227663

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal: 14/00909/B Mr Robert Phillips Part demolition of existing building and erection of a dwelling on adjacent land Sycamore House Glen Duff Ramsey Isie Of Man IM7 2AT Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Chris Balmer 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 Planning Committee Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS FT PROPOSES A REPLACEMENT DWELUNG IN THE COUNTRYSIDE OVER THE 50% THRESHOLD AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the curtilage of Sycamore House, The Bungalow and Cafe Rosa Restaurant (formerly Lezayre Tea Rooms), all of which is located on northern side of Lezayre Road in the Glen Duff area of Lezayre approximately 2.5km west of Ramsey. All three properties are physically linked. Sycamore House is a two storey residential property, The Bungalow is a single storey residential property and Cafe Rosa Restaurant is a single storey flat roofed commercial property which links the two dwellings together. 1.2 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for part demolition of existing building and erection of a dwelling on adjacent land. The applicants have indicated that the original planning application (09/02062/B) and conditions imposed on the planning approval means that both existing dwellings need to be demolished before any construction work on either of the two replacement dwellings occurs. Whilst the applicant would like to construct both replacement dwellings at the same time they have reviewed their position and realistically want the ability to construct one dwelling at a time. To do this they submitted the previous application and this current planning application. This new submission includes the demolition of one of two dwellings on the site, with the removal of 'The Bungalow' only, which has a floor area of 70 square metres. 'Sycamore House 'and 'Cafe Rosa Restaurant' are currently attached to The Bungalow’ are proposed to remain. 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. The basic footprint of the proposed dwelling measures 14.9 metres by 8.0 metres (excluding front projecting gable end porch and rear outrigger), it has an eaves height of 5.4 metres and a ridge height of 8,2 metres. The proposed dwelling would be finished in smooth painted render, a grey slate roof and hardwood windows and doors. 2.3 22 September 2014 14/00909/B Page 1 of 7

==== PAGE 2 ====

A planning application was approved approximately 2 years ago for a similar scheme. This will be explained more within the assessment of this report. However, for reference this dwelling had a similar design and style although it measured 15.4 metres by 9.0 metres (excluding front projecting gable end porch and rear outrigger), it had an eaves height of 5.4 metres and a ridge height of 8,6 metres. The proposed dwelling was also proposed to be finished in smooth painted render, with quoin detailing on the front (southern) elevation and a grey slate roof. No detail was given on the finish of the windows/doors, but the drawing do seem to show a greater thickness in the windows, which could suggest they were of uPVC construction. Either way no condition was attached requiring then to be timber. 2.4 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: 3.1 Planning application 86/00156/B sought planning approval for an extension to provide staff accommodation. This application was approved, the development implemented and the resultant development subsequently created the single storey residential property known as The Bungalow. 3.2 Planning application 02/01048/A sought planning approval in principle for erection of dwelling and removal of living accommodation. This application was approved on appeal but no associated reserved matters planning application was submitted. 3.3 3.4 Planning application 04/02113/B sought planning approval for the erection of new dwelling and replacement shed. This application was approved but not implemented. Planning application 08/00555/A sought planning approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling and buildings, driveway, access gateways and landscaping. This application was approved but no associated reserved matters planning application was submitted. 3,5 Application 09/00486/U\W sought a certificate of lawful use for the use of an extension as a separate dwelling. This application was agreed and a certificate issued, which confirmed that the single storey residential property known as The Bungalow was lawfully a separate dwelling. 3.6 Planning application 09/01336/A sought planning approval in principle for the demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two detached hemicycle dwellings in sunken gardens. This application was withdrawn before any decision was made. 3.7 Planning application 09/01337/A sought planning approval in principle for the demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two detached traditional dwellings with landscaping. Ttiis application was withdrawn before any decision was made. 3.8 Planning application 09/02062/B sought planning approval for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of two dwellings with landscaping and vehicular accesses. An appeal against the Planning Committee's decision to approve this previous planning application was dismissed, with the appeal approval decision issued on the 7th July 2010. This planning approval was valid until 7th July 2014, This current application specially relates to this previous application. 3,9 3.10 Planning application 12/00527/B sought planning approval for the part demolition of existing building and erection of a dwelling on adjacent land. The development proposed by that previous planning application (09/02062/B) and conditions imposed on the planning 14/00909/B 22 September 2014 Page 2 of 7

==== PAGE 3 ====

approval meant that both existing dwellings need to be demolished before any construction work on either of the two replacement dwellings occurs. Whilst the applicant would like to construct both replacement dwellings at the same time they had reviewed their position and realistically want the ability to construct one dwelling at a time. This application was approved 26th June 2012. 3.11 Planning application 14/00774/B sought planning approval for the variation of condition 1 of approved development of two replacement dwellings (PA 09/02062/B) to extend period of permission. This application was approved 7th August 2014. 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose under the 1982 Development Plan Order, with the entire site being within a wider area of land that classified as being of high landscape value and scenic significance. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application 4.2 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: essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close 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 4.3 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 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." 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. 4.4 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." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 22 September 2014 14/00909/B Page 3 of 7

==== PAGE 4 ====

Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected to the application for the following reason: "The Commissioners do not agree with the retention of part of the building in exchange for a slightly smaller replacement building," 5.1 5.2 Highway Services have no objection. 5.3 Manx Utilities Authority - ELECTRICITY have made no comments to the merits of the application but ask for an informative note be attached to any approval. 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Firstly, it should be noted that the principle of a replacement dwelling is established within planning policy and through extant planning approvals 09/02062/B and 12/00527/B. 6.2 However, this submission does differ significantly compared to the original approval 09/02062/B, but arguably is similar to approved application 12/00527/B. The main differences between this new submission and application 09/02062/B are: Previously 'Sycamore House’, 'The Bungalow’ and 'Cafe Rosa Restaurant' where also proposed to be demolished and replaced with two detached dwellings, both traditional in design, each having a floor area of 320 sqm. The total floor area of the existing buildings was approximately 290sqm, This equated to a percentage increase in floor area of approximately 118%. 6.3 1. The submission also included the removal of a dilapidated outbuilding, car parks associated with the restaurant (area landscaped), advertising hoardings and menu boards. The previous application, each replacement dwelling had a floor area of 320 sqm. This new submission has reduced the size to 281 sqm. This has been undertaken by reducing the width of the main aspect of the dwelling by 0.2 metres and the depth by 1 metre. This also resulted in the height of the dwelling reducing by 0.4 metres. The windows/doors are now proposed to be constructed of painted hardwood, rather 2. 3. 4. than uPVC. The main differences between this new submission and application 12/00527/B are: Previously The Bungalow’ (71sqm) and part of the restaurant (21sqm) was proposed to be demolished. This equated to a percentage increase in floor area of approximately 245%. Only The Bungalow' is now proposed to be demolished and although the dwelling proposed is smaller, this equates to a percentage increase in floor area of approximately 291%. 6.4 1. The previous application, the replacement dwelling had a floor area of 320 sqm. This new submission has reduced the size to 281 sqm. This has been undertaken by reducing the width of the main aspect of the dwelling by 0.2 metres and the depth by 1 metre. This also resulted in the height of the dwelling reducing by 0.4 metres. The windows/doors are now proposed to be constructed of painted hardwood, rather 2. 3. than uPVC. Perhaps at this stage it is important to consider why an exception to Housing Policy 14 was made, when planning approval was originally granted for two replacement dwellings on the site, under application 09/02062/B. This application was approved at Appeal, after gain approval by the Planning Committee. Tie Local Commissioners request an appeal. The Independent Inspector who considered the scheme stated; "The combined floor space of the proposed dwellings is more than twice the floor space of the existing buildings to be replaced. However, applying the criteria in Housing Policy 14, both the flat-roofed restaurant annex and The Bungalow are of poor architectural form, whereas the design of the proposed dwellings meets policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 apart from the two-storey entrance feature. Sited well back from the A3 on lower ground behind strengthened roadside vegetation the proposed dwellings will have less of a visual impact than the existing building complex, which is open to public view not only from A3 but from 6.5 22 September 2014 14/00909/B Page 4 of 7

==== PAGE 5 ====

the car park and public entrance to the restaurant, Since the scheme would replace dwellings of poor form with dwellings of more traditional character and would effect a reduction in visual impact the proposal qualifies on two counts for replacement above the 50% yardstick in Housing Policy 14. The proposal would also remove the dilapidated outbuilding, restaurant and diners' car parks, advertising hoardings and menu boards, thereby effecting a significant environmental improvement in this area of high landscape value. In addition, to meeting the provisions of Housing Policy 14, therefore, the proposal also satisfies Environmental Policy 2. Ail in all, I am in no doubt that the proposal accords with the development plan." Arguably, granting approval of application 12/00527/B, which only required the demolition of The Bungalow' and a small section of the tearooms (21sqm), did not address all the exceptions for allowing a dwelling/s larger than the generally permitted 50%. The restaurant and diners' car parks, advertising hoardings and menu boards would all be allowed to remain. The dilapidated outbuilding appears to be removed, This new application has similar arguments, although with a slightly smaller dwelling in terms of footprint and height, although only 'The bungalow' would be demolished. 6.6 The Bungalow and the section of tearoom which were allowed to be demolished, arguable have the least visual impact when viewed from the A3, when compared to Sycamore House, the restaurant, car park and advertisement/menu boards which have far greater impacts. 6.7 It could be considered that if an application was made for the replacement of The Bungalow' only, with a dwelling as shown under this current application i.e. 291% increase in floor area, there may have been concerns, especially as this aspect has the least visual Impact from public views, compared to the remain built development on the site. However, planning permission has been granted under PA 09/02062/B and this new submission with a smaller proposed dwelling, albeit, greater increase percentage increase in floor area, would potentially have slightly less visual impact compared to the approved dwelling under PA 09/02062/B. Whether the 21 square metres of tearoom is removed or not, makes little difference in terms of the visual appearance of the buildings on the site, and it being retained is negligible. 6.8 The two previous approvals, included a condition which required the blocking up of one of the two entrances within the eastern plot (plot 2). Whilst this was appropriate under planning application 09/02062/B, when the entire site was being developed, given this current application and the last application results In the restaurant still being able to operate, it is possibly advisable to retain the two access to the restaurant car park, in the interests of highway safety. Therefore the condition should not be attached to this approvai. One of the accesses would still need to be dosed if the eastern plot was developed as approved and conditioned under application 09/02062/B. 6.9 7.0 RECOMMENDATION It is therefore considered, given the approval of the previous application and as the new dwelling would be smaller in terms of footprint and height, the proposal would have the same or potentially less visual impact upon the environment. Accordingly, the application is recommended for an approval. 7.1 8.0 PARTY 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 22 September 2014 14/00909/B Page 5 of 7

==== PAGE 6 ====

In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: 8.2 Manx Utilities Authority - ELECTRICITY Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.09.2014 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 Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals, Reason: C2. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the new dwelling the existing dwelling, as identified for demolition on drawing nos. 2RP/2A and 2RP/5A date stamped the 30th July M14, must be demolished in its entirety. Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally approved except where the new dwelling is replacing an existing. C3. 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 Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the proposed dwelling hereby permitted. All planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the 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 Department gives written consent to any variation, Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. 22 September 2014 14/00909/B Page 6 of 7

==== PAGE 7 ====

C4. 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 5, 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 garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. This approval relates to Drawings reference numbers 2RP/1, 2RP/2A, 2RP/5A and 3RP/6 all received on 30th July 2014. 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. L. crpL^ Decision Made: Signed :... Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is reguiredi Signmg officer to delete as appropriate ¥eS/NO 22 September 2014 14/00909/B Page 7 of 7