Loading document...
The site comprises six fields and an existing cottage and associated stables to the rear, situated on the western side of the A36 Sloc Road as it passes through Lingague. The site extends to approximately 20 acres and is described in the application form as "residential". The site actually comprises mostly agricultural open space with a small residential curtilage in the centre, of 0.6 acres.
The existing house is a traditional cottage which has been extended on each side - to the left with a two storey extension echoing the style and dimensions of the main core, and to the right a single storey garage with two garage doors.
The dwelling is 400m from the main road. Between the dwelling and the road are two properties - Kirkle Farm and Kirkle Cottage which are close together and a barn which sits between these two dwellings and the application site.
The site lies within a wider area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. On the draft Southern Area Plan the site lies within an area of land not designated for development. There is a site of archaeological interest in the field to the south west. On the draft Landscape Character Assessment the site is within The Southern Uplands where the following advice is provided:
"The overall strategy for the area is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the open and exposed character of the moorland, its uninterrupted skyline and the panoramic views, its sense of tranquility and remoteness and its wealth of cultural heritage features" and key views include "open and expansive panoramic views out to sea and over the southern portion of the Island" and "distant views in some areas enclosed by the surrounding peaks".
The draft Planning Policy Statement on Landscape Character states:
The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Uplands Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the predominantly open and exposed character of the moorland hills and mountain summits; the generally uninterrupted skyline and panoramic views across the lower slopes and plains towards the sea; the strong sense of tranquility and remoteness; and the distinctive features of cultural heritage and nature conservation interest.
Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-
Proposed is the replacement of the existing house and stables with a new dwelling. The existing dwelling has a floor area of 247 sq m, a main front elevation of 8.8m extended to the right with the two storey annex, to 14.6m with the garage on the right taking it to 21.5m. The highest part of the existing dwelling is 7.9m with almost a third of the frontage being single storey.
The proposed dwelling will have a main core of 15.7m by 13.2m with annexes on both sides: the left hand side extends out a further 7.6m and backwards by 23m. On the right the extension is 10.6m and backwards a further 20.8m. Overall the floor area of the proposed dwelling is 895 sq m and the highest point of the proposed dwelling is 10.5m. This represents an increase of 263% of the existing floor area.
The proposed dwelling has three floors of accommodation and is traditionally designed with expanses of stonework and traditionally proportioned chimney stacks.
The appropriate policy to be applied to this proposal is Housing Policy 14 which 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 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 generally, 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 which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
PA 11/00840/B - Erection of replacement dwelling Status - Pending Consideration
PA 08/00332/B - Erection of replacement stable block Status - Permitted
PA 08/00108/B - Erection of a replacement dwelling Status - permitted
PA 07/01109/B - Alterations and erection of extensions Status - Refused
PA 02/00797/B - Creation of wildlife pond Status - Permitted
PA 97/01063/B - Erection of five stables and hay store, Kirkill, Ballakilpheric, Rushen. Status - Permitted
PA 97/01149/B - Conversion of garage into living accommodation, Kirkill, Ballakilpheric, Rushen. Status - Application Permitted on Review
PA 95/00592/B - Approval in principle to convert garage into living accommodation and erect barn, Kirkill, Ballakilpheric, Rushen. Status - Permitted
PA 90/00374/B - Alterations and extensions, Cheston, formerly Upper Kirkill, Rushen. Status - Refused
PA 88/04427/B - Alterations and extensions to form extra living accommodation and garage, Upper Kirkhill Farm, Lingague, Rushen Status - Permitted
PA 87/04755/B - Alterations and extensions to provide additional living accommodation, double garage and porch, Upper Kirkill Farm, Linague, Rushen. Status - Application Permitted on Review
Of particular relevance are the two most recent applications for the replacement dwelling and the alterations and extensions - PAs 07/1109 and 08/0108. The first application proposed alterations to the front in the form of replacement of the garage doors with patio doors and a rear extension which extended the property by 30%. This application was refused for reasons relating to the appearance of the patio doors.
PA 08/108 proposed a replacement dwelling whose front elevation was 14.4m - similar to the two storey element of the existing dwelling, a small recessed single storey annex on the right hand side and a rear two storey extension. The overall floor area was 404 sq m - an increase of 70% of the existing floor area. That proposed dwelling was to be 8.1m in height. This application was permitted but not implemented.
Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application.
Rushen Parish Commissioners consider that the proposed dwelling is far too large, would be more conspicuous in the countryside and would appear as a very large house compared with the existing cottage.
Manx National Heritage comment that the new dwelling would be of a completely different style, the increase is wholly out of context with HP 14 and would require significant excavation. They consider that the existing building is a good example of a vernacular cottage which has undergone extension and alteration over time and that the design is the same as one which is proposed at Mount Rule (PA 11/0850) so has not been designed specifically for this site.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Wildlife Division indicate that there are ponds within the site which may accommodate frogs which should be taken into account in any development proposals. This should be considered by way of a condition, if the application is permitted.
A resident of Douglas objects to the application considers that the design is not in accordance with the Planning Circular 3/91 and it is too large within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
The proposed dwelling nestles relatively comfortably in the landscape, part way up the backdrop of The Carmanes. What is proposed is out of proportion with the existing property, which has already been altered and extended albeit some time (over twenty years ago) ago. The proposed is over three and a half times the size of the existing dwelling and garage and a third taller with the air of a more grand dwelling which would sit in landscaped grounds - not unlike, but a little smaller than Ballakew, St. Mark's Malew, which is a large, stone handsome house which sits within 7 acres of its own landscaped grounds. This is a very different context to that within which Upper Kirkhill sits: this is a much more natural and wild context with little in the way of planting or vegetation - the "predominantly open and exposed character of the moorland hills and mountain summits" referred to in the draft Landscape Character Assessment - "the generally uninterrupted skyline and panoramic views across the lower slopes and plains towards the sea; the strong sense of tranquillity and remoteness". This Assessment recommends the consideration of the protection of this character through the principles that, inter alia, "Housing and business development would be out of place within the predominantly open, exposed, and visually-sensitive Upland landscapes" and "Any buildings which are deemed necessary should avoid exposed or visually-prominent locations, and should reflect local building materials and styles.
It is suggested that the proposed development would fall foul of both of these principles and would be out of keeping with the natural, predominantly open and exposed landscape. HP 14 seeks to protect the countryside through the control of development which would be out of place and by restricting the size of new development in this way. The approved scheme of replacement introduced
a new appearance of dwelling which was arguably grander that that which presently exists but which did away with the unfortunate elements of the existing cottage and replaced it with something which in massing terms was not too dissimilar to the existing. What is now proposed is so different, in scale, massing, height and character as to be detrimental to the setting of the site and the character of the area in general.
Manx National Heritage are correct in their reference to PA 11/0850, for an almost identical property on a nursery site at Mount Rule in Braddan. This demonstrates that the sites have not been considered independently, or perhaps at all. The Manx countryside would be poorer in character if off the shelf housing were developed throughout it with the same style of house found in the south as in the central valley and possibly elsewhere. If this site is appropriate for a large new house of a style very different from the existing, then at the very least it should have a style unique to this site and responding to its unique context and characteristics.
If permission were to be granted, it should be made clear that the whole of the area defined in red is not residential curtilage and a further plan should be submitted clarifying the residential curtilage and the remainder of the site which is open agricultural land where there are much more limited permitted development rights and where there is a presumption against further development. Furthermore, the provisions of the Order should be restricted to control the extensions, ancillary buildings such as greenhouses, sheds, flagpoles, decking etc which could further clutter up the site, making it even more conspicuous as viewed from the public perspective.
The local authority, Rushen Parish Commissioners 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.
Manx National Heritage and Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture are statutory authorities who should be afforded party status in this instance.
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.
The resident of Douglas is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.07.2011 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The replacement dwelling, by virtue of its size, massing, height and style would be out of context with a predominantly open and exposed landscape and would be contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan in terms of the size and style of the new dwelling.
R 2. The site defined in red, which is described in the application form as "residential" includes a substantial amount of land which is not presently residential curtilage and if treated as such, would or could transform what is presently open natural land into domesticised and inappropriately landscaped garden, with the features and elements associated therewith and some permissible under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 which would be out of keeping with the area.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 26/7/14
Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate
Signed : Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
