Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling ("Mill House") located at the south eastern end of The Dog Mills in Bride. The site, which is divided by an access lane, contains an existing detached dwelling and two detached garage blocks. The existing dwelling is a split-level building that changes from two storey to three storey following changes in levels within the site. Given its unusual shape, partly due to its split-level nature but also due to various historic additions, Mill House was probably never a traditional Manx dwelling. Its finishes (cream roughcast render and grey slate tiles), however, give some lie to this conclusion. Mill House is, on the evidence of the site visit, unoccupied.
1.2 Agricultural land borders the site to the south, while to the west (beyond Bride Road) and north lies sporadic residential development amongst further agricultural land. To the immediate east lies the Island's coast, which at this point has a beach through which the Raad ny Foillan runs.
2.1 Approval is sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling within the application site. The existing house and one of the existing garage blocks would be demolished to make way for the proposed development. The proposed replacement dwelling, which is largely contemporary in design and has a footprint of roughly 150sqm, is a split level building that changes from single storey to two storey following changes in levels within the site.
2.2 Manx stone would combine with vertical cedar cladding and smooth painted render, while the roof would be of a natural grey slate. The windows and doors would be aluminium (painted grey) while a large decking area surrounding the dwelling at its base would be of a stained timber boarding surrounded by frameless glass guarding.
2.3 New planting would be provided to the north and south boundaries, while an existing culvert would be relocated with two manholes installed above.
| Application No.: | 14/00458/B |
| Applicant: | Mr & Mrs Brian Charlesworth |
| Proposal: | Erection of a replacement dwelling (amendment to PA 13/91221/B) |
| Site Address: | Mill House Dogmills Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 4AD |
2.4 The sole external difference between the current application and that most recently approved (see Planning History, below) relates to the window arrangement in the southeast (rear) elevation; the projecting gable element is to be moved slightly left within the elevation to accommodate an additional window pane to its right. There are some internal rearrangements that will reflect this change, with the result that the kitchen would be slightly larger and the lounge slightly smaller. A fireplace is also shown on the plan, which was not on that previously submitted.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of two previous planning applications considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2 There is also an application (14/00505/B) currently under consideration for landscaping works to the garden area of the proposed dwelling.
4.1 In terms of land use, the application site is not designated for any site-specific purpose but is located within a wider area of land classified as high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains several policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.3 General Policy 3 states, in part: "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 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
4.5 The relevant extract of Housing Policy 4 reads: "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:
4.6 Housing Policy 12 states: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
4.7 Housing Policy 13 states: "In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost.
"Where:
a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway.
"This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."
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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services do not object to the planning application.
6.1 Prior to making the assessment of this application, it is worth briefly reviewing the planning history on the site. In early 2013, a replacement dwelling was granted approval following consideration by Planning Committee on the site of almost exactly the design now proposed. This approval was followed by another in later 2013, of an identical design to that approved earlier in the year. That dwelling's position was moved slightly within the site, and the residential curtilage was altered slightly: some additional land was included from the adjacent agricultural field, with roughly double that amount given back to agricultural use elsewhere on the same field. It is also relevant to note that Bride Parish Commissioners have not renewed the objection they raised to the earlier planning approval (they also did not object to the late 2013 application).
6.2 As noted in the Proposal section of this report, almost the same design is proposed now as was previously approved, with a slightly different window arrangement. Other, minor, internal alterations are also shown. No change is proposed to the footprint or ridgeline of the proposed dwelling.
6.3 Other than these changes, the two applications are identical. For completeness, however, a brief re-visit of the substantive assessment of the previous application is appropriate.
6.4 Housing Policies 12 and 13 raise the issue of abandonment and are considered in the first instance as they lie at the heart of the principle of the proposal.
6.5 These two policies are clear that, where a dwelling has been abandoned, approval should not be granted for a replacement dwelling. As noted, Mill House is currently unoccupied and, while no evidence has (or was, for the earlier application) provided in respect of the length of this situation, it was evident from the site visit that there had been no residents for some time. Having regard to the four issues to be assessed in order to determine whether a dwelling can reasonably be considered as 'abandoned', there is not considered sufficient grounds on which to classify Mill House as abandoned. The building was of a relatively good structure, and there was some evidence that it had been occupied more recently than ten years hence; various small furniture and garden equipment could be seen, for example. On this basis, and also reflecting on the fact that this matter was not assessed as part of the previous application, it is considered perverse to reach any conclusion other than that Mill House is unoccupied but not abandoned.
6.6 There is provision for replacement dwellings on a 'one-for-one' basis within the countryside under established planning policy where the proposal meets certain criteria. These criteria, following the assessment outlined above, are considered met and the principle of a replacement dwelling is therefore accepted; the remaining purpose of the planning application is to assess the site-specific impacts of the proposal. To do this, it is necessary to consider the proposal against the provisions of Housing Policy 14.
6.7 The proposed development is located entirely within the residential curtilage of the existing property and part of the footprint of the proposed replacement dwelling overlaps that of the existing dwelling to a very limited degree, thereby satisfying that element of Housing Policy 14. As the proposed replacement dwelling (328sqm across its two storeys) represents a 43% increase in floor space over that of Mill House (229sqm across its three storeys), that element of Housing Policy 14 is also considered met. The design of the proposed replacement dwelling is the final matter for consideration in respect of this policy.
6.8 The design of the proposed replacement dwelling is, as noted, largely contemporary in both form and design and, therefore, cannot be said to comply with Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91. However, Housing Policy 14 is clear that approval may be granted for buildings
of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in an adverse visual impact. The proposed replacement dwelling is considered to be innovative design. Externally it is finished in a mixture of mix of Manx stone, smooth painted render, vertical cedar wood cladding and natural slate roofing. It has the strong potential to be of high quality provided it is constructed to an appropriate high quality. As such, the quality of the proposed replacement dwelling is sufficient.
6.9 It therefore remains necessary to consider whether it would result in adverse visual impact, something that is also a requirement of Environment Policy 2.
6.10 Overall, this application is not considered to represent a significantly different impact compared to that of the previously-approved scheme. Although the creation of new agricultural land (comprising a net increase) is positive, as is the heightened amount of planting, the visual impact of the dwelling would undoubtedly be greater through its positioning further south down the coast, and further away from Mill House's footprint. The visual impact was judged acceptable under the previous approval, and, following due consideration, this conclusion is also reached on this occasion. Moreover, the design changes proposed to the window arrangements are considered an improvement over the previous approval, as they introduce an element of symmetry that was perhaps slightly lacking previously.
6.11 Concern raised in the report of the previous planning application about the 'creeping south' of the dwelling via the succession of applications remains, although it is fully acknowledged that the current dwelling is on the same siting as that previously approved.
6.12 As for other material considerations, the proposed dwelling is positioned sufficiently distant from existing surrounding properties so as not to unduly affect private amenity. Access arrangements for the proposed development are not significantly changed from either the existing or previous situations, and therefore concluded to be acceptable.
6.13 The approval in early 2013 carried with it a condition that required a landscaping scheme be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division prior to the commencement of work on the site. The current application - as did the previous application - clearly demonstrates appropriate planting, in both location and species, and is considered to provide sufficient detail on this matter to obviate the need for such a condition on this occasion. The previous approval also carried a condition requiring the newly-created agricultural land to remain in that use, and this condition is recommended for appending to any approval that may be forthcoming to this current application.
6.14 Following discussion of the previous planning application at Planning Committee, it was requested that a condition be included requiring a boundary treatment appropriate to the rural location of the application be installed along the southern residential curtilage. This condition required the installation of a Manx sod hedge. An identical condition is recommended on this occasion.
6.15 Finally, it should be noted that during the course of the previous application, comments were received from the Water & Sewerage Authority (as it then was) requesting the addition of some advisory notes in respect of water supply and engineering details. Such a request has not been made on this occasion but, in the interests of completeness, those same notes should be attached to the approval notice should one be forthcoming.
7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved, subject to conditions.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 10.07.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the existing dwelling must be demolished.
The land outlined on Plan 1208G 02 and identified as "Area to be given over to agricultural usage 150m2" shall be used for agricultural use only.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the character and amenity of the local area.
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 or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. 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.
C 5.
The boundary treatment to the southern boundary of the residential curtilage (for the avoidance of doubt, that boundary which borders Field 111381) shall be constructed of a traditional Manx sod bank and maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
N 1.
The applicant is strongly advised to contact the Manx Utilities Authority to discuss the proposed work relating to the watercourse on the site prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved.
N 2.
Full engineering details should be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Manx Utilities Authority, prior to commencement of the development hereby approved.
N 3.
The applicant must contact the Department of Economic Development in respect of the material that will be required for extraction to carry out the approved development; this in order to discuss the mining agreement that will be needed with that Department because of those extraction works.
This approval relates to the following plans date-stamped as having been received 14th April 2014:
and the additional plan, date-stamped as having been received 11th July 2014 and carrying the reference 1208G 02.
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: Approved Committee Meeting Date: 4th August 2014
Signed: _________________________ Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
