Planning Officer Report

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:378072}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE REPLACEMENT DWELLING RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL IS LARGER THAN 50%

Summary Of Proposals

This application follows on from a series of previous applications for this site. These applications have generally been for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a new, larger dwelling further back on the site, together with the conversion of the existing stone barns to further application and garaging. This latest application proposes slight alterations to the approved replacement dwelling and the demolition of the barn closest to the road with no rebuilding or replacement.

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises the curtilage of a dwelling and number of redundant stone and pre-fabricated outbuildings at Ballacaroon Farm, Mount Rule, Braddan. The dwelling, which is currently unoccupied, is located directly adjacent to the road. To the north of site is the A23 (West Baldwin Road) and to the west of the site is Mount Rule Equestrian Centre. To the east of the site is an unmade access lane. The application site is approximately 0.5ha in area.

Proposal

1. The application seeks approval for demolition of the barn, creation of garaging and erection of a replacement dwelling (amendments to PA 12/01057/B).

1. The proposed dwelling in terms of proportion, form and size is proposed to replicate a traditional Manx farmhouse design, with five upper windows over a central doorway with two windows set either side of the front door. The elevations of the main dwelling house would be painted render with a natural slate roof. The proposal also includes a single and two storey side extension finished with stone to the east elevation which forms an 'L' shape.

1. The proposed dwelling would be sited 23 metres to the south of the existing footprint of the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be sited on an existing steel framed barn which would be removed as part of this development. The residential curtilage would remain as existing.

1. It is important to note the main differences of this proposed scheme and the recently approved scheme (12/01057/B). These are:

• eaves height of dwelling have increased by approximately 0.4 metres, this does not affect the ridge height;
• coloured verges/copings to main house now coloured white; and
• demolition of existing barn and erection of a four car garage and garden store as approved previously.

1. The previous last approved schemes proposed the conversion of the existing two storey traditional Manx stone barn which is located to the northwest of the proposed dwelling (west of existing dwelling). This application 12/01057/B also proposed a single storey extension to the south elevation of the barn, forming a garage block (4 vehicle width) and a garden store. This is now proposed again, albeit not connected to the Manx stone barn which would be demolished.

PLANNING HISTORY

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

1. Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling, renovation of existing stone barn and access improvements - 06/01535/A - REFUSED

1. Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation and extension to existing stone barn - 07/00540/A - APPROVED

1. Reserved Matters application for the erection of a replacement dwelling and conversion of outbuildings to guest accommodation and garaging - 09/01154/REM – WITHDRAWN

1. Demolition of existing and erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation of existing barns to form a single dwelling - 11/00033/B - APPROVED

1. Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/00033/B) - 11/01518/B - APPROVED

1. Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/01518/B) - 12/01057/B - APPROVED

1. Demolition of existing barn and erection of a building to provide guest accommodation, garage, gym and amendments to PA 11/01518/B - 12/01546/B - REFUSED on the following grounds:

"R 1. The building proposed for use as guest accommodation/garage and playroom would be tantamount to the erection of an additional dwelling in the countryside, contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside and directing new residential development to locations that accord with sustainable development principles. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environmental Policies 1 & 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

R 2. The building proposed as guest accommodation/garage and playroom is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that, by reason of its scale, massing and design it would represent an unwarranted and visually harmful development within the countryside and an area of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.

R 3. The proposed dwelling would result in a building of far greater mass and scale that the building which it is to replace, presenting a greater intrusion into the countryside within an area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance contrary to Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."

Representations

1. The Braddan Commissioners have no objection to the planning application.
2. The Manx Electricity Authority make no comment on the merits of the application but ask for an informative note be attached to any approval.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space (agricultural) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 - Plan No. 2 and also designated as an area of High landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
2. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3. 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. 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. 21. 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 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." 22. Housing Policy 4 states: "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:
• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10 ;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14." 23. Housing Policy 12 states: "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; or
• (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
• (i) the structural condition of the building;
• (ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years;
• (iii) evidence of intervening use; and
• (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon." 24. Housing Policy 14 states: "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 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."

Assessment

1. The proposed application has two parts, firstly the proposed replacement dwelling and secondly the proposal to erect the detached garage block/garden store.
2. It can be seen that in terms of principle there is provision for the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside through planning policy contained with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. As such, the general principle behind the proposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and therefore the first aspect of the planning application is to assess the site specific impact and acceptability. In terms of this aspect the main planning policies to consider is Housing Policy 14.
3. Whilst there have been a number of planning applications for the replacement of the existing dwelling, given no works have commenced on site and as the Planning Authority

cannot consider just "amendments" to previously approved scheme, the whole aspect of Housing Policy 14 requires to be considered again, not just the amendments. However, significant weight is attached to the previously approved applications when considering this new submission.

1. With regards to the replacement dwelling the starting point when determining any application is Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy states that a replacement should generally be on the same footprint and should not be greater than greater than that of the original building.
2. In addition to that allowance it is also necessary to take account of the previous application (07/00540/A) that granted approval in principle and therefore accepted the principle of a larger dwelling on the application site. The replacement dwelling shown within that previously approved planning application had a floor space of approximately 670 square metres.
3. Furthermore, there are three recent applications (11/00033/B, 11/01518/B \& 12/01057/B) which resulted in planning permission for substantially larger dwellings in terms of floor area over the existing dwelling. When application 12/01057/B was being considered it was noted that there seemed to be a mistakes in the calculations of PA 11/00033/B and 11/01518/B. Planning application 11/00033/B was indicated by the applicant that the proposed new dwelling would have a floor area of 584 square metres. However, they had indicated that this calculation did not include the garaging link (letter dated 25th Oct 2011). The applicant has also indicated that they have always measured the internal floor area rather the external floor area. It would appear the Department took the floor area of 584 square metres as the total floor area and approval was based on this figure ( increase). In fact the proposed dwelling had an approximately floor area of 870 square metres ( increase).
4. Again the second recent approved application (11/01518/B) appeared to be calculated incorrectly, in terms of floor area. The applicant indicated (letter dated 20th January 2012) that this proposal would result in a dwelling with a floor area of 574 square metres, smaller than the previous approval. It appears again that this figure was taken as the total square metreage of the proposal and this was assessed against planning policy. Measuring the proposal it would appear the proposed dwelling was approximately 862.9 square metres in size ( increases).
5. It would certainly seem the ground floor and first floor of the main dwelling house and the attached two storey extension was included in the calculation, but the roof space, glazed link, utility/store and attached garage was not included.
6. Consequently, it would appear that the two planning approvals were substantially larger than what was indicated and envisaged by the Department, albeit the plans submitted with these applications are to scale and are correct. Rightly or wrongly, planning permission exists and considerable weight is required to be attached to these approvals.
7. The most recent approved application (12/01057/B) allowed a dwelling with a floor area of 846.9 square metres which equated to a increase in floor area over the existing property.
8. Regarding the current application which is under consideration, the floor area would be the same as the last approved application i.e. a increase in floor area over the existing property. However, this is not automatic reason for refusal of the planning application as Housing Policy 14 goes onto to state that consideration may be given to larger dwellings 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.

1. It has been accepted with the previous three approvals and the initial approval in principle application, that a significantly larger dwelling on this site is appropriate.
2. Notwithstanding the previous approvals, it is still important to consider the proposed scheme and whether the size, position and design are appropriate for this site. Visiting the site/area it became apparent that the existing two storey dwelling does not contribute positively to the visual appearance of the street scene or countryside and being sited directly adjacent to the Crosby Top Road is a prominent unattractive feature along the street scene. The remainder of the site made up of a dilapidated agricultural steel framed barn and a redundant two storey stone barn. The site is also overgrown. Consequently, the site in its current appearance does not add to the visual amenities of the area. However, it is important to note that whilst this scheme and previous approved schemes would likely be an environmental improvement to the site/area, permission should not be granted solely for these reasons as works could be undertaken to improve the area without the need for a planning permission (maintenance).
3. It is considered the existing dwelling is of poor form (previously accepted) and therefore there is scope for a larger dwelling on this site.
4. The proposed dwelling would not be sited on the existing footprint but located approximately 23 metres south of the existing dwelling and 40 metres from the West Baldwin Road. This is further into the site (approximately 9 metres) compared to the previous approvals ( ), although it is important to note the residential curtilage of the site is not proposed to increase and the proposal would be on the existing footprint of the steel framed barn. This would still result in the proposed property having a rear garden at a minimum depth of 18 metres (max 25 metres in depth). The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling would remain as previously approved even with the altered siting. The benefit of reposition of the dwelling is that built development is further away from the public highway and therefore has a reduced impact.
5. It is also worth noting that application and proposed the conversion of the existing single storey barn (additional living accommodation) which was attached to the proposed converted barn and the replacement dwelling via a glazed single storey link. This additional living accommodation formed of a gym/games room. These schemes also included an attached garage block (two double garages) which would have run a in a northern direction from the two storey barn-like extension of the main dwelling house and would have retained a gap to the West Baldwin Road of 13 metres. The third application (12/01057/B) proposed to demolish the existing single storey barn and replace with a four car garage and garden store of similar size and footprint to the barn which was to be removed. This scheme did not include a glazed link to the dwelling. Due to this, the previously proposed attached garage block (two double garages) was removed and therefore the closest aspect of the dwelling (utility/store/bedroom) to the road would be 28 metres away, compared to 13 metres. The current application under consideration now proposes to the single storey four car garages/garden store, albeit now detached from the Manx Stone Barn which is to be demolished. In conclusion, the resulting affect is a reduction in the footprint of built development on the site from the initial approved schemes, now resulting in only the dwelling with a detached garage block.
6. Relating to arguments for and against the repositioning of the dwelling. For the proposal is indicated above, that built development would be further away from the public highway and therefore potential reduces the visual impact of such development. Also it is noted that the repositioning of the dwelling away from the existing roadside position allows vehicular visibility from the site onto the public highway to be significantly improved, as the current position of the existing dwelling effectively prevents any real visibility to the right when exiting the site. Against the reposition is the fact the proposal would increase the

development further into the site, and perhaps encroaching into the open countryside, albeit into the residential curtilage of the site. On this point it is noted that the main view would be to the east of the site, when travelling towards the site along the West Baldwin Road. It was noted when visiting the site/area that the proposed dwelling would be sited on the existing substantial steel framed barn, therefore the proposal would not appear as new built form on the proposed siting. Furthermore, the backdrop of the site when viewing from the east is a large equestrian building within the neighbouring property (Mount Rule Equestrian Centre). This new submission is positing on the same footprint as the last approved application (12/01057/B) and the above arguments were accepted previously to justify the new position.

1. At this stage perhaps it is relevant to consider Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. These policies relates to traditionally designed properties which take the form of Manx vernacular. From the front elevation the proposal would follow the lines of Planning Circular 3/91 and would be symmetrical with five upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by two windows. All other elevations would also meet the criteria set out in Planning Circular 3/91. The proposal would be finished with a mixture of painted render and Manx stone, with a slate roof. These are all considered appropriate finishes to traditional properties in the countryside.
2. The initial application (11/00033/B) proposed three upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by single windows. This scheme proposes the main dwelling house to be finished in painted render and the two storey barn/garage extension in Manx stone. The following application ( ) was similar to the current application in that it had five upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by two windows. This dwelling was finished with Manx stone to all elevations (including two storey barn/garage extensions). Application 12/01057/B proposed the same dwelling size, but the main dwelling house was finished with painted render to all elevations. This new scheme again proposals similar finishes with the exception of the verges/copings which are now proposed to be painted white. This does not raise concerns.
3. When application ( ) was initially considered, concern was raised as that scheme also proposed white render to the main dwelling house. It was considered given the aspect of the main dwelling house in terms of size and massing was increasing over the previous approval ( ) and that would result in a dwelling grander in appearance.
4. It was agreed an amended scheme be submitted which included the cladding of the main dwelling house in stonework, omission of all eaves up stands and the introduction of the peaked gable to the rear elevation (south).
5. The applicants produced a long distant photo montage taken from the Lhergy Cripperty, the only public accessible vantage point, which reinforced the view that there was no distant visual impact- whether the main house was clad in stone or render. However, application 11/01518/B wasn't amended to reflect this. When the last approved application (12/01057/B) was proposed as indicated above it proposed the main dwelling house being finished with painted white render. It was considered and accepted that visually the proposal would be more aesthetically pleasing and the contrast between the render and the stone in the application is more in accordance with the Design Circular suggesting a farm dwelling which has been extended over time. It was also accepted that the main difference with the application was that the main house had been moved some distance away from the Mount Rule Road and the photo montage from the road shows that whether clad in render or stone the close view visual impact of the house is significantly mitigated as a result.
6. It was also noted that when visiting the area, there are a number of large properties in the area, all of which are painted render in finish. It was also noted the majority of the smaller traditional properties along the West Baldwin Road are render in finish. Distant views from the Lhergy Cripperty were also undertaken and whilst it would be difficult to argue that

the proposed render finish would not be as apparent compared to a stone finished property, it is considered the distance from the Lhergy Cripperty to the site and given there are a number of more apparent dwellings between the site and the Lhergy Cripperty, the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the visual amenities of the wider countryside/landscape. Again these considerations and conclusions relate to the current application, even with the alteration to the eaves level and the verges/copings being white.

1. Therefore the property in terms of its design, form, proportion and finish would comply with the policies as set out within the Circular.
2. Overall, the design of the proposed dwelling is essentially traditional with the side extension designed to look like an attached barn building. Whilst sited further into the site it is not considered this would have significant visual impact or result in an encroachment into the open countryside. The proposal results in the main part of the dwelling moving approximately 40 metres from the existing roadside position. The proposal also includes a landscaping scheme for the overall site and the courtyard area, which serves to produce a higher quality development that should hopefully add value to the area. Given its location and position relative to existing surrounding properties the proposed development does not cause undue harm to private amenity.

Recommendation

1. Overall, it is concluded that the basis for allowing a substantial larger replacement dwelling on the application site has been established by the approval of a previous planning applications; the new submission results in a smaller dwelling in terms of floor area; amount of built development on the site would be reduced and given the design, proportion, form and finish of the proposed dwelling would be of a traditional appearance in keeping with the locality it is recommended the application be approved.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:

Braddan Parish Commissioners

1. It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should not be afforded interested party status:

The Manx Electricity Authority

1. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic 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.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of 12.03.2013

Recommendation: