182571 — 18/00538/B | Planning Portal IoM | Isle of Man Planning Portal

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  1  of  16

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00538/B Applicant : Dalmatian Limited Proposal : Erection of a dwelling including private dog kennels to replace existing farmhouse along with associated landscaping Site Address : Ballawhane Farm Leodest Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3EG

Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 28.06.2018 Site Visit : 28.06.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.01.2019 __

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. The dog kennels, activity & food preparation areas and external dog areas as shown on drawing 856.03A shall all be for private use only for the occupants of "Ballawhane Farm" and not for any commercial uses.

Reason: The application has been judged on the basis that the dog kennels, activity & food preparation areas are for private use only and not on any other basis.

C 3. The temporary mobile home as shown on drawing 856.20 and photographs received on the 23.05.18 hereby approved shall be removed from the entire holding of the site and the land restored to its former condition within two and half years of the date of this decision becoming final or once the dwelling is completed, whichever is sooner.

Reason: The building is acceptable only for a temporary period because it meets a specific short-term need due to the number of animals which need to be cared for during the construction period.

C 4. Prior to the commencement of the dwelling (including demolition) a scheme shall be submitted which demonstrates how the existing stonework can be reused as part of the replacement dwelling.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  2  of  16

Reason: The application proposes to re-use the existing stonework

C 5. Prior to the commencement of the dwelling (including demolition) a scheme shall be submitted which demonstrates what type and size of chimney pots are to be used and these approved details are required to be complete prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

Reason: In the interest of the visual appearance of the property

C 6. All new windows (with the exception of those windows within the dog kennel building, 1st & 2nd floor gable end windows and the larger two storey hallway glazed section all of the dwelling) shall be vertical sliding sashes with the vertical glazing bars being external stuck and all shall be retained as such.

Reason: In the interest of the visual appearance of the property

C 7. 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.

C 8. No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until all the tree protection fencing as shown on drawing 856.20A have been erected around any existing trees. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected area are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscaping works.

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

C 9. No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees, any adjacent trees (a tree protection plan) and an arboricultural method statement, including adequate details of site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, are prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction -Recommendations) and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that adequate information regarding the protection of retained trees is prepared prior to any works starting on site in order to satisfy the Department that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.

C 10. The tree protection measures and arboricultural method statement approved under condition 8 above, including site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, shall be adhered to in full.

Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved protection measures and construction methods and that professional technical advice is on hand to deal with problems that arise or modifications that become necessary and to avoid any irreversible damage to retained trees.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  3  of  16

C 11. The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures as approved in condition 8 shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Department in accordance with the timescale agreed in the Arboricultural Method Statement as per Condition (number). This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition 8.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 856.03A, 856.04B, 856.06, 856.07, 856.09, 856.020 and 856.30 received on 21st May 2018, 21st December 2018 and 15th February 2019.

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should not 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):

Owners/occupiers of Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road, Peel and James Place, Douglas - do not meet Sections A, B & C of the Operational Policy on Interested Person Status July 2018.

The IOM Natural History and Antiquarian Society - Do not meet Sections A, B & C of the Operational Policy on Interested Person Status July 2018. __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

0.0 INTRODUCTION

0.1 Since the application was deferred pending a site visit of the Planning Committee Members; the representations have been updated to reflect additional comments received to date. Further following additional comments from the Assistant Arboricultural Officer Conditions 8, 9 & 10 of the original report have been replaced by a new Condition 8. Additionally, Paragraph 6.8 has been added to the report, following additional plan being submitted by the applicant. Other than these changes, there are no further alterations to the report from the original.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site relates to Ballawhane Farm, Leodest Road, Andreas which is a traditional two storey detached Manx farmhouse styled property, with five upper windows over a central ground floor entrance which is flanked by two windows either side. The site is located in large grounds and is to the southwest side of Leodest Road. Access to the site is of an existing entranceway off the Leodest Road, and then a driveway runs for approximately 180 metres in a south westerly direction, through a wooded area, till it reaches the dwelling. The

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  4  of  16

driveway also serves a number of agricultural barns/stables and kennels which also form part of the site.

1.2 The site is mainly surrounded by agricultural fields to the north and west of the site. At the entrance of the site onto the Leodest Road there are a few dwellings (four). To the east and south of the site is a neighbouring farm holding, which consists of a number of agricultural buildings. An old stone windmill exists along this boundary as well and is a Registered Building.

1.3 The floor area of the existing property equates to approximately 298 square meters (this includes the usable attic space with a head height of greater than 1.5m).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a dwelling including private dog kennels to replace existing farmhouse along with associated landscaping.

2.2 The proposed replacement dwelling is basically a two storey traditional Manx property with five upper windows over a central doorway which is flanked by two windows either side at ground floor level. Attached to this new dwelling are two single storey extensions to either side of the main dwelling house. Further a rear two storey outrigger is proposed to the rear of the new dwelling, which essential would result in a "T-shaped" footprint. Attached to the rear two storey outriggers are a single storey dog play/internal exercise space, kennels and dog preparation area. The dog building is on a commercial scale, rather than a domestic scale.

2.3 The applicant rescues dogs, cats and horses from the charity Blue Cross (UK based) who seek to treat and rehome animals. The applicant currently has 15 rescue dogs, 14 cats (not all rescue cats) and 20 horses (5 are rescue horse).

2.4 The submission also includes the siting of a temporary mobile caravan (12m x 3.6m) to enable the occupants of the replacement dwelling to live on site, while the replacement dwelling is been undertaken. The mobile unit would then be removed from site on completion of the new dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The previous applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application:-

3.2 Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of stables with store and formation of manège in the corner of Field 120316 - 12/00871/B - APPROVED

3.3 Removal of stores and pig sties and alteration of outbuilding to form private kennels for use in conjunction with dwelling - 08/01116/B - APPROVED

3.4 Erection of single storey extension to side of dwelling - 02/01963/B - APPROVED

3.5 Erection of agricultural barn - 88/04171/B - APPROVED

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area of Wood Land and an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance all not not designated for development in accordance with the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is the property Registered.

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  5  of  16

4.3 Environment Policy 1 states: "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."

4.4 Environment Policy 2 states: "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."

4.5 Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi- natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."

4.6 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

4.7 Housing Policy 7 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

4.8 Housing Policy 12 states: "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.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  6  of  16

In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use(2) or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."

4.9 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 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."

4.10 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the design of residential Development in the Countryside.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objection (20.06.2018 & 21.01.2019).

5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Services do not object subject to a condition that the kennels/dog indoor activity area to be used by the applicants dogs only, and not for any commercial activity (28.06.2018).

5.3 The Department, Environment, Food and Agriculture - Assistant Arboricultural Officer initially made the following comments (28.06.2018): "This site contains a large number of trees which form a small woodland to the north-east of the existing property with a few extending around the back and side of the property. They appear to be in generally good health and form and provide good canopy cover with the associated values (wildlife habitat, etc.)

The proposed driveway will encroach into the edge of this woodland. A fencing plan was summited but I don't think the tree constraints (e.g. RPAs, as defined by BS5837) have been properly assessed and there are no details about the specification of barriers to be used.

I therefore recommend that the planning authority request further details of:

(i) Any proposed alterations to existing ground levels, and of the position of any proposed excavation that might affect the root protection area as defined in paragraph 4.6 of BS5837:2012.

(ii) All appropriate tree protection measures required before and during the course of development in accordance with paragraph 5.5 and 6.2 of BS5837:2012

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  7  of  16

There are a number of areas where construction activity may occur within the root protection areas of trees to be retained. In these areas an arboricultural method statement will be required to supplement the tree protection plan.

In relation to the tree planting, I recommend that the planning authority request further details of planting scheme including (i) the measures to be taken to incorporate trees in to hard landscaping, (ii) the species/cultivar and nursery specification of the trees to be planted, (iii) the planting specification and (iv) the type of post-planting maintenance that will take place. Any tree planting plan that is produced for this site should demonstrate how the proposal adheres to the recommendations of British Standard 8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape)."

5.3.1 Following these concerns the applicant provided additional information and the Assistant Arboricultural Officer made the following comments (14.01.2019): "I can confirm that the tree protection described in drawing 856.20A is acceptable."

