 03/0640) that planning permission could prejudice the consideration of a significant issue at an Inquiry".
Since both of these decisions, planning permission has been granted for the principle of two single storey dwellings and widening of the access to the site under PA 06/1597. This permission required that the application for reserved matters must demonstrate parking for at least 2 vehicles per dwelling with turning facilities, visibility splays of 2m by 70m onto Malew Road, the lane between the site a Malew Road is widened and that no development should take place within the public safety zone. The applicant was advised to consult the Airport with respect to the PSZ.
Proposed now is the erection of three dwellings, all the same. Each is a dormer bungalow with 5 bedrooms and integral garage. The buildings will be finished in brick. Their footprints are similar in size to that of Gardenfield. All parts of the dwellings are outside the Public Safety Zone as demarcated on the draft Castletown Area Plan - in the case of the easternmost dwelling, the building touches the line. Each property will have its own access onto the lane which runs south east to Malew Road (A3). The access onto Malew Road will be improved in accordance with PA 06/0159 and if permission is forthcoming, this should be a Grampian-styled condition to require that this is undertaken in accordance with this permission prior to any works commencing on site.
Department of Transport Drainage Division recommend that conditions are attached to any permission, relating to mains sewerage and disposal of surface water.
A resident of Port Soderick objects to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development and whilst the draft plan made provision for such, this was not tested at a public inquiry and as such the development is premature.
The Manx Electricity Authority request that a note is attached relating to working practices around existing electricity supplies. The Isle of Man Water Authority request that a note is attached relating to the supply of water to the development. The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend consultation on fire precautions.
The occupant of Irwell requires that any works to provide the visibility splays are fully completed and that works to the surface of the lane do not adversely affect water flow to the properties round about.
The proposal should be considered in the light of the policies of the adopted land use document for the area which is the Castletown Local Plan. On this the site is not designated for development. However, whilst this is the only adopted plan for the area, reference should also be made to the draft Area Plan as this was clearly a material consideration in the previous planning applications in 2002 and 2004, leading up to the approval granted in 2006. In this there is a clearly defined development brief which allows for two dwellings "each one single storey and set in generous gardens to reflect the character of Gardenfield" (paragraph 5.58). The proposed development is for three
dwellings and each very close to the other, not reflecting the character of Gardenfield at all.
Reference to development briefs within local or Area plans is referred to in two recent appeal cases: PA 05/92421 proposed residential development of 12 dwellings in Ballakillowey where the development brief in the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan recommended 5. The Inspector concluded that "Persons buying houses in this area would have a reasonable expectation that the adopted Local Plan would govern the amount and type of development allowed on this site...I conclude that more weight must be put on the adopted Local Plan brief than any encouragement to increase densities that are in the emerging Strategic Plan, notwithstanding the Local Plan was adopted in 1999" (paragraph 37).
PA 06/1068 proposed residential development of 49 dwellings in Lonan where the Area Plan recommended 27. Here, the Inspector concluded "...an over-provision of 22 dwellings on a zoned site, so soon after adoption of the Area Plan, would lose the Plan's credibility for developers, local residents or the general public. I acknowledge that the Planning Committee may wish to ensure the best use is made of land but this should be within the context of the adopted Plan. I do not consider that the Area Plan contains this degree of flexibility" (paragraph 42).
In this case, the Plan which makes provision for the residential development of this site is not adopted, nor has it the benefit of a Public Inquiry. However, on the basis of this plan, planning permission was granted for the development of two dwellings on the site in accordance with the development brief. The development brief makes it clear that the environment of these two properties should be spacious and generous, like Gardenfield and, one may infer, not more like the denser development to the east, immediately alongside Malew Road. The proposed development is cramped by Gardenfield's standards and ill-conceived for the site in that the south-facing elevations looking out onto the long rear gardens accommodates mostly bedrooms and en-suite bathrooms with the patio doors serving a family room. The living rooms will be facing west and two of the three dwellings will be looking out towards the adjacent property which will be only around 6m away. The position of the easternmost house, so close to the PSZ does not allow for any extension of the property into the rear garden.
The inclusion of an additional property, over and above the two permitted in the approval in principle and the local plan, results in a cramped, unimaginative development with limited outlook and amenities for the occupants of the dwelling and no spacious or generous gardens to reflect the character of Gardenfield. The fact that all three dwellings are identical adds to the lack of attraction of the development. This would not appear to show any indication of the proposal having been designed with the character and identity of the surrounding area in terms of the density and layout of the development and the fact that they are all the same.
I have consulted the Airport who raise no objection to the proposal on the basis of the Public Safety Zone (see e-mail from the Airport Director dated 22nd August).
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupant of Irwell is alongside the defined site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The Isle of Man Water Authority, the Manx Electricity Authority and the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service are all concerned with working practices, servicing or matters which are the responsibility of the Building Regulations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupant of Port Soderick should not be afforded party status in this instance as he is not directly affected by the development.
Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Refused
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The development of three dwellings on this site would be contrary to the Development Brief included in the draft Castletown Plan (POLICY C/RES/P/18) which states that "a maximum of two single storey dwellings may be accommodated on the site" and also to the description of the development which would be permitted, as set out in paragraph 5.58 of the draft Area Plan and which states that the proposed dwellings should be "single storey and set in generous gardens to reflect the character of Gardenfield". The proposed development does not achieve this.
R 2. The inclusion of an additional property, over and above the two permitted in the approval in principle and the local plan, results in a cramped, unimaginative development with limited outlook and amenities for the occupants of the dwelling and no spacious or generous gardens to reflect the character of Gardenfield. The fact that all three dwellings are identical adds to the lack of attraction of the development. This would not appear to show any indication of the proposal having been designed with the character and identity of the surrounding area in terms of the density and layout of the development and the fact that they are all the same, contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown