Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01110/B Page 1 of 15
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/01110/B Applicant : Hartford Homes Proposal : Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with new dwelling, including a standalone garage, a stable building, landscaping, and associated engineering operations. Site Address : Garey House Glen Tramman Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 2AP
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 21.02.2024 Site Visit : 21.02.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.05.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment and therefore the principle of its replacement fails to meet the requirements of Housing Policy 12(a).
R 2. While the new dwelling would be erected partly over the footprint of the existing dwelling, its size and design would fail to meet the requirements of Housing Policy 14, by virtue of the fact that its floor area would be greater than the 50 percent acceptable threshold over existing dwelling, its design is neither traditional nor innovative, and its increased impacts on the character and appearance of the surrounding area would be greater than that of the existing dwelling, negatively impacting on and detracting from the open views and vistas, harming the rural character of the street scene and surrounding area and at odds with the site specific rural context. Therefore, the new dwelling would be contrary to the provisions and objectives of Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 2.
R 3. Insufficient information has been provided clearly evidencing that the proposed stable is essential and practical for its intended purpose within the countryside. Therefore, the department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development, and there is no over-riding national need in land use planning terms for the proposed development which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas from inappropriate development, with the proposal considered contrary to the requirements of General Policy 3 and Paragraph 7.15.1 of the Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01110/B Page 2 of 15
R 4. The development would further result in a degree of harm upon the wider landscape by reason of its footprint, scale and siting within the landscape where its 5.7m height and 20m length would dominate views. In the absence of reasoned justification for the development, particularly demonstrating that the development would be of overriding national need in land use planning terms for which there is no reasonable acceptable alternative, the proposals do not outweigh the presumption against development in the countryside, and are therefore contrary to General Policy 2 and 3 (g), and Environment Policies 1, 2, and 21 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx National Heritage __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Garey House, Glen Tramman, Ramsey, located on the western side of Garey Road. The dwelling is a non-traditional dwelling which is set within a large plot with large amounts of unmanaged landscaping within and around the boundaries of the site.
1.2 Garey House which sits approximately 18 metres back from Garey Road has a detached garage which sits further back of the main dwelling and about 25m from the highway. The dwelling is visible from Garey Road through gaps in the existing boundary treatment, although the restricted views are as a result of the unmanaged boundary treatment.
1.3 The site has a gated vehicular access, as well as a gated pedestrian access situated further south along Garey Road, although the pedestrian access (like large parts of the vehicular access) is not clearly defined as the site is covered in significant amounts of wild shrubbery which has overgrown the site.
1.4 The existing dwelling on site appears to have been unoccupied for a period in excess of ten years as evidenced in historic aerial photographs of the site which spans 2009 to 2021. Large sections of the dwelling's elevations are also covered in overgrown shrubs which now screens large sections of the dwelling and reinforces the property's level of dereliction. The existing detached garage is also completely derelict with its roof now completely collapsed. There is also evidence of plant growth including moss within the ground floor of the dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with new dwelling, including a standalone garage, a stable building, landscaping, and associated engineering operations.
2.2 The new dwelling would be a non-traditional dwelling measuring about 606sqm in floor area, and would replace the existing dwelling which has a floor area measuring 371sqm, which is an increase by 63%.
2.3 The new dwelling would be partly on the footprint of the existing dwelling although the orientation of the dwelling would be altered while the new building footprint would be about
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01110/B Page 3 of 15
324.7sqm (61sqm) larger than the existing. The new dwelling would be 27m long at the longest elevation, 15.8m wide, and 9.3m tall at the highest point (5.7m to the eaves). This new building would be 600mm taller than the existing dwelling.
2.4 The external elevation of the new dwelling would be finished in plain render, with black stained timber cladding in some sections. The roof would be finished in dark coloured concrete tiles. Windows are to be black UPVC units with render band surrounds.
2.5 The scheme also proposes: a. Erection of a new garage building with home office/guest accommodation and store in the roof space. This building would measure 13.05m long, 7.9m wide and 7m to the top of its roof ridge (3.1m to the eaves). This building would be considerably larger and taller than the existing garage building on site.
b. Alteration to access, by widening from about 4m to about 5.3m (including piers), with the gate also moved further into the site by about 4.4m (from 4m to 8.4m). The new gate which would be about 1.7m tall will be linked to new boundary walls along part of the site entrance.
c. Erection of Stable Building: A new stable building and yard is to be erected at the rear of the new dwelling, situated about 43m southwest of the dwelling. The new stable building would be 20.6m long, 13.2m wide and 5.7m tall (3.7m to the eaves). This building would have its external walls finished in timber cladding, while its roof would be finished in dark grey profiled sheeting roof. The internal layout would house three stores, a shower, five stables, a large machinery and feed store with floor area measuring about 116sqm, and an undesignated space similar in size to the shower room.
