Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: Site Visit: 14.06.2012 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
Officer's Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSED DWELLING REPRESENTS MORE THAN A 50 PER CENT INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA OVER THE EXISTING
The Site
The site represents the residential curtilage Hazeldene, Orrisdale, Kirk Michael which is located on the eastern side of Orrisdale Road and southwest of the settlement of Orrisdale. The existing dwelling Hazeldene is a two storey property which includes a single storey detached garage block to the north of the dwelling. The original property which would have been considered as a non-traditional property (i.e. not a Manx farmhouse styled property), has been extended in the past with a total of four flat roof extensions to its front and side elevations. The largest being two storeys to the front elevation of the property.
From various locations along the Orrisdale Road the existing property is apparent from the public highway, albeit a grass roadside bank and mature trees to the north do limit the appearance from certain locations along the highway. It is worth noting that to the north of the site the large detached garage is especially apparent and is a sizeable feature in the landscape.
Proposal
The application seeks approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The proposal also includes a detached double garage to the north elevation of the proposed dwelling. It should be worth noting that the proposed double garage in terms of size, height and position would be allowed under Permitted Development rights.
The dwelling in terms of proportion, form and size is proposed to replicate a traditional Manx farmhouse design, with 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 to the east elevation (rear). A single storey extension is also proposed to the south elevation. The elevations would be finished with a mixture of painted render and stone cladding with a natural slate roof finish.
The proposal would be sited on the existing footprint of the existing dwelling and detached garage block both of which would be demolished as part of this scheme. The residential curtilage would remain as existing.
Application No.:
12/00703/B
Applicant:
Mrs June Saville
Proposal:
Erection of a replacement dwelling
Site Address:
Hazeldene
Orrisdale
Kirk Michael
Isle Of Man
IM6 2HL
Planning Status
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'White Land' not zoned 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.
Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:-
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."
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."
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."
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."
Planning History
There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
Representations
The Department of Transport Highway Division do not oppose the application.
Assessment
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recommendation
In conclusion, whilst the proposal would have a greater floor area over the generally permitted 50% threshold, it is considered the proposal would comply with one of the possible exception for a larger dwelling as indicated within Housing policy 14, in that the proposal is replacing a dwelling of 'poor form' within one of a more traditional character.
It is considered for these reasons indicated within this report, the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), and accordingly it is recommended that the application be approved.
Party Status
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Michael Commissioners
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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: 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 approval relates to the erection of a replacement dwelling as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 01, 02, 03 and 10 all received on 11th May 2012.
C 3. The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate.
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 shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).
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
