Duplicate Inspectors Report

Appeal No : AP 2183

Application No : 03/0333

Report of an inquiry held on Wednesday 26 November 2003 into an appeal by Mr and Mrs D Christian against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a 2-bedroom single-storey dwelling on the site of a former dwelling at Knock Dhoo, Greeba.

Present

Mr A Christian - joint appellant Mr R Corkhill - agent Miss D Robinson - DOLGE

Site description

1. The appeal site is part of a 17 acre holding, north of the A1 road and east of Cronk Dhoo Farm. The site of the proposed dwelling would be to the north west of a recently-constructed stable block and south of the remains of a former cottage. The proposed dwelling would be sited on rising ground about 400m from the A1 road. The appeal site is visible from this main road, alongside the existing stables.

The case for the appellants

The material points are:

1. The appellants require the proposed dwelling, so that they can use the stable block for the keeping of their 4 horses and possibly for the keeping of other horses at livery. The stables have not been occupied since they were built. The dwelling would enable them to provide proper supervision for the horses and see to their welfare. At present they live in rented accommodation at Eiary. If horses were kept at livery, health and safety requirements would necessitate the provision of cleaning and first aid facilities on the site. Such facilities would be provided in the utility room of the proposed bungalow.

1. When they purchased the site, they had informal discussions with the planning officer, who thought that they would be able to build a dwelling on the land, in associated with the stables.

1. The appeal site is close to Cronk Dhoo, where there are 4 dwellings (a net addition of 3) and Greeba Hall, which was unoccupied for over 20 years, was demolished recently and is now being rebuilt. There are various commercial enterprises associated with Cronk Dhoo, including a cattery, pets’ cemetery and camping facilities. Hard-standings and services have been provided for mobile homes. These nearby residential developments have been approved in the context of the general policy set out in Policy 6 of Planning Circular 1/88 that seeks to control residential development in the countryside. No adequate explanation has been provided, regarding the circumstances relating to these adjoining developments that were drawn to the Department’s attention by letter dated 1 September 2003. The appellants are of the view that the policies in Planning Circular 1/88 have been put aside in respect of these adjoining developments.

1. The second reason for refusal relates to the design of the proposed dwelling. The design of the property has been tailored to the advice in Planning Circular 3/91. It shows a slate roof, chimneys and verges, vertically proportioned sliding sash windows, a small stone porch and corbels. Although the proposed dwelling is wider than the depth of the traditional Manx cottage, this advice in the circular is only a guide. A diagram in Planning Circular 3/91 shows an extended length version of the Manx

Cottage, incorporating a mid chimney. A chimney in a central position could be required in this case by condition.

1. A single-storey dwelling would be absorbed into the backdrop of the rear escarpment, beneath the skyline. A new dwelling would be in accordance with the advice in the circular (page 2) that "This landscape is punctuated by simple rectangular crisp white farmhouses ......" It would meet the requirements of Policy 2 of that circular since it would be "integrated with the landscape".

The case for the Planning Committee

The material points are:

1. The appeal site is in an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Development Plan. The adjoining stable block was approved in July 1997. Two previous applications for the erection of a dwelling were refused planning permission, each in 2001.
2. There is a presumption against new residential development in the countryside, set out in Planning Circular 1/88. It is the Department's policy to discourage residential development in the countryside, except for housing to serve the needs of a viable agricultural holding. There was no reference in the 1997 approval for the use of the stables for livery purposes but the committee understood the appellants' desire to live closer to the stables. Nonetheless, such a dwelling would be contrary to the policy referred to above and there are no exceptional circumstances in this case to justify setting aside those policies.
3. There was originally one dwelling at Cronk Dhoo. Permission was also granted for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling, that is subject to an agricultural occupancy condition and part of another building is restricted to use by tourists. The fourth building cited by the appellants is thought to be used as a garage.
4. Consideration was given to converting Greeba Hall and to making it a Registered Building. However, its condition ruled out both options. As a result, permission was given to build new dwelling on the site of the original building.
5. The main body of the dwelling would be 7.9 m wide, 19.2 m long and 4.8 m to the ridge. The design of the proposed dwelling fails to have regard to the advice in Planning Circular 3/91 by reason of its proportions, roof pitch, window arrangements and the use of insubstantial chimney stacks.
6. German Parish Commissioners (written representations) object to the proposal, on the grounds that the land is not zoned for development and any derelict property on the site has long lost its habitation status.

Conclusions

1. I can appreciate the benefits to the appellants of living close to their stables, so that they can supervise their horses and possibly offer a livery service. However, the need to supervise the horses is not so great as to allow the building of the new residential property in an area of generally open countryside that is recognised in the 1982 Development Plan as being High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, especially as the property would be visible from the A1 road.
2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 6 of Planning Circular $1 / 88$ that only allows residential development in the open countryside to serve the needs of a viable agricultural holding.

1. I have also considered the appellants' evidence regarding development nearby. It seems to me that the Planning Committee has shown that none of these proposals at Cronk Dhoo involved the erection of a new building in the countryside unlike the appeal proposal. I do not have sufficient evidence on all the circumstances relating to Greeba Hall, which was apparently a large house, of some architectural quality. In my view, the proper course in this appeal is to judge the proposal against the relevant policy in Planning Circular 1/88. This I have done.
2. Turning to the design of the proposed dwelling. I consider that its overall appearance lacks the important detailing and proportions of the traditional Manx cottage. In my view, the design criticisms raised by the Planning Committee represent an additional reason for dismissing this appeal.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Committee be upheld.

R E Wilson <br> Inspector