2.6 There would be no changes to site level. Foul and surface drainage would be fed into the existing system on site. Trees covering an area of approximately 855sqm and approximately 42% (by canopy area) of the category C group, would be removed to facilitate the development.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" under the Isle of Man Development plan Order 1982, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. Most of the site area sits within a Registered Tree Area (73%), with the entire boundary of the existing dwelling also sitting within the registered tree area. There are, however, no registered trees on site. The site is not prone to flood risks.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application:
3.2.2 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. c. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. d. Environment Policy 3 - Seeks to prevent unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas. e. Environment Policy 2 - Protection of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01110/B Page 4 of 15
f. Housing Policy 4 - New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Refers to exceptional circumstances where new housing will be permitted in the countryside. g. Housing Policy 12 - provides general guidance on the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside. h. Housing Policy 13 - provides guidance in the replacement of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment. i. Housing Policy 14 - provides design guidance for replacement dwellings in the countryside, with specific focus on siting, size, and overall appearance. j. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. k. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. l. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. m. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. n. Spatial Policy 3 - identifies service villages where housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing. The site falls outside these villages. o. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3. p. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development. q. Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety. r. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. s. Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire, while Infrastructure Policy 5 deals with methods for water conservation. t. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). u. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats
3.2.3 Given that the scheme would include equestrian elements, the following policies are also considered relevant: a. Environment Policy 14- Soil quality considerations for development that would result in permanent loss of agricultural land. b. Environment Policy 19 - Local amenity, Soil quality, and highway network and traffic considerations for equestrian development. c. Environment Policy 21 - Development for stabling or shelter of animals in the countryside d. Paragraph 7.15.1: "Equestrian activities are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas and on the fringes of our towns and villages. These activities can generally take place only on open, rural land, and often represent a useful way of diversifying traditional farming. The use of land as grazing land falls within the definition of agriculture (section 45 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act), and does not therefore involve development, but the keeping of horses and the operation of equestrian activities generally do involve development and may have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the countryside. Sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no such adverse impacts. Whilst horses should be well housed, it will seldom be appropriate to use cavity-wall construction for stables, since such buildings may too easily be adapted for residential uses, so thwarting other policies of this Plan. Where new buildings are necessary, they should be sited close to existing building groups, and designed not only to blend with their surroundings but also to suit their specific purpose".
3.3 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01110/B Page 5 of 15
3.3.1 It must be noted at the time of writing, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation and no material weight is given to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Planning Policy Statement 3/91 provides guidance on the design of residential development in the countryside.
4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.2.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.3 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.3.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.4 The British Horse Society (Horse Stables: Safety, Design & Size): 4.4.1 Stable size "As a minimum, stables must be big enough to allow your horse to turn around and lie down and get up comfortably. All passageways should provide sufficient room to enable horses to be led safely past others.
All horses are individual, and therefore may need a larger stable size above the minimum recommendations which are:
o Large horses (17hh plus): 3.65m x 4.25 (12ft x 14ft). o Horses: 3.65 x 3.65 (12ft x 12ft). o Large ponies (13.2hh plus):3.05 x 3.65 (10ft x 12ft). o Ponies: 3.05 x 3.05 (10ft x 10ft). o Foaling box (horse): 4.25 x 4.25 (14ft x 14ft).
The Codes of Practice recommends that roofs should be high enough to provide adequate ventilation including good air circulation. There should be a minimum clear space to the eaves of 60-90cm (2-3ft) above the ears of the horse in its normal standing position."
4.4.2 Calculation of Horse Hand (Equine Size Chart) - Kyle Converter: o 1 Hands to Meters - 0.1016m o 17hh (Large Horses) is 1.73m o 13.2hh (Large ponies) is 1.34m
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of four previous planning which are considered relevant in the determination of this application. These include the following:
5.2 PA 85/00581/B for Alterations to convert existing billiard room into garage - Approved.
5.3 PA 87/00486/B for Alterations and erection of garage - Approved.
5.4 PA 06/00011/B for Alterations and extensions to form additional living accommodation - Approved. This application was the subject of four approval conditions which included (Condition 3) which required that the roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate, and
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01110/B Page 6 of 15
Condition 4 which stipulated that the windows to be formed in the west facing wall of the extension shall only be glazed with obscure glass.
