Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/01219/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/01219/B Applicant : Mr Andrew Barnett Proposal : Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with associated driveway Site Address : Belmont Lewaigue Road Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle of Man IM7 1BF
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED RELATES TO THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING DWELLING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling known as "Belmont" on Lewaigue Road in Dreemskerry, Maughold, and also includes part of the adjacent field that is also owned by the owner / applicant. Belmont sits well below the highway such that even though it is only about 15 metres from the highway its eaves are set slightly lower than the road. The driveway has a pair of accesses onto Lewaigue Road but even so visibility is poor given the difference in levels.
1.2 Belmont is not a dwelling of traditional Manx vernacular and does not exhibit any particular architectural merit although equally it is not of wholly inappropriate or poor form. The fact it is sat well below the highway means that views of its varied massing and form are fairly limited. The site is apparent from the Maughold Conservation Area away to the east but could not be said to be prominent given the tree presence and, primarily, the distances between the site and publicly accessible positions.
1.3 Other dwellings similarly set down from the highway can be found in the area, the built environment being characterised by its somewhat sporadic linearity.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY AND PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS
2.1 The site was the subject of a withdrawn application for a replacement dwelling in 2014 (PA 14/00149/B). That application was submitted by a different agent and fell for consideration by a case officer who felt the design represented a missed opportunity and engaged in lengthy discussions with the applicant. A design not dissimilar to that now proposed was provided in very rough detail and the case officer suggested that the applicants' sketch drawing be turned into something more formal by an architect. This led to the application being withdrawn in lieu of awaiting the amended design, to be provided by a new agent.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/01219/B
Page 2 of 11
2.2 There were then further discussions between the applicant and agent and the Department with a view to trying to gain a better understanding of how to move forward. The designs proposed were applicant-led and officers indicated that the proposal would, at best, reflect a significant missed opportunity and at worst be considered as contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.
2.3 At a final meeting prior to the application's submission, officers suggested that the design would probably not be considered 'traditional' as per the wording of Housing Policy 14 and Circular 3/91, but equally might not be viewed as 'innovative, modern' design as also outlined in that policy. Where a proposal does not comply completely with the policy, it is more difficult for officers to be able to advise that a development may be considered favourably and the further away from the policy the proposed development moves, the less certainty there will be in the advice given. It was discussed that, where a potential discrepancy between what is proposed relative to the policy against which it would be assessed exists, a statement indicating why the proposal should be considered either (i) compliant with the policy or (ii) an acceptable departure from the policy would be helpful to include with the application. It was concluded that, since the applicants are not keen on traditional Manx vernacular and that they also do not wish to pursue a contemporary approach that may upset neighbours, it would be in their best interests to test the design they wish to pursue through a planning application.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL
3.1 Full planning approval is again sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The nature of the site and the extended discussions between the Department and the applicant and their agent is such that the application has been substantiated by a lengthy Planning Statement.
3.2 The dwelling proposed is designed to have the appearance of "a classical country manor design", but which also has a significant level of glazing to the rear. The Planning Statement is clear that the design has evolved from the clients' personal tastes as well as discussions with planning officers and local residents, who it is understood "would feel obliged to object to the proposal" were a contemporary design proposed.
3.3 The front elevation has hints of a Georgian influence in terms of its massing and hipped roof design, with an arched-window central above a ground floor portico in addition to six-over-six paned windows throughout. Of less classically Georgian influence are the hood mouldings above the windows, the lack of a three-storey massing and the rather steeply pitched roof.
3.4 To the rear, the design is much more contemporary. The site topography allows for three storeys to the rear, and the majority of this is to be glazed. No fewer than 33 floor-to-ceiling glazing panels are proposed in this elevation, with seven French or bi-folding door accesses shown amongst these, along with associated patios / terracing.
