Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00197/B Applicant: Dr John Taylor OBE Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling (Gatekeeper Cottage) and erection of replica building on part of Field 434107 adjacent and erection of replacement dwelling and new access drive and associated landscaping incorporating part Field 434112 and associated works to existing access lane (amendment to PA 17/01076/B) Site Address: Gatekeepers Cottage Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.04.2018 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: The reinstatement of the gatekeeper's cottage is a fundamental reason why the new dwelling is considered acceptable.
Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
This decision relates to drawings 01, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 8B, 9B, 11A, 14 and 15 all received on 26th February, 2018.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The resident of Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road, near Peel who is not directly affected by the proposal.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSALS, THE RECENT APPLICATION FOR A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE AND THE PROPOSAL IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Preamble This application proposes amendments to a recently approved scheme, 16/01076/B, for the erection of a dwelling and the construction of a replacement for the existing Ballawoods Gatekeeper's Cottage. That application followed on from the refusal of another application, 17/00540/B for the erection of a new dwelling, as currently proposed but with the demolition of the Ballawoods Gatekeeper's cottage and without any replacement of this. The current proposal follows issues raised after boreholes were mined to establish groundwater and ground conditions relative to the site of the new dwellings. This found that the water table was higher than expected and if built as approved, the dwelling could be liable for water ingress.
As such, the applicant wishes to raise the level of the property by 0.925m with slight increases in the ceiling heights resulting in an overall increase in the height of the proposed dwelling by
Also, the applicant has identified the location of services on the south eastern side of the railway line and in order to give adequate clearance from them, it is proposed to relocate the replica gate-keeper's cottage 7.7m to the south west and which also distances it from the modern crossing paraphernalia. It is proposed to introduce a slightly raised planted area as seen next to the station at Ballasalla.
In all other respects the development remains the same as that approved. The full matters relating to the development are reiterated below, modified to take account of the revised proposals.
1.1 The site is part of a field which lies to the south east of the A5 Douglas Road as it passes between the junction of the Old and New Castletown Roads (A25 and A5) and Ballasalla. Also included in the site is the access lane to the field, part of which is a public footpath. The public footpath runs from the A5 for around 100m and then parts from the access lane and passes through a field towards the railway line. The route of the footpath passes in a straight line from the main road, directly through the middle of some of the fields, reaches the railway line and then heads south east until it intersects another footpath and the Raad ny Foillan, close to the coast. In addition to this, additional land is also included on the southern side of the railway line, directly opposite the existing Ballawoods Gatekeeper's Cottage together with the lane running alongside, which ultimately leads to Ballawoods Farm further to the south east. - 1.2 To the north east of the access onto the A5 is a dwelling, Arborfield whose access is onto the lane, rather than the main road. This is modern single storey property with generous gardens surrounded by substantial trees and shrubs. Visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m are available from the lane onto the A5 as is required by Highway Services. - 1.3 The site extends across almost the full width of the field with its southern boundary forming the edge of the railway line. The site is around 75m wide and 60m long at its longest point (nw to se). This is a smaller site than was previously shown in 17/00540/B which stretched across the whole of the lower part of the field. As now proposed the area included with the proposed planting extends further to the south west with additional trees as part of the landscaping scheme. - 1.4 At the eastern corner of the site, alongside the lane and the railway line, is the former Ballawoods Gatekeeper's cottage. The cottage has fallen into ruin and is no longer required in connection with the railway following the electrification and automation of the crossing. The cottage has a footprint of 8m by 5m at longest and widest, with a small annex at the rear. The front porch has been removed following the relocation of the railway line closer to the cottage and the cottage sits with very little space between its front elevation and the line. - 1.5 The cottage has lost its habitable status through abandonment. The roof has no slates and whilst it retains its walls, some of these show signs of cracking. - 1.6 A gas main bisects the lower part of the application field and runs from the A5 along the route of the access lane to the railway.
2.1 Proposed is, as with 17/01076/B, the erection of a new dwelling along with the demolition of the existing Ballawoods Gatekeeper's cottage and the erection of a new building on the southern side of the railway line: this new building replicates the footprint and dimensions of the existing but with the inclusion of a small open porch on the railway side elevation to replicate what would once have been attached to the original cottage but was removed when the railway line was re-aligned (see later). On the rear elevation there would be large double outward opening doors to facilitate the use of the building as a garden store in conjunction with the maintenance of the garden and landscape of the proposed new residential dwelling. This building has been relocated 8m to the south west of the original position but the same distance from the railway line.