5.5 PA 06/00724/C for Change of use of part of field 134401 to residential curtilage - Approved. This application which annexed an area measuring approximately 20m x 86m (1720sqm/0.43Acres/0.17 Hectares) of the surrounding countryside was to provide environmental improvements to the broader site area by providing mixed hedging shrubs, wild flower garden, vegetable area and an area for orchard. A green house and shed were also to be erected within the site area.
5.5.1 Permitted development right which relate to greenhouses, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, and garages were withdrawn via this application.
5.6 Historic Aerial Photographs for the site which dates from 2012 to 2021 clearly show that the dwelling has not been in use since 2012. Google street view of the site taken in April 2010 also show the property to be unoccupied.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking subject to the garages, parking and driveway layout on the approved plan to be implemented before first occupation of the (13 October 2023/19 February 2024).
6.2 Manx National Heritage has made the following comments regarding the application (18 October 2023): o They note that there does not appear to be any information regarding the potential for roosting bats or nesting birds including swallows, a bird that frequently nests in old buildings, whilst noting that derelict buildings, such as Garey House, are known to provide ideal habitat for roosting and nesting bats and birds. o They request that in order to comply with Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990, a preliminary assessment for roosting bats be undertaken prior to determination of the application. o They provide an advisory regarding bat surveys. o They note that whilst the loss of 42% of the canopy cover with the removal of 14 category trees is regrettable the replanting of native trees which will ultimately provide a greater canopy cover than currently exists is welcomed. o They note that they would like to see that the maintenance of the newly planted trees be made a condition of the planning approval, ideally for a period of 5 to 10 years. o They also note that they would like to see that the development of the access track take into account the protection of the category B oak tree as set out in the arboricultural impact assessment compiled by Manx Roots. o They provide an advisory regarding removal of the trees on site.
6.3 DEFA Forestry has made the following comments regarding the application (25 April 2024): o They note that there are no conflicts with the criteria outlined in the Tree Protection Policy and as such are hesitant to make an outright objection to this application, but are concerned that the yard, access road to the yard, and stable building requires the removal of so many trees. o They state that whilst the removal of these trees does not conflict with any of the criteria in the Policy, and whilst the amenity and arboricultural value of these trees is relatively low, it is still concerning that such a number of trees will be removed in this area. o Further concerns with the proposal to create the stable:
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01110/B Page 7 of 15
The erection of a stable in reasonably close proximity to the cat A oak may increase pressure for this tree to be pruned, or even removed, in the future.
o They have no concerns with the impact associated with the replacement dwelling on trees. o They request that an Arboricultural Methods Statement including a detailed Tree Protection Plan and Monitoring Schedule is provided as additional information, and note that this is highly important given the need for permanent ground protection in close proximity to 4363.
6.3.1 In response to the comments made the DEFA Forestry Team, the applicants have provided correspondence dated 3 May 2024 which states the following: o All the trees that need to be removed to accommodate the proposed stable are small/young specimens. o The source of the risk from the use of cellular confinement system (geocells) comes mainly from the installation process, and this is a risk that can be significantly mitigated by a condition requiring monitoring and supervision from an arboricultural clerk of works. o Although the application introduces a risk to the health of the retained Category-A Oak tree, 4363, the level of risk is low. o They refer to tree likely to be registered and how registering the tree would make would make all pruning operations a regulated activity, controlled by a licence application process which is under FALD's control.
6.3.2 Further to reviewing the response from the applicants, the DEFA Forestry Team have made the following comments (8 May 2024): o They note that removing the small trees may not have a significant impact on the landscape, and the introduction of the geo-cell may, in the worst-case, only lead to a reduction in vitality in the cat B oak. However, in the absence of the proposed stable and yard these small trees would have the potential to develop into large, mature trees which will contribute to the landscape, and the category B oak tree would be totally free of the risk of a reduction in vitality, and will develop persistent aerial deadwood within the natural timeframe of its life cycle. o They also note that the category A oak tree would not be the cause of complaints as there would be no structure to impact if it were to fail, which would have given them confidence in its retention indefinitely, even if it were to accumulate features (extensive decay, for example) that would justify removal if there was a target (something to hit) present, i.e. the stable. o They suggest that the best-case scenario for trees on this site is for the proposed stable and yard not to be a feature of the development. o With regard to point 5 made by the applicants, they accept that this is an excellent suggestion and recommend that, if this application is approved, a condition is attached to ensure the landscaping plan features disease resistant varieties of elm.
