-
Minutes of August 2011 Meeting
RUSHEN PARISH COMMISSIONERS
Meeting held at 7pm on Wednesday 17th August 2011 at Ballafesson Hall.
MINUTES
Present: Mr D Cain (Chairman), Mr P Vernon (Vice-Chairman), Mr A Tinkler,
Mr P Gunn.
Apologies: Mr D Radcliffe.
The Clerk, Mrs G Kelly was in attendance.
1. MINUTES:
The Minutes of the Meeting held Friday 15th July 2011, having previously been circulated, were taken as read. Mr Gunn asked for a correction to be made with regard to the Municipal Association report – this should read that Mr Graham Cregeen MHK and Amanda Craig were to attend the next meeting. This was corrected and the Minutes were then agreed and approved for signing.
2. MATTERS ARISING:
a) Southern Area Plan.
Public Inquiry. The provisional date for the Inquiry to commence was 3rd October. The timetable had been confirmed. The venue had not been confirmed but the Clerk had been told that it wouldn’t be in the Cherry Orchard but probably in Morton Hall in Castletown.
b) DoI/Local Authority Issues:-
i) Local Government Review – nothing further on this.
Local Election 2012. Date confirmation and review update
DoI – letter confirming the date of the Local Authority General Election 2012 would be Thursday 26th April. They would be providing training sessions for Clerks and Returning Officers in January or February.
Review – they had received a large number of responses from LAs. The majority of these proposals would require changes to primary legislation which could not be completed before the elections in 2012. However, the Department was committed to addressing key changes such as the possible introduction of proxy voting and the introduction of Deputy Returning Officer as soon as the legislative programme allows following the election process next year.
The Local government Unit is currently updating the Local Election Rules and other relevant legislation following changes made to the House of Keys Elections. Another possible change would be to reduce the period for objections to the same as the House of Keys Elections i.e. 2 hours rather than the current 3 days. This is currently being considered and more information will be forthcoming in due course.
Other possible amendments relate to the deadlines for printing of poll cards and changes to the nominations paper. As well as legislative changes the Local Government Unit will be looking to produce a Local Elections Guide for those who have a role in the elections such as Returning Officer, Clerk, etc. This would be published in conjunction with the Workshops previously described.
The Department was to produce an election timetable and a general press notice on behalf of all Authorities and would require assistance with the provision of information to us closer to the time.
This was noted.
c) Dept.of Infrastructure
i) Financial Training Session – for RFOs.
The Clerk had confirmed that she would be attending but would not be available in October due to the Southern Area Plan Public Inquiry.
The training workshop would to be held Mon Monday 26th Sept. in the DoI’s boardroom at the Sea Terminal.
ii) Proposals to increase the extent of permitted Development for Householders and Government Departments.
The Clerk had completed the questionnaire manually and sent it in with an accompanying letter.
iii) Petitioning Process – Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1985. Received – letter reminding Local Authorities that they are required to obtain consent from the DoI regarding the sale, lease or purchase of land. As such, conveyance documents cannot be signed until Department approval has been obtained to these transactions taking place. However, Department approval is not required for transactions involving the letting of land for a term not exceeding 7 years. When submitting petition applications for land sales and purchases, Local Authorities are required to provide the Department with a brief overview of the transaction, along with a plan/map of the area(s) in question, a copy of the draft agreement, and a copy of the valuation obtained from the Government Valuer confirming the price set is fair. If, however, the transfer is for a nominal sum then no valuation would be required in this instance. Please be advised that a reminder will be circulated to all the Island’s advocates concerning the above.
Informal Leisure Places. Nothing further on this at present.
d) Waste Management and Refuse Collection
Waste Strategy Consultation - nothing further.
Bad Debtors – The Clerk had hand delivered the letter to the bad-debtor at his place of work on 20th July. No cheque received. This was now to be taken to the small claims court.
Sound Café – this had now been sorted out.
Damaged bin – This had now been fixed by MNH.
Refuse Collection –
Port Erin Surgery – The Practise Manager had contacted the Clerk with regard to refuse problems. This matter was discussed and Mr Tinkler proposed and it was agreed that they should pay £200 per annum for the extra collections.
e) Lighting/MEA.
