Officer Report 11/01229/B

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:11554}} {{table:11553}}

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The application site includes the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling in the countryside and part of field number 224042 to the south and east.
2. The dwelling is a dormer bungalow, located on the eastern side of the A10 Ballaugh to Jurby coast road, near to the junction with the A13 Ballamona Straight. The dwelling has recently been given planning approval for alterations and extensions (PA 11/00629/B). These works are currently under construction.
3. The dwelling was built under the Agricultural Workers Tied Housing Scheme, previously administered by the Local Government Board. Planning permission was granted for the erection of the dwelling in 1964 (IDO 19238). In 2010, a certificate of lawfulness was agreed for the use of the building as a residential dwelling, with no planning conditions restricting the occupancy of the dwelling (PA 10/01648/LAW). The residential curtilage of the site was confirmed in the 2010 certificate of lawfulness.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the erection of a detached building comprising a garage and store with study / office above, the creation of a vehicular access / drive and an extension to the domestic curtilage.

The proposed building:

1. The proposed detached building would be located to the rear (east) of the main house at a distance of over 13 metres away. The building would be positioned outside of the existing residential curtilage of the site.
2. The building would comprise a garage and store at ground floor level with living accommodation in the roof space above. The ground floor plan of the building would be almost square in shape, measuring 10 metres long by 9.8 metres wide. At first floor level, the living accommodation would be positioned above the garage only and not the garden store, so the width would be reduced and the accommodation would be above the front (south) of the building. The building would have a pitched roof over, which would be positioned centrally above the first floor accommodation, extending down further over the ground floor garden store to the rear. The overall

height of the building would be approximately 6.1 metres from ground level. The height to eaves level would be approximately 4 metres on the front (south) and 2.1 metres on the rear (north).

1. The building would have 3 garage doors on the front (south) elevation and the garage would also be accessed by a pedestrian door on the western side elevation. The garden store to the rear would be accessed by doors on the eastern and western side elevations. External steps on the western elevation would lead up to the first floor accommodation above the garage. There would be a total of 9 velux rooflights, with 6 on the north roof slope and 3 on the south.

1. The external walls would be finished with painted render, with the exception of the ground floor level of the front (south) southern, which would have dark red brickwork. The windows would be in white upvc and the doors would be timber boarded.

1. A letter accompanying the application provides further information about the background of the proposal. The dwelling currently has no garaging or storage for garden equipment and the existing driveway only accommodates two vehicles, although the occupiers have three. The proposed garage would therefore accommodate the owner's three vehicles. The garden store would accommodate a sit on mower and other implements. The roof space over the garage would be utilised as a study/office for the applicant who owns and runs a business in Ramsey, enabling them to work from home for most of the time. This space would also be used as temporary sleeping accommodation for the family of the applicants. The accommodation would include a toilet and a wash hand basin, but no actual bathroom.

The proposed vehicular entrance and driveway:

1. It is proposed to block up the existing vehicular entrance to the north of the dwelling and construct a new entrance and driveway to the south of the dwelling, outside of what is currently the residential curtilage. The existing pedestrian access in front of the dwelling would be retained.

1. The existing driveway has off road parking for 2 vehicles, although there is no turning area and visibility from the entrance is restricted by a sod hedge and telegraph pole. It is proposed to block up the existing vehicular entrance with a wall and grass verge to match the existing. The existing driveway itself would be planted with shrubs.

1. The proposed vehicular entrance would be formed in the existing sod hedging, with the hedge being reduced in height along the boundary from 1.35 metres to 1 metre. The new entrance would have visibility splays of metres. The gate entrance would be 3.5 metres wide and it would be set back from the road in order to enable a vehicle to drive in without blocking the highway whilst the gate is closed.

1. The driveway would extend eastwards to beyond the frontage of the proposed garage, where there would be a turning area. The surface would be paving from the road to the gate and grasscrete from the gate to the new drive and turning area.

The proposed extension to the residential curtilage:

1. In a letter from the agent accompanying the application, they state that they feel it would not be possible to construct a garage, access and turning area within the existing residential curtilage.

1. It is proposed to extend the existing curtilage eastwards and southwards to include more of field number 224042. This field is in the same ownership as the dwelling. The remainder of the field outside of the proposed residential curtilage would be a triangular shaped portion of land and it appears in drawing number 337/2/5 that the applicant intends to lawn this area and plant trees.

Planning History

1. The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

1. IDO 19238 – Permitted 24.04.64

Tied Farmworker’s Cottage, Ballamona Ballaugh (The applicant was the Local Government Board of the Isle of Man Government)

1. PA 01/01815/B – Refused at Appeal 05.08.02

Alterations and extension to dwelling and erection of car port R.1 By reason of the size of the extension and the nature of the alterations proposed the development would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent that the resultant dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

1. PA 05/00939/B – Refused at Appeal 15.03.06

Erection of replacement dwelling, driveway and vehicular access R1. The proposed residential development would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88, Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 3 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that i) by reason of the siting, design, size and massing of the proposed development it would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent the resultant development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance; and ii) the proposed curtilage would amount to being a significant encroachment of a residential curtilage into the open countryside which will further diminish the openness, character and quality of the surrounding area which would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality. R.2 The proposed entrances do not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.

1. PA 10/01648/LAW – Certificate of Lawfulness AGREED 21.12.10

Application for a certificate of lawfulness to confirm the lawfulness of the use of a building as a residential dwelling C1. From the evidence provided, and from historic archive, there are no planning conditions attached to the planning permission dated 20th April 1964 for the erection of a dwelling on the land and defined by the red line on the Site Plan herewith attached and now known as Harleys, Jurby Coast Road, Killane. This decision was made by the Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority delegated under the Government Departments Act 1987.

1. 11/00629/B – Permitted 21.07.11

Alterations and extensions to dwelling

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

1. The application site is located within an area designated as White Land that is not designated for development, in addition to an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area.

1. Due to the land use zoning of the site and the nature of the proposal, the relevant planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2.

1. General Policy 3 states:

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(1) 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.

25. Environment Policy 1 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.

26. Environment Policy 2 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."

Consultations

1. The Department of Infrastructure's Highways Division does not oppose this application, subject to the condition that the applicant contacts the Network Operations Section of the DOI prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs.
2. Ballaugh Parish Commissioners have no objections to the proposal.

Representations

1. The owner of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas has commented on the application. They state that the application is confusing as the site is defined in drawing number 337/2/2, yet drawing 337/2/5 indicates the original curtilage of the site, plus development of the garden beyond the defined site. They feel that the change of use of the southern half of the field would be unacceptable, as it would be an unnecessary urbanisation and visual intrusion into the countryside. They have no objection to the proposed physical construction, stating that it is inoffensive.
2. The owner of Crawyn House, Killane, Ballaugh objects to the application. The reasons for their objection can be summarised as follows:

• Their property is the next dwelling to the north of the application site, although the two are separated by a field. The proposed garage block would block out some of the scenic views from their dwelling.
• Their views of the proposed garage block would be of its rear, where there would be a very large and unsightly roof.
• The proposed garage block would be almost as large as the recently extended house and will have a visual impact from both directions of the A10 road and also the Sandygate to Ballaugh main road.

Assessment

1. The site is a non-traditional dwelling lying within an area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Development Order. Due to this land use zoning, the proposal is constrained by General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2.

1. I originally visited the site on 02.06.11. A further site visit was undertaken on 21.09.11 when it was seen that the works approved under 11/00629/B were under construction. Due to the building works taking place, it was my decision not to enter the site on that day.

The proposed building:

1. In the previous planning application (PA 11/00629/B), it was considered in the case officer’s report that the floor area of the dwelling (including the approved extensions which are now under construction) is 148 square metres. This floor area is measured externally, although the upper floor only includes the areas where the ceiling height is greater than 1.5 metres. This ceiling height of 1.5 metres has been applied, as it is used as a definition of “net floor space” in the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982.

1. Using the above system to measure floor areas, it is considered that the proposed building has a floor area of 149 square metres, which is slightly larger than the main house. The main house is judged to be a dormer bungalow and although it is only single storey to eaves level, the roof slope is steep and adds significant height to the property. The overall height of the proposed building would be approximately 1.1 metres below that of the main house, but the eaves level would not correspond with this. On the northern elevation, the roof slope would extend over the ground floor garden store area, so the eaves would be approximately 2.1 metres from ground level. However, on the southern elevation the eaves would be 4 metres from ground level, which is considered to be a storey and a half tall. Here, the level of the eaves would be approximately 1 metre higher than that of the main house.

1. Given the size and location of the proposed building, it is judged that the visual impact of the site would therefore increase. Due to the scenic significance of the area, it is judged that the proposal would result in the introduction of an intrusive feature which would be detrimental to the character of this area. In addition to this, approval of this planning application would set an undesirable precedent for further such inappropriate development in the countryside. The building would be publicly visible from the A10 Ballaugh to Jurby coast road, in addition to more distant views from the Ballamona Straight section of the A13 Ballaugh to Sandygate road.

1. In terms of planning policy, there is a presumption against new build developments relating to residential use in the countryside. This presumption is set out against this proposal in four different ways. Firstly, the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan makes no exception for developments of this type to take place within the countryside. Thirdly, Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake against developments which would have an adverse affect upon it. Fourthly, the site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and the proposal is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 2 which primarily protects the character of the landscape. The character of the wider area is formed by relatively level, open fields and there is some sporadic development northwards of the application site, along both sides of the road. This dwelling and others in the locality are clearly visible from the public highway and due to the size of the proposed garage, it is felt that its physical impact would be similar to a new dwelling in the countryside. For these reasons, it is clear that the development proposed in this planning application is contrary to the current planning policies of the Department.

1. A letter from the agent claims that as the proposed first floor accommodation will be used by the applicant as office space, this will substantially cut down on their commuting to and from Ramsey, which is in accordance with current aims of planning policy. It is not clear which planning policies the agent considers are relevant to this application. Strategic Policy 10 from the Strategic Plan relates to the effect of new development on the transport network and requires development to minimise journeys, especially by private car. However, Strategic Policy 9 requires all new office

development (except for corporate headquarters in business parks) to be sited within town and village centres on land zoned for such use. There is no local need for an office on this site and the addition of this space would result in a much larger building being constructed, due to the increased height.

The proposed vehicular entrance and driveway:

1. The proposed vehicular entrance and driveway would result in an encroachment of the residential curtilage into the countryside and the driveway would take up a considerably larger area than the existing. The existing driveway has parking for two vehicles and it is stated that this is not enough space for the existing resident's three cars. However, Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 requires residential dwellings to have two off street parking spaces, so the existing arrangement complies with the requirements of the Strategic Plan.

1. Whilst there may be an argument for improved access and/or additional car parking in order to improve highway safety by removing further vehicles from the road, it is considered that the size of the proposed driveway is excessive, as three cars could be accommodated within the proposed garage, in addition to at least five on the proposed driveway. To calculate this, I have taken a parking space to measure 2.4 by 4.8 metres. This increased parking area would be disproportionate when taking into account the modest size of the existing dwelling and residential curtilage.

1. The accommodation above the proposed garage would be used as either an office for the applicant or a bedroom for visitors. It is therefore felt that the residential use of this space could result in a higher level of use compared to the existing, leading to more coming and going by car and more vehicles accessing the site.

1. The extension to the existing wall along the front of the dwelling would result in the extension of an urban feature in the countryside. However, as there is already a wall here and this area is within the existing residential curtilage, it would be acceptable.

1. The proposed entrance would be located in the existing sod hedge on the western boundary of the site and the height of the existing hedge adjacent to the entrance would be lowered to 1 metre high. It is stated that the proposed access would have greater visibility than the existing, which would be due to the splayed entrance and lowered hedge. The Highways Division have not objected to the proposal, so in terms of highway safety, the access is considered to be acceptable. However, I notice that the submitted photographs of the siting of the proposed access have been taken from a position closer to the road than the photographs of the existing access, so I do not consider them to be an accurate comparison.

The proposed extension to the residential curtilage:

1. The application form states that the existing use of the site is a "private dwelling". This is incorrect, as the site also includes part of an agricultural field. This was discussed during correspondence with the agent under the previous planning application 11/00629/B. I wrote to the agent on 06.10.11 and asked them to amend the application form to state the correct use of the existing site, but this had not been completed at the time of writing this report one week later on 13.10.11. It is felt that as the description of the proposal includes "extension of domestic curtilage", the purpose of the proposed development is clear.

1. The applicants also own the remainder of field no. 224042, which is to the south of the current application site. Drawing number 337/2/5 shows that it is intended to lawn this area and plant hedges and trees to the east and west boundaries. Whilst cutting the grass and limited planting can be undertaken without acquiring planning permission, the drawing suggests that the use of the site would be changed to garden, as there would be no physical barrier between the proposed curtilage and the remainder of the field. However, this area is outside the red line which represents the curtilage of the site, so if this proposal was approved, the use of this area as garden would not be lawful.

1. The planning history of the site is considered to be relevant in the assessment of the proposed extension to the residential curtilage. The dwelling was approved in 1964 (IDO 19238) as a small agricultural worker's dwelling. Permission was refused for alterations and extensions under PA 01/01815/B, due to the size of the proposed extension having a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the Area of High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Following this, planning permission was refused for a replacement dwelling under PA 05/00939/B, as it would significantly increase the level of built development to the extent that it would have a detrimental effect on the character of the area, because the increased residential curtilage would diminish the character of the area and because the proposed entrances would not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site. A certificate of lawfulness was agreed under PA 10/01648/LAW for the use of the building as a residential dwelling, with no restrictions on occupancy. The residential curtilage of the site was confirmed in the 2010 certificate of lawfulness. Finally, planning permission was granted under PA 11/00629/B for alterations and extensions to the dwelling, which did not result in any changes to the residential curtilage of the site. Although these extensions result in the impact of a non traditional dwelling in the countryside being greater to the public, it was felt that because the size and form of the extensions would be in keeping with the existing dwelling, there was a provision to extend the property.

1. It was proposed to increase the residential curtilage of the site under planning applications 01/01815/B and 05/00939/B, but both of these proposals were refused. One of the reasons for refusal of PA 05/00939/B referred to the significant encroachment of the residential curtilage into the open countryside "which will further diminish the openness, character and quality of the surrounding area which would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality." The residential curtilage proposed under PA 05/00939/B was larger than what is proposed in this current application, as it also included the remainder of field no. 224042. In this current planning application, the proposed residential curtilage would physically accommodate the proposed garage building, vehicular entrance and driveway. However, due to the details shown in the proposed site plan (drawing no. 337/2/5), it is my view that it is intended to use the remainder of field number 224042 as a garden for the dwelling with lawned areas and planting, so the residential curtilage of the site would actually be increased more than what is indicated.

1. Going by the proposed curtilage as shown in the submitted drawings, the proposal would represent a significant increase over the existing. A comparison between the existing and proposed is depicted in drawing no. 337/2/2. Whilst there may be an argument for improved access and/or additional car parking outside of the existing residential curtilage, it is considered that the proposed garage and driveway would be excessive for this site and would result in an unacceptable encroachment of the existing residential curtilage into the countryside.

Recommendation

1. For the above reasons, this proposal is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should be afforded interested party status:

• Ballaugh Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should not be afforded interested party status:

• The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
• The owner of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas lives a significant distance from the application site, so should not be afforded party status in this instance.

• The owner of Crawyn House, Killane, Ballaugh does not own or reside in land or buildings which physically adjoin the site as there is a field between the two properties. For this reason, they cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 13.10.2011

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

R 1.

The extension to the residential curtilage of the dwelling would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, as it would result in an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the countryside.

R 2.

The proposed garage and store/office, due to its design, size and siting, would be tantamount to the erection of a dwelling in the countryside contrary to the aims of the Strategic Plan; would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the appearance of the area; and would represent unwarranted development within the countryside contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2007.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 1871014

Signed _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

OR

Signed _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager