**Document:** Planning Officer Report Recommendation **Application:** 06/02045/B — Erection of a detached dwelling and garage **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2007-02-06 **Parish:** Patrick **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/81863-patrick-keristal-lower-garage-dwelling/documents/1483142 --- # Planning Officer Report Recommendation ## Document 1 – Copy of Planning Report and Recommendation ## Planning Report Amended To Incorporate The Comments Of The Planning Committee Following Their Meeting Of 2Nd February 2007 [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Planning Report And Recommendations ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] ## Officer's Report ### The Site The site represents Keristal, Ballanass Road, Lower Foxdale. It is situated to the north of the highway which links Lower Foxdale with Gleneedle. Approximately 6 acres in size, the site comprises a small dwelling, some outbuildings and 5 agricultural fields (not farmed but used for grazing). ### 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. It should be considered under Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to Design of Residential Development in the Countryside. ### Planning History The planning history is complicated by a number of attempts to secure permission for a stable block. The following applications have been submitted previously: - 93/00670/B - Provision of septic tank - Permitted - 97/02169/A - Approval in principle to erect a replacement dwelling - Permitted - 98/01981/A - Approval in principle for erection of replacement stables - Permitted - 99/02227/B - Erection of replacement dwelling and stables - Split decision at review ### The Proposal The application seeks full detailed approval for the erection of a three storey detached dwelling, detached garage and stable block (stable block as approved pa 99/02227/B). ### Representations The Department of Transport Highways Division and Patrick Commissioners have made no comment on this application. The Manx Electricity Authority does not oppose the application but issues the following statement: ‘There are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in your Planning Application. Please contact our Network Operations Department, Manx Electricity Authority, (Tel. 687687) to discuss working practices around Cables and Overhead Lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site. Contact the M.E.A. for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 & GS6.’ The Chief Fire Officer does not object to the application but issues the following statement: ‘Advise the applicant to consult with the Fire Safety Department to discuss the means of escape from the bedrooms which may be inherently unsafe in the event of a fire.’ The IOM Water Authority does not oppose the application but advises: ‘For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact IoMWA Customer Services, tel. 69 59 49’ We have received a privately written representation from Mr Jessop who does not object to the proposal but would like to see the inclusion of sustainable energy generation in the design. ## Assessment This site was the subject of a previous planning application numbered 99/02227/B which related to a proposal for the erection of a replacement dwelling and stables. The application resulted in a split decision, with only the dwelling being granted permission. The stables aspect of the application was rejected and a review was requested. The stables were granted approval at review. The dwelling that was approved in this previous application was of a traditional style. This proposal is for a detached dwelling with detached garage. It is intended to remove the existing single-storey dwelling that currently occupies part of the site. The application includes the stables as approved in 99/02227/B. As the stables were permitted previously, this application is judged mainly on the impact of the proposed dwelling and detached garage. Issues to be considered are: - Response of design to requirements as set out in 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91, Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside. - Impact of the dwelling to surrounding landscape - Impact on neighbouring dwellings - Access and egress Planning Circular 3/91 gives clear and comprehensive guidance as to what is considered appropriate residential development in the countryside. For the purposes of clarity, this application will be assessed with regard to each of policies 2-7 found within Planning Circular 3/91 separately: ### Policy 2 - Design Principles for Rural Dwellings The location of this site is such that the proposed dwelling is prominently placed in the landscape. In terms of siting on sloping topography, it is advised, 'to achieve sympathy with the land form and for constructional economy, buildings generally should be placed along the contours rather than across them.' The dwelling approved under pa 99/02227/B positioned in a way that responded to this recommendation. In contrast, the new proposal has been positioned so that it is diagonally across the contours of the land. It is also positioned further into the open field. ### Policy 3 - Proportion and Form This policy states that 'The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings 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.' The form of the main part of the dwelling adheres to this policy however the projecting gables to the front and rear add complexity to the form of the building. It may be considered that these are acceptable as this type of extension is indicated in Planning Circular 3/91 however the design of the conservatory is considered further with regard to Policy 7 below. ### Policy 4 - Walls and Roofs This policy states that: 'External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials.' The materials proposed for the dwelling are in the main suitable; although it could be argued that a more limited palette would be more appropriate to the location. Particular features that appear to be out of character to the location are the 'copper-clad glazed learn light' and proportion of glazing on the proposed building. ### Policy 5 - Windows and Doors This policy requires that 'Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms.' This proposal departs from this policy considerably. There is a discordant mixture of traditional windows together with large areas of glazing. These large glazed panels are out of character to rural forms, in which window openings are small relative to a dominant area of solid wall surface. The overall layout of the front fenestration is incoherent and lacks the balance of symmetry so highly regarded in traditional Manx rural dwellings. Furthermore the main bathroom is situated on the first floor with a floor to ceiling window that could create privacy issues. The policy also advises that, 'In traditional rural buildings on the Isle of Man, dormer windows are rare except on the lower parts of cat slide rear roof extensions. Lighting of upper roof spaces is traditionally by way of high gable windows and this method should be followed. Where this does not provide sufficient light, glazing in line with the roof slope may be used.' The inclusion of dormer windows to the front elevation is contradictory to this policy. ### Policy 6 - Chimneys, Verges and Eaves It is considered that the proposal generally meets the requirements of this policy. ### Policy 7 - External Features This policy is particularly relevant to the proposed dwelling. It is considered that the detached garage is acceptable in its design and placing with regard to the guidance in Circular 3/91. However the conservatory to the rear of the proposed dwelling is less successful in responding to the guidance. It is stated that 'conservatories are not common a feature in traditional rural housing. Where these are required, their construction and form should be compatible with the vernacular style of rural buildings. This may be achieved by using traditional walling materials in the case of solid porches or sensitively designed and detailed timber framed forms in the case of conservatories and glazed porches.' The design of the two storey glass conservatory appears out of character to this setting and to the rest of the building. It is considered disproportionate in scale and overbearing in design. In terms of visual impact, alterations to the positioning of the building so that it sits across the contours have the effect of making it more visible from the highway than the previously approved scheme. The site is well screened from the road when travelling towards it up the hill however it is less well screened from the top of the hill looking down towards the site. This has been accentuated in this proposal by positioning the dwelling further into the field with the effect of making it more visible. Another vantage point considered to be important is that from Lhoobs Road, accessed via the Ballavar Road. From here a panoramic view across to the site can be seen. The proposed development will be visible from this viewpoint although from a considerable distance thus reducing visual impact. The proposed access and egress of the site has not raised concerns with the DOT Highways Division. It is likely that the one-way system proposed would in fact improve the road safety of the site. Overall the design of the proposed dwelling is considered to be a haphazard mix of styles. Some features are responsive to the traditional forms of Manx rural dwellings whilst other elements are modern and striking. The design lacks coherence and would be visually discordant with the existing dwellings in the area that are generally traditional and unassuming in their appearance. Although modern interpretations of traditional designs can be successful in rural locations, it is considered that this proposal does not represent either a traditional or a modern design. As such it is felt that this design is inappropriate to this setting. ### Recommendation It is recommended that the application be refused. ### Party Status It is considered that The Department of Transport Highways Division and Patrick Commissioners meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status. ### Conditions It is recommended that this application be refused. However should the decision be to permit the development, the following conditions are considered appropriate: 1) The development permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. 2) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. 3) The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate. 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.) 5) The approval would relate to drawings SC929/P10-00, SC929/P/10-01, S4373/101, SC929/SK/012, SC929/SK/013, SC929/SK/014 as submitted in pa 06/02045/B on the 28/11/2006. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: ### 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 R 1. The application is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside insofar as: i) The design of the proposed building fails to provide a coherent form that sensitively responds to the surrounding rural location; ii) The siting of the dwelling is transverse to the site contours creating an uneasy relationship between the built form and the landscape; and iii) The location of the proposed dwelling encroaches further into the open field than the previously permitted scheme which is considered unnecessary and detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. Decision Made : R Committee Meeting Date : 2/2/07 2 February 2007 06/02045/B Page 6 of 6 --- *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/81863-patrick-keristal-lower-garage-dwelling/documents/1483142*