6.4 The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team has made the following Comments regarding the application (19 February 2024): o They confirm that the Ecology Vannin's Preliminary Roost Assessment (Technical Note) dated December 2023 is all in order. o They confirm that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken with the Ecology Vannin's Protected Species Survey for Garey House dated September 2023. o They note that avoidance and mitigation measures for bats and birds are required and this is adequately covered in the recommendations section (6.1) of their report.
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/01110/B Page 8 of 15
Construction method statement for Schedule 8 plants.
6.5 Lezayre Parish Commissioners support the application. They, however, note that the new dwelling would be approximately 1.2 metres higher than existing and 160% of original footprint (3 November 2023).
6.5 No comments have been received from Neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: a. The principle of the proposed development (GP3, HP 12 & 13, EP 21, & Paragraph 7.15.1); b. Design and Visual Impacts (HP 14, STP 5, EP 2, & EP 21); c. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity (GP2); d. Impacts on Trees/Ecology (EP3, EP1, EP4 & EP5, & STP 4); and e. Impacts on Highway Safety (EP1, TP7 & GP2).
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE 7.3 PRINCIPLE OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING (GP3, HP 12 & 13) 7.3.1 General Policy 3 provides the remit within which dwellings in the countryside can be replaced, with matters of principle dealt specifically by Housing Policies 12 and 13.
7.3.2 Compliance with HP 12 and 13 7.3.2.1 In assessing whether a property situated in the countryside should be replaced, Housing Policy 12 is clear that one of two conditions should not be applicable for such replacements to be acceptable; the existing building should not have lost its residential use by abandonment (part A) or that the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation (part B).
7.3.3 Issue of abandonment (HP12a & HP 13) 7.3.3.1 In terms of assessing whether the property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, four key issues are vital for determination. These include; the structural condition of the building; the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years; evidence of intervening use; and evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon.
7.3.3.2 The application is not supported by a structural report which would give certainty as to the state of the dwelling. However, the applicants have stated that the existing building is in a state of disrepair (See page 5 of Design and Assess Statement), which implies that the dwelling is beyond restoration and renovation.
7.3.3.3 Secondly, the dwelling has been unoccupied in excess of 20 years which is well over the minimum threshold set within Housing Policy 12 for which a dwelling is considered to have lost its habitable status by abandonment (See page 5 of Design and Assess Statement). This abandoned state of the dwelling was evident during the site visit on 21 February 2024, where it was apparent that the dwelling had been abandoned as evidenced in large sections of the dwelling's elevations being covered in overgrown shrubs which now screens large sections of
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/01110/B Page 9 of 15
the dwelling and reinforces the property's level of dereliction. The existing detached garage is also completely derelict with its roof now completely collapsed. There is also evidence of plant growth including moss within the ground floor of the dwelling. The driveway has also been unattended for a very long period, with shrubs growing over large areas of hardstanding on site. It was also clear that the dwelling could not be re-occupied or brought into use without the need for planning permission for that use.
7.3.3.4 From the site visit, there was also no evidence of electricity supply to the building. It was also considered that water supply would be non-existent as the current state of the building suggests that the piping works would not be in the state to be connected to the water supply network. These further point to the long period of non-occupation which could be construed to be abandonment in line with part (ii) of the criteria to assess abandonment.
7.3.3.5 During the course of the assessing the supporting documents, it was also apparent that no evidence of non-abandonment has been provided, with the Design Statement suggesting intention to abandon; as exemplified in the decision to leave the dwelling unattended in excess of 20 years. Likewise, no record of approaches taken to restore the dwelling through the period of non-occupation has been submitted with the scheme. Further to the above, no additional information or supporting documents have been provided to address the abandonment, with there being a request to proceed with the assessment of the application on the basis of the documents submitted, given that the applicants consider the application to be complaint with policy.
7.3.3.6 Overall, it is considered that the existing dwelling on site has lost its residential use by abandonment, given the issues discussed in Paragraphs 7.2.2.2 to 7.2.2.4, in addition to the fact that that there is no evidence of intervening use to suggest that steps have been taken to restore the building but failed to yield the required results.
7.3.3.7 Further to the above, Housing Policy 13 sets the criteria for creating new dwellings from dwellings which have lost their former habitable use by abandonment such as the current scheme, by requiring that a new dwelling in this case can only be formed by the use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which was lost. Since the site is not located within a National Heritage Area (where such approach is excluded), the application would have been acceptable if the scheme had proposed to form a new dwelling by integrating the existing building fabric into a new dwelling, given that the circumstances within the site complies with parts a, b and c of Housing Policy 13 as the building is still substantially intact (at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level), is linked to a main highway, and positioned such that it can benefit from available supply of electricity and potable water. Albeit, the scheme as proposed seeks to erect a completely new dwelling which would be substantially different from the existing and as such would fail to comply with Housing Policy 13.
7.3.3.8 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development would fail to comply with Housing Policy 12 and 13, which sets the criteria within which permission would be granted for the replacement of dwellings in the countryside. Thus, it is considered that the principle of erecting the replacement dwelling on site as part of the proposed development is not acceptable.
7.3.4 Architectural and Historic Interest 7.3.4.1 Paragraph 8.11.1 is clear that existing dwellings across the countryside which contribute positively to the character and appearance of our landscape and are of merit should sought to be retained (HP12b), with any changes resulting in environment improvements encouraged, and any changes resulting in a negative impact discouraged. The existing dwelling which is neither traditional nor modern, but a mix of styles. It is also outside of a conservation area, is not registered, and is not of any historic, social or architectural interest warranting its protection or retention and therefore its removal is not at odds with HP12b. In fact, the applicants have clearly articulated in their Design Statement that "the style of the house would
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/01110/B Page 10 of 15
suggest that it may have been built in the 1960s or 1970s, and that the house is not traditional in design and is a 'mish mash' of styles", which reinforces the above.
7.3.4.2 The matters related to structural capacity have been considered under abandonment, although it must be stated that there is no evidence submitted to suggest that the dwelling could not be restored, but rather a clear indication that the dwelling has been allowed to fall into decline and dereliction.
7.3.4.3 As the existing dwelling has lost its residential use by abandonment, it is not considered that erection of a replacement dwelling would be acceptable in this case, even though the existing dwelling is not such that warrants retention, given the positioning of Housing Policies 12(a) and 13 regarding replacement dwellings that have lost their residential use by abandonment.
7.4 PRINCIPLE OF ERECTING THE STABLES 7.4.1 The starting point in assessing applications such as this is to acknowledge that whilst there is a presumption against development here as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 (as the site is within an area not zoned for development in the countryside), Environment Policies 19 and 21 make it clear that equestrian related development may be acceptable subject to certain conditions such as the style, design and finish of the building being appropriate for its use. It is also noted that equestrian development, by virtue of its requirement for land, is generally located within rural areas (Paragraph 7.15.1).
7.4.2 Whilst allowance is made for equestrian development in the countryside as articulated in the policy section of this report, it is required that need for such developments must first be established (See Paragraph 7.15.1). The applicants have argued within their supporting information that the stables would support an already existing paddock on the field adjoining the site. However, as has been noted in the earlier sections of the report which assessed the principle of the proposed dwelling, the site has been un-used in access of 20 years. As such, it is not considered that paddocks still exist within the adjoining field but only agricultural land (whether fences exist or not), as any non-use in excess of 2 years would have reverted the field to agricultural use (as is the common practice with applications to change the use of agricultural field for equestrian purposes where conditions are imposed to revert agricultural land to its original use, if approved non-agricultural use cease to be operational on such sites, even if the residential use was still active. Besides, there is no history of planning approval being granted for change of use of the adjoining field to equestrian use. As such, the perception that the paddock would support the use of the stable would hold no weight in this case.
7.4.3 Another key factor that weighs against the proposal is the fact that approval is sought for the erection of a very large stable on speculative grounds. From the supporting information submitted by the applicants, it is not yet clear whether future occupants of the new dwelling would own horses, or whether they would own the required number of horses to be supported by a stable building with floor area in excess of 270sqm, which is considerably larger than many domestic stables that have been approved on the island to support more than 4 horses.
7.4.4 Therefore, it is not considered that there is sufficient justification for the development of this scale in the countryside given the level of protection granted the countryside, particularly for sites in areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance where the stable would be located.
7.5 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.5.1 Visual Impact of dwelling 7.5.1.1 Turning to the design and visual impact of the proposed dwelling, HP14 generally states that any replacement dwelling must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/01110/B Page 11 of 15
siting and size, be not more than 50% greater than that of the original building which should generally be designed in accordance with Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91. 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 or where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character and which would result in less visual impact.
7.5.1.2 In the case of the current application, it is noted that proposed dwelling would be erected partly over the footprint of the existing dwelling, although its floor area would be considerably larger than the existing dwelling by 63%. Likewise, the design and siting of the new dwelling would not reduce its visual impact, as the new dwelling would sit about 600mm taller than the existing, with its new orientation which would be more aligned to the adjoining highway increase its impact when viewed from the highway, and this impact would be further exacerbated by the fact that the mature trees which bound the access would be removed, creating a viewing window that would be about 42m wide. In addition, the positioning of the 7m tall garage adjacent the garage further pushes the built form to such an extend that it becomes significantly dominant on site.
7.5.1.3 HP14 states that generally new buildings in the countryside should meet Policies 2 to 7 of Planning Circular 3/91, but this proposal does not. Whilst it does have some rectangular plan and form, it is not integrated into the landscape, does not follow the size or pattern of a traditional farmhouse, external finishes are not traditional, doors and windows together with their size are not of traditional rural form, and the features on the building do not respect the successful features in a rural scene, with the only compliance coming in the form of providing a chimney, and this significantly weighs against the proposal.
7.5.1.4 Granting Housing Policy 14 allows for a deviation from Policies 2 to 7 of Planning Circular 3/91, by stating that exceptionally, permission may be given to innovative, modern and high quality design which would not result in an adverse visual impact, and that designs should incorporate re-use of stone and slate from site, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would meet such exceptions. Whilst the existing dwelling does not appear to have stone or slate available for re-use within the new dwelling, the wording of this part of the policy reinforces that the inclusion of such traditional fabric would be favourable, and this has not been included, as the use of concrete roof tiles have been continued with the new dwelling and the addition of timber cladding which can also not be judged a traditional addition. Likewise, it would be difficult to argue that the new dwelling is innovative and modern, as merely installing solar panels, Air Source Heat Pumps, and large glazed windows would not pass as being innovative, given that these could still be sympathetically integrated on a traditional building without it being considered an innovative building, although it is acknowledged that these weighs in favour of the proposal. In fact, the current design is reminiscent of urban design duplicating dwellings already found within housing estates and non-traditional dwellings within urban locations, and would be more fitting to suburban settings than the current site which sits in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) which should be afforded an added protection from developments (Environment Policy 2).
7.5.1.5 Further to the above, the proposal would not be utilizing the materials on site, and the new fabric would not pass for a fabric that matches the materials on the existing dwelling given that it would be introducing completely new materials on site (save for the painted render wall sections).
7.5.1.6 It has now been established that the proposal would be an increases beyond 50% and is not of any innovative, modern or high quality design to warrant it as an exception to those tests in HP 14. The closing criteria of HP14 indicates that proposals for larger dwellings will be considered if the design of the replacement is of more traditional form or the proposal results in less visual impact compared to the existing dwelling. It has already been established that the design of the dwelling fails Planning Circular 3/91 (as it is not traditional), therefore this weighs
==== PAGE 12 ====
23/01110/B Page 12 of 15
against having an increased floor area. The proposal also replaces an existing dwelling with a small two storey core with one that has a considerably larger two storey element. It must be noted that the existing dwelling has only an 11m section (the main core) set at two storey level, whereas the new dwelling would have most of its 27m section (24m) set at two storey level, and this would exacerbate its visual impact. The use of renewable energy systems from the PV panels and ASHP heating provide an improved environmental impact, but this is not considered sufficient enough to outweigh the other resulting adverse impacts. For the above reasons the proposal is considered to fail HP14.
7.5.1.6 Furthermore, the site lies within an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance (as has already been noted) where Environment Policy 2 is particularly relevant. Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan provides that, in such areas, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration, unless the development would not harm the character or quality of the landscape, or the location of the development is essential. In this case, the development would increase the impact of built development at the site as viewed from the adjoining highway where the changes in terms of built bulk would be clearly noticeable, with the proposed development making the area appear less rural and more urban in character, and there is no evidence to suggest that the development in this location is essential, particularly as the existing dwelling has lost its habitable status by abandonment. Accordingly, the proposal is also considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
7.5.1.7 Overall, it is considered that no justification has been made for the replacement of the existing dwelling (which is already large), with a larger non-traditional dwelling, and the increase in floor area would exceed the 50% increase which forms the baseline within Housing Policy 14. Likewise, the provisions within HP 14 policy which allow for consideration to be given to larger replacement dwellings would not be met, particularly as there is no substantial evidence to establish that the new dwelling which has greater mass and bulk, would result in less visual impact. Besides, the proposal fails to align with significant sections of Housing Policy 14 which provides guidance on the design and appearance of replacement dwellings in the countryside, whilst also failing to align with Environment Policy 2.
7.5.2 Visual Impact of Stable 7.5.2.1 In terms of the potential visual impacts of the stable upon the countryside, it is considered that the site of the proposed stable is somewhat enclosed by trees and mature landscaping. However, the building would be apparent from public views when viewed from the gap between the existing mature hedges that front the boundary of the broader site area with the A3 (being situated about 120m) from the edge of the A3. As well, the positioning of the proposed stable block is such that views could also be achievable from higher vehicles, although it must be noted that the fact that a structure/building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development, particularly in areas of the countryside where protection of the landscape is paramount (See Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan).
7.5.2.2 With regard to the design and finish of the building, it is considered that the building bears the semblance of an agricultural barn, rather than a stable building. Ideally, stable buildings should generally be light weight timber structures, low height and finished in timber to reflect their purpose and easier to remove as required by Environment Policy 21. What is proposed here is considerably taller than standard stables which are usually about 9 - 11 feet (2.7m to 3.3m), as it would be 5.7m tall, even though it is finished in timber which is the required finish. Thus, is not considered that there is sufficient justification for the proposed height which is beyond the standard height requirements for a domestic stable (See Section 4.4 of this report).
7.5.2.3 It is also considered that the proposed stable building which measures 271.9sqm, is of a size that is considerably large for a domestic stable. This building would have an internal
==== PAGE 13 ====
23/01110/B Page 13 of 15
floor area of approximately 116sqm designated as a machinery and feed store, not counting the 25.3sqm of unallocated storage space that is already provided within the building, beside the space already allocated to five stables. To put the size in context, a small tractor (e.g. a John Dee Series 3 Tractor) has a footprint of 4sqm and even if another 10sqm was given to accessories, there would be a total of 127sqm of floor space remaining in the building, which would de difficult to deffebnd as allocation for hay and machinery to support five horses. Moreover, this excess provision of additional floor area would lend itself to other uses, particularly as there are currently no horses within the site, and there is no guarantee that future occupants of the dwelling would own horses.
7.5.8 Given the above, it is considered the design, size and scale for the proposed stable (which is about 2.7m taller than most domestic stables on the island, and its 271.9sqm floor area, would seem excessive in size and the Department is not satisfied that equestrian need has been satisfied, and as such, the proposal would not meet the requirements of GP 3, EP 1, EP 21.
7.6 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS 7.6.1 In terms of impacts on neighbouring amenity, it is considered that the dwelling most likely to be impacted by the new dwelling would be Little Garey, Lezayre, which sits directly northwest of the proposed dwelling. However, any impacts would be diminished by the fact that there is a separating distance of about 39.4sqm between both dwellings, and the fact that the mature trees on the boundary with this neighbour would be largely retained.
7.6.2 It is also vital to note that although the proposal would result in a dwelling and arrangement of the site which would be apparent from the abutting highway, the new dwelling would be less apparent from the neighbouring dwellings for the reasons that have been articulated in Paragraph 7.6.1 above. Therefore, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact in terms of privacy and overlooking, overbearing impacts or loss of light.
7.7 IMPACT ON TREES/BIODIVERSITY 7.7.1 In considering potential impacts on trees on the site, it is noted that the current scheme holds the potential to result in the removal of a significant amount of trees on site (about 42% by canopy area of the category C group, and 855sqm of total tree cover). However, the DEFA Arboricultural Team have advised that they do not object to the elements of the tree removal that relate to the erection of the new dwelling on the grounds that there are no conflicts with the criteria outlined in the Tree Protection Policy, and as such are hesitant to make an outright objection to this application. Given the above, it is considered that any tree impacts that result from the erection of the new dwelling would be acceptable in arboricultural terms. The above, however, does not in any way prejudice the any assessments regarding the contributions the trees offer to the general character of the area which is now identified by its verdant nature, defined by the wild and planted trees which now characterise the site area.
