Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE RATHER THAN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS, AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.
| Application No.: | 11/01518/B |
| Applicant: | Mr & Mrs James Simpson |
| Proposal: | Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/00033/B) |
| Site Address: | Ballacaroon Farm |
| West Baldwin Road | |
| Mount Rule | |
| Isle Of Man | |
| IM4 4HS |
"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:
"Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:
Such conversion must:
Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.
Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."
"The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
"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."
Applicant's case
The client felt that the quality of the design of the main building in PA 11/00033/B did not adequately reflect the overall size of the building. The re-design of this element has been based on the same profile as the typical extended farmhouse as illustrated in Design Circular 3/91 as an acceptable example of a design of house in the countryside. There are numerous examples of both new and old five windowed extended farmhouses (photographs submitted with the planning application) on the Isle of Man with many of them having been recently constructed.
It has also been agreed subsequent to the consent of PA 11/00033/B that the design of the main building in this previous consent didn't particularly adhere to Design Circular 3/91 as it was neither a three nor a five windowed farmhouse, being the two examples contained with the design guideline.
We were of the opinion that the proposed changes would be straightforward and viewed favourably as they more rigidly follow the principles set out in 3/91 and arguably produce a more attractive development.
The response received back from the Planning Officers was that they were unhappy with the increase in the size of the main building and considered the new proposal "too grand" and were concerned about the visual impact of the proposal.
A meeting with Officers and the Director of Planning was held and some further amendments to the proposal were made namely the introduction of a gable feature on the eaves to break up the longitudinal mass of the building and changing the cladding of the main building from render to stone finish further reducing any visual impact.
Exchanges in correspondence however indicate that the Officers still have concerns over visual impact and have asked us to demonstrate compliance with current Planning Policies."
"The relevant Policy guidelines relating to this site are Housing Policy 14 of the Island Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91"
"Firstly it is important to review the Planning History on the site and recognise that the permission granted in April 2011 is still live and can therefore be implemented. Under UK Planning, whilst an expired permission is "relevant consideration", an extant permission is considered to be "vitally material consideration" (Spackman v SOS 1977)."
"As mentioned above the Planning Officer recognised the significant weight attributable to the expired Outline Consent in 2007 when recommending approval of my Client's previous permission."
"Thus the existence of an extant permission relating to a site of a proposed development is particularly important consideration for two reasons:
a) That the development for which permission has been given could be implemented should any later permission be refused. b) Natural Justice: It is not fair administration to all one permission and then subsequently deny permission for something similar."
"Failure to take into account development which could take place even if a current planning application were refused has been a matter upon which the UK courts have ruled on several occasions and there are numerous case law such as Chichester 27/03/08. The erection of a dwelling of classical design in the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) was allowed as the Inspector noted the fallback position of an extant permission for a dwelling."
"Planning Consent 11/00033/B obtained Approval in April 2011 and was judged to be compliant with all aspects of Housing Policy 14 and Design Circular 3/91. This existing consent is of a material consideration when determining this submission. It is therefore contended that if this Application doesn't materially differ from the previous consent, which we believe it doesn't, and is of a dwelling of very similar scale and massing then there is no reason for this Application to be refused.
There are only three changes to the consented scheme 1) The overall length of the elevation has been reduced to by reducing the size of the replica barn structure; 2) the size of the main building within this overall elevation has been increased by [officer's measurement - ]; 3) the removal of the lobby to the front elevation and balcony to the rear elevation."
"We are of the opinion that these do not amount to any material difference between these two applications."
Size
"Housing Policy 14 is primarily concerned about the permissible size of the replacement dwellings in the countryside."
"As mentioned above the site had the benefit of an Outline Consent in 2007 for a replacement dwelling of 670 square metres. Furthermore by virtue of PA 11/00033/B the site has an existing Detailed Consent for a building of 584 square metres."
"Our current proposal is for a dwelling of 574 square metres so a reduction from both previous consented schemes. Therefore, bearing in mind the previous consents, and in particular PA 11/00033/B, the proposed size of the house cannot be an issue".
"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"
"Once again we would draw your attention to the fact that PA 11/00033/B was judged to be compliant with Housing Policy 14 and was approved. We consider the minor proposed changes do not depart substantially from the previous Application and do not materially change the mass or visual impact from the consented scheme and consequently comparison between the current application and PA 11/00033/B is highly relevant in determining the acceptability of this application."
"The proposed dwelling sits on the same footprint as the approved scheme and the overall length of the main elevation has been reduced by 1.5m. Furthermore the main building in the consented scheme was finished in white render whereas the main building is now to be finished in stone. Both of these two changes will serve to reduce the visual impact of the building."
"As you will note in Appendix 3, the comparison of the elevations of the consented scheme and this application clearly demonstrate that there has been a net reduction in the overall mass of this application of some 5.3 square metres and hence a reduction in the visual impact."
"In addition to this and the reduction in the overall floor area, there is also a reduction in the whole footprint of the development which again must go towards reducing visual impact."
"Planning Officers usually assess impact in relation to publicly accessible vantage points. Due to the former use of the site as landfill, the ground has been artificially raised to the south and east. Any views of the rear of the building group are therefore restricted to distant views from the Lhergy Cripperty as the artificial plateau closes sight lines from the lower ground levels to the site."
"At Appendix 4 we have attached a photo montage of the view from Lhergy Cripperty which clearly demonstrates that the rear of the group of buildings is invisible from the only public vantage point. This has been accepted by the Planning Officer that this demonstrates that the building would have little impact on the countryside when viewed from this point."
"Clearly the only other view of the group of buildings is from the A23 Strang Road which runs along the front boundary of the site. The existing derelict farmhouse sits immediately adjacent to the Strang Road with the rear wall sitting directly on the boundary of the road."
"The existing house is therefore very prominent and visually intrusive and by setting the main area of accommodation back off the road this considerably lessens the visual impact when compared to the current position of the existing farmhouse."
"Design Circular 3/91 sets out the design principles for rural dwellings including their proportion and form and as PA11/00033/B was approved it can be reasonably assumed that the Department and Committee felt that the application not only complied with 3/91 but offered a significant improvement over the existing dwelling and outbuildings as justification to the significant increase in floor area over the existing dwelling."
"Our proposal for the main building is the same profile of a typical farmhouse as illustrated in Policy 4 of the Design Guide as an acceptable example of a design for a house in the countryside. The original concept of a farm group is unaltered."
"There are numerous examples of both new and old five windowed farmhouses throughout the Isle of Man and we have attached at Appendix 5 a number of examples. To state that this form of design is inappropriate is both inconsistent and at odds with all the relevant Planning Policy."
front elevation and balcony to the rear elevation. 4) the main building will be finished in Manx stone instead of painted render.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 14.02.2012
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1.
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This permission relates to the demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns as shown in drawing numbers SC1185-P/10/01 date stamped 28th October 2011, SC1185-P/10/03 Rev B date stamped 7th February 2012, SC1185-P/10/04 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/05 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/05 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/06 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/07 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/08 Rev A, SC1185-P/10/09 Rev A, SC1185-P/12/01 Rev B, SC1185-P/12/02 Rev B, SC1185-P/12/03 Rev B and SC1185-P/12/04 date stamped 2nd February 2012. Design statement date stamped 2nd February 2012.
No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and those works shall be carried out as approved. Details of hard landscaping works shall include boundary treatment, footpaths, driveways and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted; and all planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
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 : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
