Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00903/B Applicant: Mr Cleaveland Perry Proposal: Erection of a dwelling with detached garage and extension to residential curtilage Site Address: Land Opposite Ballachree Cottage Churchtown Ramsey Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss Abigail Morgan Photo Taken: 08.09.2015 Site Visit: 08.09.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the Land opposite Ballachree Cottage, Churchtown, Lezayre. The existing site is situated to the South of Lezayre Road off an existing track which is accessed from the B17. The application site is a parcel of land which was originally the garden for Ballachree Cottage, the land has open views of the fields to the South and East sides of the site, to the West and North there are existing dwellings. The neighbouring properties in the surrounding area are of various styles and designs, there is no dominant style.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for full planning permission for the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling, detached double garage (8.1m x 6.6m x 5.7m to pitch) and extension of residential curtilage. The dwelling itself takes the form of a more traditional style building with a slate or similar pitched roof, part stone and part rendered walls. - 2.2 The main differences on this application to the preceding applications are that access is being taken directly off the access lane to the west rather than the north, this has had the consequence that the proposed dwelling is pushed further southwards in the site and as result this application now includes an extension to the residential curtilage by an additional 15 metres.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered specifically material in the assessment of the current application:
08/01001/A - Approval in principle to erect a dwelling - APPROVED on appeal 10/00133/REM - Reserved matters application for dwelling - APPROVED on appeal 15/00205/B - Variation of condition 1 of 10/00133/REM to extend period of permission PENDING
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Woodland" and an "Area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance." It is appropriate to consider Environment Policies 1 and 2, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007). - 4.2 Housing Policy 14 "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area, which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of a high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. - 4.3 Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact." - 4.4 Environment Policy 2 "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:
4.5 Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an 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". - 4.6 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highways Division do not oppose subject to a condition, ensuring 'nothing must be planted or erected within the existing sightlines which may exceed 1.05 metres in height'. - 5.2 Lezayre Commissioners have made the following comments "Approved unanimously. 15.09.15
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:
Principle of development
6.2 The approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling was permitted under PA 08/01001/A, within the case officer's report it was accepted that Ballachree Cottage had had a number of extensions in the past, which had not benefitted the appearance of the property and did not have any particular architectural merit. It was therefore considered that the demolition of the dwelling and the principle of a replacement dwelling would be acceptable. This application has been considered on the basis that it is a replacement dwelling, despite the existing dwelling having been demolished some time ago now. - 6.3 Under application 10/00133/REM consent was given on appeal for a more modern designed dwelling and the current application 15/00205/B is seeking to vary condition 1 to give more time to implement the more modern consented design. - 6.4 This application also seeks to extend the residential curtilage to ensure that the proposed dwelling has adequate residential curtilage in order to accommodate the on plot access/drive way. The approved area for the house under 10/00133 was apx 25m x 33.5m and the proposed is apx 29m x 44m. It is considered that the principle of a replacement dwelling has already been established here, the remainder of the report considers siting, floor area and design of this proposal in the context of the extant planning permission. In respect of the extension to the curtilage, the current scheme has a garden length of 12m, this proposal has a garden length of 15m albeit in a different orientiation. It has been expanded to accommodate a separate access from the west rather than the north and allow sufficent amenity space for the dwelling.
6.5 There are no polices which make direct reference to the principle of extensions to existing domestic curtilages, although General Policy 3 provides for a presumption against the change of use of land to residential from agriculture in the countryside. Here it is considered that the extension of the residential curtilage would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the local residents or the surrounding countryside nor would the extension to the residential curtilage undermine the openness and rural character of the area. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable from the point of view of visual impact.
Siting
6.6 Details of the proposed siting were submitted at the approval in principle stage, and assessed against Housing Policy 14 which indicates that a replacement dwelling must not be substantially different to the existing dwelling in terms of its siting and size unless this would result in an environmental improvement. - 6.7 It was concluded in the Inspector's report that the siting of the replacement dwelling would be acceptable, Paragraph 16 of the Appeal Report states:
"Plainly it would be foolish to build a replacement dwelling on the same "footprint" as the existing building, if the trees are to remain. I consider it reasonable to depart from the general requirement of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan in this respect. Otherwise it seems to me that the proposed development complies with the current planning policies. I can see nothing in Circular 1/88 that would preclude the replacement of an existing rural dwelling."
6.8 It is considered the change to the siting would result in an overall environmental improvement, as it would move the proposed dwelling further away from the existing dwellings on the north of the access lane which is set at a lower level of about 3ms. Floor Area - 6.9 Housing Policy 14 indicates that the replacement dwelling "should have a floor area, which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building…" The floor area of the original building measures approximately 261m², the previously approved dwelling would have a floor area of approximately 363m²; which was increase of approximately 39%, the proposed is approximately 260 m²; which is about the same as the original. The proposed increase in floor area is considered to be acceptable given that the original building is of poor form and appearance. Design - 6.10 In terms of the design, replacement dwellings in the countryside should generally be in accordance with Policies 2 - 7 of Planning Circular 3/91. This circular deals with the traditional character of building within the countryside, the essence of which is to carry on traditional Manx design and construction methods. - 6.11 Housing Policy 14 goes on to mention "…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." - 6.12 It has already been established through the previous planning applications and appeals that the original dwelling fell into this category. This newly proposed scheme is about the same size in terms of floor area and is considered to be more traditional in style and design. Despite the siting of this proposal being somewhat different to the original dwelling it is considered that this proposal satisfies the requirements of Housing Policy 14.
6.13 The policy then goes on to require re-use of materials, which is not possible in this case, due to earlier planning decisions having been complied with. It then states 'in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building'. Although the proposal includes the use of more traditional materials it is clear from the evidence at the 2008 inquiry that the original building was of no particular merit, therefore this part of the policy is considered unimportant in this instance. Visual Impact - 6.14 The site is within an "Area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" and also an area of "Woodland" identified on the 1982 Development Plan. To the western and southern sides of the site there are large areas of dense woodland, to the eastern side there are a number of fields which are disrupted by smaller clusters of mature trees, the site and fields to the east gently slope away to the north. - 6.15 The Inspector in the 2010 Inquiry found no conflict with Environment Policy 2 which requires that the character of the landscape is protected and considered that due to the sites location at the foot of a slope there was no adverse visual impact. Despite some changes to the siting of the proposal since its consideration in 2010 this is a position that I concur with. - 6.16 The site itself is not visible from the B17, screened from the highway by a number of neighbouring properties, and numerous mature trees, the proposal also includes screening of the site including a natural border of indigenous trees and shrubs. The site as viewed from south and east (although from fields which are within the applicant's ownership) is viewed against the back drop of the woods. Neighbours' living conditions - 6.17 The only neighbours likely to be affected by the proposal are those to the north, Tranent. Athough there is a difference in ground levels of about 3ms the northern elevation of the proposal only has windows are ground floor, with all dormers in the rear elevation away from the neighbouring properties, the dwellings are sufficiently spaced by a distance of 33m front to rear to not be affected. It is not considered that the proposal would detrimentally impact upon the privacy of the garden to Tranent. Highways - 6.18 DOI Highways have commented that they do not oppose subject to a condition ensuring that 'nothing must be planted or erected within the existing sightlines which may excceed 1.05 metres in height'. In this instance the condition is considered not necessary and unenforceable as the main sightline to the right is outside the control of the applicant and that the sightline to the left is to an access lane that currently goes nowhere and is also outside the control of the applicant. In addition the access lane is only in use by a very small number of properties, which due to its width would in all likelihood be negotiated at low speeds. Although this application is slightly different to the previously approved scheme, as it took its access from the existing access road, there was no similar condition imposed. On this basis this condition has not been included. - 6.19 As a result, it is concluded that whilst the proposal does not fall within the exceptions set out in General Policy 3, it does accord with principles set out in Policy H14.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 For these reasons the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries are part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.09.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.
This approval relates to Drawing Nos 01, 02, TS-01, 100 and 101 all date stamped as received on 10 August 2015.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 18.09.2015 Determining officer
Signed :………M GALLAGHER.. Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown