**Document:** Planning Report and Recommendations **Application:** 09/01887/B — Erection of a detached dwelling and garage (comprising an amendment to PA 08/00280/B) **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2010-03-01 **Parish:** Patrick **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/64199-patrick-keristal-lower-garage-dwelling/documents/1392351 --- # Planning Report and Recommendations **Application No.:** ** 09/01887/B ** **Applicant:** ** Mr & Mrs Dave Davies ** **Proposal:** ** Erection of a detached dwelling and garage (comprising an amendment to PA 08/00280/B) ** **Site Address:** ** - Keristal - Ballanass Road - Lower Foxdale - Isle Of Man - IM4 3BE ### Considerations **Case Officer:** Mr Steve Stanley ** **Photo Taken:** ** Mr Steve Stanley ** **Site Visit:** ** Mr ** **Expected Decision Level:** ** Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations **Consultee:** Highways Division **Notes:** Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications. Note: Visibility splays of 2 x 36 required as in stated in 08 application. **Consultee:** Patrick Commissioners **Notes:** Comment ### Officer's Report This application is recommended for consideration by the Planning Committee rather than under delegated powers as the site has a planning history of applications which were all considered by the Planning Committee. As such, for consistency in the decision-making authority, it is recommended that the Committee considers this application. #### The Site The site relates to Keristal, Ballanass Road, Lower Foxdale which is situated to the north of the highway which links Lower Foxdale with Gleneedle. The single storey dwelling which had occupied the site and was the subject of previous applications, has been demolished in line with the commencement of works relating to approved Planning Application 99/02227/B which sought permission for a replacement dwelling and garage along with a stable block. The stable block has been substantially constructed. #### Planning Status The site lies within an 'Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance' as identified in the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the following planning policies are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: General Policy 3, which states: 4 February 2010 09/01887/B Page 1 of 6 "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, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); - (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; 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-dependent 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." 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 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 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 applications are considered to be relevant in the assessment of this application: PA 97/02169/A sought approval in principle to erect a replacement dwelling. This was permitted. PA 98/01981/A sought approval in principle for erection of replacement stables. This was permitted. PA 99/02227/B sought approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling, garage and stables. This application was originally split with the stables being refused and the dwelling being permitted. However on review, the stables were also permitted. PA 06/02045/B sought permission for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage. This application was refused on the grounds of the design failing to comply with Planning Circular 3/91. 08/00280/B sought approval for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage. This was permitted by the planning committee. 08/01695/B sought approval for the erection of stables (comprising amendments to PA 99/02227/B). This was permitted. 08/02338/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling and garage block to replace existing dwelling, creation of new access and driveway and relocation of bus shelter, Fields 521813 & 521765 and existing dwelling, Clybane Farm, Cooil Road, Cooil, Douglas. (This case is relevant as the issue of basement accommodation is raised). 4 February 2010 09/01887/B THE PROPOSAL The application represents an amendment to the dwelling approved under 08/00280/B and as such seeks approval for the erection of a detached dwelling with accommodation in the roof space and a detached garage with the addition of a basement level and alterations to the approved wall to the front of the property. The proposed dwelling would have the same footprint and height as the dwelling approved under 08/00280 however it would incorporate a lower ground floor contained behind the retaining wall to the front of the property. ## Representations The Department of Transport Highways Division does not object to this application. Patrick Parish Commissioners do not object to this application but question how the changes have been caused. ### Assessment The main issues to be assessed in the consideration of this application are how the proposal fits with Housing Policy 14 and whether the proposed revision to the approved scheme would result in an unacceptable increase in visual impact. The dwelling and garage proposed under 08/00280/B were permitted by the planning committee as it was felt that the quality of design coupled with the size of the site and the rising land behind the dwelling collectively rendered the development acceptable. This decision represented a departure from HP14 in that it allowed a dwelling which was larger than previously approved dwelling (PA 99/02227/B) which itself was more than larger than the original dwelling. The amendments to the approved scheme now proposed would result in additional floor area through utilising the area below the ground floor. The proposed drawings show that the height of the dwelling would be unchanged and from the front elevation, the dwelling would appear the same, save for some alterations to the appearance of the boundary wall (see below for more details on this aspect of the proposal). The north side elevation would have an opening and excavation at this point would permit access to the lower ground floor. The lower ground floor would provide three rooms, two are labelled "living" and one is labelled "study". There would also be a W.C and a covered area labelled "yard". Proposals such as this are relatively unusual and HP14 does not provide clear guidance on how to assess their implications. A recent appeal decision for Clybane Farm (PA 08/02338/B) provides some assistance in assessing the proposal. The Inspector commented at Paragraph 31 setting out the following: "There is agreement that the floor area increase would be less than , if the extensive basement is excluded. If the basement is included, the floor area increase would be about . However I am not entirely convinced by the arguments from the applicant and DoLGE that the basement should be excluded. After all the basement is an important part of the building in terms of its functions providing: laundry/utility room, wine cellar, home cinema, hall and sitting area, play room, gym and spa suite. These are not trivial spaces. It is also an important part of the building in terms of size. With its floor area of 380 m 2 it is larger than either the first or second floors. It would be partially seen from public viewpoints - about just under half of parts of the basement would be visible from views from south and west. Without the extensive basement, it seems likely that the proposed Georgian manor house would have been lower. The Strategic Plan Appendix 1 does not say that basements should be excluded when calculating floor area increases. For all these specific reasons I consider that some account should be taken of the extensive basement for floor area calculations. I suggest about half of the basement floor area should be included for Housing Policy 14 purposes. This would give a floor space increase of about assuming that half the floor area would be about 190 m 2 ." The Inspector went on at paragraph 32 to state that: "There is a strong possibility of other applicants using extensive basements to get round the Housing Policy floor area restriction. An unhelpful precedent could be set by this case, if the proposal was allowed." The conclusions of the Inspector are helpful in assessing proposals which seeks to increase floor area by creating sub terrain accommodation. However, it is judged that the two cases are distinguishable by virtue of the fact that there is an extant approval for a dwelling on the application site which would look very similar to the amended scheme and as such would not result in additional visual impact. The topography of the land and the design of the approved dwelling have led to the need for a retaining wall to the front and side elevations and this feature of the design has been approved previously. The creation of a basement floor would utilise the space below the building and by not increasing the height of the dwelling or the retaining wall, there would be minimal additional visual impact compared with the approved scheme. It is judged that the landform of the site and the arrangement of the approved dwelling on the land have resulted in the somewhat unusual situation in which the creation of additional floor area at sub ground level would not result in an unacceptable visual impact over and above that of the approved dwelling. It is therefore concluded that on the basis of this, the application is acceptable. In coming to this conclusion, regard has been had to the Minister's reasoning which informed the decision for the Clybane Farm case where he stated: "However, as the appointed person concludes in paragraph 35, the new house and its new long access drive, sited within an agricultural field in open countryside, would make an intrusive visual impact and result in a radical change to the countryside." In the case of this application, it has already been accepted that a replacement dwelling which is very similar to that now proposed can be erected on the site and given that no tangible additional visual impact would result from the amended scheme over and above the approved development, it is considered unreasonable to withhold planning permission for this proposal. As noted earlier in this report, the application also proposes amendments to the retaining wall at the front of the property. The planning committee previously required by condition that this wall be altered so as to replace the rendered finish with Manx stone and remove the railings. The applicant's agent has clarified that the new proposal has included sections of railings as it is considered that this results in a less bulky appearance. It is judged that the combination of Manx stone and sections of railings is an acceptable compromise however if the planning committee is minded to approve the application but would prefer the railings to be removed, this would be acceptable to the applicant and could be achieved through condition as with the previous application. ## 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: The Department of Transport Highways Division. Patrick Parish Commissioners. ## 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 relates to the erection of a detached dwelling and garage, Keristal, Ballanass Road, Lower Foxdale, Patrick as shown by SC929/P/10-00, SC929/P/10-00E, SC929/P/10-02C and SC929/P/02D received 18th November 2009 and M4675/405/P1 received 2nd February 2010. C 3. The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate. C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval). C 5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, the vehicular driveway access shown on the submitted plans must be constructed and available for use. C 6. All doors, windows and fascias shall be of timber construction. C 7. All roof lights must be "Conservation" type. 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: Permit Committee Meeting Date: 26.2.2010 Signed: [Handwritten signature] Presenting Officer --- *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/64199-patrick-keristal-lower-garage-dwelling/documents/1392351*