5.4 The Department, Environment, Food and Agriculture - Senior Biodiversity Officer (22.08.2018): comments that brown long-eared bat has been found previously on this site (adjacent barns) and therefore recommend a bat survey is undertaken and what if any protection can be undertaken during and after the works.

5.4.1 Following these comments the applicant provided additional information, i.e. a Bat Survey which has been prepared by Manx Bat Group which confirmed that there was a "lack of evidence of bats being present". The Senior Biodiversity Officer makes the following in response of the report (14.01.2019): "I note that a bat survey has been undertaken by the Manx Bat Group and though no bats were evident, the applicant has nevertheless offered to build in bat roost provision in the replacement house and in surrounding trees. I am therefore happy that the bat issue has been resolved."

5.5 The IOM Natural History and Antiquarian Society (IoMNHAS) objects to the application for the following summarised reasons (22.06.2018); considered Ballawhane Farm is of an age and potentially of importance in terms of its architecture and social history; would be contrary to Housing Policy 12; the building should be Registered; and given the windmill is Registered the proposed new dwelling would be inappropriate, especially given the rear extension which is out of character with the windmill. Following the above initial summarised comments the IoMNHAS made the following comments (17.01.2019); contrary to HP12; this policy encourages renovation not demolition of tradition buildings and applies to all buildings not just those registered; the proximity of the farmhouse to the windmill further supports the Society's contention that planning approval is not appropriate; there appears to be no reason why separate kennels could not be built on the site especially given the previous existence of a separate range of pig sties in this location; and the Society requests IPS in this application.

5.6 The owners/occupiers of Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road, Peel objects to the application for the following summarises reasons (13.07.2018); the proposal will cause damage to the landscape as it does not conform with HP 12, as the existing property having a local and social historic interest; the current house is not poor form, nor is it small; allowing this development will erode the value of northern landscape through the loss of cultural heritage, with high landscape interest; contrary to HP 14; it appears to be in good condition; without an independent assessment of historical interest protection of historic interest cannot be assured; proposal is contrary to our UNESCO biosphere; site is within a 'care' zone where Government is meant to be maintaining cultural diversity and reducing landscape impact; the application does not achieve this aim, removing vernacular architectural for yet another 'high net worth individual' style gated estate; and we fully support the letter submitted by the IOM Natural History and Antiquarian Society. Following the above initial summarised comments the owners/occupiers made the following comments (16.01.2019 & 18.01.2019): it is not a

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  8  of  16

planning matter whether it is economically viable or not and, in any case, the economics remains unproven; it is not an adequate reason to demolish an old historic house because it does not meet current modern living standards and fuel economy and comfort; considered the structural report and it appears that it is in common with many similar old buildings inappropriate modern materials ben used which have led to damp issues, but which can be rectified by renovating with appropriate heritage materials; we believe the building cis suitable for renovation; do not believe the applicant has property exploded renovation or wish to do so; this building is clearly of historic interest as stated by the Conservation officer and IOM Manx Antiquarian Society; seeking the Committee to extend IPS to ourselves. Additional emails where also received on the 16.01.2019 & 17.01.19 related to procedural matters, to being unable to open the structural report online and seeking a deferral of the application of the original Planning Committee meeting.

5.76 Mr Ashley Petit objects to the application for the following summarises reasons (14.01.2019); it is important that as much of the early and maybe original fabric should be retained; contrary to HP12; in my considerable experience of dealing with historic structures I can suggest that this building is capable of renovation at cost; given its importance of Quarterland Farms in the Manx traditional building stock considerable effort should be made to retain the earlier parts of this building; and Andreas is a rich area of natural biodiversity and every effort should be made to ensure this heritage is protected.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main material planning considerations are: (a) principle of the demotion of the dwelling/potential Registration; (b) visual impact of the proposed development; (c) the principle of the temporary mobile home; (d) potential impacts upon nearby trees/woodland; and (e) potential impact upon bats.