Ballakillowey roundabout/Ballagawne Road scheme.
Email from Ian Gilbertson, Network Services Engineer: ‘ I was wondering if you/the commissioners had considered having some further lights placed along Ballagawne Road towards Ballakeyll. In addition as Manx T are coming on board with removal of their overhead equipment as the same time as ourselves. Would you like us to look at repositioning the lights to give max benefit. Lastly as a result of the 11kv OHL now not being removed, the 8m column at the roundabout will need to be repositioned to a more suitable point – I would suggest diagonally across the roundabout. If you would like to proceed further or comment on these points raised please don’t hesitate to contact me’.
The Clerk had sent him an email but he had gone on holiday.
The matter was discussed and it was agreed to ask the cost of 2 extra lights on Ballagawne Road, towards Ballakeyll.
g) Carrick Bay View. Nothing further.
i) Hedges
High Hedges:-
The on-going cases were discussed in Private Session.
Trees & High Hedges Act 2005. Letter from R Corlett, Manager, Legislation and Policy Unit of DoI. This included an updated Delegation of Functions relating to Trees and High Hedges. The Delegation has been updated to take account of the change from the Department of Local Government and Environment to the Department of Infrastructure in the recent Government restructure. ‘If you require any further clarification about any matters relating to the Trees and High Hedges Act 2005 then please feel free to contact me.’
The Clerk was to contact him about one of the on-going cases.
Hedge Trimming (and weeds)
The Clerk was requested to ask Arbory Commissioners, who cut grass and spray weeds on behalf of the DoI, how much they did and at what rate they were re-imbursed.
Mr Cain reported that the hedges on Glen Chass had not been cut yet. The Clerk was to contact the DoI to request that this be done.
j) Traffic matters – Department of Transport and other DoT matters.
Nothing further had been done with regard to any of the following.
Ballafesson Road – speed roundels
Ballachurry Corner – standing water. .
Plantation Hill. – Danger to pedestrians, etc on hill.
Speeding on Howe Road –
Civic Amenity Site lines and signs
The Level/Croit-e-Caley.
Glen Chass – sharp corner & turning circle. Cul de Sac sign.
Shore Road – this will probably be discussed at the next Traffic Meeting.
Glen Chass Road – narrow corner.
Kerbstones at Ballnahowe –
Ballakillowey Roundabout. Jim Davidson, DoI, had sent a copy of the speed counts on the Ballachurry Road from 4th to 11th July 2011. ‘Prior to the new layout at Ballakillowey the 85th %tile speeds on the Ballachurry Road were 41mph heading towards Ballafesson and 39mph towards the roundabout. These speeds were a safety concern particularly the approach speed to the junction. The recent results show a reduction in the 85th %tile speed in each direction to 38mph and 34mph respectively. Whilst the speeds are still in excess of the 30mph speed limit the approach speed to the new roundabout has reduced by 15% and is now within the allowable design speed on the approach to a roundabout.’ This was noted.
Cregneash – Mr Vernon expressed his concern with regard to pedestrian safety for people coming out of the quarry car park. He asked for it to be put on the Agenda for the next Traffic Meeting. The Clerk said that to her knowledge RPC had been trying to have this problem solved for 15 years – as long as she had been Clerk.
Email from Hugo McKenzie re Lhingague sign/speed limit. Mrs S Costain from Ballarock is asking for the sign to be repositioned. ‘It is positioned after the entrance to Ballarock Farm and traffic travelling down the hill, often at speeds well in excess of 50mph pose a very real risk when vehicles are turning out of the drive of this property.’ HM replied that the50mph is only advisory and not legally enforceable. It was erected as a trial scheme and a review of the trial remain ongoing and the Dept. does not propose to relocate the signage at this time. He has reviewed the location and suggests that she could improve visibility when exiting her property by cutting back the fuchsia bushes to the existing gate pillars. It was to be discussed at the next Traffic Meeting.
k) Police
Mr Vernon had attended the Police Meeting at Malew Commissioners’ Office.
He brought up the matter of a vehicle parking in front of the level crossing lights at Croit-e-Caley – which the Clerk had reported to the Police. Mr Vernon said that they knew nothing about it but would look into it.
l) Litter, beach cleans, dog fouling, etc.
Caring for Carers – nothing had been heard from them.
Michael Stoker -. Mr Radcliffe was to have contacted him but as he was not present this was left for another meeting.
Southern Young Farmers They had been sent the cheque in payment for the work done.
m) Ballafesson Playing Field, Car Park, The Howe, Signs:-
Swing, Matting – these were to be ordered.
Car Park – nothing at present.
Signs – none required at present.
n) Web Site
The Clerk was to send Mr Vernon further Minutes for inclusion on the Web Site.
o) Southern Civic Amenity Site
email from Clerk – copied to Members 10/8 . This was to remind everyone that they have a disposal route for all kinds of bulbs/fluorescent tubes. Luminaire picks them up from the site to send for recycling but they also offer a commercial pickup service. It was requested that it be mentioned on websites, etc.
p) Southern Swimming Pool
As Mr Radcliffe was not in attendance there was no report.
q) Municipal Association.
Mr Gunn had attended the last meeting and reported that Mr Graham Cregeen MHK, Mrs Amanda Craig who was the new Local Government Unit Manager and Mr Stephen Willoughby of DoI attended. Various matters were discussed . They were to bring out a new handbook for Local Authority Members. They also said that they would like to have more co-operation between Local Authorities and DoI.
r) Allotments
emails from Jason Roberts Clerk of PSM. Their Chairman had asked him to arrange an Allotment Committee meeting on 14th August but due to a number of members not being able to attend it would now be in September. The Clerk had asked him if this was the meeting which would be the continuation of the meeting held in January and which had been attended by RPC, PSM, Allotment members, independent people, Phil Gawne and the Collisters from Mount Gawne Road. That meeting should have been held on 20th June. After asking several times he said that it wasn’t and that his Chairman had said that ‘it isn’t required and that the Committee is formed and will be meeting when we can pull everyone together’.
Mr Tinkler expressed his disappointment that the June Meeting had not gone ahead and also that it had not been a collective decision not to hold it. The matter was discussed but Mr Vernon proposed and was seconded by Mr Tinkler that if Mr Radcliffe reported back from the September Committee Meeting that there were no problems then PRC would be satisfied that there need not be the collective meeting. However, if there were problems or if Mr & Mrs Collister were not happy then RPC would insist on the collective meeting being held.
Southern Healthcare Committee
Southlands – A reply received to the letter RPC had written to the Department of Social Care:- ‘I am writing in response to your letter of 21st July regarding Rushen Parish Commissioners concerns about the utilisation of Southlands Resource Centre. Southlands was originally built with extra capacity to accommodate the predicted growth in older people in the South of the Island. Bradda Unit is currently used to house the Hospital to Home Scheme which allows older people from the South to be supported to return home following admission to hospital. This is a pioneering scheme for the Island and has proved very successful and effective. Surby Unit has been empty since the EMI Unit transferred to Thie Meanagh. However, in line with current Department plans it is currently being redecorated and refurbished in order that it can be brought into use as further residential care for older people provided by Social Services, when resources permit. Therefore it will remain the established and expected use of the building and there will be no need for an application for “change of use”. I trust this will ally your concerns and those of the Commissioners regarding the future use of Southlands.
Mr Tinkler reported that he was involved with the Manx Foundation for the Disabled and had attended a recent meeting. The Foundation had been occupying the Surby wing and they had to vacate it. They had been offered the Bradda Suite but it had been no use to them. Because of this they had to withdraw the service and there were consequently no longer day-care facilities for those people.
The next meeting for the Southern Healthcare Committee would be on the third Thursday in October.
t) Marashen Crescent
Mr Radcliffe was not present so there was no report.
u) Rushen Ambulance
Mr Tinkler said there was nothing to report as there had not been a meeting.
v) MNH
Bin at the Sound Café see ‘Refuse’.
w) Risk Assessment
The Clerk had contacted Mr Edwin re RPC’s annual appraisal which was due in August.
Due to the written agreement reached with Mr & Mrs Qualtrough the land in front of Hillcrest, Cregneash could now be included in the Risk Assessment file.
x) Land in front of Hillcrest, Cregneash.
Mr Cain reported that this required trimming. It was agreed that he would arrange this.
y) Golden Jubilee Trust.
Event on 25th September. Mr Radcliffe was not present so no further information was available.
z) Unsightly Buildings and Land.
Mr Richmond . letter from Peter Karran MHK – Mr Richmond had made representations to him. Mr Karran had written that he hoped that RPC would look into the legitimate complaints of Mr Richmond and see if this problem could be amicably resolved, sooner rather than later. He did not feel that Mr Richmond was being unreasonable in his concerns regarding the state of the next door property. The Clerk was to send a letter of acknowledgement.
aa) Sloc Sites & Seats
Mr Cregeen was to be asked to cut back more of the gorse which was behind the seat at Tom The Dipper’s.
ab) Bench & Tree at Croit-e-Caley Green.
Plaque. It was agreed that this should be a stone with engraving rather than a metal plaque. Mr Cain said that he could find a suitable piece of stone and it was agreed that Pooilvaaish Ltd. should be asked to engrave it. Because the price was not expected to be significant it was agreed that unless it was to cost more than £250 it should be progressed instead of coming to the next meeting for approval.
ac) Agricultural Rating.
The Clerk had asked Mr Grubb from the Rates Division to send a list showing the agriculturally rated properties in Rushen.
ad) Damage to Uplands – Carnanes.
As this had now been dealt with by DoI it was to be taken off the Agenda.
ae) Concert in Manx National Week.
Letter from Mrs Susannah Shimmin, The Howe Chapel, thanking RPC for the cheque. Also that the concert was a wonderful event and they would be delighted to provide the venue if there was to be another one. They would be happy to donate such funds raised to theThousla Trust.
af) Newsletter.
Mr Radcliffe had this in hand.
Ag) Grass cutting .
Mr Cregeen had written to inform RPC that he did not want to carry on with this once his contract was up – 23rd August.
Mr Cain had contacted him to ask if he would continue until November, when the grass would have stopped growing but he had said that he didn’t want to carry on. However, his partner Stephen Booth could be interested. It was agreed that Mr Booth could do the job for the next 2/3 months but that Mr Cregeen would have to pay him and send the bill to RPC.
The advert for the new contract would be discussed at the September Meeting with regard to extra work, other than grass cutting, which could be undertaken such as putting up signs, etc. The new contract should be for 1 year but with an option to extend to 3 years if the work was found to be satisfactory.
ah Proposed amalgamation of Rushen with Arbory.
This was now to be described as ‘sharing of services of Rushen with Arbory’.
ai) Disaster recovery plan.
The Clerk said that since getting the new computer everything from the old one had been transferred and it was also backed up on a separate box.
Mr Tinkler suggested that the emails should be able to be accessed by Members, or at least the Chairman. The Clerk said that would be no problem as the password was available.
With regard to data recovery – the Clerk was to ask ITManx how damaged the computer would have to be before data couldn’t be recovered from it.
aj) Children’s Sports/ Hop tu Naa
Mr Radcliffe was dealing with this.
ak) Local Authority Induction Course Review.
This was now to be taken off the Agenda.
al) Ballagawne Road.
Bus shelter – the Clerk had not written this letter yet but would do so before the next meeting.
am) Croit-e-Caley
Vehicles parked near the railway crossing. Mr Vernon had mentioned this at the last Police Meeting but they said that they didn’t know anything about it, even though the Clerk had reported it to Police HQ (the Port Erin Station being unavailable).
an) Winter Concert.
Neither Mr Robinson or Mr Kneale had been contacted yet.
ao) Insurance.
Reply from Marsh re inquiry about personal accident insurance. ‘It is included on page 12 of the policy documents.’ This was noted.
Ap) Invitation from Bradda Glen Café.
Mr Cain, Mr Gunn and Mrs Kelly, plus spouses had attended.
9. CORRESPONDENCE
a) 2nd Supplemental List 2011.
Received and noted.
b) Access Officer/Disabled access
Letter from DoI – The Manx Foundation for the Physically Disabled had recently appointed an Access Officer, Michelle Brady. Her role had historically been part funded by Planning and Building Control. They had included her letter of introduction and each Member had been given a copy.
