**Document:** Planning Officer Report
**Application:** 12/00832/B — Demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2012-10-02
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2961-lezayre-cronk-ny-killey-replacement-demolition/documents/1274072

---

# Planning Officer Report

[Table omitted in markdown export]

### Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT PROPOSES A REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT HAS A GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA OVER THE DWELLING TO BE REPLACED AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

### The Application Site

1. The application site is the residential curtilage of Cronk Ny Killey, a single storey detached Manx cottage sited on the northern side of the A15, Dreemskerry, Maughold. The application site is located south west of Maughold Church and is approximately 114 metres northeast from 'Yn Jalloo'.
2. The existing dwelling can be considered to be of a traditional Manx cottage form however there has been a flat roofed extension on the front elevation corner with UPVC framed windows and another outrigger extension projecting from the northwest elevation. These elements of the existing property are judged to alter the traditional appearance of the dwelling. The traditional cottage section has a traditional gable end with chimney stacks to either end with timber framed windows throughout albeit they are not the traditional sliding sash that would have once been in place.
3. The area is characterised by a mix of traditional single storey and two storey cottages. The two storey properties primarily front the highway whilst the single storey cottages have the gable end facing the highway as that of the application site. The properties within the locality are quaint and blend in with the character of the surrounding area and locality.

### The Proposal

4. The planning application seeks the approval for alterations and extension to existing dwelling.
5. The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing cottage to be replaced with a two storey property with an integrated single store annexe.
6. The proposed new dwelling would represent a more traditional styled property with a

[Table omitted in markdown export]

threefold vernacular first floor window layout to the front and rear elevation and have timber sliding windows throughout. The proposed new dwelling will also have a projecting porch to the front elevation which is a characteristic of traditionally styled Manx properties and a single storey lean to room to the north west elevation. The proposed new dwelling would be finished with rendered walls with a natural slate roof.

7. The proposed new dwelling would constitute an increase of 124.3% increase in floor area (measured externally)

8. The final element of the proposal is to increase the residential curtilage approximately 8.3 metres further into the adjoining field to create a garden space with twelve new trees proposed to the north/northwest and five new trees proposed to the south west of the boundary curtilage with a further proposed tree to the north east.

### Planning History

9. The application site has been the subject of a number of four previous planning applications, three of which are considered specifically material to this planning application:

PA 11/00496/B: Erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was withdrawn.

PA 10/01418/B: Erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was refused at Planning Committee and subsequently refused at appeal.

PA 09/01935/B: Erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was refused on the grounds that the proposed dwelling would be significantly more prominent and isolated within the landscape.

### Planning Policy

10. The application site is not designated for any site specific purpose but is located within an area of land that is classified as being of High Landscape and Scenic Significance under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan.

11. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains four policies that are considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

General Policy 3 states:

"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10)

b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11)

c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment

d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14)

e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;

f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

### 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."

### Environmental Policy 35 states:

"Within Conservation Areas, the department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

### 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 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."

### 12. Planning Circular 3/91: GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE contains six policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

#### POLICY 2 states:

"New buildings are to be integrated with the landscape and where in groups, with each other. Single buildings in prominent locations can only be considered if they are satisfactory in all aspects and include landscape proposals."

#### POLICY 3 states:

"The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and

pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form."

POLICY 4 states:
"External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of materials."

POLICY 5 states:
"Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms."

POLICY 6 states:
"Chimneys are considered important features and their provision following past pattern is recommended."

POLICY 7 states:
"Existing features are an essential part of the rural scene. New work should follow and respect successful past patterns."

### Representations

13. Maughold Parish Commissioners have made a representation to the planning application stating:

The Commissioners note the history of applications at this site. They request that the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer consider the impact of the proposals very carefully.

They acknowledge that the applicant seeks to minimise the impact of the proposed extensions to the dwelling. They request that three conditions are applied if approval is granted:

Condition 1: Setting the maximum height of the two new ridges that will be created.

Condition 2: asserting that no further applications seeking to raise these heights or extend the dwelling even further for a set period.

Condition 3: asserting that any hedges that are removed will be re-instated. The rural character of this highway corridor must not be compromised by the development.

The Commissioners would not be minded to oppose the application if such conditions were included in an approval decision.

NB: Maughold Parish Commissioners have viewed the amended plans submitted and now object to the current planning application reiterating their reasons for objection for PA 10/01418/B:

The members consider that rather than amendments they constitute a new application that should be re-submitted as a completely new proposal.

Members object to the proposals and note they have strong similarities with previous applications at this rural site which have been refused.

The reasons for objecting to PA 10/01418/B: Erection of a replacement dwelling was the following:

"The Commission objects to this application on the grounds that it proposes a significant intrusion into the landscape, particularly in terms of height and the complete transfer of the footprint.

In terms of the quality of the landscape, Members note that the current dwelling at Cronk ny Killey is within the Maughold Conservation Area. They also note the designation of the area in the Landscape Character Assessment document as type 'D'. Alongside this designation comes guidelines for appropriate development in such areas.

Members also note the immediate proximity of the National Pathway the 'Raad ny Foillan'.

It is the view of the Commission that the exclusion from the application of drawings of the current dwelling is a significant omission that should have been challenged by the planning authority. This is a normal courtesy and the lack of comparative drawings is unhelpful to all parties charged with considering the application. This omission also meant that the application was accepted by the planning authority without any drawings indicating the movement of the footprint of the current dwelling. This was supplied later following a request from the Commissioners. Without such information the quality of any decision is in jeopardy.

Members resolved however to consider the application on the basis of the information originally submitted and on the lately submitted drawing with indication of the movement of the footprint from the current dwelling to the one proposed.

In their considerations of the application, its site and surrounding landscape, Members strongly disagreed with the assertion of the applicant's architect that the dwelling is of 'poor form'. On the contrary it is the view of the Commissioners that the current dwelling is in accord with its landscape and 'nestles' into the landscape in an entirely sympathetic manner.

Clearly Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan will have to be applied correctly to the proposals as submitted. The applicant refers to part of this policy in a letter submitted with his application.

The key matters to consider are that HP 14 presumes against any development that "is substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting and size would result in an overall environmental improvement."

Clearly the application offers changes to both siting and size.

The plans were not supplied with any detail of the height of the proposed dwelling, but it is clear that the proposed dwelling would be much taller than the current dwelling; perhaps in excess of twice the height. This would constitute a significant visual intrusion in this area of the highest landscape value. It is quite clear that the vastly increased height of the dwelling would conflict with the landform and existing patterns and characteristics of the landscape.

The height is one matter, but Members also note the intention of HP 14 to limit the size of dwellings and to assert that... "the new building should therefore generally be sited on the 'footprint' of the existing". As can be seen from the proposals the proposed dwelling is a two-storey structure, and is on a completely different footprint.

There will be no "environmental improvement" if these proposals are permitted; rather the environment will be diminished by both the increase in height and the move

to a completely new footprint. Both changes will have an impact on the pattern and scale of the area and the general character of the landscape.

In short, it is the view of the Commissioners that the proposals significantly contradict the intentions of HP 14.

Another concern of the Commissioners is that this application contains proposals for yet more removal of long established hedgerow on this section below Ballajora Hill. This small area has recently been the subject of a series of separate applications for hedgerow removal which if permitted will permanently change the character of this area. It is the view of the Commission that the character and quality of this traditional road corridor must not be further threatened by the development proposed.

It is the view of the Commission that, on these grounds alone, the application should not be permitted.

### Assessment

14. Given the nature of the planning application and the level and scale of development proposed, it is imperative to consider the impact of the proposed development on the character and quality of the landscape and Maughold Conservation Area.

15. Cronk Ny Killey would have once been a traditional Manx cottage. Through a number of noticeable forms of development and alterations, the cottage has lost its vernacular traditional features and whilst one could argue that the existing dwelling could be identified to be of traditional form, the Planning Division have looked upon the property being of non-traditional form given the flat roofed rear extension and the extension to the north east, and enlargement of the window apertures and the installation of modern styled windows. Consequently, the property has lost its traditional characteristics. Discussions with the Departments' Conservation Officer, and as indicated by his comments, it is considered the existing dwelling is of limited appearance and does not add significantly to the character of the conservation area, and is regarded as being of 'poor form'.

16. Housing Policy 14 is the appropriate policy to assess of this current planning application. Housing Policy 14 specifies that generally a replacement dwelling should not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless the changes would result in an environmental improvement; the new building should generally be sited on the "footprint of the existing and should not be more than 50% of the existing floor area measured externally; in exceptional terms, permission may be granted for replacement dwellings of innovative, modern designs; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. The policy goes on to state that 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. The proposed replacement dwelling in the countryside should comply with Planning Circular 3/91.

17. To thoroughly assess this current planning application against Housing Policy 14, it would be most fitting to break down the policy and look at each section in correspondence with the element of the planning application. The first section of the policy looks at the siting and size of the proposed dwelling. The proposed replacement dwelling would not be sited on the exact footprint given that the proposed dwelling would be sited 6 metres from the highway. The existing dwelling is sited adjacent to the highway. The proposed replacement dwelling would be wider than the existing

and is substantially larger in size most noticeably due to the addition of the second storey which is nearly double in height, including the chimney stacks.

18. In addition, the existing dwelling has a floorspace of approximately 105 square metres, and the proposed dwelling would have a total floorspace of approximately 235 square metres, which is a 124% increase over the original building. Furthermore, the proposal includes an extension of the existing residential curtilage into the adjoining field area. For these reasons provided above, the proposal would not comply with the first part of Housing Policy 14.

19. However, the second section of Housing Policy 14 does suggest that there may be some flexibility with a replacement dwelling. It has been mentioned that the existing dwelling due to a number of extensions and alterations could be considered to be of 'poor form'; and therefore there is some scope on this site for a dwelling larger than the generally permitted 50% of the existing floor area. This second paragraph of Housing Policy 14 forms two parts; firstly, the proposal is replacing an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character and secondary, or where by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.

20. To look at the first part, the design, policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 should be considered. These policies deal with the design, proportion and massing of the proposed dwelling. The proposed replacement dwelling in terms of its proportion is considered to have similarities to a traditional Manx farmhouse with three upper front windows over a central projecting porch which is flanked by a single window either side on the front elevation, with the same layout on the rear elevation however above and either side of sliding/French doors. The proposed windows are to be UPVC framed sliding sash.

21. The finish of the proposed replacement dwelling would be white render finish with a natural slate roof. Overall, the proposed design, proportion and form would comply with Planning Circular 3/91. Furthermore, given that the existing property which has lost its traditional appearance, and given the past alterations to the property, it is considered the proposal would be of a more traditional design than the existing.

22. Given the points above, the main issue to consider is solely the substantial percentage increase in floor area, which would be approximately 74% over the generally permitted 50% threshold. Therefore it is imperative to consider whether the proposal, whilst over the 50% threshold, would give rise to an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the locality and the Conservation Area as a whole.

23. From a site visit to the application site and a study of the surrounding area, it is evident the existing and the proposed dwelling is most apparent in both directions along the A16 road, however most prominent travelling south-west.

24. In terms of the wider landscape, the existing dwellings along the A16 are sited on or in close proximity to the highway with some in complete view and others partially visible from the highway. There are a mix of style of properties with Yn Jallow and Jallow Cottage being the more traditionally styled along the A15 still had some noticeable alterations. There are a larger number of two storey properties further south west of the application site property and therefore the proposed dwelling is not considered to look out of place and nor would be visually intrusive on the landscape. It shouldn't be forgotten that whilst the proposed two storey property will increase the appearance of built development, due to the height increase, the proposal would still sit within the cluster of properties and would not appear to be in an isolated position within the landscape from this view.

25. The proposed planting of new trees adds to the existing boundary treatment and it is thought that this new level of tree planting will add to the screening of the proposed dwelling in turn reducing the visual impact of the property from a public thoroughfare minimising the visual impact of the proposal.

26. It should not be ruled out that this proposed two storey proposal would have more of a visual impact on the countryside, especially when viewed travelling south west and from the entrance of the property. The drawings detail that the height from the eaves level to the roof ridge would be three metres which could easily accommodate habitable living space. Given the sensitivity of the application site and the level and scale of development proposed, if the application should be recommended for approval then it would be fitting to remove permitted development rights in order to ensure that all development proposed at this site is subject to a planning application and undergoes the planning process.

27. It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling is a significantly improved design and would most certainly result in a dwelling of more traditional form and of keeping with the landscape, but would also improve the visual appearance of built development on the site, given the 'poor form' of the existing dwelling. Therefore the proposal is considered to offer an improvement to the site in turn enhancing Maughold Conservation Area and immediate landscape.

28. The proposed increase in residential curtilage north/northwest into the adjoining field is not considered to impact upon the surrounding area and character and quality of the landscape given the additional tree planting scheme proposed. Whilst the proposal does comprise the removal of the existing hedge it is felt that the proposed trees would contribute to the landscape greater than that of the existing hedge boundary. The Planning Division have been informed that the increase in the residential curtilage is so the proposed dwelling can be slightly away from the highway. It has been kept to a minimum and introduced a tree planting scheme so that it would not be fully visible from the highway.

29. The Conservation Officer, has viewed the plans, and is happy with the proposal.

30. It should be noted that the detailed residential curtilage on Drawing Number 2012/04 shows the proposed residential curtilage as the existing. The existing residential curtilage boundary is in fact the hedge to the north west of the existing dwelling. It was felt that this was already detailed in previous plans submitted to the planning application and the existing hedging details a substantial boundary treatment.

31. For these reasons it is considered the proposal would accord with the second paragraph of Housing Policy 14 in that the new proposed dwelling would replace the existing dwelling which is of poor form with one of more traditional character and General Policy 3, Environment Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

32. With regards to Planning Circular 3/91 it is concluded that the proposed new dwelling would be recognised as a traditional Manx dwelling and therefore conforms with the Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91: GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.

RECOMMENDATION

33. It is recommended that the planning application be permitted.

## PARTY STATUS

34. The local authority is, Maughold Parish Commissioners, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

### Recommendation

**Recommended Decision:** Permitted

**Date of Recommendation:** 19.09.2012

### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

**C:** Conditions for approval
**N:** Notes attached to conditions
**R:** Reasons for refusal
**O:** Notes attached to refusals

**C 1.**
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

**C 2.**
This approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling relates to drawing number2012/03 Rev A and 2012/04 all date stamped 20th August 2012.

**C 3.**
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, polytunnels, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, decking, garages, car ports, flag poles or tanks for the storage of oil or gas for domestic heating shall be erected nor windows or rooflights, solar panels or ground or water source heat installations replaced or installed (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).

**C 4.**
The existing Manx sod hedge and boundary wall that forms the south east boundary of the application site and existing parking area to the highway are to be retained.

**C 5.**
Prior to the commencement of works on the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of the approved dwelling, the trees shown as being retained must be adequately fenced off and protected from damage during the construction of the dwelling. Such fencing must be erected so as to protect the roots (generally directly underneath the drip line of the branches) and once erected, no material or vehicles may be stored or parked within the protected area, nor excavations undertaken.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : ...
Committee Meeting Date : ...

Signed : ...
Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO

---

*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/2961-lezayre-cronk-ny-killey-replacement-demolition/documents/1274072*