Officer Report 11/00903/B

Planning History 10/01883/B sought approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting held 10th March 2011. The case officer had recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions. The Planning Committee determined to refuse the application for the following reasons: R1. The proposal would fail to comply with Housing Policy 14 in that the existing dwelling is not judged to be of 'poor form' and as such the significant increase in size and floor area proposed would be unjustified. R2. The scale of the proposed building would result in an increased visual impact compared with the existing situation which would be detrimental to the character and amenities of the surrounding area contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2. ### Representations Santon Parish Commissioners have not commented on this application. The Highways Division does not oppose this application. The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommends that this application be refused as the internal layout is unsafe in terms of fire safety. This is a matter for Building Control and is not material to the planning merits of the application. ### Assessment Proposals to replace existing rural dwellings are assessed against the provisions of HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The objective of this policy is embodied in Paragraph 8.11.2 of the Plan which states that "It is important that replacement dwellings should relate closely to the buildings they replace in terms of siting and size, that the resulting visual impact is appropriate for the countryside and that existing stone and slate are re-used." The policy may be divided into three sections consisting of siting, size and design. In terms of siting, the policy makes it clear that unless there would be an environmental improvement then the replacement dwelling should be positioned on the "footprint" of the existing dwelling. The dwelling proposed here would be sited on the existing foot print however as it has a larger floor area, the new dwelling would extend onto areas of the site that are not currently developed. It is however judged that the proposal accords with HP14 with in terms of siting. A similar stance is taken by HP14 with regards to the size of replacement dwellings. A general maximum increase in floor area of of the existing is set out however allowance is made for larger replacement dwellings in circumstances where a dwelling of poor form is to be replaced with one of more traditional character or whereby its design of siting there would be less visual impact. The existing dwelling is not traditional in terms of Planning Circular 3/91 'Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside'. It is also notable that the planning policy relating to the extension of rural dwellings is split into traditional design (Housing Policy 15) and non-traditional design or designs of poor form (Housing Policy 16). HP15 allows traditional dwelling to be extended regardless of whether the existing building is visible to the public whereas HP16 precludes the extension of non-traditional dwellings if such extension would make the building more visible to the public. It is judged that HP16 would apply to the existing dwelling where an application to be made for its enlargement. On this basis, whilst the existing dwelling may not be considered to be of 'poor form' it is non-traditional and it could be argued does not meet the objectives of Planning Circular 3/91 which seeks to emulate the Manx vernacular style of dwellings in the countryside. In comparison with the refused application (10/01883/B), the new proposal has been altered to reduce its size and massing in an attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal. The ridge height has been reduced from 12.25 metres to 10.25 metres (existing dwelling is 5.75 metres). Its frontage width has been reduced from 32 metres to 27 metres and the floor area is now 172% larger than the existing as opposed to 213%. The size of the building have been reduced to achieve more traditional proportions and the garage section of the building has been designed to appear as a subordinate stone outbuilding linked by a glass section. There are other considerations surrounding this assessment. The main objective of the Strategic Plan's environment policies is to protect the countryside from development, a consideration that is largely, though not exclusively concerned with public visual impact. It is important to consider what the character of the immediate locality is in terms of existing buildings. In this case, Ballavale Road is characterised by relatively large properties set in reasonably-sized grounds. It is considered that the proposed building would not be out of character with nearby dwellings in terms of scale. The proposed building would be taller and of a greater massing than the existing and whilst it is judged that it is likely that more of the new building would be seen than the existing, it is notable that any additional visual impact would be of a faithful reproduction of a traditional dwelling, designed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91. The property represents an example of the "rarer extended version" of a vernacular dwelling. CONCLUSIONS The proposal meets HP14 in terms of siting and design but the floor area increase breaches the 50% general limit set out by the policy. HP14 makes provision for larger, more traditional buildings where these replace rural dwellings of poor form. Whilst the Committee has previously rejected the assertion that the existing dwelling is of 'poor form' it is judged that it is of a non-traditional design. The proposed house is considered to represent a particularly good example of a modern interpretation of a traditional Manx countryside dwelling. Whilst there is likely to be an increased visual impact compared with the existing situation, it is judged that the suitability of the proposed dwelling to this rural setting is sufficient to warrant an approval. 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: - Santon Parish Commissioners Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status: - The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service The Highways Division and the Planning Authority are both part of the Department of Infrastructure. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded Interested Party Status. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.08.2011 **

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal** 10 August 2011 11/00903/B Page 4 of 5

C : Conditions for approval

N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : 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 dwelling to replace existing, Ashbourne House, Ballavale Road, Santon as shown by X001, 102, P103, P001, Design Statement and Images received 1st July 2011 and P103, P304 and P305 received 7th July 2011.

C 3. No development may commence until there has been approved by the Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping which includes indications of all existing trees and hedges within the site and details of any to be retained together with measures for their protection during the course of construction.

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.

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