DisabledGo – Gary Allen from that organisation (UK ) phoned to say that they are contracted by IOM Government to look at a percentage of publically accessible properties regarding access for the disabled. As RPC’s office is in the Clerk’s house that wasn’t really relevant but she had mentioned the Hall where RPC hold their meetings. She had met him there on 27th July and asked Jean Wilkinson to come along as it is the Methodist Church’s hall. He indicated that the hall was easily accessed by wheelchair users – the step is very low, there are two sets of double doors and the door to the toilet is wide enough. However, the step into the Chapel is too high for a wheelchair and would require a ramp. Mr Allen wasn’t there to ask for any changes, just to see what access there was so that it could be put on their website.
Tynwald Advisory Council for Disabilities. Copy of their newsletter – Summer 2011 – received.
c) Health and Safety Authority for the Island.
DoI had published the consultation results on this and had given a news release by email – to which Members had been copied in on 10/8. They had a total of 50 responses with just under half generally in favour of an Authority. The Report could be accessed at www.gov.im/consultations.gov?menuid=16918&type=closed&page=2.
d) Water Pollution Act – Discharge Licence Application.
Tremon Farm, Ballakillowey Road. Application had been made to discharge treated sewage effluent from the proposed new dwelling via a reed bed and partial soakaway to ditch with intermittent stream on boundary of field 414496.
Any comments should be sent to Dr MacNeil, DEFA, by 20th September.
There were no comments to be made.
e) Port St Mary Commissioners – dog fouling.
Email received from them – copied to Members 25/7. They discussed dog fouling at their meeting of 20th July. They had responded to the request from the Local Government Unit re information about fines issued by LAs over the last 4 years. They indicated that they hadn’t issued any. PSM had paid the Dog Enforcement Officer approx. £14,000 over that time.
Their Clerk continued :- ‘Taking a very broad assumption that all authorities spend £300 per month for a Dog Enforcement Officer, Island wide collectively we are spending in excess of £60k per annum. With a part time Dog Enforcement Officer, it is impossible to cover this issue anywhere close to the time needed. Therefore the question raised is if we are tackling this in the right way? I am aware that Malew Commissioners discussed the topic of DNA testing of dog fouling a couple of years ago, and this ended up in the worldwide media. Having undertaken a little more research, this is now very much a realistic proposition with DNA testing of dogs costing around £18 and the testing of a “sample” of around £35. Provided the licensing of dogs on the Island included the requirement to have the one off DNA test, a database of all dogs on the Island could be easily created meaning that any fouling could be traced back to a specific dog at any time – not just if a part-time Dog Enforcement Officer was in the right place at the right time. As an Island the theory is that this could be a very successful way of controlling this problem and could generate good publicity. After a few fines the problem “should” go away and with the cost model being geared towards 100% conviction, will undoubtedly cost less collectively. My Board have asked that I collect views from the other local authorities, and if there is an opportunity to put some joined up thinking behind this issue. There are certain issues which do not require additional consideration such as “working dogs” and visiting dogs.
If you would like more information on the process please refer to the attachment or visit www.pooprints.com.’
This was discussed. Mr Vernon pointed out that in some areas of the UK people walking dogs have to have a bag with them to pick up the dog mess.
A reply was to be sent to PSM Commissioners stating that RPC find that the provision of dog bins and notices is effective for them.
f) IOM Water & Sewerage Authority.They were undertaking a research project – via a ‘summer student’ looking into historic flood events from current date backwards. She was interested in the extent of any flooding across the Island, all types of flooding; fluvial, tidal, surface water and sewer flooding.
This was to be noted.
g) Data Protection Register.
Renewal due 22nd September. Fee £50.
The Clerk would check through this to see if RPC still complied with it. The cheque for renewal had been approved.
h) August Newsletter from Chief Minister’s Office.
Received by email – copied to Members 17th August
PLANNING MATTERS:
10. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
a) 11/0956. Field 414321 & 410851, Ballakillowey Road. V P Chimes, Tiocam Ltd. 4.1 acre field – erection of two timber sheds.
No objections.
b) (considered at July Meeting). 11/0901. Replacement dwelling at Shenvalley Cottage.
Letter from architect – Barry Murphy of Construction Design Ltd. re your comments. He had sent a plan showing the size of the existing cottage and photos of neighbouring properties.
It was decided that Members original views would stand and no changes made.
Also copy of letter sent by William Kelly on behalf of his brother – objecting to the application. This was noted.
c) 11/1120. Moorhouse Farm, Mount Gawne Road. Moorhouse Farm Ltd. Refurbishment of existing outbuilding/Annex and conversion to create ancilliary accommodation/extension of farmhouse.
No objections.
d) 11/1132. Friary Croft, Ballakillowey. Mr A Preston. Installation of replacement dormers and all windows within dwelling and installation of tubular solar roof panel on adjacent barn roof.
No objections.
11. PLANNING APPROVALS
a) 11/0541. Field 414206. Castletown Road. (Triangle Field at Ballakilley). Mr J C Morris. Erection of an agricultural building for the storage of machinery and creation of access road.
Conditions include – 2. This permission relates to the erection of an agricultural shed and access track as shown in drawings. 3. The building must be used only for the storage of machinery in association with the use of the application site for the growing of fruit and vegetables. 4. If the building is no longer used or required for the purposes set out in condition 3 above then it must be removed from site immediately and the gravel track removed and reinstated. 5. The shed must be finished in dark green coloured sheeting.
Decision – Planning Committee. Issued – 18th July 2011.
b) 11/0914. 25 Ballagale Avenue, Surby. Mr & Mrs S Bunyan. Alterations and erection of an extension to dwelling. Usual conditions.
Decision - Development Control Manager. Issued 10th August 2011.
12. PLANNING REFUSALS
a) 11/0840. Upper Kirkill, Ballakillowey Road. Mr & Mrs S Berry. Erection of replacement dwelling. (modern design plan)
Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed dwelling by virtue particularly of its design and massing but also due to its size, would be strikingly out of character with the landscape in which it would sit and thus contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan. 2. The site defined in red, which is described in the application form as “residential” includes a substantial amount of land which is not presently residential curtilage and if treated as such, would or could transform what is presently open natural land into domesticated and inappropriately landscaped garden, with the features and elements associated therewith and some permissible under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 which would be out of keeping with the area.
Decision – Director of Planning. Issued 29th July 2011.
b) 11/0839. Upper Kirkill, Ballakillowey Road. Mr & Mrs S Berry. Erection of a replacement dwelling.
Reasons for Refusal – 1. The replacement dwelling, by virtue of its size, massing, height and style would be out of context with a predominantly open and exposed landscape and would be contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan in terms of the size and style of the new dwelling. 2. The site defined in red, which is described in the application form as “residential” includes a substantial amount of land which is not presently residential curtilage and if treated as such, would or could transform what is presently open natural land into domesticated and inappropriately landscaped garden, with the features and elements associated therewith and some permissible under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 which would be out of keeping with the area.
Decision – Development Control Manager in accordance with the authority delegated to her under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005 (this must be the new name for the Senior Planning Officer) Issued 29th July 2011
13. PLANNING APPEALS
a) 11/0840 & 11/0839. Upper Kirkill, Ballakillowey Road.
An Appeal had been requested for both applications. 7 collated sets of submission for 839 and 6 sets for 840 to be sent in by 5th September.
The Clerk would prepare these but would wait until Mr Radcliffe was back from holiday so that his views could be included.
b) 10/1800/A. Robin Hill Farm, Cronk y Dhooney. Mr and Mrs MacQuillan. Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling to replace existing redundant shed.
APPEAL DECISION –
The application had been refused and an Appeal held, on written evidence. The Hon. MrTeare,
as deputy for the Minister, has considered the Inspector’s (Mr Farringdon) Report and concurs with his findings that the appeal be dismissed.
Mr Farringdon didn’t agree with RPC’s assertion that the planning strategy of steering development into sustainable locations close to work places, shops, schools and other public services is flawed. ‘The concept of sustainable development is an accepted principle of land use planning both on and off the Island. It is central to the over-arching strategic aim of the Strategic Plan – Towards a Sustainable Island 2007 and contributes to the core purpose of the Government Plan to maintain and build on the high quality of life enjoyed by the Island’s community (Strategic Plan para 2.7)
Independent Inspector’s assessment and Recommendation:
17. Drawing from Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 General Policy 1 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2007 requires the planning authority to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations. The key issues in this appeal are: (1) whether the proposed development accords with the strategic planning policies for the location of housing and (2) whether there are any other material considerations that would justify approval or refusal of the application.
