Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00357/B Applicant: Mr Andrew Kneen Proposal: Alterations to existing dwelling, erection of an extension to create additional dwelling and associated landscaping with extension to the residential curtilage Site Address: Pineview The Level Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4AL Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 23.04.2015 Site Visit: 23.04.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS PART OF THE SITE IS OUTWITH THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE AREA PLAN

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling, Pineview, together with additional land to the east of up to 14m which is the extent of the proposed residential curtilage and currently used in connection with the dwelling as a vegetable plot with non fruit and vegetable plants and hedging and which accommodates a number of trees - whitebeam, cherry, willow, silver birch and some griselinia and Cupressus hedging plants. The trees are in varying conditions and all are to be removed. Beyond this to the east and south is an open agricultural field which is used for grazing and the keeping of chickens and horses. - 1.2 The existing dwelling, Pineview is a modern bungalow which is set back from the main A7 road by a strip of land which is not in the same ownership and which is walled off. Access to the site is from the Croit-e-Caley Road via a single track lane adjacent to a lane which serves the field to the south of the site. To the south of this is a relatively new and large house, Meadowfield House. The applicant also owns the field to the east and south and the lane leading to this. - 1.3 The character of the main road is very much a traditional one with modest, Manx cottages forming most of the built roadside frontage. The exceptions to this include the application property and the two relatively new properties on the junction of Main Road and Croit-e-Caley Road which have been built in a traditional style but have larger proportions and very small chimney stacks. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the extension of the property to provide a second dwelling. The existing dwelling has two bedrooms and a bathroom in the attic and a lounge, kitchen, dining area, utility, bathroom and third bedroom on the ground floor along with an integral garage. The proposed dwelling will take part of this dwelling, leaving two bedrooms and a bathroom in the attic and a garage, utility, kitchen/dining area and living room on the ground floor. The new dwelling will have a guest bedroom, shower and playroom with living room, kitchen/dining

• room on the ground floor and three bedrooms, one en-suite, a bathroom and home office in the roofspace.
• 2.2 The scheme will also extend the existing residential curtilage up to 14m to the east and whilst almost all of the proposed building is contained within the area designated as residential on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013, the existing curtilage is smaller than this and perpendicular to the main road whereas the proposed residential curtilage is at an angle to this. In any case, the proposed garden includes the area which is neither part of the existing curtilage nor within the residential area on the Area Plan for the South. The proposed dwelling is almost entirely contained with the existing formal garden area.
• 2.3 The proposed extension will be taller than the existing by 1.4m, the existing pitched roofed dormer facing the road will be replaced with a flat roofed, more modern dormer and the existing property roof will be re-finished in natural slate to match the finish on the new extension. The existing windows will be replaced by dark grey coloured powder coated aluminium framed windows and the external finish on the property will be replaced by retrofitted external insulation with a smooth render finish. The new house will have a stone finish on the side and rear elevation and a green oak framed open porch on the rear elevation alongside a projecting grey coloured aluminium framed conservatory. The side elevation facing east will have four long feature windows following the shape of the gable in which they sit.
• 2.4 The existing house will retain its integral garage and have additional parking space alongside. The new dwelling will have no garaging but space in front to park a number of cars. The access will be widened to accommodate two vehicles side by side which will serve both properties and access to the field.
• 2.5 The applicant currently shares the existing dwelling with his son and daughter in law and their children. The father's and son's family formerly farmed the area but all that remains is the field to the south and east. They wish to remain using this last remaining part of the farm for livestock and would like their own home alongside both the land and his father's dwelling. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS

3.1 The site lies partly within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Residential with a small area within the wider area of open space. - 3.2 The Area Plan for the South refers specifically to this part of the area as follows:

• "3.15.1 In terms of recent development, the cluster of buildings around The Level has been renovated and redeveloped to good effect."
• "4.10 Particular issues in the allocation of Residential land - Groups of houses in the countryside

• 4.10.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan indicates in paragraph 8.8.1 that:

"There are in the countryside many small groups of dwellings which, whilst not having the character of, or the full range of services usually provided in a village, nevertheless have a sense of place and community." Paragraph 8.8.3 continues ". . . in future Area Plans all groups of houses in the countryside will be assessed for development potential by identifying the village envelope or curtilage and providing the opportunity for appropriate development within this area. There may be some settlements where no additional dwellings will be permitted. In considering the definition of this curtilage or envelope, particular regard will be had to the value of existing spaces in terms of their contribution to the general character of the settlement or to public amenity more generally."

• 4.10.2 The commitment made above resulted in the Department undertaking a survey to identify those groups of houses which:

• (a) are outside of the Settlements which are identified in Spatial Policies 2, 3, and 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan; and which
• (b) in the Department's view, have a sense of place and community.

• 4.10.3 For each such identified group, the Department prepared a map on which was indicated the general group envelope which formed the survey boundary, and a statement which included an assessment of the potential for additional dwellings. Six 'groups' were finally identified, although others were considered as part of the exercise. Places known as Ballamodha, Croit e Caley and Surby, for example, were judged not to have a sense of place and community sufficient to make them worthy of assessment. Whilst houses were present in such areas, they were not in any way sustainable settlements. Groups of houses in the countryside, including those six selected for further study, have not been specifically identified on the proposals maps. However, some areas have been shaded pink to reflect their residential character. This shading does not imply that proposals for additional dwellings or other development will be supported; such applications will be judged on their merits."

3.3 The Strategic Plan presumes against development outside designated areas in Environment Policy 1 which 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 overriding 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."

3.4 This is supported by Spatial Policy 4:

Spatial Policy 4: In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities.

These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine, Strang. Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character."

3.4 This is further supported by Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4. - 3.5 Housing Policy 16 states:

"The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 As referred to in the Area Plan, The Level has been the subject of development in recent times, including the erection and extension of Meadowfield House, the redevelopment of the Level Cottages, the redevelopment for two houses of the former garage on the south western

• corner of the junction and various other alterations and extensions, most of which have succeeded in preserving the character of the area but upgrading it.
• 4.2 This particular site has been the subject of one particular application which is relevant to the consideration of the current application, that being PA 14/00334/A for the principle of the erection of a detached dwelling with associated landscaping. This was refused for the reason that "The erection of a dwelling on the proposed site which is located within an area not designated for development would result in an unacceptable intrusion into the countryside which would be 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 Spatial Policy 4 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan." This proposed an extension to the residential curtilage of around 43m to the east - significantly more than is being proposed here.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not object but express concern that visibility splays of 2.0m x 45m must be provided over land under the applicant's control. This does not appear to be possible from the drawings supplied. It may be possible for the applicant to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of the adjacent property that preserves the visibility splay; this would also assist them (21.04.15).

5.2 Rushen Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not object to the application (27.04.15). - 5.3 The owners of Lhagagh and Bayrnell which sit slightly to the east and across the public highway at The Level both object to the application on the grounds that the site is not designated for development and the development would adversely affect the character of the countryside and would not be in keeping with any other properties in the area. This impact is exacerbated by the proposed loss of trees and further planting would adversely affect the outlook from these two existing properties. Permission for this property would establish a predecent for further development on undesignated land. There is no national need for the dwelling and as such it would fail General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan as well as Spatial Policies 4 and 5 and General Policies 2 and 3, Housing Policies 4 and 16 and Environment Policy 1 (correspondence dated 27.04.15, 30.04.15 and 01.05.15).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 There are a number of issues for consideration in this case:

whether the principle of a new dwelling is acceptable given the previous decision and the fact that part of the site is outwith the existing residential designation whether the design and appearance of the proposed new dwelling is acceptable whether the new dwelling will have a satisfactory level of amenity whether the access proposals for both dwellings and the adjacent field are acceptable.

6.2 The principle of development The majority of the site is designated for residential use and it is relevant that there has been new residential development approved within the Croit-e-Caley area albeit prior to the adoption of the Area Plan for the South. The definition of the extent of the residential area as shown on the plan does not seem to accord with anything physical on the site, the eastern boundary of Pine View formed by a formal hedge which runs perpendicular to the highway. There is an angled boundary with the field beyond which is outwith the angled boundary shown on the Area Plan and the space between the two boundaries has the appearance of somewhere between a garden with formal plants, and a vegetable plot/orchard. The Area Plan boundary runs, somewhat arbitrarily between the two at an angle following that of the

• eastern boundary of the garden/vegetable plot with the field. The built structure will be contained within the area designated as Residential on the Area Plan, the remaining land will be garden as it is at present. If the dwelling were to be erected without the side garden included in the curtilage, as it was originally submitted, it is debatable whether any of the proposed site were indicated as unsuitable for residential development on the Area Plan.
• 6.3 As such, the proposal is considered to accord with what the Area Plan appears to suggest is acceptable for the area. The design and appearance of the proposed dwelling
• 6.4 The proposed dwelling will be modern, more modern and striking than is the current Pineview building and will be more visible in the streetscene. However, as the majority of the properties in the vicinity are traditional in character, either by virtue of their age or as they have been built to reflect the more vernacular style, with varying degrees of success in mirroring the vernacular form, the existing Pineview is no more or less sympathetic than what is proposed. Arguably, the use of natural slate on the roof may allow the proposed dwelling to sit more comfortably in the streetscene.
• 6.5 Perhaps one of the most significant elements of the scheme which will affect how much of an impact the proposed dwelling will have is the loss of existing trees. The applicant indicates that they wish to remove all of the trees in the vegetable plot although not all these are necessarily at risk from the proposed works. The trees alongside the road could be retained and thus help screen the proposed dwelling, although it is not suggested that the house is of a form which demands that it should be screened. Satisfactory levels of amenity
• 6.6 The dwelling as proposed, has a reasonable garden area and whilst the existing dwelling has less amenity space, there is still a small area of front garden as well as space at the rear and the garage. Whilst the two dwellings would be close and share access and with limited privacy, this is little different from any other pair of semi-detached homes. The fact that both dwellings will be occupied, at least for the current time by members of the same family makes the situation even less of an issue. Any future occupier would be aware of the situation before occupying. Access
• 6.7 The proposal will improve access by way of widening the carriageway within the site so that two sets of traffic as well as access to the fields beyond would be possible without significant inconvenience to any of the users. Visibility at the entrance is restricted by the height of the wall alongside Meadowfield House but more by the parked vehicles on each side of the access to the application site. There are no restrictions on vehicles parking here. The additional traffic from another dwelling on the site, particularly if the land to the east will be used by the occupant of the new dwelling, is not likely to be so significant as to warrant refusal on the grounds of inadequate access. Conclusion
• 6.8 The site is partly designated for Residential use where there would not necessarily be a presumption against development, even though the site is not one identified in the Area Plan for further development. The proposal is to enable the applicant's family to live alongside, responding to a local issue. The only part of the development which is outwith the area designated for residential use is the garden which is presently used as such. The design is considered to be smart and the materials appropriate for the area, resulting in a visual improvement to the appearance of this particular part of the hamlet. Whilst neighbours are right to be concerned about residential development creeping outward from the edges of a built up settlement, in this case, the uncertainty of the Area Plan boundaries and the nature of the development shown, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and would not

establish a precedent for further development in this area. It is also relevant that those residents immediately alongside the application site have not objected to the proposal and the local authority raise no objection.

PARTY STATUS

7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
• (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

In this instance, it is recommended that the owners of the following property have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

Lhagagh and Bayrnell

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:

26.05.2015

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

• N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
• O : Notes attached to refusals

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

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.

• C 2. Notwithstanding the submitted drawings, no approval is granted for the removal of trees identified as T12, T8, T9, T11 and T10 unless and until a planting scheme for the introduction of new trees or shrubs to replace those lost which are appropriate for the location alongside

and in front of existing and proposed living accommodation. Such planting must be undertaken in accordance with such a scheme in the first planting season following the removal of the original trees.

Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

• C 3. Prior to the commencement of works, a drawing showing how the eastern boundary of the new property will be formed must be approved by the Department and undertaken in accordance with this drawing prior to the occupation of the dwelling. The boundary must be formed by a natural sod hedge or planting to form a visual boundary with the open agricultural field to the east.

Reason: in the interests of the rural character of the area and to ensure that residential development does not expand further to the east beyond the area identified in the Area Plan for the South.

This approval relates to drawings 013002_100 B, 013002_101B, 013002_102B, received on 27th April, 2015 and 013002_203, 013002_207, 013002_208, 013002_202, 013002_205, 013002_204, 013002_200, 013002_101, 013002_201, 013002_206, 013002_102 and 013002_100 all received on 25th March, 2015.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …PER……… Committee Meeting Date:…01.06.2015 Signed :………S CORLETT……….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). YES/NO Condition three was added at the request of the committee