Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.1 The application site comprises the residential curtilages of two detached dwellings located in the Clypse area of Onchan. The dwellings are identical and architecturally uninspiring dormer bungalows. The gable ends front the highway, and no garages are present.
1.2 Surrounding the site are open fields. A Manx bank borders the site to the highway.
2.1 Planning approval is sought for the reserved matters of the erection of two replacement dwellings on a one-for-one basis, which follows the approval in principle for such development earlier in 2013 on the application site. The two proposed dwellings are of similar design. Plot 1 (to the southwest) has four reception rooms at the ground floor with four bedrooms above; an attached garage is shown to the southwest (left) of the front elevation. It has bay windows at the ground floor. Plot 2 is of a broadly similar style, although it does not have a rear outrider to match that of Plot 1; as such, it has one fewer reception room at ground floor and four smaller bedrooms at first floor. Its bay windows are double storey. It, too, has an attached garage, this being to the northeast (right) of the front elevation.
2.2 Concern was raised with the agent during the application process in respect of various matters, two of which being the design and amount of amenity space proposed. In response to these two concerns, revised plans were submitted by the agent that removed the outrider added the second storey of bay windows as discussed above. These were incorrectly labelled on one occasion and incorrectly drawn on a second; on neither occasion were the red or blue lines drawn on the plans submitted. The third set of revised plans was subject to a full three-week consultation period.
2.3 It has since been noted, however, that the third set of revised plans are also incorrect as they show chimneys on the front and rear elevations but not on the side elevations of both the proposed dwellings. Inaccurate dimensions are also annotated on the proposed Plot 2
| Application No.: | 13/91198/REM |
| Applicant: | Forest Homes Developments Ltd |
| Proposal: | Reserved Matters application for the erection of two replacement detached dwellings with associated parking |
| Site Address: | Clypse Mooar Cottages |
| Clypse | |
| Onchan | |
| Isle Of Man | |
| IM4 5BG |
plans, showing different frontage widths on the ground and first floors. Finally, it is also noted that the drawings of the existing dwellings are not accurate, omitting their dormer windows. As demolition for these dwellings is proposed, amended drawings were not requested. 2.4 For the avoidance of doubt, this Report has been prepared on the basis of the following plans: 1001/PL41; 1001/PL42; 1001/PL04 Rev D and 1001/PL06 Rev C.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Condition 1 The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
Condition 2 Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the buildings, internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
Condition 3 The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.
Condition 4 This approval is in principle only and relates to the erection of two replacement dwellings within the land defined by the red line on drawing no.s 1001/PL40 and 1001/PL41 date stamped the 13th February 2013.
Advisory Note It should be noted that the application for the reserved matters will be assessed against the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of lands that are designated as i) open space; and ii) land that is designated as unsuitable for development owing to a danger of pollution of an existing or future public water supply under the Onchan Local Plan. There is one policy in the Onchan Local Plan considered relevant. 4.2 O/ERS/P/22 states: "Outside those areas designated for residential development new dwellings will generally not be permitted within the Local Plan Area. This applies particularly to the rural part of the district where the countryside is already protected by Planning Circular 1 / 88 the provisions of which will continue to be applied. In addition it should be noted that the countryside in its entirety within the district is designated by the Local plan as of high landscape value and scenic significance in accordance with the provisions of the Island Strategic Plan Eastern Sector (Planning Circular 9/91)". 4.3 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains five policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. 4.4 General Policy 2 states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the landuse zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality, and (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways." 4.5 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 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."
4.6 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10 ; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14." 4.7 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 (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." 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 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 It is worth noting the provisions of paragraph A.6.1.1 of the Strategic Plan, which states (in part) as follows: "The exact open space requirement will depend on the individual circumstances and nature of each planning application. Applicants are asked to note that all new residential development must provide adequate standards of residential amenity, including private open space such as gardens...and bin storage areas".
5.1 Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved. This recommendation was reiterated following the submission of revised plans. 5.2 Highway Services does not oppose the planning application, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the applicant to contact the Department of Infrastructure prior to carrying out any works within the highway.
5.3 The owners and/or occupants of 2 Clypse Moar Cottages, which is one of the two dwellings contained within the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as belief that the existing dwellings are farmworkers' dwellings and it is his understanding that they should be retained as such; the highway is a narrow country road with few passable areas and is used by walkers; the road would also struggle with heavy machinery using it. Upon publication of the revised plans, further concern was raised on the grounds that the property is in good-standing and does not need to be replaced, and has been well-looked after. Concern in respect of a failure to be informed of the application by the applicant was also raised. 5.4 The owners and/or occupants of Glen Rosa, which is located approximately 600 metres south of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that to replace two unobtrusive country cottages with four-bedroomed mansions would be totally out of keeping with the countryside; the road serving the vehicles is very busy; it is ludicrous to believe that in the present day a four bedroomed-house would only attract one vehicle; large quantities of polluted water would be discharged to a trout stream and not a drain as marked on the plan. Upon publication of the revised plans, this representation was reiterated. A third representation was received, again reiterating the earlier comments but also adding that the developer, Forest Homes Developments Ltd., state that they own the properties and the adjoining field but that this is believed to be incorrect. 5.5 The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage, which is located in Maughold, question the design of the dwellings, considering them too 'urban' for this piece of countryside. The reduction in size of the dwellings does not dissuade them from considering this is the wrong approach, and that a subtle design - perhaps semi-detached? - is deserved for this considerable asset.
6.1 The principle of residential development on this site has been firmly established by the grant of the recent approval in principle. As such, what remains for consideration are the details of the proposed dwellings. 6.2 As advised on the previous approval in principle, this application is primarily assessed against the provisions of Housing Policy 14. It is a long policy, and comprises the following key assessment points:
6.3 Although the land here is not zoned as residential, given the nature of the application site it is appropriate to reflect on the relevant elements of General Policy 2, which is another long policy outlining key assessment points; these are detailed in paragraph 4.5 of this Report. These are relevant for consideration inasmuch as to disregard them would inappropriately ignore the issue of the private amenity levels proposed for the residents of the dwellings hereby proposed; they also build upon those matters relating to public amenity set out in Housing Policy 14. As such, the following few paragraphs also touch upon General Policy 2, especially parts (b) and (c). 6.4 Perhaps the most appropriate starting point is the proposed size of the dwellings relative to the existing dwelling. It is unfortunate that the agent has not gained access to the existing dwellings to conduct a formal survey. Externally, the footprint is identified as being
72.45sqm. While for a two-storey house this would normally indicate there to be 144.90 sqm of floorspace across both floors, that these are dormer bungalows means that it is not possible for a similar level of (useable) floorspace to exist at first floor as ground floor. No floorplans of the existing dwelling have been provided so an estimate of the useable floorspace of the first floor has had to be made. It has been assumed that a 2 m ceiling should exist to provide useable space, which is only possible for 2.4 m of the width of the dwelling. Its length being roughly 10 m , this provides for liveable floorspace on the upper floor of roughly 25 sqm (rounded up). This, together with roughly 75 sqm (again rounded up) at the ground floor, provides for roughly 100 sqm of useable floorspace within each dwelling. 6.5 Such an assessment has also been conducted for the proposed plots, which was far easier given that full floorplans have been provided. Plot 1 measures 238.78 sqm in size, while Plot 2 measures 173.04 sqm in size. Neither of these measurements includes the areas created by the bay windows such that they are an underestimate; they also do not include the attached garages. Clearly, then, the dwellings proposed both fail the threshold test; this, however, is more of a guide than a strict ceiling and it is therefore necessary to consider whether or not there are other material considerations that would warrant reducing the weight to be applied to this element of Housing Policy 14. In the first instance it is worth assessing the designs proposed. 6.6 Planning Circular 3/91 sets out what is meant by a traditional Manx property, with reference made to: form; proportion; building materials; windows and doors; chimney proportions and eaves, and boundary treatment. A section for advice in respect of designs for "the larger house standing in its own grounds" is provided at the end of the Circular, and is supported by Policy 8; this Policy is specifically excluded from the policies to be had regard to under Housing Policy 14. 6.7 It can be seen from the proposed design that, while some regard has been had to Circular 3/91 - traditional building materials, sliding sash windows, and chimneys and eaves are all included in the design, and these are broadly welcomed - rather more regard has been had to Policy 8 than the relevant Policies 2-7. As such, the designs proposed are considered too 'grand' for the plots in which they are proposed to sit. The double-storey bay windows and arched transom entrance doors, for example, are archetypal features of "the larger house standing in its own grounds". 6.8 The irregular shape of the footprint of the dwellings conflicts with the requirement of a rectangular floorplan; the dwellings also appear too high to properly reflect the proportions of mass required under Policy 3. While there are some acceptable extensions shown, these are heavily caveated by the words "in certain circumstances" and, in any case, the fact that the dwellings here proposed are not of the basic form expected is such that the extra outriders, garage and rear canopy, it is not considered that those "certain circumstances" have been demonstrated to exist here. 6.9 The proposed siting of the dwellings is largely on the existing footprint of the existing is welcomed. 6.10 The proposed retention of the Manx bank to the front of the site is welcomed and complies with General Policy 2(f) and Policy 7 of Circular 3/91. The proposed use of timber fencing as boundary treatment to the rear and sides is, however, rather less successful. 6.11 Housing Policy 14 suggests that, if an environmental improvement would result from a breaking of the threshold, such a proposal might be acceptable. No definition is given of environmental improvement, but it is considered that this covers both visual and ecological matters. On neither point could an environmental improvement be said to result from the proposal. Neither dwelling appears to have any environmentally-friendly elements of the kind that might be expected on dwellings in the countryside - for example: ground source heat
pumps; solar panels; thick insulation layers; wind turbines within the curtilage - and as such their environmental impact is unlikely to be mitigated against to any great degree. Any benefit that might result from modern construction techniques needs to be balanced against the fact that the proposed dwellings are significantly larger than those they are intended to replace. As such, while the energy use might be less on a per square metre basis in the new dwellings than those currently in place, limited weight can be given to such a benefit since the dwellings proposed are so much larger than the existing. In any case, the lack of information prevents a proper analysis on this point. 6.12 Returning to the visual impact, the larger mass - both relative to the existing dwellings and also proportional to the grounds in which these proposed dwellings would sit - is such that limited visual improvement could be said to result. While, as noted, the existing pair of dwellings provide limited architectural value to the countryside, they are modest and sit comfortably within their grounds without appearing squashed in; their low level and subdued colour is also such as to mean they blend in with the countryside. The use of Manx stone front elevation and a subdued colour to the render at the sides and rear could result in a neutral impact relative to the dwellings here proosed, but the additional mass more than outweighs this consideration. 6.13 None of this is to say there is anything inherently wrong with the design of the dwellings proposed - although the chimneys could be a little more robust - merely that this rural location in general, and the constrained nature of the site in particular, make dwellings of this size and grandeur wholly inappropriate here. Comments made by one objector that the style proposed is "urban" are broadly agreed with, and a townscape could probably more readily accommodate the design her proposed. However, this is a highly rural and sensitive landscape where great care and subtlety is required and it is not considered that such an approach is reflected in the designs here proposed. 6.14 On this basis, it is considered that, by virtue of the dwellings' size and overall design, the proposal does not comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 or General Policy 2(b) and 2(c). It is considered that this is a substantive reason to refuse the application. 6.15 Related to this matter is the issue of landscaping, details of which were required by condition to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application following the approval in principle on this site earlier in 2013. The failure to provide this information meant that condition 2 to PA 13/00184/A had not been complied with by the current application and to approve it in its submitted form would be contrary to the original approval, which cannot be done. Some information was subsequently provided upon request by the case officer, and this was sufficient to comprise an appropriate level of detail to discharge a condition. It was also considered that the boundary treatment proposed was acceptable, but this consideration in no way outweighs the fundamental design concerns discussed in depth above. 6.16 Turning to more the more general matters raised in General Policy 2, it is noted that a ground for a previous refusal for approval in principle (PA 12/00579) was that the proposal would increase the possibility of pollution of an existing or future public water supply. Such an issue was dismissed as part of the subsequent appeal decision (albeit that the appeal itself was dismissed), and there is no reason to not accept that decision. Such an approach was also taken in the most recent approval on this site, under PA 13/00185/A. 6.17 Concerns raised by several objectors in respect of the small scale of the highway are understandable - and, on the site visit, which was conducted during mid-morning, the highway was noted as being busier than might be expected for such a rural location although it is not considered that the situation is so bad as to warrant a reason for refusal on its own. The arrangement of the front garden/parking area is not clear but can be intimated from the plans - that is, some hardstanding separated from a front garden. On this basis, there is concern about the parking arrangements for the proposed dwellings - but especially
Plot 1. While space for two cars is provided - one in a garage, the other immediately in front - minimal manoeuvring space is provided such that, were the car in the garage needed but another car parked in front of it, the latter would almost certainly need to be driven into the highway to allow the garaged car out. Given the narrow nature of the highway here, where two cars cannot pass one another unless via a passing space, this would be an undesirable outcome. A better approach would perhaps be to keep the entire area to the frontage for parking purposes - but the wholly unfortunate side-effect to this would be a creeping urbanisation resulting from a large expanse of hardstanding in an otherwise rural area. This does indicate - again - that the size of the dwellings proposed are simply too large for the plots on which they would sit. It is considered that - despite no formal objection from Highway Services - the proposed parking arrangements, coupled with the narrowness of the highway, are contrary to General Policy 2(i) and are such as to make this is a substantive reason for refusing the planning application. 6.18 Also for consideration is the amount of private amenity space that is proposed to be provided to the occupiers of the new dwellings. The reduction in size of Plot 2 following officer concern on this point is welcome, but still leaves rear garden space of not much greater than the dwelling it would serve. Such an approach is not uncommon in more urban environments but could not be said to represent an appropriate proportion in this location. Plot 1 is set in larger grounds and could therefore potentially accommodate a larger dwelling than Plot 2; however, given the dwelling proposed for Plot 2 is overly large, the proposed larger dwelling on Plot 1 is faced with similar problems. The garden is certainly more than the size of the footprint of the proposed dwelling - possibly double it - and therefore there is less concern here than in respect of Plot 2. The agent advised during a conversation with the case officer that additional land to the rear of the dwellings, and is within the ownership of the applicant, could be used as pasture land by the occupants of these dwellings. As such a use could require planning approval depending on its nature, very limited weight can be attached to this statement. 6.19 Overall, it is not considered that the amount of amenity space is considered acceptable for dwellings in a rural location such as this. It is reasonable to expect large dwellings such as these to be complemented by proportionately large gardens. It is again noted that the size of the dwellings proposed has constrained the outdoor amenity space available to occupants of those dwelling; in the case of Plot 1, the amount available is considered just acceptable on balance. However, the same cannot be said in respect of Plot 2. A recent appeal decision (PA 13/91076/B) found that an inadequate level of amenity space for new dwellings coincidentally, that application was also for a pair of semi-detached dwellings - was a substantive reason to refuse a planning application. The Inspector commented as follows: "I accept that potential occupants of the houses would be well aware of the amount of private amenity space that would be available to them. But this does not justify what, to my mind, amounts to an overdevelopment of the site resulting in unsatisfactory living conditions."
A reason for refusal was recommended: "The proposed 4-bedroomed houses would have insufficient private amenity space and this would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupants."
The Minister subsequently upheld the recommendation to refuse, and attached this reason. While this application was in a more heavily built-up area (in Port St Mary), the proportions of garden land available to future occupants of those two dwellings would be broadly similar to those here proposed. 6.20 Given the very rural nature of the current application site, it is considered that such a concern is even better founded here than was the case at Port St Mary. As such, while there is no policy provision to hang such a reason for refusal on, it is considered that such a refusal
would not be a "makeweight" and would, certainly in the case of Plot 2, would reflect a substantive reason to refuse the planning application. 6.21 One objector raises concern about the nature of the current dwellings and whether or not they have an agricultural occupancy condition attached. The dwellings - as noted - have been constructed very differently from the approved drawings. As such, although they are exempt from enforcement action due to the time elapsed since their construction, the fact of their not being lawful is such as to mean any conditions attached to that previous approval does not apply. 6.22 As noted, the drawings submitted are inaccurate and contradictory. If the Planning Authority were minded to approve the application, the dwellings as drawn simply could not be built in reality. This is considered to be a substantive reason for refusing the application.
7.1 The agent advised in email correspondence that they considered the provision of two dwellings of better design would be preferable to two dwellings of a style and design incongruous to their location. While such a principle is laudable, and the point not disagreed with, it has been shown that the "better design" referenced and sought by the agent has not been forthcoming on the site. The design of the proposed dwellings is, it is probably fair to say, an improvement compared to the existing dwellings, but the wholly inappropriate location for such a design, lack of satisfactory parking arrangements and failure to provide sufficient amenity space to Plot 2, weigh heavily against this benefit and such a conclusion is supported by established planning policy in the form of the Strategic Plan. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused on the three bases outlined above.
8.1 The owners/occupiers of 2 Clypse Moar Cottages, are, given their presence within the application site and by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(b), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.2 The owners/occupiers of Glen Rosa, Little Mill Road, Onchan are, given their distance from the site, and by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(b), not considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.3 The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold are, given their distance from the site, and by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(b), not considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.4 Highway Services is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.5 The local authority, Onchan District Commissioners, is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of 20.05.2014 Recommendation:
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1 . The plans submitted are contradictory as they show chimneys on the front and rear elevations but not on the side elevations. As such, even were the Planning Authority minded to approve the planning application, the dwellings could not be constructed as drawn.
R 2 . The dwellings proposed, while utilising some elements of traditional Manx dwellings, could not be said to fully comply with the relevant policies of Planning Circular 3/91 as required of replacement dwellings by Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2007). As such, the proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2007).
R 3 . The parking arrangements proposed for Plot 1 would potentially require dangerous vehicle movements from Plot 1 onto the highway in order to access any car located in the garage for Plot 1. This arrangement is contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2007).
R 4 . The proposed 4-bedroomed house on Plot 2 would have insufficient private amenity space and this would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupants.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Refused Date: 30/5/14
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed: Signed: Chris Balmer Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Senior Planning Officer Signed: Signed: Michael Gallagher Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management
29 May 2014 11 13/91198/REM Page 11 of
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
