Planning Officer Report Recommendations

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:374340}} {{table:374339}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE.

The Application Site

1. The application site is a small parcel of land in large field that falls within the boundary of a non-commercial farm known as Lower Glentramman Farm - a holding of 7.8 ha (19 acres) - off Garey Road in Sulby, Lezayre. The application site encompasses a vehicular access that extends between an enclosed equestrian area and part of the farm's field from Garey Road. A watercourse runs along the eastern perimeter of the application site, north to south.

1. The farm 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). A replacement dwelling approved in application 12/00563/B is currently being constructed within the boundary of the application site, to the north of the farm building that lies south-west of the farmhouse.

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 within the curtilage of the farm are of significant age or any particular style or design. The farmhouse has been altered and extended over time so now resembles a relatively modern property.

1. The application seeks approval for a replacement dwelling and garage in a field, 27 metres from the existing chalet and 5 metres from an existing agricultural building. The proposed replacement dwelling will be sited in the same location within the farm's field as the replacement dwelling approved by the Planning Committee in previous application 12/00563/B. The current proposed replacement dwelling will also be of identical size, form and design to the replacement dwelling approved in the same application. The fundamental difference between the current proposal and the previous approved scheme is that the current proposal seeks to include a utility room and garage on the south-west facing side elevation of the main dwelling, and an oil tank in the rear garden area.
2. The garage and utility building will extend outwards 9850 mm from the approved dwelling's south-west facing side elevation. The garage part of the building will have a depth of 9500 mm and the utility part will have a depth of 5900 mm . The eaves height of the garage and utility section of the dwelling will be consistent with the height of the approved bungalow. The front elevation of the garage, however, will have a gableend and a pitched slate roof which adjoins the pitched slate roof covering the utility room. The ridge height of the roof covering the utility room and garage will be 1.7 metres lower than the height of the roof covering the main part of the dwelling.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, four of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

12/00563/B - Demolition of existing chalet dwelling and replacement in new location with a single storey dwelling utilising existing drive access - Permitted.

11/01261/B - Demolition of existing chalet dwelling and replacement in new location with a single storey Dwelling - Refused. It 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.

11/00878/B - Improvements to existing vehicular access, new access road and creation of horse training enclosure - Permitted.

11/00211/B - Demolition of existing chalet dwelling and replacement in new location with a single storey dwelling - Refused (Appeal against decision dismissed). 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".

09/01438/C - Change of use of existing ancillary/holiday accommodation to permanent residential unit and erection of conservatory - Approved at appeal.

05/01071/C - Change of use of redundant stone barn to ancillary holiday accommodation with single garage and amenity are - Permitted.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of land use designation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 the application site falls within a designated Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

1. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains six policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. 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 overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable or acceptable alternative".

Environment Policy 2 states:

"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) 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".

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:

• (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 (defined in Appendix 1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where development 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 unacceptable alternative; and,

• (h) Buildings or works required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage".

Housing Policy 12 states:

"The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: (a) The existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or, 17 September 2012

• (b) The existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.

In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:

• (i) The structural condition of the building;
• (ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years;
• (iii) evidence of intervening use; and,
• (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon.

Housing Policy 14 states:

"Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the 'footprint' of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.

Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling 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".

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".

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".

The current standards are set out in Appendix 7 on the Strategic plan. Paragraph A.7.6 states the following with regard to typical residential units:

"2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling".

REPRESENTATIONS

1. Lezayre Parish Commissioners recommend refusal of the application, on the basis that when they recommended approval of the replacement dwelling in the field in previous application 12/00563/B, they stated they would not give approval for any further development on the site. Moreover, the commissioners make reference to the fact that the chalet that would be replaced on the site by the recently approved dwelling did not have a garage, and condition 4 with the 'note' attached to the approval of the

replacement dwelling seeks to prevent any further built development on the site for purposes of minimising the impact on the countryside.

1. The Highways Division do not oppose the application as it has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.

1. The Inland Fisheries division, part of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) initially raised concern that the applicant would be developing within 8 metres of a watercourse. Following an on-site inspection by the Inland Fisheries division and consultation with the applicant, it was established that the applicant was not developing within 8 metres of a watercourse. Consequently, the Inland Fisheries division had no further concerns or interest in the application.

ASSESSMENT

1. The siting, orientation and detailed design of the main part of the proposed dwelling has already been approved in previous application 12/00563/B and therefore, those elements of the proposal are considered acceptable. Subsequently, the fundamental issue to consider in this application is whether or not adding the garage, utility and plant room would make the current proposal in its entirety unduly detrimental to the preservation and openness of the countryside. Consideration should also be given to the proposal's impact on the residents of the neighbouring residences within the farm, even though they are also owned by the applicant. Whilst it is noted the proposal also seeks permission for the erection of an oil tank, it would comparatively attribute little visual significance on the landscape given its size and mass, and therefore it is considered acceptable.

1. A site visit was conducted during the consultation period in the presence of the applicant. Whilst on site it was noted the applicant had made significant progress in erecting the replacement dwelling approved in previous application 12/00563/B. In addition, it was deduced, and confirmed by the applicant, that the boundary defining the application site's north-west boundary had been moved back into the field by approximately 4 metres. In isolation, the re-positioning of the fence in the field inadvertently extends the residential curtilage of the proposed dwelling, which is not reflected in the submitted plans. Subsequently, should this application be approved, the boundary should be reverted back to its position as shown in the submitted plans in order to comply with the permission. It is suggested that if the application is approved a condition be imposed requiring the fence be restored to its proposed position prior to the completion of the dwelling or its occupation, whichever is soonest. This will enable the residential curtilage to be established from outset and prevent any unnecessary further harm to be imposed on the countryside.

1. In assessing the appropriateness of the scale of the replacement dwelling, consideration must be afforded to condition 4 and 'note' attached to the approval notice for the replacement dwelling approved in previous application 12/00563/B. The condition supports the notion that any further development on the site other than the dwelling would be detrimental to the openness and preservation of the countryside. Similarly, the local commissioners' response inferred a similar stance towards further development on the site. Subsequently, as this proposal seeks permission for a larger sized dwelling, then this has significant connotations to the assessment of the current proposal. Whilst condition 4 on the previous approval suspends the Permitted Development rights on the application site including the erection of a private garage, regard should be given to the underlying reasoning why in other circumstances the PDO enables a garage to be erected without requiring formal planning approval. If the current proposal was to be considered fragmentally i.e. given that the applicant already has approval for the main part of the dwelling and now seeks to add primarily

17 September 2012

a garage, it raises the question whether it would be unreasonable not to allow prospective residents use of garage in principle. Garages facilitate the storage of motor vehicles that would otherwise be parked within the residential curtilage of most detached properties. The previous approved application for a replacement dwelling on the site permitted the creation of a driveway in the same place where the garage is currently proposed and cars could be parked on it, but without the benefit of overnight cover and security that a garage could provide. As such, this proposal should not exclusively be assessed based the principal of presumption against development in the countryside but also what is reasonable in the modern context of town and country planning, taking into account other material planning considerations such as impact on neighbouring properties and public amenity.

1. The terms of assessing the impact of a larger replacement dwelling on the site, consideration should primarily be given the impact of the garage and utility facility on the existing neighbouring properties given that the main part of the house has already been considered acceptable in previous application 12/00536/B. The side elevation of the proposed garage would be sited 22 metres from the dwelling to the south-east and the utility room adjoining the garage would be sited approximately 30 metres from the front elevation of the farmhouse. Furthermore, the existing agricultural outbuilding obscures the view of the proposed utility room and garage from either existing residential property on the farm. Collectively, therefore, it is not considered the additional massing and apertures in the current proposal would be adverse to the private amenity or general outlook of the neighbouring properties.
2. The design and form of the garage, utility room and plant room is considered to incorporate many traditional features that are akin with the design of the main part of the dwelling already approved by the Planning Committee. Specifically, the pitched slate roof and gable-end facade above the garage and utility replicate traditional design features on the porch and roof of the main dwelling. The finishes to the walls and windows are consistent throughout the proposed dwelling and are traditional in design also. The overall design and form of the proposed dwelling is considered to comply with the policy requirements Planning Circular 3/91 and subsequently Housing Policy 14 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
3. Overall, in light of the view taken by the Planning Committee to prevent further development on the site other than a replacement dwelling, this proposal provides a dilemma between protecting the countryside for its own sake and considering what is reasonable development to expect within the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling. In its entirety the proposed replacement dwelling would be significantly larger in scale and mass than that previously approved replacement dwelling. However, when the proposal is considered fragmentally, the additional mass and sprawl of development created by the utility room, plant room and garage would be contained within the building group on the farm and extend no further westwards than the existing approved replacement dwelling. Furthermore, given that the roof to the garage and utility would have a lower ridge height than the existing approved dwelling and the agricultural outbuildings to the south and east, it is not considered the dwelling would have increased prominence on Garey Road when approaching from the main road. Even when approaching the site on Garey Road from the other direction, the agricultural outbuilding to the east will have greater prominence due to its greater height than the garage. In essence, although the current proposal would represent greater development in the countryside that what has already been permitted, it would not unreasonably harm the openness or vitality of the countryside.
4. In conclusion, whilst this proposal may undermine the general principal against development in the countryside, on its individual merits, the proposal is considered reasonable.

RECOMMENDATION

1. It is recommended that the planning application be approved.

PARTY STATUS

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

The local authority, Lezayre Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:

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.

The Inland Fisheries division, part of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA), are not afforded 'party status' as they have not raised any material planning concerns.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.09.2012 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 an extension to south-facing side elevation of replacement dwelling approved in application 12/00563/B to form a utility room and double garage, as shown in drawing no. 10344/G-00, 10344/G-21, and 10344/G-LP, all received on the 19th July 2012.

C 3.

17 September 2012 12/01028/B Page 7 of 8

Prior to the completion or occupation of the dwelling, which ever is sooner, the north-west boundary to the front of the front elevation of the dwelling must be re-positioned as it is shown in the drawing no. 10344/G-LP and 10344/G-00, both received on 19th July 2012.

C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, the installation of a window to replace a garage door, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).

C 5. The existing chalet dwelling shall be demolished prior to the occupation or completion of the dwelling, which ever is sooner.

N 1. The purpose of Condition 4 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: Defined Committee Meeting Date: 17/09/2012

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