Issue (1) Strategic planning policies for the location of housing
18. Since the site lies outside any area zoned for development and within an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, General Policy 3, Environmental Policies 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 apply. The definition of previously developed land in the Strategic Plan (Appendix 1) excludes land that is occupied by agricultural buildings. This is the situation that applies in this case. Neither the original residential use of the site, nor the use of the shed for unauthorised businesses, can trigger the provisions of General Policy 3 (a) – (h) and Housing Policy 4 (a) – (c) apply and the proposed development therefore conflicts with the strategic planning policies for housing locations on the Island.
Issue (2) Other material considerations
19. Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan makes provision for groups of dwellings in the countryside but states that such development is to be controlled by the development plan process and the emerging Southern Area Plan describes the Cronk y Dhooney location as not sustainable and where further dwellings would not be encouraged.
20. I cannot agree with the Commissioners’ assertion that the planning strategy of steering development into sustainable locations close to work places, shops, schools and other public services is flawed. The concept of sustainable development is an accepted principle of land use planning both on and off the Island. It is central to the over-arching strategic aim of the Strategic Plan – Towards a Sustainable Island 2007 and contributes to the core purpose of the Government Plan to maintain and build on the high quality of life enjoyed by the Island’s community (Strategic Plan para. 2.7)
21. The proposal has the following merits:
(a) The proposed replacement of the ugly farm shed with a traditionally designed Manx cottage would enhance the appearance of the AHLVSS and repair the damage to the traditional character of Cronk y Dhooney when the original cottage was removed and the shed was erected.
(b) As a compatible land use it would safeguard the residential amenity of the occupiers of the nearby dwellings who could be adversely affected by farming activities and by farm traffic if th agricultural use of the building were to be resumed.
(c) The proposed development is sited on a street frontage close to the centre of the small rural settlement and would not extend its footprint.
(d) It would remove the dominating gable wall of the shed that currently has an overbearing impact on the outlook of Rose Cottage.
(e) It would remove a constriction in the land and would help to address the problem of poor access affecting Cronk y Dhooney to which there is reference in the emerging area plan.
These favourable factors accord with various strategic planning policies including Environmental Policy 2 and carry considerable weight. On balance, however, I judge that the merits are not sufficient to justify a breach of the strategic planning policies for the location of housing on the Island.
22. Given the large numbers of farm sheds close to occupied dwellings in the undefined rural settlements scattered across the Island, it is easy to envisage many similar situations where the same or similar benefits could be cited to justify planning approvals contrary to strategic policy. Therefore, I have an additional concern that approval of the proposed development, which would breach both the Strategic Plan and the emerging plan for the area, could be accorded a significance that may make it difficult for the Department to resist any accumulation of dwellings in unsustainable locations throughout the Island.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
23. Bearing in mind the statutory duty to have regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, notwithstanding a variety of factors that point towards approval, I conclude that the crucial and over-riding consideration must be that the proposal would breach the strategic planning policies for the sustainable location of housing at variance with the strategic aim of the development plan.’
G. Farrington. Independent Inspector. 20th July 2011.
14. COMPLETION CERTIFICATES none
15. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
a) Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982.
Barrule Apartments, Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey. Letter from Director of Environment, DEFA. (from Ian Mansell, Environmental Health Officer). They had received an application for the registration of the above flats. He had inspected them in order to ascertain compliance with the Regulations. “I must now recommend your Commissioners register the flats. I have enclosed the Certificate of Registration for your authorisation. Once duly authorised, I shall be obliged if you would issue the original to the applicant, retain one copy for your register and return the remaining copy to this office.”
The Clerk was to sign these and send or return the certificates as appropriate.
16 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
a) Ballanard House, Ballnahowe.
Mr Morris had contacted the Clerk regarding the stables in the field in front of the house for which he had obtained approval. He now wished to move them to the bottom of the field and asked if some of the Commissioners could have a look to see if they would agree to the proposed position before he sent in the application.
Members refused to do this and he was to be informed that he should submit the planning application.
17. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 21st September
Mr Vernon indicated that he would not be present at the September meeting.