Planning Officer Report and Recommendation

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:311768}} {{table:311767}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS REFUSED AT APPEAL AND INITIALLY BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY

The Site

1. The site is part of the curtilage of Lower Glentramman Farm - a holding of 7.8 ha (19 acres) situated between the Garey Road, the Sulby River, open farmland to the west and a property known as Lower Glentramman to the south which is not part of the site. A watercourse runs through the site, south to north.

1. The site accommodates a range of buildings: Lower Glentramman farmhouse which sits at the northern end of the farm group, a farm building to the south west of this and to the south of this there is a gap through which farm traffic can pass to the field to the west. To the south of this access is a dwelling unit which backs onto another agricultural building opposite which is a single storey chalet. The chalet and the other dwelling unit were both formed through the conversion of existing agricultural buildings (see Planning History below).

1. There are two access points into the site - the main access is directly from the Garey Road into the farm yard. The second is a field entrance further to the west again off the Garey Road. Planning permission has been granted for the modification of this access and formation of a driveway across the field to the existing access into the farmyard between the agricultural building and the dwelling unit.

1. None of the buildings is of significant age or any particular style or design. The farm house has been altered and extended over time so now resembles a relatively modern property.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the replacement of the existing chalet dwelling with a new dwelling to be constructed to the north west of the existing main dwelling. The existing building is to be demolished and the area landscaped with low level trees and shrubs. The existing chalet has a footprint of approximately 24m by 6m and 3m high (127 sq m) and is built up against the eastern boundary of the site. The chalet is outside the red line site but is within the blue area which is within the

ownership and control of the applicant. The chalet is a single storey property with rendered walls and a felt roof with a concrete forecourt, no significant amenity or private space and the forecourt is generally indistinguishable from the farmyard across which access to the chalet is available.

1. The proposed dwelling is a single storey property which has a footprint of 9.5m wide and 17.3m long and 6.6m high (an increase of 39% over the existing floor area of the chalet). The new building will be 8m from the water course to the east. The dwelling has been sited and oriented so as to be able to install ground source heat pumps.

Planning Policy

1. The site lies within an area designated as High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982.

1. A very small part of the northern side of the site falls within the Flood Risk Zone associated with the Sulby River. The development proposed is not affected by this. The applicant has provided further information for the IOMWSA including confirmation that the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling would be between 0.5m and 0.9m above ground level alongside and the ground will be graded down towards the watercourse to the east which will deflect any flood water, should the level rise above that of the existing bank.

1. Environment Policies 1 and 2 set out a presumption against development in the countryside, particularly within areas of High Landscape Value and General Policy 3 sets out exceptions to this including the replacement of existing rural dwellings, specifically referring to Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.

1. Housing Policy 14 is thus relevant 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."

Planning History

1. The site has been the subject of a number of applications and the following are considered to be relevant:

1. The residential unit between the barns:

> PA 05/1071 - change of use of redundant stone barn to ancillary holiday accommodation with single garage and amenity area - permitted

PA 09/1438 - change of use of existing ancillary/holiday accommodation to permanent residential unit and erection of conservatory - approved at appeal

1. The chalet: PA 10/1222 - application for a certificate of lawfulness to confirm the lawfulness of the use of a building as a self-contained residential dwelling - certificate agreed

1. Additional relevant application: PA 11/0878 - improvements to existing vehicular access, new access road and creation of horse training enclosure - permitted

1. PA 11/0211 - erection of dwelling to replace chalet in a different location - refused at appeal. The Minister refused the application without prejudice to "a replacement dwelling which is sited on or close to the "footprint" of the existing dwelling, in accordance with the relevant Strategic Plan policy".

The Inspector comments that: "The proposed replacement would be located some 119m from the existing dwelling and 79m from the closest farm building. Having walked up and down Garey Road beside the site I agree with the Department that the dwelling sited as proposed would appear isolated from the existing farm group where it could be better assimilated into the landscape. Separated from the farmyard complex by the intervening field and approached via its own driveway access, it would add significantly to the sporadic build-up of development in an area recognised as being of high landscape value and scenic significance..." (paragraph 17). He goes on "I can see the health and safety advantages of physically separating the dwelling from farmyard activities. However, I do not accept that this necessitates siting the dwelling away from the main farm group...all in all, I remain to be persuaded that there is no suitable, well-integrated location for the replacement dwelling within or on a site immediately adjoining the main farm group" (paragraphs 19 and 22).

REPRESENTATIONS

1. The owner of Little Garey which is opposite the entrance to the new property, expresses concern that the site is not designated for development and the proposed dwelling will be highly visible from the road due to the entrance which has been widened and vegetation removed. She also expresses concern at construction traffic using the Garey Road which is narrow.

1. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority raise no objection following the submission of a flood risk report and subject to the development being undertaken in accordance with the recommendations in that report..

1. Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application.

1. The owner of Lower Glentramman, which is immediately alongside the site, is concerned that there will be only a minimal separation between the new dwelling and his sheep which graze in the adjacent field which is separated only by a wire fence and dogs may be able to get into the field and worry the stock. Whilst he was advised that there would be a brick wall around the curtilage, this is not shown on the plans. He also expresses concern about construction traffic.

1. The owner of Little Garey points out that the proposed dwelling is on land that is not designated for development and as the new access has been opened up the proposed dwelling will be very visible. She also queries where construction traffic will access the site.

1. The owner of Garee Altten objects to the application and whilst he accepts that he is not directly affected by the proposal he has personal extensive knowledge of the site. He suggests that the chalet was built without approval by a previous owner and was always of poor construction. He suggests that when he last saw it, it was not fit for human habitation and is of the view that the new house should be built on the site of the existing chalet where there is insufficient space for further extensions. If permission is granted then this could become a much larger dwelling which would have a significant impact.

1. Community Planning Service query whether the dwelling to be replaced has status as a dwelling and whether there is an occupancy tie and suggests that the proposal should be judged as a new dwelling.

1. Lezayre Parish Commissioners recommend that the application is refused as the site is not designated for development and the siting is distant from the existing dwelling to be replaced.

Assessment

1. The initial sentence of Housing Policy 14 sets out that 'where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different in siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement.' This is crucial in the assessment of the application. The size, whilst larger is not substantial and it is not considered to be unreasonable or unacceptable. However the proposed house would have a completely different siting and needs to be judged as to whether this would result in an environmental improvement.

1. The existing dwelling has an uncomfortable relationship within the farm complex and is an unattractive building. The proposed dwelling would be positioned further into the field and the open countryside, although its curtilage would be adjacent to the farm complex.

1. The first point to be made is that since the refusal of the last application for the replacement of the chalet, permission has been granted for the creation of a drive/road from the field entrance towards the farm complex and for the creation of a manege type facility between the entrance and the farm group.

1. As viewed from the field entrance the new property would be visible but physically adjacent to the existing farmhouse. It would be possible to move the new dwelling closer to the existing agricultural building to the south but this would bring the new house directly in front of the existing main dwelling and would be detrimental to the outlook from this property. As proposed, the new dwelling is 15m from the closest point of the existing house.

1. The existing dwelling is of poor form with its linear form and shallow pitched roof and is visible from the road. Its location provides inadequate and undesirable living space - no outlook from the rear and no private space at all with access immediately alongside the main access to the other properties within the group and a large agricultural building directly opposite. Whilst the previous Inspector does not accept that health and safety concerns would not justify a departure from policy, it should be considered that a replacement dwelling on the same footprint (and there is limited opportunity for modification of the siting in this part of the site) will still provide no outlook from the rear and no private space and the danger and inconvenience of access immediately alongside agricultural traffic and other people accessing the site.

1. The proposed siting is alongside the farm group using an access which has permission regardless of this proposal. Whilst the new dwelling will be visible, the benefit of this application will be that the existing unsightly dwelling which is also publicly visible is removed which will bring visual benefit and also some benefit to the property immediately alongside to the south - the Coach House and Lower Glentramman.

1. Whilst the existing dwelling has little visual impact, from where it is visible it does not present a positive impact and has very limited amenities available to it.

1. However, the history of the site needs to be taken into account. Whilst the existing chalet is poorly placed in terms of the operation and layout of the farmyard and the resultant lack of amenity space available to it, it may be considered that the living accommodation in the chalet was created without planning permission and at the choice of those who converted it, and used for a period of greater than four years as a separate residential dwelling, presumably

satisfactorily, even with the lack of amenities. It could therefore be considered inappropriate to now suggest that the lack of space, position in relation to the farmyard and poor outlook are sufficient justification to set aside the general presumption against new development on undesignated land and where the new dwelling is some distance from the existing and where it would create a greater visual impact on the countryside compared with the relatively inconspicuous setting of the existing, modest unit.

1. One of the objectors suggests that it has not long been used as a dwelling, however, a certificate of lawful use has been granted and there is nothing in that Certificate which suggests that the existing dwelling should be treated any differently in the application of the Strategic Plan policies on replacement dwellings than any other dwelling.

1. In conclusion, this is a difficult application to assess. The proposed siting of the new dwelling would represent a much improved situation for future residents with the opportunity for renewal energy installations and an unattractive building, visible from the road, would be replaced with landscaping. On the other hand, the proposed dwelling would be sited further into what is currently open countryside, albeit, adjacent to the farmhouse. On balance, the application is recommended for approval.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Lezayre Parish Commissioners are, 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.

1. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority is a statutory authority and as such should be afforded party status

1. The owners of Little Garey and Lower Glentramman are alongside the site and as such should be afforded party status

1. The owner of Garee Aitten and the Community Planning Service is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.

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 Recommendation: 31.10.2011

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 permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2.

This permission relates to the erection of a new dwelling as a replacement for the existing chalet dwelling, all as shown in drawings reference 10344/200/A, 10344/204, 10344/201/A, 10344/203 and 10344/202 all received on 13th September, 2011.

C 3.

Prior to the occupation of the new dwelling, the existing chalet which is to be replaced must be demolished and the site cleared for use as shown in drawing 10344/201A.

C 4.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).

NOTE: the reason for this decision is to seek to ensure that the impact created through the approval of this permission is not increased through the addition of extensions and additional development which would increase the side of the dwelling itself and add to the amount of built fabric around the dwelling, thus extending the impact of new development further into the countryside.

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 : R Committee Meeting Date : 10-11-11

Signed : S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.