DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00061/B Applicant: Mr Andrew Barnett Proposal: Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with associated driveway Site Address: Belmont Lewaigue Road Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BF Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 05.02.2020 Site Visit: 05.02.2020 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.02.2020 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Prior to the commencement of the dwelling hereby approved, the existing accesses shall be blocked up using Manx stone and the new access and visibility splay shall be laid out, all as shown on approved plan 03, with not landscaping or any other feature greater than 1.05m in height within the visibility splay and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
• C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

• Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
• C 5. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention (in green on plan 03) are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

• C 6. No development shall commence until an ecological survey of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The ecological survey shall identify matters of ecological interest (Birds & Bats) within the site and measures to mitigate ecological impacts where appropriate, including a timetable for their implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

Overall, while there is an argument that the new proposed dwelling does not fully comply with HP14 (as previously considered); it is considered the existing dwelling is of poor form and the new proposed dwelling is of a more traditional character (albeit no Manx vernacular) and would not have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape/countryside setting. It is not uncommon in the immediate are to find similar styled properties or non-vernacular properties in large grounds. Overall, it is considered once again the proposal would have no adverse impact upon public or private amenities and therefore comply with the relevant policies. It is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions listed.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 01, 02, 03, 04 & 05 all received on 20th January 2020. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSIDERED TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT IS A IDENTICAL SCHEME TO A SCHEME THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HAVE PREVIOUS CONSIDERED AND APPROVED

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling known as "Belmont" on Lewaigue Road in Dreemskerry, Maughold, and also includes part of the adjacent field that is also owned by the owner / applicant. Belmont sits well below the highway such that even though it is only about 15 metres from the highway its eaves are set slightly lower

• than the road. The driveway has a pair of accesses onto Lewaigue Road but even so visibility is poor given the difference in levels.
• 1.2 Belmont is not a dwelling of traditional Manx vernacular and does not exhibit any particular architectural merit although equally it is not of wholly inappropriate or poor form. The fact it is sat well below the highway means that views of its varied massing and form are fairly limited. The site is apparent from the Maughold Conservation Area away to the east but could not be said to be prominent given the tree presence and, primarily, the distances between the site and publicly accessible positions.
• 1.3 Other dwellings similarly set down from the highway can be found in the area, the built environment being characterised by its somewhat sporadic linearity.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with associated driveway - 15/01219/B approved. This application expires on the 09.05.2020 and therefore could be implemented today, albeit the applicants have explained that the new owner will not have time to implement it; hence this current application.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Full planning approval is again sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The nature of the site and the extended discussions between the Department and the applicant and their agent is such that the application has been substantiated by a lengthy Planning Statement. - 3.2 The dwelling proposed is designed to have the appearance of "a classical country manor design", but which also has a significant level of glazing to the rear. The Planning Statement is clear that the design has evolved from the clients' personal tastes as well as discussions with planning officers and local residents, who it is understood "would feel obliged to object to the proposal" were a contemporary design proposed. - 3.3 The front elevation has hints of a Georgian influence in terms of its massing and hipped roof design, with an arched-window central above a ground floor portico in addition to sixover-six paned windows throughout. Of less classically Georgian influence are the hood mouldings above the windows, the lack of a three-storey massing and the rather steeply pitched roof. - 3.4 To the rear, the design is much more contemporary. The site topography allows for three storeys to the rear, and the majority of this is to be glazed. No fewer than 33 floor-toceiling glazing panels are proposed in this elevation, with seven French or bi-folding door accesses shown amongst these, along with associated patios / terracing. - 3.5 Associated with the dwelling to the northwest would be an attached double garage. To the front elevation this separate element would be single storey and to the rear two storeys; at the rear, the lower level would provide a 'garden store'. As a whole, the dwelling would provide five en-suite bedrooms (one for guests) in addition to an associated lounge, kitchen, dining room, large music room (the applicant is a pianist by profession), study, snug and utility room. Solar panels are shown on the garage roof and the agent indicates that other environmentally friendly technology is to be installed. The existing highway entrances would be blocked up to prevent floodwater entering the property, with the driveways to be broken up and planted; the agent considers this to mean the application is compliant with Housing Policy 14 as it constitutes an overall environmental improvement. - 3.6 Belmont is 342sqm in floorspace. The proposed dwelling is 679.5sqm in size (or 539.3sqm if excluding the garage), representing an almost exactly 100% increase over Belmont. The proposed dwelling would have a noticeably smaller footprint than Belmont, and

• would also be set a further 4.6m from the highway than Belmont - totalling some 19m from the highway. This enables the proposed dwelling to have a ridgeline at approximately the same height as the existing dwelling, though obviously set back further from the road and therefore potentially having a greater prominent within the streetscene.
• 3.7 Additionally proposed is a small extension to the residential curtilage in order to provide a new highway access. This would replace the existing pair of accesses immediately in front of the dwelling and would allow for a more gently graded route out from the dwelling's driveway and onto the highway.
• 3.8 As originally submitted, the planning application included within the red line the entirety of the adjacent field. As this could be seen to result in an extension to the residential curtilage, an amended plan showing the majority of that field in blue and the existing curtilage plus the aforementioned amended highway access in red was sought and circulated to the interested parties.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 As the site falls within an area of land not zoned for any particular use or development under the 1982 Development Plan, as well as being designated high landscape value, there is a presumption against new development here. As noted, though, Housing Policy 14 does allow for replacement dwellings in such area on a one-for-one basis; given the complexity of Housing Policy 14 and the kind of assessment that needs to be made in considering such proposals, it is worth noting the policy text in full:

"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."

4.2 It is also worth noting the wording of Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) 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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Garaff Parish Commissioners have no objection (08.02.2020).

5.2 The Assistant Arboricultural Officer initially commented (14.02.2020) that while the trees on site where not of a significant quality (low value) and that a full tree survey would not be required, the plan does not show the trees proposed to be removed and these should be include don the site plan.

• 5.2.1 Following these comments it was brought to the Officers attention that the plan did show the trees to be removed (in a blue colour, albeit easy to miss). Following this and additional confirmation from the applicant the Officer advised he had no objection to the proposal (25.02.2020).

5.3 Senior Biodiversity Officer (DEFA) seeks a ecological assessment to determine the potential impact of the demolition of the existing dwelling (06.02.2020).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Firstly it should be noted that the previously approved application does not expire until the 09.05.2020 and therefore could be implemented today, albeit the applicants have explained that the new owner will not have time to implement it; hence this current application. Generally, in such circumstances the Department would receive a Variation of Condition 1, to extend the period for a further 4 years. This could have been done in this case, but the applicants have in fact submitted a full application instead. - 6.2 Accordingly, given the application is identical and no policy changes have occurred since this approval, it is relevant to considered the previously planning officers detailed assessment of the application are very relevant and still relevant for the determination of this current application. He stated the following:

"6.1 The acceptability of the principle of a replacement dwelling in this location is set out in Housing Policy 14. What remains for consideration is the detail of the proposal. In making any such assessment, regard must be had to (i) the design quality of the existing dwelling, (ii) the design quality of that which is proposed for replacement, and (iii) the change in visual impact the new dwelling would bring, to include consideration of the character of the site and how it relates to its surroundings.

6.2 The proposed replacement dwelling is self-evidently not of traditional Manx vernacular and therefore does not comply with the 'general' expectation of Housing Policy 14 that dwellings be so designed. As such, the acceptability of the proposal will turn on whether it meets the 'exceptional' expectation of Housing Policy 14:

"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… 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."

6.3 It is to be remembered that the proposed replacement dwelling is in excess of the 50% increase threshold normally expected in such situations, but the nature of this site is likely that the acceptability of the proposal will turn more on its design and consequent visual impact than on a strict reading of the mathematics involved. The design quality of the existing dwelling - 6.4 The agent to the application argues that the existing dwelling is "disjointed" and "of poor form". It was originally constructed in 1948 and various 1970s extensions have resulted in the loss of its original appearance and style. The agent contends that this has resulted in an internal layout that is both impractical and awkward to use, as well as an external appearance that is "an eyesore of mismatching and conflicting styles, with an unsightly large area of flat

• roof and mismatched areas such as the pitched roofs where tiles altering in both style and colour are visible from the roadside".
• 6.5 In the same way that proposals for new dwellings may require a subjective judgement, so too do assessments of existing properties: while the quantitative argument made by the agent is not necessarily disputed, it is equally the case that many people might walk or drive past Belmont and consider its mixture of forms, styles and historic extensions to provide a positive character. It is also true that, in the same way the new dwelling will not be easily visible from the surrounding area given the lack of publicly accessible viewpoints, Belmont is also fairly hidden away.
• 6.6 The agent also includes photographs of water damage within Belmont, suggesting it is in poor repair. While there is no evidence to either confirm or deny this point, it should be remembered that it is usually possible to bring a building into habitable use however poor its state of repair: otherwise, there would be very few barn conversion proposals.
• 6.7 Belmont could be considered to be of poor form but equally it is considered that its apparentness in the wider landscape is limited. Therefore, while its loss would not necessarily be considered to be harmful to the character of the area, that which is proposed for replacement must be carefully weighed against this character. The design quality of that which is proposed for replacement
• 6.8 As the dwelling is not of traditional Manx vernacular, the assessment must consider the extent to which it is modern and innovative. The intention to create a more traditional feel to the front elevation and a more contemporary feel to the rear elevation is welcome and understood. Such approaches can be successful, although it is perhaps a shame that the applicants feel the need to 'hide' the contemporary element.
• 6.9 However, the traditional frontage does not quite fit the archetype of the Georgian country mansion / estate house that appears to be the intention, and the site does not lend itself to such a dwelling given its steep topography such that the grand frontage would rarely have been seen. Part of the point of taking a 'grand' approach in Georgian times would have been to demonstrate wealth and prosperity, which may not have been possible in a secluded location such as this. The fact that the proposed dwelling does not benefit from the typically robust chimneys or shallow roof archetypal to such Georgian properties is unfortunate, though the level and kind of detailing, the general massing and form and the window and door arrangement are of more obviously Georgian progeny.
• 6.10 The dwelling proposed therefore represents a mixture of design styles and historical origin. Whether it is successful is necessarily subjective. It is not in itself of poor form, and there has clearly been a great deal of thought given to the overall design and use (although having a utility room - with no exterior access - and kitchen two floors apart is rather unusual), and it is not considered to be fundamentally objectionable. Its front elevation in particular is well-proportioned and the intention to make the garage appear as a subsequent extension via a subordinate glazed-link extension is an accepted architectural technique.
• 6.11 Perhaps of most importance in coming to a conclusion on the proposal, then, is the extent to which the environmental impact, and character of the area as a whole, would be altered should the proposed dwelling be constructed. The character of the area, and an assessment of the proposed dwelling's likely visual impact
• 6.12 In the first instance, it should be remembered that the Maughold Conservation Area the only Conservation Area in the Island to include such a large swathe of open countryside sits to the east of the site. It should also be remembered that Dreemskerry, as a settlement,

• has no particular defining character to its built environment. It should also be noted that Housing Policy 14 allows for replacement dwellings in countryside locations where these are either of traditional Manx vernacular or, in exceptional circumstances, "permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact". HP14 also states: "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." A final point to note is that the site cannot be readily discerned from the adjacent highway, and while views from the Conservation Area itself are necessarily longdistance the site is rather more easily seen from the nearby Manx Electric Railway line. It can, however, be readily discerned, at stages, for a great length along the coast road. While it is noted that the dwelling will likely be most easily identified / identifiable by those looking for it, it may be that the new proposal with its significant amount of glazing will be more readily visible.
• 6.13 It is considered that, very much on balance, all of these elements come together such that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the visual character of the area. This 'character' is very rural and those dwellings present are not easily seen and nor do they offer a particularly strong vernacular style. Few could be said to be of especially high quality architecture, though, equally, very few could be said to be of poor form. In this sense, the proposed dwelling would, almost by virtue of its being neither one thing nor the other, fit within this varied architectural aesthetic.
• 6.14 Views of the site from the Conservation Area and MER line will be more apparent should the proposed dwelling be approved given that the proposed glazing is over three storeys and will very likely reflect ambient and direct light eastwards. Limited details on the glazing's reflectiveness have been provided. Non-reflective would preferable but the glazing of the scale proposed will also likely have a fairly significant impact purely from the point of view of its overall extent relative to the existing situation. The sheer extent of the glazing proposed is significant and cannot be ignored but, on balance, may have a beneficial impact on the visual impact relative to Belmont, which is predominantly white-rendered albeit has become weathered over time.
• 6.15 The design is, if nothing else, bold and will be visible from public positions but, on balance, is not considered to result in an adverse visual impact. Whether this means the proposal could be judged as complying with Housing Policy 14 is another matter, of course. It is readily accepted that to many people the proposed dwelling is completely contrary to Housing Policy 14, and the subjectivity must be divorced from the objective policy as much as possible. It is considered that the key element of the policy in this case is whether or not the proposed new dwelling would have less visual impact than the existing. It would be less visible from both the adjacent highway but more visible from the coast road by virtue of the reduced built environment mass and the large expanse of glazing respectively. It is a very hard balance to strike, given the relevant wording of HP14. While there is no one element of the scheme that is considered to clearly indicate an approval or a refusal should be issued, it is concluded that this in itself is such as to mean that the overall impact would be different but neither better nor worse than the existing situation. As such, it is considered that the proposal, in what must be a finely balanced conclusion, is not at sufficiently significant odds with the wording of Housing Policy 14 as to warrant its refusal.
• 6.16 The concern raised about the assessment of the visual impact of the proposal as raised by the owners of Dreemskerry Farm relative to their previous experiences is acknowledged. However, and while it is appreciated that this might be frustrating, that situation was different inasmuch as it related to changes to a standalone garage building for which there was no policy support given the site's countryside location; that which is proposed here does have policy support - in principle, at least - and so less intensive assessment of the visual impact is

possible. That is not to say, of course, that the issue has not been given very close attention and, indeed, represents the most serious concern in the assessment.

Other matters

6.17 The proposed use of solar panels, a ventilation heat recovery system and also (possibly) an air source heat pump is welcome. None of these can be controlled by planning condition, although the solar panels are shown on the submitted drawings. It is likely that the new dwelling would be more environmentally efficient than Belmont, although this is not considered sufficient reason in itself to justify a recommendation of approval, and the conclusions with respect to the visual impact of the proposal are, in this case, judged to carry the most significant weight in the assessment of the application. - 6.18 No details of the entrance have been provided. The applicant has indicated he would be content with a condition limiting this to a Manx stone wall and without gates, although it may be that Committee members prefer a greater level of detail and seek further details by way of a drawing to satisfy themselves of the appearance of this. A condition in respect of the stone finish of walls on the site is recommended accordingly. - 6.19 Although a potentially controversial element, the extension of the residential curtilage is considered to be welcome in this case. The existing highway accesses are both poor in terms of visibility and ease of manoeuvre given the height difference between the site and the highway, and the proposed increase in curtilage to allow a single access of markedly shallower gradation is very much welcomed by Highway Services and is similarly welcome from a Planning side. A condition requiring the access / visibility splay be laid out as per the approved plans prior to the occupation of the dwelling would be appropriate. - 6.20 The approach to trees on the site is considered acceptable and no objection is raised on this point. - 6.21 The concern raised by owners of neighbouring land and the nearby Dreemskerry Farm in respect of flooding is understood inasmuch as the proposed method of diverting flood waters elsewhere does not appear to be based on hydrology reports. However, given the MUA have no concerns about the proposal compounding existing problems it would seem that it would be difficult to sustain an objection to this issue."

- 7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Overall, while there is an argument that the new proposed dwelling does not fully comply with HP14 (as previously considered); it is considered the existing dwelling is of poor form and the new proposed dwelling is of a more traditional character (albeit no Manx vernacular) and would not have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape/countryside setting. It is not uncommon in the immediate are to find similar styled properties or nonvernacular properties in large grounds. Overall, it is considered once again the proposal would have no adverse impact upon public or private amenities and therefore comply with the relevant policies. It is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions listed. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;

• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 09.03.2020 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.