Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00780/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00780/B Applicant : Dr Janette & Mr Chris Gledhill Proposal : Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address : Tighnabruaich Pooilvaaish Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4PJ
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 06.01.2016 Site Visit : 06.01.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT RELATES TO THE REPLACEMENT OF A DWELLING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.
0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application is almost identical to that which some Committee Members will recall assessing on 25th April 2016 under the reference 15/01346/B. The sole difference in the current application is the presence of a pair of basement rooms along with concomitant lightwells. Accordingly, this report is largely identical to that accompanying PA 15/01346/B.
0.2 The Committee may recall agreeing to defer this application on 22nd August 2016 at the request of the applicant, who wished to make some alterations to the windows in the property in terms of positions, sizes and also opening method. Following discussion between the Department, agent and project manager, an amended plan has been received that outlines the changes now proposed relative to those defined on the original submission for this application. The changes proposed are minor and comprise the addition of some bracing bars within the glazed gable wall feature, the slight increase in the height of a dwarf wall, while also proposing the removal of other windows. The Committee should note that the original desire of the applicant / project manager to proceed with casement-style windows has not been taken forward, and sliding sash frames throughout remain proposed.
0.3 The amended plan was received on 14th September 2016 and immediately circulated for 14 days. This report, which other than this Preamble section, is identical to that circulated to the Committee prior to their meeting of 22nd August 2016, is being prepared on 14th September 2016. Any additional comments received on the application following the circulation of the amended plans will be presented to the Committee verbally on their meeting of 3rd October 2016.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling of traditional Manx vernacular, situated north of the winding Pooilvaaish Road roughly 500m south of that road's westernmost unction with the A5 coast road. "Tighnabruaich" is situated in its own grounds, some 60m from the highway, and although it has been much-altered in the past its traditional countryside vernacular origins remain evident. That said, though, the dwelling has fallen into some disrepair and, while its form is neatly proportioned, the fabric of the building has certainly seen better days. It is unclear when the property was last lived in, though it certainly does not appear to have been abandoned.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00780/B
Page 2 of 7
1.2 While Tighnabruaich is isolated, there is a single other dwelling adjacent, known as "Spindrift". This is not of a traditional vernacular but is uniquely designed. There are other isolated dwellings and pairs of dwellings in the area, as well as the Pooil Vaaish farm and quarry, but the area is very much characterised by its openness and its coastal location.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for a replacement dwelling. The proposed dwelling would have at its front an elevation to match the form and proportions of a dwelling described in Planning Circular 3/91 as being of archetypal rural Manx vernacular. Alongside this would be a separate element to the dwelling dominated by its gable projection and stone chimney flue. Either side of this flue the elevation would be entirely glazed except for the render structural sections at the corners, while there would be a connecting element between the two elements of the dwelling formed of a lower and also glazed link; the entirety of the dwelling would have a slate roof, however. The overall intention is clearly one of setting a contemporary 'extension' against a traditional Manx dwelling.
2.2 There is also a hint of a cat-slide roof at the rear, although as this does not carry along the full width it will only appear to be cat-slide in form from one side elevation, although the roof pitch would match that of the main body of the dwelling.
2.3 The dwelling would also have a single storey element beyond the contemporary 'extension'.
2.4 The sole difference between this and the extant approval (see below) is the proposed provision of a subterranean basement to provide a store and hobby room. This would be on the same footprint as the 'traditional' element of the proposed dwelling and provide a store and hobby room accessed via an internal staircase. Three lightwells are proposed: all would be 1.0m in width and 0.7m in depth, with two sitting at the front elevation and the third to the rear. (A fourth would not be possible given the proposed position of the single storey rear 'extension' to the dwelling.)
2.5 The dwelling would be finished in a grey-coloured render, while the windows and doors would be grey, powder-coated aluminium. The windows appear to be sliding sash, while the plans are clear that the intention is to salvage as many of the existing slates for the new roof as possible.
2.6 The applicants were clear in their previous submission that they wish the new dwelling to be as environmentally friendly as possible, although no specific efforts towards this end are shown on the drawings as these tend to be related more to ground- or air-sourced heat pumps, high quality insulation and also the south-facing aspect.
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3.1 The site falls within an area of land not zoned for any particular kind of development on the Area Plan for the South. There are some land-use designations applying to the site that are worth noting, however.
3.2 Firstly, the site might potentially be viewed as falling within the provisions of Landscape Proposal 9: "Additional new built development (other than development ancillary to existing properties) should not be permitted alongside the coastal road between the Shore Hotel and Pooil Vaaish Farm." While the Farm is on the main A5 road, the fact this policy exists suggests a general need to protect the appearance of the area.
3.3 This is somewhat backed up by Landscape Strategy E9 and the important views that accompany it: "The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of the tranquil and coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views, sites of archaeological importance and to conserve the coastal setting of Port St. Mary."
"Key Views:
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00780/B
Page 3 of 7
"Extensive, panoramic views from Raad ny Foillan across the sweeping and ever-changing seascape to the south.
"Open views across the bay, with distant sense of enclosure provided by headlands to the east and west.
"Open views across adjacent Undulating Lowland Plain to the north."
3.4 The site is within a much wider area characterised as being in an Undulating Lowland Plan, although none of the Landscape Strategies are considered to directly apply to the site.
3.5 The access lane within the application site falls within an 'Area of Ecological Importance - Draft'.
3.6 Paragraph 7.5.3 of the Area Plan applies to the site, which falls within an "Area with building height restrictions" on Map 1 - Constraints relating to Ronaldsway airport; the text of that paragraph requires that "the final height of any development is controlled so that it does not interfere with the operations of...the Airport".
3.7 In respect of the Strategic Plan, there is a provision for replacement dwellings on a one-for- one basis as set out in Housing Policy 14. The nature of the proposal here, though, is such that it is considered appropriate to assess the application against Housing Policy 14 while having a certain regard to Housing Policy 15.
3.8 Housing Policy 14: "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(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
"Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."
3.9 Housing Policy 15: "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
3.10 Strategic Policy 5 contains some important text as well: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 As noted, the relevant application in this case, which evolved after considerable discussion between the agents, applicant and planning office, is PA 15/01346/B. The Planning Committee resolved to support the application, subject to the recommended conditions but with an additional condition that permitted development rights with respect to extensions be removed given that the
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00780/B
Page 4 of 7
dwelling design proposed already has the appearance of having been extended, with the officer summarising the Committee's view as follows in his report's addendum:
"The Committee were minded that while the condition restricting the erection of garages on the site was acceptable, a similar condition removing permitted development rights with respect to extensions should also be attached to the approval notice. Committee felt that the design of the dwelling was well-considered and designed to look like it had been altered via extensions, and therefore they felt that any future alteration to its appearance should also be considered via the application process. Although it was agreed at the Committee meeting that this could be addressed via adding wording to Condition 4, it was subsequently considered that a new fifth condition would be simpler and cleaner."
It would seem that this condition has encouraged the applicants to apply now for additional accommodation below ground.
4.2 The Planning History section of the officer report into PA 15/01346/B contains a potted history of other relevant planning history elsewhere and this may be of interest. It is not, however, relevant to the assessment of this application given the approval issued to the 2015 application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS 5.1.1 Arbory Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 02.08.2016.
5.1.2 In respect of the previous application, the Commissioners did have reservations with respect to the visual impact of the glass frontage in respect of the originally submitted scheme, which had a similar amount of glass proposed as that on the amended plans.
5.2 No other comments have been received in respect of this application. However, in respect of the previous application, the case officer noted the following:
Highway Services
"Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal on 21st December 2015, following up on 1st April 2015 with the request for the following condition to be added should the application be approved:
""Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
""Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.""
Biodiversity
"In view of the partial designation of the site as an 'Area of Ecological Importance - Draft', the Senior Biodiversity Officer was contacted for his views. He advised on 6th January 2016 as follows: "The adjacent field had a rich sward when DAFF surveyed it, but that shouldn't be affected, so I have no concerns. The ASSI is just across the road, but similarly, that shouldn't be affected."
Trees
"The Arboricultural Officer noted no trees of any significance present and consequently offered no objection to the proposal on 21st December 2015."
5.3 There was also an objection received from the nearby property but nothing has been received on this occasion to date.
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00780/B
Page 5 of 7
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The nature of the proposal means that, as is so often the case with applications seeking approval for replacement dwellings in the countryside, its acceptability will turn on the site-specific impacts of what is proposed having regard to the nature and character of the application site.
6.2 The character of the site has been laid out in this report already. The site is visible from the A5 and also Pooilvaaish Road, and so care must be taken with respect to changes to the site in the context of the coastal openness that defines the rural nature of the area. Views of the site are more readily obtained from the less regularly used Pooilvaaish Road.
6.3 In this context, the loss of the existing dwelling is unfortunate but its replacement with (at least in part) something with fairly traditional elements is considered to be acceptable. What remains for consideration is the proportionally large, contemporary element proposed to the side of the principal elevation, and how this affects the visual impact of the proposed dwelling overall. It is to be remembered that the proposed dwelling is less than 50% larger than that which exists.
6.4 It is considered that the proposed dwelling's frontage is the most important and key one for consideration: while it could be argued that the Pooilvaaish Road is far less used and therefore less important, this would be to ignore the fact that the dwelling will only be seen from the more heavily used A5 in flashes and only the roof and upper floor will be particularly visible from here, whereas it would be visible for quite a significant stretch of Pooilvaaish Road and for a much longer period of time as well since vehicle speeds along here are necessarily much lower. This road also doubles as the Raad ny Foillan footpath, as mentioned in Landscape Strategy E9 above (even if the key views identified are in fact towards the sea).
6.5 With this in mind, the overall design approach has resulted in what is considered to be an appropriate negotiated middle ground. The dwelling is by no means wholly traditional, and yet its principal feature at the important frontage will be that of Manx countryside vernacular. While the other, smaller elements will sit alongside this, and potentially be quite visually distracting (particularly in the case of the side 'extension'), they will not completely undermine the design.
6.6 The use of a variety of fenestration approaches could be said to be a little disordered, but there are clear vertical and horizontal proportions that run through the elevations, and, while these might not be to everyone's tastes, they are also not haphazard to any harmful degree.
6.7 The basement level cannot really be seen. The necessary lightwells are small and unobtrusive and such as they could be seen would not be of concern. The addition to the overall floorspace will be roughly 50sqm. While HP14 does make reference to a 50% increase in floorspace as being the expected maximum in cases such as this, it is a matter of form, scale, proportion and visual impact that the figure is designed to address rather than specify a particular mathematical justification for support or objection to an application. There is a slight possibility that lighting the rooms below may give a limited and complementary 'uplighting' effect on the lowest parts of the dwelling. In this case, then, the difference in visual impact is likely to be ever so slightly positive - if indeed any such change would be noticeable at all.
6.8 As such, it is considered that the approach to merge both Housing Policies 14 and 15 has been somewhat successful, and while there would have been many preferable ways to approach the scheme, that which is now before the Committee is not considered to be so at odds with Housing Policy 14 in particular as to warrant its refusal. Similarly, it is considered that while the proposal does comprise new development in the area, it is of a scale relative to the existing such as to mean it could not be considered contrary to Landscape Proposal 9 in the Area Plan for the South.
6.9 While a 20m distance would normally be sought between principal windows in dwellings, this 'rule of thumb' applies primarily in more built-up areas where overlooking and loss of privacy can be more readily achieved. In more sparsely developed areas such as this, greater distances might be more appropriate to apply, but the neighbouring Spindrift occupies a large and open plot and the
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00780/B
Page 6 of 7
next-nearest dwelling is roughly 125m distant. A statement to the effect that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy and a resulting reduction in the right to a private and family life to a degree sufficient to warrant the application's refusal would be really rather difficult to sustain at appeal.
6.10 The proposal raises no highway safety issues since there is already an existing access onto the public highway, though the condition recommended previously by Highway Services is logical even if reference to a garage needs to be removed as one is not proposed. It might also be worth removing permitted development rights with respect to the erection of a garage on the site, which is quite tight and any new standalone structure of the size of a garage would ideally be assessed through the planning process.
6.11 For similar reasons, and noting the Committee's views on this point previously, a condition removing permitted development rights with respect to extensions is also recommended.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 In view of the - on balance - favourable assessment as outlined above, it is recommended that the application be approved. Conditions relating to the provision of the parking and manoeuvring area and also requiring the windows to the dwelling be sliding sash are recommended.
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 current 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 The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and o 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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.09.2016
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. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan's car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00780/B
Page 7 of 7
C 3. For the avoidance of doubt, all those windows shown with a transom (which is 21 no. in total) on Drawing number 1B (date-stamped as having been received 7th July 2016) shall be vertical sliding sashes and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the dwelling hereby approved.
C 4. 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 garages shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved other than that expressly authorised by this approval without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the appearance of the surrounding area.
C 5. 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.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1D date-stamped as having been received 14th September 2016 and 3A, 4 and 5, all date-stamped as having been received 7th July 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 : PERMITTED
Committee Meeting Date: 3.10.2016
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