**Document:** Planning Officer Report and Recommendations **Application:** 12/00909/A — Approval in principle for re-development of site for residential purposes **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2012-09-18 **Parish:** Malew **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/3037-malew-knock-rushen-house/documents/1274981 --- # Planning Officer Report and Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ## Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE ### The Site 1. The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Knock Rushen House, which is a substantial, white painted rendered dwelling with a slate roof which sits at the southwestern end of Queen Street as it heads from Castletown towards Scarlett. The house sits in a site of 0.7 acres: to the rear is the developing estate of Knock Rushen - an estate of 41 dwellings and converted barns. To the north east is the development fronting onto Queen Street - mostly built on the landward side of the road but further up towards Castletown, there are dwellings on the seaward side also. Queen Street is subject to a 15 mph speed limit up to the south westernmost property on the seaward side of the road after where the limit is raised to 30 mph. 2. Knock Rushen House is an old building which has been substantially altered over time. It has a main core which is reminiscent of a quarterland Manx farmhouse but which has been extended by two thirds to the south west giving the property a more urban character. The property has an access off Queen Street, at the north eastern end of the frontage alongside a new emergency access into the estate behind. The frontage is formed by a stone wall which is around 2.5m high directly in front of the dwelling and drops by around half a metre for the south western length to the corner where there is an access into the agricultural field and which has been used as the access to the builder's compound for the development of the estate behind the site. It is likely that the height of this wall has been altered over time and its present height is not the original. 3. The dwelling now has a setting which is dominated by the new estate with the housing being higher than Knock Rushen House. As such, from the south west Knock Rushen House is no longer the visual end of the built development alongside Queen Street as visually the new houses extend to the left in this vista. On the landward side of Queen Street there is an almost completely continuous stone wall at a height of around 2m in which there are numerous pedestrian accesses but no vehicular accesses until Knock Rushen House where there is a vehicular access alongside which is a pedestrian access to the estate to the rear. The wall then continues at a higher height along the frontage of Knock Rushen House to the [Table omitted in markdown export] gap where the access to the agricultural land to the south west of Knock Rushen House is situated and then the wall continues at a lower height from this access to Scarlett House. ### The Proposal 4. Proposed is the principle of the re-development of the site for residential purposes involving the demolition of Knock Rushen House. The plans submitted also indicate that the development will involve the creation of a second opening in the frontage wall to create access. This new access is shown towards the south western end of the wall where the applicant suggests they can achieve visibility splays of 2m by 36m. 5. The applicant states that since the development of the dwellings to the rear, the amenities, and particularly the privacy of the occupants of Knock Rushen House have been substantially and adversely affected and the residential accommodation on the application site needs to be re-designed to take account of the new relationship with these new dwellings. In addition, they state that the existing dwelling is uneconomical to heat and costly to maintain. They have tried marketing the property but have only had interest from developers wishing to re-develop the site. ### Planning Status And Policy 6. The site lies within an area designated on the Castletown Local Plan of 1990 as part Residential where the building sits with the rest of the site Woodland. The site is surrounded by Residential land use on this plan. On the draft Southern Area Plan the whole of the application site is identified as Residential. The site lies outside of Castletown's Conservation Area. 7. As such, there should be a presumption in favour of development as set out in the following Strategic Plan policies: Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services". Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3". Spatial Policy 5: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; b) make best use of public transport, c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and d) encourage pedestrian movement." 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." General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." ### Planning History 8. There has been a number of applications submitted for this site, mainly for the alteration and extension of the dwelling. In addition, of relevance are the following applications: PA 10/0898 - erection of detached dwelling and associated alterations to the site, entrance and curtilage of the existing dwelling - permitted PA 08/0706 – approval in principle to erect a detached dwelling within the grounds of Knock Rushen House - permitted on appeal. This included a condition which states "No approval is granted or implied for the creation of a new entrance in the existing wall fronting onto Queen Street. This wall must remain intact during and after construction of the new dwelling" (condition 4). PA 05/1129 - approval in principle to convert existing building into six residential units - refused for the reason that "Whilst this proposal for the conversion of the building to six apartments represents a decrease in the number of apartments proposed in the previous application, PA 04/2404, the proposed development would still result in an increase in traffic using Queen Street; this road is, in parts, narrow and there are dwellings immediately adjacent to the carriageway; the increase in traffic would constitute a danger to existing residents. Whilst traffic calming measures could be introduced to attempt to reduce traffic speed this would not affect the amount of traffic using Queen Street and in any case there is no indication of what this would entail and as such, there is no way the Committee could judge whether such measures would be sympathetic to the Conservation Area in which some part of Queen Street lies, or indeed that such measures would be acceptable in terms of the impact on the residential properties nearby." Also a second reason was given relating to the inadequacy of the visibility available at the access into the site. ## Representations 9. There are objections to the application from residents of 26, Queen Street who are not concerned at the loss of the existing building but are concerned at any increase in traffic using Queen Street which accommodates dwellings whose doors open out onto the street. They would prefer that the development be served by Scarlett Road. They are concerned that development will increase along the road towards Scarlett. 10. The owner of 7, Knock Rushen recommends that the application be refused on the basis that there is no information to demonstrate that the proposal will not be unneighbourly and whether trees will be removed or how many and what type or properties will be proposed. 11. Castletown Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the access is narrow and that previous applications which would have increased the traffic along Queen Street were refused. 12. Castletown Heritage share the views of the owner of 26, Queen Street - ie that there is no real objection to the loss of Knock Rushen House but that there should be no increase in traffic along Queen Street. 13. The Isle of Man Antiquarian Society describe Knock Rushen House as Knock Rushen farmhouse which is on the list in the Southern Area Plan as worthy of consideration for registration (the plan actually refers to "Knock Rushen farm") and is likely to have a core dating back to 1700 - 1750. They therefore recommend that prior to any decision being taken a full survey of the structure and its boundary walls be undertaken. If permission is granted they recommend that a condition is attached to require a full recording a publication of the history and architecture of the house by or on behalf of Manx National Heritage. 14. Highways Division indicate that the proposal meets the relevant highway standards and policies but that Queen Street is not capable of accommodating any further traffic. Peak pm flows show that it is already working to capacity and that this level is higher than that measured in 2002. 15. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority indicate that a flood risk assessment is required and information should demonstrate that the development will be at 5.4m higher than Douglas 02. Further information demonstrates that this is the case and that the development site is not at risk of flooding. 16. The Manx Electricity Authority recommend consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies and the existing services around the site. 17. Residents of Maughold would prefer that the existing dwelling is not demolished. ## Assessment 18. The principle of the erection of a further dwelling on the site has been established through the approval of PA 10/0898. As such, the issues here are whether any more dwellings would be acceptable and also whether it is acceptable to introduce a breach into the frontage wall, contrary to the provisions of PA 08/0706. It must also be borne in mind that a previous application for six units on the site was considered unacceptable in highway terms. 19. There have been other applications for alterations to existing stone walls in Castletown: at Lorne House the introduction of a vehicular access in the stone wall onto Bridge Street was refused (PA 10/01046). Also, permission was recently refused for the reduction in height of a wall alongside The Anchorage on The Quay in Castletown (PA 12/0175). Both applications were refused for reasons relating to the impact on the character of the area. Both of these applications were within Castletown's Conservation Area and in the case of The Anchorage, in respect of a Registered Building. 20. The applicant suggests that the additional breach in the wall would not adversely affect the character of the area and that there is already an emergency access in the wall, leading to the new Knock Rushen estate so it seems inconsistent to refuse a further access here. 21. However, it is considered that the existing large break in the wall around the entrance to Knock Rushen House and the emergency access to the Knock Rushen estate only serve to illustrate the visual harm that such an access would create. The fact that there is an objection to further dwellings on highway capacity and safety terms is also relevant in that if there are only a maximum of two properties on the site, one access serving both is not considered impracticable or inconvenient. It may be that retaining all of the wall in front of the dwellings would create greater privacy for the occupants of both properties and if the dwellings were arranged so that the living accommodation were on the first floor, the retention of the wall would not obscure view or outlook. 22. In summary, whilst the applicant points out that there are properties on Queen Street which have garages and parking spaces available off this narrow road, and some residents choose not to use them and park on the street, reducing traffic flows and road safety, it is considered that Queen Street should not have to accept additional traffic and that the number of dwellings on the Knock Rushen House site should be restricted to two – a replacement of the existing house and one additional dwelling to reflect the dwelling which has approval under PA 10/0898. 23. Furthermore, it is considered that there is no over-riding reason why there should be an additional access so that each property has its own accessway and that the breach in the wall would have an adverse impact on the continuity of the wall which is a strong element in the historic streetsceane as viewed both from alongside the wall and from the views from Scarlett, from the south. ### Party Status 24. The local authority, Castletown Town Commissioners are, 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. 25. The residents of 26, Queen Street share the same means of access into the town centre and as such should be afforded party status in this case. 26. The resident of 7, Knock Rushen is not immediately alongside the site and should not be afforded party status in this case. 27. The residents of Maughold are some considerable distance from the site and should not be afforded party status in this case. 28. The IOM Antiquarian Society and Castletown Heritage are not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded part status in this case. 29. The Manx Electricity Authority does not raise any material planning considerations and should not be afforded party status in this case. 30. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority is a statutory authority which raises material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status. 31. 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. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.09.2012 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals C 1. This permission relates to the principle of the redevelopment of the site defined in plana received on 22nd June, 2012 for residential purposes where the maximum total number of dwellings on the site does not exceed two. C 2. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. C 3. The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission. C 4. The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later. C 5. The dwellings on site may be served only by the existing access: no approval is hereby granted to an additional means of access into the site in order to preserve the integrity of the existing roadside wall which is considered a key element in the streetscene in this area. 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 : A Committee Meeting Date : 17.9.12 Signed : Sashawett 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/3037-malew-knock-rushen-house/documents/1274981*