Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/00064/B Mr & Mrs James Simpson Erection of replacement dwelling (comprising amendments to PA 13/00125/B) Ballacaroon Farm West Baldwin Road Mount Rule Isle Of Man IM4 4HS Site Address : Mr Chris Balmer 04.02.2014 04.02.2014 Planning Committee Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer's Report THIS APPUCATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE AND AS THE REPLACEMENT DWELLING RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL IS LARGER THAN 50% 1.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 1.1 This application follows on from a series of previous applications for this site. These applications have generally been for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a new, larger dwelling further back on the site, together with the conversion of the existing stone barns to further application and garaging. This latest application proposes slight alterations to the approved replacement dwelling and the demolition of the barn closest to the road with no rebuilding or replacement. THE APPLJCAnON SITE The application site comprises the curtilage of a dwelling and number of redundant stone and pre-fabricated outbuildings at Ballacaroon Farm, Mount Rule, Braddan. The dwelling, which is currently unoccupied, is located directly adjacent to the road. To the north of site is the A23 (West Baldwin Road) and to the west of the site is Mount Rule Equestrian Centre. To the east of the site is an unmade access lane, approximately 0.5ha in area. 2.0 2.1 The application site is 3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 The application seeks approval for erection of replacement dwelling (comprising amendments to PA 13/00125/B). The proposed dwelling in terms of proportion, form and size is proposed to replicate a traditional Manx farmhouse design, with five upper windows over a central doorway with two windows set either side of the front door. The elevations of the main dwelling house would be painted render with a natural slate roof. The proposal also includes a two storey side extension finished with stone to the east elevation which forms an 'L' shape. 3.2 The proposed dwelling would be sited 23 metres to the south of the existing footprint of the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be sited on an existing steel framed barn which would be removed as part of this development. The residential curtilage would remain as approved under the previous permissions. 3,3 14/00064/B Page 1 of 9 5 March 2014
==== PAGE 2 ====
It is important to note the main differences of this proposed scheme and the recently approved scheme (13/00125/B). These are: • A haif storey is proposed above the previousiy approved singie storey utiiity room; • Increase in the depth of the tv^o gabie end chimneys from 2.4 metre to 3.8 metres; 3.4 and Change of window design (Georgian glazing panels) to main dweiling. The previous last approved schemes proposed the conversion of the existing two storey traditionai Manx stone barn which was located to the northwest of the proposed dwelling (west of existing dwelling). Applications 11/00033/B and 12/01057/B also proposed a single storey extension to the south elevation of the barn, forming a garage block (4 vehicle width) and a garden store. This is now proposed again (similar to the last approval 13/00125/B), albeit not connected to the Manx stone barn which has now been demolished. 3.5 PLANNING HISTORY The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: 4.0 4.1 Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling, renovation of existing stone barn and access improvements - 06/01535/A - REFUSED 4.2 Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation and extension to existing stone barn - 07/00540/A - APPROVED 4.3 Reserved Matters application for the erection of a replacement dwelling and conversion of outbuildings to guest accommodation and garaging - 09/01154/REM - WITHDRAWN 4.4 Demolition of existing and erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation of 4.5 existing barns to form a single dwelling - 11/00033/B- APPROVED 4.6 Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/00033/B) - 11/01518/B - APPROVED 4.7 Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/01518/B) - 12/01057/B - APPROVED Demolition of existing barn and erection of a building to provide guest accommodation, garage, gym and amendments to PA 11/01518/B - 12/01546/B - REFUSED on the following grounds: 4.8 "R 1. The building proposed for use as guest accommodation/garage and playroom would be tantamount to the erection of an additional dwelling in the countryside, contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside and directing new residential development to locations that accord with sustainable development principles, For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environmental Policies 1 & 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. R 2. The building proposed as guest accommodation/garage and playroom is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that, by reason of its scale, massing and design it would represent an unwarranted and visually harmful development within the countryside and an area of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance. 14/00064/B Page 2 of 9 5 March 2014 1-
==== PAGE 3 ====
The proposed dwelling would result in a building of far greater mass and scale that the building which it is to replace, presenting a greater intrusion into the countryside within an area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance contrary to Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan." R3. Demolition of barn, creation of garaging and erection of replacement dwelling (amendments to PA 12/01057/B) ■ 13/00125/B - APPROVED 4.9 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Braddan Commissioners and the DOI Highways Division have no objection to the planning application. PLANNING POLICY In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space (agricultural) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 - Plan No. 2 and also designated as an area of High landscape Value and Scenic Significance. 6.0 6.1 6.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. 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." 6.3 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: 6.4 (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential. Genera! 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: essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live dose to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); 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; the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12,13 and 14); location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture 6.5 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) or forestry; 5 March 2014 14/00064/B Page 3 of 9
==== PAGE 4 ====
development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms (g) 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," Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions 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: essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 6.6 (a) and 10; conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14." (b) (c) Housing Policy 12 states: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or 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: the structural condition of the building; the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess often years; evidence of intervening use; and evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon." 6.7 (a) (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 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. 6,8 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." 7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The proposed application has two parts, firstly the proposed replacement dwelling and secondly the proposal to erect the detached garage block/garden store. It can be seen that in terms of principle there is provision for the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside through planning policy contained with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. As such, the general principle behind the proposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and therefore the first aspect of the planning application is to assess the site specific impact and acceptability. In terms of this aspect the main planning policies to consider is Housing Policy 14. 7.2 Whilst there have been a number of planning applications for the replacement of the existing dwelling, given no works to the dwelling and or garage (demolition of dweiling and 7.3 14/00064/B Page 4 of 9 5 March 2014
==== PAGE 5 ====
barn and steel framed barn have recently been undertaken) have commenced on site and as the Planning Authority cannot consider just "amendments" to previously approved scheme, the whole aspect of Housing Policy 14 requires to be considered again, not just the amendments. However, significant weight is attached to the previously approved applications when considering this new submission. With regards to the replacement dwelling the starting point when determining any application is Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy states that a replacement should generally be on the same footprint and should not be greater than 50% greater than that of the original building. 7.4 In addition to that allowance it is also necessary to take account of the previous application (07/00540/A) that granted approval in principle for a larger dwelling. The replacement dwelling shown within that previously approved planning application had a floor space of approximately 670 square metres. 7.5 Furthermore, there are four recent applications (11/00033/B, 11/01518/B, 12/01057/B and 13/00125/B) which resulted in planning permission for substantially larger dwellings in terms of floor area over the existing dwelling. When application 12/01057/B was being considered it was noted that there seemed to be a mistakes in the calculations of PA 11/00033/B and 11/01518/B. Planning application 11/00033/B was indicated by the applicant to have a floor area of 584 square metres. However, they had indicated that this calculation did not include the garaging link (letter dated 25th Oct 2011). The applicant has also indicated that they have always measured the internal floor area rather the external floor area. It would appear the Department took the floor area of 584 square metres as the total floor area and approval was based on this figure (159% increase). In fact the proposed dwelling had an approximately floor area of 870 square metres (286% increase). 7.6 Again the second recent approved application (11/01518/B) appeared to be calculated incorrectly, in terms of floor area. The applicant indicated (letter dated 20th January 2012) that this proposal would result in a dwelling with a floor area of 574 square metres, smaller than the previous approval. It appears again that this figure was taken as the total square metreage of the proposal and this was assessed against planning policy. Measuring the proposal it would appear the proposed dwelling was approximately 862.9 square metres in size (283% increases), 7.7 It would certainly seem the ground floor and first floor of the main dwelling house and the attached two storey extension was included in the calculation, but the roof space, glazed link, utility/store and attached garage was not included. 7.8 Consequently, it would appear that the two planning approvals were substantially larger than what was indicated and envisaged by the Department, albeit the plans submitted with these applications are to scale and are correct. Rightly or wrongly, planning permission exists and considerable weight is required to be attached to these approvals. 7.9 7.10 The most recent approved applications (12/01057/B and 13/00125/B) both allowed a dwelling with a floor area of 846.9 square metres which equated to a 274% increase in floor area over the existing property. 7.11 For clarity please find a summary of previous applications: 13/00125/B - 846.9 square metres which equated to a 274% increase - APPROVED 12/01546/B - 881,8 square metres which equates to a 291% increase - REFUSED 12/01057/B - 846.9 square metres which equates to a 274% increase - APPROVED 11/01518/B - 862.9 square metres which equates to a 283% increase - APPROVED 11/00033/B - 870 square metres which equates to a 286% increase - APPROVED 5 March 2014 14/00064/B Page 5 of 9
==== PAGE 6 ====
7.12 Regarding the current application which is under consideration, the floor area would be the same as the only refused application (12/01546/6) i.e. a 291% increase in floor area over the existing property. 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 has been accepted with the previous four approvals and the initial approval in 7.13 principle application, that a significantly larger dwelling on this site is appropriate. 7.14 Notwithstanding the previous approvals, it is still important to consider the proposed scheme and whether the size, position and design are appropriate for this site. Visiting the site/area in the past, it was apparent that the original two storey dwelling, now demolished, did not contribute positively to the visual appearance of the street scene or countryside and being sited directly adjacent to the Crosby Top Road was a prominent unattractive feature along the street scene. The remainder of the site was made up of a dilapidated agricultural steel framed barn and a redundant two storey stone barn. The site was also overgrown. It was accepted previously that a large dwelling could be acceptable as it would improve the site and overcome access difficulties, the previous access being almost 'blind', 7.15 The proposed dwelling would be sited on the same footprint as those approved as part of the 2012 and 2013 applications 7.16 The main difference between this current scheme and the last applications relates to the size and floor area increase due to the proposed one and half storey extension (flush dormer design) to the north of the 'barn-like' extension to the main dwelling house. Previously this was a single storey in height providing a pantry and utility room. The footprint remains the same but an additional half storey is proposed providing an additional bedroom and en-suite. It could be considered that the proposal is already well above the generally permitted 50% threshold and therefore any further additional whatever the size is contrary to planning policy. This was considered the case under the refused application 12/01546/B which proposed an identical proposal. This application was refused for three reasons (as listed within the history section of this report), one of these related to the proposed dwelling would result in a building of far greater mass and scale that the building which it is to replace, presenting a greater intrusion into the countryside within an area. In response to this previous approval the applicants have argued that the amount of built development on the site is reduced over three of the previously approved four applications, when you calculate the floor area of the approved dwellings, garaging, links and converted barns. The table below shows the total floor area for each proposal: 11/00033/6- 1281 sqm 11/01518/6-1313 sqm 12/01057/6 -1300 sqm 13/00125/6- 1115 sqm Proposed 6-1155 sqm 7.17 The applicants also argue that the new proposed half storey extension (approximately 40 square metres) would have no adverse impact when viewed from the Mount Rule Road. To the north, the proposed dormer and roof extension would be very modest and the backdrop of the bigger and taller two storey barn extension would reduce the appearance of the proposal. Again views from the east of the site would also not have a adverse visual impact by the additional of the dormer roof. The applicants indicate that the main house provides the backdrop of the dormer, so it doesn't affect any uninterrupted views of the countryside. Furthermore, they indicate that with the grey slate roof and stone work, the proposal would obscure some of the painted white render of the main dwelling house and 14/00064/B Page 6 of 9 5 March 2014
==== PAGE 7 ====
would reduce the appearance of the main dwelling house form this view. They also draw attention of the adjoining equestrian centre, which is set at a higher level with a number of substantial buildings, including a larger barn and large trees, all of which dominate the skyline and therefore all the woks to this site, including the proposed dormer roof extension would not affect the skyline, given the backdrop of the site is of larger buildings. 7.18 The applicants indicate that the proposed extension would provide an additional bedroom (applicant has five children) and they wish for an au pair/nanny, presumably next to the bedrooms of the children. Previously, it was noted that the roof space within the main dwelling would easily accommodate at least two large bedrooms (plans show rooms within roof space for storage) each with ensuite facilities which would more than provide the space required. Presumably an argument for this would be that the au pair/nanny should be close and one the same floor as the bedrooms (especially children's room). In conclusion, from the evidence provided, and given the amount of built development 7.19 on the site has been significantly reduced, albeit the proposed dwelling would be the largest approved, it is considered the half storey dormer extension above the pantry/utility room, would not have an adverse visual impact upon the countryside. 7.20 At this stage perhaps it is relevant to consider Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. These policies relates to traditionally designed properties which take the form of Manx vernacular. From the front elevation the proposal would follow the lines of Planning Circular 3/91 and would be symmetrical with five upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by two windows. All other elevations would also meet the criteria set out in Planning Circular 3/91, including the now proposed larger gable end chimneys, which are larger than previously approved, but fit well with the character and appearance of the proposed dwelling. The proposal would be finished with a mixture of painted render and Manx stone, with a slate roof. These are all considered appropriate finishes to traditional properties in the countryside. This new scheme is again very similar to the last approved application (13/00125/B) with the exception of the verges/copings which are now proposed to be painted white. This does not raise concerns. 7.21 When application (11/01518/B) was initially considered, concern was raised regarding the use of white render to the main dwelling house. It was considered that this would increase its visual appearance and make the dwelling look unduly grand. An amended scheme was submitted which included the cladding of the main dwelling house in stonework, omission of all eaves up stands and the introduction of the peaked gable to the rear elevation (south). 7.22 The applicants have produced a long distant photo montage taken from the Lhergy Cripperty, the only public accessible vantage point, which reinforced the view that there was no distant visual impact- whether the main house was clad in stone or render. However, application 11/01518/B wasn't amended to reflect this. The later applications (12/01057/B & 13/00125/B) were proposed as being finished with painted white render. It was considered and accepted that visually the proposal would be more aesthetically pleasing and the contrast between the render and the stone in the application is more in accordance with the Design Circular suggesting a farm dwelling which has been extended over time. It was also accepted that the main difference with the application was that the main house had been moved some distance away from the Mount Rule Road and the photo montage from the road shows that whether clad in render or stone the close view visual impact of the house is significantly mitigated as a result. 7.23 A number of large properties in the area, are painted render in finish as are the majority of the smaller traditional properties along the West Baldwin Road. Distant views from the Lhergy Cripperty indicate that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the visual amenities of the wider countryside/landscape. Again these considerations and 5 March 2014 14/00064/B Page 7 of 9
==== PAGE 8 ====
conclusions relate to the current application, even with the alteration to the eaves level and the verges/copings being white. Overall, the design of the proposed dwelling is essentially traditional with the side 7.24 extension designed to look like an attached barn building. It would not have significant visual impact or result in an encroachment into the open countryside. The proposal results in the main part of the dwelling moving approximately 40 metres from the existing roadside position. The proposal also includes a landscaping scheme for the overall site and the courtyard area, which serves to produce a higher quality development that should hopefully add value to the area. Given its location and position relative to existing surrounding properties the proposed development does not cause undue harm to private amenity. RECOMMENDATION Overall, it is concluded that the basis for allowing a substantial larger replacement dwelling on the application site has been established by the approval of a previous planning applications; the new submission results in a smaller dwelling in terms of floor area; amount of built development on the site would be reduced and given the design, proportion, form and finish of the proposed dwelling would be of a traditional appearance in keeping with the locality it is recommended the application be approved. 8,0 8.1 PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) and should be afforded interested party status: 9.0 9.1 Braddan Commissioners DOI Highway Division Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.03.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. C2. TTie development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the submitted documents and the following plans SC1185-P/10/01, SC1185-P/10/02, SC1185- P/10/03F, SC1185-P/10/04F, SC1185-P/10/05F, SC1185-P/10/06F, SC1185-P/10/07F, SC1185- P/12/01F, SC1185-P/12/02F, and SC1185-P/12/03F all received on 20th January 2014. 14/00064/B Page 8 of 9 5 March 2014
==== PAGE 9 ====
C 3. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and those works shall be carried out as approved. Details of hard landscaping works shall include boundary treatment, footpaths, driveways and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed In full accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted; and all planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation, C4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions shall be erected without the submission and approval of a planning application for that purpose. I confirm that this decision h^been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it und^fie Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
