Loading document...
Application No.: 09/01011/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Stephen Caley Proposal: Demolition of existing farmhouse and ancillary outbuildings and erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address: - Cronk Breck - Bernahara Road - Andreas - Isle Of Man - IM7 3HH ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: Mr Chris Balmer Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations - Ballachurry Farm Cottage Bernahara Road Andreas Isle Of Man - Interest expressed - 33 Ballaquark Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EY - Interest expressed ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications. Consultee: Andreas Parish Commissioners Notes: No objection 17.08.09 - no objections. Consultee: Forestry, Amenity & Lands - Mr Andrew Sidebottom Notes: comment Consultee: Wildlife & Conservation Officer Notes:** Comments received
The site represents the residential curtilage of Cronk Breck, Bernahara Road, Andreas, a two storey detached dwelling which is located on the eastern side of the Cronk Breck. Within the application site
area there are also a number of detached buildings which include a workshop, stable/store, five large greenhouses, two concrete hardstanding (buildings demolition recently) and two small green houses. denotiolect The Application is before the Planning Committee as the proposed dwelling would be over the general permitted increase in floor area as indicated within Housing Policy 14, and also a member of staff for the Department has commented on the application.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'White Land', 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.
Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policy is relevant in the consideration of the application:- "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(1), which is not more than 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."
PLANNING HISTORY There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
PROPOSAL Demolition of existing farmhouse and ancillary outbuildings and erection of a replacement dwelling.
Andreas Parish Commissioners:- "No objections." The Department of Transport Highway Division:- "Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications." The owner/occupier of Ballachurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara Road, Andreas, has made the following comments to the application; "The applicant has measured the floor area of all the buildings including outbuildings; it should not be compared with the residential floor area; small scale can't see what trees are to be removed; two entrances are shown on the montage; no objection to a large dwelling
on site but would prefer the impact to be kept to a minimum and as many trees are retained and the access appears as near as possible to what it currently is." The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas, has objected which can be summarised as; "the site is defined as residential but it should be agricultural; object to an extension of curtilage onto agricultural land; and does not accord with Planning Circular 3/91" Forestry, Amenity \& Lands (DAFF) has made the following comments:- "We note that the applicant wishes to carry out engineering operations with the area demarcated as the canopy spread of existing trees.
Given the potential for tree root damage in these areas, we recommend that where construction works are to take place within canopy spreads (e.g. the driveway through the trees on the north side), a tree root protection system (such as CellWeb - details enclosed) be used. This will protect trees from root death resulting from soil compaction and asphyxiation. Consideration should also be given to the porosity of the final surfaces in these areas (e.g. porous asphalt or Duo-Block - details enclosed)."
Wildlife \& Conservation Officer has made the following comments:- "We would appreciate that, if you are mindful to give permission for the demolition of this farmhouse, you include a recommendation that any felling/thinning of trees or clearance of vegetation should take place outside the bird nesting season in order to avoid the disturbance of birds and their nests. The developer should be reminded that it is an offence under the 1990 Wildlife Act to destroy birds, their eggs or nests that are in use. If any bats are found during the works this Division should be contacted."
The Authority has received no other privately written representations objecting to the application.
Starting with the principle of the development, it is considered that the demolition of the existing dwelling would be beneficial to the surrounding locality, given the two previous extensions to the dwelling, erected over a number of years which have adversely affected the traditional appearance of the original dwelling.
The application site is fairly large in size, and is very well screened from the surrounding countryside and from the adjacent public highway due to the substantial boundary treatments, landscaping and mature trees which run along the boundaries of the site and within the site. Presently, the existing two storey dwelling is not visible from the public highway, with the exception of when entering the site along the driveway, however, this aspect is only a small part of the northern elevation of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling would have a ridgeline increase of one metre above the existing ridgeline. However, it is considered this increase in height and massing would not result in the dwelling being any more apparent from the surrounding landscape than the existing dwelling for the aforementioned reasons.
As indicated previously, the relevant policy for the determination of this application is Housing Policy 14. This policy indicates that generally a replacement dwelling should not be larger than of the existing footprint measured externally. In this case the existing dwelling has a footprint of approximately , and the proposed dwelling would have a total footprint of approximately 650 , which is a increase over the original building, far more than general policy allows. It therefore could be considered the application should be refused on these grounds. However the policy does allow exceptions.
Firstly, the policy states that consideration may be given for larger dwellings which replace 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. It could be argued that the proposal would replace an existing dwelling of poor form, due to the number of inappropriate extensions which have been erected in the past.
Secondary, Housing Policy 14 states that the replacement dwelling should be sited on the existing footprint, eibelt, given the larger footprint the proposal would encroach beyond the existing footprint; however, large sections of the dwelling would be sited on the existing footprint.
Thirdly, the policy requires Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 to be considered. These policies deal with the design, proportion and massing of the proposed dwelling. Although the proposed house would not be of a traditional Manx vernacular, it has some traditional features and shows good proportions. The proposed design is considered acceptable in its setting and an improvement on the existing.
Of relevance in terms of the overall impact of the proposal are the number of other buildings on the site. These include a sizeable garage/workshop ( ), a single storey store/stable ( ), five overgrown detached green houses (totalling ) and two concrete hardstandings which until recent,accommodated buildings (totalling ).
Housing Policy 14 does state that outbuilding should not be taken into account when calculating the percentage increase. However, it is considered a certain building should be taken into account, in this case the garage/workshop. The reasoning for this is because the percentage increase includes the proposed attached garage and it is considered fair to include the existing garage/workshop, which is connected with the residential use of the main dwelling house, unlike a redundant farm barn. Therefore the proposed floor area would be whilst the existing dwelling and garage is 282 . This relates to an increase of of the existing.
It could therefore be argued that whilst the number of buildings and green houses cannot be taken into account, when considering the calculation of the floor area increase, there should be some consideration taken to the overall environmental improvement of the site. The removal of these buildings from the site, due to the scheme, would vastly improve the appearance of the site and of the surrounding area, and would result in a single condensed building, compared to having a number of buildings scattered within the site.
For these reasons, whilst the proposal would be over the generally permitted rule, given the policy does allow replacements to be larger than when they would be replacing a dwelling of poor form with a more traditional property it is consider the proposal would be acceptable for this site. It is also judged that the proposal would result in an overall environmental improvement to the site and surrounding area.
The Forestry Division have commented to the application, as the proposal includes the formation of an additional driveway which will enable two cars to pass. This proposal would result in two trees being removed (semi-mature) which the Forestry Division have no objection to. They have indicated that to protect the remaining trees along the new driveway, they should be protected with a tree root protection system (CellWeb) which protects the roots from soil compaction and asphyxiation. This can be added as a condition to any given approval. The applicant has no objection to the use of this system.
There are a further four semi-mature trees, located within the site, directly behind the existing x store/stables which would also be removed. Again, given they are located within the site and semimature, there are no concerns and no objections from the Forestry Division. With the exception of these six trees within the site, all other trees are to be retained.
The proposed site plan would seem to indicate an increase of the residential curtilage into the land which is currently disused and overgrown. Clarification of this is being sought and will be reported on at the Committee meeting.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown