227460

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/00700/B Mr David & Mrs Alison Allvey Removal of existing detached garage and erection of replacement garage/equipment store Dreemskerry Farm Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 IBF Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Mr Edmond Riley Officer's Report 1,0 THE SITE The application site is the curtilage of a dwelling known as Dreemskerry Farm, Dreemskerry, which is a large, two storey-detached building finished with Manx stone, white render (in places) and grey slate roof tiles. The dwelling, which is horseshoe-shaped and has a central courtyard, is set within a significant area of surrounding land and includes and open- faced three-berth garage. 1.1 A collection of dwellings lie to the southwest of the application site along the Road of Scarffe's Ridge, with the nearest, Geay Vooar, some 150m from Dreemskerry Farm. There are few trees in the area, but Dreemskerry Farm is, topographically, set down with views into and out of the site being primarily limited to long-distance. The land within the ownership of the applicant is bifurcated by the Manx Electric Railway, which borders the application site to the north east. Maughold Conservation Area can be found 450m to the northeast. 1.2 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Planning approval is sought for a replacement garage. The existing garage, as noted, is open-faced and would provide sufficient space for three vehicles. The proposed garage is four-berth and has a recess behind that is labelled as a "Landscaping Equipment Store" on the submitted plan; it is cuboidal in shape and would have a "wild flower turf roof. In terms of size, the existing garage measures roughly 42sqm whereas the proposed garage would be just under 130sqm. The existing hipped roof measures 4.1m at its highest compared with the proposed roofs 2.8m. 2.1 The garage would effectively be "dug" into the slope that rises away to the rear, with the turf roof sitting alongside the edge of that slope to the rear without being built into it. A path 0.7m in width surrounds the garage to two sides, with a grass paving grid shown alongside the third elevation. The roof would be extended over the 0.7m-wide pathway to the rear. 2.2 Four sliding garage doors of naturally-stained timber are shown in the fourth, with Manx stone facings and a grey slate roof also proposed. TTiese doors would slide sideways 2.3 28 July 2014 14/00700/B Page 1 of 6

==== PAGE 2 ====

behind one another, with the resuit being that no more than two of the garage berths could be open at any one time. A fifth garage door is shown in the side eievation adjacent to the grass pacing grid; this wouid provide the access to the iandscaping/equipment store to the rear. The grass paving grid wouid be bounded by gabion baskets 3.0m in height (comprising three baskets measuring Im in each direction sat atop one another). 2.4 Three existing trees would be removed from their current location and four new trees 2.5 planted. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY While the application site has been the subject of a number of applications - both approved and refused - since 2007, it is considered that only one of these is specifically material to the determination of the current application. It is worth noting that the original approval for the dwelling and barn conversions was issued under PA 07/02192/B. 3.1 PA 14/00019 sought removal of existing detached garage and erection of replacement garage/equipment store, and was refused for four reasons: 3.2 R 1. The proposed development does not qualify as one of the exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside as set out in General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. As such, it would contravene this policy, which aims to prevent development that fails to preserve or enhance the Manx countryside. R2. The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms to justify setting aside this policy, which requires the protection of the countryside for its own sake. R3. By reason of its mass and scale relative to the adjacent dwelling, the proposed garage, at almost quadruple the footprint of the existing garage, represents incongruous and inappropriate development in a landscape that is designated as having high landscape value and scenic significance. As such, the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. R4. By reason of its mass and scale relative to the adjacent dwelling, the proposed garage, at almost quadruple the footprint of the existing garage, would appear from the adjacent Maughold Conservation Area as a new dwelling in the countryside; as such, it would detrimentally affect important views out of the Conservation Area in contravention of Environment Policy 36 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. 4.0 PLANNING POLICY In terms of land use planning, the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose and, as such, constitutes 'white land' on the 1982 Development Plan Order. The application site is also located within a wider area of land that is designated as having high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance. 4.1 28 July 2014 14/00700/B Page 2 of 6

==== PAGE 3 ====

Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan, four policies are considered relevant. General Policy 3 states in full; Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: 4.2 (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) buiiding 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." Environment Policy 1 states in full: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this poiicy, the countryside comprises ail 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 wouid 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". 4.3 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of iandscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastai Vaiue 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 deveiopment controi untii such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which wiii 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: 4.4 (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential". As noted, the application site is approximateiy 450m from Maughold Conservation Area. While normally the assessment of an application site’s proximity to a Conservation Area wouid be seen in the context of Conservation Areas’ generally urban nature, the fact that the Maughold Conservation Area includes a significant amount of countryside means that Environment Policy 36 of the Strategic Plan is considered to apply. It states: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area". 4.5 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Maughoid Commissioners indicate that they are happy to defer consideration of these matters to the Planning Committee. 5.2 The Highways Division do not oppose the application. Page 3 of 6 14/00700/B 28 July 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

6.0 ASSESSMENT The agent for the application states that the existing garage does not provide for parking spaces (at 4.8m x 2.5m) of the size normally expected from the Highways Division (at 5.0m X 2.5m). This is not disputed, albeit that there are three such spaces provided. Concern Is also raised by the agent in respect of security and the open-fronted nature of the existing garage, which is described as "more of a carport". This latter observation is also not disputed. The agent also states that "housing all cars and necessary landscaping equipment within one structure would be preferable to parking of vehicles randomly throughout the site and to leaving equipment exposed to the elements". 6.1 The best starting point for this application is perhaps the refusal issued earlier this year to a similar proposal. The refusal primarily related to the visual impact of the proposal in this extremely sensitive landscape - which has protection in terms of the Strategic Plan as an Area of High Landscape Value and also in relation to its adjacent to Maughold Conservation Area - and the size of the garage proposed relative to the landscape and the dwelling that it would sit alongside. Concern was also raised that the proposed garage would look like a dwelling when viewed from afar. No appeal was made against that decision. It can be seen that extensive effort has been made to address the reasons for refusal. The height of the garage is lower than that previously submitted for consideration (and, indeed, some 1.2m iower than the ridgeline of the existing garage). Its size is also reduced, from roughly 162sqm to less than 130sqm. The proposed turf roof, which importantly is accessible for maintenance purposes via the canopy, would also blend into the surroundings far more than that previously submitted. Nor could it reasonably be considered to resemble a new dwelling, 6.2 6.3 The green roof is a welcome addition; this, at a lower level than the existing ridgeline, would be an improvement over the somewhat stark grey slate currently in situ, and would reduce the current visual impact of the built development here to a more modest level. 6.4 It is still quite large relative to the existing garage / car port building, albeit that this size is well-screened from view for the reasons outlined above in respect of the proposal's "fitting into" the existing slope. It is not the size of the previously-proposed garage that was an issue, more that this size would have brought visual harm to a sensitive landscape. The current proposal would not have this effect to the same degree. 6.5 The use of local and traditional materials is welcome and will further serve to reduce the visual impact of the proposal. That the proposed garage doors would open in such a way that only two could ever be open at any one time is a clever method to reduce the visual impact - if all four doors were open at all times, for example, then the benefits gained from the turf roof would quite likely be lost. Equally, were those doors replaced with a non- traditional material (for example), the visual impact would be wholly unacceptable. It is therefore recommended that these garage doors, and their method of opening, be required to be retained by way of planning condition. 6.6 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION It has been seen that the new proposal is considered an improvement over that previously submitted. This in itself should not, of course, mean that an approval should be forthcoming as every application must be treated on its own merits. The key point is that the proposed garage would not have an undue visual impact on the sensitive countryside in which it would sit - and, arguably, would have less of an impact than the garage / car port currently in situ - and therefore there is no objection raised on this point, which was the fundamental concern previously. 7.1 28 July 2014 14/00700/B Page 4 of 6

==== PAGE 5 ====

It is therefore considered that the application should be approved, subject to 7.2 conditions. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8.1 Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.07.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Reason: Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C2. The garage doors hereby approved shall be constructed of a stained timber and shall be retained as such hereafter. The opening method shall be sliding and retained as such hereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This approval relates to the plans that carry the following reference numbers: 770/012, 770/030, 770/031, 770/032 and 1309D 01, and were date-stamped as having been received 5th June 2014. 28 July 2014 14/00700/B Page 5 of 6

==== PAGE 6 ====

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Permitted Date: Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed :...J.|/. Jennifer Crance 28 July 2014 14/00700/B Page 6 of 6