3.5 Associated with the dwelling to the northwest would be an attached double garage. To the front elevation this separate element would be single storey and to the rear two storeys; at the rear, the lower level would provide a 'garden store'. As a whole, the dwelling would provide five en-suite bedrooms (one for guests) in addition to an associated lounge, kitchen, dining room, large music room (the applicant is a pianist by profession), study, snug and utility room. Solar panels are shown on the garage roof and the agent indicates that other environmentally friendly technology is to be installed. The existing highway entrances would be blocked up to prevent floodwater entering the property, with the driveways to be broken up and planted; the agent considers this to mean the application is compliant with Housing Policy 14 as it constitutes an overall environmental improvement.
3.6 Belmont is 342sqm in floorspace. The proposed dwelling is 679.5sqm in size (or 539.3sqm if excluding the garage), representing an almost exactly 100% increase over Belmont. The proposed dwelling would have a noticeably smaller footprint than Belmont, and would also be set a further
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/01219/B
Page 3 of 11
4.6m from the highway than Belmont - totalling some 19m from the highway. This enables the proposed dwelling to have a ridgeline at approximately the same height as the existing dwelling, though obviously set back further from the road and therefore potentially having a greater prominent within the streetscene.
3.7 Additionally proposed is a small extension to the residential curtilage in order to provide a new highway access. This would replace the existing pair of accesses immediately in front of the dwelling and would allow for a more gently graded route out from the dwelling's driveway and onto the highway.
3.8 As originally submitted, the planning application included within the red line the entirety of the adjacent field. As this could be seen to result in an extension to the residential curtilage, an amended plan showing the majority of that field in blue and the existing curtilage plus the aforementioned amended highway access in red was sought and circulated to the interested parties.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 As the site falls within an area of land not zoned for any particular use or development under the 1982 Development Plan, as well as being designated high landscape value, there is a presumption against new development here. As noted, though, Housing Policy 14 does allow for replacement dwellings in such area on a one-for-one basis; given the complexity of Housing Policy 14 and the kind of assessment that needs to be made in considering such proposals, it is worth noting the policy text in full:
"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."
4.2 It is also worth noting the wording of Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered their support to the application on 9th November 2015, commenting as follows:
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/01219/B
Page 4 of 11
"The current vehicular access is off a steep gradient which can cause visibility issues for any vehicles the site. The proposed new access improves the current issues and is seen as an improvement in terms of road safety for all road users."
5.2.1 The Forester within the Department identified on 11th November 2015 a number of areas lacking clarity in the application, noting that it was not clear from the plans submitted which or even how many trees exactly need to be removed. He identified the following issues to be addressed:
o Survey does not cover the whole of the site. o The site plan does not show those trees that need to be removed. o Schedule of Trees to remove should be submitted. o Trees can be removed where the planning authority has given consent in the form of a planning approval. For this reason it is important that we are clear exactly what tree removal an approval would consent for.
5.2.2 He commented on 27th April 2016 as follows, following clarification of matters from the agent: "I think all these points have been addressed. They have clarified that only 2 trees will be removed; 1 prunus and 1 ash. I not concerned about the impact of this."
5.3 The Senior Biodiversity Officer sought clarification on the scope / extent of the proposal and their likely impact on wildlife interest, initially on 2nd December 2016, noting in particular that there had been a record of lizard activity on the land. As the red line of the application site included the land to the east where the activity had been noted, but then this land was removed from the application site, the Officer offered no concern with the proposal. He further sought that any evidence of bat roost activity in the ash tree proposed for felling be assessed: this was done by the applicant and the Officer offered his contentment with the proposal overall on 6th January 2016.
5.4 In view of the concerns raised in respect of flooding (see below), the flood risk team within Manx Utilities were contacted for their views. Although they expressed their opinion to John Houghton MHK about the proposal on 7th April 2016, this was only communicated to the Department on 27th April 2016:
"The flooding concern issue has been looked into and a watershed analysis has been carried out which indicates that any water which did find its way into the drive of the property will now go down the road and be picked up in new road drainage which is part of this application. From a flood risk perspective Manx Utilities have no concerns over the proposals."
5.5.1 Maughold Parish Commissioners objected to the application in comments received 10th November 2015. They note that "the proposed dwelling is substantially higher" than the existing and that "the proposed structure would be much more detrimental to the environment". They also believe that because there would be a "much larger than 50% increase in floor area" the proposal must be assessed against the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Circular 3/91 and "these indicate that these proposals cannot be approved" as "the proposals are not within the guidelines" of Policies 2-7 of Circular 3/91 and "would result in a dwelling that would have an adverse impact on the landscape".
5.5.2 On 18th January 2016, the Commissioners offered further comment to the proposal. They maintained their objection, concluding that the proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 and that it cannot be permitted if this policy and Circular 3/91 are correctly considered. They further note that drainage and storm water runoff has also come to light following heavy rains on 3rd December 2015, with Dreemskerry Farm below Belmont being severely flooded and having its driveway washed away. They take the view that the consequences of redevelopment at the latter address be fully considered prior to a decision being made, and moreover that any tree removal should not exacerbate the drainage situation in the area.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/01219/B
Page 5 of 11
5.5.3 The Commissioners subsequently had a meeting with the applicant to discuss some of their concerns, at which the case officer was not present. The meeting was apparently fruitful and the applicant invited the Commissioners to make further comment with respect to the proposal to the Department following that meeting. The Commissioners orally confirmed on 27th April 2016 that they had no further comment to make.
5.6.1 The owners and occupiers of Dreemskerry Farm, situated due north of the application site but the associated landholding of which adjoins the application site, in comments received 25th November 2015 respectfully asked the Committee to consider the following points:
The visual impact from across the valley in the assessment of their own applications for an extension and a new garage was of paramount importance; the Belmont proposal pays scant attention to this requirement. They request that the impact from across the valley is given similar weighting in the assessment of this proposal for purposes of consistency. 2. The proposal is not definitive regarding tree retention, yet it is imperative for cover and ground stability that they be retained. 3. They note the proposal to assist and speed up the transfer of "excess water" does not mention the possible impact on land below, which they own and which becomes a quagmire during periods of sustained rainfall.
5.6.2 In a letter received 7th January 2016, they highlight that the concerns raised in their initial letter were proven very real when their driveway of roughly 1,000sqm was destroyed and their house become under water following Storms Desmond, Eva and Frank. They note that track ballast has been washed away, rendering the railway inoperable, and further note that the water has emanated from properties / fields above their own. They reiterate all their previous concerns in this respect, and also in respect of the view of the visual impact of the proposal.
5.7 The owner / occupier of The Spinney, which adjoins the application site, wrote in support of the application, in comments received 5th December 2016. He notes: the existing dwelling is in poor repair and unoccupied and the occupants have worked hard to prepare a design that meets the requirements of the planning office; the dwellings on Dreemskerry Road are all substantial and individual in character, designed to take account of the beautiful scenery, and much thought has been given to this design.
5.8 The owner and occupier of Glebe Cottage in Maughold village objected to the application in comments made 13th November 2015, noting that the address is wrong (surely this is Ballajora Road?) and also that they agree with the comments of the Commissioners. "The application seems to propose a vast, 4 storey, mansion which will be visible...most noticeably from across the valley". They also indicate that they have had thoughts about replacing their house but "would not dare suggest such a monster as this!".
5.9 The agent to the application provided a letter in response to some of the comments above; this was received 12th January 2016, and noted the following:
o The proposed dwelling would be 50mm higher than the existing; o The new dwelling would be less environmentally intrusive than the existing, and has been designed with energy efficiency in mind; o Policy 8 of Circular 3/91 would allow for the proposal, with the remainder of the document suitable only for small or medium-sized dwellings, and Housing Policy 14 implies that contemporary designs should be used; o The building is three, and not four, storeys in height, and would be obscured from Glebe Cottage substantially if not completely; o The nearest building across the valley is 740m away and the second closest 1km away; o No trees are proposed for removal from the slope of the garden; o The flooding that runs down the field will be prevented with the new design;
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/01219/B
Page 6 of 11
o Under the proposal floodwater would be directed towards the field in the ownership of the applicants, away from Dreemskerry Farm, and so there will be no possibility of water flowing horizontally across the valley; o Floodwater causing damage to the drive associated with Dreemskerry Farm and the railway cannot have come from the applicants' land as there is no boundary onto either of these; o People suffering from flooding that is of no fault of their own are understandably angry, but this proposal would address flooding and subsidence issues caused from uphill and would also protect the new property and others in the area; o No glare treatment is proposed for the windows to the rear of the property, which are north- facing and will in any case be treated in such a way to reduce heat build-up from solar gain and also glare to other properties.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The acceptability of the principle of a replacement dwelling in this location is set out in Housing Policy 14. What remains for consideration is the detail of the proposal. In making any such assessment, regard must be had to (i) the design quality of the existing dwelling, (ii) the design quality of that which is proposed for replacement, and (iii) the change in visual impact the new dwelling would bring, to include consideration of the character of the site and how it relates to its surroundings.
6.2 The proposed replacement dwelling is self-evidently not of traditional Manx vernacular and therefore does not comply with the 'general' expectation of Housing Policy 14 that dwellings be so designed. As such, the acceptability of the proposal will turn on whether it meets the 'exceptional' expectation of Housing Policy 14:
"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... 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."
6.3 It is to be remembered that the proposed replacement dwelling is in excess of the 50% increase threshold normally expected in such situations, but the nature of this site is likely that the acceptability of the proposal will turn more on its design and consequent visual impact than on a strict reading of the mathematics involved.
The design quality of the existing dwelling
6.4 The agent to the application argues that the existing dwelling is "disjointed" and "of poor form". It was originally constructed in 1948 and various 1970s extensions have resulted in the loss of its original appearance and style. The agent contends that this has resulted in an internal layout that is both impractical and awkward to use, as well as an external appearance that is "an eyesore of mismatching and conflicting styles, with an unsightly large area of flat roof and mismatched areas such as the pitched roofs where tiles altering in both style and colour are visible from the roadside".
6.5 In the same way that proposals for new dwellings may require a subjective judgement, so too do assessments of existing properties: while the quantitative argument made by the agent is not necessarily disputed, it is equally the case that many people might walk or drive past Belmont and consider its mixture of forms, styles and historic extensions to provide a positive character. It is also true that, in the same way the new dwelling will not be easily visible from the surrounding area given the lack of publicly accessible viewpoints, Belmont is also fairly hidden away.
6.6 The agent also includes photographs of water damage within Belmont, suggesting it is in poor repair. While there is no evidence to either confirm or deny this point, it should be
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/01219/B
Page 7 of 11
remembered that it is usually possible to bring a building into habitable use however poor its state of repair: otherwise, there would be very few barn conversion proposals.
6.7 Belmont could be considered to be of poor form but equally it is considered that its apparentness in the wider landscape is limited. Therefore, while its loss would not necessarily be considered to be harmful to the character of the area, that which is proposed for replacement must be carefully weighed against this character.
The design quality of that which is proposed for replacement
6.8 As the dwelling is not of traditional Manx vernacular, the assessment must consider the extent to which it is modern and innovative. The intention to create a more traditional feel to the front elevation and a more contemporary feel to the rear elevation is welcome and understood. Such approaches can be successful, although it is perhaps a shame that the applicants feel the need to 'hide' the contemporary element.
6.9 However, the traditional frontage does not quite fit the archetype of the Georgian country mansion / estate house that appears to be the intention, and the site does not lend itself to such a dwelling given its steep topography such that the grand frontage would rarely have been seen. Part of the point of taking a 'grand' approach in Georgian times would have been to demonstrate wealth and prosperity, which may not have been possible in a secluded location such as this. The fact that the proposed dwelling does not benefit from the typically robust chimneys or shallow roof archetypal to such Georgian properties is unfortunate, though the level and kind of detailing, the general massing and form and the window and door arrangement are of more obviously Georgian progeny.
6.10 The dwelling proposed therefore represents a mixture of design styles and historical origin. Whether it is successful is necessarily subjective. It is not in itself of poor form, and there has clearly been a great deal of thought given to the overall design and use (although having a utility room - with no exterior access - and kitchen two floors apart is rather unusual), and it is not considered to be fundamentally objectionable. Its front elevation in particular is well-proportioned and the intention to make the garage appear as a subsequent extension via a subordinate glazed- link extension is an accepted architectural technique.
6.11 Perhaps of most importance in coming to a conclusion on the proposal, then, is the extent to which the environmental impact, and character of the area as a whole, would be altered should the proposed dwelling be constructed.
The character of the area, and an assessment of the proposed dwelling's likely visual impact
6.12 In the first instance, it should be remembered that the Maughold Conservation Area - the only Conservation Area in the Island to include such a large swathe of open countryside - sits to the east of the site. It should also be remembered that Dreemskerry, as a settlement, has no particular defining character to its built environment. It should also be noted that Housing Policy 14 allows for replacement dwellings in countryside locations where these are either of traditional Manx vernacular or, in exceptional circumstances, "permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact". HP14 also states: "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." A final point to note is that the site cannot be readily discerned from the adjacent highway, and while views from the Conservation Area itself are necessarily long-distance the site is rather more easily seen from the nearby Manx Electric Railway line. It can, however, be readily discerned, at stages, for a great length along the coast road. While it is noted that the dwelling will likely be most easily identified / identifiable by those looking for it, it may be that the new proposal with its significant amount of glazing will be more readily visible.
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/01219/B
Page 8 of 11
6.13 It is considered that, very much on balance, all of these elements come together such that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character of the area. This 'character' is very rural and those dwellings present are not easily seen and nor do they offer a particularly strong vernacular style. Few could be said to be of especially high quality architecture, though, equally, very few could be said to be of poor form. In this sense, the proposed dwelling would, almost by virtue of its being neither one thing nor the other, fit within this varied architectural aesthetic.
6.14 Views of the site from the Conservation Area and MER line will be more apparent should the proposed dwelling be approved given that the proposed glazing is over three storeys and will very likely reflect ambient and direct light eastwards. Limited details on the glazing's reflectiveness have been provided. Non-reflective would preferable but the glazing of the scale proposed will also likely have a fairly significant impact purely from the point of view of its overall extent relative to the existing situation. The sheer extent of the glazing proposed is significant and cannot be ignored but, on balance, may have a beneficial impact on the visual impact relative to Belmont, which is predominantly white-rendered albeit has become weathered over time.
6.15 The design is, if nothing else, bold and will be visible from public positions but, on balance, is not considered to result in an adverse visual impact. Whether this means the proposal could be judged as complying with Housing Policy 14 is another matter, of course. It is readily accepted that to many people the proposed dwelling is completely contrary to Housing Policy 14, and the subjectivity must be divorced from the objective policy as much as possible. It is considered that the key element of the policy in this case is whether or not the proposed new dwelling would have less visual impact than the existing. It would be less visible from both the adjacent highway but more visible from the coast road by virtue of the reduced built environment mass and the large expanse of glazing respectively. It is a very hard balance to strike, given the relevant wording of HP14. While there is no one element of the scheme that is considered to clearly indicate an approval or a refusal should be issued, it is concluded that this in itself is such as to mean that the overall impact would be different but neither better nor worse than the existing situation. As such, it is considered that the proposal, in what must be a finely balanced conclusion, is not at sufficiently significant odds with the wording of Housing Policy 14 as to warrant its refusal.
6.16 The concern raised about the assessment of the visual impact of the proposal as raised by the owners of Dreemskerry Farm relative to their previous experiences is acknowledged. However, and while it is appreciated that this might be frustrating, that situation was different inasmuch as it related to changes to a standalone garage building for which there was no policy support given the site's countryside location; that which is proposed here does have policy support - in principle, at least - and so less intensive assessment of the visual impact is possible. That is not to say, of course, that the issue has not been given very close attention and, indeed, represents the most serious concern in the assessment.
Other matters
6.17 The proposed use of solar panels, a ventilation heat recovery system and also (possibly) an air source heat pump is welcome. None of these can be controlled by planning condition, although the solar panels are shown on the submitted drawings. It is likely that the new dwelling would be more environmentally efficient than Belmont, although this is not considered sufficient reason in itself to justify a recommendation of approval, and the conclusions with respect to the visual impact of the proposal are, in this case, judged to carry the most significant weight in the assessment of the application.
6.18 No details of the entrance have been provided. The applicant has indicated he would be content with a condition limiting this to a Manx stone wall and without gates, although it may be that Committee members prefer a greater level of detail and seek further details by way of a
==== PAGE 9 ====
15/01219/B
Page 9 of 11
drawing to satisfy themselves of the appearance of this. A condition in respect of the stone finish of walls on the site is recommended accordingly.
6.19 Although a potentially controversial element, the extension of the residential curtilage is considered to be welcome in this case. The existing highway accesses are both poor in terms of visibility and ease of manoeuvre given the height difference between the site and the highway, and the proposed increase in curtilage to allow a single access of markedly shallower gradation is very much welcomed by Highway Services and is similarly welcome from a Planning side. A condition requiring the access / visibility splay be laid out as per the approved plans prior to the occupation of the dwelling would be appropriate.
6.20 The approach to trees on the site is considered acceptable and no objection is raised on this point.
6.21 The concern raised by owners of neighbouring land and the nearby Dreemskerry Farm in respect of flooding is understood inasmuch as the proposed method of diverting flood waters elsewhere does not appear to be based on hydrology reports. However, given the MUA have no concerns about the proposal compounding existing problems it would seem that it would be difficult to sustain an objection to this issue.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It has been a difficult proposal to assess. Clearly the design has been drawn from the applicants' own preferences and in this could not be said to be traditionally Manx in design. While the design is innovative, this does not necessarily mean it will make a positive contribution to the built environment of the area or Island as a whole. The resulting scheme has been seen to be somewhat disordered in drawing from various historic periods and not wholly successfully and, as a result, in many ways could be said to result in a neutral visual impact in view of the appearance, position and visibility of Belmont itself.
7.2 While Housing Policy 14 would, in circumstances where a more-than-50% increase in size is proposed, normally require the application to demonstrate that there would be less of a visual impact from the proposed dwelling than the existing. It is not considered that this demonstration has been fully made in this circumstance. The agent considers that a larger floorspace on a smaller footprint makes this demonstration, although in doing so he relies on his opinion that the existing dwelling is of poor form and the proposed dwelling is not, which is clearly a subjective judgement. However, equally of relevance is the more general consideration of the harm resulting from the grant of planning approval.
7.3 Taking very much a balanced view, then, and having regard to the obscurity of the site, it is considered that any refusal of the application would have to rely upon the arising visual impact and, in this case, the impact would not be so significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area as to warrant a fundamental objection to the application. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; o Highways Services of the Department of Infrastructure; and
==== PAGE 10 ====
15/01219/B Page 10 of 11
o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
8.2.1 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do have sufficient interest and should therefore be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The Manx Utilities Authority; o The owner / occupier of The Spinney, and o The owner / occupier of Dreemskerry Farm.
The former dwelling is located adjacent Belmont, while the land ownership associated with the latter adjoins that of Belmont.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should therefore not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The Forester within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture, nor o The Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture, nor o The owner / occupier of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold, which is too far from the application site to be materially affected by the proposal.
9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE
9.1 Ms Reid of Highway Services asked for the wording of Condition 2 as originally recommended be amended slightly to require the splay be provided prior to the commencement of the dwelling approved. She felt that the access would be poor for the construction traffic as well as for the future occupiers, and the Committee accepted this recommendation.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.04.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
C 2.
==== PAGE 11 ====
15/01219/B Page 11 of 11
Prior to the commencement of the dwelling hereby approved, the existing accesses shall be blocked up using Manx stone and the new access and visibility splay shall be laid out, all as shown on approved plan 03.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), any walls erected on the site shall be formed of Manx stone, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: In the interest of the character and amenity of the site.
The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 3rd November 2015: 01, 02, 03, 1306A 02, 12 0964 1, 12 0964 2 and 12 0964 3, as well as plan 04, dated as having been received 7th January 2016.
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 : Approved
Committee Meeting Date: 09.05.2016
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal