Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90119/B Applicant: Mr Keith Hoyes Proposal: Erection of replacement dwelling Site Address: Thie Dhorlish Rhenab Road Cornaa Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1EL Planning Officer: Russell Williams Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 02.04.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. As a result of the previous demolition of the original building, which results in there being no dwelling present within the application site, it is considered that the residential use of the site has been abandoned. As such, the proposed development represents new build housing in the countryside on land not zoned for development and is unacceptable in principle. The development conflicts with Housing Policy 12 (a), Housing Policy 13 and does not satisfy any criteria set out under General Policy 3. - R 2. In the absence of an existing dwelling on the application site, the proposed development would result in the development of a new build dwelling outside of a designated town or village where planning policy does not support such a use. The proposals therefore represent an unsustainable form of development that would encourage unsustainable travel and encroachment into the countryside. The proposal therefore conflicts with Strategic Policies 1, 2, and 10, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4 _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Garff Commissioners No objection DOI Highway Services No objection
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Thie Dhorlish, Rhenab Road, Cornaa, Ramsey, which previously housed a two-storey detached dwelling located on the east of Rhenab Road, which has now been demolished. - 1.2 Planning permission was approved on the 17th March 2023 for refurbishment, partial demolition of existing extension and erection of a new single-storey extension. Minor site clearance works around the house were undertaken by the owner in February 2024 after a very harsh winter. Due to the precarious nature of the existing building he obtained the services of a professional demolition contractor to carry out works to the house, before the start of the bird nesting season. - 1.3 Unfortunately following the removal of the rear extension, the contractor informed the owner that the house was in such a poor condition that it was very unstable and could not be left as it was, as it was a Health and safety risk and if anyone went on the plot it could potentially collapse. As there were families in houses adjacent the owner decided that the best solution was for the Contractor to demolish the house safely while he was there that day.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is for a replacement dwelling and seeks to essentially replace the dwelling that would have been refurbished and finished from the previous permission granted under application reference 22/01470/B. - 2.2 Comparison plans show the previous footprint permission PA22/01470/B in red hatching compared to what is now proposed with the footprint identical. Comparison elevations at plan numbers 08 and 09 also show how the proposals compare visually with the previous permission. - 2.3 The front elevation (east) has a reduced roof to allow a full two storeys where previously the windows were at eaves level due to restricted height. An additional mid-section window to the first floor above the porch. - 2.4 West Elevation as per approved. - 2.5 South Elevation side window to porch created - 2.6 North elevation as per approved. - 2.7 The replacement dwelling has been moved back and further away from the river side when compared to the previous plans. - 2.8 This application forms a resubmission of the previously refused scheme, reference 24/00805/B with no significant or material changes having been made to the proposals.
3.1 The application site is identified in the 1982 Development Plan as 'white land' within the countryside that is not zoned for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area but falls within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application: - 3.3 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.4 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.5 Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
3.6 Spatial Policy 5: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." - 3.7 Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
3.8 Housing Policy 12: The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
3.9 Housing Policy 13: "In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where:
3.10 Housing Policy 14: "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(1), 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
3.12 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."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Residential Design Guide is a material consideration.
4.2 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside policies are as follows:
5.1 The following two planning applications are most pertinent to the determination of the application:
Approval in principle to build a replacement three bedroom two story house with a separate garage and workshop was REFUSED under PA 22/00618/A. The reason for refusal was "failing to comply with General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 12 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016."
Planning permission was APPROVED PA22/01470/B on the 17th March 2023 for Refurbishment, partial demolition of existing extension and erection of a new single-storey extension, the dwelling was then demolished.
Planning application 24/00805/B was REFUSED for the construction of a replacement dwelling. The reason for refusal related to the dwelling having been demolished already and so the development constituted new unsustainable residential development in the countryside.
6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted and their responses can be summarised as follows:
Garff Commissioners - There were no objections to these proposals. Members felt that the design and scope of the proposed dwelling were relatively in-keeping with the previous cottage and would not be inappropriate in this location.
DOI Highway Services - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking subject to vehicular access, the front boundary wall and vehicular parking on approved plans implemented before first occupation and retained thereafter (for highway safety purposes). A S109 highway agreement will be required for the access works onto the publicly adopted highway.
Ecosystem Policy Team - No objection subject to condition Detailed Comments
External lighting could be damaging to nocturnal wildlife, including bats and invertebrates, in this location due to the proximity of the dwelling to a wooded river corridor, we therefore request a condition which secures sensitive external lighting. Potential conditions
No external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.
6.2 No representations from members of the public or interested parties have been received. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application is the principle of a replacement dwelling on the site. Other material considerations relating to the design, scale and impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and residential amenity also require consideration.
7.2 The application site is that of a former detached dwelling house that was demolished following the implementation of the approved scheme under 22/01470/B in February 2024. The application seeks permission for a replacement dwelling scheme. The site is located in the countryside and is not within a town or village that is recognised by the Strategic Plan or Area Plan as being a sustainable location for new housing. General Policy 3 is therefore engaged and there is a general presumption against development unless one of the listed criteria applies.
7.3 General Policy 3 (d) supports replacement dwellings in the countryside subject to compliance with housing Policies 12, 13 and 14. - 7.4 Housing Policy 12 is clear that the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: "(a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment" - 7.5 Housing Policy 13 addresses situations when the residential use of a building has been abandoned and provides support for the reuse of the fabric of the building and restoration to a dwelling, subject to three criteria being met. Criteria (a) states that "(a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained." - 7.6 As a result of the dwelling having been demolished, and as determined under application 24/00805/B, the residential use of the former cottage and the site has been abandoned. - 7.7 The applicant has submitted that the dwelling was demolished when works to clear the site and demolish the rear extension of the dwelling were commenced. It is stated that the builder determined that the building was left in an unsafe condition and liable to collapse. This, it is said, formed a health and safety issue and so the building was demolished the same day as the extension was removed. - 7.8 Whilst there is some sympathy to the applicant's case, it remains the case that there is a lack of detailed evidence, other than an email from the building contractor, evidencing the condition of the building. In the absence of a structural survey or more detailed evidence than that submitted, it is not possible to substantiate the claim that the building was unsafe and liable to collapsing. It seems that the decision to demolish the structure was made in some haste and to do it so quickly and without prior discussions with either the planning or building control teams unwise. - 7.9 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development fails to comply with Housing Policies 12 and 13 and cannot be considered as a replacement dwelling scheme virtue of the residential use of the site having been abandoned, which is clearly evidenced by the demolition of the original dwelling more than 12 months ago. The proposed development consequently fails to accord with General Policy 3, in particular criteria (d), which allows for replacement dwellings in the countryside. - 7.10 With the development not forming a genuine replacement dwelling scheme, the development of the proposed dwelling house would be tantamount to new residential development in the open countryside. The application site is not considered to represent a sustainable location for new build housing, would encourage unsustainable transport movements and would not comply with Strategic Policy 10 or any circumstances set to in Housing Policy 4. - 7.11 Having regard to other matters, there would be no in-principle objection to the design of the development which is generally reflective of the 2022 application that was permitted to restore and extend the building. Similarly, the impacts upon highway safety, residential amenity and biodiversity would likely be acceptable.
8.1 Having regard to the above matters, the proposed development represents unjustified new residential development in the countryside that conflicts with Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policies 4, 12 and 13 together with General Policy 3. It is therefore recommended that permission is refused.
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
9.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 03.04.2025 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown