Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00909/B
Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00909/B Applicant : Mr David Corrin Proposal : Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling with associated parking Site Address : Kilravock Shore Road Bay Ny Carrickey Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LY
Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of Kilravock, Shore Road, Bay Ny Carrickey, Port St. Mary which is located along Gansey Promenade on a corner plot with Shore Road to the south and Mount Gawne Road to the north of the site.
1.2 The existing dwelling Kilravock, is a single storey pitched roofed property which has a painted render finish with slate roof. To the rear northwest corner of the site is a single storey flat roofed garage and immediately adjacent to the rear elevation is an area of hardstanding and a small lawned area. Vehicle access to the garage and rear hardstanding area is via an existing narrow gated entrance accessed from Mount Gawne Road.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
2.2 "Demolish existing dwelling and garage and erection of a building to provide two residential apartments with associated parking" -13/00796/B - REFUSED AT APPEAL on the following grounds:
"R 1. The application site is not zoned for development and the creation of an additional dwelling is therefore contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the South, which seek to restrict such development to appropriate towns and villages. Approval of the planning application would result in unwarranted residential development in the countryside.
R 2. The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development within a prominent position, if approved, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area by reason of its, scale, massing and design.
R 3. The proposal requires the removal of approximate 10 metres in length of existing Manx Stone walling and require the removal of the existing landscaping, all along the northern boundary to provide the required parking spaces and required visibility splays. It is considered this would
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00909/B
Page 2 of 8
result in a loss of a large part of the rear boundary treatment and consequently would appear as an open car park detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene.
R 4. The proposal, if approved, would be likely to generate an increase number of vehicular movements and result in four separate accesses all of which would jeopardise the safety of highway users particularly along the site's access with Mount Gawne Road, given the applicants does not own or have control of the neighbouring land to provide the required visibility splays in a north- westerly direction."
2.3 Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of two replacement semi-detached dwellings with associated parking - 12/01684/B - REFUSED on the following grounds:
"R 1. The proposed dwellings due to their height, massing and design in a prominent position within the street scene would cause a visually intrusive and out of keeping feature in this location and would cause a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the street scene, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. The proposed development due to its siting and size would not provide an acceptable level of usable external amenity space (western dwelling) and as such would represent an over- development of the site, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 The application seeks approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and erection of a two storey dwelling with associated parking.
3.2 The proposed two storey building would have a total width of 14.2 metres, a depth of 10.1 metres and a ridge height of 8.2 metres. The proposal would accommodate a four bedroom detached property.
2.3 For reference the last application (13/00796/B) which was refused, proposed the erection of a building to provide two residential apartments. The proposed a two storey building would have had a total width of 14.6 metres, a depth of 8.7 metres and a ridge height of 8.2 metres.
3.4 Accordingly, compared to the previous scheme (13/00796/B) the dwelling under consideration now, its width has been reduced by 0.4 metres, but its overall depth increased by 1.4 metres. Its ridge height height has remained the same.
3.5 The existing dwelling has an overall width of 10.8 metres, a depth of 7 metres and a ridge height of 4.3 metres.
3.6 Externally, the dwelling would have two off road parking spaces located to the rear of the building, all of which would access directly onto Mount Gawne Road. This would remain as existing.
4.0 PLANNING STATUS 4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development under the adopted (1st March 2013) Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor is the property Registered.
4.2 Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:-
4.3 Strategic Policy 5 states: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the island. In appropriate
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00909/B
Page 3 of 8
cases the department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
4.4 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) 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); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
4.5 Environment Policy 1 states: "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 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(1), 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 Rushen Commissioners make the following comments (received on 21.08.2015): "It is noted that the access will be via the existing access on Mount Gawne Road and therefore no new problems. The building line has been brought forward for part of this house, which may impede sightlines on this very tight and blind corner.
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Services does not oppose this application and make the following comments: "Applicant will improve the current visibility of the existing access be reducing the height of the walls.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00909/B
Page 4 of 8
Nothing must be planted or erected within the visibility splay which may exceed 1.05 metres in height."
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered there are five potential issues which require consideration. These are: o the principle of development o the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene & countryside; o the potential impacts upon the residential amenities of surrounding residents; o the amenity levels of future occupants of the proposed dwelling; and o the parking provision/highway issues
THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.2 The starting point is to identify the land use designation of the site. In this case the site is on land not designated for development. Therefore any development should comply with General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. In this case there is provision for the replacement of an existing dwelling. Accordingly, this proposal in principle accords with General Policy 3.
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE & COUNTRYSIDE 6.3 Due to the designation of the site, and the nature of the proposal, Housing Policy 14 is the most relevant policy to consider. When considering applications for a replacement dwelling, firstly 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. Furthermore, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91.
