Demolition of existing house and barn and erection of a detached dwelling, garages and staff accommodation with associated hard and soft landscaping
Site Address:
Ballaveare Old Castletown Road Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BB
Case Officer:
Mr A Holmes
Photo Taken:
11.01.2012
Site Visit:
11.01.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Officer Delegation
The Application Site
The application site comprises land located to the west of Old Castletown Road and south of the B23 in the Port Soderick area of Braddan. The western section of the application site makes up the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling with the remaining land being open paddock land within the ownership of the applicant.
The Proposal
The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing house and barn and erection of a detached dwelling, garages and staff accommodation with associated hard and soft landscaping.
Planning History
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, two of which could be considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Planning application 00/00769/A sought planning approval in principle for erection of dwelling to replace barn/stables on land to the rear of Ballaveare, Old Castletown Road, Braddan. This previous planning application was approved on the 5th September 2000. The planning approval was subsequently extended and expired on the 5th September 2003.
Planning application 02/01686/B sought planning approval for the erection of dwelling with integral garages to replace barns/stables on land at Ballaveare, Old Castletown Road, Braddan. This previous planning application was approved on the 17th April 2003. The planning approval was subsequently extended and expired on the 16th April 2009. The development permitted by this planning approval was not implemented.
Planning Policy
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space (agricultural) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 – Plan No. 3.
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains four policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 3 states:
"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
(c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
(d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
(e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
(g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
(h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage"
Housing Policy 4 states:
"New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
(c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."
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 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."
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 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 or siting, there would be less visual impact."
REPRESENTATIONS
Braddan Parish Commissioners have no objections to the planning application.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.
The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application.
The owners and/or occupants of Shen Valley, which is located directly adjacent to the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development will be detrimental to their private residential amenity, particularly in terms of loss of privacy.
Assessment
The planning application seeks planning approval for the demolition of the existing house and barn and erection of a detached dwelling, garages and staff accommodation with associated hard and soft landscaping. The proposal, which is detailed within a series of drawings and landscape plans, is accompanied by tree survey, landscape design statement, and a design and planning statement.
Under the provisions of General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 the erection of a replacement dwelling on a one for one basis is an accepted exception to the general presumption against development within the countryside. In this instance the existing dwelling has full habitable status and therefore also accords with Housing Policy 12, which means that the primary policy to assess the proposed development against is Housing Policy 14.
As can be seen, Housing Policy 14 raises a number of issues that need to be taken into account. First of all it is necessary to look at the siting of the proposed dwelling relative to that of the existing one. In this respect it can be seen that the main body of the proposed replacement dwelling is set back further from Old Castletown Road than the existing dwelling. However, as part of the proposed development does overlap the existing dwelling it does mean that the construction of the proposed replacement dwelling would require the demolition of the existing dwelling. The proposal also results in the demolition of the existing barn building located to the rear of the existing dwelling. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development accords with the first part of Housing Policy 14 insofar that the new building is generally sited on the footprint of the existing.
After considering the issue of siting it is necessary to consider the size of the proposed replacement dwelling. Housing policy 14 essentially breaks this down into the percentage increase in floor area from existing to proposed, based on the outcome of which there are differing considerations within the policy. The starting point for this has to be the floor area of the existing dwelling, which based on the submitted drawings of the ground floor and first floor including balconies equates to 747sqm. The floor area of the proposed replacement dwelling, based on the submitted drawings, equates to 2302sqm. The proposed percentage increase from existing to proposed is therefore 208%. Given the size of the proposed increase in floor area it has to be concluded that the proposed development fails to accord with the second part of Housing Policy 14. However, a proposed increase in floor area of more than 50% is not an automatic reason for refusal of a planning application as Housing Policy 14 goes onto to state that there are two grounds for consideration to be given to larger dwellings. Indeed, under the provisions of the second paragraph of Housing Policy 14 a larger replacement dwelling may be acceptable where either i) the proposal involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character; ii) or where, by its design or siting, the proposed development would have less visual impact than the existing.
In respect of the consideration of i) the existing dwelling is a non-traditional property has been the subject of significant alteration and extension over time, including significant flat roof extensions. The net result of this is a dwelling that has no cohesion in terms of its design or external appearance. Overall, it is reasonable to say that the existing dwelling is of poor form. The design of the proposed replacement dwelling is best described as being a modern interpretation of a Georgian mansion. As the Island does not have an architectural tradition of dwellings of this style it has to be concluded that the proposed dwelling is not of traditional character. It is therefore concluded that whilst the proposal would replace an existing dwelling of poor form it would not do so with one of more traditional character. As such, the proposal does not represent a permissible exception for a larger replacement dwelling under the first part of the second paragraph of Housing Policy 14.
As for assessment of ii) the proposed replacement dwelling has to be said to be significantly larger than the one it proposes to replace. The ridge height of the main body of the existing dwelling is 7.5m and its overall width is approximately 30m, whereas the ridge height of the main body of the proposed replacement dwelling is 11.6m and its overall width is approximately 42m. The consequence of such significant increase in size is likely to have impact on the visibility of the proposed replacement dwelling. The main potential viewpoints of the application site are from Old Castletown Road and from
the B23. Based on site visit it is considered that views into the application site from the B23 are limited by a combination of topography, natural screening and distance. It is considered that the proposed development would not be visible from this road and as the land heads east towards the sea the potential for views decreases rapidly. As can be seen on site the existing dwelling is readily visible from Old Castletown Road. Whilst the proposed development amends the frontage onto Old Castletown Road and it is accompanied by an extensive landscaping scheme it is concluded that the proposed replacement dwelling would be visible at points along this road. As it is larger than the dwelling being replaced it cannot be reasonably be said that the proposed replacement dwelling would have less visual impact. As such, the proposal does not represent a permissible exception for a larger replacement dwelling under the second part of the second paragraph of Housing Policy 14.
Other issues to consider as part of the assessment of the planning application include the acceptability of the proposed residential curtilage, the impact of the proposal on private amenity and the impact of the proposal on highway safety.
In terms of residential curtilage, the positioning of the proposed dwelling and the extent of formal garden area is essentially the same as the residential curtilage of the existing dwelling, with the planning application showing the adjoining land as a wildflower meadow. As this adjoining land would not be a formal garden it is concluded that the proposed residential curtilage is acceptable, this conclusion is reached on the basis of accepting that whilst there is a pavilion shown within the wildflower meadow the size and extent of this development is minor. To ensure that this issue is appropriate covered if planning approval were granted it would be appropriate to require the submission of a plan to agreed and define the residential curtilage. As for effect on private residential amenity, due to its position, layout, general distances involved and landscaping it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would not affect the private residential amenity of existing surrounding property to an extent that would warrant refusal of the planning application. Finally, in respect of highway safety, whilst the planning application proposes to alter vehicular access onto Old Castletown Road the proposal improves visibility and does not adversely affect highway safety.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the planning application be refused.
Party Status
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
Braddan Parish Commissioners; and
The owners and/or occupants of Shen Valley.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division; and
The Manx Electricity Authority.
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
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused
Date of Recommendation:
25.01.2012
R 1.
The proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 insofar as the proposed replacement dwelling, which proposes an increase in floor area that is significantly greater than 50% of the existing, is concluded not to either constitute the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character or by reason of its design or siting to result in less visual impact than that of the existing dwelling.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 31 January 2012
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : ... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
