Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00668/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00668/B Applicant : Captain Simon & Mrs Lynn Pressly Proposal : Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address : Ashwood Ballamenagh Road Baldrine Isle of Man IM4 6AL
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 09.07.2015 Site Visit : 09.07.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL RELATES TO A REPLACEMENT DWELLING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling located on Ballamenagh Road in Baldrine. 'Ashwood' is a bungalow that exhibits little in the way of architectural merit or interest, and nor does it benefit from natural slate or stone - it is, nevertheless, well-proportioned and well-maintained. It sits within a very large plot, all of which is residential garden. The dwelling is isolated on the southern edge of this part of Baldrine, although a number of dwellings are located further north on Baldrine Park and with some further sporadic development to the west. When approaching the site from the north, the dwelling feels very much a part of the built environment to the north rather than a rural dwelling as might appear when looking at the site on a map.
1.2 The site is itself flat but given the topography of the area, the vegetation in place and the presence of Baldrine Park to the north, views of Ashwood are perhaps surprisingly limited. Distant views into the site from the Ballanette Nature Reserve and Raad-ny-Foillan to the southeast are available.
1.3 The submitted plans indicate that the applicants also own a dwelling on Baldrine Park, although this forms no part of the application proposals.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the site. The application has been submitted with a Planning Statement that explains the design approach and evolution of the scheme, along with several digital renderings of the proposed dwelling.
2.2 The dwelling proposed comprises four distinct elements, the largest and most conspicuous two of which draw on the form of traditional buildings found in the Manx countryside (specifically, barns and vernacular dwellings) and which sit a right angles to one another with a smaller connecting single storey element between. A third distinct element is set slightly at an angle would be largely glazed and of a far more contemporary finish as a result. The final element is the least obvious of the four, and takes the form of an earth-sheltered double garage.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00668/B
Page 2 of 11
2.3 The walls would be finished in painted render, while the roofs, which would have only marginally overhanging eaves, would be finished in aluminium. Some larger glazed areas are proposed, two of which are predominant within the scheme and these have timber frames. Otherwise the windows would have powder-coated aluminium frames, finished in grey. Some Manx stone feature walls are also proposed, while the Manx sod hedge to the north of the site is proposed to remain.
2.4 The existing dwelling has a floorspace of almost 175sqm; the proposed replacement dwelling would have a floorspace of almost 730sqm.
2.5 Some minor amendments were made to the scheme following its submission, with the boundary bank now proposed to be brought slightly back from the highway in order to provide additional visibility to the south, and also to clarify some points of detail with finish for the driveway (gravel). A further alteration was the addition of a door to the boot room adjacent the garage. In view of the comments received at the point those amended and additional plans and information were received, the application was re-advertised.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 It has not been possible to locate records for the original planning approval for the existing dwelling. As such, it is not possible to verify whether the dwelling was constructed as an agricultural worker's dwelling and whether it is subject to any conditions on occupancy. In any event, if the dwelling was constructed as an agricultural worker's dwelling such a breach of planning control would be exempt from enforcement given the known nature of occupation of the dwelling since construction.
3.2 In terms of the assessment of this current planning application, there have been three previous planning applications that are considered material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3.3 PA 05/92370/A sought Approval in Principle for the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of three dwellings with double garages on the application site; it was refused on the 6th April 2006. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector.
3.4 Subsequently, PA 08/01127/A sought Approval in Principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling and garage. This previous planning application was approved on the 1st August 2008, but no Reserved Matters approval was sought and (despite a subsequent approval extending its implementation period) this approval has now expired.
3.5 More recently, and probably of most relevance to the current proposal, PA 11/00933/B sought - and gained - detailed approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the site. Given that the design proposed in 2011 was very contemporary in approach, in common with the current proposal, it is worth outlining the case officer's assessment almost in full. The case officer brought the application before the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve:
"The proposed replacement dwelling is a modern design that incorporates earth sheltering and a number of environmental technologies. These measures include the use of a Sedum green roof, higher levels of insulation, higher levels of thermal mass, orientation to utilise passive solar gain, higher levels of air tightness, solar panels, ground source heat pump and rainwater harvesting. New entrance gates and section of sod hedge are also proposed as part of the development. The proposal was the subject of pre-application discussion.
"...In this instance the existing dwelling has full habitable status and therefore also accords with Housing Policy 12, which means that the primary policy to assess the proposed development against is Housing Policy 14.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00668/B
Page 3 of 11
"As can be seen, Housing Policy 14 raises a number of issues that need to be taken into account. First of all it is necessary to look at the siting of the proposed dwelling relative to that of the existing one. In this respect it can be seen that the proposed replacement dwelling is sited east of the existing dwelling, but still within the established residential curtilage. The policy does allow for the re-siting of a replacement dwelling provided this results in an overall environmental improvement. It is therefore necessary to consider whether this proposal constitutes an overall environmental improvement. In this regard due to its position and the alignment of the road the existing dwelling occupies a prominent position that is readily visible. The re-positioning of the proposed dwelling away from the boundary with Ballamenagh Road reduces this visual impact and should therefore result in a less intrusive form of development. This is concluded to constitute an overall environmental improvement and therefore be acceptable under the provisions of the policy in respect of siting.
"After considering the issue of siting it is then necessary to consider the size of the proposed replacement dwelling. Housing policy 14 essentially breaks this down into the percentage increase in floor area from existing to proposed, based on the outcome of which there are differing considerations within the policy. The starting point for this has to be the floor area of the existing dwelling, which in this instance is estimated to be 174 square metres. The floor area of the proposed replacement dwelling is estimated to be 439 square metres, which equates to an increase in floor area of 152%. A proposed increase in floor area of more than 50% is not automatic reason for refusal of a planning application as Housing Policy 14 goes onto to state that there are two grounds for consideration to be given to larger dwellings.
"Under the provisions of Housing Policy 14 the two grounds on which a larger replacement dwelling may be acceptable are i) where the proposal involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character; ii) or where, by its design or siting, the proposed development would have less visual impact than the existing.
"In respect of i) it is considered that the existing dwelling is of poor form. This existing dwelling is a system built bungalow that is somewhat bland and non-descript in terms of character, design and overall appearance. As such, the existing dwelling is not felt to add much value to the amenity of the area and its replacement could be beneficial. However, whilst the proposed replacement dwelling is considered to be of high quality it could not be said to be of more traditional character. It would therefore be difficult to justify the proposal on the basis of it involving the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character.
"As for ii) it is considered that the re-positioning of the proposed replacement dwelling and its design could be viewed as resulting in a development that has less visual impact than the existing dwelling. The use of earth sheltering, curved roof design and choice of materials mean that whilst the proposed replacement dwelling is larger its visual impact is acceptable. The re-positioning further away from Ballamenagh Road means that the impact of the development from the primary public viewpoint (the highway) is reduced. Taking these points into account together with the environmental benefits of the proposed replacement dwelling it is concluded that on balance there is sufficient grounds for allowing the proposal under part ii) of Housing Policy 14."
This planning approval was issued following consideration by Committee, remained extant until 29th August 2015 and so has since expired. The Committee minutes with respect to the consideration of this application are outlined in full below with the conditions attached to the approval notice below:
"The case officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report.
"The Members enquired with regard to the curtilage, and if there was other land within the Applicant's ownership in the area. The Chairman enquired with regard to the location of the site with reference to adjoining properties and to Baldrine Park. Mr Holmes reported.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00668/B
Page 4 of 11
"Mr Killip enquired with regard to Housing Policy 14 and the design of the proposal and stated that he felt this proposal did satisfy HP14.
"The Committee, with the exception of Mr Skinner and Mr Quirk, accepted the recommendation of the case officer and the application was approved subject to the following conditions.
"C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
"C 2. This approval relates to drawing no.s K219/P/10/01, K219/10/10-02, K219/P/10-03 rev. A, K219/10/10-04 and K219/10/21-01 date stamped the 27th June 2011.
"C 3. Prior to the occupation of the replacement dwelling the existing dwelling must be demolished. Thereafter the land on which the existing dwelling previously stood shall be landscaped to form part of the garden of the overall development."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 In terms of land use planning the application site is located within wider areas of land designated as open space/agricultural use and also as being of high landscape value and scenic significance under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. There are two policies within the plan that area considered material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.2 Policy L/OSNC/PR/1 states: "There will be a general presumption against development in areas designated as open space or open space for particular purposes."
4.3 Policy L/RES/PR/1 of the plan states: "Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general."
4.4 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains four policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.5 General Policy 3 states (in part): "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14)."
4.6 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00668/B
Page 5 of 11
4.7 Housing Policy 12 states: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
(a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
(i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."
4.8 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.
"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
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application, their comments being received 30th June 2015.
5.2 Lonan Parish Commissioners recommend the application be refused in comments received 1st July 2015: "Further to a meeting of Lonan Parish Commissioners on Tuesday 30th June 2015 I am directed to inform you that the Board whilst the Board does not object to the principle of replacing the existing dwelling they recommend refusal of the above Planning Application, on the grounds detailed below.
"1. The Building is too large for the area into which it is set and is likely to have an adverse visual impact on the locality. The building should be of a similar size to the existing which it is designed to replace."
5.3 The owner / occupier of Ballaclague House, which is roughly 800m southeast of the site, commented on the application on 22nd July 2015. They offered support to the proposal on the basis that it is proportionate to those nearby and is on a large site. They are concerned with the entrance proposed, indicating they have been assured by the applicant that the entrance will be set back from the road.
5.4 No additional comments by any parties were received upon the application's re- advertisement.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00668/B
Page 6 of 11
6.1 Not a great deal has changed in terms of the Development Plan since 2011 with respect to how the assessment of this proposal should be approached. The quite significant level of detail submitted with the application reflects the importance of assessing visual impact when considering such proposals. There remains an accepted principle of replacement dwellings in the countryside via Housing Policies 12 and 14 - it is the detail of the proposal on which its acceptability turns. The previous (and now expired) approval on the site is a material consideration in the determination of this application, but it should not be determinative; the fact that the 2011 approval expires at the end of August should also be noted.
6.2 The submitted Planning Statement is helpful. It outlines the reasoning behind the approach to the proposal. The agent considers that the proposal represents an acceptable departure from the Housing Policy 14 expectations regarding percentage increase and siting of a proposed replacement dwelling in Housing Policy 14 inasmuch as the proposal would provide an environmental improvement. They consider this improvement relates to the visual impact and also the proposed use of environmental technologies and built form to reduce energy use. These include south-facing orientation, high thermal mass, high levels of insulation, earth sheltering of the garage, double and triple glazing, air tightness, rainwater harvesting and a ground source heat pump. These are valid arguments, and the extent to which they are sufficient to consider the proposal likely to result in an 'environmental improvement' depends largely on the appearance of the existing dwelling, that of the proposed new dwelling, and the visual prominence of both, with the improved environmental performance of the proposed dwelling also being an important factor.
6.3 In design terms, the proposed dwelling does, as suggested by the agent, noticeably draw on properties found in the Manx countryside - the simple forms of barns and vernacular dwellings are clearly evoked in the main elements of the dwelling. Although the proposed glazed element is rather more contemporary in finishing, it still reflects the simple forms discussed above. The fenestration throughout is rather varied in size, position and proportion, but this is not considered inherently negative. That the windows would have a deep reveal is welcome. The use of timber window frames, with some sizeable frames to include one element that is two storeys in height and also extends into the roofscape, is especially welcome in using a traditional material in a contemporary fashion.
6.4 An aluminium roof material is similarly welcomed: while slate might normally be expected in rural locations, the detailing of the proposed dwelling is contemporary and slate would probably not be appropriate here. The use of a more contemporary roof finish is therefore suitable given the evidently contemporary detail of the proposed building, and in some ways reflects the material found on contemporary agricultural barns, which again ties in with the design ethic underpinning the scheme.
6.5 The wide range of environmental technologies and use of built form orientation is, as a whole, welcomed: while some of these might not strictly be within the control of Planning, they are outlined in the Planning Statement in the form of an 'energy impact statement'. The Planning Statement could be added to the list of approved plans and information, which would give some control to this; equally a condition requiring more details in respect of what kinds of environmental technologies would be used and, moreover, details on these might be appropriate.
6.6 Turning to the size and design of the proposed dwelling, it cannot be ignored that the proposal is a significant increase in size over that of the existing. The existing dwelling is 174sqm; the previously approved dwelling was 471sqm (including the garage), while that now proposed would be 729sqm. The increase of the previously approved dwelling is 171% over the existing dwelling (the 152% figure outlined in the case officer's report into the 2011 application appear to have excluded the garage, which was attached and therefore probably not the best way to make the calculation). That of the proposed dwelling is 317%. This is significant. A proposed increased of floor area in excess of 50% does not mean that the proposal must automatically be refused: Housing Policy 14 outlines two grounds on which a larger replacement dwelling may be acceptable:
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00668/B
Page 7 of 11
(i) where the proposal involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or (ii) where, by its design or siting, the proposed development would have less visual impact than the existing.
To support this point, the agent to the application indicates that "due to the accommodation requirements of the client, a much bigger property is required. Whilst the proposed floor area is significantly greater than the existing building, it should be noted that great care was taken to reduce the visual impact of the new proposal and to replace it with a building of higher architectural merit."
6.7 The case officer considering the previous application indicated that Ashwood was of poor form, commenting that it "is a system built bungalow that is somewhat bland and non-descript in terms of character, design and overall appearance. As such, the existing dwelling is not felt to add much value to the amenity of the area and its replacement could be beneficial". He did go on to conclude, however, that "whilst the proposed replacement dwelling is considered to be of high quality it could not be said to be of more traditional character. It would therefore be difficult to justify the proposal on the basis of it involving the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character." This conclusion is also considered appropriate on this occasion.
6.8 Turning to the second exception, the visual impact of the proposed dwelling from the surrounding area must be assessed. On this point, the conclusion that Ashwood is of limited architectural interest remains important.
6.9 As noted, Ashwood is fairly prominent from Ballamenagh Road but far less so from further afield. The moving of the siting of the dwelling from its current position further east would reduce the visual impact of the site, in which Ashwood is conspicuous due both to its position near the highway and also its elevated position above it. The submitted Measured Survey indicates that the difference between the ground floor of Ashwood and the highway is roughly 80cm - although this does vary - but the impression given on site is of a more elevated position.
6.10 A helpful drawing showing the visibility splay of the existing and proposed dwelling from a northwestern position on the highway has been submitted, and it is clear that siting the dwelling further east into the site, even though its footprint would be vastly increased over the existing, would result in a less intrusive form of built development. It should also be noted that the main elevations on the existing and approved dwellings that face the highway are fairly similar in width, albeit that the proposed dwelling is a house compared to Ashwood as a bungalow. This, along with the proposed re-siting, means that the extent of built form visible from the road will actually not be altogether dissimilar from that at present.
6.11 From the Raad-ny-Foillan to the southeast, views into the site are, as noted, fairly long- distance. The agent's assertion that the dwellings behind Ashwood are more prominent than Ashwood itself from this area; is in part due to its being a bungalow. A new dwelling further to the east would still be seen largely against the backdrop of the existing dwellings on Baldrine Park. The new dwelling would be largely white and also larger than Ashwood, but, given the distances involved, it is considered that the visual impact from this direction would be relatively neutral.
6.12 Another benefit that could result in visual impact terms in respect of the proposed dwelling is the comprehensive approach to landscaping that is proposed, and the Manx sod bank proposed to run much of the western boundary would be in keeping with the surrounding boundary treatment. The site is something of a 'transition' one in that it sits on a settlement fringe and represents the point at which the built environment gives way to the natural environment. Additional 'soft' landscaping on the site's western extent, from where it would be most apparent, would help to reduce this visual impact. The use of a Manx bank is also preferable to other boundary treatments as this is less likely to be removed than, perhaps, a wall or fencing might.
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/00668/B
Page 8 of 11
6.13 Overall, the proposed dwelling, while larger, is likely to have an improved visual impact over the existing dwelling. This conclusion is reached having regard to two key matters. First of all, the proposed siting further from the road than Ashwood is at present would be such that the proposed dwelling would actually be less apparent from public viewpoints than Ashwood at present. While this in itself is considered a positive, the fact that the proposed design is judged a marked improvement over the existing dwelling is given greater material weight. This is an interesting balance, inasmuch as the visual impact of the proposed dwelling would be an improvement yet the proposal is also considered an improvement since the built environment on the site would be less apparent than is currently the case.
6.14 The design of the proposed dwelling, while large, is judged to be well-considered and a welcome addition to what is an area of high landscape value. While a more proportional, well- ordered fenestration to one elevation might be preferred and thereby be more directly linked to the massing proportions of the Manx countryside buildings it is intended to reflect, this is, in the overall scheme, considered a minor issue. Equally, the glazed part of the dwelling (comprising the 'leisure rooms') is large and could be considered inappropriate, especially given the overall massing of the dwelling. However, in some ways it is also reminiscent of a contemporary form of extension of the kind that, if sought for an extension to a traditional Manx dwelling, might be viewed as innovative. Given the overall design approach, it is considered that this element of the proposal is considered to be a sympathetic and appropriately massed addition to the more traditional massing form of the remainder of the proposed dwelling.
6.15 Housing Policy 14 states that "Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling...where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact". Taking into account all of the issues as outlined above, it is concluded that, on balance, the proposal represents an appropriate response to the site that has been well-considered and would offer a vast improvement in architectural terms over and above the existing situation, and as a result the proposal is not found to be in fundamental conflict with Housing Policy 14.
6.16 The dwelling is sufficiently far from other properties in the area to conclude that there would be no harmful impact on neighbouring living conditions.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the favourable assessment of the proposal against the key Housing Policy 14, it is recommended that the application should be approved.
7.2 A condition requiring the existing dwelling to be demolished prior to the proposed dwelling being completed is recommended.
7.3 A further condition removing permitted development rights with respect to extensions is also recommended: any alterations to the dwelling, should it be built, would be best tested through the development control process given the unified and fully considered nature of its design.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
==== PAGE 9 ====
15/00668/B
Page 9 of 11
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The owner / occupiers of Ballaclague House, Lonan, who at 800m distant from the site are not considered to be likely to be affected by the proposal.
9.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT (POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE)
9.1 Planning Committee requested one condition be amended and another be added.
9.2 In the first instance, they felt that a condition requiring the demolition of the existing dwelling prior to the commencement of works would be unreasonable and requested that, in view of the fact that the existing and proposed dwellings' footprints do not overlap, this wording of this condition be amended to require the demolition of Ashwood following occupation of the approved replacement. The wording of that condition is set out below:
C 2. Within 2 months of the occupation of the replacement dwelling, the existing dwelling must be demolished. Thereafter the land on which the existing dwelling previously stood shall be landscaped to form part of the garden of the overall development.
Reason: The application has been approved as an exception to the general principle that development shall not take place in the countryside. It would not be appropriate for both the existing and proposed dwellings to remain on the site.
9.3 In the second instance, concern was raised regarding the potential for reflections from the glazing being seen across the wider area. A condition requiring that details of the glazing be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department was considered the best way to address this concern; the wording of that condition is set out below:
C 5. Details of the windows, to include specific reference to the consideration of non-reflective glass in the south-facing elevation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the commencement of works. The windows shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained as such.
Reason: The dwelling hereby approved may be prominent within the landscape and there is concern that the south-facing elevations may, in part, be reflective and draw attention to the glazing rather than the form of the dwelling approved. Therefore, consideration must be given to reducing this potential impact.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
==== PAGE 10 ====
15/00668/B Page 10 of 11
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: 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.
C 2. Prior to the occupation of the replacement dwelling, the existing dwelling must be demolished. Thereafter the land on which the existing dwelling previously stood shall be landscaped to form part of the garden of the overall development.
Reason: The application has been approved as an exception to the general principle that development shall not take place in the countryside. It would not be appropriate for both the existing and proposed dwellings to remain on the site.
C 3. 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 dwellings 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 4. Prior to the commencement of development on the site, an Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The Statement shall include but not be limited to energy efficiency, insulation and technologies that will be installed within the application site in order to offset the environmental impact of the new dwelling. Before the dwelling is occupied, the approved measures shall be implemented and brought into operation in accordance with the approved scheme and thereafter retained.
Reason: In the interest of ensuring an energy-efficient dwelling relative to the requirements of Housing Policy 14.
The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 15th June 2015 and 14th August 2015: the site and location plans (scales 1:500 and 1:2500 respectively); PL 001/00 Rev.1; PL 002/01; PL 003/00; PL 004/00, PS 005 and the Measured Survey.
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 : Approved
Committee Meeting Date: 05.10.2015
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
==== PAGE 11 ====
15/00668/B Page 11 of 11
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See Paragraph 9.0 above
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 service/customers and archive records.
The signature reflects the Officer who presented the case to the Planning Committee.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal