Officer Report 18 May 2012

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:19272}} {{table:19273}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS REFUSED AT APPEAL

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 west of the existing main dwelling - 27m from the dwelling and 5m from the adjacent agricultural building. The existing chalet 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 20m from the water course to the east. The dwelling is single storey with a roof pitched at 35 degrees, traditional chimney stacks, a small porch and a slated roof. Additional accommodation could be provided in the roofspace, but the roof is not pitched at an unreasonably high angle and HP 14 states that "floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings").

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. 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."

1. Paragraph 8.11.3 states "It is unlikely that permission will be given for permanent replacement of dwellings which were never intended to have a permanent residential use, such as chalets and other structures built of materials for only temporary or seasonal use".

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).

1. Most recently, PA 11/1261 proposed the demolition of the existing chalet and its replacement with a new dwelling situated further north than the dwelling now proposed by around 15-20m. The dwelling now proposed is the same size and height but the house now proposed has chimneys and omits the annex proposed previously. This application was recommended for approval by the reporting officer but refused by the Planning Committee and the refusal was confirmed on appeal. The reporting Inspector comments, "The chalet can be seen through the farmyard entrance but has very little impact. In contrast, a bungalow is proposed closer than previously to the farmyard but still appreciably outside it, extending the existing grouping of buildings deeper than now into the countryside. It would be on a sizeable plot, currently simply part of a larger open field, which would become residential and quite different in character" (paragraph 18). He goes on "if practical shortcomings at the existing location are to justify a replacement, not on the existing footprint, then the underlying aims of Housing Policy 14 necessitate that at least it be closely integrated with the farmyard cluster and on a compact domestic curtilage (paragraph 19). He goes on to comment adversely on the lack of chimneys and inclusion of gable projections on the style of the dwelling (paragraph 20).

Representations

1. Lezayre Commissioners indicate that they do not object to the application but state that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and will not consider any further applications for the development of the chalet plot.

1. Highways Division indicate that they do not object to the application.

1. A resident of Douglas comments that the proposed driveway (which already has approval) will cross agricultural land and be visually intrusive in the landscape and the position of the dwelling has a questionable relationship with the existing group of buildings.

1. The resident of Garee Aittin accepts that he is not directly affected by the development but objects to it on the basis that there is a history to the chalet which is to be replaced and the chalet and the house used to share an existing septic tank. Also, there have never been any animals in the agricultural building.

Assessment

1. The siting has changed from that most recently refused and is now much closer to the agricultural building at the northern side of the existing building group. Whilst it will be visible from the Garey Road to the west, it will not visually extend the existing building group to the north although a building will be closer to the road than at present. the proximity to the agricultural building alongside will lessen the likelihood of the new building being sold separately from the group. As there has never been an indication in the previous appeal decisions that the replacement dwelling should be on the footprint of the existing chalet, the proposed siting is considered reasonable. There is only one other viable position for the dwelling, that being on the footprint of the existing garage to the south of the house. However, it is then likely that replacement garaging would be proposed and the only place for this which would not be affected by the agricultural traffic and manoeuvring, would be in the place of the proposed dwelling, resulting in a similar visual impact and less convenient access to the buildings with which they would be associated.

1. On the basis of the previous refusals, it is considered that the application is reasonable and 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 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.

1. The residents of Douglas and Garey Aittin are not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 18.05.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : 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, all as shown in drawings 10344/300 Rev A, 10344/301 Rev A, 10344/302, 10344/303, 10344/304 and 10344/305 all received on 13th April, 2012.

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 1033/300 Rev A and 10344/301 Rev A.

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 condition 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 size 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 : ... 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