2.2 The new house, on the northern side of the railway line, would sit in a curtilage of around 60m by 45-70m with a new spur access drive off the land, stone retaining walls forming a sunken garden with the dwelling sitting around 20m north of the railway line (5m further away than the previous scheme) and a parking and turning area to the rear. The land within the curtilage will be planted as a wildflower meadow with the existing hedgerow retained and reinforced with native species. A new hawthorn hedge would form the boundary at the north western edge of the plot.
2.3 A swathe of tree and shrub planting is proposed to the north and north west of the proposed dwelling, containing the dwelling in a natural landscape backdrop as viewed from the railway line. This copse will contain a mix of rowan, elder, laurel, birch, chestnut, sycamore, hawthorn, blackthorn and conifers, bushes, gorse and bramble which continue the tree belt to the north east of the site. It should be noted that the drawing 16 1206 8B shows trees which are a maximum of 7m high when many of the species named grow to much higher than that birch and sycamore sometimes to over 30m. - 2.4 The dwelling is unusual in design, having some semblance of a single storey Manx cottage with stone walling and chimneys but with a copper roof (patinated copper with rounded exposed ends and each tile embossed with a particular shape), elliptical shaped windows, external chimney breasts which slope upward and inward. The dwelling would sit elevated above the natural ground level by around 3.4m and the ground excavated to accommodate accommodation beneath what appears to be the ground floor level. This additional level of accommodation would be visible from those approaching from the entrance but would not be visible from the public vantage point (the railway). The ground between the house and the railway will be sloped artificially to run gently to the line. The house would have a footprint of 12.5m by 8m and will provide one bedroom in the upper floor, two further bedrooms in the lower ground floor along with a garage and on the ground floor there will be a lounge and a kitchen. - 2.5 A new wastewater treatment system is proposed to drain the site. The access lane is to be tarmacadam finished with a new passing place to the north west of the new access. - 2.6 The applicant set out his case in support of the original application and has not reiterated it again in the current proposal but for information, his previous comments are set out again here. He considers the existing gatekeeper's cottage to be of plain form, having been rendered
at a later point and with alterations having been undertaken of poor form. He considers that this is a building which is not of architectural merit or social interest and does not contribute positively to the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside. He considers that it is actually a negative element and the sense of dereliction affords nothing of value and its retention would not be of any benefit. Furthermore, if the building were renovated, its size would limit its usefulness as a dwelling along with its proximity to the railway line. A bat survey has been undertaken with no signs of any bat activity within the building. He considers that there are no references in the Area Plan to this building and it is not Registered nor suggested as being appropriate for this.
2.7 It is his contention that the proposal accords with the Strategic Plan's requirement to "encourage change which would result in overall environmental improvement (paragraph 8.11.1) and that by replacing a dilapidated building of little historic importance in the countryside with one of a unique design, this would result in such an environmental improvement. He accepts that the proposal does not comply in the strictest sense with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14 but notes that there is an existing track from the highway and the proposal would comply with the part of the HP 14 which refers to "buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact". He accepts that there would not be lesser visual impact but it would not be an adverse visual impact. - 2.8 The applicant has considered other unusual houses, such as Ty Hyll in Snowdonia (legend says that the house was built in the 15th century overnight - a 'ty unnos' or 'one night house'. According to tradition at that time, a house built during one night on common land, with a chimney smoking by dawn, could be claimed by the builders as their own property. Other legends say it was built by robbers and thieves, taking advantage of travellers on the old main road as they journeyed through Snowdonia - 'ugly' people that gave the house a fearsome reputation.) as well as landmark buildings such as Goldenes Dachl - a gold tiled property in Innsbruck, Austria.
2.9 The existing property has a floor area of around 76 sq m and the proposed somewhere in the region of 380 sq m. - 2.10 It is the applicant's desire to create something of interest from the view of the railway line with the impact reduced by mounding of the land, particularly when travelling from the south northwards (from the other direction if would be partly hidden from first view by the existing and proposed lane hedge planting. - 2.11 The applicant explains that he in an inventor and his approach is to look at existing materials and structures and consider how they may be used in different ways to produce something that may be safer, more practical or simply more up to date. He has used this approach at his home at Arragon Mooar and a former house, Spindrift at Poyll Vaaish which incorporated features which resemble a lighthouse, reflecting its coastal setting. Arragon Mooar is a new dwelling with unique elliptical shaped footprint and detailing such as the sandstone columns (built of the same seam of sandstone as the Manx indigenous material). It is his view that both of the properties sit comfortably within their very different surroundings. He explains that he has been wondering for some time what to do with Ballawoods Gatekeeper's cottage and it is becoming unsafe and in his view cannot be used in its current form or position. It is also his view that to replace the property with a traditional Manx cottage would "inflict a further blot on the landscape of the tourist railway". The application represents an attempt to evoke the spirit of the traditional thatched Manx cottage but changing the thatch for a soft green rounded copper roof which in his view, will blend into the Manx landscape. He confirms that he is happy to introduce further native screening and adds that when Arragon Mooar was being developed, relatively few trees were removed and over ten thousand trees and shrubs were planted. - 2.12 A survey was undertaken in March 2017 by the Manx Bat Group which confirmed that there is no sign of bat activity and little chance of habitation of the existing cottage by bats.
PLANNING POLICY Landscape protection
3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for a particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South (2013). The Plan sets out a number of landscape strategies and key views, drawing on the 2008 Landscape Character Assessment. The relevant ones for the wider landscaping in which this site sits are set out below:
"Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14) The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities. Key Views Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons. Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views."
"3.23 Implications of the Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Type: Uplands, Incised Slopes, Rugged Coast, Undulating Lowland Plain Landscape Area: A2 (Southern Uplands), D14 (Ballamodha, Earystane and St Mark's), E11 (Langness), F7 (Castletown and Ballasalla) and F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula)
i. To protect and enhance the identity of Ballasalla by conserving the rural character of the adjacent landscape
"5.21.3 In terms of the Island's rail heritage, the route of the still-operational Isle of Man Steam Railway winds south and west from Santon Station to its terminus in Port Erin, passing through Ballasalla, Castletown, Colby, and Port St Mary on the way. Given that the route, most of the rolling stock, and most of the station buildings and line-side structures are essentially as they were when the railway opened in 1874, there is obvious cultural and historic interest. Where possible and practical station buildings, gate-keepers' huts, and other line-side structures should be retained in, and where necessary, restored to their original form and appearance. Although it is recognised that financial and modern operating requirements may mean that this is not always possible."
3.2 Whilst not directly applicable to new development in the countryside, the following policy is indirectly relevant in that it provides advice about the design of new development where this is visible from the railway:
"Landscape Proposal 19: New industrial or commercial buildings at Balthane and Ronaldsway Business Park and the Freeport, which would be visible from the A5 or the Steam Railway, should be of high-quality, functional design. This proposal will also apply to buildings which would be visible from the bypass once a route has been firmly determined." The principle of development in the countryside
3.3 The Strategic Plan provides over-arching advice about how the Island should be developed, promoting development which is sustainable and generally presuming against development in areas not so designated (Housing Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1). There are policies which allow for residential development in the countryside through the re-use or re-development of existing buildings or dwellings (Housing Policies 11, 12, 13 and 14). These policies need to be considered in detail. - 3.4 Housing Policy 11 refers to buildings which were not previously dwellings so do not apply to this proposal and in any case provide for the creation of a dwelling through the renovation of a building which is not being proposed here. - 3.5 Housing Policy 12 provides useful guidance:
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
Habitable status (see Housing Policy 12) "In the context of Housing Policy 12, "habitable status" means whether or not a building which has previously been occupied as a dwelling may be re-occupied as such without the need for planning permission for that use. "
Non-residential use (see Housing Policy 12) "In the context of Housing Policy 12, "non-residential use" means use for a purpose other than as a dwelling."
Non-use (see Housing Policy 12) "In the context of Housing Policy 12, a period of "non-use" means a period during which the building has been unused i.e. has not been used for any purpose."
3.6 If a dwelling fails to demonstrate that it has retained its habitable status, it may still be used to create a dwelling through its retention and renovation and Housing Policy 13 provides advice about this:
This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floorspace measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."
3.7 Housing Policy 14 provides advice where the principle of a replacement dwelling is considered acceptable. This requires the following:
3.8 Further advice is provided regarding existing dwellings in the countryside:
"8.11 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside 8.11.1 There are in our countryside many existing dwellings, some of which contribute positively to its appearance and character, and some of which do not. A number of dwellings have been abandoned for many years; their physical remains being a reflection of agricultural and social change across the Island. They form features in the rural landscape which are often not unacceptable in their present state. It is appropriate to encourage change which would result in overall environment improvement, and to discourage change which would not. Where the building(s) concerned are of architectural merit or of local, historical or social interest demolition and replacement will be discouraged."
3.9 Finally, advice about tourism-related development includes the following:
"Strategic Policy 8: Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions" although it should be noted that the development is not intended for tourist occupancy but it is intended to be a feature of interest to the railway, a tourist attraction.
REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have not commented but had no objection to the previous application.
4.2 Manx Utilities similarly, have not commented but had no objection to the previous application.
4.3 Highway Services have no objection, consideraing that the proposal shsuld not create any new highway issues (05.04.18). - 4.4 An objection has been received from the occupant of Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road, near Peel (28.03.18). He is very concerned that the application fails to comply with any of the Strategic Plan policies with no over-riding reasons to justify an exception and, if approved, could establish a dangerous precedent. He considers the application to not accord with General Policy 3, Housing Policies 12 or 14 in any part and as Housing Policy 13 prohibits the demolition and replacement of dwellings defined as abandoned, the rebuilding of the cottage could not be said to comply with that. He considers that the rebuilding of the gatekeeper's cottage is not sanctioned by Housing Policy 12 or 13 as it was considered in the previous application to be capable of renovation and is of acknowledged historic interest and abandoned. The new dwelling is not sited on the footprint of the existing, is considerably larger and not of a Manx vernacular design along with a larger residential curtilage. The proposal fails to accord with HP14 for all of these reasons. He believes that there are no significant material considerations to justify setting aside the policy and finds criticism with the previous application officer's report which suggested that the retention of the gatekeeper's cottage and the design was innovative with features of interest with a very limited visual impact. He does not believe that a completely new building would not have the historic value of the original building and its change of siting reduces its historic value and association with the railway. Whilst the innovative design is something to be considered in HP14, it is not an over-riding reason to depart from policy and in this case, the innovative design would not result in a reduced or better environmental impact, in his view so cannot comply with HP 14 in this respect. He considers that comparison with other features on the Island such as Laxey Wheel is inappropriate as this was built for a purpose and to support a local economy: the current proposal contains no evidence beyond the applicant's and agent's suggestion, to support the claim that the proposal will be a public asset. The proposed increase in height and relocation of the gatekeeper's cottage further accentuate the gap between the policies and what is proposed. He emphasises that the Strategic Plan is not guidance, it is core Government policy reached after extensive policy-process and public consultation and is not being enacted adequately. He considers that the Island stands to lose valuable historic buildings that are supported to be protected by its own clear policy and this application represents a dangerous misapplication of the policies on replacement dwellings using the demolition of an historic building to justify a new, greenfield development which is not the intention of the policies. As this application breaches all of the policies, he considers it should be refused.
5.1 The planning history is noted in the Preliminaries above. ASSESSMENT
6.1 Whilst the principle and much of the detail of the current scheme, including the re-siting of the gate-keeper's cottage to the other side of the railway line, which has perhaps been missed by the resident of Meadowcroft, has already been recently considered acceptable under 17/01076/B, it is useful to reiterate the reasons why, as follows. The Town and Country Planning Act requires that consideration is had to the following matters in the determination of any planning application:
Section 10: (4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —
6.2 In this case the relevant considerations are considered to be a) the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South as they apply to the principle of development in the countryside and its landscape implications and d) where other considerations. The provisions of the development plan - 6.3 The Strategic Plan makes it clear that development will only be permitted in areas not so designated if they comply with certain criteria. In this case, the existing cottage has lost its habitable status by abandonment so cannot fall to be considered for replacement under the provisions of HP12. Where there is a question about what should be done with the cottage, the Strategic Plan provides only for its renovation and does not support its replacement in any form. No planning approval would be required for the cottage to be demolished although it is acknowledged in the Area Plan as a feature of interest (more of that later). - 6.4 If the principle of the replacement of the cottage were accepted, contrary to the provisions of HPs 12 and 13, the proposal is not considered to accord with the detailed provisions of HP14 in that the new dwelling would be considerably larger and higher, in a different location with a larger curtilage and greater impact. Whilst in poor repair, the existing cottage is not considered of poor form, and although the changes which it has undergone in terms of the removal of its porch and its closer proximity to the railway line do not help, they are not considered to detract sufficiently to warrant consideration of the cottage as being of poor form. - 6.5 The proposal is clearly not in conformity with the Strategic Plan policies on housing in the countryside. - 6.6 In addition, the Area and Strategic Plans make it clear that the countryside is protected for its own sake and in this particular landscape area, the rural nature and the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views should be protected along with the sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting. It is difficult to reconcile the principle of preserving a rural, open landscape with one where a new building which is designed to be seen although this current application provides a landscaped setting which will reduce and improve the impact of the proposed dwelling and it is important to consider that the public impact of the development will be limited to ten or so seconds of view from a passing train and where the primary views are from one side of the carriages with the other obtaining a view of the rebuilt gatekeeper's cottage. Other considerations - the historical merits of the gatekeeper's cottage
6.7 The existing gate keeper's cottage is acknowledged in the Area Plan as a building of historic interest due to its former function and the Plan recommends that where possible these should be retained and renovated. It is relevant, as pointed out by the applicant, that the proximity to the railway, together with its condition and size are likely to discourage any investment in the building which would see the building renovated and brought back to a residential or even a tourist use. There is nothing which would presently prevent the gatekeeper's cottage from being completely demolished. As such, perhaps this site should be considered to merit a different approach rather than those set out in the Strategic Plan housing policies. It could be that the restoration or re-instatement of this feature in a different position could be something which could be brought into the balance in assessing the impacts of the type of dwelling which the applicant desires to see in this location. - 6.8 If the interest of the cottage were to be retained, this could be done through the restoration of the existing fabric, although it would remain close to the railway line and even restored to the highest quality would still be a very old building without the benefits of modern thermal technology and renewable energy. One response to this could be the rebuilding of a faithful replication of the existing but slightly further back, so as to allow a convenient and safe access in but retaining the character of a building like the original in a very similar location. If achieved, this could be considered to balance the impact of a new dwelling (were the two considered to be compatible) as the renovation of the cottage is unlikely to be achieved on its own. However, in considering this option, the applicant considers, and there is considerable merit in this view, that the juxtaposition of a faithful replication of the gatekeeper's cottage alongside something very different which is designed to be a stand alone feature in its own setting, would benefit neither building in providing an appropriate context and one would very much draw away from the interest and impact of the other. - 6.9 If it is accepted that the rebuilding of the gatekeeper's cottage is an acceptable way forward and the benefit of retaining this feature, even in a different position, and that the two buildings should not sit next to each other or in the same immediate landscape, there are two options: one to build the gatekeeper's cottage on the current side of the railway line and the new dwelling on the other side, or further away from this position on the same side, or alternatively, the other way around with the gatekeeper's cottage on the southern side of the railway line and the new dwelling near the site of the existing building. - 6.10 There is merit in trying to keep the gatekeeper's cottage on its original side of the railway line for reasons of authenticity. However, there are no real landscape reasons for doing this. The curtilage of this aspect of the scheme and the building itself is much smaller and will have much less impact than that of the new house. As such, given the more enclosed nature of the northern side of the railway line, with established tree groups on one side, it is considered that there would be much less impact in siting the new dwelling on the northern side of the line and the gatekeeper's cottage to the south and that this benefit outweighs that of trying to keep the gatekeeper's cottage on its original side of the line. The creation of a landmark feature - 6.11 It is the applicant's aspiration to create here a feature of interest, a landmark almost which would invite users of the railway to know where they were (just coming into Ballasalla for example) in the same way that the purple roofed property in the village is clearly identified by many as a marker for being in Ballasalla. Such features, particularly when built of quality materials, make up the unique character of the Island - think of Corrin's Folly, Milner's Tower, Albert Tower and some of the more unique dwellings on the Island - Crogga House, Billown Mansion House, Milntown as well as its castles and Laxey Wheel, very few of which would be seen to comply with the Island's planning policies as they currently stand. However, there clearly needs to be some element of control over how and if our countryside is developed and where exceptions are to be made, they need to be made on the basis of clearly understood principles and material considerations.
7.1 In this case the active removal of a building which is acknowledged in the Area Plan as something to be retained and preserved is in itself something to be regretted. However, the chances of this building being renovated are slight due to its position so close to the railway line, closer than it was originally. In addition, the limited size and condition of the building are such that renovation is unlikely to be a feasible prospect given the limitations on future use by its size and nature. If the appearance and condition of this building are to be improved, it will need to be relocated. The importance of the proximity of the railway line is paramount, whichever side it is on, given its original association with it and its proposed non-habitable use is ideal in that it can be closer to the line than it perhaps could if it were occupied as a dwelling or tourist unit.
7.2 It is unlikely that someone would seek to redevelop the existing gatekeeper's cottage in this way if the project were not associated with something more viable. It is also unlikely that there would be a need for a storage building here unassociated with any other building, dwelling or farm group. As such, there needs to be something else which facilitates this development. - 7.3 What is proposed - a new dwelling - will do this. What is proposed is so different to the traditional architecture of the gatekeeper's cottage will also not compete for a place in the landscape as a traditional feature. It is clearly new, innovative and now designed and placed so as to sit more comfortably in a naturally enclosed setting which will also provide a backdrop as viewed from the railway line. The new dwelling will not be publicly visible other than from the railway line. - 7.4 The proposal does not comply with any of the Strategic Plan policies. However, the Act provides for a decision-maker to take into account other things which include any other material considerations. This then brings in the importance of the retention of the gatekeeper's cottage, which is set out in the Area Plan for the South. It is considered that the benefit of retaining a building whose external appearance and location enables the interpretation of it by anyone seeing it, as a gatekeeper's cottage associated with the steam railway line, outweighs the lack of accordance with the Strategic Plan policies. Added to this, in terms of sustainability, as the gatekeeper's cottage is not being used as a residential dwelling, there will still be only one residential property on this site, albeit a larger one. Also, the design is considered to be innovative and may create a high quality feature of interest which has very limited visual impact but which may add to the character of the steam railway line when considered alongside the restoration of the gatekeeper's cottage and the public impact is fleeting given that it will only be seen from those passing on the steam railway. These two considerations set this proposal aside from other proposals for the development of new dwellings in the countryside. The proposal is considered to address the issues raised in the consideration of 17/00540/B. FINAL CONCLUSION - 7.5 The proposed works raise the height and level of the proposed dwelling but also move it back on the site. The resulting impact on the outlook from the steam railway line, which is the only significant public view of the works, will change little and there is no significant departure from the conclusions reached in respect of the earlier application. The relocation of the gatekeeper's cottage further along the line from the crossing will have little impact and the introduction of the planter will give the structure a public feel which will add to its authenticity. - 7.6 The proposal is still supported for the same reasons as given for that for 17/01076/B. It is fully accepted, as it was in the earlier case, that the proposal does not comply with the Strategic Plan policies, as noted by the objector to the scheme. Unfortunately, the objection fails to acknowledge that the earlier application was approved for a scheme which is the same is what is now proposed other than for the repositioning of both buildings and an increase in height of the new house. Previous and extant approvals are material considerations and must
be taken into account. The objections raised were not made in respect of either of the two earlier applications for this development and such late objections must take into account the Planning Committee's views on earlier, and similar developments which they do not appear to have been. The Committee's view that the new house will be a feature of interest and is justified by the contextual considerations of this site, including the recreation of the gatekeeper's cottage in a different location, are still material considerations and the proposed changes do not change those conclusions. As such the application is recommended for approval.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 23.04.2018 Signed : Miss S Corlett Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown