229778

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/01084/B Mr Paul Carpenter Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of a replacement dwelling and detached garage Sandygate House Clenagh Road Sandygate Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 3AF Site Address : Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Edmond Riley 16.10.2014 16.10.2014 Planning Committee Officer's Report THE PROPOSAL IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE. 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE The site is the curtilage of Sandygate House, Oenagh Road, Sandygate, which is a fairly traditional, two-storey detached property, located on the western side of the Qenagh Road and south of the Sandygate Crossroads, The existing dwelling has slightly unusual proportions in that its windows are quite small, tightly spaced and have been replaced with top-hung casement units, The chimneys are remarkably stubby for a traditional Manx property and this, along with the tight spacing of the windows and shallow roof pitch, make the dwelling appear wider than it actually Is. 1.1 There is a part-cat slide extension and part-hipped roof two storey extension projecting to the rear, the latter of which would likely detract from the traditional nature of the building it readily visible from the highway. 1.2 Also within the application site, which is quite generous, is a two-storey Manx stone barn and the remains of an old pigsty. There are two highway accesses to the site: one to the north and the other to the east. 1.3 The boundary treatment shared with Sandygate Cottage, which is located to the north of Sandygate House, consists of a 1.5 metre wall with additional fencing above, giving the total height of the boundary as 2 metres. There are also in part a number of hedges of similar and greater height. Along the southern boundary, which is shared with GoNane Cottage, are different heights of hedging ranging from 1.5 metres to approximately 4.0 metres. The western boundary comprises different heights of hedging ranging from 1.5 metres to 6 metres (approximately). 1,4 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to demolish both the dwelling and the barn (and the ruin), and build in its place a replacement dwelling, predominately on the footprint of the existing buildings. 20 October 2014 14/01084/B Page 1 of 8

==== PAGE 2 ====

Also proposed is a double garage to the far rear (west) of the site; this would be accessed from the eastern highway access, and a new gravel drive would be formed between the two. The proposed dwelling is of a broadly traditional design, especially in terms of its form and proportion, and is not altogether dissimilar from the existing when viewed from the highway. It would have a shallower roof pitch and more evenly-spaced (and larger) windows, while the projecting (enclosed) porch to the front would have a pitched, rather than flat, roof. To the side would be an open porch of identical proportion to the front porch. The chimneys are perhaps a little shorter than might be expected, but they are still more prominent than those of the existing dwelling. 2,2 The rear of the dwelling would have a iess than traditional design, although not hugely so. A rear outrigger of two storeys in height would project 4,0m to the rear (relative to the proposed dwelling’s depth of 6.6m, excluding the porch), while beyond this a single storey outrigger would project a further 5.0m. The gable end of the single storey element would be almost entirely glazed and would contain triangular glazing in the gable itself; a flue likely to serve a log burner is shown just to the side of the roof pitch. 2.3 As originally-submitted, the windows and doors would be white uPVC or powder- coated aluminium. However, concern was raised in respect of the fact that the drawings contained no annotation in respect of the proposed opening methods for the windows while the proposed doors could, if constructed of uPVC, be quite harmful to the visual success of the proposal as a whole, As such, the applicant advised that he would be content with sliding sash windows to the front elevation and would also install these to the rear were he able to afford to do so; moreover, an amended plan showing timber doors of a very similar style to that currently in situ was also provided. Given the scale and nature of this change - and the fact no objections to the application had been received and the consultation period had closed when the issue was raised - these plans were not consulted upon and nor were they circulated. 2.4 The dwelling itself would be finished in render and painted in an unspecified colour. Grey slate would sit atop the roofs and porches, while concreted render copings would line the edges of the roof. 2,5 In respect of the proposed garage, which at 50sqm is larger than is allowed under permitted development rights (36sqm), identical finishings are proposed. The new driveway would be finished with loose gravel with pencil kerbing to the edge. 2.6 The agent was contacted to advise in respect of the measurements of the existing and proposed dwellings. The existing floor area (excluding the barn) is 198sqm, and 50% above this figure would be 297sqm. The proposed dwelling would be 212sqm and the garage 50sqm; together, the new floorspace provided would measure 263sqm (rounded up). 2.7 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has a quite varied planning history relating to various matters. Of most material relevance are the replacement dwelling applications that were approved in 2009 (PA 09/01612/B) and 2010 (PA 10/00853/B), TTie former application was determined under delegated authority with the latter determined by Planning Committee as the proposed dwelling was more than 50% larger than the existing dwelling and it carried a recommendation to approve. 3.2 3.3 Alterations and extensions were refused at appeal in respect of PA 07/00494/B for the following reasons: 20 October 2014 14/01084/B Page 2 of 8

==== PAGE 3 ====

The overbearing nature of the proposal on the residents of Sandygate Cottage would be unacceptable. The additional first-floor windows overlooking Gollane Cottage would have an averse impact on the living conditions of the residents of that dwelling. 2. Approval in principle was sought for the demolition of existing stable block and the erection of a dwelling ancillary to main dwelling under PA 04/02236/A. This was refused on the following ground: 3.4 Whilst the planning application submission is limited in terms of information provided the proposed development, which is for the erection of a new dwelling, is contrary to the well established policies of the Department as the application site is neither zoned for residential development nor is there appropriate agricultural need for the proposed dwelling. Accordingly, the residential development proposed by this planning application is contrary to the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and, in particular, the provisions of Planning Circular 1/88. 1. 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'Woodland' under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, 4.2 The sole relevant Strategic Plan policy in the determination of the application is considered to be Housing Policy 14: "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." 4.3 Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 ('Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside') are set out below: 2. New buildings are to be integrated with the landscape and, where in groups, with each other. Single buildings In prominent locations can only be considered if they are satisfactory in all respects and include landscape proposals. The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form. External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional 3. 4, materials. 5. Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms. Chimneys are considered important features and their provision following past patterns is recommended. 6, 20 October 2014 14/01084/B Page 3 of 8

==== PAGE 4 ====

Existing features are an essential part of the rural scene. New work should follow and respect successful past patterns. 4.4 It is also important to reflect on General Policy 2, which reads (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and (c) (g) (h) manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (i) highways". 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services, in an email dated 24th September 2013, do not oppose the planning application. 6.0 ASSESSMENT Housing Policy 14 indicates variously that a proposed replacement dwelling should not be larger than 50% of the existing floor area measured externally, sited on the existing footprint and comply with Planning Circular 3/91. 6.1 6.2 That which is proposed meets all of these requirements to a greater or lesser extent, with perhaps the most flexibility in reaching this conclusion applied to the interpretation of Circular 3/91, It is also considered that the dwelling proposed here is an improvement over that which was approved in 2010, which looked rather like overdevelopment if not for the plot (which is extensive) then for the dwelling itself, which would have had a full double width projection to the rear. While this cannot be taken into account in the determination of the current application, it remains worth noting, As outlined in the Proposal section of this report, the dwelling would present a broadly traditional frontage to Clenagh Road, from where it would be most visible, while some arguably less traditional features would be found to the rear, which would be largely invisible from the public realm. In any case, those untraditional features could not be said to be unacceptable or harmful in terms of either the proposed dwelling or the wider built (and natural) environment, not least since the site is heavily screened from all sides. The rear extensions are appropriate in form and scale to the main dwelling as proposed, and the grading from two-storey to one-storey is welcome in that it reduces the massing and gives the dwelling something of a natural feel in that these outriggers suggest historic additions. The proposed French doors that to some extent wrap around the rear is perhaps the least traditional element of the proposal. However, the use of glazing is a common and generally successful manner of adding a contemporary flavour to a traditional built form. In this case, the glazing proposed is neither overly-dominant nor in any meaningful way visible from beyond the site and could not be said to be harmful. While the chimneys are, as noted, perhaps a little shy, they are also an improvement over the existing situation. The plans of the existing dwelling show very low chimneys but, in reality, these appear rather larger and more prominent than might be expected from the 6,3 6.4 6.5 20 October 2014 14/01084/B Page 4 of 8

==== PAGE 5 ====

drawings - perhaps as the dwelling is set back quite significantly from the highway, As such, the additional height proposed will have a positive effect even if slightly more robust chimney stacks might have been yet more successful, 6.6 The relatively deep reveal shown for the window units is also welcome as these provide an important depth and nod to traditional building forms. All the proposed finishings considered acceptable. The use of traditional slate, render and coping bands are welcome and, while timber sliding sash windows throughout would be preferred, the site is outside of a Conservation Area and as such any special protection that might be possible in such a circumstance cannot apply here. Therefore, the use of uPVC sliding sash to the front elevations is welcome, as is the proposed timber front and side doors. It is considered that a condition outlining these points would be appropriate to attach to an approval notice. It is also considered appropriate to remove permitted development rights in respect of extensions in order to protect the dwelling's form as shown in the submitted plans from inappropriate or harmful alteration. 6.7 While under permitted development rights a garage of 6.0m square could be constructed, and what is proposed measures 7.1m square, the difference in footprint between the two is actually quite significant - 36sqm relative to SOsqm. However, the garage is proposed to be sited a sufficient distance away from the proposed and existing dwellings such that no undue harm would result of it. The proposed finishings would, again, be traditional in style and this is to be welcomed. 6.8 The proposed dwelling would be only partially apparent when viewed from the crossroads - mainly from the north. Currently, part of the dwelling roof is visible, as is the two storey Manx stone barn. The remainder of the site is well-screened from public view, due to existing buildings dwellings and garages as well as substantial landscaping. 6.9 6.10 On this basis, the proposed dwelling is considered to comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 14, It is important to briefly reflect on how the proposal would affect private residential amenity and also highway safety matters, as required by General Policy 2. 6.11 The previous application, which was approved, saw a far larger "extension” approved to the rear of the proposed dwelling. The case officer on that occasion went to some lengths to assess the likely impact of the proposal on neighbouring residential amenity to Gollane Cottage to the south. He commented: "In terms of the impact upon neighbouring amenities, the property most likely to be affected by the development would be 'Gollane Cottage' which is sited to the southeast of the existing property, approximately 9 metres away. "As indicated the landscaping along the southern boundary of the site, which is shared with 'Gollane Cottage' is substantial. "There were initial concerns that the amount of built development along this boundary would result in overlooking and an overbearing impact upon the outlook of the residents of 'Goliane Cottage'. "In terms of the overbearing impact, it is important to note that whilst the proposal would result in a total of 26 metres of development running parallel with the boundary; currently there is already 23,5 metres of built development on the same footprint, due to the existing dwelling and barn. The extra 2.5 metres of built development, is created by the proposed development effectively filling the gap between the existing dwelling and the barn. 20 October 2014 14/01084/B Page 5 of 8

==== PAGE 6 ====

"The proposal will have a greater impact, not only due to the increase of built development, but because the ridgellne would be 1 metre higher than the existing dwelling, It should be noted, that the ridgeline of the proposal does decrease gradually by a total of 1 metre, the further west the development advances. "The proposal would leave a minimum gap to the southern boundary of 5 metres (measures from southwest corner of building), which gradually increases to 7.5 metres, which follows the lines of the existing footprint of buildings on site. "Overall, as there is already similar sized built development which runs parallel with the southern boundary, as there Is substantial landscaping along this boundary, as the proposal height is similar to the existing and due to the gap between the proposal and the boundary; it is considered the proposal would not result In a significant overbearing impact upon the outlook of the residents of 'Gollane Cottage', "Again to the northern elevation there are two first floor windows which serve an en-suite and a bedroom window. The en-suite window is proposed to be obscure glazed but the bedroom is not. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal provides no more potential for overlooking than existing. However, the existing property has a similar window in a similar position. "It is also important to note that the previously approved application (09/01612/B) had a total of five windows along the first floor southern elevation, which looked towards the neighbouring property ’Gollane Cottage'. None of these were required to be obscure glazed. In addition a total of five windows ran along the northern elevation, again all clear glazed. Consequently, the proposal now under consideration would have less of a potential impact upon overlooking compared to the previous scheme. 'Therefore, with the windows proposed for obscure glazing and the layout of rooms, it is considered the proposal would not result in any more overlooking then what currently exists and would not result in a significant loss of privacy of the neighbouring residents." 6.12 It is apparent from the above that the 2010 scheme was judged an improvement over that of 2009 in respect of privacy issues. The current submission is considered to represent a further improvement. Part of the dwelling would only be one-storey in height, and would be shorter, with the result that of the built development that would run parallel to Gollane Cottage, only 11m of this would be of double storey height, and the first floor would have just three windows (one of which a bathroom) facing onto Gollane Cottage's curtilage. This is considered more than adequate to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling, even were the substantial screening between the dwellings removed or thinned at some point in the future. 6.13 with regards privacy issues, it is fairly unusual to have a bathroom proposed that overlooks a neighbouring property but that is proposed to be clear-glazed. However, this is an issue more for the future occupant(s) of the proposed replacement dwelling than it is for the occupant(s) of Goilane Cottage, and obscure-glazed windows can be installed under permitted development rights. It is therefore considered that to control this situation by planning condition would be unnecessary. No windows are proposed to be obscure-glazed. While this is not in itself an issue 6.13 rear in a northern direction would result In a less overbearing impact to the occupiers of Sandygate Cottage to the north, although this was not raised as a concern previously. It is also considered that the reduction of the mass of the proposed dwelling at the 7.0 RECOMMENDAHON 20 October 2014 14/01084/B Page 6 of 8

==== PAGE 7 ====

The site, although not zoned within a residential area, is clearly within the hamlet of Sandygate, There are a total of 16 buildings, the majority being residential properties, which are located around the Sandygate crossroads. Given the location of the site within, the existing landscaping, the layout of the existing dwelling and barn and given the proposed design, it is considered that the development would not have an unduly detrimental impact upon the appearance of Sandygate and would not have any significant impact upon the visual appearance of the countryside. 7.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions in respect of withdrawing permitted development rights for extensions and the circumstances surrounding the window opening method. 7.2 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: 20.10.2014 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. Reason: Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development C2. The windows to the front elevation (that is, the elevation that faces Clenagh Road) of the dwelling hereby approved shall be sliding sash and with a glazing bar and pattern as shown on the submitted plans, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department, Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and wider area. C3. 20 October 2014 14/01084/8 Page 7 of 8

==== PAGE 8 ====

The windows to all elevations other than the front elevation (that is, the elevation that faces Qenagh Road) of the dwelling hereby approved shall be sliding sash or casement and with a glazing bar and pattern as shown on the submitted plans, unless otherwise agreed In advance with the Department. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and wider area. C4. The two doors of the porches of the dwelling hereby approved shall be constructed of timber unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and wider area. C5. 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. This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 12th September 2014 and 21 October 2014: 141082 1, 141082 2, 141082 3(RevA), 141082 4 and 141082 5. 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: Committee Meeting Date: Signed :... Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required, signing officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO 20 October 2014 14/01084/B Page 8 of 8