Officer Report

Application No.: 15/01346/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Chris Gledhill Proposal: Erection of a replacement detached dwelling Site Address: Tighnabruaich Pooilvaaish Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4PJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 06.01.2016 Site Visit: 06.01.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT RELATES TO THE REPLACEMENT OF A DWELLING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling of traditional Manx vernacular, situated north of the winding Pooilvaaish Road roughly 500m south of that road's westernmost unction with the A5 coast road. "Tighnabruaich" is situated in its own grounds, some 60m from the highway, and although it has been much-altered in the past its traditional countryside vernacular origins remain evident. That said, though, the dwelling has fallen into some disrepair and, while its form is neatly proportioned, the fabric of the building has certainly seen better days. It is unclear when the property was last lived in, though it certainly does not appear to have been abandoned. - 1.2 While Tighnabruaich is isolated, there is a single other dwelling adjacent, known as "Spindrift". This is not of a traditional vernacular but is uniquely designed. There are other isolated dwellings and pairs of dwellings in the area, as well as the Pooil Vaaish farm and quarry, but the area is very much characterised by its openness and its coastal location.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for a replacement dwelling. The proposed dwelling would have at its front an elevation to match the form and proportions of a dwelling described in Planning Circular 3/91 as being of archetypal rural Manx vernacular. Alongside this would be a separate element to the dwelling dominated by its gable projection and stone chimney flue. Either side of this flue the elevation would be entirely glazed except for the render structural sections at the corners, while there would be a connecting element between the two elements of the dwelling formed of a lower and also glazed link; the entirety of the dwelling would have a slate roof, however. The overall intention is clearly one of setting a contemporary 'extension' against a traditional Manx dwelling. - 2.2 There is also a hint of a cat-slide roof at the rear, although as this does not carry along the full width it will only appear to be cat-slide in form from one side elevation, although the roof pitch would match that of the main body of the dwelling. - 2.3 The dwelling would also have a single storey element beyond the contemporary 'extension'.

2.4 The dwelling would be finished in a grey-coloured render, while the windows and doors would be grey, powder-coated aluminium. The windows appear to be sliding sash, while the plans are clear that the intention is to salvage as many of the existing slates for the new roof as possible. - 2.5 The applicants are clear that they wish the new dwelling to be as environmentally friendly as possible, although no specific efforts towards this end are shown on the drawings as these tend to be related more to ground- or air-sourced heat pumps, high quality insulation and also the southfacing aspect. - 2.6 An initial design was submitted to the Department and this has been amended following the move of the applicants from one planning agent to another. The application was formally readvertised following the receipt of the amended plans.

3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 3.1 The site falls within an area of land not zoned for any particular kind of development on the Area Plan for the South. There are some land-use designations applying to the site that are worth noting, however. - 3.2 Firstly, the site might potentially be viewed as falling within the provisions of Landscape Proposal 9: "Additional new built development (other than development ancillary to existing properties) should not be permitted alongside the coastal road between the Shore Hotel and Pooil Vaaish Farm." While the Farm is on the main A5 road, the fact this policy exists suggests a general need to protect the appearance of the area. - 3.3 This is somewhat backed up by Landscape Strategy E9 and the important views that accompany it: "The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of the tranquil and coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views, sites of archaeological importance and to conserve the coastal setting of Port St. Mary." "Key Views:

"Extensive, panoramic views from Raad ny Foillan across the sweeping and ever-changing seascape to the south. "Open views across the bay, with distant sense of enclosure provided by headlands to the east and west. "Open views across adjacent Undulating Lowland Plain to the north."

3.4 The site is within a much wider area characterised as being in an Undulating Lowland Plan, although none of the Landscape Strategies are considered to directly apply to the site. - 3.5 The access lane within the application site falls within an 'Area of Ecological Importance Draft'. - 3.6 Paragraph 7.5.3 of the Area Plan applies to the site, which falls within an "Area with building height restrictions" on Map 1 - Constraints relating to Ronaldsway airport; the text of that paragraph requires that "the final height of any development is controlled so that it does not interfere with the operations of…the Airport". - 3.7 In respect of the Strategic Plan, there is a provision for replacement dwellings on a one-forone basis as set out in Housing Policy 14. The nature of the proposal here, though, is such that it is considered appropriate to assess the application against Housing Policy 14 while having a certain regard to Housing Policy 15.

3.8 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."

3.9 Housing Policy 15: "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)." - 3.10 Strategic Policy 5 contains some important text as well: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The application site does not have a relevant planning history. The adjacent Spindrift was erected under a 1985 planning approval (85/01118/B), which, like the current proposal, was a replacement of an existing dwelling. - 4.2 Of relevance, though, is a pair of applications submitted at a dwelling known as "Graystones" on Ballakillowey Road in Colby. Graystones is a dwelling of traditional Manx countryside vernacular, much the same as the traditional element proposed on the current application site. PA 10/01187/B sought approval for a very similar extension in terms of relative scale and mass and also a very similar material as that initially proposed at Tighnabruaich. While the Planning Committee approved the extension in line with officer recommendation, the decision was taken to appeal by a third party and the Planning Inspector and ultimately the Minister disagreed with the architectural approach taken and the application was refused. Of particular note are the final two paragraphs in the Inspector's report and also the issued reason for refusal:

• "26. 'Graystones' is a prominent roadside feature alongside the A36 road north of Ballakillowey. The two-storey gable0ended building is et gable to the road and its main façade faces sough. Approached uphill on the A36 the two-storey projecting glazed gable would distract attention from the main façade of the original structure. The distinctively designed glazed gable would introduce an alien feature that fails to respect the gable-ended form. Instead of the subordinate and complementary extension advocated by the planning authority, due to its conspicuous size, height striking gable-fronted form and contrasting materials, the addition would dwarf the existing gableended dwelling. The identity of 'Graystones' would no longer be that of a gable-ended Manx cottage but would be subordinated within a conspicuously enlarged house the principal feature of which would be the two-storey glazed gable window. I can understand why the Planning Committee felt that the remodelling of the ugly flat-roofed rear extension warrants easing the floorspace allowance beyond the normal 50% guideline. I also understand that the prescriptive

• traditional architectural approach, when insensitively applied, can damage the appearance and character of a vernacular building. However, in this case I agree with the objectors that the principal elevation of the proposed extension dominated by the glazed gable window would destroy the character of the existing Manx cottage.
• "27. When viewed overall, notwithstanding the remodelling of the rear return and other improvements, based on the reason in paragraph 26 I conclude that the proposed extension fails to respect the form and appearance of the existing traditional building and would destroy its character. Consequently, it would harm the appearance and erode the character of this Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and impact negatively on the surrounding Manx countryside. Therefore, if approved, the proposal would breach Strategic Policy 5 and Housing Policy 15. I am satisfied that when set against these breaches of the development plan there are no material considerations that would warrant an exceptional approval." The application was refused for the following reason:

"The proposed extension fails to respect the form and appearance of the existing traditional building, and would destroy its character. Consequently, the development would harm the appearance and erode the character of this Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, and would impact negatively on the surrounding countryside. The proposal would thus breach Strategic Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan."

Given the clear parallels between this application and the original submission on the application site the subject of this report, the proposal was amended on officer advice.

4.3 Subsequently to this, PA 12/01637/B was submitted. The case officer described that amended design as follows:

"The extension will be to the right of the main frontage and will project 5.3m from the eastern gable of the dwelling, replacing the existing shed. The extension will be two storey with a stone plinth up to a height of 1m and the rest of the frontage finished in render, the extension will be slightly, 300mm, lower than the height of the main ridge. The extension will have a long, two storey window in the front elevation with oak frame and totally glazed throughout in front and sides."

Her assessment of the scheme was as follows:

• "11. The critical considerations in this case are whether the proposed extensions respect the proportion form and appearance of the existing property. As guidance, the policy indicates that only exceptionally will permission be given for extensions which represent more than 50% of the existing floor area. The proposal involves an increase of more than 50% of the existing floor area and as such the Committee need to be satisfied that there is an exception to be made in this case and the comments of the previous inspector are relevant in this assessment. He "understood" the easing of the floorspace beyond the usual 50% due to the remodelling of the "ugly" flat-roofed rear extension but his conclusion was that the glazed gable window would be so detrimental to the character and appearance of the property as to warrant refusal. It is concluded from this that the size of the extensions were not in themselves a reason for refusal.
• "12. This application also proposes to remodel and remove the flat roofed annex at the rear and as a result the rear elevation which is clearly visible from the highway will be much improved. This is considered to be a significant improvement and would support a more flexible approach to the calculation to the increase in floor area.
• "13. The form of the extension is similar to the previous scheme but does not include such a large expanse of glazing. It is highly relevant that the local authority took exception to the previous scheme on this basis, as did a number of local residents, none of which objects to this scheme on this basis. The extension is not identical in material and detail to the existing, but follows the

general design characteristics and appearance of the existing. So much so, that it is considered that the extension complies with the requirements of HP 15 and the application is recommended for approval."

The application was approved and no appeal lodged.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal on 21st December 2015, following up on 1st April 2015 with the request for the following condition to be added should the application be approved:

"Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."

5.2 In view of the partial designation of the site as an 'Area of Ecological Importance - Draft', the Senior Biodiversity Officer was contacted for his views. He advised on 6th January 2016 as follows: "The adjacent field had a rich sward when DAFF surveyed it, but that shouldn't be affected, so I have no concerns. The ASSI is just across the road, but similarly, that shouldn't be affected." - 5.3 The Arboricultural Officer noted no trees of any significance present and consequently offered no objection to the proposal on 21st December 2015. - 5.4 Arbory Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 18th December 2015, though they did have reservations with respect to the visual impact of the glass frontage (this was in respect of the originally submitted scheme, which had a similar amount of glass proposed as that on the amended plans: no comments were received following the application's re-advertisement). - 5.5 The owner / occupier of "Spindrift", a large, detached dwelling, the associated landholding of which abuts the application site but with the dwelling itself lying some 40m distant, objected to the application in comments received 7th January 2016. Their comments can be summarised as concern with: (1) overlooking and loss of privacy via the creation of four new windows were at present there are none with little natural screening between the properties, affecting their right to their private and family life; (2) adverse effect on residential amenity, specifically through the greater feeling of enclosure that would result in the garden, which they currently enjoy for various activities; (3) the visual impact, and specifically the glazing element, with the overall design not being in keeping with the existing property; (4) there is a legal covenant preventing the use of the property for anything other than an extension to the garden, although it is acknowledged that this is not a material Planning consideration, and (5) further information is asked to be sought with respect to future building plans (e.g. extensions) to the proposed dwelling.

These comments were received in respect of the originally submitted scheme; no comments in respect of the amended design were received.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The nature of the proposal means that, as is so often the case with applications seeking approval for replacement dwellings in the countryside, its acceptability will turn on the site-specific impacts of what is proposed having regard to the nature and character of the application site. - 6.2 The character of the site has been laid out in this report already. The site is visible from the A5 and also Pooilvaaish Road, and so care must be taken with respect to changes to the site in the

• context of the coastal openness that defines the rural nature of the area. Views of the site are more readily obtained from the less regularly used Pooilvaaish Road.
• 6.3 In this context, the loss of the existing dwelling is unfortunate but its replacement with (at least in part) something with fairly traditional elements is considered to be acceptable. What remains for consideration is the proportionally large, contemporary element proposed to the side of the principal elevation, and how this affects the visual impact of the proposed dwelling overall. It is to be remembered that the proposed dwelling is less than 50% larger than that which exists.
• 6.4 It is considered that the proposed dwelling's frontage is the most important and key one for consideration: while it could be argued that the Pooilvaaish Road is far less used and therefore less important, this would be to ignore the fact that the dwelling will only be seen from the more heavily used A5 in flashes and only the roof and upper floor will be particularly visible from here, whereas it would be visible for quite a significant stretch of Pooilvaaish Road and for a much longer period of time as well since vehicle speeds along here are necessarily much lower. This road also doubles as the Raad ny Foillan footpath, as mentioned in Landscape Strategy E9 above (even if the key views identified are in fact towards the sea).
• 6.5 With this in mind, the overall design approach has resulted in what is considered to be an appropriate negotiated middle ground. The dwelling is by no means wholly traditional, and yet its principal feature at the important frontage will be that of Manx countryside vernacular. While the other, smaller elements will sit alongside this, and potentially be quite visually distracting (particularly in the case of the side 'extension'), they will not completely undermine the design.
• 6.6 The use of a variety of fenestration approaches could be said to be a little disordered, but there are clear vertical and horizontal proportions that run through the elevations, and, while these might not be to everyone's tastes, they are also not haphazard to any harmful degree.
• 6.7 As such, it is considered that the approach to merge both Housing Policies 14 and 15 has been somewhat successful, and while there would have been many preferable ways to approach the scheme, that which is now before the Committee is not considered to be so at odds with Housing Policy 14 in particular as to warrant its refusal. Similarly, it is considered that while the proposal does comprise new development in the area, it is of a scale relative to the existing such as to mean it could not be considered contrary to Landscape Proposal 9 in the Area Plan for the South.
• 6.8 The comments made by the owners of the adjacent property are noted. While a 20m distance would normally be sought between principal windows in dwellings, this 'rule of thumb' applies primarily in more built-up areas where overlooking and loss of privacy can be more readily achieved. In more sparsely developed areas such as this, greater distances might be more appropriate to apply, but Spindrift occupies a large and open plot and the next-nearest dwelling is roughly 125m distant. To state the proposal would result in a loss of privacy and a resulting reduction in the right to a private and family life to a degree sufficient to warrant the application's refusal would be really rather difficult to sustain at appeal.
• 6.9 The other concerns raised have been addressed in the report above, while legal covenants are not material to any assessment of a planning application.
• 6.10 The proposal raises no highway safety issues since there is already an existing access onto the public highway, though the condition recommended by Highway Services is logical even if reference to a garage needs to be removed as one is not proposed. It might also be worth removing permitted development rights with respect to the erection of a garage on the site, which is quite tight and any new standalone structure of the size of a garage would ideally be assessed through the planning process.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the - on balance - favourable assessment as outlined above, it is recommended that the application be approved. Conditions relating to the provision of the parking and manoeuvring area and also requiring the windows to the dwelling be sliding sash are recommended.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's current agent;
• o 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;
• o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
• o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• o 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.

8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

• 8.2.1 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person: o The owner / occupier of "Spindrift", the landholding of which abuts the application site.
• 8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The Senior Biodiversity Officer, and
• o The Arboricultural Officer. Both these officers are within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate.

9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT - 9.1 The Committee were minded that while the condition restricting the erection of garages on the site was acceptable, a similar condition removing permitted development rights with respect to extensions should also be attached to the approval notice. Committee felt that the design of the dwelling was well-considered and designed to look like it had been altered via extensions, and therefore they felt that any future alteration to its appearance should also be considered via the application process. Although it was agreed at the Committee meeting that this could be addressed via adding wording to Condition 4, it was subsequently considered that a new fifth condition would be simpler and cleaner.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 14.04.2016

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. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan's car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

• C 3. For the avoidance of doubt, all those windows shown with a transom (which is 21 no. in total) on Drawing number 1A (dated as having been received 18th March 2016) shall be vertical sliding sashes and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the dwelling hereby approved.
• C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved other than that expressly authorised by this approval without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the appearance of the surrounding area.
• C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

The development hereby approved relates to Drawing numbers 15 1139 3, 1509P 01 and 1509P 02, all three date-stamped as having been received 14th December 2015, and also to Drawing numbers 1A and 3, both dated as having been received 18th March 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: Approved Committee Meeting Date:25.04.2016

Signed : E Riley 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 paragraph 9 above

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.