**Document:** Officer Planning Report **Application:** 11/01309/B — Erection of a replacement dwelling **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2011-11-09 **Parish:** Lezayre **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/1625-lezayre-balleigh-cottage-replacement-dwelling/documents/1255674 --- # Officer Planning Report ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report #### The Site 1. The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated at the end of a long (100m) driveway which joins a track which heads south to the Jurby Road (A13) to the west of Westhill Village - a gated community of eleven relatively large plots. The dwelling is generally unseen from the public highway due to its being situated some distance from the highway and the topography and vegetation between the road and the site. 2. The existing dwelling is a single storey property with a flat roofed annex at the rear, which has a floor area of around 118 sq m: no floor plans or elevations have been provided so there is no information about the height or accurate floor area of the existing. The dwelling appears to have been a modest traditional cottage which has been extended over time with pitched and flat roofed annexes. Also within the site is a small pitched roof double garage and a summer house in the north western corner. #### The Proposal 3. Proposed is the replacement of the dwelling with a new two storey house and the removal of the garage and the summer house. The new house will have a footprint of a main core of 12.5m by 10m - slightly deeper than the existing, with a single storey wing on each side. The overall proposed floor area is around 317 sq m and will have an overall height of 8.8m. The house will have a stone facade and white painted rendered gables and rear elevation where there are ground floor bay windows. The general design is a traditional one. 4. The proposed dwelling would have a floor area, measured externally, of 168% larger than the existing. No information is provided on the height of the existing cottage but it is estimated that the difference between the existing and proposed is somewhere in the region of 4.8m taking into account the additional floor of accommodation, the additional depth of the dwelling and the slightly steeper roof pitch. #### Planning Policy And Status 5. The site lies within an area designated as "white land" on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982, that is, not designated for development. There is a site of a Scheduled Ancient Monument to the north of the site, reflecting the site of a chapel but this is not affected by the proposed development due to its distance from it. 6. As such, the appropriate Strategic Plan policy to be applied to this development is Housing Policy 14: "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 generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact." ## Planning History 7. Planning permission has been sought in the past for alterations and extensions and the erection of the summerhouse, none of which is relevant in the consideration of this application, other than the plans submitted for 89/0021 illustrate that the height of the pitched roof part of the property is 4 m . ### Representations 8. Lezayre Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application. 9. A resident of Douglas comments on the lack of plans. 10. Highways and Traffic Division indicate that there are no adverse traffic impacts from the proposed development. ### Assessment 11. There is no justification provided by the applicant to support the application. In terms of Housing Policy 14, the proposal should be considered in respect of the following: 12. "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size"; the proposal is significantly larger and taller than the existing so it does not comply with this part of the policy. 13. "...unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement": the existing dwelling is not generally visible from a public perspective: the proposed dwelling by virtue of its height is likely to be visible and therefore it is not likely that there will be an overall environmental improvement from the proposal. 14. "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)." The proposal dwelling is situated on the footprint of the existing but is significantly larger. 15. "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)." The dwelling is slightly wider and significantly deeper than the footprint recommended as traditional in Planning Circular 3/91. The design approach does, however incorporate the traditional features described in this Circular. 16. "Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building." The proposed dwelling is not innovative or modern and there is no justification as to why this proposal should be considered as "exceptional". 17. "Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact." The proposed dwelling is deeper and taller than the traditional dwellings described in Planning Circular 3/91 and as such, the resultant property would not be seen as a modest traditional cottage in the countryside, but a larger, grander property which is more visible. As such it is not accepted that the proposed dwelling would be one "or more traditional character" and would certainly not result in "less visual impact" as it is significantly larger and not of traditional proportions. 18. As such, it is considered that the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 and there are therefore no provisions within the Strategic Plan to support the proposal which would result in a significantly larger dwelling with a greater visual impact and where the new dwelling would be larger and more imposing that the typical Manx cottage described in Planning Circular 3/91. 19. The application is recommended for refusal. ## PARTY STATUS 20. The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 21. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 22. The resident of Douglas is not directly affected by the proposal and makes no material planning observations on the proposal. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 04.11.2011 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals 4 November 2011 11/01309/B Page 3 of 4 R 1. The proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 insofar as the proposed dwelling is more than double the size of the existing property with a resultant greater visual impact and there are therefore no provisions within the Strategic Plan to support the proposal which would result in a significantly larger dwelling with a greater visual impact and where the new dwelling would be larger and more imposing that the typical Manx cottage described in Planning Circular 3/91. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager. Decision Made : Refused Date : Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control OR Signed : Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/1625-lezayre-balleigh-cottage-replacement-dwelling/documents/1255674*