Appeal Decision

Department of Local Government and the Environment Rheynn Reiltys Ynnydagh as y Chymmyltaght

Isle of Man

Government Reiltys Ellan Vannin

Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Tel: (01624) 685859 Fax: (01624) 685945 E-mail: [email protected] Chief Executive K. A. Kinrade

Please reply to the Chief Executive

Our ref: KAK/AJC 10th November 2008

Dear Sir/Madam, ON APPEAL: PA08/577/B - Mr and Mrs S Craig - Erection of a replacement dwelling at Read Ellan Cottage, Jurby East, Isle of Man.

I refer to the recent appeal hearing in respect of the above planning application. In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to hear this appeal.

The Minister has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, he has directed that the refusal of the application by the Planning Committee should be confirmed.

Yours faithfully

L. linase

Chief Executive

Please see over for circulation list/......

Circulation List - PA 08/577/B

1. Mr \& Mrs S Craig, Read Ellan Cottage, Jurby East, Isle of Man,
2. Penketh-Millar (Agent for Mr \& Mrs Craig), 23 West Quay, Ramsey, IM8 1DL,
3. Jurby Parish Commissioners, Ballvarran Farm, Jurby, IM7 3AN,
4. IOM Fire and Rescue Service, Fire Safety Department, Elm Tree House, Elm Tree Road, Onchan, IM3 4EF,
5. Manx Electricity Authority, PO Box 177, Douglas, IM99 1PS,
6. Mr David Cannan MHK, c/o Members Room, Legislative Buildings, Douglas,
7. Highways \& Traffic Division, DOT, Sea Terminal Buildings
8. Secretary, Planning Committee;
9. Chairman and Members of the Planning Committee;
10. Secretary, Planning Appeals Inspectorate;
11. Mr. T. O'Hanlon, Treasury;
12. The Editor, Isle of Man Newspapers, Peel Road, Douglas;
13. Manx Radio Newsroom, Douglas Head, Douglas;
14. Mrs. J. Clague, 6 Thomas Keig Road, Johnny Watterson's Lane, Douglas;
15. Radio 3FM, 45 Victoria Street, Douglas, IM1 3RS;
16. Energy FM, 100 Market Street, Douglas, IM1 1PH.

APPEAL No. AP08/0136

PLANNING APPLICATION No. 08/00577/B

Appeal by Mr and Mrs S Craig against refusal for the erection of a replacement dwelling at Read Ellan Cottage, Jurby East, Isle of Man.

Preliminaries

1. The Inquiry into this appeal was held on 22 / 10 / 2008. The site inspection was on 20 / 10 / 2008.

Site And Development Description

1. The appeal site is the curtilage of Read Ellan Cottage, Jurby East, Jurby.
2. The development is a replacement two storey dwelling. This would have a width of 14.5 m , a depth of 13.3 m and a ridge height of 9.5 m .

Case For Appellants

The material points are:

1. Mr and Mrs Craig relocated to Read Ellan Cottage after a serious fire which destroyed their 6 bedroom bungalow. Mr and Mrs Craig have 5 children and need more accommodation than is available at the cottage. The current lounge is used as a bedroom for 5 . The cottage is in a poor state of repair.
2. Mr and Mrs Craig thought that although there was a increase limit, this could be exceeded because their large family amounted to exceptional circumstances. They held pre-application consultations with the Planning Department. They thought the Planning Officer appeared to be positive about the appeal scheme, even though it exceeded the limit. The Planning Officer knew the requirements of Mr and Mrs Craig for a larger dwelling to house all the children. He had seen the sketch elevations.
3. This floor area ruling simply does not work in practice, as many applications are refused due to non-compliance. It would never work when replacing a small 2 bedroom cottage with a 2 storey dwelling for 7 people. The policy should only be used as a guide.
4. The Planning Officer has stated the existing cottage has been badly extended and is of "poor form". He also says that new siting makes better use of the site. The Planning Officer did not raise any concerns when he was shown a sketch plan of the proposed replacement dwelling. He could have checked the proposed floor area of the new house. He could have stopped the scheme before the application was submitted. But instead he advised Mr and Mrs Craig to proceed with a detailed application. He has not been fair in recommending refusal, after verbally agreeing sketch proposals. Given the discussions, it was expected that a positive recommendation would be made.
5. Strategic Plan housing Policy 14 does not work for every situation. How can a single storey 2 bedroom cottage be replaced by a 2 storey family house without breaching the floor area ruling? The attic should not be included in the floor area calculations. The design is acceptable. Examples of other replacement dwellings in the countryside which must have breached the ruling are given in Penketh Millar Appendix 6.
6. There have been no local objections.

Case For Planning Committee

The material points are:

1. Strategic Plan Housing Policy 14 is relevant. The principle of the demolition of the existing cottage is acceptable. The main issue is the large increase in floor area over the existing cottage. This indicates that a replacement dwelling should not be larger than of the existing floorspace measured externally. In this case the existing cottage has a floor area of about ; the proposed dwelling would have a total floor area of about . This would be a increase over the original building. The second floor would be about . This second floor with two bedrooms is not an attic with a loft ladder.
2. The large front elevation, with a ridge height of 9.5 m , large dormer windows and large landing window would make the new dwelling more like a 3 storey building. It would be more visible from the highway. The increase in size would result in a dwelling which would harm the character and appearance of the area due to its form and size and massing. The dwelling would also have increased visual impact. It would not comply with Housing Policy 14 .
3. There was a meeting on site with the appellants on 22 November 2007; a related letter dated 29 November 2007 was sent to Mr Craig. This says that "it could be argued therefore, that the existing is of poor form due to the recent extensions, and therefore a larger dwelling over the might be acceptable". There was another meeting on 18 February 2008; a sketch plan was seen which showed the siting, design and elevations. The size of the replacement dwelling was not discussed. There was insufficient time to check floor area at the sketch plan stage. The application arrived on 19 March 2008 and was validated on 2 April 2008. The floor areas were calculated in March/April 2008, but the appellants were not contacted.

Case For Third Parties - David Cannan: Mhk

The material points are:

1. The appellants' home at Killane, Ballaugh was destroyed by fire about 20 months ago. The only property suitable for enlargement in the district is Read Ellan Cottage. This cottage is in a poor state of repair. It would be inappropriate to extend it.
2. The proposed dwelling would not be a blot on the landscape - the garden is secluded. It would only lead to minimal disturbance. There have been no local objections. The appeal scheme is the minimum requirement for a family of 7 . There are worse new developments nearby. A consistent approach should be taken.

Conclusions

1. The main issue is whether the proposed replacement dwelling would be an unacceptable intrusion of new development into the countryside.
2. The most relevant policy is Strategic Plan Housing Policy 14. This indicates that a replacement dwelling should not be substantially different to the existing dwelling in terms of siting and size unless these changes would lead to an environmental improvement. This policy states that the new building should have a floor area which is not more than greater than that of the original building.

1. It is clear the replacement dwelling would bare no resemblance in size, appearance or character to the existing cottage. It would be much larger and much taller. The proposed replacement dwelling would also not be sited on the footprint of the existing dwelling.
2. This means the replacement dwelling conflicts with two parts of the first limb of Housing Policy 14 - siting and size. First, the new dwelling would not generally be sited on the footprint of the existing cottage. This conflict with policy is not strong enough to justify a refusal. Second, the new dwelling would have a floor area much greater than the permitted increase. The increase in floorspace would be about . This is a very clear breach of the first limb of Housing Policy 14; it is a strong planning objection.
3. The next step is to consider how the final limb of Housing Policy 14 applies to this case. This limb indicates that a larger dwelling may be acceptable if it replaces a dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or there would be less visual impact because of design or siting. It is clear that the large new 2 storey dwelling would not have less visual impact. It follows that the only part of the policy that might apply is that referring to the "poor form" of the existing dwelling. Unfortunately this part of the policy is unhelpfully worded in an unclear fashion in that "larger dwelling", "poor form" and "more traditional character" are not defined.
4. It must be assumed that "larger dwelling" means larger than the increase in floor area listed earlier in this policy. The actual increase has to be guessed as there is no guidance in the Strategic Plan on this matter. It follows that perhaps a increase might be considered to represent a "larger dwelling" - this would be a doubling in size. As for "poor form" - this is clearly subjective. In this case the existing cottage was not of poor form when built. It was an attractive small cottage. Currently it has a pleasant appearance which is adversely affected by too many flat-roofed extensions to the rear and side. However it is not a conspicuous building. It does not harm the character of the surrounding countryside as the ugly parts of the cottage cannot be seen from outside the site. Consequently the weight that should be attached to the need to replace this cottage on the grounds that it contributes negatively to the appearance and character of the countryside is limited. "Traditional character" is not defined in the Strategic Plan. In this case it is difficult to argue strongly that replacing this small cottage with the proposed large new house leads to development of a more traditional character.
5. What follows from this application of the vaguely worded final limb of Housing Policy 14 is that there is limited justification to replace a small cottage that has been visually spoilt by the addition of too many flat roofed extensions. This limited justification for a replacement dwelling cannot stretch to a dwelling that is larger than the dwelling to be replaced. The increase is certainly more than the term larger could imply in the final limb of the policy.
6. This means the proposed replacement dwelling conflicts with the final limb of Housing Policy 14. In fact this proposal conflicts with all parts of Housing Policy 14. This is a compelling planning objection. Given this compelling planning objection the next step is to assess whether there are any special reasons why this objection could be outweighed. First, there is the fact that the appellants lost their 6 bedroom bungalow in a fire. This is extremely unfortunate, but it cannot be a reason to support a breach of policy for development in the countryside.
7. Second, the appellants with their 5 children do not have sufficient accommodation at this cottage. The cottage was acquired in the hope that a large replacement dwelling could be

APPEAL No. AP08/0136

PLANNING APPLICATION No. 08/00577/B

built. For whatever reason, this factor is based on a misunderstanding of Strategic Plan housing Policy 14. It is also not a reason to brush aside countryside development policy.

1. Third the appellants consider that the DoLGE officer misled them during the pre-application stage. Much of their evidence at the inquiry was directed at the misunderstanding between the appellants and the officer. The claim is made that the appellants were encouraged to submit detailed plans. In cases such as this it is usually very hard to remember precisely what was said without any agreed meeting notes. However even if a misunderstanding leads to an applicant submitting plans with the hope of approval, this again is not a sufficient reason to breach countryside development policy.

1. In conclusion, there are no special reasons to outweigh the planning objections to this replacement house. The large new house would be an unacceptable intrusion of new development into the countryside. In reaching this conclusion, examples of new replacement dwellings shown in photographs in the Penketh Millar Statement of Case Appendices were not helpful. No indication of the dwellings they replaced, or the respective siting, or size, or design of each dwelling was provided.

1. In reaching my recommendation I have taken into account all other matters raised in writing, and at the Inquiry, but none are sufficient to outweigh the conclusions that lead to my recommendation.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and the decision of the Planning Committee to refuse planning permission be upheld.

David Bushby BA [Hons] MCD MRTPI

Inspector

Date: 27 October 2008

Appearances:

For the Appellant

Mr Chris Penketh – Penketh Millar Ltd Mr & Mrs S Craig

For the Planning Committee

Mr Chris Balmer – Planning Officer, DoLGE

For Third Parties

Mr David Cannan – MHK for Michael