142248

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  1  of  8

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 16/00098/B Applicant : Mr Chris Bell Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling with garage (amendment to PA 14/00909/B) Site Address : Plot 1 Sycamore House Glen Duff Ramsey Isle of Man IM7 2AT

Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 16.02.2016 Site Visit : 16.02.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT PROPOSES A REPLACEMENT DWELLING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OVER THE 50% THRESHOLD AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the curtilage of Plot 1, Sycamore House, Glen Duff which formerly formed part of Sycamore House, The Bungalow and Café Rosa Restaurant (formerly Lezayre Tea Rooms) site. The application site is the western part of a site that has formerly had approval for two dwellings. This site has recently been sold to the applicant and is now separate from the Café Rosa Restaurant site (eastern part of site), which still operates.

1.2 It should be noted that part of the sale of the western part of the site included the requirement of the former owner to demolish 'The Bungalow' which was a single storey residential property. This was located to the rear of the Sycamore House and Café Rosa Restaurant, both of which still exist on site.

1.3 The application site is fairly flat in nature, albeit the driveway does slope downwards initially. The site form the Lezayre Road is well screened given the mature landscaping/fencing and existing entrance gate to the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a detached dwelling with garage (amendment to PA 14/00909/B). This dwelling is essentially the replacement of 'The Bungalow'.

2.2 The proposed replacement dwelling is basically a two storey traditional Manx property with five upper windows over a central doorway which is flanked by two windows either side at ground floor level. The basic footprint of the proposed dwelling measures 15.7 metres by 8.5 metres (excluding front projecting gable end porch and rear outrigger), it has an eaves height of 6.2 metres and a ridge height of 10.2 metres. The proposed dwelling would be finished in a mixture of Manx stone to the front elevation and smooth painted render, a grey slate roof and uPVC dark "Ebony" coloured uPVC windows.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  2  of  8

2.3 The application includes a detached double garage located 8 metres to the west of the gable wall of the proposed dwelling. The southern gable wall of the garage facing the Lezayre Road would also be finished in Manx stone cladding. The remaining elevations would also be smooth painted render.

2.4 For reference there have been two recent planning approvals on the site for replacement dwellings. The first of these was under planning application 12/00527/B, this dwelling had a similar design and style although it measured 15.4 metres by 9.0 metres (excluding front projecting gable end porch and rear outrigger), it had an eaves height of 5.4 metres and a ridge height of 8.6 metres. The proposed dwelling was also proposed to be finished in smooth painted render, with quoin detailing on the front (southern) elevation and a grey slate roof. No detail was given on the finish of the windows/doors, but the drawings do seem to show a greater thickness in the windows, which could suggest they were of uPVC construction. Either way no condition was attached requiring then to be timber.

2.5 Following this approval a second application (14/00909/B) was also submitted for a replacement dwelling. Again this was approved and proposed a basic footprint of the proposed dwelling measures 14.9 metres by 8.0 metres (excluding front projecting gable end porch and rear outrigger), it has an eaves height of 5.4 metres and a ridge height of 8.2 metres. The dwelling would be finished in smooth painted render, a grey slate roof and hardwood windows and doors.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

3.2 Planning application 86/00156/B sought planning approval for an extension to provide staff accommodation. This application was approved, the development implemented and the resultant development subsequently created the single storey residential property known as The Bungalow.

3.3 Planning application 02/01048/A sought planning approval in principle for erection of dwelling and removal of living accommodation. This application was approved on appeal but no associated reserved matters planning application was submitted.

3.4 Planning application 04/02113/B sought planning approval for the erection of new dwelling and replacement shed. This application was approved but not implemented.

3.5 Planning application 08/00555/A sought planning approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling and buildings, driveway, access gateways and landscaping. This application was approved but no associated reserved matters planning application was submitted.

3.6 Application 09/00486/LAW sought a certificate of lawful use for the use of an extension as a separate dwelling. This application was agreed and a certificate issued, which confirmed that the single storey residential property known as The Bungalow was lawfully a separate dwelling.

3.7 Planning application 09/01336/A sought planning approval in principle for the demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two detached hemicycle dwellings in sunken gardens. This application was withdrawn before any decision was made.

3.8 Planning application 09/01337/A sought planning approval in principle for the demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two detached traditional dwellings with landscaping. This application was withdrawn before any decision was made.

3.9 Planning application 09/02062/B sought planning approval for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of two dwellings with landscaping and vehicular accesses. An appeal against the Planning Committee's decision to approve this previous planning application was dismissed, with

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  3  of  8

the appeal approval decision issued on the 7th July 2010. This planning approval was valid until 7th July 2014. This current application specially relates to this site.

3.10 Planning application 12/00527/B sought planning approval for the part demolition of existing building and erection of a dwelling on adjacent land. The development proposed by that previous planning application (09/02062/B) and conditions imposed on the planning approval meant that both existing dwellings need to be demolished before any construction work on either of the two replacement dwellings occurs. Whilst the applicant would like to construct both replacement dwellings at the same time they had reviewed their position and realistically want the ability to construct one dwelling at a time. This application was approved 26th June 2012.

3.11 Planning application 14/00774/B sought planning approval for the variation of condition 1 of approved development of two replacement dwellings (PA 09/02062/B) to extend period of permission. This application was approved 7th August 2014.

3.12 Planning application 14/00909/B sought planning approval for the part demolition of existing building and erection of a dwelling on adjacent land. This application was approved 30th September 2014.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose under the 1982 Development Plan Order, with the entire site being within a wider area of land that classified as being of high landscape value and scenic significance.

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application

4.3 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."

4.4 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

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  4  of  8

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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected to the application for the following reasons (received on 26.02.2016): "The size of house for this plot should be as agreed in the previous application 14/00909/B. This was reduced from the original size approved in 09/02062/B which allowed for the retention of part of the Tea Room in exchange for a smaller dwelling.

The new revised plans not only have a larger footprint than already approved, but it is taller both at the eaves and the ridge and it also has an attic room. The angle of the property has also altered slightly, turning the rear of the building towards the property north west of this plot. Will this be a concern for overlooking? Although some trees already exist on the boundary of the plot, are these sufficient to give the necessary screening?

The new plans also show the position of the Klargester dealing with foul sewage from the proposed property. These appear to drain in the general direction of the property to the north west. The previous approved plans show a Biodisc draining to the existing culvert that divides the two plots. The new dwelling should re-visit where the foul sewage is drained to, as it surely would be better drained to the existing culvert. The land to the rear of the proposed property has a high water table, because of its proximity to the river. The land is often seen with standing water.

My members feel that if this larger property were to be approved, it would set a precedence for future housing on plot 2. We should remember how the size of the new properties for both plots 1 and 2 originally were determined. To allow larger property, would be against the original approval granted on this plot."

5.2 Highway Services have no objection (received on 04.02.2016).

5.3 The owners/occupants of Close-Ny-Mona, Bernahara Road, Lezayre have objected to the application which can be summarised as (received on 26.02.2016); aware of previously approval on the site but this is much smaller dwelling; concerns of the size of the proposed dwelling as it is over scaled for the site; and concerns of drainage given the nature of adjoin waterlogged fields feel this could cause flooding.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Firstly, it is important to note the history of the site and how previous applications have been considered and been determined.

6.2 The original planning approval (09/02062/B) meant that both existing dwellings 'The Bungalow' & 'Sycamore House' needed to be demolished before any construction work on either of the two replacement dwellings occurred. This included the demolition of the 'Café Rosa Restaurant' as well.

6.3 The previous applications 12/00527/B &14/00909/B proposed the demolition of one of two dwellings on the site, with the removal of 'The Bungalow' only, which has a floor area of 71 square metres. 'Sycamore House 'and 'Café Rosa Restaurant' which were attached to 'The Bungalow' were to remain. It should be noted that the 'The Bungalow' has recently been demolished as part of the sale of the application site to the current applicant.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  5  of  8

6.4 Dealing with the principle of a replacement dwelling first, it has been established within planning policy and through extant planning approvals 09/02062/B, 12/00527/B &14/00909/B. Accordingly, the proposal from this respect is acceptable.

6.5 However, this submission does differ compared to the original approvals, in relation to its design, appearance and finish. The current proposal is larger in terms of footprint and mass, but arguably, its design, proportion, form, design and finish are far improved compared to the original approved applications. This matter will be considered in more detail later in this report; however, in terms of the percentage increase over the original floor area of 'The Bungalow' (71sqm); planning applications 09/02062/B & 12/00527/B equated to a 308% increase; planning application 14/00909/B equated to a 291% increase and the current proposal equates to a 305% (without attic space) or 438% with the attic space included. The attic space does accommodate a guest bedroom, lounge and bathroom.

6.6 Perhaps at this stage it is important to consider why an exception to Housing Policy 14 was made, when planning approval was originally granted for two replacement dwellings on the site, under application 09/02062/B. This application was approved at Appeal, after gaining approval by the Planning Committee. The Local Commissioners requested an appeal. The Independent Inspector who considered the scheme stated: "The combined floor space of the proposed dwellings is more than twice the floor space of the existing buildings to be replaced. However, applying the criteria in Housing Policy 14, both the flat- roofed restaurant annex and The Bungalow are of poor architectural form, whereas the design of the proposed dwellings meets policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 apart from the two-storey entrance feature. Sited well back from the A3 on lower ground behind strengthened roadside vegetation the proposed dwellings will have less of a visual impact than the existing building complex, which is open to public view not only from the A3 but from the car park and public entrance to the restaurant. Since the scheme would replace dwellings of poor form with dwellings of more traditional character and would effect a reduction in visual impact the proposal qualifies on two counts for replacement above the 50% yardstick in Housing Policy 14. The proposal would also remove the dilapidated outbuilding, restaurant and diners' car parks, advertising hoardings and menu boards, thereby effecting a significant environmental improvement in this area of high landscape value. In addition, to meeting the provisions of Housing Policy 14, therefore, the proposal also satisfies Environmental Policy 2. All in all, I am in no doubt that the proposal accords with the development plan."

6.7 Arguably, granting approval of application 12/00527/B, and subsequently application 14/00909/B, which only required the demolition of 'The Bungalow' and a small section of the tearooms (21sqm), did not address all the exceptions for allowing a dwelling/s larger than the generally permitted 50%. The restaurant and diners' car parks, advertising hoardings and menu boards would all be allowed to remain. The dilapidated outbuilding appears to be removed and as indicated previously 'The Bungalow' has also recently been demolished.

6.8 'The Bungalow' and the section of tearoom which were allowed to be demolished, arguably had the least visual impact when viewed from the A3 in comparison to Sycamore House, the restaurant, car park and advertisement/menu boards which have far greater impacts.

6.9 It could be considered that if an application was made for the replacement of 'The Bungalow' only, with a dwelling as shown under this current application or previously, there may have been concerns, especially as this aspect has the least visual impact from public views, compared to the remain built development on the site. However, planning permission particularly has been granted under 12/00527/B and subsequently application 14/00909/B, which essentially accepted a replacement dwelling substantially larger than 'The Bungalow' being constructed on the application site. Accordingly, the question now is whether the new proposal is appropriate on this site and within the countryside setting.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  6  of  8

6.10 As indicated previously, the proposed dwelling would be the largest dwelling on the site, if the application is approved. In terms of footprint the dwellings isn't significantly more than any of the previously approved scheme and certainly given the setback nature of the dwelling from the highway (closest point 23 metres away), ground level of the dwelling being below the highway and the mature boundary landscaping, the increase of the footprint would not be especially noticeable, if at all from public views or within the site itself. The main differences relates to the increase of the height of the dwelling, rising from 8.6m to 10.2 metres. The main reason for this alteration is to improve the proportion of the dwelling by increasing the roof pitch to 40 degrees, which is the most suitable angle for traditional Manx vernacular dwellings as indicated within Planning Circular 3/91. The previously approved schemes have had a lower roof angle, being 34 degrees. In terms of the ground and first floor accommodation the floor area is very similar to the previous approvals. What increases the floor area of this scheme, relates to the living accommodation within the attic space. It is very important to note that the previous approvals were also likely to have some accommodation within the attic space. Whilst the previous schemes did not include any floor plans showing at attic space, the elevation drawings did show a number of roof lights and the height of the roof for these approvals would have given a usable floor area within the attic of approximately 64 sqm. This was never calculated in the workings of the percentage increase of any previous approvals and would certainly bring the total floor areas of the previously approved schemes (PA 0902062/B & 12/00527/B - approx 384sqm & 14/00909/B - approx 345sqm - including the attic accommodation) closer to the 438sqm of the current application. When determining the application, consideration should also be given that the design incorporates a 40 degree pitch roof which is recommend within Planning Circular 3/91. Of course when such pitched roofs are proposed, this will increase the height of the dwelling and the amount of usable floor area in the roof space. However, at the same time the visual appearance of the property will have the correct proportion and form and likely to appear more as a traditional Manx property, compared to properties with a less degree pitch roof.

6.11 In terms of the siting of the dwelling, it is positioned on the site of the previous approvals and therefore from this respect it is considered the proposal is acceptable.

6.12 As indicated previously within this report, the dwellings is larger in terms of scale and mass, but it is considered the proportion, form and much higher quality of design and finish would result in an acceptable and more appropriate dwelling on this site and the area. Whilst it is larger than previous approvals, the dwelling given these improvements would result in a building beneficial to the site and the countryside. It is especially relevant to consider the existing dwellings which are found along Lezayre Road, a number of which are very substantial in size, larger than the current proposal and have more decorative/higher quality features than the more standard Manx farm house normally found in the countryside and what was approved previously. This proposed dwelling would fit well with the character and style of these existing dwellings found along Lezayre Road.

6.13 Objections have been received on the basis that the proposal is overdevelopment. In terms of the site, the dwelling would sit comfortably within it and the majority of the site would be undeveloped. It is not considered the size or the siting of the dwelling in the site would appear overdeveloped or out of place. Accordingly from this respect it is considered the proposal is acceptable.

6.14 Given the distance of neighbouring properties from the site, it is not considered that there would be any undue impact on them as a result of the development.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For the reasons indicated within this report it is considered the proposals would comply with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Accordingly, the application is recommended for an approval.

8.0 PARTY STATUS

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  7  of  8

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 as modified by the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) The Highways Services of the Department of Infrastructure; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

8.2 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:

The owners/occupants of Close-Ny-Mona, Bernahara Road, Lezayre

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.03.2016

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. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the proposed dwelling hereby permitted. All planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 16/00098/B
                                 Page  8  of  8

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

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) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 856/010, 856/011, 856/012, 856/013 and 856/014 all received on 28th 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: 14.03.2016

Signed :C Balmer 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.