Loading document...
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
i. The structural condition of the building; ii. The period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years; iii. Evidence of intervening use; and iv. Evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon.
and
Housing Policy 14: Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore be sited on the 'footprint' of the existing, and should have a floor area (1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and siting, there would be less visual impact.
2.9) The Applicant is mindful of the content of the relevant Planning Policies and we have been particular with the proposals to ensure that the scale is suitable for the site. This has been referred to extensively by the Case Officer in her Planning Statement.
2.9.1) The house has been relocated moving it back into its own site and further away from the road, which leads to an overall environment improvement as the impact of the road side cottaging is significantly reduced.
2.9.2) At the request of the Planning Officer a minimalist fence has been suggested for the North East and South boundaries much akin to that which exists at present.
2.10) We submit that the proposal whilst large than that stated in HP14, through attention to detail, will constitute modern design using sustainable processes and construction
techniques of an exceptionally high standard such as to comply with the intent of the policy.
This is fully supported in the Planning Assessment of the Departments Case Officer.
2.10.1) To illustrate this I quote directly paragraph 20: "It is recommended that this is an example of a property which the Authority would prefer were replaced, even by something larger and with a greater physical impact, rather than the existing building being retained and extended. Whilst Manx National Heritage indicate that this is a good example of how traditional properties can evolve through time, to most people this is simply an unattractive old building which has been altered beyond recognition as a vernacular dwelling and to most, its replacement by something more traditional would be beneficial".
2.10.2) Paragraph 21: "The proposed replacement will have a balanced and typical frontage and substantial chimney stacks which would be expected on a property of this type. The majority of the additional floor area is behind the main frontage and again in very traditional style. As amended, the property is taller than originally submitted but will not have a large gable and is of more traditional proportions. The dwelling would also be set back from the road, moving it further from existing trees and providing access, parking and turning in accordance with the standards required in the strategic plan. These provisions, regardless of the size of the replacement dwelling, will result in a greater impact than the existing as will raising the level of the dwelling to take into account the floor mitigation measures, again, regardless of the size or height of the new dwelling".
2.10.3) Paragraph 22: "This is a finally balanced recommendation: whilst the proposed dwelling is significantly more than the 50% additional floor space provided for in HP14 it would result in the replacement of a property of poor form which is clearly visible from the main road with one of more traditional proportions and whos frontage is only marginally wider than the existing building although the massing is much greater. If the rear extension were omitted, the floor area of the dwelling would represent a 50% greater floor area than that of the existing building with both side extensions. It is difficult to know how to calculate the existing floor area as the building includes two side extensions which are not part of the living accommodation but are clearly there and part of the building. An application for the replacement of a property known at Bay View in Port Soderick is a comparable case, although that property was not as prominent as this and there were not flooding issues. In that case the property was to be
increased in area by around 200% with a new dwelling on an entirely different footprint. In the present case, the proposed dwelling overlaps the footprint by a small amount, the building being pushed back further on the site to make the provision for turning the vehicles and avoiding the removal of existing trees at the frontage.
2.10.4) Paragraph 23: "On balance, it is considered that the proposal follows the recommendations of Planning Circular 3/91 in terms of the length of frontage and whilst wider than advocated and with extensions at the rear, the proposal will represent the type of property provided for in this Circular. The additional height and impact of the dwelling compared with the existing is partly due to the need to increase the level of the property and also due to the existing property having very low ceiling heights.
2.11) In short, the application, as revised, meets with the full approval of the Planning Officer for the area, who has a full working knowledge and understanding of the planning system and who has applied professional judgement to the interpretation of the policies in her recommendation for approval. In particular, the latter part of HP14 which reads "consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character...". It is clear to all that such a situation as this occurs with this application and in spite of the increased size the Policy supports the application and the logical assessment which has been carried out allows for little interpretation.
2.12) Landscaping
Visibility splays will require the relocation of the existing roadside boundary hedge. The new hedge will be aligned to provide the required visibility as agreed with the Department of Infrastructure.
The proposed site curtilage has been increased by 12 meters to the east. The new rear boundary of the site will be formed with a post and wire fence to match the existing boundary. The proposed site will be levelled and grassed back and front with some additional landscaping and trees. A path runs round the new house, with a patio area outside the breakfast room, lounge and garden room.
2.13) Sustainability Issues
A new private foul drainage system will created by providing a new Klargester Septic Tank of a BioDisc BA Treatment Plant which will discharge into a drainage field or into the existing water course. Percolation tests will be carried out to meet the Building
Control Approval and the correct statutory approvals will be sought from the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority if discharging into the existing water course.
2.13.1) A separate system will be provided to up grade the adjoining neighbours installation. This system is currently shared with the Applicant.
2.13.2) High levels of insulation will be provided having due regard for airtightness. There will be a system of passive whole house ventilation which will be used in association with a heat exchange system.
2.13.3) High quality double glazed units with low emissivity glazing and argon filled units. The fenestration is such as to benefit from winter low level sun penetration whilst in summer provision of large glazed areas will allow for ventilation to occur naturally. An oil fire condensing boiler will be used and all appliances will be AA* rated.
2.13.4) The orientation of the building is such as to benefit the use of solar tubes which are being considered for supplementary water heating.
2.13.5) Any materials that can be reclaimed from the existing property will be reused on the proposal and as far as is practicable. Materials will be sourced from local suppliers and manufactures.
2.4) Appearance
The construction of the house will result in a new dwelling which falls within the guidelines of Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside policies 2 – 7.
2.4.1) The main 2 storey house is symmetrical with a chimney on each gable, a central porch and windows on each side. There is a 2 storey return to the rear containing the lounge and master bedroom. The dining area, lounge and garden room open out onto paved patio areas to the rear of the dwelling. A single storey garden room is located to the right side of the dwelling and benefits from its south facing orientation.
2.4.2) Traditional materials have been proposed, including slate roof with stone or concrete copings, rendered walls with concrete sills and traditionally laid Manx stone will further enhance the traditional appearance. The window sizes reflect the window proportions of traditional fenestration styles.
The site is currently accessed via a shared private lane, with limited visibility due to an existing wall and bend to the left and hedge and tree to the right. It is proposed that a new entrance, gates, pillars and 3.6m wide driveway will be created with new visibility splays as agreed with the Department of Infrastructure – Highways Division. The proposed new entrance will improve safety and ease access and egress onto the Sulby Glen Road.
Planning Department: A pre-application meeting was held on site with Planning Officer Mr Chris Balmer. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an overview of the scheme before submitting the final application. Subsequently, a considerable dialogue has been held with the now appointed Case Officer, Miss S Corlett, with alterations made to ensure a scheme which meets with the Divisions requirements as presented.
Consultation has been carried out with Andrea Georgeson from the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division – the purpose was to discuss highway considerations along the Sulby Glen Road and determine which visibility splays are pertinent to the proposed new driveway and entrance. It was agreed that the new entrance would be an improvement that which it exists and ease egress from the site.
Following assessment of the existing drainage systems, the following will be provided for the new dwelling:
Enclosed at Appendix A is a copy of the planning refusal notice in respect of the application. There is a single reason for refusal: “The proposed dwelling is significantly larger and taller than the existing dwelling and would occupy a greater footprint on a larger residential curtilage. The proposed dwelling is also further back on the site than the existing. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 in terms of size and siting and would result in a significantly greater visual impact than the existing. Whilst Housing Policy 14 allows for replacement dwellings to be greater than 50% larger than the existing, and accept that the existing is of sufficiently poor form to warrant this, what is proposed is considerably larger than this and on a greater curtilage and does not accord with the provisions of Planning Circular 3-91 – policies 2-7, particularly in respect of the depth of the main core of the property. The additional floor area and massing is exacerbated by the fact that the existing cottage is very low in level and any new dwelling would have to be higher, thus instantly increasing its impact”. The content of which has been fully addressed in the initial Design Statement, proposal drawings and indeed the Appeal Statement submitted hereto:
3.1) The size of the property is not hidden and the application seeks approval for a larger residential curtilage.
3.2) The proposed dwelling is set back such as to reduce the impact on the road user along the main highway, however it is in part on the footprint of the existing property and therefore the siting is similar.
3.3) It is suggested that the visual impact of the existing property would be more significant if the vegetation were cleared back and bright white walls, per the Planning Circular, introduced. It is quite significant that the number of previous attempts to extend this property have, whilst having been approved, failed in creating a pleasant property. We submit that the proposals address this matter in its entirety.
3.4) There is no distinguishing within Housing Policy where a line should be drawn as to how much larger than 50% is acceptable. We submit that the proposals as stated previously meets with the accord of the Planning Division and as such the interpretation of the Policy is appropriate.
3.5) The assessment of the Planning Officer, who has applied professional judgement, is that of the depth of the main core of the property as designed after revision is acceptable.
3.6) The levels associated with the proposed development have been arrived at after consultation with the Water & Sewerage Authority who indicate that the site may be subject to flooding, this not directly from the main river rather from the highways at the front of the property where flood waters may enter in that direction.
It is firmly considered that the reason for refusal is flawed and indeed the recommendation of the Planning Officer should have been followed as this case does not create any exceptions to accepted policy.
4.1) The application seeks for detailed approval for the demolition of the existing poorly formed, badly proportioned Manx home known as Hill View. There are detailed landscape proposals and alterations to the access will allow for safer road use.
4.1.2) The proposals seeks for approval of a property which uses quality modern materials and matches those generally accepted for this purpose.
4.1.3) We submit that the application has no implications on other users in the area suffice to make the access to the adjoining property easier. The existing environmental eye sore will be cleaned up as part of the application. The existing overhead cabling from the Manx Electricity Authority would be undergrounded as part of the proposal.
4.1.4) The supporting information in the Appeal Statement clearly identifies the context in which the proposals sit, admirably demonstrating that the building will not have any detrimental effects on the setting for the building and for the design and implementation of the works will contribute significantly the environment by cleaning up the existing eye sore and collection of poorly formed buildings.
4.1.5) The submitted information from Manx National Heritage charts the history of the property and recognises that the features have been lost. It is a complete folly to suggest that the features may be re-introduced to the existing property. The Applicant is aware of very recent examples where Planning Approval has been granted in similar circumstances for properties of similar nature and size.
4.1.6) There are no objections from the Highway Authority.
4.1.7) There is signification strategic Government support for this type of development which, as per the application, fulfils all criteria for sensitive replacement development within the countryside to provide housing to meet the needs of the Manx nation.
In considering the application the Inspector is respectfully requested to recommend to the Minister that the decision of the Planning Committee be reversed, and that the Appeal be upheld and that he grants approval with conditions, in detail for the proposals as identified all at Hill View, Sulby Glen Road, Sulby, Isle of Man.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown