Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00886/B Applicant: Mr David Salkeld Proposal: Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address: Perk Cottage Knock Froy Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JD Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL INVOLVES AN EXTENSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE INTO THE COUNTRYSIDE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing single storey dwelling situated on the northern side of the Knock Froy Road which leads east from the Castletown Road towards Knock Froy Farm, past the motocross track and a small number of other residential properties, some of which - Cronk Froy and Highbank have been extended and rebuilt with the finished product being considerably larger than the original Highbank have a building depth of 8m and Highbank 12m subdivided into two 6m wide masses). - 1.2 The existing property has a footprint of 6.8m by 12.8m with a small porch on the rear adding a further 2.5m by 1.8m - a total floor area of 91.5 sq m and a ridge height of just under 5m. The dwelling can be seen, but is not prominent from the A5 Castletown Road although from a short section just south of the Forge site, the gable of the property can be clearly seen with an open field to the rear. The two closest properties to the main road off the Knock Froy Road are single storey dwellings: the application property and the other, Green Hedges being more prominent due to the lack of roadside hedging to the south of the Knock Froy Road compared with the roadside vegetation to the north which better screens the application property. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing property with a new one which is situated slightly behind the existing such that the existing may be retained during construction and demolished thereafter. The two properties are so close that it would be unlikely that the retention of the existing property would benefit the new occupants such that efforts would be made to keep it after the new property is occupied. After redesigning the proposal following concerns raised by the Planning Officer, the scheme now takes the form of a traditional two storey Manx cottage with a frontage of almost 12m, a depth of 6m but a double pitch rear annex to take the width of the property to 12m with rainwater downpipes marking the join between the rear of the side elevation and the start of the rear projections as this wall continues flush from the side elevation to the side of the rear projection. The property has a forward projecting two storey annex which projects out by 2.5m. The building will be finished in smooth render with a slated roof. - 2.2 The proposed property would have a floor area of 294 sq m - an increase of 223%. The property will have a ridge height of 7.4m, an increase of 2.4m over the existing.
2.3 An extension of the residential curtilage is also proposed to enable the new house to be constructed but will also enable vehicular manoeuvring within the site. The extension will add around 12m to the south east of the existing boundary - adding around 60% more to the curtilage. PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and not for any particular purpose. Whilst there is a general presumption against new development in such areas, as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2, there is guidance on when and how a dwelling may be replaced:
Housing Policy 14 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 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."
4.1 The property has not been the subject of any previous applications. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (19.08.16).
5.2 With the application were a number of letters from local residents, all advising that they have no objection to the proposal - Green Hedges, Knock Froy Farm and Cronk Froy. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The starting point with any application for a replacement dwelling, is an assessment of what currently exists which then informs the type and size of property which could result. In this case, the property is not perfectly traditional although it has charm and does not sit uncomfortably on the site. It could not be considered of poor form. As such, there would normally not be much opportunity for replacing this with something significantly larger under HP14. However, in this case, the character of the surrounding area is very much one with much larger, traditional, two storey properties, except Green Hedges which is single storey and modern. As such, whilst what is proposed is larger than would normally be expected if one applies the provisions of HP14, it will not sit uncomfortably on the site or within its context where there are similar properties.
6.2 The Strategic Plan also provides guidance on extensions to existing properties in the countryside as follows:
Paragraph 8.12.2: "As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing
character of the property In the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this."
6.3 Whilst what is there sits comfortably enough in its site, the applicant has already tried during discussions with the planning office to devise ways to extend the property, with results which are unlikely to accord with the relevant policies in the Strategic Plan on that type of development. As such, demolition and redevelopment is perhaps the best way forward. In determining the correct appearance for the replacement house, taking into account what is in the surrounding area is appropriate and what is proposed accords with this. The fact that there is no step in where the rear of the main part of the cottage meets the rear extensions is unfortunate although the distance from the road together with the proposed new boundary planting may help screen this side elevation from public view. Whilst the other side elevation will be visible from Knock Froy Lane, there are relatively few properties on this lane and little traffic so the opportunity to see the side elevations close up are relatively few. - 6.4 The extension to the curtilage does not result in an unreasonably sized plot and this provides opportunities for new planting and better vehicular manoeuvring both of which represent a benefit to the area without a significant visual impact. - 6.5 The proposal is considered to be acceptable for the reasons set out above and as such is recommended for approval. The boundary planting should be something more appropriate to a rural setting than griselinia as shown on the drawings and an amended landscaping scheme should be approved before works commence.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
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: 22.11.2016
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.
REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
Reason: The proposed dwelling is a replacement, policies do not support additional dwellings in the countryside. Furthermore the relationship between the two dwellings would be unacceptable.
This permission relates to drawings 1329.10 and 1329.11 both received on 3rd November, 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 : …Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:…12.12.2016
Signed :………S CORLETT…………….. 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 See below
Application No. : 16/00886/B Applicant : Mr David Salkeld Proposal : Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address : Perk Cottage Knock Froy Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JD Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee unanimously rejected the recommendation to approve the application, considering that the increase in size of the curtilage and the dwelling was unjustified, given the provisions of Housing Policy 14 and that the proposal was not of so exceptional a design to warrant departure from the recommendations on the size given in this policy.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
