173380

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  1  of  11

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 19/00952/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Kris Devereau Proposal : Erection of a replacement farmhouse Site Address : Ballakaighen Farm Staarvey Road Cronk Y Voddy Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AS

Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 13.11.2019 __

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. Full details of the finishes on the proposed side extension must be submitted to and approved by the Department in writing prior to the commencement of works on this element of the scheme, and the development must be undertaken in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to ensure that the finish of the development is appropriate for its rural location.

C 3. Prior to the demolition of the dwelling, a survey of the building for nesting bats and birds must be undertaken and the report submitted to the Department, along with appropriate mitigation measures should any such species be found, all to be approved by the Department and the development undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to ensure that the development is in accordance with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  2  of  11

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to existing elevations, the location plan, site plan, the proposed floor plan (but not the proposed side elevation shown on that drawing) and existing floors plans all received on 28th August, 2019 and the amended elevations received on 18th October, 2019.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that none of the correspondents who have submitted comments on the application should be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4).

For clarity the representations from;

11 Stanley Terrace Douglas Meadowcroft Ballabooie Road Peel P O Box 1555 Wilson WY83014-1555 USA 2/19 Maroo Street Hughesdale 3166 Victoria Australia Arlington Washington USA St Louis Missouri USA Pearland Texas USA 3208 Stonebridge Trail Valrico Florida USA 33596 Somerdale New Jersey USA Chattanooga Tennessee USA Perth Western Australia Merchantville NJ USA 13087 Se Snowfire Dr. Happy Valley, Or. 97086 USA and Manx National Heritage

as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy, they do not live within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy, they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND IT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (HOUSING POLICY 12 OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN)

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing building, Ballakaighen Farmhouse, which sits on the western side of the Staarvey Road, just south of its junction with the Ballabooie Road which links the A3 TT Course with the A4 coast road between Kirk Michael and Peel.

1.2 The farmhouse is a traditional Manx cottage with three vertically proportioned windows on the first floor of the front elevation above a small front porch with one window similar to those

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  3  of  11

above to the right and a larger, square window to the left. To the north there is a lean-to, single storey annex. The building is attached to a single storey stone barn which in turn is attached to a taller stone barn which is outwith the ownership of the applicant. The taller barn has a distinctive bell tower and bell which is understood to have been moved from Cronk-y- Voddy School house at some time in the past and there is a small sign to indicated this.

1.3 Opposite the site is a bungalow whose provenance is associated with the application dwelling (see planning history).

1.4 The property is visible from both the Staarvey and Ballabooie Roads. From the Staarvey Road the frontage is currently partly screened by existing trees and shrubs in the front garden which is separated from the highway by a low wall with taller, painted pillars alongisde the vehicular entrance at the northern end of the frontage. From the Ballabooie Road the rear of the property is partly visible, partly obscured by existing trees to the rear of the curtilage. Closer to the junction with the Staarvey Road and turning onto the Staarvey Road, the profile of the upper part of the northern gable of the property is clearly visible on the skyline. This is an asymmetrical profile with the front plan being shorter than the rear which extends to meet the rear wall at a lower point than the front eaves and there is a small chimney on the northern corner of the rear elevation. There is a further, lower annex to the rear of this which is not publicly visible from the Staarvey Road,

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing house and attached single storey barn with a completely new dwelling. Following discussions with the applicant, the plans have been amended to replicate the existing profile but at a taller height. This uses a steeper pitch at the front to enable head height at the rear, and a slightly wider chimney but positioned to reproduce the effect of the existing dwelling.

2.2 The front elevation will retain the same glazing arrangement as the existing but with the existing square window replaced with a vertically proportioned one to match the others in the elevation. A modest front porch is included although not shown on the side elevations.

2.3 The new fabric to the southern side will be of a modern design and finish, using cladding at the upper level, smaller windows than in the main house and render below. The applicant did discuss the use of stone or all cladding which could also be acceptable although not included on the drawings. The new extension will be separated from the bell tower barn but with a covered walkway formed between the two from the inclusion of a small roofed area along the southern gable.

2.4 The applicants explain that they are direct descendants of the Cannan family that has resided at Ballakaighen since the early 1800s. Mrs. Devereau's grandfather was born in the farmhouse in 1930 and it was his family home until the passing of both him and his wife, the latter of whom had lived in the house until December 2018. The house has been passed to Mrs. Devereau for her to live in and from where she can help with the day to day running of the family farm. The bedroom in which the applicant's grandmother resided was refurbished five years ago but now shows severe damp penetration even though internal walls were boxed out from the external walls. It had been their intention to renovate the existing house and simply extend it. However, having started to strip back the decoration, they have discovered wet rot, dry rot, damp, rising damp in the internal and external walls, that the roof timbers are rotten in the walls and the timber work on the ground floor has wet rot and the timber is sitting directly onto the earth as well as the timbers being undersized. They report that the load bearing walls have rotten timbers beneath them. They believe that the property is beyond any economically viable renovation and what would be left, if the parts which needed to be replaced were removed, would be very little of the existing building. A new building would have the advantage of proper foundations and on the footprint of the existing and in compliance with current Building Regulations.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  4  of  11

2.5 Having seen the comments from various parties about the history of the site, they comment that the building techniques and materials which have been used in the construction of the house suggest that it was built in the 1800s and not before, certainly not as early as the 1400s as has been suggested.

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 a particular purpose and of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:

Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) 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."

3.2 General Policy 3 sets out the exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside, including the provision for the replacement of existing dwellings, and further advice is provided on this as follows:

Housing Policy 12: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:

(a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.

In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:

(i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."

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

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  5  of  11

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."

3.3 The site lies within an area of Incised Slopes - Cronk y Voddy - on the Landscape Character Assessment of July 2008. The Landscape Strategy for this part of the Island is: "Landscape Strategy The overall strategy should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its patchwork of upland fields fringed by valley bottom woodland and moorland and its enclosed and intimate rural road network, a tranquil and remote character with traditional hamlets, scattered farm buildings and nucleated settlements built in a vernacular style."

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 96/01003/B was an application for the erection of a dwelling - that now opposite the application site. This was associated with Ballakaighen Farm at the time which was farmed from the application property. The new dwelling was for family of the farmers who was not full time but who helped out. The original farmhouse would not appear to still be owned by the original farmers nor is it associated with any of the farm buildings although it appeared to be in 2017 when 17/00256/B for a new farm building to the south of the existing group, was proposed (and approved) in association with Ballakaighen Farm which at the time, included the farmhouse which is the subject of the current application.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 German Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (03.10.19 and 12.11.19).

5.2 Highway Services of DoI do not object to the application although they suggest that there is currently and would remain adequate turning space to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear where this would not appear to be the case (27.09.19).

5.3 Manx National Heritage highlight the potential for bats and birds at the site with several species of bat being recorded in the local landscape and the type of building would trigger a survey for bats under accepted good practice and such should be undertaken before the building is demolished or substantially altered (11.09.19).

5.4 The resident of Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road which lies some 920m to the west of the site, suggests that the farmhouse and farmstead are of historic interest for a number of reasons which mean that the demolition of the farmhouse does not comply with HP12. He suggests that the property "enjoys inhabitable status" being either currently occupied or recently so. He refers to The Driney at Laurel Bank which was recently refused permission for redevelopment (17/00908/A on the basis that the works would have resulted in the loss of a building of historic interest which should be retained and renovated. He considers that Ballakaighen is even an even finer example of a traditional/vernacular farmstead than The Driney as defined by UK guidance in the form of National farmstead assessment framework which, in the absence of a Manx planning policy for assessing such historic interest, is relevant. He refers to a website - www.kaighin.com which contains further information. He considers that the application should be refused as it fails to comply with HP12 (02.10.19).

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  6  of  11

5.5 The website information includes a "family tree" of the original Kaighins (McCaghyn) who is stated as residing at Ballakaighin, Sandall, German Isle of Man in 1470. There is a photograph of the application property on the website with the following annotation: "This modest farmhouse situated in the quarterland of Ballakaighin in Kirk German Parish in the Isle of Man is the ancestral home of the Kaighin family. All living Kaighins can trace their ancestry back to this farmhouse. Our earliest known ancestor to live here was John McCaghyn who, with his son Richard, was paying a rent of 15 Shillings, 8 Pence as recorded in the earliest surviving Manorial Rolls in the Isle of Man, circa 1490."

5.6 The following correspondents suggest that they are descendants of the original Kaighins who resided at the application property and object to the demolition of their and all living Kaighins' "ancestral home":

3208, Stonebridge Trail, Florida, USA (04.10.19, 06.10.2019, 07.10.19 and 10.10.19) Pearland, Texas, USA (07.10.19) Arlington, Washington, USA (07.10.19) 13087, SE Snowfire Drive, Oregon, USA (06.10.19) Merchantville, New Jersey, USA (06.10.19) Somerdale, New Jersey, USA (07.10.19) St. Louis, Missouri, USA (06.10.19) Perth, Western Australia (06.10.19) Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA (04.10.19) Wilson, Wyoming, USA (07.10.19) Victoria, Australia (08.10.19)

5.7 The resident of 11, Stanley Terrace, Douglas refers to EP2 and HP12 and confirms that his principal concern relates to the historic origins of the Manx rural landscape and townscape, suggesting that the Planning Authority is not adequately informed or aware of the issue of time and depth in the landscape. Whilst suggesting this during the review of the Strategic Plan, the suggestion that an Historic Landscape Characterisation exercise can be required was met with a response from the "Strategic Planning Authority" was that there is "sufficient ammunition in the landscape provisions of the Strategic Plan to cover any misgivings with regard to the protection of the historic landscape". He believes that this current application will test the commitment of the Planning Authority to the Island's historic and cultural landscape. this application will "test the commitment of the Planning Authority to the Island's historic and cultural landscape". The submission then goes on to describe the general history of the Island and the fragmentation of the farmsteads, referring to various Ballakaighens in close proximity to this site and without attributing any specific characteristics or importance to this individual property, suggests that it constitutes an important part of the fabric of the cultural landscape and there must be a presumption in favour of its retention. He suggests that the "wiping away" of the existing complex and its total replacement with a modern building would harm the character and quality of the landscape and consequently breach the terms of EP2." He refers to a case in Orkney which incorporates some of the older fabric whilst creating a more modern property (Melsetter House) and where various extensions denote different architectural and social periods in time. He refers to Colby Beg on the Island with the 18th century main property, 19th century front bay and 17th original house/wing behind. He suggests that the general rules on replacement dwellings be relaxed and that the scheme be amended to allow a generous new "wing" to be added to the rear to allow new accommodation whilst retaining the existing (08.10.19).

5.8 Following the submission of additional information by the applicant, some of the correspondents who live outside the Island have rescinded their objection (Victoria, Australia (02.11.19) and Florida, USA (29.10.19) who explains, "After further research, it has been discovered that there were no structures on this property according to a tithe plan originally drawn in 1808 and copied in 1862 when Ms. Deverau's ancestor William Cannan owned the property. This therefore nullifies the grounds of my objection").

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  7  of  11

5.9 The owner of Meadowcroft also submits a further response to the additional information, suggesting that whilst he is sympathetic to the applicant's situation but considers that the economics of renovation should not be a planning consideration but in any case he believes that it would be cheaper to renovate than to rebuild and whilst he appreciates that it can be difficult to source competent and experienced practitioners who work with older properties, these people do exist and advice is definitely available. He notes that the Department does not currently have a buildings conservation officer to give qualified specific advice on such properties and that there are no grants available. From his experience he is aware that there are many issues which give rise to damp penetration and replacement of timbers, stripping off cement renders which trap moisture, re-rendering inside and outside with appropriate render will generally solve most problems. He suggests that there are many solutions in different materials such as insulated limecrete floors. He adds that if every property without a damp proof course were to be replaced there would be no old properties left. He considers that properly renovated old buildings are remarkably energy efficient due to the thickness of the walls and small windows. He considers that the suggestions by the resident of 11, Stanley Terrace would be contrary to policy. He is of the view that the property is certainly of historic interest, "given its age history and the views submitted, this cannot be in doubt" and as such HP12 applies and the application should be refused (21.10.19).

5.10 The owner of 11, Stanley Terrace also submits further comments, suggesting that after the consideration of further information, the particular steading was constructed after 1808 but nevertheless could be up to 200 years old and attributable to Phase 5 and the field system to Phase 3 of the landscape progression referred to earlier although it fronts onto a modified ancient ridge-way/drift-way rather than a typical 18th century carriage road. He refers again to the Landscape Character Assessment which refers to the evolution of the landscape. He is unsure of how much of the existing buildings will be retained and is "a little nervous" at automatically accepting the assertions of the applicant's non-specialist advisor when considering the issue of whether the house is capable of renovation and has seen no discussion as to the condition of the barn/outbuilding and whether it could be converted rather than replaced (30.10.19).

5.11 Manx National Heritage were consulted on 25.10.19 to ascertain whether in their view the property should be prevented from being replaced and no response has been received to date.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the principle of the replacement of the property is acceptable, having regard to HP12 and if so, whether the appearance of the replacement dwelling is acceptable, having regard to HP14 and the Landscape Character Assessment.

6.2 Before assessing the above, it is relevant to consider the suggestions of some of the objectors. One has suggested that the existing cottage should be retained and another more modern structure built behind it, satisfying the applicant's desire for a modern property fit for occupation and complying with the Building Regulations. The applicants have only a certain area of land available to them and whilst this includes some land to the rear, this is not large enough to accommodate a sizeable extension either at all or without compromising the use of the existing agricultural building which exists and potentially trees which sit to the north which help form an attractive and natural context for the existing house and its surrounding outbuildings. The addition of a larger unit behind would almost certainly significantly change the character and appearance of the existing, modest cottage.

6.3 In respect of potentially compromising the agricultural operations it is arguably just as important in terms of historical protection to retain the agricultural use and viability of the farm as it is to protect the various buildings which exist to serve them.

Principle of replacing the house

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  8  of  11

6.4 Housing Policy 12 is clear that where an existing dwelling has historical, architectural or social interest, that there should be a presumption against its replacement. As it stands, there is nothing preventing the cottage from being demolished as it is not protected by Conservation Area or Registered Building status. It is not proposed to be considered for Registration in any published document. That said, if the dwelling were demolished, the residential status of the site would disappear with it, leaving the applicant with little prospect of having a dwelling on this site. it is therefore unlikely to be demolished unless and until permission is in place for something to replace it.

6.5 The historical interest in the property comes from both its traditional appearance, albeit compromised a little by the large ground floor window and the plastic framed casement windows which have been installed throughout although both of these elements are reversible, as well as the association of the property with a traditional and long established pattern of farming and land ownership over time, particular to the Island. There is no evidence that the existing house is the ancestral home of all of the Kaighins although it is highly possible that the site itself may have been the place where the earliest dwelling was located from where the Kaighin family emerged. The existing house certainly does not date back to the 1400s so is a later iteration of whatever may have been there previously. As noted by Mr. Crowe, there is a number of Ballakaighens in the area - Ballakaighen Cottage which sits approximately 725m to the west of the site, Ballakaighen which sits 500m away, to the north of Ballabooie Road and Lower Ballakaighen which is further away, on the A4 coast road around 1,500m away.

6.6 The connection of a particular family to a part of the Island is capable of being considered a material consideration in that it is aligned to the historic development of the countryside and how it has been managed. In the case of this particular site, it would appear that there has been a dwelling of some sort here for a considerable time, pre-dating the existing cottage. Its replacement with something more modern would continue the occupation of the site and its association with the farmland with which it has been almost always associated but in a different form, in the same way that when the current house was built, it may well have replaced something earlier on the same or similar site. It is not considered that the replacement of the house on the same footprint will destroy the historical association of the family with the site or surrounding area, in fact, quite the reverse as a new dwelling will make it more likely that the current family will continue to live there for the foreseeable future.

6.7 The existing cottage is a good example of vernacular architecture other than the modern windows referred to in 6.5 above. It would indeed be preferable to retain the existing. However, the owners of the property report that the structural condition of the building is not good and despite efforts and expenditure to remedy the various issues, the wet and dry rot persists and that structural timbers are deficient. If the existing property is to be occupied considerable work would need to be undertaken. What would remain would still be a modest property with limited head height in some of the rooms. It is likely given the condition of some of the structural elements that they would need to be replaced either involving considerable cost and engineering solutions to retain the remaining fabric or replacing that as well. A report has been prepared by someone experienced in the building industry and an architectural technician, based upon an internal and external inspection. This reports that there are no significant foundations to the main walls and load bearing partitions within the property. Remedial work would involve the underpinning of all of the walls and the insertion of a damp proof membrane carried out in 1-2m lengths to stabilise the structure. In order to install a damp proof membrane the floor level would need to be lowered beneath the existing wall foundations. The ceiling height on the ground floor is below habitable height and would require replacement of the undersized ceiling joists and floor joists to the first floor. It reports that all of the timbers have rotted in the walls would require complete replacement. Whilst the property was re-slated between 20 and 30 years ago, the existing timbers were not replaced and the bearing timbers of the A frames and purlins have rotted within the walls. The roof timbers are also undersized and there is no insulation to the roof or bedroom ceilings. To achieve habitable room heights at ground floor level the first floor ceiling heights could only be

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  9  of  11

achieved by raising the whole roof and lifting the walls. They estimate that the remedial works would be equivalent to constructing a completely new house which would benefit from complying with Building Regulations.

6.8 It could be argued that the property could be occupied by someone with perhaps lesser spatial needs than the applicants and that someone may have the resources to undertake the works to the existing property to retain and renovate it. However, part of some of the objections to the application is on the basis of the historical occupation and evolution of a particular family to which the current applicants are linked. The applicants and intended occupiers are descendants of the original family and as such, maintain the historical connection with the site. The family's wish is that the farm continues to operate through the occupation of the house by the applicants who can provide help to the applicants' parents (also descendants) who run the farm. Whilst this is not generally a planning consideration, in having regard to the historical association of the house and its former occupants, then this is considered relevant in this case although of course the planning system could not restrict occupancy of the existing or any new property to any particular individual. It is also relevant that this is not a case where someone has purchased a property in the knowledge of its limitations and the necessary repair works but who is not willing or able to do address them in a way that complies with planning policy.

6.9 If the fabric of the building is the historically important element then the renovation and modernisation of the property would result in the removal of some, possibly a significant part of it. If the appearance of the property is the historically important element then what is proposed is intended to reflect the form and character of the existing cottage and what is proposed has not generated any objection on the basis of appearance or design and would generally replicate what currently exists, albeit taller.

6.10 There is reference to another application at The Driney (17/00908/A) and a favourable comparison between the historic interest of that property and that of the current application. It is correct that that application was refused for a reason that the loss of what was considered an historically important building was unacceptable. However, that was one of three reasons for refusal, the other two relating to the unacceptability of what it was to be replaced by. The officer dealing with that application noted the following in her conclusions:

"6.5 The property encapsulates all the architectural and historic qualities and features of traditional Manx vernacular dwelling. Properties such as this are sought to be retained and repaired to ensure the longevity of the heritage of the Island's built environment."

"RENOVATION 6.6 Although the application has not been submitted with any kind of structural report the property appears largely intact and seemingly capable of renovation (at cost). Aforementioned if the habitable status has not been lost the property could be subject to some levels of renovation without the need for planning permission - such as the replacement of windows, internal alterations or the repair of the roof."

"6.10 In the case of this application the proposed replacement dwelling is sited on an alternative location to the existing. Its reason for being in another location is so that the proposed dwelling can be of a passive house standard which will seek to utilise solar gain for generating domestic energy. While there is expected to be an environmental improvement when compared to the existing property, these improvements are not sufficient enough to outweigh the loss of the existing traditional dwelling or to outweigh visual impact of the proposed dwelling from the Bayr ny Staarvey road."

"6.11 The existing dwelling has a total floor area including the rear annex of 131.5 sq m. The proposed new dwelling specified within the submitted drawings alludes to being two storeys with a front porch. The total floor area of which would be 284 sq m. The increase of floor area

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  10  of  11

between the existing dwelling (131.5sq m) and the proposed new dwelling (282sq m) would be a percentage increase of 115%. This increase far exceeds that of the 50% guide set out in HP14."

"HP 14 - CONCLUSION 6.12 The proposed dwelling is significantly larger than the existing dwelling and substantially larger than the 50% allowed for. Although the design is indicated to have environmental improvements, these are not sufficient enough to outweigh the loss of the existing Manx cottage or to outweigh the visual impact of the large dwelling from its alternative footprint especially from the Bayr-ny-Staarvey."

6.11 The recommendation to refuse the application was therefore based not only on an application which had no structural report and an ensuing belief that it would be possible to viably renovate the existing property, but also one which proposed a replacement dwelling that was itself considered unacceptable. As such, this application is not considered to justify a similar decision in this current case.

The replacement dwelling - HP14 6.12 What is proposed is on the same footprint and is of virtually the same floor area as the existing excluding the side annex which will rebuild existing fabric on the same footprint but extend it upwards resulting in an overall increase in floor area of 42% of the existing, almost all of it as a result of the side extension. The profile of the northern gable, whilst taller, will be very similar to the existing and maintains the traditional character of the property as recommended in Planning Circular 3/91. It is considered that this would have a much less significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside than any extension at the rear and would preserve the historical character of the site more effectively than such an approach. The replacement of the dwelling follows an historical pattern of having a dwelling on the site but replacing it as and when necessary. The proposal is considered to accord with HP14 and is acceptable.

CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst it would be preferable to retain the property in accordance with HP12, in this case it is considered that there is sufficient justification to allow the replacement of the dwelling and the application is recommended for approval.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), 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.

8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

__

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      19/00952/B                                     Page  11  of  11

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:...16.12.2019

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).

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.