Loading document...
Application No.: 24/00059/B Applicant: Mr Andrew Barnett Proposal: Variation of condition one of application 20/00061/B for Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with associated driveway, to extend the period of approval for a further four years Site Address: Belmont Lewaigue Road Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BF Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.03.2024
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
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.
N 1. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025.
You therefore are encouraged to ensure that your proposed development includes alternatives to fossil fuel heating systems if you believe that such works will not be completed by that date.
To this end, if you propose an alternative, such as air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning approval, the details of this should be addressed now. This may require you to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative permitted heating system proposed.
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 not 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 02.02.2024.
Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
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. - 2.2 Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with associated driveway - 20/00061/B This application expires on the 12.03.2024 and therefore could be implemented today, albeit the applicant has explained the reasons why they seek a variation in the condition to seek additional time to commence within paragraph 3.9 of this report. The dwelling approved under this application is the same that is currently sought under this new planning application under consideration.
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 six-oversix 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-to-ceiling
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:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services comment they have no highway interest and that the extension of time is acceptable to Highway Services HDC (09.02.2024).
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Firstly it should be noted that the previously approved application does not expire until the 12.03.2024 and therefore could be implemented today, albeit the applicant has explained the reasons (section 3.9 of this report) why they haven't started to date. - 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
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 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.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 07.03.2024 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown