Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00182/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00182/B Applicant : Mrs Joanne Crellin Proposal : Erection of dwelling with detached garage Site Address : Guilcaugh Cottage St Judes Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3HF
Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken : 04.04.2019 Site Visit : 04.04.2019 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.05.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed erection of a dwelling on an alternative site to that which is intended to replace, on agricultural land in the open countryside is considered not acceptable in principle. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal will result in 'overall environmental improvement' to warrant support in terms of Housing Policy 14. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The proposed development, by virtue of the proliferation of domestic buildings on and agricultural site in the open countryside, the siting of the proposed dwelling closer to the highway than the existing dwelling, the significantly larger domestic curtilage than the existing dwelling with a much greater scope of domestic paraphernalia, the potential removal of over 29m of Manx sod hedge and the creation of a domestic access in a rural setting, would unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing agricultural site and the rural character of the surrounding countryside. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3, Environmental Policy 1 and Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site is part of a much wider agricultural field to the south west of Andreas, off of St Judes Road; the site is accessed by private track leading to Guilcaugh Farm to the
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00182/B Page 2 of 7
west of the application site. The existing site is not currently separate from the wider field and forms a usable part of the agricultural field.
1.2 As shown on the submitted plans, 20m to the west of the redline application site is Guilcaugh Cottage, which is a wide fronted traditional style dwelling with a large porch extension on both the front and rear and two chimneys. The existing dwelling is sited close to the lane and has a clear parking area to the front and a garden area top the rear that makes up the residential curtilage.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The applicant has stated in their application form that the proposal for the 'erection of new house with detached garage to replace existing house'. It is also noted under question 9 that the existing use of the site is agricultural and the proposed use of the site is residential.
2.2 The proposal is to create a new access through a Manx sod hedge and build a second, four bedroom dwelling approx. 63m to the east of the existing Guilcaugh Cottage; between these two would also be a new double garage with a lean-to timber framed log store to the side, approx. 42m to the east of the existing Guilcaugh Cottage. The applicant has stated that the existing cottage would then be demolished approx. 9 months following the first occupation.
2.3 The proposed dwelling will be traditionally styled with painted render elevations and a natural slate roof with concrete verge capping; the proposed windows will be sliding sash uPVC windows. To the rear elevation will be four sets of sliding/folding doors to serve a balcony and a Juliet balcony, as well as allowing access to the rear garden.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is shown on the 1982 Development Plan as 'white land', which is not zoned for any particular purpose. To the north east of the site it also indicates that there is a 'Site of Archaeological Interest'.
3.2 As the site is not zoned for development General Policy 3 applies to this proposal; this policy states that 'Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: -
(d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); 3.3 Due to the principle for the creation of a new dwelling Housing Policy 4 is considered to be applicable; this policy states that 'New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages... otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances...(c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14'.
3.4 Housing Policy 12 states that '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'. It continues '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'.
3.5 Housing Policy 14 applies where a replacement dwelling is permitted; this policy states that '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
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00182/B Page 3 of 7
3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact'.
3.6 Due to the rural location of the development, the following policies are considered to be applicable. Environment Policy 1 states that 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake...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'.
3.7 Environment Policy 4 states that 'Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
(a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.
(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.
(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward'.
3.8 Environment Policy 7 states that 'Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species'.
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00182/B Page 4 of 7
3.9 Due to the adjacent Site of Archaeological Interest to the north east of the site, the following policies are considered to be applicable. Strategic Policy 4 states that 'Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance'.
3.10 Environment Policy 40 states that 'Development will not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof'.
3.11 Environment Policy 41 states that 'The Department will require that archaeological evaluations be submitted prior to the determination of proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance. In cases where remains are affected but preservation in- situ is not merited, the Department will expect to secure excavations and/or recording in advance of construction work either by the imposition of suitable conditions attached to a planning permission or through a formal agreement entered into with the developer'.
3.12 As the proposal creates a new access, Transport Policy 4 is considered to be applicable; this policy states that 'The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan'.
3.13 Transport Policy 7 states that 'The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards'.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY There have been several planning applications on the wider Guilcaugh Farm; however these previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
Andreas Parish Commissioners o No Objection (dated 13 March 2019)
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division o No Comments at the time of writing
Neighbours' views o No comments received.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) Biodiversity Team o No objection to the principle; o Would request that the applicant's do not remove the small area of sod bank, needed to facilitate access, between the dates of 31st March - 31st August, in order to protect lizards, birds, insects and flowers in the spring/summer season; o Also please undertake thorough checks for lizards prior to the removal of the sod bank. (dated 22 March 2019)
6.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/00182/B Page 5 of 7
6.1 The key issues for this proposal are principle for the replacement dwelling and the impact to the open countryside, both in terms of its visual impact and the impact to habitats and protected species generally.
The principle of development 6.2 The application site is not zoned for development. General Policy 3 prohibits any development within areas that are not zoned for development except those specifically stated in the policy. The exceptions listed in the policy include the replacement of existing rural dwellings, which is echoed in Housing Policy 4, in accordance with other policies in the strategic plan.
6.3 The existing dwelling appears to still be habitable, without the need for renovation and is not considered to be of particularly architectural or historical interest, for the purposes of Housing Policy 12. Therefore Housing Policy 14 is considered applicable. However the outward appearance of the dwelling is general untidiness as opposed to dilapidation or serious dereliction; from the main, public highway the dwelling appears as a typical feature in the countryside and the tiredness of the exterior is not apparent. The applicant has identified the reasoning for replacement being due to the generally poor structural condition of the dwellinghouse and poor build quality.
6.4 Housing Policy 14 applies where a replacement dwelling is permitted; this policy sets out the criteria for the proposed dwelling. The proposed dwelling is traditionally styled and is considered not to be attempting to be an exceptional, innovative, modern design, but instead generally conforms with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. In general, the new fabric would be finished to match the materials of the original building.
6.5 The floor area of existing dwelling is 193.58m2 and the floor area of the proposed dwelling is 266.4m2, which is a 37.6% increase. Therefore the floor area is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building when measured externally and not including attic space or outbuildings. The existing site curtilage is thought to be approx. 690m2, including the footprint of the existing building, as well as the front parking area and the rear garden; whereas the proposed site is approx. 3910m2, which is a 466% increase.
6.6 The policy emphasises that the proposal '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'; whilst the proposal is considered not to be 'substantially' different to the existing in terms of size of the floor area, the general appearance or the material palette, the proposed development will not be sited on the footprint of the existing dwelling and will instead be 63m to the east of the existing Guilcaugh Cottage and with the significant increase in the curtilage, both of which would be substantially different.
6.7 The benefits stated in the application letter/planning statement relate to the physical appearance of the building itself, stating that the proposed will be a 'marked improvements over that which exists' and to the generally build quality, as its compliance with current Building Regulations will offer 'environmental improvement as regards to its carbon footprint'. They state that the existing site would not accommodate the proposed larger dwelling and garage, due partly to the drainage ditch and that it is too close to a dub, which the applicant has stated is 'vermin infested'.
6.8 The usage of the wording 'overall environmental improvement', in the case of the policy, relates the wider improvements to the immediate character of the site and also in most cases the wider landscape; it provides an additional consideration for existing sites in the countryside that have an inappropriate use or have had poor quality development, historically, which would otherwise be out of enforcement control.
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/00182/B Page 6 of 7
6.9 The aforementioned benefits don't relate to the wider context, but only to the appearance of the dwelling as it would be observed from immediately in front of it, and its modern construction. These benefits do not provide an overall environmental improvement to the wider countryside and therefore do not justify the substantial difference in the siting, with the proposed dwelling on an entirely different site from the existing or the substantial increase in the curtilage; indeed the existing site is not even included within the redline boundary.
6.10 The comment from the applicant stating that the dub to the south of the existing property is 'vermin infested' is not expanded upon or substantiated. This dub is within the wider agricultural field and over 270m away from the main farm; there is no clear reason that this feature would attract 'vermin' more so than the dub to the east of the site that the proposed curtilage will adjoin. It seems likely that the applicant's view of 'vermin' actually describes the ecology of the area. This would not be considered an environmental improvement for the purposes of Housing Policy 14.
6.11 The applicant has stated that the existing cottage would not be demolished until approx. 9 months following the first occupation, but has not included any reasoning or justification for the delay. Conditions in the circumstances of replacement dwellings that require the demolition of structures relating to other development, within a time period after the first occupation, are considered not to be best practice and put the requirements on the Department to enforce.
6.12 The proposed development therefore would not provide the 'overall environmental improvement' to warrant support in terms of Housing Policy 14 and the substantial difference of the proposed siting 63m away from the existing dwelling, the significant increase in the curtilage and the proposed retention of the existing dwelling until well after the proposed dwelling has been erected and occupied, all appear to be for the convenience of the applicant rather than the providing genuine benefits to the wider environment.
6.13 As well as being sited away from the existing site, creating a much larger curtilage and constructing additional buildings to the existing as opposed to the direct replacement, the proposal will also create a new access through a Manx sod hedge, which appears to remove approx. 29m to create the proposed visibility splays and the erection of a new double garage with a lean-to timber framed log store to the side, approx. 42m to the east of the existing Guilcaugh Cottage.
6.14 The proposed buildings will be closer to the main public highway and the larger curtilage will provide opportunity for a much greater scope of domestic paraphernalia, potentially including washing lines, large scale play equipment such as trampolines or slides and swings, and other general clutter. All of which, rather than providing any 'overall environmental improvement' will actually have a significant, harmful impact to an otherwise agricultural site in the open countryside.
6.15 The proposed development is not acceptable in principle in terms of the requirements of Housing Policy 14 and due to the proliferation of buildings, the siting of the proposed dwelling closer to the highway than the existing, the larger curtilage with a much greater scope of domestic paraphernalia and the potential removal of over 29m of Manx Sod hedge and creation of a domestic access, would also unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing agricultural site and the rural character of the surrounding countryside.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal conflicts with General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. It is recommended therefore that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/00182/B Page 7 of 7
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.
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 can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 23.05.2019
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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