Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00147/B Applicant: Mr Paul Carpenter Proposal: Erection of a replacement dwelling (comprising amendments to PA 14/01084/B) Site Address: Sandygate House Clenagh Road Sandygate Ramsey Isle of Man IM7 3AF Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 24.02.2015 Site Visit: 24.02.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The site is the curtilage of Sandygate House, Clenagh Road, Sandygate, which is a fairly traditional, two-storey detached property, located on the western side of the Clenagh Road and south of the Sandygate Crossroads. The existing dwelling has slightly unusual proportions in that its windows are quite small, tightly spaced and have been replaced with top-hung casement units. The chimneys are remarkably stubby for a traditional Manx property and this, along with the tight spacing of the windows and shallow roof pitch, make the dwelling appear wider than it actually is. - 1.2 There is a part-cat slide extension and part-hipped roof two storey extension projecting to the rear, the latter of which would likely detract from the traditional nature of the building it readily visible from the highway. - 1.3 Also within the application site, which is quite generous, is a two-storey Manx stone barn and the remains of an old pigsty. There are two highway accesses to the site: one to the north and the other to the east. - 1.4 The boundary treatment shared with Sandygate Cottage, which is located to the north of Sandygate House, consists of a 1.5 metre wall with additional fencing above, giving the total height of the boundary as 2 metres. There are also in part a number of hedges of similar and greater height. Along the southern boundary, which is shared with Gollane Cottage, there where different heights of hedging ranging from 1.5 metres to approximately 4.0 metres. However, this boundary landscaping has recently been cut down. The western boundary comprises different heights of hedging ranging from 1.5 metres to 6 metres (approximately), although has been reduced recently.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 It is proposed to demolish both the dwelling and the barn (and the ruin), and build in its place a replacement dwelling, predominately on the footprint of the existing buildings. Also proposed is a double garage to the far rear (west) of the site; this would be accessed from the eastern highway access, and a new gravel drive would be formed between the two.
2.2 The proposed dwelling is of a broadly traditional design, especially in terms of its form and proportion, and is not altogether dissimilar from the existing when viewed from the highway. It would have a shallower roof pitch and more evenly-spaced (and larger) windows, while the projecting (enclosed) porch to the front would have a pitched, rather than flat, roof. To the side would be an open porch of identical proportion to the front porch. The chimneys are perhaps a little shorter than might be expected, but they are still more prominent than those of the existing dwelling. - 2.3 The rear of the dwelling would have a less than traditional design, although not hugely so. A rear outrigger of two storeys in height would project 4.0m to the rear (relative to the proposed dwelling's depth of 6.6m, excluding the porch), while beyond this a single storey outrigger would project a further 5.0m. The gable end of the single storey element would be almost entirely glazed and would contain triangular glazing in the gable itself; a flue likely to serve a log burner is shown just to the side of the roof pitch. - 2.4 The applicant advised that he would be content with sliding sash windows to the front elevation and uPVC or powered coated aluminium to the rear. - 2.5 The dwelling itself would be finished in render and painted in an unspecified colour. Grey slate would sit atop the roofs and porches, while concreted render copings would line the edges of the roof. - 2.6 In respect of the proposed garage, which at 50sqm is larger than is allowed under permitted development rights (36sqm), identical finishings are proposed. The new driveway would be finished with loose gravel with pencil kerbing to the edge. - 2.7 The agent was contacted to advise in respect of the measurements of the existing and proposed dwellings. The existing floor area (excluding the barn) is 198sqm, and 50% above this figure would be 297sqm. The proposed dwelling would be 212sqm and the garage 50sqm; together, the new floorspace provided would measure 263sqm (rounded up). - 2.8 The current proposal is essentially the same as a recent approval 14/01084/B. The only differences been the increase of the roof ridge by approximately 0.5 metres and the submission includes the removal of a number of trees located centrally within the rear garden of the site. This is to provide a more open and usable garden for the proposed dwelling.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has a quite varied planning history relating to various matters. - 3.2 Of most material relevance are the replacement dwelling applications that were approved in 2009 (PA 09/01612/B), 2010 (PA 10/00853/B) and 2014 (PA 14/01084/B). - 3.3 Alterations and extensions were refused at appeal in respect of PA 07/00494/B for the following reasons:
4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'Woodland' under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 4.2 The sole relevant Strategic Plan policy in the determination of the application is considered to be 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, 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."
4.3 Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 ('Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside') are set out below:
4.4 It is also important to reflect on General Policy 2, which reads (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
5.1 Highway Services, in an email dated 24th September 2013, do not oppose the planning application. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Housing Policy 14 indicates variously that a proposed replacement dwelling should not be larger than 50% of the existing floor area measured externally, sited on the existing footprint and comply with Planning Circular 3/91.
6.2 That which is proposed meets all of these requirements to a greater or lesser extent, with perhaps the most flexibility in reaching this conclusion applied to the interpretation of Circular 3/91. It is also considered that the dwelling proposed here is an improvement over that which was approved in 2010, which looked rather like overdevelopment if not for the plot (which is extensive) then for the dwelling itself, which would have had a full double width projection to the rear. While this cannot be taken into account in the determination of the current application, it remains worth noting. The proposal in relation to the 2014 approval is almost identical; the exception being the roof ridge has been increased by 0.5 metres. The two gable chimney stacks are also increased in height, which again from a visual perspective are more appropriate. Overall, the proposed changes are visually considered to improve the appearance of the new dwelling, giving a steeper roof pitch and height which is more in line with Planning Circular 3/91. - 6.3 As outlined in the Proposal section of this report, the dwelling would present a broadly traditional frontage to Clenagh Road, from where it would be most visible, while some arguably less traditional features would be found to the rear, which would be largely invisible from the public realm. In any case, those untraditional features could not be said to be unacceptable or harmful in terms of either the proposed dwelling or the wider built (and natural) environment, not least since the site is heavily screened from all sides. - 6.4 The rear extensions are appropriate in form and scale to the main dwelling as proposed, and the grading from two-storey to one-storey is welcome in that it reduces the massing and gives the dwelling something of a natural feel in that these outriggers suggest historic additions. The proposed French doors that to some extent wrap around the rear is perhaps the least traditional element of the proposal. However, the use of glazing is a common and generally successful manner of adding a contemporary flavour to a traditional built form. In this case, the glazing proposed is neither overly-dominant nor in any meaningful way visible from beyond the site and could not be said to be harmful. - 6.5 The relatively deep reveal shown for the window units is also welcome as these provide an important depth and nod to traditional building forms.
6.7 All the proposed finishings considered acceptable. The use of traditional slate, render and coping bands are welcome and, while timber sliding sash windows throughout would be preferred, the site is outside of a Conservation Area and as such any special protection that might be possible in such a circumstance cannot apply here. Therefore, the use of timber
"In terms of the impact upon neighbouring amenities, the property most likely to be affected by the development would be 'Gollane Cottage' which is sited to the southeast of the existing property, approximately 9 metres away.
"As indicated the landscaping along the southern boundary of the site, which is shared with 'Gollane Cottage' is substantial.
"There were initial concerns that the amount of built development along this boundary would result in overlooking and an overbearing impact upon the outlook of the residents of 'Gollane Cottage'.
"In terms of the overbearing impact, it is important to note that whilst the proposal would result in a total of 26 metres of development running parallel with the boundary; currently there is already 23.5 metres of built development on the same footprint, due to the existing dwelling and barn. The extra 2.5 metres of built development, is created by the proposed development effectively filling the gap between the existing dwelling and the barn.
"The proposal will have a greater impact, not only due to the increase of built development, but because the ridgeline would be 1 metre higher than the existing dwelling. It should be noted, that the ridgeline of the proposal does decrease gradually by a total of 1 metre, the further west the development advances.
"The proposal would leave a minimum gap to the southern boundary of 5 metres (measures from southwest corner of building), which gradually increases to 7.5 metres, which follows the lines of the existing footprint of buildings on site.
"Overall, as there is already similar sized built development which runs parallel with the southern boundary, as there is substantial landscaping along this boundary, as the proposal
height is similar to the existing and due to the gap between the proposal and the boundary; it is considered the proposal would not result in a significant overbearing impact upon the outlook of the residents of 'Gollane Cottage'.
"Again to the northern elevation there are two first floor windows which serve an en-suite and a bedroom window. The en-suite window is proposed to be obscure glazed but the bedroom is not. However, the existing property has a similar window in a similar position. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal provides no more potential for overlooking than existing.
"It is also important to note that the previously approved application (09/01612/B) had a total of five windows along the first floor southern elevation, which looked towards the neighbouring property 'Gollane Cottage'. None of these were required to be obscure glazed. In addition a total of five windows ran along the northern elevation, again all clear glazed. Consequently, the proposal now under consideration would have less of a potential impact upon overlooking compared to the previous scheme.
"Therefore, with the windows proposed for obscure glazing and the layout of rooms, it is considered the proposal would not result in any more overlooking then what currently exists and would not result in a significant loss of privacy of the neighbouring residents."
6.12 It is apparent from the above that the 2010 scheme was judged an improvement over that of 2009 in respect of privacy issues. The current submission and the last application 14/01084/B are considered to represent a further improvement. Part of the dwelling would only be one-storey in height, and would be shorter, with the result that of the built development that would run parallel to Gollane Cottage, only 11m of this would be of double storey height, and the first floor would have just three windows (one of which a bathroom) facing onto Gollane Cottage's curtilage. However, it is noted, when the previous applications where considered there was substantial boundary landscaping in place. This has recently been removed significantly. Accordingly, it is considered that a condition be attached which require obscure glazing of all first floor windows to the south east elevation. - 6.13 It is also considered that the reduction of the mass of the proposed dwelling at the rear in a northern direction would result in a less overbearing impact to the occupiers of Sandygate Cottage to the north, although this was not raised as a concern previously. This proposal does increase the height of the roof ridge by 0.5 metres, which will increase the impact over the previous application; however, this is not considered to result in a significant impact upon the amenities of the occupants of Sandygate Cottage to warrant a refusal. - 6.14 The last approved application (14/01084/b ) allowed the removal of two trees along the boundary of the site with Gollane Cottage. However, this new proposal seeks the removal of a total of 18 trees (including the two boundary trees previously allowed to be removed) within the site. The new scheme does propose the planting of two Oak trees.
6.16 The trees that are proposed to be removed are located within the centre of the site within the rear garden. The trees are apparent from public views (Sandygate crossroads), but they are set behind more mature trees which run along the boundaries of the neighbouring property 'Sandygate Cottage'. The larger, mature trees along all the boundaries of the application site are to be retained. These do significantly add to the character and appearance of the area from the Sandygate Crossroads. From discussions with the applicant agent, they wish the trees within the centre of the site to be removal to provide a more open and usable garden. The submission includes a felling licence for the removal of these trees from DEFA. Overall, which the loss of these trees will have an impact to the area, given some are in poor condition, semi-mature and given the boundary trees are larger and more mature, the visual impacts upon the charter and quality of the area is not considered significant.
7.1 The site, although not zoned within a residential area, is clearly within the hamlet of Sandygate. There are a total of 16 buildings, the majority being residential properties, which are located around the Sandygate crossroads. Given the location of the site within, the existing landscaping, the layout of the existing dwelling and barn and given the proposed design, it is considered that the development would not have an unduly detrimental impact upon the appearance of Sandygate and would not have any significant impact upon the visual appearance of the countryside.
7.2 It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions in respect of withdrawing permitted development rights for extensions and the circumstances surrounding the window opening method. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:
18.03.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The windows to all elevations other than the front elevation (that is, the elevation that faces Clenagh Road) of the dwelling hereby approved shall be sliding sash or casement and with a glazing bar and pattern as shown on the submitted plans, and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and wider area.
This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 1, 2, 3 REV B, 5 REV A and 6 all received on 11th February 2015.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 24.03.2015 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed :…………………………………….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown