{{table:14705}} Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
Officer's Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE REPLACEMENT DWELLING IS MORE THAN 50% LARGER THAN THE EXISTING PROPERTY
The Site
The site as defined in the location plan is the curtilage of an existing modest cottage situated alongside the road leading into Sulby. The cottage has a shallow pitched roof with a small chimney on each end, square windows and a small porch on the front. The cottage sits lower than the road and has a lean-to garage on one side and a rear annex and a small side annex which is presently covered in ivy.
The dwelling sits in approximately 0.2 acres of land with a frontage to the highway of around 32m. The curtilage extends into the site by approximately 30m. The residential curtilage is arbitrarily defined with the remainder of the land owned by the applicant almost indistinguishable from the curtilage. There is a small shed in the area to the north east of the dwelling. To the immediate south west of the property is another dwelling, White Lodge and 170m or so to the north east is the Mill, separated from the dwelling by the grazing land attached to the application property.
The existing dwelling has a frontage of 10.5m with the side annex adding a further 3m and the garage 3.3m at a slightly higher level. The floor area of the existing cottage is 137 square metres, 155 sq m including the garage. The cottage is 5.5m tall to the ridge.
The Proposal
Proposed is the replacement of the dwelling with a new dwelling and detached garage. As proposed initially, the new dwelling would have had a frontage of 12.3m with a single storey extension on the right projecting a further 5.2m to the side. The main core of the dwelling was to have a depth of 9.3m with a further annex at the rear of an additional 5m. Overall the floor area of the proposed dwelling would have been 339 square metres with the potential for a further 55 square metres in the attic (as measured with a head height of 1.5m or over). The garage is a double garage with a floor area of 36m as could be erected under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005. The proposed dwelling will be 8m tall.
The residential curtilage is to be increased by approximately 54% - effectively increasing the depth of the site to 44m. The new dwelling would be 14m back from the road: the existing cottage sits 8m back.
Following concerns expressed regarding the size and bulk of the dwelling, the scheme has been amended to reduce the depth of the main core of the dwelling to 7.2m. The height of the dwelling will increase to 8.3m but with a roof pitched at 40 degrees rather than 30 proposed previously. The floor area is reduced to 323 sq m. This represents an increase of 132% over and above the existing floor area including the existing garage as it is attached to the existing structure, but excluding the proposed garage as it is detached. The ground floor level of the property is to be 400mm above the highest existing ground level at the site of the dwelling to meet the requirements of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted together with the application.
Planning Policy And Status
The site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and Woodland on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982.
As such, the proposal should be considered in respect of Housing Policies 12 and 14 which are as follows:
Housing Policy 12 states: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable state 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."
Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area 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 generally, 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 which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
The site also lies within an area at risk of flooding from encroachment of flood waters from the north and south rather than direct flooding from the river.
Planning History
PA 09/1021 proposed the erection of a replacement dwelling. This proposed a dwelling 404 sq m in size and would have been 10m in height with a hipped roof. This was refused for the following reason:
"The proposal would result in a replacement dwelling of an excessive scale which would detract from the character and appearance of the area by reason of its design, size and massing, and resultant increased visual impact. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 14 & Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91."
Representations
A resident of Douglas comments that the drawings are missing (from the website).
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority indicate that the site is at risk of flooding and that a flood risk assessment is required, in the absence of which they would object.
The Manx Electricity Authority seek consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies to the site.
Lezayre Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the proposed dwelling is not in keeping with the surrounding properties.
Highways and Traffic Division raise no objection to the proposal.
The occupant of White Lodge, which lies immediately adjacent to the site to the south west clarifies that the property indicates that their septic tank is shared with the existing application property and the proposed development will adversely affect this arrangement.
Manx National Heritage indicate that the property is a good example of how traditional cottages can evolve over time and are reluctant to support its replacement. They also indicate that the calculations for floor area should not include the existing attached extensions and as such the proposed dwelling is considerably outside the 50% provided for in the policy.
Assessment
The proposed dwelling is smaller than the most recent proposal and is of a more traditional design and appearance. However, the test is not how different it is from the previous scheme, but whether it complies with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 and if it doesn't, whether the policy should be set aside in this case.
The existing dwelling is considered to be of poor form due to the shallow pitched roof, large window openings and small chimneys. In some cases where traditional properties have been altered and spoiled over time, there is some potential for reinstatement of the traditional character. In this case the potential is very small and low, hampered by the fact that the property is very close to and below the level of the road which does not lend itself to easy waterproofing and addressing water ingress from the highway and the field. As such, it is considered that the principle of the demolition and replacement of the existing is acceptable and that some flexibility should be given for a larger dwelling than would normally be permitted (an increase in floor area of 50% above the existing). The reasoning behind this is given at paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan: Extension to properties in the countryside, which states:
"As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form extensions to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property. In the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be
preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this." It is also relevant that even a simple traditional cottage in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 and with modern ceiling heights (which is not far off what is proposed here, but with a single storey annex on the right hand side: the proposed dwelling is 7.1m wide compared with 5.5m as advocated in the Circular) would be significantly taller and thus greater in massing than the existing. The proposed dwelling is 0.5m wider than the existing including both the existing and proposed side annexes.
It is recommended that this is an example of a property which the Authority 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.
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 as large a 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 flood mitigation measures, again, regardless of the size or height of the new dwelling.
This is a finely balanced recommendation: whilst the proposed dwelling is significantly more than the 50% additional floorspace provided for in HP 14 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 whose 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 also 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 as 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 the 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 provision for turning of vehicles and avoiding removal of existing trees on the frontage.
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.
Party Status
The local authority, Lezayre Parish Commissioners, is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority is a statutory authority and should be afforded party status in this case.
The owner of White Lodge is immediately alongside the site and as such should be afforded party status.
The resident of Douglas is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.
The Manx Electricity Authority do not raise material planning considerations and should not be afforded party status in this case.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Supplementary Report
The Planning Committee refused the application at its meeting of 29th May, 2012 on the basis that the new dwelling would be considerably larger than 50% greater than the existing, the property would not be on the footprint of the existing, the curtilage would be significantly increased, all of which would result in a greater visual impact than the existing, thus not complying with the provisions of HP 14.
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
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
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted
Date of Recommendation:
21.05.2012
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.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