6.4 Whilst the majority of the building proposed would be on the same footprint as the existing property, the new building does have a larger footprint, in terms of size the existing dwelling has a floor area of approximately 76 square metres. Whereas the proposed build would have a floor area of 194.6 square metres equating to a 144% increase in floor area over the existing property.
6.5 For reference the last application refused (13/00796/B) proposed a building accommodating two apartments, which had a floor area of 219.6 square metres, equating to a 188% increase in floor area over the existing property.
6.6 In relation to the current application, regard is made to the fact that the proposed 2-storey building would have a substantially greater mass and bulk than the existing single storey property, it is considered the proposal would be substantially different to the existing in terms of size. In light of these findings, the proposal could only be regarded as meeting the provisions of Housing Policy 14 if it would result in 'an overall environmental improvement', or if it is acceptable under the terms of the final paragraph of the policy which indicates that consideration may be given to larger dwellings, replacing 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.
6.7 The proposal would replace an existing single storey property which in terms of proportion and form is of a traditional appearance. No comments or justification why they believe the existing dwelling is of 'poor form' and/or why the proposal would comply with Housing Policy 14. In fact no justification at all has been provided with the new application. This is perhaps somewhat surprising given the comments of the previous Planning Inspector (13/00796/B) who made the following comments:
"...Even of the proposed building did comprise a single dwelling, the increase in floor area would substantially exceed the 50% increase which forms a baseline within Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan, and the provisions within that policy which allow for consideration to be given to larger replacement dwellings would not be met, particularly as there is no substantial evidence to
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00909/B
Page 5 of 8
establish that the existing bungalow is of poor form, and the greater mass and bulk of the proposed building would not result in less visual impact."
6.8 Again the Department would argue that the existing dwelling is not of poor form. Whilst the dwelling is perhaps in need of some repair/refurbishment/ maintenance, and its appearance is not a wholly traditional design (Manx Farmhouse), the dwelling is not considered to be an 'unsightly bungalow,' but adds to the character and variation to the area and street scene. Notwithstanding this, even if it was accepted the dwelling to be of 'poor form' it is not considered the proposed two storey building is of a more traditional character. Whilst the proposal would have pitched roofs with gable ends and painted render walls/stone finishes, the proposed dwelling would not be considered to be noticeably more traditional in appearance. Amongst other features, its concrete roof titles, its varied and irregular pattern of fenestration including picture uPVC casement windows the majority horizontal in proportion, full height patio doors (Juliet balcony at first floor) and its single chimney being out of proportion/size that one would expect to a traditional property, would not reflect traditional design elements of houses in the Manx countryside.
6.9 In terms of the two exception reasons for allowing a larger dwelling over the 50% threshold, it is not considered the proposal would comply with the second exception i.e. 'by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact'; given the proposal would replace what is a very modest single storey building, with a dwelling of greater size, mass and height on a very prominent corner position in the street scene. As a result it is not considered the proposed building would have a less visual impact than the existing building on the site.
6.10 On this matter of appearance within the street scene/countryside the Planning Inspector commented:
"On the second issue, the existing bungalow is a structure of modest height and floor plan which fits comfortably into the street scene. Its limited dimensions, mass and bulk serve to compensate for its close proximity to the boundaries of its plot with the adjacent roads, particularly in the case of Mount Gawne Road from which it is set back by only some 3m or so at its closest. The proposed building would be set back by about 1 metre from the Shore Road frontage than the bungalow, but the proposal would take built development significantly closer to the apex of the site at the junction, and it would also take it closer to Mount Gawne Road frontage. The proposed building would at its closest come within only some 1.75m or so of that frontage. Taking into account also that the end of the building facing the road comprise blank end elevation of varying 2-story height, that the ridge height of the main bod of the building would be approaching 4m higher than the ridge of the bungalow; and the consequent visual effect would be that of a building of much increased mass and bulk; the completed development would be particularly prominent when travelling south westwards along Shore Road and north westwards along Mount Gawne Road. Due to its height and proximity to the roads it would crowd this corner site and be out of keeping with the more spacious character of much of the other developments nearby. It is my conclusion that the proposed building would be an alien and intrusive feature in its immediate street scene and in the area in general."
6.11 The majority of the comments made by the Planning Inspector can be replicated to the current application. In fact the main two story frontage of the building is in fact closer to Shore Road than the original application; as well being located more towards the corner of the site i.e. closer to the junction with Shore Road and Mount Gawne Road. There is an improvement with the removal of a two storey section which originally projected from the gable end which faced towards the junction, this not being a single storey sun room. However, overall it is considered the proposal fails to overcome the concerns of the previous application significantly, and it is considered a complete different design approach is required for this site.
6.12 Overall, the application is considered to fail both aspect of the second exception of Housing Policy 14, first the existing dwelling is not considered to be of poor form and second the proposal would not provide a replacement of more traditional character. For these reasons the proposal is
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00909/B
Page 6 of 8
considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
IMPACTS UPON THE RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS 6.13 Generally, when considering potential impact upon neighbouring amenity there are three main issues, loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking, resulting in loss of privacy.
6.14 There are three parties which are most affect by the development, Avondale immediate to the west of the site, Thie My Chree to the north of the site and Reayrt Ny Marrey to the north east of the site.
6.15 Regard Avondale, the proposed scheme would retain a 4.5 metre gap between the two gable ends of the properties, matching that which currently exists. However, the amount of built development facing Avondale would increase given the depth and height of the proposed property, although the dwelling has moved approximately 1.3 metres away from the existing gable which faces Avondale. There are four gable end windows (serving bathrooms/hallways) which face towards the application site which would be affected by the proposed development (loss of light/outlook). However, from studying the approved plans for Avondale, none of the four windows serve habitable rooms (lounge/kitchen) and therefore the impact is considered acceptable, even though there will be a loss of light/outlook. There are no wider impacts considered upon the amenity and the occupants of Avondale.
6.16 In relation to the potential impact upon the amenity and occupants of Thie My Chree and Reayrt Ny Marrey, it is consider the potential of overlooking by the development, that it would have an overbearing impact upon the outlook of these properties, is perhaps the main issue to address. In terms of distance, the property Thie My Chree would be approximately 40 metres and Reayrt Ny Marrey 30 metres away from the rear elevations of the dwellings. In terms of overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy, the Department general guide is that directly facing windows should retain a 20 metre gap. In this case the rear windows of the proposed apartments easily exceed this distance. Therefore whilst overlooking would increase towards these properties, given that the proposal is two storey rather than single storey, it is not considered the amount of overlooking is significant enough to warrant a refusal.
6.17 In terms of the proposal having the potential impact upon the outlook of the neighbouring properties (Thie My Chree and Reayrt Ny Marrey), again because of the increase of the depth and height, the proposed property will have a greater impact upon the outlook of the neighbouring properties. However, again due to the distances it is not considered this impact would be significant to warrant a refusal. It is worth noting that there is no right to a view by neighbouring residents and therefore the potential loss of views is not a material planning consideration.
THE AMENITY LEVELS OF FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING 6.18 With any residential development it is important to ensure that any unit would have a satisfactory internal and external amenity space, including appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
6.19 As identified previously, to provide the required two off road parking spaces for the dwelling, this requires the entirety of area to the northwest of the property (which faces onto Mount Gawne Road) being hardstanding. Accordingly, there is no garden associated with this property in this part of the site. This is similar to the existing property. Currently, there is an area of garden area which is located to the corner of the site adjacent to the junction with Mount Gawne Road and Shore Road. This is triangular in shape. This new proposal with the introduction of the gable end sun room and the moving of the dwelling towards this corner of the site, results in the reduction in the only usable garden area. This was raised as a concern with application 12/01684/B which proposed two dwellings on the site and was a reason for refusal:
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00909/B
Page 7 of 8
"R 2. The proposed development due to its siting and size would not provide an acceptable level of usable external amenity space (western dwelling) and as such would represent an over- development of the site, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
6.20 It should be noted that application 12/01684/B did in fact retained the existing garden and one of the dwellings would have had access to it. However the second dwelling had very little.
6.21 The Strategic Plan does not specify an amount of external amenity space (garden) which is required to be provided for a new dwelling. However, in relation to dwellings, generally the Department considers each application on its own merit and what is a reasonable amount of space for that particularly dwelling. In relation to this four bedroom dwelling, it is considered the garden associated with the dwelling would not be of an acceptable size, and therefore it is not considered to be a suitable level of usable external amenity space. Therefore, it is considered the application represents an overdevelopment of the site.
6.22 Internally, the open plan dining/kitchen area and separate lounge and sun room would all have views out to sea. Overall, it is considered the internal accommodation and outlooks would be clear and pleasant and from this respect would be an acceptable form of development providing acceptable levels of internal amenity space for future occupants.
PARKING PROVISION/HIGHWAY ISSUES 6.23 The Highway Services has no objection to the proposal. The dwelling would utilise the existing entrance, but the boundary wall would be reduce to 0.8 metres in height along Mount Gawne Road which would improve visibility over the existing situation.
6.24 In terms of parking provision, two off road parking spaces would be provided. Consequently, the application does provide the requirement as identified within the Strategic Plan (Appendix 7) per dwelling.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For these reasons set out in this report, it is considered the proposal would contravene the relevant policies as indicated within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 as modified by the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
"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
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/00909/B
Page 8 of 8
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.09.2015
R 1. The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development within a prominent position, if approved, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area by reason of its, scale, massing and design.
R 2. The proposed development due to its siting and size would not provide an acceptable level of usable external amenity space for a four bedroom dwelling and as such would represent an over- development of the site.
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 : REFUSED Committee Meeting Date:...05.10.2015
Signed : C Balmer Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
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 endorsed the Officer Recommendation.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal