Loading document...
The site defined in blue represents land associated with High Bank, an existing dwelling which sits to the east of the A5 Castletown Road, off the Knock Froy Road which serves a small number of residential properties and a scramble track and associated facilities. The existing dwelling sits alongside another property - Cronk Froy which has recently been the subject of alterations and significant extensions. The existing property is a modern property which sits close to the access lane which is shared with Cronk Froy and which has land beyond the residential curtilage, to the south, north and east. The site defined in red represents an arbitrarily defined rectangular space within the large field to the east of the existing dwelling within which is shown the outline of a new building.
The existing property is a single storey property which provides 169 square metres of floor area.
The site and the area immediately surrounding it is within a wider area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
High Bank has been the subject of a number of applications: The most recent application, PA 05/1366 for conversion of the existing bungalow into a two storey dwelling was refused on appeal on the basis that whilst "It does not occupy the most conspicuous position in the landscape, but it can be seen from various points, and its appearance is a very proper concern of the system of development control" and that the proposals would result in a new dwelling whose details of a partial hipped roof, poorly proportioned windows horizontal dormers, large modern garage door and brick panels were considered to be unacceptable(paragraph 18). The size was not criticised: the application would have resulted in a property which has 404 sq m of floor area including 49 sq m of garaging. The Inspector makes specific reference to there being "no directly applicable published planning policy and guidance on alterations and extensions to non-traditional buildings in the countryside" (paragraph 17).
Proposed now is the principle of the demolition of High Bank and the development of a new dwelling in the adjacent field. A footprint is shown of the proposed dwelling and the application form describes the proposal as involving " 5 / 6 bedrooms and bathroom and 4 receptions of 530 sq mtrs ground floor and upstairs". The plan shows a building will a footprint of 530 sq. m - the upstairs referred to would suggest that the overall floor area would be much greater. No further supporting information is provided.
The occupants of Cronk Froy raise no objection to the principle of the development but request that conditions are attached to any approval to ensure that the existing dwelling is demolished and also point out that the proposal would appear to involve a significant increase in floor area well beyond the policy and suggest that any new dwelling should be designed to meet the design for new dwellings in the countryside criteria.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division raise no objection subject to visibility splays of 2 m by 36 m should be provided although it is not specified which junction this should apply to.
The proposal should be judged against 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."
This proposal does not replace the existing dwelling with a new one which is in the same place as the existing and the proposal would result in a dwelling which in terms of ground floor area alone would be larger than existing floor area. The ground floor of the proposal would be over larger than the dwelling which would have been created by the scheme refused under PA 05/1366 which itself would have more than doubled the size of the existing property.
No justification for the increase in size or change in siting has been given. Whilst the previous proposal for alterations and extensions was not criticised for its size, there are now adopted policies in place which would restrict the size of a replacement dwelling, unless the change in siting and size results in "an overall environmental improvement". There is no submitted information which would suggest that there would be any environmental improvement from the proposed change in siting or size.
The adjacent property, Cronk Froy, is now significantly larger than the property which was there previously. Whilst the applicant in that case stressed that the overall increase in site coverage to 298 sq. m was , this took into account outbuildings which are specifically excluded from the calculations recommended in the Strategic Plan. The house itself had a footprint of around 100 square metres so the increase in site coverage, taking into account the floor area of the dwelling alone, was considerably more than . However, it must be borne in mind that this decision was taken before the adoption of the Strategic Plan which sets out the guidance on development in the countryside more clearly and specifically than was the case previously.
The dwelling as it currently appears, being single storey, is not as prominent as Cronk Froy. Whilst the site of the proposed dwelling is slightly lower than the level of the existing property, the height of the new dwelling will be considerably higher if the footprint shown in the plans is to be a guide to the size of the property and there is to be a first floor. Furthermore, the erection of a dwelling in the centre of the field will render less useful the remaining and surrounding land, for purposes of agriculture or grazing or keeping of horses.
Whilst there will be a benefit for the occupants of Cronk Froy from the removal of the existing High Bank and separation of the vehicular traffic to both properties, there is unlikely to be a significant benefit to the public in environmental terms through the breaking up of the small group of existing buildings in the form of Cronk Froy and associated stabling and High Bank, certainly insufficient benefit to warrant such a change in location and size from the existing dwelling.
If the application were to be permitted, conditions should be attached to require the removal of the existing property, High Bank, within one month of the completion of the new accommodation, together with the making good of the site in accordance with a scheme for restoration of the site to an agricultural field, such a scheme to be approved by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works. The suggestion by the occupants of Cronk Froy that the existing dwelling should be demolished prior to the commencement of works on the new dwelling is considered unreasonable as the applicant may wish to live in this property until the new dwelling is ready for occupation. It is not commonly required that the existing dwelling is demolished prior to works commencing on the new dwelling unless of course the new dwelling is to be built on the footprint of the existing.
The size and shape of the property shown in the submitted plans are clearly not traditional and as such a condition requiring that the new dwelling is traditionally designed and proportioned would not be appropriate in this case although the Strategic Plan suggests that such dwellings should be designed in accordance with the policies of the Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside which describe modest traditional Manx farmhouses.
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 occupants of Cronk Froy are directly alongside the application site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The Planning Committee considered the application on 20th June, 2008. It was clarified that a previous application relevant to the site had been considered but was not referred to in the report. This application, PA 06/0890 proposed alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling and was permitted and increased the footprint from 165 sq.m to 255 sq.m. Plans of the proposed and existing dwelling were shown to the Planning Committee in respect of this application. The reference to PA 06/0890 in the recommended reason for refusal is incorrect and should refer to PA 05/1366 which was refused.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 10.06.2008
The proposed replacement dwelling as shown and described in the application would be considerably larger than the existing property and sited in a different location, neither of which would bring about sufficient overall environmental improvement to warrant setting aside the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan which provides generally for increases in floor area of up to of the existing.
It should be noted that whilst the previous application for alterations and extensions of High Bank, PA 05/1366 was refused, the reporting Inspector was not concerned with the increase in size from 169 sq. m to 404 sq. m including 49 sq. m of garaging. The proposed dwelling would be larger even than this.
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown