Erection of a general storage building and associated landscaping including extension of residential curtilage to accommodate new access tracks, repositioned driveway, new entrance walling and concrete apron (retrospective)
Site Address:
Cronk Breck Bernahara Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3HH
Case Officer:
Mr A Holmes
Photo Taken:
14.11.2012
Site Visit:
14.11.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND A REPRESENTATION BEING RECEIVED FROM A MEMBER OF STAFF IN THE PLANNING AUTHORITY.
The Application Site
The application site comprises the residential curtilage of and land adjoining a detached dwelling known as Cronk Breck. This dwelling, which was recently constructed as a replacement dwelling, is located on the eastern side of the Bayr ny Hayrey road (B14), south west of Andreas village.
The Proposal
The proposal comprises the erection of a general storage building and associated landscaping including extension of residential curtilage to accommodate new access track, repositioned driveway, new entrance walling and concrete apron.
The proposed building has a footprint of 15.1 metres by 12.4 metres. Due to the curved roof design the proposed building does not have an obvious eaves height but the ridge height of the proposed building is 6.5 metres, 1.0 metre of which is set into the ground. The external finish of the proposed building is green. The proposed concrete apron is located in front of and to be used in connection with the storage of a helicopter within the proposed building. The repositioned driveway, entrance walling and access track relate to changes to the access onto the adjacent highway and the provision of tracks within the overall applications site to provide access to different areas. The proposed increase in residential curtilage from existing to proposed is clearly identified within drawing no. 12.
Planning History
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which could be considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Planning application 09/01011/B sought planning approval for the demolition of existing farmhouse and ancillary outbuildings and erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was approved by the Planning Committee on the 19th October 2009.
Planning application 10/00216/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. This previous planning application was approved by the Planning Committee on the
30th April 2010. The development proposed by and approved by this previous planning application basically consisted of amendments to the development approved by previous planning application 09/01011/B.
Planning application 12/00582/B sought planning approval for the creation of a temporary access track and erection of a temporary general purpose agricultural building to house garden maintenance machinery, vehicles and helicopter. This previous planning application was refused by the Planning Committee on the 12th June 2012.
At the time of writing there are two related planning applications currently under consideration. These planning applications, which are currently pending decision, are:
Planning application 12/01362/B which seeks planning approval for the installation of three dormer windows to the main house roof.
Planning application 12/01363/B seeks planning approval for alterations and erection of extension to provide garage with living accommodation above.
Planning Policy
In terms of land use designation the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982.
Representations
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application, stating that consider the proposal to have no traffic management, parking or safety implications.
The owner and/or occupant of Ballachurry Farm Cottage, which is located approximately 250 metres east of the dwelling, has made representations to the planning application. They highlight concerns over history of the replacement dwelling and highlight their belief that planning approval was granted contrary to planning policy. Overall, whilst acknowledging that the quality of finish of what is visible from public viewpoints appears to very good they express concern over the extent of retrospective work being applied for. In terms of the walling at the entrance to the property they question the appropriateness of such development in a rural location. They acknowledge that much of the driveway is not visible outside of the application site but question whether an increased residential curtilage is acceptable. They believe that the proposed shed is not justified and suggest that planning policy allows for sheds of this scale in the countryside only where there is agricultural justification.
Assessment
A significant proportion of what is proposed by the planning application has already been undertaken. As such planning approval is sought retrospectively. When considering such planning applications it has to be recognised it is an established principle of planning that the fact planning approval is sought retrospectively should neither advantage nor disadvantage assessment of a planning application.
The planning application seeks planning approval for the erection of a general storage building and associated landscaping including extension of residential curtilage to accommodate new access track, repositioned driveway, new entrance walling and concrete apron. In terms of assessing the planning application it is considered that whilst all elements are linked the proposed development can be sub-divided into the three following separate elements:
i) erection of a general storage building and concrete apron; ii) extension of residential curtilage; and iii) new tracks, repositioned driveway and new entrance walling.
In terms of i) there is no planning policy that specifically covers the erection of such buildings for existing dwellings within the countryside. Rather, it is appropriate to consider whether the size of such building is acceptable and whether its impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding countryside is acceptable. Whilst the proposed building could not be said to be
small it is considered that the size of the dwelling and associated land is sufficient to warrant such a building. Furthermore, the proposed building is located within the existing residential curtilage of the property. The proposed building will be used for a variety of domestic storage purposes, although the primary use will be storage of a private helicopter. The operation of a private helicopter from the application site does not constitute development and therefore does not require planning approval. If such activity is going to occur there are clear advantages to having a building to store the helicopter within, both for the applicant and for the amenity of the surrounding area. As highlighted earlier, planning approval was previously sought and refused for a building to house items including a helicopter. For comparison, the building proposed by previous planning application 12/00582/B had a footprint of 16.5 metres by 13.5 metres and a ridge height of 7.5 metres. It was also a more conventional box building rather than the curved roof design of the building proposed by the current planning application. The building proposed by this planning application is smaller, with a footprint of 15.1 metres by 12.4 metres and a ridge height of 6.5 metres. As the proposed building has a curved roof design it does not have an obvious eaves height.
Based on site visit to the application site and surrounding area it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed building is limited. The proposed building is significantly lower than the height of the adjacent dwelling, is set in amongst existing trees and has limited public visibility from outside of the application site due to natural screening by intervening topography and vegetation. The external finish of the proposed building is green, which further helps soften any visual impact it may have within the area. Based on this the overall impact of the proposed building on the visual amenity of the surrounding area is considered to be acceptable. The proposed concrete apron is not visible from outside of the application site and therefore has no impact on the visual amenity of the area from public viewpoints.
Neither the proposed building nor the proposed concrete apron are considered to adversely affect private amenity, highway safety or any other obvious material planning consideration. Overall, this element of the planning application is concluded to be acceptable.
In respect of ii) the extent of the proposed increase in residential curtilage from existing to proposed is clearly identified within drawing no. 12. The southern edge of the residential curtilage will be clearly defined by the south edge of the proposed driveway and track. The land beyond this, which comprises of parts of three fields (122322, 12238 & 122329), would be outside of the defined residential curtilage for the property. These fields were not in active agricultural use before the submission of this planning application and do not readily form an existing agricultural holding. It is likely that these fields will remain as general rural grassland or paddock. The proposed residential curtilage is not considered to be excessive for a property of the size of Cronk Breck. The change from existing to proposed residential curtilage is not readily visible from outside of the application site and the impact of such change is unlikely to have a discernible impact on the visual presence of the property within the surrounding area. As such, there is no obvious harm arising from this element of the proposed development and it is therefore concluded to be acceptable.
As for iii) the two main considerations are the impact on highway safety and the impact on public amenity. The widening of the vehicular access onto Bayr ny Hayrey road (B14) and the movement of the property gates further within the application site is an improvement to highway safety. This view is shared by the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division. The impact of this on the rural character of the surrounding area, and therefore public amenity, is considered to be limited. The actual walling is suitably rural in appearance and the extent of its visibility is limited to a short stretch on the Bayr ny Hayrey road (B14). The repositioned driveway and tracks within the remainder of the application site are not readily visible from outside of the application site. As such, these do not have a discernible impact on public amenity and nor do they adversely affect private amenity, highway safety or any other obvious material planning consideration. Overall, this element of the planning application is concluded to be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the planning application be approved.
PARTY STATUS
The local authority is, 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.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division; and The owner and/or occupant of Ballachurry Farm Cottage (distance from site and intervening land ownership).
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.11.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: 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 drawing no.s 12, 13 and 100 date stamped the 9th October 2012.
C 3. The residential curtilage of Cronk Breck is hereby amended by this planning approval to as defined by the sold red line on drawing no. 12 date stamped the 9th October 2012.
Solid
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 : Approved Committee Meeting Date : 26/11/12
Signed : G. H. D. M. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ YES / ☐ NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