7.7.2 The DEFA Arboricultural Team have, however, raised concerns with the new stable building which is also proposed as part of the current scheme. This building is considered to have a greater potential to impact on good quality trees within the site, particularly the Category-A and B Oak trees which are within close proximity to the new stable building and hardstanding area. Granting the implementation of a CEZ plan may offer protection for these trees, it has been highlighted that the absence of any development near these tress would completely eliminate any threat to these trees. The applicants have argued that registering the Category-A tree as has already been suggested by the DEFA Forestry Team, would increase the protection for this tree from future pressure. However, it must be stated that the Department would not object to the removal or pruning of any impacted trees (including any registered tree in the future should request be made on safety grounds), as has already been evidenced in many developments on the Island. As such, registration of trees is not a sufficient argument to support developments that unduly endanger trees, particularly in situations such the proposed stable where it is not accepted that there is sufficient justification.
==== PAGE 14 ====
23/01110/B Page 14 of 15
7.7.3 Therefore, it is considered the erection of the stable block and its associated facilities would cause undue harm to the longevity and contribution of the nearby trees (and registered tree) and to the wider visual amenity of the area, and in this respect, the application fails GP2 parts (f) and (g), and Environment Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.
7.7.4 In assessing the potential impacts on ecology, it is noted that there is potential for the site to have ecological value, given its open character and as the site has been unoccupied for a period in excess of 20 years, which would create suitable conditions for colonisation by a varied range of biodiversity. Notwithstanding, the application is supported by ecological information, which have been commented on and accepted by DEFA Ecosystems Officer, and in this respect it is felt that the application has satisfied the principles of Environment Policy 4. This acceptance by DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team, however, does not discountenance the fact that there are no acceptable justification for both the dwelling and stable, which are not matters for the DEFA Ecosystem Team to assess.
7.7.5 It is, therefore worth noting that the development would have been acceptable in ecological terms, if there was sufficient justification to allow the new development, as the ecological proposals within the application may with appropriately worded conditions serve to ameliorate the impacts on ecology. Albeit, when the benefits of the development are weighed against the negatives, and the fact that the inadequate justification has been made for the proposed development, and as it is not accepted that the development is of 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, it is considered that the potential adverse impacts significantly outweigh any positives for ecology.
7.7.6 Overall, given that there are no clear justifications for the scheme at the current location, and there is no over-riding national need in land use planning terms for the proposed scheme which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas (not zoned for development) from undue ecological disturbance, it is considered that any works to alter existing habitats on the site to enable the scheme through site clearance, tree and sod hedge removal, would be unnecessary and averse to the requirements of Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake, and Environment policy 4 which seeks to protect species and habitats of international importance, national and local importance.
7.8 IMPACT ON HIGHWAYS 7.8.1 Highway Services have indicated support for the application, reinforced by the request for the imposition of conditions that the garages, parking and driveway layout on the approved plan to be implemented before first occupation of the dwelling. The proposal would also provide for more than the required parking provision on site, with the removal of some of the mature landscaping by the access also improving visibility for vehicles exiting the site. In this respect, the application is considered to be acceptable in highway safety terms, and compliant with Transport Policies 4 and 7, and General Policy 2 (h & i).
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Granting some elements of the proposal, such as impacts on neighbours and highway safety, would be acceptable, the proposed replacement dwelling would fail to comply with the requirements of Housing Policy 12(a), as it seeks to replace an existing dwelling in the countryside which has lost its residential use by abandonment. Likewise, the proposal would fail to align with Housing Policy 13, as it seeks to create a new dwelling on site contrary to the provisions set out within Housing Policy 13. The proposed dwelling would also not comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 which sets out the provisions for the design and appearance of replacement dwellings in the countryside.
8.2 Additionally, the stable block would lead to unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside given its overall siting, design, and size (bulk and height), which
==== PAGE 15 ====
23/01110/B Page 15 of 15
do not align with Environment Policy 21. Furthermore, the reasons put forward to justify the development, either on their own or in combination are insufficient to outweigh the harm that would result, aside the presumption against development in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, which is afforded an additional level of protection. The proposed stable would, therefore, be at odds with Policies GP3, EP1, EP19 and EP21 of the Strategic Plan.
8.3 It is therefore recommended that the application be refused on these grounds.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status.
9.3 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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 22.05.2024
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