PRINCIPLE OF THE DEMOTION OF THE DWELLING / POTENTIAL REGISTRATION 6.2 Under the provisions of General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the erection of a replacement dwelling on a one for one basis is an accepted exception to the general presumption against development within the countryside. The existing dwelling is still in place and in use; therefore retains its full habitable status and therefore also accords with paragraph (a) of Housing Policy 12 from this respect.

6.3 In terms of paragraph (b) of HP 12 i.e. is the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. Following comments received the Registered Buildings Officer visited the site and consequently considered whether the dwelling should be registered/retained and the following comments are in relation to this:

"The proposals are for the demolition of the existing farmhouse at Ballawhane and for a replacement dwelling including private dog kennels.

The Farmhouse at Ballawhane is currently the subject of a Building Preservation Notice; an assessment has been undertaken of the farmhouse. The recommendation of this assessment is that the building is not worthy of registration given the level of alteration that has occurred. That said, I still consider the building to be of historic interest, and although features have been lost, it is a building dating from the early half of the 19th century. The proposals are to replace this building in form with additional development to the rear and sides. As part of the proposals are to replace and replicate the existing building, I would urge the applicant to explore keeping and renovating the building rather than completely demolished.

As a traditional Manx farmhouse this building is of some historic interest and incorporating the historic building into the proposals would have heritage benefits and secure the long-term future of this vernacular building.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  9  of  16

I recommend that in accordance with the Strategic Plan, the option of incorporating the existing structure into the proposed development be explored to enable the retention of the island's vernacular historic building stock."

6.4 Following these comments the applicant explored whether the building could be retained and employed the services of a Structural Engineer who made the following comments:

"To retain the front wall of the building and ensure no movement in the future will require stabilising and strengthening the foundation. The most effective way of achieving this is by contiguous concrete underpinning. The underpinning process will, however, almost certainly cause displacement of foundation stones resulting in structural instability of the wall. This could lead to a possible collapse of the structure with the resultant risk to workers carrying out the underpinning operations.

In view of the significant Health and Safety risks involved it is not recommended to underpin the front wall.

Aside from foundation issues, removal of the flank and rear walls together with the floors and roof will compromise the stability of the front wall. If the front wall has to be saved then a robust temporary façade retention structure would be required.

Taking into consideration the foundation issues referred to above, together with the inherent defects and lack of robustness in the superstructure masonry, retaining the front facade as part of a replacement dwelling is not recommended.

Demolition of the entire building will impose its own risks. It is considered, however, that these are manageable, whereas the works required to retain the front façade and successfully attach a new modern structure to it would not be so.

In view of the high level of risk involved and the consequences should a premature failure occur the retention of the front wall is not considered a safe or viable proposal.

A possible option could be to reuse a selection of random Manx stones, salvaged from the demolitions, as a dressing to the main façade of the reconstructed dwelling."

6.5 The applicant's agent comments that: "As you will see the property has had many changes and has suffered through poor management, repairs and alterations over the years. The integrity of the original house has been lost. This in our opinion has left it in an extremely poor, economically nonviable condition for restoration and to meet modern living standards for fuel economy and comfort. It is therefore proposed to require its demolition along with the rest of the building. The replacement property would include original features and as discussed use original reclaimed stone, lintels, slates and several features for reuse."

6.6 The Registered Buildings Officer comments in response stating: "I have reviewed the report, my comments in response to the application where, that it would be good if the original structure could be incorporated into the proposals, I did not mean the façade I meant the shell of the building. The report, for me is unsatisfactory, if we were to go on that basis we would have no buildings over 50 yrs old left on the island!

That said, the building is not registered nor in a conservation area, so there is no requirement for you to keep it. For me it would have given some significance to the project if the historic building in some form, had been incorporated into the redevelopment, it has stood there since circa 1840's as a Quarterland farmhouse and it is a shame that it is going.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  10  of  16

I'm not objecting to the proposals I just think it's disappointing that little value is placed on the retention of the original farmhouse."

6.7 Overall, on the matter whether the building is of an architectural or historic interest to warrant its retention it is a balanced decision. It is not of a quality or interest to Registered the building, but is clearly of interest, as with any original farmhouse throughout the Island. There is an argument to be made that the loss of the traditional Manx farmhouse properties is of concern, especially those that are not registered. Overall, from the comments received it is considered the existing dwelling is not of significant architectural or historic interest to warrant its retention and/or refuse the application contrary to HP 12; albeit it is considered disappointing the existing is not being retained.

6.8 Since the application was deferred the applicant has also submitted a drawing which shows the extent of walling/roof which would need to be removed and subsequently replaced/repaired to retain the existing dwelling. This indicates that the entire roof; chimneys; the majority of both gable ends; and large sections of the rear elevation would need to be removed.

VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6.9 As can be seen, Housing Policy 14 raises a number of issues that need to be taken into account. The first relates to the replacements dwellings siting. Whilst large parts of the new dwelling are sited on the existing footprint, the rear storey outrigger and rear dog kennels/indoor exercise area do go beyond. However, there is no objection to the siting of the new dwelling.

6.10 The second aspect of HP14 to consider relates to the size of the new dwelling. This proposal (living accommodation only - discounting dog kennels/dog exercise area) would equate to a 68% increase (proposed floor area 501sqm & existing floor area 298sqm). However, this is not automatic reason for refusal of the planning application as Housing Policy 14 goes onto to state that consideration may be given to larger dwellings 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. It is also noted that the proposed height of the new main dwelling house is the same as the existing i.e. 8.6m.

6.11 In this instance the applicants argue the existing dwelling is in poor condition; however, this is not a reason for it to be considered poor form. The property has in a small part been unsympathetically altered and/or extended over time; namely the front porch, replacement of the original sliding sash windows with casement windows and loss of chimney pots, which collectively in terms of the external appearance have reduced its traditional character/quality, albeit its overall form is not considered of poor form. From the main public views (Leodest Road and Coast Road), the existing dwelling is fairly well screened given the woodland area (even during winter periods) which runs along the north, eastern and western boundaries of the site, as well as the boundary features along the roadsides and the distance between the site and nearby highways. Notwithstanding this, from the views that are partially achievable (through trees) the existing dwelling does not appear as being in poor condition. Accordingly, for the reasons indicated it is not considered the existing dwelling can be considered of poor form.

6.12 A second reason to allow a larger dwelling is when there would be less visual impact. The proposal would be sited on the same footprint as the existing and therefore views of the new dwelling would be apparent mainly from the views mentioned previously, albeit limited. The main views of the increase in the scale of the building will likely be from the Coast Road to the northwest of the site, albeit these would be limited and distance views and it is not considered the proposal, even with a greater mass would be significant and would appear similar to the existing dwelling albeit with a rear extension added. The rear dog related buildings are single storey and finished in a cedar timber cladding. The design and appearance

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  11  of  16

of these would blend in with the surrounding larger agricultural buildings which act as a back drop to the new dwelling and dog related buildings from northern views.

6.13 However, while it is not considered the overall impact of the works would harm the character and quality of the landscape (i.e. EP2), it cannot be said it would have less visual impact as per HP14 states; given the new dwelling is larger than the existing dwelling, therefore the proposal will have a greater visual impact.

6.14 Due to this it is not considered un-reasonable to determine the application is contrary to Housing Policy 14 as it fails to meet the two exceptions for allowing larger replacement dwellings.

6.15 However, it is important to consider the site and partially the character and size of dwellings in the area. There are a number of substantial properties in the area and this dwelling would be not appear out of place with these, especially given the size of the site and context which it sits. Planning Circular 3/91 - The larger house standing in its own grounds indicates that; "In addition to the simple country dwelling on farms and settlements described above, there are also occasional grander houses which were built for the more affluent. Many characteristics of these larger houses are similar to those already described, having white render simple forms topped by gable end slate roofs, end chimneys and symmetrical main facades."

Policy 8 of Planning Circular 3/91 also states: "The more fashionable features of the 19th Century found in the isolated larger house, foam a visual image which is established and familiar in the Manx countryside. These features, given sensitive and restrained application, could, with advantage, be used in certain circumstances today. They should, however, be limited to the larger houses standing in its own grounds."

6.16 The existing mature woodland within and around the boundaries of the site, coupled with large gardens and length of driveway should also be taken into account, as this also gives the setting of a larger country dwelling within a farm holding, as described in the above policy. Again as previously mentioned, views of the site are limited from public views, given the roadside boundaries (e.g. made up of a mature hedgerows and Manx sod banks). The existing and proposed dwelling being setback 160 metres from the Leodest Road and 200m+ from the Coast Road also helps reduce both the existing and arguable the proposed dwelling appearing as a dominating features within the site and countryside setting. Consideration should also be had that the proposal would result in a dwelling with a greater mass, but with the similar design, proportion, form and finishes; it is considered the proposal would sit comfortably in the significant site and countryside setting, surrounded by woodland and other built development (i.e. large agricultural barns).

6.17 A further argument in support of the proposal could be made, that the applicant could extend the existing property, potentially within the remits of planning policy (HP15), this could have a similar appearance/mass as proposed. However, the character, design, finish of the property would be similar.

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME 6.18 The proposed mobile home while the existing property is constructed is unusual and is not something the Department would generally wish. However, in this case, it is clear that given the number of animals on the site, which need to remain on site while the works are completed, it is considered this would seem a reasonable proposal, subject to strict conditions indicating a timeline and it be removed from site when no longer needed.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON NEARBY TREES/WOODLAND

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  12  of  16

6.19 Comments have been received from the Assistance Arboricultural Officer who have raised a number of issues. These are not considered to be issues which are insurmountable, albeit additional information appears to still be outstanding. Accordingly, these matters can be addressed via appropriate conditions.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON BATS. 6.20 Since receiving initial comments from the Senior Biodiversity Officer a bat report was submitted by the applicant, which was prepared by the Manx Bat Group. Given their conclusion it is considered this matter is addressed. Under the Wildlife Act the contractors are still required to contact DEFA should bats be found i.e. there is other legislation outside of planning. Accordingly, at this stage with the information to hand, it is considered this matter has been addressed.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In conclusion, it cannot be ignored that the proposal is an increase in size over that of the existing and is not considered to fit with the two exceptions for allowing larger dwellings, as indicated within Housing Policy 14. Therefore the application could be refused on this ground.

7.2 However, for the reasons indicated within paragraphs 6.14 to 6.18 of this report, it is considered the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the site or the high landscape value of the area. This is important as the requirements of Environment Policy 1 indicate that the countryside should be protect for its own sake and that development that would harm the character and quality of the landscape should not be allowed. Further, Environment Policy 2 also indicates that within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape. From these policies Housing Policy 14 was introduced to help control the re-development of existing sites in the countryside. The pre-amble of HP14 indicates that; "It is important that replacement dwellings should relate closely to the buildings they replace in terms of siting and size, that the resulting visual impact is appropriate for the countryside...". Accordingly, whilst in this case it is not considered the proposal complies with the wording of HP14, the resulting development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape which is arguable the most important consideration and therefore it is considered on balance the proposal would be acceptable, complying with Environment Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. It is recommended that the application be approved.

8.0 INTERESTED PESRSON 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 13 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  13  of  16

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __

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: 04.03.2019

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.

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  14  of  16

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 04.03.2019

Application No. :

18/00538/B Applicant : Dalmatian Limited Proposal : Erection of a dwelling including private dog kennels to replace existing farmhouse along with associated landscaping Site Address : Ballawhane Farm Leodest Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3EG

Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer Miss Sarah Corlett

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee approved the application subject to the addition of IHBC, Ashley Pettit Architects, James Place, Victoria Road, Douglas, IM2 4HD being assessed under Interested Person Status and not being afforded IPS.

Conditions of Approval

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.

Reason: The application has been judged on the basis that the dog kennels, activity & food preparation areas are for private use only and not on any other basis.

Reason: The building is acceptable only for a temporary period because it meets a specific short-term need due to the number of animals which need to be cared for during the construction period.

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  15  of  16

C 4. Prior to the commencement of the dwelling (including demolition) a scheme shall be submitted which demonstrates how the existing stonework can be reused as part of the replacement dwelling.

Reason: The application proposes to re-use the existing stonework

Reason: In the interest of the visual appearance of the property

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

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      18/00538/B                                     Page  16  of  16

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition 8.

Plans/Drawings/Information