Loading document...
Proposal: Mr David & Mrs Alison Allvey Removal of existing detached garage and erection of replacement garage/equipment store Dreemskerry Farm Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 IBF Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken: Mr Edmond Riley 29.01.2014 29.01.2014 Officer Delegation ## Site Visit: Decision Level:
The application site is the curtilage of a dwelling known as Dreemskerry Farm, Dreemskerry, which is a large, two storey-detached building with Manx stone, white render (in places) and grey slate roof tiles. The dwelling, which is almost doughnut-shaped
has a central set within a significant of land and and open-faced three-berth garage.
A collection of dwellings lie to the southwest of the application site along the Road of Scarffe's Ridge, with the nearest, Geay Vooar, some 150m from Dreemskerry Farm. Tfiere are few trees in the area, but Dreemskerry Farm is, topographically, set down with views into and out of site being primarily limited to long-distance. The land the ownership of the
is by the Manx Electric Railway, which borders the application site to north east. Maughold Conservation Area can be found 450m to the northeast.
Planning approval is sought for a replacement garage. The existing garage, as noted, Is
and provide sufficient space for vehicles. The garage is fourberth and has a recess behind that is labelled as a "Landscaping Equipment Store" on submitted plan, and hence in plan form resembles an inverted ”T". In terms of size, the
measures roughly 42sqm whereas the proposed garage would be roughly 162sqm. The existing hipped roof measures 4.1m at its highest compared with the proposed roof's highest point of 5.0m.
Four garage doors are shown, with Manx stone facings and a grey slate roof also proposed. No details of the garage doors are provided. Three existing trees would be moved from their current location the re-located trees shown on the proposed plan.
3.1 The following previous planning applications should be considered in the assessment and determination of this application:
PA 09/00870 - Erection of retaining wall, railings, steps and extension of courtyard APPROVED
• PA 14/00025, meanwhile, was submitted concurrently with this application and has yet to be determined although a recommendation of APPROVAL has been made. Under that application, approval Is sought for an extension within the internal courtyard.
In terms of land use planning, the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose and, as such, constitutes on the 1982 Plan application site is also located within a wider area of land that is designated as having high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan, four policies are considered relevant. General 3 states in full: Development will not be outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
Environment Policy 1 states in full: "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
the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect countryside will not permitted there is 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 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or 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
continued use is where redevelopment would reduce the impact the current
on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
the replacement of rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, and 14);
location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and
there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
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:
As noted, the application site is approximately 450m from Maughold Conservation Area. While normally the assessment of an application site's to a Conservation Area be seen in the context of Conservation Areas' urban nature, the that the
a significant amount of countryside means
Environment Policy 36 of the Strategic Plan is considered to apply. states: "Where development is proposed outside of, dose to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not important views into and out of the
Area".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Maughold Commissioners do not oppose the application.
5.2 Division do not oppose the application. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1
The officer report into PA 09/00870 stated that "the extended courtyard [within which the existing garage located and the proposed garage be located built] and its associated alterations respect the site and surroundings in terms of the scale, form, and design", As this assessment is considered to remain the case, is appropriate that special care be taken to preserve the character existing and its irrespective of its broadly invisible nature from outside the site, (It is something of a fallacy to assume a proposal's visual should be taken as a to not seek appropriate development in that location; such an approach presupposes that nobody will view the site be example, visiting friends, postal or owners.)
6.2
The agent for the application states that the existing garage does not provide for parking 4.8m x 2.5m) of size normally expected from the Division (at
X This is not disputed, albeit that there are three such spaces provided. Concern
also raised in respect of security and the open-fronted nature of the existing garage, which is described as "more of a carport". This latter observation is aiso not disputed. The also states that "housing all cars and necessary equipment one structure would be preferable to parking of vehicles randomly throughout the site and to leaving equipment exposed to the elements".
The question at hand is whether the proposal, which seeks on the applicants' part to resolve issues of space, security and weather exposure, is in the context of the in this area of countryside. first policy assess proposal
is General Policy 3, which is development should not take place the countryside unless meets one of eight exceptions. The proposed garage could not be as fitting into any one of those it is evident that some effort has been made on the part of the agent to suggest that the exception set part (f) would - namely and which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry". However, this argument is not accepted inasmuch as the accompanying the is not actively farmed or used for
purposes. As such, the is contrary to General Policy 3, which aims to prevent
development that fails to preserve or enhance the Manx countryside; this is considered to be a reason to refijse the application.
Environment Policy 1 states that: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake". It goes on: "Development which would adversely affect countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which
the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no and acceptable alternative", It is not the case that the proposal could be reasonably defined as representing an over-riding national need. An assessment the visual impact is therefore
in order to to extent the proposal would affect the
Environment Policy 2, which protection to areas of high value such as the application site, states, in part: "Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that...the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape", requirements are laid out in Environment Policy and General Policy 3, which together provide for very control of of land the countryside. That proposed is within a residential curtilage does not override the provisions of these policies.
Similar
The existing garage is set the side a hill such views of the from
southwest is, access to Farm) is its roof. The proposed garage would sit in the same location, although it would be almost quadruple the size
existing; as such, the expanse roof would significantly greater and visually obtrusive than the existing. Views from further are such the existing garage is noticeably more visible - albeit of a size, form and appropriate to the dwelling it serves.
It is not considered the same could be said for the proposed garage. Some effort has been to minimise the - a hipped roof is than a roof with gables would be, and the materials proposed are certainly while the
in the location as the existing garage within the of the land is
welcomed. However, its sheer mass relative to the existing dwelling is such as to make the garage appear with its surroundings. it give the appearance of being a new bungalow in the countryside by virtue of its scale and massing.
true that the proposed is not a dwelling, it is the harm would arise from of being a dwelling that is the relevant point.
Reflecting on the above. Environment Policy 2 does allow for the landscape character a specially-protected area to not be the primary consideration where the location the proposed shown to be essential, As earlier, the agent has gone some to justify the need for the garage proposed. During the visit, when it was
no were observed on the site, and no "landscaping equipment" could be seen in the fields or in existing garage. The existing garage was empty. If the was of it is reasonable to assume that every effort would be taken to store such equipment in the existing garage, even if the level of protection it offered would be less than ideal. The argument that the proposed garage would be prevent being parked randomly throughout the site, and also prevent the leaving of equipment open to the elements, is therefore perhaps a little contrived.
It is consequently considered that the proposed siting for the garage could not be considered essential or over-riding national as by 1 and 2 (and General Policy 3 (g)). As such, there is considered to be insufficient justification for a garage of this size and, reason of its scale and mass, the proposal is considered likely to harm quality of the in which application site sits the provisions of Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This is judged to be a substantive reason to refuse the application.
For the reasons relating to visual harm discussed at length above, it is also considered that the proposed garage would detrimentally affect views from the nearby Conservation Area - and surrounding - contrary to Environment Policy of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This is judged to be a substantive reason to refuse the application.
6.9
For the reasons set out above, the proposal is considered likely to have a detrimental impact on the countryside that is designated as having high landscape value and scenic
contrary to Environment Policy 2 and Environment Policy 36 of the Isle of Man Plan and, as such, a recommendation of refusal is made.
7.1
8.1 The Highways Division is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d) granted Interested Person Status.
The local authority, Maughold Parish Commissioners, is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(e) granted Interested Person Status.
8.2
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation:
01.04.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval : to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes to refusals
R 1.
proposed development does not qualify as one of the exceptions to the presumption in the countryside as set out in General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man
Plan. As such, it would contravene this policy, which aims to prevent development that fails to preserve or enhance the Manx countryside. R2. The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that it has not demonstrated that there is an overriding nationai need in iand use planning terms to
setting aside this policy, which requires the protection of the countryside for its own sake.
R 3. By of its mass and scale relative to the adjacent dwelling, the proposed garage, at almost quadruple the footprint of the garage, represents incongruous and
development in landscape that as having high landscape value and scenic significance. As such, the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R4. By reason of its mass and scale relative to the adjacent dwelling, the proposed garage, at almost quadruple the footprint of the existing garage, would appear from the
Area as a new dwelling in the countryside; as such, it would detrimentally important views out of Conservation Area in contravention of
36 of Man Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior
Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date : Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :............................ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :............................ Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
y'
Signed : Michael Gallagher Signed :......................................... Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
