Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00214/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00214/B Applicant : Mr David Salkeld Proposal : Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address : Perk Cottage Knock Froy Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JD
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 21.11.2016 Site Visit : 21.11.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL
PREAMBLE This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting of 3rd April, 2017 where a decision was deferred pending further discussion to try to address the reasons recommended for refusal. The applicant met with the planning officer and amended plans were submitted and it is these which are now the subject of the report and recommendation which is now for approval.
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing single storey dwelling situated on the northern side of Knock Froy Road which leads from the A5 Castletown Road past Knock Froy motocross track to Knock Froy Farm. The area has a number of dwellings within it, the most noticeable being Cronk Froy and High Bank both of which are new dwellings replacing earlier, smaller ones. Green Hedges is a modern bungalow which sits across the lane from the application property.
1.2 Knock Froy Lane is narrow and largely single vehicle width.
1.3 Perk Cottage, the application property is visible from the A5 as one proceeds uphill from The Forge, across the field where the gable and part of the front of the property is visible.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new, two storey residence. This dwelling is similar to that recently refused other than for the fact that:
the front and rear elevations are 1m longer (now just under 13m) the rear extension projects out 2m less (now 4m) the dwelling is partially on the footprint of the existing the extension of the residential curtilage is reduced by 7m in depth the porch has been reduced in depth and the proposed property moved correspondingly further forward on the site planting is proposed at the northern boundary of silver birch, mountain ash and alder with fuchsia in between.
2.2 The existing dwelling is modest and has a floor area of 92 sq m. The proposed dwelling is 2m higher and has a floor area of 262 sq m, an increase of 184%. It is the same design and general layout as was previously proposed but 32 sq m smaller.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00214/B
Page 2 of 4
2.3 The new curtilage will not be bounded by any landscaping although there is some now proposed to the north and there will be around 5.5m between the rear of the property and the rear boundary (an increase of 2.5m from the initial proposal), 5.7m between the side of the house and the side boundary to the north. The new house is set back slightly (3.3m) from the position of the existing cottage in order to provide manoeuvring space for the vehicles entering and leaving the site. The existing single garage is to be retained to the south of the new house.
2.4 The applicant has provided supporting information, explaining how the previous application would have allowed the applicant to remain in the existing cottage whilst the new house was being built, and comments that any views of the property are from "a considerable distance back" and on a fast stretch of road and the substantial new dwellings, High Bank and Cronk Froy are visible behind. He also draws attention to the two new sizeable dwellings built on the site of the Lancashire Hotel and at Bay View on the Old Castletown Road all of which are more visible than Perk Cottage or its replacement.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for any particular purpose and of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. As such, there is a presumption against development other than where it would accord with other Strategic Plan policies, including Housing Policy 14 which provides guidance on the erection of replacement dwellings:
Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most recent application on the site, 16/00886/B proposed a similar house but moved further back on the site so that it was not at all on the footprint of the existing and which resulted in an extension of the curtilage (see 2.1 and 2.2 above). This was refused for the following reason:
It is not considered that the increase in the residential curtilage and corresponding increase in the visual impact of the residential development and use of this site is justified by the improvement in vehicular access, parking and manoeuvring on site, given that the countryside is protected for its own sake in Environment Policies 1 and 2.
The proposed new dwelling, by virtue of its height, size and mass, would have a significant and significantly greater impact than the existing cottage, on the character and appearance of the surrounding area which is identified as being of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, contrary to the provisions and objectives of Housing Policy 14. The new dwelling would be more prominent and of significantly greater proportions than is advocated in Planning Circular 3/91. Whilst the policy allows for replacement dwellings of a size greater than 50% larger than the
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00214/B
Page 3 of 4
existing, this is where the existing property is of poor form, which this is not, or where there are exceptional circumstances and it is not considered that in this case, that there are.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (28.03.17).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The applicant has clearly tried to address the issues raised in the earlier decision by reducing the length of the rear extensions and ensuring that the new dwelling will be as close to the existing footprint as is practicable whilst still providing manoeuvring and parking space. The frontage of the dwelling will now be 13m, 2m longer than the 11m prescribed in Planning Circular 3/91 and the dwelling is still three times the size of the existing.
6.2 The applicant has tried to address the previous reasons for refusal and those concerns raised with the original plans for this current application - over-development of the site. Some of the larger properties in the area have relatively modest gardens compared with their size and are generally slightly larger than is proposed but most of these are considerably larger properties.
6.3 The property would also still have a greater impact than the existing due to its higher ridge level (being a two storey property) but this will be mitigated by the proposed planting north of the northern boundary. The residential curtilage is larger than the existing but not excessively so and provides a comfortable setting for the new house.
6.4 The application is recommended for approval.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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) Highway Services Division of 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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.04.2017
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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00214/B
Page 4 of 4
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. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the construction of the proposed dwelling. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
This approval relates to drawing 1329.20 Rev 1 received on 12th April, 2017 and the site and location plans both received on 22nd February, 2017.
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:...8/5/17
Signed :...S CORLETT... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
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