Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00385/B Page 1 of 15
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00385/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Gary & Jane Hewitt Proposal : Demolish existing farmhouse and outbuildings and replace with detached 2 storey dwelling with garage Site Address : South Of Field 131879 Narradale Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2HA
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 05.05.2022 Site Visit : 05.05.2022 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.09.2022 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 3. The garage hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor vehicles(s) and shall be retained available for such use.
Reason: To provide adequate off-street parking.
C 4. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00385/B Page 2 of 15
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 5. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the bat and bird boxes as shown on drawing P-12-01 have been installed and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason; In the interest of biodiverse gain and the interests of bats & birds.
C 6. No development shall take place until full details of both soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works shall include planting to the re profiled banking and landscaping surrounding the dwelling. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the hereby approved dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. The hard landscaping should include details of the surface finish of the driveway and footpaths around the dwelling. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the dwelling.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
C 7. No approval is hereby given for any external lighting to the property or driveway.
Reason: In the interests of wildlife within the site and visual amenities of the area.
C 8. Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planning) which demonstrates the new dwelling has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 102 (or similar rating system) and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a further Energy Statement post completion shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (planning) to demonstrate that the SAP rating of at least 102 (or similar rating system) has been achieved.
Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling.
C 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 10. For the avoidance of doubt the residential curtilage (i.e. gardens, driveways, access etc) of the site is the land within the red line only as shown on the approved location plan (P10-100).
Reason: To ensure the protection of the countryside.
C 11. Prior to the commencement of any works (including demolition) protective fencing between the development site and field 131931 shall be installed and retained throughout the development of the site and shall only be removed on completion of the dwelling.
Reason: To ensure the protection of Schedule 7 protected orchids in this field.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00385/B Page 3 of 15
N 1. Nesting birds are legally protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 and this includes protection from recklessness, therefore the applicant is recommended that if a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. For the reason indicated within this report, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable, having no adverse impacts upon private or public amenities and complying with Environment Policy 1 & 2, HP12 & HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing all received on 28.03.2022.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx National Heritage
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society (objects) The owner/occupier of Curlew House, Garey, Ramsey (supports) The owner/occupier of Grange Farm, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby (supports)
as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY OBJECTS BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Field No. 131931 which is situated adjacent to Narradale West Farmhouse, Narradale, Sulby. The site is situated South West Narradale and South of Sulby. The property is accessed off a small lane which is situated between Narradale West and Cronk Aalin Farm.
1.2 The site comprises of a two storey traditional Manx farmhouse with three upper windows over a central doorway which is flanked by a window either side. The site also encompasses a two storey Manx stone barn which is to the rear (south) of the main dwelling and the remains of the former piggery to the southwest of the dwelling. The dwelling and two outbuildings in terms
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00385/B Page 4 of 15
of layout, form a courtyard arrangement on three sides, albeit are detached from each other. The ground where the buildings sit is generally flat; albeit to the north of the main dwelling the land slopes downwards. To the west of the main dwelling is a wooded area.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing farmhouse and outbuildings and replace with detached 2 storey dwelling with garage.
2.2 The new dwelling would be set over two floors and made up of three pitched roof sections which are linked via flat roofed sections. The proposal is considered to be of a contemporary design given its proportions, form, finishes and over5 design approach.
2.3 The works involve the demolition of the existing dwelling and the two outbuildings. The new dwelling would site partially on the existing footprint of both buildings.
2.4 New landscaping is proposed to the north, east and southern boundaries of the site.
2.5 The applicants have commented; "The applicants, Mr Gary and Mrs Jane Hewitt currently reside at a property known as 'Narradale West' which is situated approximately 200m North-East of the application site. The applicants initially purchased the 'Narradale Farm' property when it came up for sale as they saw an opportunity to improve their privacy, whilst also bringing the land back into use alongside that of their existing property.
Subsequently the applicants looked at the feasibility of refurbishing their existing property to bring it up to the standard of an eco-dwelling. It quickly became apparent that this was not going to be possible without significant issues, both in terms of cost but also in terms of the loss of floor space to improve insulation to traditional Manx stone walls and to rooms which were not large to start with. There was also an issue of how to do these works whilst also trying to live comfortably, which would be very challenging and at times impossible.
Following the issues highlighted by the initial feasibility investigations on their existing property, the applicants saw a potential opportunity to achieve their goal of creating a more environmentally friendly dwelling, by considering the replacement of the existing 'Narradale Farm' dwelling and outbuildings with a new eco-dwelling, whilst still being able to live comfortably in the meantime, and so progressed with the design of the proposals which are the subject of this application."
2.6 The applicants also comment; "The ground floor level of the proposal has been set at a level of 150.00m above datum, which results in a reduction in the internal ground floor level of the proposal from the 150.28m above datum of the existing property by 0.28m (280mm).
The proposed dwelling takes the form of three two-storey pitched roof buildings arranged in a tight grouping which are linked by a two-storey flat roofed area of building to the central section. The two-storey pitched roof elements of the dwelling are constructed in traditional materials and are finished in a mix of Manx stone, western red cedar timber cladding and with natural slate to the roofs. The flat roofed link section of the dwelling is constructed in a lighter palette being majority glazed or timber clad. The flat roof is planted with sedum both to provide additional insulation and to provide habitat for wildlife & insects. This sedum roof also attenuates rainfall run-off from the roof areas in periods of heavy rainfall.
The proposed dwelling is positioned on the site in the same location as the existing farmhouse and therefore maintains the position of the built form within the landscape. The proposal is orientated on the site with a slight 15-degree rotation to the West from that of the existing buildings, and this, coupled to the design of the layout of the accommodation, makes the best
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00385/B Page 5 of 15
use of the views out of the site to the surrounding countryside, whilst also maximising exposure to natural sunlight for solar gains and to maximise natural daylight levels in the proposed dwelling, and thereby reduce requirements for artificial lighting.
The use of three individual pitched roof elements, linked by a lightweight flat roofed area breaks down the mass of the proposal into a property which reflects the traditional forms of agricultural buildings in a more contemporary way."
3.0 DEPARTMENT POLICIES 3.1 The application site is within an area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.3 Environmental Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
3.4 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
3.5 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 status(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use(2) or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."
3.6 Housing Policy 13 states: "In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where: a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway. (1) Habitable Status is defined in Appendix 1 (2) Non residential use is defined in Appendix 1 74 This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a)
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00385/B Page 6 of 15
above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space(3) measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."
3.7 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 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."
3.8 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
3.9 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
3.10 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are a number of previous planning applications in association with the site; however, only the following is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
4.2 Erection of Renewable Energy Generation equipment comprising a 40kW ground mounted Photovoltaic solar panel array - 22/00408/B - APPROVED
4.3 Erection of an agricultural building - 21/00516/B - APPROVED
4.4 Refurbishment of dwelling - 93/00592/B - APPROVED
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Full detailed comments can be viewed on the planning website.
5.1 Lezayre Commissioners make the following comments (22.04.2022); "The Commissioners would like to see a replacement building that is more in keeping with the existing building and aesthetics of the area. The building should look similar to the existing buildings. The replacement dwelling is more than 50% larger.
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00385/B Page 7 of 15
The applicant has referred to Housing Policy 14 which refers to the 50% rule. This states that this should not include attic space or out buildings. The gross floor area of the existing farmhouse is quoted as 169.5 sq. m with the gross external area of the new building quoted at 887.09 sq. m, which is over 400% bigger.
This policy also quotes Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside. Looking through this document the proposed building does not appear to resemble any of the examples shown.
Policy 1 of the 3/91 planning circular refers to buildings that pre date 1920 and mentions as far as practicable they should retain the original materials and form of the building. Does this refer only to replacement of traditional elements, or does it also refer to replacement buildings. We mention this because the new build is to be clad with Western Red Cedar along with a vast array of glazing, These are not features mentioned in this circular.
The Commissioners acknowledge the eco aspects of the new proposed dwelling, but believe these could be incorporated within a more traditional style of Farmhouse, similar to the original."
5.2 Highway Services make the following comments (07.04.2022): " After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking."
5.3 The Ecosystem Policy Officer (DEFA) comments (21.04.2022); "The Ecosystem Policy Team note that griselinia is listed in the site masterplan to be planted in a new hedging belt to the south of the property. Griselinia is an invasive non-native plant species listed on Schedule 8 part II of the Wildlife Act 1990. It is an offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild, any plant listed on Schedule 8."
5.3.1 And
"...Additionally, due to the proximity to Narradale woodland to the west, which is one of the most pristine and important examples of semi-natural oak/hazel ancient woodland on the Island, all planting should be undertaken with native or other well established broadleaved species in this location, and therefore we also recommend that all of the other species listed on the evergreen coniferous tree/hedging belt list (yew, conifer and hornbeam) are reconsidered and changed to species more appropriate for the setting. This is particularly important as the treed area to the south of the property where the garden terrace is planned for, was mapped as broadleaved woodland in the 1991-1994 phase 1 habitat survey and forms a small extension to the Narradale woodland area.
Field 131931, which is directly to the south of the proposed property, is species rich semi- improved neutral grassland (see attached habitat map). The Isle of Man Ecological Habitat Survey 1991 to 1994 concluded that species rich semi-improved neutral grassland covered just 1.12% of the islands land area, this figure will now be lower because some of this habitat has been lost, and it is therefore a very rare Manx habitat worthy of conservation. The Ecosystem Policy Team also have records of Schedule 7 protected orchids in this field.
It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant included in Schedule 7
We therefore also request that a condition is secured for protective fencing to be erected between the development site and field 131931, to ensure that this habitat is not damaged during construction works. The protective fencing shall be erected and maintained throughout the works, any fencing that becomes damaged must be replaced.
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/00385/B Page 8 of 15
The Ecosystem Policy Team welcome the inclusion of bat and bird boxes in the property and think that this is a great enhancement for wildlife.
Though the demolition of the buildings are not a matter for consideration with this application, we advise that the applicant undertakes thorough checks for bats and birds prior to demolition. Demolition without suitable checks would be considered reckless.
Bats can roost in buildings at any time of the year and therefore checks should be made whatever time of year the demolition is planned for. Bats are able to enter even the smallest holes. Pipistrelle bats can enter holes measuring only 20mm by 15mm so even small holes should be investigated." 5.3.2 And "The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swallows or house martins. Additionally, pigeons have been known to nest year- round should conditions be suitable and therefore checks should be made whatever time of year the demolition is planned for. If a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA."
5.4 Manx National Heritage make the following summarised comments (07.07.2022); significant repairs have been undertaken to the farmhouse (south east corner and rear outlet); the building is classic traditional vernacular; the barn to the rear appears to be the same as in 1869; it appears to have been configures to provide a stable, a byre, cart shed and hayloft overall and is once again of a classic traditional vernacular form; the piggery and barn are of traditional vernacular plan and elevation and cannot in our view be described as being of 'poor form'. The structural engineers report draws attention to localised defects, particularly in the barn, but does not highlight major structural issues; the group of the buildings makes a positive visual contribution to the countryside because of its traditional forms, grouping and scale, and the use of traditional and/or natural materials; the loss of these building in an area of landscape value would in our view be unfortunate; if therefore follows that any replacement structure must compensate for such loss by making a positive visual contribution and in our view the proposed dwelling is of a size, form and finish that will instead be visually intrusive; The present house has a frontage of barley 10m the proposal has a frontage of 30m and a depth of over 32m; the overall feel of the development with large expanses of paved driveway and terrace and glazed balustrades is quite urban, rather than rural.
5.5 The owner/occupier of Curlew House, Garey, Ramsey supports the application making the following summarised comments (29.04.2022); At last, another proper eco application. If the island has any chance of zero carbon this sort of application has to be accepted; and It is a serious investment into the North of Island and an improvement into the local area.
5.6 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society object to the application which can be summarised as (23.06.2022); Proposed is a replacement dwelling which bears no resemblance to the standards set by Strategic Plan Policy. Strategic Plan Housing Policy 12 which the applicant fails to consider does not apply if a house has lost its residential use by abandonment. As above permission was given to renovate the property. The permission suggests the property was not occupied then and has not been since, so while there may not have been an intention to abandon it, it certainly appears as if it has been and it has been unoccupied for over 10 years. Notwithstanding that the property was obviously considered capable of renovation and is certainly a property of local, historical or social interest and thereby "demolition and replacement will be discouraged; Housing Policy 13 requires any renovation of dwellings which have been abandoned to utilise at least three walls of the existing dwelling to be retained. This is ignored; In considering Housing Policy 14 the applicant has ignored the substance of the policy with regard to the definition of the size of the footprint to be considered. The policy specifically excludes outbuilding and attics in the calculation of the existing footprint. It appears to take no account of the fact that the building has already been extended. The applicant includes the outbuildings in the calculation and then specifically Redacted Redacted ignores the reference to
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/00385/B Page 9 of 15
Policies 2 - 7 of Circular 3/91 with regard to design guidance for replacement dwellings; The proposal involves creation of a courtyard setting which is totally alien to this landscape. Moreover, as the existing natural landscaping of the site has been destroyed, the sheltered, both physically and visually, setting no longer exists. The proposed new dwelling will be very prominent in the landscape particularly as large areas of glazing will face north and be visible from the nearest public highway, the Narradale Road, and quite possibly from a distance from the principal Ballaugh - Sulby road to the north and north west; Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society does not oppose renovations / new builds which are sympathetically designed to reflect traditional designs, utilising materials which are characteristic of their settings and which respect heritage settings. The Society is opposed to schemes such as this which take no account of the above and moreover generate huge carbon release through the demolition of stone buildings, and the use of significant carbon generating vehicles to demolish buildings and remove stone. This is not environmentally sustainable; and If the application is approved the Society would wish conditions attached to ensure that the stone cladding is of Manx stone traditionally laid and that all sod hedges comply with the design guidance of Circular 1/92.
5.7 The owner/occupier of Grange Farm, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby supports the application making the following summarised comments (29.04.2022); I live at the farm which boarders Narradale Farm on its Northern boundary; due to the topography of the surrounding are the site is mainly only visible form the far distance and this, combined with the fact it is terraced into the hillside, means that only the northern elevation will be in general view; the profile will be viewed against the backdrop of the surrounding landscape rather than appearing in silhouette on the skyline; the majority of built form will be out of sight behind the northern façade within the footprint of the existing build form, and will not contribute to, or detract from , the visual appearance of the property in the countryside relative to the current situation; The proposal takes some key design cues from the existing farmhouse, such as pitched slate roofs and Manx stone facings, those elements that differ from the farmhouse vernacular I would argue serve to limit the visual impact; the glass areas, sedum roof and wooden clad sections will appear more opaque/softer in the landscape and opposed to additional masonry (particular painted masonry); breaking the roof into three sections again minimises the visual impact; proposal represents a well-considered solution to providing a replacement dwelling within the countryside in accordance with HP14, minimises its visual impact in the landscape whilst enabling a building of architectural quality which incorporates an array of innovative ecological features.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues are; the principle of the demolition of the existing dwelling and the potential visual impact of the development upon the landscape and individual dwelling.
The principle of the demolition of the existing dwelling 6.1.1 As outline within Housing Policy 12 and for this site, the starting point is to access whether the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. It is noted the existing building when initially viewed appears as a traditional and more common Manx Farmhouse (three upper windows version). However, on closer inspection it is clear new elements have been added (blockwork) to the rear outlet (rebuilt) and approximately half of the gable end wall. The submission includes a structural report which indicates that while there has been some historical movement to the building, these are not indicative of any ongoing foundation movement and they do not envisage any further significant foundation movement in the future. They comment that generally the property was in a poor state of repair with cracking to all elevations, outward bulges to both gable elevations, loses and missing stone, unrestrained blockwork, concrete and block infill under eves, holes through walls etc. They also comment the internal works carried out internally appear to be poorly built with out of plum walls, minimum bearings, no ties to the original and poor standard of blocks. In conclusion the report indicates that; "Due to the items noted above, especially the poor workmanship that has gone into remedial works, the cracking and bulging of the existing stone and the loose and missing stones the building should be demolished."
==== PAGE 10 ====
22/00385/B Page 10 of 15
6.1.2 It should be noted the dwelling (and site) is not especially apparent from public views. From Narradale Road; given existing landscaping, but especially given the large Manx sod banks along the roadsides, the site is screened from view. The dwelling and site is only apparent from very limited views, namely from a couple of gate openings. The site is partially apparent from distance views (St Jude’s Road - north of Sulby Bridge), but again the views are from a significant distance and the woodland to the northwest/west reduces views further.
6.1.3 In terms of whether the dwelling has been abandoned. It is clear from the submission (Structural Report photographs) that the building is not liveable as it stands today, as internal works would be required. These would not require planning approval (internal works don't). Again repairs to the external may not constitute development; rather repair, so again there is an argument the dwelling would become liveable again without any planning approval being needed.
6.1.4 The applicants recently purchased the site. The Department does not know how long the dwelling has been in this current state. Generally, if a dwelling has been left unoccupied for a 10 year period or longer and there is an intention abandonment; then it could be considered to be abandoned. The Department does not have any information when the dwelling was last occupied. However, it is not considered the dwelling has necessary been intentionally abandoned given works to the property have been undertaken in recent times. Accordingly, in terms Of HP12 (a) it is not considered with the information before the Department that the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment. In terms of whether the "existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation"; it is outlined that the dwelling has structural issues, namely through works previously undertaken. The Department notes the Structural Report has been undertaken by Burroughs Stewart Associates who are a qualified structural ENGINEERS WHO have recommended the dwelling be demolished form a structural point of view. The Department has no evidence to counter this conclusion.
6.1.5 It is noted the comment by Manx National Heritage that the dwelling and group of buildings form a "classic traditional vernacular form" and "...the piggery and barn are of traditional vernacular plan". While there is no disagreement with this, the piggery is in a state of disrepair and the barn has also been considered to be in very poor condition. The structural report comments on the barn stating; "We were not able to access inside of the barns as they were deemed dangerous with collapsed roofs, partially collapsed walls and floors and major cracking externally. The photographs will show that the barns are completely unsafe and therefore should be demolished."
6.1.6 Accordingly, it would appear that the traditional form and plan of the buildings will likely change soon, irrespective of the application being approved or not, which is unfortunate.
6.1.7 Overall, in terms of Housing Policy 12 it is considered it is difficult to argue that the existing property does not have any "architectural" interest, albeit alterations made have had a negative impact. There are clear concerns with its condition namely given works undertaken internally and externally do have a negative impacts to the dwelling and do support the view that the dwelling could warrant being replaced. However, as outlined by the applicants within their Design Statement, to make the property more energy efficient to meet current standards is likely to be difficult to achieve the levels of a new build. Therefore there are pros and cons with the replacement dwelling in relation to Housing Policy 12. Perhaps at this stage it is worth considering other matters.
Potential visual impact of the development upon the landscape and individual dwelling 6.2 Currently, as outlined previously (paragraph 6.1.2) the dwelling is well screened from public views. As it site in front of the main two storey barn, the barn is also well screened form public views. The wooded area to the North West and west of the dwelling also reduces the visual appearance of the barn.
==== PAGE 11 ====
22/00385/B Page 11 of 15
6.2.1 Perhaps the key aspect of Housing Policy 14 is the last paragraph where it indicates that proposals which result in a larger dwelling may be considered acceptable; 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 proposal cannot meet the first exception, given it is not traditional in design, being more contemporary in style. Therefore the question is whether the proposal would have less visual impact.
6.2.2 In terms of the size increase the proposed replacement dwelling would have a total floor area of approximately 1004sqm; albeit when discounting the garaging, the floor area equates to 889sqm. The existing dwelling has a total floor area of approximately 164sqm. Accordingly, when considering the visible area of the dwelling this equates to a percentage increase of approximately 542% or the total floor area (including integral garage) of 612% increase. The proposal is clearly well above the generally permitted 50% threshold as stated within HP 14 and a refusal on this ground could be made. However, the policy does allow for larger dwellings in certain exceptions.
6.2.3 In terms of the proportion, form and appearance of the proposal, the proposals are contemporary in design, with three pitched roofed sections and a flat roofed section in the centre linking the pitched roof elements together. The proposal would use large sections of glazing and use of Manx stone (taken from existing buildings on the site), nature slate roof on pitched roofed elements, sedum roof on flat roofed sections and Western Red Cedar left to weather.
6.2.4 The northern elevation of the dwelling is the elevation most publically viewable; albeit limited. The views would be of the two pitched roofed elements with the centre flat roofed element between. This elevation would be finished in stone, timber cladding and glazing. The frames of the windows and doors are proposed to be grey. The materials proposed would reduce the visual impact of the proposal. As outlined by HP14 purely considering the percentage size increase the proposal is well above what is generally permitted; however, it does allow exceptions. In this case the applicants consider the proposal would by its design and siting, there would be less visual impact. The applicants comment; "...the application proposal have been positioned on the site to sit over the footprint of the existing buildings, the footprint of the proposed and existing buildings overlapping substantially, the proposals being rotated in orientation to make best use of views and exposure to natural sunlight to maximise solar gains and minimise reliance of artificial lighting.
The floor area of the application proposals, being an increase in size of approx. 127% over the built form of the existing farm buildings, are greater than the 50% increase identified in the policy.
However, the existing buildings form a grouping of development on the site and the proposals are designed to sit within the footprint of the existing built forms so as not to increase the visual impact of the development on the site, and therefore to maintain the visual character of the area."
6.2.5 From the northern elevation it is noted that taking the existing dwellings front elevation and the front elevation of the barn set behind the dwelling and the remains of the piggery the visual impact in terms of existing built development is certainly reduced, this is compared to solely considering a like for like replacement of the dwelling and not taking into account existing buildings into account. While HP14 indicates that in terms of the percentage increase calculation that only the existing dwelling can be taken into account; the fact there is existing substantial built development (non-dwelling) on the site; it is consider this should be considered, especially when considering EP 1 & 2 (impact on character and appearance of countryside).
6.2.6 It is noted that the height of proposal, is generally set below that of the roof heights of the existing pitched roof of the existing dwelling and that of the barn, the latter of which ground
==== PAGE 12 ====
22/00385/B Page 12 of 15
level is set above that of the ground level of the existing and proposed dwelling. Only the upper sections of the two pitched roofs would be set above the existing roofs of the barn/dwelling. The "Comparative Northern Elevation" drawing is useful to understand this element.
6.2.7 It is also noted that the backdrop of the site is larger amounts of mature landscaping and mature trees and hillside behind. The design of the dwelling set into the hillside and with the finished proposed, will help the dwelling blend into the landscape.
6.2.7 Overall, it is generally difficult to comply with this aspect of the policy when the proposed dwelling in floor area is significant larger than the existing; which is the case, in this situation. However, while the proposal is substantially larger than the existing dwelling, given the high quality design, appropriately pallet of finishes, low profile form, dwellings orientation/siting on the site, limited public views, the amount of existing built development on the site and the woodland/hillside backdrop of the site (would be retained); it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the countryside or harm the character and quality of the landscape as per the requirements of Environment Policies 1 & 2.
6.2.8 The next element of HP14 is the overall design approach. HP14 indicates 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. It is considered setting aside the size increase of the proposal, the dwelling would comply with this element of the policy being innovative, modern design where this is of high quality.
6.2.9 An additional consideration is the environmental benefits of the new scheme. Recently the Department refused (contrary to EP1, GP3 & HP14) an application (19/00182/B) for a replacement dwelling due to the siting of the new dwelling not being on the original footprint and also given a new and much larger residential curtilage was also being proposed. This was appealed by the applicant's where the Planning Inspector recommended an approval, which was subsequently agreed by the Minister. In reserving the decision the Inspector stated: "28. With regard to whether or not the proposal constitutes an overall environmental improvement, the PA takes the view that the improvements simply relate to a better house on a larger site and that these are for the convenience of the appellant and her family. Again, at first sight, that stance is understandable considering the significant difference in size of the two sites. The PA considers, that the differences of siting and size do not result in an overall environmental improvement and, therefore that the proposal is contrary to policy HP14.
6.2.10 The Inspector (and Minister) accepted this line of argument and that "overall environmental improvements" did not just related to the visual impact upon the environment which the Department had initial concerns, but also other environmental implications i.e. wildlife/habitats/carbon footprint/energy efficiency etc.
6.2.11 In this case the applicants comments that they "The proposals include the incorporation of very high levels of insulation within the walls, floors and roof construction for energy conservation, together with enhanced levels of air tightness via the use of an air tightness membrane, together with a whole house ventilation system
==== PAGE 13 ====
22/00385/B Page 13 of 15
incorporating a heat recovery unit. Windows and doors are to be triple glazed with argon gas filled cavities to reduce heat loss.
Whilst not included within this planning application, the proposals include for the incorporation of a solar photovoltaic (PV) array (recent approved by the Planning Committee), which is to be positioned in the Northern corner of the adjacent field (No.131931) to provide 40kW of electrical supply to the property. In addition, the proposals also incorporate the provision of a 6kW wind turbine which is also to be located in the Southern corner of the adjacent field (No.131931). Approval for the PV array and Wind Turbine is being sought via a separate application (been approved) which has been submitted at the same time as the application proposals.
The PV array and Wind Turbine are to be connected both to the electricity grid to allow surplus energy to be input to the grid when required, and to a battery storage bank to provide access to generated energy when insufficient is being produced by the PV array such as at night-time, or by the wind turbine.
The electricity generated by the solar PV panels will be used to provide the space heating for the dwelling by powering the ground source heat pump which is to be used in the proposals. The utilisation of the ground source heat pump, together with under-floor heating, high levels of insulation and airtightness, and triple glazing, means that the proposed property will be highly energy efficient. The potential over-production of electricity by the PV and wind-turbine will also allow the electricity usage of the existing Narradale West property to be offset, thereby reducing its carbon footprint in use.
A 'SAP' calculation has been prepared for the proposed dwelling and is included in Appendix C of this document. From this document the proposed dwelling has reached an 'A' Rating for Energy Cost, and an 'A' Rating for Environmental Impact (Co2), the latter figure having a performance significantly above the threshold for the A rating. The SAP calculation (SAP Rating of 102) also identifies the property as using -9kWh/Sq.m. per year.
This means the proposals would in fact be greater than net zero carbon in use, providing excess electricity at peak generation times to feed back into the network, and with a contribution of reducing the loM's CO2 emissions by 1. 14 tonnes of carbon per year.
The U-Values in the proposed dwelling are 0.12 for the walls, 0.12 for the ground floor and 0.12 for the roof. By comparison, the existing dwelling has U-values of 1.152 for the walls, 0.418 for the ground floor and 0.338 for the roof. This clearly shows that the energy performance of the existing dwelling is poor with a large environmental impact compared to the size of dwelling. The proposed dwelling, whilst being significantly larger than the existing, has a significant environmental impact improvement over the existing much smaller dwelling, which is very in- efficient in terms of energy use.
The garage of the proposed property will also be equipped for electric vehicle recharging points in order to minimise the carbon footprint of the occupants in their daily life."
6.2.12 The proposal will likely be one of the most eco efficient properties on the IOM currently. Accordingly, from this respect the proposal would have an overall environment improvement and is a material planning benefit which requires to be taken into account. A condition could be attached to an approval which requires evidence of this prior to the commencement of any works and after the dwelling has been constructed. This information could be the same/similar to what is submitted to Building Regulations when the applicants submit their design for the SAP calculation at design stage and once the dwelling has been built. It is considered as the proposal indicates that it is to a SAP rating of 102 (including solar and wind turbine) and if it is considered that approval of the new dwelling is to meet the aims of HP 14 and it has an "overall environmental improvement", then such condition should be attached to ensure this is undertaken.
==== PAGE 14 ====
22/00385/B Page 14 of 15
6.2.13 The applicants also comment that since purchasing the property, they have been liaising with the Forestry and Biodiversity officers of the DEFA to seek advice in terms of the works required to maintain and regenerate the landscape and features of the 'Narradale Farm' property. A programme of removal of dead trees, canopy management and limited limbing of other trees to encourage long term growth and health, the clearance of drainage ditches and the repair and augmentation of Manx sod hedges to provide habitat improvements. The applicants have also commenced a programme of planting of trees to the perimeter of fields and hedging and plants to Manx sod hedges with advice on the choice of species from the DEFA officers. Following recommendation from the biodiversity officer the applicants have also commissioned a bat survey of the existing buildings. From this the survey revealed no sign of roosting bats. However, the applicants have incorporated both Bat and Migratory bird boxes into the gable wall of the pitched roof elements of the proposals to provide for future roosting and nesting use by bats and birds.
6.2.14 All other matters are considered acceptable.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In conclusion, it is considered there are arguments for and against, whether the principle of the replacement of the existing dwelling complies with Housing Policy 12 or not. The existing has some architectural interest and perhaps an argument that the property should be retained could be accepted. Alternatively, in this case the structural condition and inappropriate works undertaken which have affected its appearance, it could be considered its replacement is acceptable. The new proposal with large amounts of glazing to all elevations will provide a much higher level of living standards and take more advantage of the wonderful views from the site. While this is not a sole reason to allow the application, again it is a matter which needs to be considered when balancing all the material planning matters.
7.1.1 In relation to Housing Policy 14 and the visual impact, due to the size increase of the proposed dwelling, it cannot be ignored that the proposal is an increase in size over that of the existing. However, for the reasons outlined in this report it is considered the proposal could be considered to comply the elements of HP14 which identify innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact would be supported. The proposals which result in a larger dwelling than the existing does make the argument that the proposal would have less visual impact is difficult; albeit the design, finishes, lower profile roof/form, siting; the backdrop of woodland/hillside landscape features and level of built development on the site; all do help to reduce the visual impact of the proposed larger dwelling.
7.1.2 Further, for the reasons indicated within this report, it is considered the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the site or landscape of the area. This is important as the requirements of Environment Policy 1 & 2 indicate that the countryside should be protect for its own sake and that development that would adversely affect the countryside and harm the character and quality of the landscape should not be allowed. From these policies Housing Policy 14 was introduced to help control the re-development of existing sites in the countryside. The pre-amble of HP14 indicates that; "It is important that replacement dwellings should relate closely to the buildings they replace in terms of siting and size, that the resulting visual impact is appropriate for the countryside...". Again it is considered the resulting development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape which is arguable the most important consideration. It is considered the resulting development would result in a well-designed and high quality development which should be supported and encouraged, especially as the visual impacts are not considered significant or adverse.
7.1.3 For the reasons indicated within this report, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable; albeit a finely balanced decision, having no adverse impacts upon private or public amenities and complying with Environment Policy 1 & 2, HP12 & HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. It is recommended that the application be approved.
==== PAGE 15 ====
22/00385/B Page 15 of 15
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 10.10.2022
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal