Loading document...
Application No.: 07/02361/A Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett #### Consultations #### Representations {{table:207180}} ### Planning Applicant: Arragon Construction Ltd Proposal: Approval in principle to demolish two dwellings and stable block and creation / incorporation of two dwellings and erection of entrance gates and gate lodge Site Address: Ballaquiggin Farm Balnahowe Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HW **
The site defined in red on plan reference K139/P/10-01A represents a rectangular shaped site, not defined by natural boundaries, centred on a complex of existing buildings, all accessed from a narrow private lane leading from a narrow country road which leads south east from the A25 Old Castletown Road at Oatlands Cottages, towards Meary Veg sewage treatment works. This road crosses the steam railway line just outside the site: in between the road and the railway is another existing property - Withaney - not within the site nor owned by the applicant.
The existing buildings on the site include an original farmhouse, a newer farmhouse (neither of which still have agricultural occupancy ties still applicable to them - see below), two residential units formed from barns which were converted to tourist accommodation and then changed to residential accommodation (see below) and agricultural buildings - stabling and a tractor shed - on each side of the former barns.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Woodland and an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
The following planning applications have been submitted in respect of this site:
Proposed now is the clearance of the site of the converted barns, the stables, tractor shed and their replacement with a new house with staff accommodation, a gym and garaging: the newer farmhouse is to be retained and used as guest accommodation and the older farmhouse retained and used as staff accommodation. Also proposed is a new gate lodge at the entrance to the site. The new main dwelling extends the built footprint some 16m to the north west of the existing buildings although the stable buildings to the south west of the existing complex are to be removed, thus reducing the built footprint by 25m in this direction. The residential curtilage is to be expanded around the buildings beyond the present definition of the residential space around the existing buildings. The complex is to be re-named Ballaquiggin Manor.
Whilst in principle only, the scheme contains indicative drawings which show the replacement of the barns (footprint of 341 sq. m, overall floor area 521 sq. m), stables (90 sq. m) with new fabric which amounts to 1500 sq. m including the garaging and swimming pool block - a footprint of around 616 sq. m for the main accommodation, 300 sq. m for the swimming pool and 120 sq. m of garaging. The newer farmhouse is
to be enlarged (this building has had permission for extension) and the gate lodge is to be around 64 square metres in footprint. One dwelling with ancillary accommodation would replace four dwellings. The applicant explains that his client has tried to market the properties but that they are not attractive due to their proximity to others and that the proposed large dwelling would satisfy the Treasury's policy to attract high net worth individuals to the Island.
Santon Commissioners appreciate the position in which the applicant finds himself and support the principle of the redevelopment of the site for one dwelling but question the appropriateness of the lodge due to its distance from the complex and would appear as a new house in the countryside.
A resident of Port Soderick expresses concern at the lack of sustainability of replacing four dwellings with one but accepts that this is not a sustainable location for employment.
Manx Electricity Authority recommend the attachment of notes regarding the provision of electricity to the development.
The occupant of Withaney, alongside the entrance objects to the proposed gate lodge for reasons relating to drainage.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment oppose the demolition of the barns which they consider attractive and oppose the scheme also on the basis of "a dislike of non-traditional mansions springing-up all over the Manx countryside".
The occupant of 8, The Crofts in Castletown suggests that they were to purchase one of the barns on the site in 2005 but did not complete on the purchase due to a number of problems including conditions of sale imposed by the vendor, dampness in the properties, poor construction/conversion work. They report that the properties are being marketed at between £450,000 and £650,000 which are more in demand than larger properties. They also comment that the principle of losing vernacular architecture and traditional buildings should not be permitted.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they have no objections to the proposal.
The Environmental Protection Officer (Water) recommends that a licence is required for discharge of effluent to a watercourse.
The proposal should be considered in the light of the following Strategic Plan policies:
Strategic Aim: to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, giving particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage".
Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping,
open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
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:
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, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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-dependant 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".
Housing Policy 12 states: "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 state by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
i) the structural condition of the building ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years iii) evidence of intervening use and iv) evidence of intention or otherwise to abandon".
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 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 generally, 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 which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one or more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
Housing Policy 15 states "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
Housing Policy 16 states: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public".
The proposal does not fall comfortably into any of the above categories: the amount of built fabric proposed is well in excess of a 50% increase over and above what presently exists however, this must be balanced against the fact that there are presently four dwellings in an unsustainable location and these will be replaced by one dwelling with two elements of staff/guest accommodation and the lodge.
The existing buildings are of limited architectural interest - the older farmhouse is of basic vernacular style but with concrete tiled roof and modern plastic framed windows and large garage attached. The newer farmhouse is built with traditional dimensions but with modern square windows, tiled roof and small chimneys. The converted barns are attractive in themselves but are joined by a long modern garage block and with the other buildings in very close proximity and the amount of domestic styled paving which has been undertaken to service the complex, they have lost whatever vernacular charm they may have had. Re-use of the stone in these buildings in whatever new buildings are introduced in their place, should be required.
The residential curtilage is now extending almost down to the railway line: there is a view of the site from the south west from the railway and the extent of development visible therefrom will be greater with the new development due to the longer building facing south west although it should be borne in mind that this is an approval in principle and the size, appearance and impact of the new building(s) can be controlled by condition.
The site is, however, well placed to make provision for a substantial dwelling in that there is a complex of buildings which already makes a visual impact in its surroundings and which generates traffic from the four dwellings on the site, or would do if the dwellings were occupied. The site is not in a sustainable location and the proposal would result in a reduction in the number of units on the site, which together with provision for staff on site will further reduce travel and traffic. These principles appear to be accepted by local residents, only one of whom has written in and has no objection to the main redevelopment, the local authority and those with an interest in planning policy. Whilst there is opposition expressed regarding the loss of the barns, as is stated above, their attractiveness and character have been eroded by the works necessary for their conversion and the provision of a residential environment and as such it is not considered that the loss of the barns justifies refusal of this application. It is perhaps unfortunate that the opportunity is not being taken to completely re-develop the site as the buildings to be retained are not of particular merit and their replacement could result in a development which may be lower down on the site and closer to the trees and potentially better screened from view from the railway line.
Provided that the size and impact of the new building is controlled to be no greater in terms of the residential curtilage or the footprint of the buildings shown in the drawings and that no permission is granted to the introduction of a lodge or any other building at the entrance to the site where there is presently no built structures, it is considered that there is sufficient merit in the application to warrant permission being granted for the proposed dwelling.
However, with regard to the proposed gate lodge, this would be constructed on an area of land that has not been previously developed and whilst the applicant's agent submits that the lodge would be "single storey and designed to a high standard in a traditional format" and highlights other such buildings on the Island, this element of the development is considered to be contrary to General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan. On that basis, the application is therefore recommended for refusal.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupant of Withaney lives close to the site and would be directly affected by the proposed development and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The residents of Port Soderick and 8, The Crofts and The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment are not directly affected by this development and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues regarding working practices around existing supplies, which are not material planning considerations and as such the MEA should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Environmental Protection Officer (Water) raises issues which are the responsibility of other legislation and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
In summary therefore the following parties re granted Interested Party Status:
Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status:
Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Refused
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed gate lodge would be constructed on an area of land that has not been previously developed and as such this element of the development is considered to be contrary to General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown