Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01160/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01160/B Applicant : Mr David Corrin Proposal : Demolition of existing and erection of replacement dwelling. (In association with 15/00909) Site Address : Kilravock Shore Road Bay Ny Carrickey Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LY
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 28.10.2016 Site Visit : 28.10.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE SITE'S PLANNING HISTORY.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 'Kilravock', Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey, Port St. Mary. It is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot, bounded by Shore Road to the south and Mount Gawne Road to the north.
1.2 The existing dwelling is a single-storey, pitched-roofed property with a painted render finish and slate roof. To the rear (northwest) corner of the site is a single-storey, flat-roofed garage and immediately adjacent to this is an area of hardstanding and a small lawned area. Vehicle access to the garage and rear hardstanding area is via an existing narrow gated entrance accessed from Mount Gawne Road.
1.3 Immediately to the southwest is the two-storey dwelling 'Avondale', which presents a gable wall to the Shore Road. This dwelling was, at the time of the site visit (18th October 2016) unoccupied and offered for sale.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling with associated parking. This dwelling is primarily two-storey in form along with a cat-slide roof element providing part of the L-shaped footprint. The two-storey element is largely provided within the roofspace and accordingly the eaves and ridgeling are lower than might be expected of a more traditional two- storey building.
2.2 The dwelling would be finished in a mixed palette of materials, including render, stonework and timber cladding, with a natural slate roof. The cat slide roof is annotated as being intended to match that of the existing dwelling.
2.3 The garage currently on the site would be demolished and no replacement provided: two areas of garden are shown - one to the northwest of the hardstanding and adjacent Mount Gawne Road, and one to the east of the dwelling, sited at the corner of the plot.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01160/B
Page 2 of 7
2.4 The design of the dwelling proposed was amended slightly to provide a pitched roof over a half-dormer window and rationalise some of the fenestration and facing materials. The amended drawing, along with another demonstrating what visibility splays could be provided, were circulated for information.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has a relevant and contentious planning history, and some members of the Committee may recall three previous applications for residential development being refused here, two of which were refused by the Committee.
3.2 PA 12/01684/B sought approval for the demolition of Kilravock and its replacement with two semi-detached dwellings. Refused under delegated authority for the following two reasons, no appeal was lodged against the decision:
R 1 "The proposed dwellings due to their height, massing and design in a prominent position within the street scene would cause a visually intrusive and out of keeping feature in this location and would cause a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the street scene, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
R 2 "The proposed development due to its siting and size would not provide an acceptable level of usable external amenity space (western dwelling) and as such would represent an over- development of the site, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
3.3 PA 13/00796/B sought approval for the demolition of Kilravock and its replacement with a building to provide two residential apartments. This application was refused, again without an appeal lodged but this time by the Planning Committee, for the following five reasons:
R 1 "The application site is not zoned for development and the creation of an additional dwelling is therefore contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the South, which seek to restrict such development to appropriate towns and villages. Approval of the planning application would result in unwarranted residential development in the countryside."
R 2 "The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development within a prominent position, if approved, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area by reason of its, scale, massing and design."
R 3 "The proposed dwellings due to its scale, massing and design within a prominent position in the street scene would not be of an acceptable standard and would cause a visually intrusive feature in this location and would cause a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the street scene contrary to Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
R 4 "The proposal requires the removal of approximate 10 metres in length of existing Manx Stone walling and require the removal of the existing landscaping, all along the northern boundary to provide the required parking spaces and required visibility splays. It is considered this would result in a loss of a large part of the rear boundary treatment and consequently would appear as an open car park detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene."
R 5
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01160/B
Page 3 of 7
"The proposal, if approved, would be likely to generate an increase number of vehicular movements and result in four separate accesses all of which would jeopardise the safety of highway users particularly along the site's access with Mount Gawne Road, given the applicants does not own or have control of the neighbouring land to provide the required visibility splays in a north-westerly direction."
3.4.1 Finally, and most recently, PA 15/00909/B sought approval for the demolition of Kilravock and the erection of a replacement dwelling. This was refused by the Planning Committee for two reasons. Following an appeal against that decision, the Inspector recommended that the application be refused for only one reason, which was slightly different to that recommended by the case officer to the Planning Committee. That reason read as follows:
R 1 "The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development within a prominent position, if approved, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area by reason of its design and siting, having particular regard to its sensitive location on Bay ny Carrickey and the aims for that stretch of coastline in the Area Plan for the South 2013."
3.4.2 The Inspector concluded that the second reason for refusal as recommended by the case officer should not be taken forward. For the Committee's consideration, the second reason originally recommended by the case officer is set out below:
"The proposed development due to its siting and size would not provide an acceptable level of usable external amenity space for a four bedroom dwelling and as such would represent an over- development of the site."
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development under the Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor is Kilravock Registered.
4.2 The zoning of the site means that development is generally to be resisted as per General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1. However, Housing Policy 14 makes provision for replacement dwellings on land not zoned for development:
"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."
4.3 Strategic Policy 5 is also important to note: "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."
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01160/B
Page 4 of 7
4.4 For some more specific policy guidance, the Area Plan for the South sets out the following Landscape Strategy (E9):
"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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure initially sought deferral of the application on 1st November 2016: "The proposal is to demolish an existing dwelling and replace it with a new dwelling using the same access. The access has visibility splays below current standards and there is no indication if this is to be improved.
"The applicant is requested to provide a drawing to an appropriate scale that indicates the visibility that can be achieved over land within their control from a point 2.4m back from the edge of carriageway to the near side carriageway edge in both directions; and indicate if there is to be any improvement over the existing visibility."
5.1.2 On receipt of the additional drawing, Highway Services stated that they had no objection to the application, subject to the imposition of the following two conditions:
Reason: In the interest of highway safety
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
5.2 Rushen Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments made on 20th October 2016 and reiterated this position in comments made 24th November 2016 following the circulation of the amended plans.
5.3 The owner / occupier of 'Thie my Chree', Mount Gawne Road, Port St. Mary commented on the application in a letter received 21st October 2016. He offered his sympathy to the applicant for his endeavours, while he also notes concern with respect to incomplete drawings showing the relationships between their own property and the existing entrances and garage, nor is there a drawing showing the existing road width or how the proposed vehicle entrance would interact with existing entrances. They further note that traffic flow along Mount Gawne and Shore Roads has increased insignificantly during the last 23 years, while they are of the view that careful consideration and guidance is given with respect to the management of building work so that this does not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of existing residents.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Having the most recent application considered by a Planning Inspector was helpful inasmuch as it provided some independent views on the existing dwelling and what some considerations for the future redevelopment of the site (the numbers refer to the Inspector's own paragraph numbers):
"Having been inside, I can state that Kilravock is inadequate in layout, headroom and physical construction. It has the undesirable attributes of an informally built and extended holiday chalet, with none of the charms of a period cottage..."
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/01160/B
Page 5 of 7
35. "Views differ as to whether visually this dwelling is of poor form... My own assessment is that it has some attractive features, such as the gable and chimney facing towards the junction, but conversely the views down from Mount Gawne Road and diagonally from in front of Avondale are messy, with cat slide roofed additions poorly related to the original central part. Like the curate's egg, the good features cannot wish away the bad, and so overall my view is that this building should be treated as of poor form visually..."
"I must resist the temptation to suggest any particular design approach, as that might fetter consideration of a future application, other than to suggest that it should be innovative and bespoke for this location..."
"I do not, however, see much value - rather potential harm - in seeking to contrive a proposal so that it accords to the letter with HP14 but fails to recognise and enhance [the site's] coastal setting. HP14 is expressly an aspect of the assessment of replacement dwellings in the countryside, whereas here I consider that in line with the aims for the Bay in the Area Plan greater emphasis should be accorded to design quality having particular regard to this coastal location."
6.2 In the first instance, then, it would seem that a traditional countryside vernacular might not be the best approach in this coastal location. It should be noted that the word 'innovative' that appears in Housing Policy 14 is a descriptive word rather than one carrying a value judgement. Accordingly, a design being 'innovative' does not automatically mean it will be judged acceptable and in accordance with HP14 - the test is, in fact, whether or not a non-traditional design is of sufficiently 'high quality' to warrant approval.
6.3 It is worth also bearing in mind that design quality is a subjective matter, and what one person likes will not necessarily be appreciated by everyone. This is where Housing Policy 14 is helpful in that it provides an objective basis on which to assess applications such as this - even then, however, HP14 is a somewhat convoluted policy that has been interpreted in many different ways by different decision-makers since the Strategic Plan's adoption. The further a design moves away from the wording of the policy the more careful should be the assessment of that design.
6.4 With the Inspector's views on the design of a new dwelling in this location in mind, the overall approach, which is not traditional, is acceptable in principle. The traditional rural Manx vernacular as set out in Circular 3/91, and as preferred in Housing Policy 14, reflects an agricultural origin, and accordingly such dwellings are found in rural - often isolated - locations inland. Here, however, the context is wholly different, and a design reflecting this "tranquil coastal location" (to use the Inspector's words) is more appropriate.
6.5 The original design concept was considered to be rather muddled in appearance, with fenestration, detailing, form and massing not coming together in a clearly rationalised design. Unusual overhanging eaves in particular sat uncomfortably with the design ethos and drew the eye's attention in a striking, unfortunate and somewhat unnecessary manner.
6.6 While the rationalised design now before the Committee is considered a much more coherent approach, there remain some concerns. The fenestration arrangement to the west elevation facing Avondale is disordered, although it is noted that this is so close to Avondale that this will unlikely be visible in its full extent. The 'cat slide' roof might be said to be a peculiar choice of feature to take as inspiration from the existing dwelling, not least since the Inspector noted it as being "poorly related to the original central part" - but also because the existing dwelling will be lost under the proposal such that this contextual feature would no longer exist.
6.7 However, the above notwithstanding, the varied form and massing and materials is welcome and, while there is nothing in particular to suggest that this design is 'traditionally coastal', neither could much of the character of the area be said to provide especially positive or clear design inspiration in this sense. It has accordingly been a somewhat difficult application both to assess and
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/01160/B
Page 6 of 7
also give design advice with regards to, not least since the site is constrained in terms of its unusual, triangular shape but also its being bounded by highways on two sides.
6.8 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed dwelling design is acceptable in this location. It is of an appropriate mass and form relative to its surroundings. It will provide for a welcome addition to the mixture of design styles in the area and, while unlikely to be a design appreciated by everyone, it will not result in an adverse impact on that area. It is neat and coherent and is considered to be an appropriate response to this site. Accordingly, it is concluded that the application complies with Housing Policy 14.
6.9 In terms of highway safety, the existing situation is not ideal, with walls of different heights preventing good visibility from the site. However, the proposal is to reduce the walls within the visibility splay to 1.05m in height, which is a standard measurement sought by Highway Services. The retention of the stone wall appearance, albeit at a reduced height, is welcome, whereas its replacement with a different material might be more concerning. The conditions requested by Highway Services are reasonable and appropriate to the scheme, subject to some minor wording changes.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 In view of the favourable conclusions on the key issues, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions discussed.
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, in this case Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2.1 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.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
o The owner / occupier of 'Thie my Chree', Mount Gawne Road, Port St. Mary.
This dwelling is opposite to the application site.
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
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/01160/B
Page 7 of 7
Date of Recommendation: 29.12.2016
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. Prior to the commencement of the dwelling hereby approved, the access as shown on Drawing no.1362.2 Rev 1 (date-stamped as having been received 11th November 2016) shall be constructed and retained as such, and the visibility splay shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the car parking and manoeuvring areas as shown on Drawing no.1362.2 Rev 1 (date-stamped as having been received 11th November 2016) 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.
The development hereby approved relates to The Location Plan and Drawing 1362.1, both date- stamped as having been received 7th October 2016, and also to Drawing 1362.2 Rev 1, date- stamped as having been received 11th November 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: 09.01.2017
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 See below
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