Loading document...
The site represents Keristal, Ballanass Road, Lower Foxdale which is situated to the north of the highway which links Lower Foxdale with Gleneedle. The site is approximately 6 acres in size. The single storey dwelling which had occupied the site and was the subject of previous applications for the site, has been demolished in line with the commencement of works relating to approved Planning
Application 99/02227/B which sought permission for a replacement dwelling and garage along with a stable block. The foundations for the stable block have been laid.
The site lies within an 'Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance' as identified in the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the following planning policies are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
General Policy 3, which states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
Housing Policy 14, which 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 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."
The following planning applications are considered to be relevant in the assessment of this application:
97/02169/A sought approval in principle to erect a replacement dwelling. This was approved. 98/01981/A sought approval in principle for erection of replacement stables. This was permitted. 99/02227/B sought approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling, garage and stables. This application was originally split with the stables being refused and the dwelling being approved. However on review, the stables were also permitted.
06/02045/B sought permission for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage. This application was refused on the grounds of the design failing to comply with Planning Circular 3/91.
The application seeks approval for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling with accommodation in the roof space and a detached garage. The proposed dwelling would have a footprint size similar to that approved under PA 99/02227/B but would be positioned on approximately half of the footprint of that dwelling. This would equate to the proposed dwelling being sited approximately 6 metres further into the field allowing the creation of an in and out vehicular access to be located to the south west boundary of the site. The garage would be situated to the west of the dwelling.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Department of Transport Highways Division does not object to this application subject to a condition relating to visibility splays.
Patrick Parish Commissioners object to this application. Their reasons for objection may be summarised as concerns relating to the size and design of the proposed dwelling being out of keeping with the area.
The Manx Electricity Authority attaches a note to any subsequent approval. The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service attaches a note to any subsequent approval. The Isle of Man Water Authority attaches a note to any subsequent approval.
The owner/occupier of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Ballaveare, Braddan has commented on this application stating that he does not object to the proposal but would like to see the inclusion of sustainable energy generation in the design.
ASSESSMENT
This site was the subject of a previous planning application numbered 99/02227/B which related to a proposal for the erection of a replacement dwelling and stables. The application initially resulted in a split decision, with only the dwelling being granted permission. The stables aspect of the application was refused although it was later approved at review.
Planning application 06/02045/B sought permission for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage and essentially proposed an alternative design and site layout to the previous house and garage approved under 99/02227/B. The proposed house was considered to be inappropriate for the area given its combination of traditional and modern aspects and the decision by the Planning Committee to refuse this application was upheld at appeal. The appointed Appeal Inspector concluded that the "new house would be out of character with most other houses in this rural area." (Paragraph 29).
This proposal retains the layout of the previously refused scheme however the dwelling now proposed has been redesigned to reflect the appearance of a more traditional dwelling. In terms of the position of the house, the re-orientation of the dwelling compared to the originally approved dwelling results in the building moving further into the site, away from the road. This siting would allow for an improved in and out access. The applicant's agent states that his client proposes to use a "Ground Source Heat Pump to run low temperature volume heating in conjunction with solid floors" which would add an element of sustainability to the scheme.
In terms of design, the proposed dwelling would sit somewhere in between the two previously submitted schemes. The modern aspects of the previously refused proposal have been replaced with more traditional features with the front façade having a symmetrical fenestration with vertically proportioned windows along with sandstone and Manx stone sourced from the original dwelling being
15 April 2008
used. The side elevations would be rendered and would have simple features with external chimney stacks.
The rear elevation would represent the most obvious departure in terms of more traditional design. The rear two storey projecting gable would have larger areas of glazing than would be expected of a Manx vernacular property although the windows to the side of the gable would have the appearance of two vertically proportioned windows arranged one above the other.
The materials proposed would be traditional with natural slate and Manx stone being combined with painted render and sandstone detailing. Whilst this would perhaps be a more varied palette than would be associated with typical Manx cottages, the materials would not be inappropriate for the area and would certainly not detract from the appearance of the building. The windows and fascia boards would be timber.
Overall, the proposed dwelling is considered to display a largely traditional design language and whilst the rear elevation would be more contemporary by virtue of its larger areas of glazing, there is clear distinction between the more modern aspects and the more vernacular architecture. It is considered that the proposed dwelling would provide added interest over the approved dwelling, mainly through the use of materials on the front façade. The repositioning of the dwelling would allow better access and egress and would not result in any significant adverse impacts.
Of greater concern is the slight increase in the size of the proposed dwelling over that of the previously approved scheme. The original building on the site was of poor form, being a single storey property situated close to the roadside which did not contribute positively to the area. The approved replacement was substantially larger than that dwelling representing an increase somewhere in the region of 188%. The application did however include the removal of an outside toilet block and some caravans being stored on site and so it was considered that this environmental improvement partly justified the increased size of the approved dwelling. This decision was made prior to the Strategic Plan being introduced which contains policies restricting the increase in size of replacement dwellings to no greater than 50%. Exceptions can however be made in situations where properties of poor form are to be replaced with more appropriately styled dwellings and this justified the substantial increase in size permitted under PA 99/02227/B.
The proposed dwelling would largely replicate the foot print of the approved dwelling in terms of floor area. However there would be an increase in the overall floor space of the dwelling as a result of three specific aspects of the building. Firstly, the addition of a first storey to the projecting gable to the rear would add approximately 16sq.m. Secondly, a modest single storey utility room would be added to the side of the dwelling which would have a floor area of 8 sq.m. Thirdly, the accommodation proposed to be located in the roof space would add approximately 56 sq.m. Housing Policy 14 states that "floor area should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings". It is not clear whether the accommodation in the roof space should be taken as representing attic space as this is generally used for storage space however in this case the space is able to provide habitable accommodation. If the floor space created in the roof is not included, the additional floor area over the approved dwelling would be approximately 11%. However including the roof space in the calculation would result in an increase in floor area of approximately 37% over the approved dwelling or 294% over the original building.
It is considered that it is reasonable to judge this application based on the additional impact that the proposed dwelling would have over the approved replacement dwelling given that the original house was of poor form and did not contribute positively to the surrounding area. This is a relatively finely balanced case. It is considered that the design of the dwelling is generally acceptable and the use of materials would be appropriate to a dwelling in the Manx countryside. The access would bring advantages in terms of road safety and would reduce the need for a single wide driveway opening. However, whilst it is considered that the design of the proposed dwelling and garage is acceptable, when assessed against Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan, the proposed dwelling would not strictly comply with the provisions of this policy as it would increase the floor area of the dwelling by
15 April 2008
approximately 37% over the approved replacement dwelling. On balance it is therefore recommended that the application be refused. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the application be refused. PARTY STATUS
It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:
Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.04.2008 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
Whilst the design of the proposed dwelling and the layout of the development are considered to be acceptable, the increase in floor space over the previously approved dwelling would fail to accord with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, specifically in relation to the size of replacement dwellings in the countryside.
Decision Made: ............................ Committee Meeting Date: ........................
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown