**Document:** Appeal Planning Statement Section 5 **Application:** 11/01551/B — Demolition of existing house and barn and erection of a detached dwelling, garages and staff accommodation with associated hard and soft landscaping **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2012-02-02 **Parish:** Douglas **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/1929-douglas-ballaveare-port-soderick-demolition-dwelling/documents/1260746 --- # Appeal Planning Statement Section 5 1212-17. As agreed with the Planning officer we have taken further views at positions 1, 3 and 4 to demonstrate that there can be no significant view of the proposed house from these points. Views from positions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown on drawing No. 1212-18. Comparative views from positions 5 and 6 are shown on drawing No 1212-19. 5.17 Position 1 is a view from beyond the boundary of Shenvalley and Ballaveare Farm and demonstrates that the existing planting which runs along the whole boundary of Ballaveare Farm obstructs views of the application site. Position 2 is a view from opposite the main entrance with the gate open in which the roof profile of the existing building can just be seen. Position 3 is a view from opposite the boundary between Ballaveare and Longfield and demonstrates that the existing planting which runs along the boundary of Ballaveare obstructs views of the application site. Position 4 is a view from opposite the junction with the B23 that demonstrates that both the boundary fencing to Longfield and the boundary planting between Longfield and Ballaveare obstructs views of the application site. Position 5 is a view from opposite the westerly, secondary access in which the existing building is clearly seen. Position 6 is a view across Shenvalley towards the application site in which the existing building is clearly seen. 5.18 Barry Chinn Associates new drawing No. 1183-11-05 is simply the original Garden Concept Design drawing No 1183-11-02 with the existing building profile outlined in red. Barry Chinn Associates new drawing No. 1183-11-06 is simply the original Site and Boundary Sections/Elevations drawing No 1183-11-04 with the existing building profile outlined in red. 5.19 The view from Position 2 can be compared with the Frontage Elevation H on BCA Drg. No 1183-11-02. In the proposal the gates will generally be shut and operated automatically. The actual view of the proposed building will be possible only if standing within the width of the driveway. Drivers will not look in this direction at all. It could be argued that the proposed building is larger but it's improved design would have less visual impact when compared to the closer mass of the existing building. 5.20 Comparative views from Position 5 are shown in HLA Drawing No 1212-19. In perspective the ridge line is similar despite the proposed building being higher, due to it's being further away. In mathematical terms more of the sky is visible in the view of the proposed building. Planting between the proposed building and the view point further reduces it's visual impact. Simply due to it's proximity to the viewpoint, the existing building has greater visual impact. 5.21 Comparative views from Position 6 are shown in HLA Drawing No 1212-19. Again, in this view the apparent ridge lines are similar in height although the broadly similar mass of the building is shifted to the right. The proposed building is more screened by existing planting than the existing building. It will also be further screened by new planting. Again, due to it's proximity to the viewpoint, the existing building has greater visual impact. 5.22 In themselves the comparative views demonstrate reduced visual impact. This is further emphasised when comparison between an orderly and well designed building and a disorderly jumble of buildings is factored in. The proposal therefore complies with the requirement for reduced visual impact which would be sufficient for approval in itself, as would the requirement to replace a dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character. It can therefore be concluded that the proposal satisfies Strategic Plan Housing Policy 14. 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 6.1 The proposal complies with General Policy 3, item (d) and Housing Policy 4, item (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. 6.2 The proposal complies with Housing Policies 12 and 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, Housing Policy 13 being irrelevant in this particular case. 6.3 The design of this dwelling falls within the tradition of Georgian architecture and design of which there are numerous examples of varying ages on the Isle of Man. 6.4 Precedents have been set by the approval of dwellings of similar style, size and in similar circumstances. 6.5 The proposal results in less visual impact in comparison to the existing building when viewed from public places on the A25 Old Castletown Road. 6.6 Due to topography, screening and distance, it is not possible to view the site to any significant degree from the B23. 6.7 The proposal meets the requirements for replacement buildings more than 50% larger than the existing dwelling in Strategic Housing Policy 14 as the proposal replaces a building of poor form with one of more traditional character which is sufficient in itself. Furthermore, the proposal results in less visual impact when viewed from public places due to its design and siting, both of which would again be sufficient in themselves. 6.8 No public good is served by refusing this application, nor would any public harm arise from its approval. 6.9 The Appointed Person is invited to recommend that the appeal be upheld and that the application is approved. 14 --- *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/1929-douglas-ballaveare-port-soderick-demolition-dwelling/documents/1260746*