Officer Report

Application No.: 16/01183/B Applicant: Mrs June Saville Proposal: Demolition of existing and erection of a replacement detached dwelling and garage. Site Address: Hazeldene Orrisdale Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HL Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 07.12.2016 Site Visit: 07.12.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT DWELLING IS MORE THAN 50 PER CENT GREATER THAN THE EXISTING DWELLING ON THE SITE

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of Hazeldene, Orrisdale, Kirk Michael which is located on the eastern side of Orrisdale Road just southwest of the settlement of Orrisdale. Orrisdale sits on the western coast of the island between Kirk Michael and Ballaugh. - 1.2 The existing dwelling is a non-traditional two storey pitched roof property which has been extended over the years with a number of flat roof extensions. The largest being a two storey flat roof extension on the southwest corner and a single storey flat roof porch on the front elevation. The existing dwelling has a total floor area of 178.6sq m. - 1.3 The property has an existing detached single storey pitch roof garage to the north of the property. - 1.4 Hazeldene sits within a large plot with mature trees running along the northwest corner of the site. The property bounds the Orrisdale Road with a grassed sod hedge. There is an existing access and large driveway associated with the house.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The proposal replicates exactly the proposal for the same site which was approved under PA 12/00703/B. - 2.2 Proposed is the demolition of the existing property and existing garage and its replacement with a new dwelling with a traditional Manx vernacular appearance and a detached single storey pitch roof double garage. - 2.3 The proposed dwelling will sit onto of the existing footprint of Hazeldene and there are no proposed alterations or changes to the residential curtilage.

2.4 In terms of style and design the proposed property will have a front elevation which comprises of five upper windows over a central doorway with two windows set either side of the front door. The proposal would also include a two storey side extension to the north elevation and a two storey extension on the rear elevation, both with a pitch roof finish to match the main dwelling. - 2.5 A single storey extension is also proposed on the south side elevation to provide a garden room with a roof lantern above. - 2.6 The entire dwelling will comprise of a mixture of painted render and Manx Stone finish. The roof is proposed to be finished with a natural or artificial welsh slate roof.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There has only been one previous planning application for the site PA 12/00703/B for the erection of a replacement dwelling. This was approved subject to conditions by the Planning Committee in 2012. These conditions included the roof must be finished in dark natural slate and that no extensions shall be erected.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area not designated for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area but is recognised as being within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and also within an area zoned as an area of archaeological interest on the same 1982 Development Plan. - 4.2 Due to the nature of the proposal and the zoning of the site, the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant in the determination of the current application: - 4.3 General Policy 3:

"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land (1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

4.4 Environment Policy 1:

"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 over-riding 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."

4.5 Environment Policy 2:

"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein.

Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

• (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) the location for the development is essential."

4.6 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 (1), 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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure have stated that:

"The proposal is to demolish an existing dwelling and garage and replace with a new dwelling and double garage within the same curtilage and using the same access. The proposed dwelling will have adequate car parking and manoeuvring space for vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear. Highway Services does not oppose this application." 08/11/2016.

5.2 Michael Commissioners have no objection to the current planning application 08/11/2016.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling which is of a non-traditional form and of no architectural merit and its replacement with a new larger dwelling on the same site which has a Manx vernacular appearance. - 6.2 The application is an exact duplicate of previous planning application PA 12/00703/B which was approved in 2012 but which has exceeded the time limit for commencing the development works. As such the reasons for the original approval still remain whereby the assessment stated the following:

"10. The starting point when determining any application for a replacement dwelling is Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy states that a replacement should generally be on the same footprint and should not be greater than 50% greater than that of the original building.

• 11. In this case the existing dwelling has a floor area of approximately 178.6 square metres, whereas the proposal would have a floor area of 367.7 square metres which equates to a 105% increase in floor area over the existing property. However, this is not automatic reason for refusal of the planning application as Housing Policy 14 goes onto to state that consideration may be given to larger dwellings 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.
• 12. As indicated within the site description of this report, the original dwelling would have been a fairly modern property which would have been described as a 'non-traditional' rather than 'poor form'. However, with the erection of four flat roofed extensions, especially the two and single storey extensions to the front elevation, these have had a significant affect upon the visual appearance of the original property. Further detrimental changes have been made by the installation of large picture windows to all elevations which have further reduced the appearance and quality of the property. What has resulted is a property which has very little quality or character and makes no positive contribution to the visual amenities of the countryside or in keeping with any other dwellings in the locality. It is therefore considered the dwelling can be described as being of 'poor form'.
• 13. It is also perhaps relevant to note that the existing detached garage block has a floor area of 70.3 square metres. This cannot be taken into account when calculating the floor area, but its removal could be considered as an environmental benefit to the site, given its size, height, finish (roof finish differs from main dwelling house) and given it is a prominent feature in the countryside.
• 14. The proposal would be sited on the same footprint of the existing and would retain the size of the existing residential curtilage. It is also worth noting that the proposed dwelling height would be the same height as the existing (7.8m). The issue therefore is whether the proposal in terms of size, design, proportion and form would be appropriate in this location.
• 15. At this stage perhaps it is relevant to consider Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. These policies relates to traditionally designed properties which take the form of Manx vernacular. From the front elevation the proposal would follow the lines of Planning Circular 3/91 and would be symmetrical with five upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by single windows. All other elevations would also meet the criteria set out in Planning Circular 3/91. The proposal would be finished with a mixture of painted render and Manx stone, with a slate roof. These are all considered appropriate finishes to traditional properties in the countryside. Therefore the property in terms of its design, form, proportion and finish would comply with the policies as set out within the Circular.
• 16. Therefore the final issue to consider is whether the larger dwelling as proposed would be beneficial to the visual appearance of the site and surrounding countryside, or by its increase in size would result in a detrimental impact upon the countryside.
• 17. As indicated previously, the existing dwelling is apparent from a number of aspects (north, south and west of site) along the public highway, albeit some views are screened from the grass banking and mature trees and hedgerows. The proposed dwelling will increase the size and massing of built development on the site, but at the same time it is considered the design, form, proportion and finish of the proposed dwelling would result in built form which is a significant visual improvement over the existing dwelling. Furthermore the removal of the large detached garage block will be of benefit to the visual appearance of the site and surrounding countryside.
• 18. It is also important to consider what the character of the immediate locality is in terms of existing buildings. In this case, Orrisdale is characterised by a mixture of property sizes; however, the majority are traditional in design (Manx two storey farm house style). It is considered that the proposed building would not be out of character with nearby dwellings in terms of scale or design.
• 19. The proposed building would be the same height of the existing dwelling, albeit the proposal would be greater in massing than the existing. Whilst it is judged that it is likely that more of the new building would be seen than the existing, it is notable that any additional visual impact would be of a faithful reproduction of a traditional dwelling, designed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91. The property represents an example of the "rarer extended version" of a vernacular dwelling."

6.3 It can be confirmed that the current application still abides to the above and that the application is considered acceptable in accordance to HP14 and that the demolition of the existing property and its replacement with a new dwelling is not expected to impact the amenity of the local neighbours or to impact the character of the local Manx countryside and the designated area of high landscape value. - 6.4 Although having a proposed floor area which is greater than the general permitted 50% threshold, it is considered that the new Manx vernacular appearance would warrant it exempt from refusal and its improved traditional character will work towards creating a uniform appearance throughout the properties within the Orrisdale area.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In general the application is considered to comply with the policies set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for approval.

8.0 PARTY STATUS - 8.1 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, in this case Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation:

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• 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 provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).

• Reason: To protect the traditional Manx vernacular qualities of the development shown in the approved drawings.
• C 3. The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate, or otherwise approved in writing by the Department. Reason: To ensure a suitable finish to the proposed traditional Manx vernacular dwelling.
• C 4. No equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purposes of the development until the boundary of the Construction Exclusion Zone ('CEZ') is marked out as shown and described in drawing No.11, submitted and date stamped 6th December 2016 in support of the application. Within the CEZ implemented in accordance with this condition, nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of above or below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations shall be made, no mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or substances shall take place, nor shall any fires be lit, without prior written consent of the authority. The CEZ implemented in accordance with this condition shall be maintained in position until the development is complete.

Reason: To safeguard the existing trees and to avoid ground compaction and disturbance to the protected areas.

This approval relates to the erection of a replacement dwelling as proposed in the submitted drawings numbers 01, 02, 03 and 10 all date stamped and received on 18th October 2016, and associated Design and Access Statement also date stamped and received 18/10/2016, and the Proposed Construction Exclusion Zone drawing number 11 date stamped and received 06/12/2016.

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 : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…12.12.2016

Signed :……L KINRADE…………….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.