Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01116/B Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 20/01116/B Applicant : Mr David & Mrs Hannah Le Couteur Thomas Proposal Erection of a replacement detached dwelling with associated access, increase of residential curtilage within adjacent field to provide a parking area and erection of a barn Site Address Fern Villa & Part Fields 410213 & 410216 Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BW
Case Officer :
Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
30.10.2020 Site Visit :
30.10.2020 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 31.12.2020
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (Planning and Building Control Directorate) which demonstrates the new dwelling has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 92 (or similar rating system) which can been achieved. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: a reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling
C 3. The development shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures for wildlife as detailed in Section 8 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) produced by the Island Biodiversity Consultants dated August 2020. The identified measures shall be adhered to and implemented in full and maintained thereafter.
Reason: to ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the ecology of the area including species protected under the Wildlife Act 1990, and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01116/B Page 2 of 16
C 4. The accesses, splays, parking and turning facilities must be provided in accordance with drawings P02A and P09 prior to the occupation of the dwelling as hereby approved and such must be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: in accordance with highway safety.
C 5. No development may commence until such times as there has been approved in writing by the Department a tree protection plan which identifies the position of all existing trees together with a protection plan including construction exclusion zones, for the carrying out of the development works. The development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: to avoid the unwarranted and unapproved loss of trees as part of this development.
C 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
C 7. The outbuilding hereby approved may be used only for agricultural purposes and/or the storage of items associated with the maintenance of the site which are the areas edged red and blue on the plan reference P06A received on 23rd November, 2020.
Reason: the building is justified on grounds of ecological and agricultural maintenance as set out in the application.
N 1. The applicants' attention is drawn to the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 in particular in respect of the protection of nesting and breeding birds which may be affected by the timing of the works including site clearance.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Whilst the replacement dwelling is not a traditional design, it is considered that the proposal will have an acceptable environmental impact, taking into account both the physical and visual impact of the property on the environment as well as the impact through energy efficient and environmentally friendly materials and as such the proposal, including the proposed barn which will assist the implementation of the management of the remainder of the site in an ecologically friendly manner, is considered to accord with Environment Policies 1, 4, 7, 10, 13 and 15, Housing Policies 12 and 14 and General Policy 2.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings P02A, P06A ans P09 all received on 23rd November, 2020; P07 and P08 both received on 28th October, 2020; P00A received on 8th October, 2020 and P01, P03, and P05, the Protected Species Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Flood Risk Assessment and Manx Bat Group Bat Assessment all received on 21st September, 2020. __
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:
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01116/B Page 3 of 16
Manx National Heritage
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy
__
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSING POLICIES 12 AND/OR 14
PRE-AMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on 04.02.21 and deferred for a site visit. At that meeting the Case Officer summarised an additional representation received immediately prior to the meeting from the IOM Natural History & Antiquarian Society, regarding the wooded nature of the site together with the non-traditional design of the proposal and its detrimental visual impact on the area, which they feel to be in breach of EP1. The letter also raises concerns regarding the proposed outbuilding. The remainder of this report has not been changed.
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the existing residential curtilage of Fern Villa, a detached residential property which sits on the western side of the A36 to the south of its junction with the Ronague Road (B44). The current residential curtilage has a frontage to the main road of 36m and is between 21m and 27m deep towards the west. To the rear is a larger open agricultural field, part of which is included in the application as being within the applicant's ownership and part of which is within the application site.
1.2 Fern Villa is a traditional Manx cottage which faces south and which has a largely traditional core, albeit that its front elevation window apertures have been lengthened and the substantial cills removed, a flat roofed annex added on the roadside elevation which continues around to the rear. The property also has a two storey pitched roofed annex on the western side of the house. The garden associated with the existing property extends to the south of the frontage and has self seeded trees on the roadside boundary and a smaller multi stemmed tree in the centre of the garden.
1.3 There is a gated access just to the south of the house in the stone wall which leads to a small area of hard surfacing which could accommodate one vehicle.
1.4 The western boundary of the site is bounded by trees and shrubs.
1.5 There is a lane to the south of the garden which leads up to the fields to the west of the house.
1.6 The site rises gently from east to west.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01116/B Page 4 of 16
1.7 The site lies within an area where the speed of traffic is derestricted although there are signs at the north and south of the settlement recommending the maximum speed not exceeding 50 mph.
1.8 The area is characterised by a mix of building types - some traditional, some traditional with more modern/unsympathetic extensions and some completely modern.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the extension of the residential curtilage in an irregular shape together with the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new house. The existing house sits right alongside the road in the northern corner of the residential curtilage.
2.2 The existing house is mostly two storey and has a floor area measured externally, of 182 sq m.
2.3 The proposed dwelling will sit on top of the footprint of the existing but extending it to the south by 6m and moving the rear up to 2.6m further south. The new house will also sit slightly further (4.6m) from the road with the roadside wall continued in place of the existing flat roofed and pitched roof annexes in this part of the site. The existing field gate is also to be built up. The proposed dwelling has a floor area, measured externally, of around 237 sq m, an increase of 30 per cent of the existing floor area and an average increase in height of 1.8m.
2.4 The curtilage is to be extended up to 16m to the west to accommodate an area of hard surfacing for car parking. This will sit next to a new outbuilding, referred to as a barn.
2.5 The dwelling will have a main footprint of 6m by 13.5m with annexes which project 3.6m and 1.7m to the south. There is a general eaves height of 5m although the building steps down towards the road and a ridge level of 7.5 and 8.4m depending upon the slope of the ground.
2.6 The dwelling will be finished in a standing seam sheeted roof with larch cladding and painted timber windows and doors.
2.7 The outbuilding will have a floor area of 12.3m by 7.5m and an eaves level of 2m and 3.1m and a ridge height of 4.2m. The building will be finished in metal cladding of an unspecified colour with ten photovoltaic panels on the south facing roof plane.
2.8 The application includes supporting information in the form of a Design Statement, a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and a Flood Risk Assessment.
Design Statement 2.9 Whilst not referring to any planning policies, the Design Statement explains that the existing property has been altered and extended and "now lacks any traditional features that would be typically associated with a traditional Manx cottage". They describe the roof as being largely intact although the flat roofs are showing signs of disrepair and the building has no foundations or central heating and being next to the field drain has made for a damp building. In 2018 the property was furnished and with personal effects throughout the property.
2.10 They submit a further design statement in December, 2020 which refers to the Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14, suggesting that the existing house has not lost its habitable status by abandonment as whilst the building is in poor repair this relates primarily to the external finishes and structurally it is sound. Whilst it could be repaired it does not make economic sense or would provide the architectural solution that the applicant is looking for. The site has not been used for any other purpose than residential and is understood to have been occupied within the last ten years..
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01116/B Page 5 of 16
2.11 In respect of its character and appearance, the property has, they suggest, undergone numerous changes and no longer appears as a traditional Manx cottage and in their opinion has no architectural or historic interest. To return the dwelling to its original appearance would involve the removal of the flat roofed extensions and the two storey addition at the side and would not provide the amount of information that the applicant requires.
2.12 The replacement dwelling is less than 50% larger than the existing. they acknowledge that the replacement does not follow the guidance in Planning Circular 3/91 Policies 2-7 but HP14 provides for modern, innovative design of high quality where there is no adverse visual impact. They explain that the proposed house is slightly taller than the existing to allow for increased ceiling heights on the first floor and to raise the new house out of the ground to allow for any issues with rising damp which is particularly important for a timber framed house and this will also allow for level access from the car park area in the field behind. The wider proportions of the proposed house reflect modern day living requirements for the applicant and the roof pitch is dictated by the off site construction method: any steeper and the panels become dangerously slippery to walk on once the finish has been applied. The overhang which is not a vernacular feature, helps protect the timber cladding from the rain. The house also includes a number of outdoor covered spaces which increase its apparent size but contributes to its functionality. They consider that the overall proposal has no adverse visual impact and the timber cladding complement the rural, treed setting including the stone wall which is to be retained.
2.13 The timber cladding is a renewable material sourced in the Scottish Highlands and the metal roof is recyclable. The timber will weather to a silvery grey and will complement the roof and stone. The larger windows will allow for greater solar gain and daylight with smaller windows in the northern elevation. They refer to two other applications, unfortunately not giving the addresses but these are added for convenience - 20/00651/B at Prospect Villa in Andreas and 20/00757/B at Knock-e-Loughan Cottage in Braddan which they feel are similar in some aspects to what is proposed either of which accord with Planning Circular 3/91.
2.14 They explain that the proposed house is in the same area as the existing but moved further away from the field drain and both have a similar footprint not including the external decked areas. It is proposed to upgrade the existing field access to the south of the existing garden leading to a new area of hard standing. They describe the existing as having a driveway which is only large enough for one vehicle accessed directly from the highway with no space for vehicles to turn. The visibility for the new means of access - 56m to the north and 49m to the south - will be improved by carefully removing the stone walls on each side and a sycamore on the corner of the garden will also be removed. The garden wall will be lowered to no higher than 1m above the adjacent carriageway up to the existing opening and within the field the wall will be lowered to no higher than 1m for 15m. The existing driveway will then be blocked up using stone from the former house with quartz top to match the existing garden wall. A beech or similar hedge will be introduced where the current garage sits to replace the ivy growing over the old garage.
2.15 They describe the proposed house as a contemporary response to global climate concerns, local micro climate, site and functional user requirements and is considered appropriate in both its time and place. They will undertake the demolition of the existing building carefully, removing any materials which can be re-used or re-purposed with the majority of the stone to be cleaned and stored either in the garden for facing the foundation level or to repair old walls or new sod hedges to mitigate habitat loss. They state that it is widely recognised that the only plausible way to deliver net zero carbon housing is through the use of timber-based systems and in this case Scottish grown timber will be used and environmentally friendly materials. The barn has been designed to accommodate 10 PV panels. They see no reason why this house will not achieve an A rating in the SAP calculations (which is equivalent to 92 and above).
2.16 Whilst the materials will be sourced from off Island, on Island contractors will be used for the foundations and associated groundworks with the internal fit out. Large structural floor, wall
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01116/B Page 6 of 16
and roof sub-assembly panels are manufactured off site with insulation, cladding, doors, roof coverings and solar panels all in place and the average house takes 5 days to achieve a wind and water-tight stage. These methods are not, they suggest, available on Island.
2.17 The applicant has discussed the proposal with the Arboricultural Office of DEFA and tree protection areas are now shown on drawing 02A and the proposed house has been slightly re- orientated to help protect an existing sycamore to the south west. All new drainage will be in the same location as that serving the existing house. An arboricultural method statement is to be provided and tree protection plan is to be provided including the provision of the electrical supply.
PEA and bat survey 2.18 The Manx Bat Group undertook a bat assessment including an internal inspection in August 2020 and noted two inactive swallow nests but no evidence through droppings were found within the building although they consider it could be used as an occasional roost for bats and recommend that if bats are found during demolition work must stop immediately and either DEFA or MBG must be contacted for advice on how to proceed. If bats are in immediate danger they should be picked up using thick gloves and placed in a box. They recommend the installation of bat boxes either within the buildings or attached to existing trees and MBG would advise on where to install these.
2.19 A preliminary Ecological Appraisal was undertaken in August 2020 and identified the need for surveys which were undertaken and which revealed that the grassland is not ASSI but its loss (300sq m) will require compensatory actions in the form of sensitive management of the remaining semi natural grassland. They suggest that the use of some turf on roof and bank tops will reduce the loss by 23 sq m. They refer to the translocation of 9 heath spotted orchid spikes where the barn is proposed. They refer to there being no protected lizards having been seen but the sod bank to the south of the entrance is lizard suitable and the managed demolition of the wall is included in the precautionary method of working as well as provisions for nesting jackdaws. Three invasive, non native species of flora are present on the lane and they provide advice on how to deal with that. Whilst the watercourse is close to the back of the site no significant frog habitat was found.
2.20 The measures taken to minimise impact on ecology, the barn has been located to reduce the amount of track required and the majority of compensation will take the form of restoration of the remaining 5,300 sq m of grassland through sensitive grazing and hay meadow management and advice is provided on how to achieve this. Compensation is also recommended in the form of the installation of a jackdaw box and suitable swallow box on the buildings.
2.21 In order to manage the field in which there are known to be orchids the applicants explain that they will have a flock of up to 7 sheep (Ouessant - a small Celtic breed) and will cut and remove any additional grass from the fields on an annual basis and will purchase a small tractor, cutter and mini baler which will be stored in the barn with the hay bales.
Flood risk A FRS has been carried out and describes the existing house being separated from the watercourse which is between 0.5m and 1.5m in width, to the north by a short concrete wall. They describe the new house as being 2.4m further from the watercourse than is the existing and the wall will be repaired and replaced where necessary and its height increased to 1.5m faced in stone and capped with quartz. In their two and a half years of ownership they are not aware of the watercourse water level exceeding that of the wall. They acknowledge that there is a risk of the culvert under the road becoming blocked and water backing up although they deem this unlikely as there is no barrier between the stream and the highway which would stop water unable to use the culvert from flowing directly onto the highway and down the hill and the current wall is higher at all points than the highway above the culvert. The increase in
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01116/B Page 7 of 16
height will avert the risk from the culvert becoming blocked and significant debris forms a blockage between the hedges on each side which would prevent water from escaping onto the highway and would flood onto the site.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as not for a particular purpose and within the Southern Uplands Landscape Character Appraisal area where the following guidance is provided within the Area Plan Written Statement:
Southern Uplands (A2) The overall strategy for the area is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the open and exposed character of the moorland, its uninterrupted skyline and panoramic views, its sense of tranquillity and remoteness and its wealth of cultural heritage features. Key Views Open and expansive panoramic views out to sea and over the southern portion of the Island. Distant views in some areas enclosed by the surrounding peaks.
3.17i. A number of Landscape Character Types/Areas are identified in Rushen stretching from the Southern Uplands to the Meayll Peninsula. Care is needed in order to protect this array of different landscapes which include open and windswept coastal stretches and inland moorland, high and dramatic sea cliffs and pastoral and arable fields.
3.2 The site also lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance and of ecological interest. Given the land use designation, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
3.2.1 General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.2.2 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.
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01116/B Page 8 of 16
3.2.3 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: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.
3.2.4 Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.
(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (1) Wildlife Sites are defined in Appendix 1 41 (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.
(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward.
3.2.5 Environment Policy 7: Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
(a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species.
3.2.6 Environment Policy 15: Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/01116/B Page 9 of 16
Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape.
3.2.7 Housing Policy 12: 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(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use(2) or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon.
3.2.8 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 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.
3.3 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which 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 property.
3.4 The Climate Change Bill and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy 2016-2020 are both material considerations and require that developments should be taking account of the effect of development and buildings on climate change and reducing energy costs where possible and practicable and that emissions, particularly carbon emissions should be reduced.
3.5 Environment Policies 10 and 13 provide additional protection in respect of flooding.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There have been no previous applications submitted for this site. Development has been proposed in the area, including refusal of two schemes for the replacement of Upper Kirkill (11/00839/B and 11/00840/B at appeal) and replacement of Kirkle Farm under 13/00116/B.
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01116/B Page 10 of 16
4.2 The issue of replacing older, traditional properties in the Island's countryside has recently become more prominent due to the increasing need and desire for properties to be more thermally efficient - as expressed in the draft Climate Change bill and the changes to the Building Regulations. It could be argued that such changes are consistent with Housing Policy 14's requirement for new dwellings to have a positive environmental impact. These arguments, and the subjectivity of some of the assessments required to be made in HP14 are summarised well in a recent application, 19/01441/B which was approved by the Planning Committee, recommended for refusal by the inspector who considered the appeal brought by a neighbour, and the application was finally approved by the deputising Minister.
19/01441/B 4.3 The inspector objected to the increase of the floor area (80%) and states:
"43. In itself, I consider that the proposed replacement building is well designed; and I do not share the view that it would be unattractive. I consider the proposal to apply Passivhaus design standards to be laudable, although I am not persuaded that this requires so large an increase over the floor area of the dwelling to be replaced. However, I consider that the enlarged footprint and mass of the proposed replacement dwelling would detract from the open character of this sensitive Area of High Landscape Value, contrary to the objectives of Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan. For these reasons I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and that planning approval should be refused."
4.4 The deputising Minister however concluded that given that the proposed Passivhaus standard wholly accords with the Government's pursuit of reducing carbon emissions as set out in its Climate Change Strategy 2016-2020 and as such attached significant weight to the proposed dwelling's environmentally positive credentials. He also notes that the innovative yet modern design respects the sloping nature of the site and provides a palate of finishes incorporating both the re-use of Manx stone and slate as well as modern finishes resulting in a high quality building which will not have an adverse visual impact and he was strongly of the opinion that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape.
4.5 It is also relevant to consider two other recent decisions to replace traditional houses in the countryside with more modern dwellings, approved on the basis that the replacements would achieve higher levels of thermal efficiency - Hillside Cottage and Ardonan (19/01383/B and 19/00875/B) and both were subject to a condition along the following lines:
"Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planning) which demonstrates the new dwelling has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 90 (or similar rating system) can been achieved.
Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling."
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners are supportive of the application provided that the materials used allow water to soak through rather than run off onto the roads (23.10.20). They comment again on 19.11.20 stating that they support the application and again on 23.12.20 stating that they considered the application at their December meeting but make no further comment on it.
5.2.1 Highway Services note that whilst there is an upgrade to the access which is better than the existing, the access still needs to accord with requirements for a primary route noting also that the Ballakillowey Road is an A road. They comment on the narrowness of the approach from the dwelling and the visibility splays being substantially less than the 2.4m by 160m required here. They find the provisions for turning and parking acceptable and note that there
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/01116/B Page 11 of 16
is storage space available for bicycles and recommend the provision of an electric vehicle charging point (28.10.20).
5.2.2 Highway Services comment further following the submission of further information by the applicant, confirming that the additional information and revisions overcome the highway concerns. They no longer object and recommend conditions which ensure that the accesses, splays, parking and turning facilities are provided in accordance with drawings P02A and P09 and add that a Section 109A Agreement will be required (02.12.20).
5.3 Manx National Heritage note the provision of the PEA and recommend that a survey for nesting birds is undertaken prior to site clearance, that the recommendations in the PEA are undertaken and also that bat boxes are provided as part of the scheme (20.10.20).
5.4 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer have no objection to the application and recommend the following condition:
The development shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures for wildlife as detailed in Section 8 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) produced by the Island Biodiversity Consultants dated August 2020. The identified measures shall be adhered to and implemented in full and maintained thereafter" (03.11.20).
5.5 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer states that the trees on site are medium in size and of fair form. The trees are prominent in the landscape when viewed from the Sloc Road as there are few road side trees in the area. Although the trees have an 'exposed form' meaning the crown has been shaped from the wind, they are worthy of retention and likely be identified as Category C&B trees if a tree survey was conducted in line with recommendations made in BS5837:2012. There have been no trees identified for removal but there may be some conflict between the trees and the proposed building, underground utilities and site access. I recommend you request a tree protection plan to access the potential impact to the trees and potential future loss of trees due to root damage (11.11.20).
5.6 DEFA's Inland Fisheries Office request the submission of a form relating to Development Within 9m of a Watercourse to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the adjacent watercourse (20.11.20). They comment again on 02.12.20 stating as the proposed works are in close proximity to the watercourse, precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river. Suitable precautions have been considered by the applicant on the received form. DEFA Fisheries have no objection to the proposed development, provided that these precautions are followed and there is no disturbance or alterations to the watercourse.
The applicant is however advised to contact DEFA when works are due to commence, which can be done by email or telephone. In the meantime please contact Inland Fisheries on 685857 with any further queries.
5.7 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society comment that the house to be replaced is basically of traditional design and construction and in a prominent location and close to a road. They would have no objection to the removal of the flat roof and garage to provide access and to an appropriately designed extension. However, while the replacement may in itself be a good timber design, such a design and materials are not in keeping with the Manx Landscape, characterised as it is by stone buildings, sometimes rendered, and stone field boundaries. The Society believes that in such a prominent location, in a building which is open to the south-westerlies, the use of timber and partially covered balconies is inappropriate. The proposal is not in accordance with Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 Housing Policy 14 in terms of design and the reuse of traditional materials (02.11.20).
==== PAGE 12 ====
20/01116/B Page 12 of 16
5.8 They comment further on 07.12.20 that they are not against new building in the countryside but consider that the proposal is not an isolated building and it can be seen to relate to other buildings along the Sloc Road and they do not believe that the policy regarding reuse of traditional materials was simply put forward to encourage such materials to be used in curtilage walls or as rubble rather than being part of the new house itself. The proposal does not do this. They consider that the new building will be very visible when travelling south and the proposed outbuilding may appear out of scale and character with the landscape. They maintain their concern with respect to this application.
5.9 They comment on 04.02.21, suggesting that the site is far more wooded than the comparable locations in Scotland referred to by the applicant and the landscape areas referred to in 20/00757/B and 20/00651/B are also not comparable. They are aware of the decision to approved the replacement dwelling in Dalby but point out that traditional buildings and materials have intrinsic ecological standards and simple because they have been not properly maintained this is not a good reason to dispense with such materials or design standards contrary to the Strategic Plan and "Planning Circular 2/92" and until the latter is updated, the growing number of non-traditional properties with large areas of glazing permitted in the countryside will detract from the Island's landscape and heritage which is appreciated by residents and visitors alike. They are critical of the lack of assessment in the officer's report of the proposed outbuilding with the solar panels which sits to the west of the house which in their view will sit as a stand alone building with a large area of hardstanding on the open countryside and not surrounded by trees particularly ope to views from users of the public footpaths to the north and will be clearly in breach of Environment Policy 1 and none of the other proposals referred to have similar buildings proposed.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues here are whether the replacement of the existing dwelling is acceptable (Housing Policy 12), if so, whether what is proposed to replace it is acceptable (Housing Policy 14). It is also relevant to consider whether the development results in any adverse impact on highway safety (General Policy 2) or any adverse impact on ecology (General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 4 and 7). Finally, it is relevant to consider whether the development would result in any increased flood risk either to the site itself or to other land as a result of the development.
Principle of the replacement of the dwelling 6.2 Housing Policy 12 is clear that replacement dwellings will only be acceptable in the countryside where the existing house has retained its habitable status and where the house is not of sufficient interest to warrant its retention. In this case the house is apparently structurally sound and could be inhabited with some non structural work. Whilst the dwelling is traditional at its core, this character is detracted from by the garage, flat roofs, window alterations and to some extent, the side annex although in form and position it is not untraditional, however the window arrangement is. It is not considered to be a particularly good example of vernacular architecture. If it were retained, the opportunity for expansion is limited by its position towards the northern boundary of the site where extensions would normally be sited and forcing any new extensions to be on the sides: it would be unusual to have an extension on the front elevation and unlikely to be visually or architecturally successful.
6.3 The Isle of Man Government is clearly committed to addressing climate change (see 3.4 above) and the provision of housing has a key part to play in this. The Department has already seen a number of applications submitted for the replacement of existing traditional dwellings with ones of more environmentally friendly and more thermally efficient structures - see Planning History above.
6.4 These applications are just a few which were approved for the replacement of something of traditional character with a new property which is thermally more efficient than that which it
==== PAGE 13 ====
20/01116/B Page 13 of 16
replaced. Two of these are very modern properties and one is traditional. They demonstrate that it can be an argument that the provision of a thermally efficient and environmentally friendly dwelling can be considered as an acceptable replacement of an older, traditional cottage.
6.5 It is fully accepted that these principles should not be a blanket argument for the replacement of every last traditional cottage on the Island which would undermine the character and history of our landscape and there will be properties where their appearance and architecture and history presume in favour of their retention. However, this should be where these are good examples of traditional architecture and in the words of HP12 the existing property is "of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation". In this case, the property is a basic Manx traditional cottage but with some of its architectural detailing having been lost (the shape of the windows and the lack of cills) and having had a range of non traditional extensions with limited opportunities for their replacement in a form which would result in an architecturally pleasing property of modern standards of thermal insulation. It is considered that this is not a property of such interest as to warrant refusal of its demolition and replacement and thus the application would satisfy HP12.
Details of the proposed new dwelling 6.6 HP14 then provides advice on the type of dwelling which may replace an existing house. What is proposed is not substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, and the new building is generally sited on the footprint of the existing, and has a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building.
6.7 The design of the new building is not in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. However, HP14 goes on to explain that "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.
6.8 In this case the proposed dwelling is certainly modern and innovative in terms of its appearance, materials and design ethos and also particularly due to its intention to be as thermally efficient and environmentally friendly as possible. Given the context of the site which is relatively natural with existing trees and vegetation, and the mix of housing types in the area, it is considered that a timber clad building as is proposed would be an acceptable form of building here. It is not accepted that the only way in which thermally and energy efficient buildings can be built to try to address Climate Change is with timber framing and it would have been possible to build something which achieves A rated SAP calculations with conventional blockwork or other forms of construction. However, the form of construction is not a matter for the planning process and what is important here is the external finished which is not to be the traditional stone and/or render and slate. Given the natural setting of the building it is considered that the timber cladding would be acceptable here and that a non traditional design would not be out of keeping with the area in which it will sit.
6.9 This moves away from HP14 in that the materials of the existing property - the stone and slate are not to be re-used in the external finish of the new property although some of the stone will be used for walling and the construction of the property. In this case, given what is considered to be a high quality of design, it is not considered necessary to require the building to incorporate slate or stone from the site. The applicants have indicated that they are going to re-use or re-purpose the materials so they will not be lost.
Highway Safety 6.10 Highway Services has indicated that they are content with the proposal now that the plans have been amended and approval can relate to the conditions recommended by them.
==== PAGE 14 ====
20/01116/B Page 14 of 16
Impact on Ecology 6.11 The application includes a PEA and Bat Survey and the conclusions and recommendations of this, included in Sections 8 and 9 can be referred to in the conditions of any approval.
Flood Risk 6.12 The applicant has provided a FRA which demonstrates that the property is neither at risk of flooding nor will the works result in increased flood risk to other properties or land in the area.
Impact of the proposed detached building 6.13 This building will be visible but viewed alongside the proposed dwelling and screened partly by the existing trees which separate the existing residential curtilage from the higher, more open land to the west. The purpose of this building and hard standing is not only to provide vehicular parking and manoeuvring space associated with the dwelling but also the maintenance of the rest of the site including the keeping of sheep. This maintenance scheme has been developed with the ecology of the site in mind and represents, in the applicant's mind, the best way of managing the site for ecological purposes. It is not considered that this is unreasonable or unacceptable in this case, even though it would be seen. If desirable, additional planting could be introduced to screen this building even further from the approaches in both directions although the character of the area outwith the existing residential curtilage is generally more open than heavily landscaped.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the replacement dwelling is not a traditional design, it is considered that the proposal will have an acceptable environmental impact, taking into account both the physical and visual impact of the property on the environment as well as the impact through energy efficient and environmentally friendly materials and as such the proposal, including the proposed barn which will assist the implementation of the management of the remainder of the site in an ecologically friendly manner, is considered to accord with Environment Policies 1, 4, 7, 10, 13 and 15, Housing Policies 12 and 14 and General Policy 2.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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.
8.2 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 in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 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. __
==== PAGE 15 ====
20/01116/B Page 15 of 16
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...15.02.2021
Signed :...S CORLETT... 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 See below
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.
==== PAGE 16 ====
20/01116/B Page 16 of 16
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 15.02.2021
Application No. : 20/01116/B Applicant :
Mr David & Mrs Hannah Le Couteur Thomas Proposal : Erection of a replacement detached dwelling with associated access, increase of residential curtilage within adjacent field to provide a parking area and erection of a barn
Site Address : Fern Villa & Part Fields 410213 & 410216 Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BW
Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee approved the application at its meeting of 15th February, 2021 adding a further condition as follows:
Reason: to minimise the visual impact of the outbuilding in the landscape.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal