**Document:** Officer Planning Report **Application:** 10/01329/B — Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings at Close Leece and erection of a replacement dwelling in Field 330416 (comprising amendments to PA 10/00208B) **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2010-11-23 **Parish:** German **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/37049-st-johns-close-leece-farm-replacement-demolition/documents/1360489 --- # Officer Planning Report ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report This application is recommended to be considered by the Planning Authority rather than under delegated authority as the previous application to which this proposal refers was considered by the Planning Committee and as such it would be consistent for the Committee to consider the amended planning application. ### The Site The application site relates to Field 330418, Close Leece Farm, Patrick Road, Patrick. The site is occupied by an existing dwelling with an attached two storey barn both of which are adjacent to the road, two out buildings, one to the side of the barn and another behind the dwelling and a Dutch barn located to the east of the dwelling, set behind the roadside trees. There is an existing vehicular access from the Patrick Road which continues up into Field 334899. The existing dwelling is a traditional double fronted cottage and the attached barn is stone built and collectively the buildings have retained their traditional character. It is clear from visiting the site that the buildings would benefit from investment however both the house and the barn appear to be capable of renovation. A condition and valuation report undertaken by Berry and Co. 27th August 2009 was appended to the previous application (10/00208/B) which set out that "the property requires general renovation/improvement/repair work including re-decoration". The report identified some considerable dampness, timber decay, the possibility of asbestos and the need for re-plastering and the replacement of ceilings. The floor structures were said to possibly be inadequate requiring strengthening and more general attention was said to be required on features such as chimneys, rain water goods and external render. It was noted that the land adjacent to the property had been observed to become waterlogged during periods of heavy rainfall. The outbuildings are generally run down but serviceable however the Dutch barn is dilapidated and most likely beyond economic repair. The site benefits from mature trees which run along the road side and along the southern edge of the existing holding. ## The Proposal This application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings and the erection of a replacement dwelling and represents an amended scheme to that previously approved. The stone barn which is attached to the existing dwelling would be retained for agricultural use to serve the adjacent fields which are leased to a local farmer. The new dwelling would be sited behind the existing tree line within Field 330318. It would be accessed via a driveway which would turn off from the existing field access. The new dwelling would have a design based upon the existing dwelling, appearing as a double fronted Manx cottage with attached barn. The rear, south facing elevation would have large areas of glazing to maximise solar gain. New tree planting would be introduced on the site of the Dutch barn and on the western side of the existing tree boundary between Fields 330318 and 334899. Originally it had been proposed to remove a total of seven existing trees, six of which are located along the road side boundary. These self-seeded trees would be removed to aid visibility to the east when leaving the site. This application increases the number of trees to be removed by 5 , which are located along the field boundary adjacent to the site of the proposed dwelling. This is said to be due to health and safety requirements and to allow improved construction access to the site. The application sets out that the additional trees to be removed have been discussed with the Forestry Officer from DEFA and that new trees would be planted after construction. The proposed dwelling has been designed to be "zero carbon" to "Passiv Haus" standards using grey water storage and extensive thermal insulation. The main changes to the approved scheme are the result of investigations of the soil conditions of the site which have shown that the land is soil to a depth below the proposed foundations. In order to construct the building it would therefore be necessary to excavate this area and the application now proposes to utilise the additional volume as basement area. It is set out that the additional basement area would not alter the size of the building above ground level or its visual impact. The garage design has also been altered so as to now be parallel with the front elevation. Less significant changes include the incorporation of photo-voltaic roof tiles to the rear elevation, slight revisions to the drainage arrangements and internal modifications. ### Planning Status The application site is located within an area identified as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance by the 1982 Development Order. Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are judged to be relevant: Environmental Policy 1, which states: "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." Environmental Policy 2, which 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." Housing Policy 14, which 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 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." ## Planning History The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 09/01604/B sought approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of replacement dwelling. This was withdrawn. 10/00208/B sought approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings at Close Leece and erection of a replacement dwelling. This was permitted. ### Representations The Highways Division does not oppose this application noting that access and visibility from the proposed site is a significant improvement to what is currently available. Patrick Parish Commissioners have made no comment on this application. The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas questions the shape of the site and objecting to the change of use of agricultural land to residential land. ## Assessment The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are whether the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the countryside. Housing Policy 14 provides the criteria by which to assess proposals for replacement rural dwellings. As this is a new application, the main issues to consider are those that applied to PA10/00208/B, these being the principle of demolition, the size of the proposed replacement dwelling, siting and design. However the approval of the previous scheme which was very recent and still extant is a material consideration in the determination of this amended application. It is necessary to consider how the alterations would affect the proposed development and whether the scheme remains acceptable as a result of these changes. ### Principle of demolition The Building Conservation Officer has considered the merits of the existing dwelling and concluded that it is not worthy of Registration. The site is not within a conservation area and as such it is judged that the demolition of the dwelling is acceptable. ### Size Housing Policy 11 sets out that generally replacement dwellings should be no greater than larger than the building that they replace in terms of floor area. The following calculations have been carried out: Existing dwelling Floor area: 222 sq.m Proposed dwelling floor area: 331 sq.m Overall increase in floor area: It is concluded that in terms of floor area increase, the proposed dwelling complies with the provisions of HP14. These figures do not include the basement level accommodation which would be completely subterranean and would not result in the building be any larger above ground and is a result of the slope of the site. If the basement accommodation had resulted in the building being taller or more visible, it would be appropriate to include a proportion of the basement area into the calculations. However given that the basement would increase the visual impact of the building, the floor area calculations have not been amended to reflect the additional basement to be created. ### Design HP14 requires replacement dwellings to be designed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 which advocates designs to follow the form and appearance of traditional Manx cottages. The proposed dwelling clearly takes inspiration from the existing dwelling/barn complex, having a similar form and front elevation. The rear elevation has a more modern façade treatment incorporating large glazed areas to maximise solar gain. It is judged that overall the proposed design is acceptable. Whilst the rear elevation is modern, it is not visible to the public and would assist in harnessing the sun's energy. ### Siting HP14 sets out that replacement dwellings must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting, unless changes of siting would result in an overall environmental improvement and accordingly the new building should therefore be sited on the "footprint" of the existing,. The proposed dwelling would be sited approximately 70 metres south east from the existing dwelling on higher agricultural land. It is judged that this is the most controversial aspect of the application. The applicants set out that the existing farm house is built close to the road under the shadow of a steep bank. The existing site is close to existing streams which make it vulnerable to flooding. These factors have led the applicants to believe that the present site does not provide a suitable location for an energy efficient dwelling. It is argued that the proposed re-siting would bring improved access to sunlight for passive heating and it is set out that other dwellings along Patrick Road are sited in similar positions. The points made by the applicant are understandable and it is accepted that the proposed siting would bring benefits in terms of solar gain. It is also accepted that the re-siting would likely reduce the visual impact of the existing dwelling by using the screening effect of the existing tree line. However, the re-siting would result in the encroachment of development further into the countryside whilst also increasing the residential curtilage of the dwelling. The argument for the re-sting of the dwelling is somewhat weakened by the fact that the existing dwelling is traditional in form as viewed from Patrick Road and is not judged to be detrimental to the character of the locality. However based on an assessment of visual impact, the proposed re-siting would reduce the visibility of the dwelling from public vantage points compared with the existing situation. The removal of the unsightly outbuildings would add further weight to the argument that the proposal would result in an overall environmental improvement to the surrounding area. Proposed alterations to previously approved application (10/00208/B) The use of the area to be excavated to form the foundations of the building as basement area is judged to be acceptable as externally the building's size would not change and as such there would be no additional visual impact. The amended garage layout would result in the building mass being consolidated and as such would represent an improvement. The remaining changes are judged to be minor and would not be harmful to the surrounding area. Indeed the inclusion of photo-voltaic arrays on the rear, south facing roof would be beneficial to the environment. ## Conclusion The conclusions reached in the consideration of the previous planning application are judged to be applicable to this amended proposal and as such the development would result in a mixture of positive and negative impacts. On the plus side, the existing modern outbuildings would be removed, access and visibility would be improved significantly according to the Highways Division and the replacement dwelling would be very energy efficient. Furthermore there would be a substantial improvement in terms of visual impact. On the negative side the development would encroach into the agricultural land to the south of the site. It is concluded that on balance, the proposal would result in an overall environmental improvement. The dwelling would be designed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91, would be less than 50\% larger in terms of floor area than the existing dwelling and the re-siting would reduce visual impact. ### Recommendation Permit. ### Party Status It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: Patrick Parish Commissioners --- *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/37049-st-johns-close-leece-farm-replacement-demolition/documents/1360489*