Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00875/B Applicant: Mr E P & Mrs T K D Kerruish Proposal: Alterations, erection of a replacement dwelling and change of residential curtilage Site Address: Ardonan Farm House Ardonan Lane Regaby Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 3HN Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 18.09.2019 Site Visit: 18.09.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.10.2019 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling.
Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts and the improvement and enhancement of biodiversity throughout the site is one measure to achieve this.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
Reason: Planning permission has been approved on the basis that the existing dwelling would be replaced and therefore in accordance with Housing Policy 14 and General Policy 3.
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 182/001, 182/002, 182/003, 182/010, 182/020, 182/021, 182/022, 182/023, 182/024, 182/025, 182/026, and Design Statement all received on 2nd August 2019 and Bat Survey received 12th September 2019.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owners/occupants of Fairy Oak, Ardonan Lane, Regaby The owners/occupants of Thie Keirn, Ardonan Lane, Regaby
as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL
1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to Ardonan Farm, Ardonan Lane, Regaby, Ramsey which consists of 55 acres of undulating pasture located to the south-eastern side of Ardonan Lane, south of the B7 and southwest of Regaby Crossroads. The site consists of an existing traditional two storey farm house, associated outbuildings and a number of adjoining fields. The farmhouse and associated outbuildings, which are centrally located within the northern half of the application site, are surrounded by existing mature trees. The topography of the land to the north and east of the site slows downwards towards the farmhouse and associated outbuildings. - 1.2 Within the site there is the traditional two storey farm house, and a single storey outbuilding to the southeast, constructed of 'Ballacorey' brick with a slate roof finish. This outbuilding appears to have been partly used as a single garage and partly as a garden store. - 1.3 To the northeast of the farmhouse is a larger barn, again constructed of 'Ballacorey' brick. This is a part single, part two storey barn. This is referred as the 'Spud Shed' by the applicants. To the north west of this barn is the remains of a steel framed 'Dutch' barn which was finished in metal cladding. Whilst the steel frame remains, the metal sheeting which was on the roof and elevations of the barn has been blown off. - 1.4 The site is accessed via an existing lane which runs from Ardonan Lane in a southerly direction for approximately 480 metres. The first 100 metres of this lane is also shared by the residential properties Thie Keirn and Fairy Oak, the lane then split into two lanes, one serving the application site only, with the second serving the properties Ardonan Cottage, The Willows, Ardonan Nurseries and Cronkbreck. - 1.5 In terms of current use the Estate consists of 6 fields (54 acres) which essential surrounds the Ardonan Farm complex/buildings listed in above paragraphs.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 There are two previous planning applications connected with the farm/site which is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: - 2.2 Creation of a working country estate involving the erection of a dwelling, new vehicular access, refurbishment and extension of existing buildings to provide tourist accommodation units, landscaping and creation of a destination venue with associated parking - 14/01308/B SPLIT DECISION at appeal with the new access and driveway, conversion of dwelling to tourist accommodation and conversion of barn into tourist accommodation APPROVED, whilst the new dwelling and destination venue with associate parking was REFUSED on the following grounds:
"R 1. The proposed erection of a dwelling, and the proposed use of part of the site as a destination venue for the holding of events, would be contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside, with particular reference to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 4 and Business Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. It has not been established by convincing evidence that nearby residents would be adequately protected from harm to their living conditions due to potential noise and general disturbance from activities associated with the destination venue. Consequently, that element of the proposed development is in potential conflict with Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which, amongst other matters, seeks to avoid unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby properties in terms of matters including noise."
2.3 Alterations, erection of extension and car port to dwelling - 12/01695/B - APPROVED
3.1 The application seeks approval for alterations, erection of a replacement dwelling and change of residential curtilage. - 3.2 The new dwelling would be located approximately 64+ metres to the west of the existing farmhouse. The dwelling would be part single, part two storey utilising the sloping topography of this part of the site. The proposal is contemporary in design, finished with natural Manx stone, Lime render and red cedar cladding, untreated to silver natural and the roof would be finished with a sanding seam zinc roof. The dwelling would have a maximum width of 38.6 metres, a maximum depth of 18.8 metres and a height of ranging from 4 metres to 9 metres. Accessing the site would utilise the existing/proposed entrance and lane and persons occupying the dwelling would need to drive through the existing holding and past the existing farmhouse and 'Spud Shed' buildings. - 3.3 Part of the proposal involves the demolition of the existing farmhouse and essentially swapping the existing residential curtilage (i.e. area of existing dwelling/gardens etc) from one part of the estate, to an agricultural field used for grazing, to the east of the existing dwelling. The existing residential curtilage which equates to 4325 sqm (0.43 hectares/1 acre) which is made up of large garden and wooded area, and this is proposed to revert back to agricultural use to be used as a woodland glade habitat. The new residential curtilage which is immediate to the east of the existing would accommodate the new dwelling, gardens, parking areas and driveway. This area would equate to 3635 sqm (0.36 hectares/0.8 acre). - 3.4 As well as the existing dwelling being demolished a further two additional outbuilding would be removed as well. Attached to the existing dwelling is a 1 ½ storey stone building referred as the "store & bat roost", it is proposed this would be retained. The "Spud Shed" which has approval to be converted (expires 16th December 2019) would also be retained. - 3.5 The applicants have advised that: "The primary goal of the scheme submitted for Approval is to create a family home that can be constructed to Passivhaus standards and utilise renewable energy sources where required and possible; the basic Passivhaus principles are:-
4.1 The site where the existing or proposed buildings are/would be located are within an area designated as 'woodland' whilst the majority of the entrance, lane and surrounding fields are designated as 'white land' all not designated for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not located within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 Due to the location of the site its zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:- - 4.3 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
4.4 Environment Policy 1 states: "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 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and seminatural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." - 4.6 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
4.7 Energy Policy 5 states: "The Department will prepare a Planning Policy Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied be an Energy Impact Assessment." - 4.8 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 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."
4.9 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 4.10 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." - 4.11 Greater efficiency Cleaner energy Resilient economy - A climate challenge mitigation strategy for the Isle of Man 2016 - 2020 June 2016 - The below are some key points where are considered relevant in the assessment of this application and can be considered as "other material planning considerations";
5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objection (received on 19.09.2019): - 5.2 Highway Services make the following comments (received on 06.09.2019): "The development site is substantially removed from the nearest public highway to have any negative impacts. As a result, the proposals are considered acceptable. There are no highway conditions. Recommendation DNO".
5.3 Ecosystem Policy Officer/ Senior Biodiversity Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (13.09.2019): "Bats Bat surveys undertaken in July/August 2016 identified a brown-long eared bat maternity roost in the eastern extension of the building. The extension includes a kitchen on the lower floor, accessed via the main house and a storage area on the first floor accessed by external stairs. The brown-long eared roost is located on the first floor and bats are utilising the area between the roof tiles and boarding, as well as clustering in the roof beams. The bats are accessing the building by a space at the apex between the east gable end wall and the roof.
Bats were not seen to emerge from the main house proposed for demolition and there is no roof space in the main house. In addition, no bats were seen to emerge from the two brick buildings proposed for demolition forming part of this application.
Furthermore, leisler and common pipistrelle bats were also noted as feeding/flying in vicinity of the buildings.
The Ecosystem Policy Team welcomes the retention of the eastern end of the existing building to enable the bats to continue to use the roost as shown in Drawing 182/010. Method Statements are required to undertake the demolition of all the buildings and these should address the following:
Should the application be granted permission the Ecosystem Policy Team recommends the following condition:
5.4 The Inland Fisheries Manager (DEFA) following additional information being provided to demonstrate any works would be more than 9m away from any water course the officer confirms they have no objections (21.08.2019). - 5.5 The owners/occupants of Fairy Oak, Ardonan Lane, Regaby have objected to the application for the following summarised reasons (05.09.2019); there boundary is within 3.2m away (their boundary with lane) previous refusal of appeal should be taken into account; concerns of previous planned double avenue of trees and any planting of Manx bank which may cause loss of light and scenic outlook; we request any trees planted be a modest growing size; and current access from the top of Ardonan Lane is hazardous. - 5.6 The owners/occupants of Thie Keirn, Ardonan Lane, Regaby have objected to the application for the following summarised reasons (03.09.2019); the new build is the same as previous application which was refused and should be refused again; we have reservations of the safety of the new access road entrance onto the unrestricted B7.
6.1 The main material planning considerations are: (a) principle of the demotion of the dwelling; (b) visual impact of the proposed development/potential environmental benefits; (c) highway safety issues; and (d) potential impact upon bats. Principle of the demotion of the dwelling (HP12) - 6.2 Under the provisions of General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the erection of a replacement dwelling on a one for one basis is an accepted exception to the general presumption against development within the countryside. The existing dwelling is still in place and in use; therefore retains its full habitable status and therefore also accords with paragraph (a) of Housing Policy 12 from this respect. - 6.3 In terms of paragraph (b) of HP 12 i.e. is the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. The existing property cannot be seen from public view and can only be seen when stood immediately adjacent to it. The front elevation is attractive and retains its original form, stone finish and windows. The roof appears to have been re-roofed with an artificial slate. The rear elevation has been altered rather unsympathetically with the introduction of picture windows and poor examples of artificial slates. Planning permission (12/01695/B ) was also previously granted (now expired) for a number of contemporary extensions to the rear elevation, which would have dramatically changed the appearance of the property. - 6.4 The applicants in terms of this issue have indicated: "With regard to the principle of replacing the existing dwelling, and in consideration of Housing Policy 12, the existing house is currently occupied (so has not lost its residential use) and is not of architectural or historical interest. Whilst it is not considered to be generally of poor form, various works that have been undertaken in the past have substantially reduced the appearance of the traditional elements, most notably the use of fibre cement tiles to the roof (it is noted that the annex that is proposed to be retained as a bat roost still has a slate roof) and a variety of non-traditional glazing to the rear elevation (see attached photograph). In any event, it is certainly considered that the proposed new dwelling and residential curtilage have a
6.6 Putting the issue of HP12 to one side, the next consideration relates to the potential visual impact of the development. As can be seen, Housing Policy 14 raises a number of issues that need to be taken into account. The first relates to the replacements dwellings siting. In this case as indicated previously within paragraph 3.3 of this report the proposal includes the swapping of the existing residential curtilage with an agricultural field. The new siting would also be located in a different position, 60+m to the east of the existing. Therefore the proposal could be considered contrary to this aspect of HP14 and could be a reason to refuse the application. However, there are arguments in favour; The Policy 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."
6.7 Therefore, there is potential scope for a new dwelling not being on the same siting and size as long as it "…would result in an overall environmental improvement". The policy also states that; "generally be sited on the footprint of the existing" , again leaving scope for a new dwelling not being on the same footprint, but of course needs to be justified and acceptable. - 6.8 Firstly, whether a new dwelling is located on its current footprint or the proposed footprint, neither will have a visual impact upon the countryside, as neither are/would be apparent from public views. The new dwelling, while located on a undevelopment field, the site was chosen as the site slopes north to south and the dwelling is designed to fit within the natural topography of the site (i.e. front elevation is single storey, whilst front elevation (south) is two storeys. This consequently reduces the visual impact of the dwelling, especially when viewing it form the north; albeit public views as mention are not achievable from any distant highway in the surrounding area. - 6.9 In terms of the visual impact the second aspect of HP14 to consider relates to the size of the new dwelling. This proposal would equate to a 150% increase (proposed floor area 776sqm (inc garaging) & existing floor area 311sqm). 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; the proposal aims to meet the latter requirement. - 6.10 As mention from a public vantage points the site is very well screened from pubic views, namely given the topography of the site and the specifically location within the site; but also due to the distance any pubic highway/footpath is located form the site; and significant landscaping in and round the site and along roadside boundaries. Again just because you cannot see if from public views, does not make the application acceptable; however, it is one of a number of material planning considerations, arguably this point being in its favour. - 6.11 Second the applicants wish a modern contemporary designed house which can take advantage of renewable energy sources and Passivhaus principles; hence trying to meet the "overall environmental improvement" aim in HP14. The siting of the dwelling which main front
"It is not possible to achieve the standards of insulation and airtightness required within the existing house or its fabric, so it is essential that the house is new build, and built to current Passivhaus standards.
Further, if the existing woodland is to be protected as desired by the Applicant, it is not possible to achieve the passive solar gains where the house is currently located, substantially shaded by the trees throughout the day. Within a Passivhaus, the passive solar gains make the greatest contribution of the various passive heat gains to reducing the heating load on the building; therefore, it was considered that the house should be located further away from the trees, to benefit from the passive solar gains available."
"Whilst the Applicant wishes to explore the use of environmentally sustainable sources of power and heating (if required), to combat the increasing concerns of imminent fuel poverty, due to the time and financial commitment that this will require, they wish to do so only if a Planning Approval is granted; however, at this stage, the house has been designed in a way that does not preclude the use of renewable energy sources.
In terms of the Passivhaus elements, the overarching principles of the design are:-
6.14 For information the term Passivhaus is an entirely voluntary building performance standard that anyone setting out to build a low-energy home might be interested in. It's is based around the principle of reducing heating demand to a very low level rather than relying on renewables. The standards far exceed those of the current Building Regulations, and it is popular because there are many different ways to meet the criteria. Designers use a software package to predict the home's future energy demand. Also, a Passivhaus should require 75% less energy for space heating than a standard build house. The concept relies on a mechanical ventilation system that passes air through the building. These buildings are so well insulated that almost all the heat they need can be met by passive sources such as the sun, human occupants, household appliances and the extracted air. If the remaining heat demand is less
100) SAP rating. Currently, this rating would be described as a carbon natural dwelling. For context most new builds today under current Building Regulation Standards have a SAP rating of 82. For the next few years up to 2027, the SAP ratings increase from 80 (2019), 88 (2021), 93 (2024) to 97 (2027). It should also be noted that to increase from a rating of 80 to 85 for example is easier than increasing a rating of 90 to 95. Essentially, it becomes more difficult to improve upon the higher the scale of the rating.
6.18 In terms of this application, the applicants have advised that they are seeking to meet a Passivhaus standard or equivalent i.e. 97 SAP rating. They comment: "Where a SAP Rating calculation is required under Building Regulations (e.g. in the UK) the proposed design is sent to a SAP Assessor who undertakes a full analysis of the building (floor, wall, and roof areas, glazing, opening lights etc.) and imports that data into a software programme to determine if the design complies with Building Regulations requirements, or if additional measures are required to achieve that. In this case, we would propose going through the same process (even if the requirement for SAP Calculations has not been introduced at that time) but, rather than assessing if the design complies with Building Regulations, we would ask for it to be assessed against a target SAP Rating of 97, with subsequent discussions focussed on how to achieve that, if it didn't in the first instance. My understanding of the process is that it may be a slightly iterative one with backward and forward discussions, but we do not see any reason why the design proposed could not achieve a SAP Rating of 97 with modern methods of construction and the range of affordable renewable energy sources now available. Until the assessment is undertaken, the most efficient way in which the target SAP Rating of 97 can be achieved is not clear but, certainly, highly efficient insulation to the ground floors, walls, and roofs, and triple glazing would be a very good starting point. In this design, the use of the central core to generate heat, which is then recovered via a whole house ventilation system with heat exchangers would certainly make a substantial contribution to the reduction of the energy required to run the house." - 6.19 It's not possible to directly compare this energy use with other energy modelling, for example Passivhaus, mainly because the measurement conventions are different. For example, Passivhaus measures externally and SAP measures internally. A condition could be attached to an approval which requires evidence of this prior to the commencement of any works and after the dwelling has been constructed. This information could be the same/similar to what is submitted to Building Regulations when the applicants submit their design for the SAP calculation at design stage and once the dwelling has been built. It is considered as the proposal indicates that it is to be Passivhaus build (or SAP rating of 97) and if it is considered that approval of the new dwelling is to meet the aims of HP 14 and it has an "overall
"Existing curtilage With regard to biodiversity, grazing could have negative impacts on the existing curtilage/woodland by browsing out tree seedlings/saplings preventing the regeneration of the woodland. Grazing could also remove the woodland ground flora and cause poaching and damage to the vegetation at the pond edge. Light grazing at certain times of the year may be beneficial if saplings and the pond were protected. Leaving the current lawn to grow longer and have some light grazing will increase the diversity of the flora and invertebrates in the area, however if the grassland is agriculturally improved (ploughed/re-seeded/limed/treated with herbicides/fertilisers) then the existing biodiversity will decrease. Can an appropriated Habitat Management Agreement for the existing curtilage/woodland be put in place through Section 13 of the T&C? Much of the woodland is outside the planning application boundary (see attached 2018 aerial).
Proposed curtilage The Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken in 1992 identified the proposed curtilage as arable farmland and at some stage this has been sown with species poor ryegrass. Depending on the landscaping proposals for the curtilage there could be biodiversity gains through native
shrub and flower planting schemes; nectar rich planting schemes, orchard/berry bearing planting schemes, provision of bird nesting facilities (e.g. swift box, house martin nest boxes, open log stores, car ports and porches for swallows to nest under, provision of barn owl nest box), creation of new ponds/SUDS, stone/sod bank with unimproved grassland for lizard habitat, sheds/garages with bat roost facilities etc. If the current agricultural grassland is replaced with a well maintained lawn or paved areas then there will be no benefit to biodiversity. Any landscaping scheme to enhance biodiversity should be in place and maintained for perpetuity."
And "The Ecosystem Policy Team would be in favour of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in place for the lifetime of the development and secured through a condition."
6.25 It is considered a Habitat Management Agreement for the existing curtilage/woodland and for the wild meadow to the east/southeast of the proposed new curtilage could be attached via a condition, to ensure there are overall environmental improvements to the site/countryside. The applicants are again happy with such condition. - 6.26 Recently the Department refused (contrary to EP1, GP3 & HP14) an application (19/00182/B) for a replacement dwelling due to the siting of the new dwelling not being on the original footprint and also given a new and much larger residential curtilage was also being proposed, similar to this application now. This was appealed by the applicant's where the Planning Inspector recommend an approval, which was subsequently agreed by the Minister. In reserving the decision the Inspector stated:
"28. With regard to whether or not the proposal constitutes an overall environmental improvement, the PA takes the view that the improvements simply relate to a better house on a larger site and that these are for the convenience of the appellant and her family. Again, at first sight, that stance is understandable considering the significant difference in size of the two sites. The PA considers, that the differences of siting and size do not result in an overall environmental improvement and, therefore that the proposal is contrary to policy HP14.
6.27 This decision is perhaps useful, in that "overall environmental improvements" did not just related to the visual impact upon the environment which the Department had initial concerns, but also other environmental implications i.e. wildlife/habitats/carbon footprint/energy efficiency etc. - 6.28 Overall, In terms of HP 14, whilst it is accepted the new dwelling would be larger and not on the original footprint of the existing; it is considered there are clear overall environmental improvements by the proposal by having a dwelling of this design, energy efficiency and while not having a significant adverse visual impact upon the countryside or landscape. Furthermore, the swapping of the existing curtilage with the proposed new curtilage would also bring environmental improvements to the site; while again not having any adverse visual impacts upon the countryside/landscape or site. For these reasons it is considered the proposal would comply with HP 14 and EP1 of the IOMSP. HIGHWAY SAFETY ISSUES - 6.29 The main objections from neighbours relate to the approved new access and new driveway (14/01308/B) and not matters which this application can consider. This previous application was approved and the applicants are still able to commence this approval until 16th December 2019. - 6.30 Dealing with the access as it is today, the access and drive would generate the same level of traffic as it does today given it is a single dwelling replacing a single dwelling. Highway Services have considered this issue and raised no objection. - 6.31 Overall, given the level of traffic generated by the proposed new dwelling would be similar to the existing dwelling and given the lack of any objection from Highway Services, it is considered the proposal would not have any significant impact upon highway safety to warrant a refusal. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON BATS - 6.32 The applicants have submitted a Bat Survey of the site where bat where observed roosting in the wooded area around the site, but also confirm the presence of a roost of brown long-eared bats in the upstairs annex to the main farm building referred in plans as "Store & Bat roost". Accordingly, the applicants are proposing to retain this building and leave it as accessible as a roost for the bats. Comments from the Ecosystem Policy Officer/ Senior Biodiversity Officer are noted and appropriate conditions/notes are attached.
7.1 In conclusion, due to the size increase of the proposed dwelling, different siting and residential curtilage swap, all cannot be ignored. Arguable the size increase and siting could be considered to have a neutral visual impact for the reasons indicted within this report and therefore partially complies with HP14. However, it is considered that given policy indicates that; "…unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement" the proposals, including the curtilage swap would all comply with this aspect of Housing Policy 14 while also complying with Environment Policy 1 both of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - 7.2 For the reasons stated it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
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: 11.11.2019
Signed : C BALMER 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. : 19/00875/B Applicant : Mr E P & Mrs T K D Kerruish Proposal : Alterations, erection of a replacement dwelling and change of
residential curtilage Site Address : Ardonan Farm House Ardonan Lane Regaby Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 3HN Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report The Planning Committee approved the application with the amendments and additional condition (C 11):
C5. No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development
Reason: Planning permission has been approved on the basis that the existing dwelling would be replaced and therefore in accordance with Housing Policy 14 and General Policy 3.
Reason: The application has not sought approval of the bat roosts for such purposes and the application has been considered on this basis; the building has a protect species within and use as living accommodation could adversely affect this species (bats) and in accordance with
General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Environment Policy 1 which restrict new dwellings on land not designated for development.
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: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling.
Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts and the improvement and enhancement of biodiversity throughout the site is one measure to achieve this.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
Reason: Planning permission has been approved on the basis that the existing dwelling would be replaced and therefore in accordance with Housing Policy 14 and General Policy 3.
Reason: The application has not sought approval of the bat roosts for such purposes and the application has been considered on this basis; the building has a protect species within and use as living accommodation could adversely affect this species (bats) and in accordance with General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Environment Policy 1 which restrict new dwellings on land not designated for development.
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 182/001, 182/002, 182/003, 182/010, 182/020, 182/021, 182/022, 182/023, 182/024, 182/025, 182/026, and Design Statement all received on 2nd August 2019 and Bat Survey received 12th September 2019.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
