Officer Report 12/01577/B

• (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." 10. 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." 11. 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." 12. 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." 13. 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: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." 14. Environment Policy 7 states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species." REPRESENTATIONS 15. Lezayre Parish Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern over the quality of the submitted planning application, specifically in respect of detail of development in relation to the river bank. They refer to concerns raised within previous planning applications. 16. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. In reaching this view they conclude that as the current property is being demolished to erect a new residential dwelling the proposal will not significantly generate additional traffic. They also highlight that accident data shows no accidents at this location. 17. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have discussed the proposal with the applicant and concluded that the proposed development is not subject to unacceptable flood risk. 18. The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries Division have discussed the proposal with the applicant and concluded that they have no concerns with the proposed development. They ask that the developer contacts them prior to the commencement of development. 19. The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application. The contents of their representation relates to a non planning consideration. 20. The owners and/or occupants of Robinswood, which is located approximately 100 metres south east of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern over the scale of the proposed development and the potential impact of additional traffic. 21. The owners and/or occupants of Drakes, which is located approximately 10 metres east of the application site on the opposite side of the road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern over the loss of the historic building and the scale of the proposed development. They consider the proposal to be harmful to the landscape and contrary to planning policy. As part of their submission they refer to previous planning applications and question previous planning approvals. 22. The owners and/or occupants of Woodmead, which is located approximately 20 metres south east of the application site on the opposite side of the river, express an interest in the planning application. They welcome the removal of the existing property, as they view it as a blot on the landscape, provided highway safety issues can be suitably addressed. 23. The owners and/or occupants of Hill View, which is located on the opposite side of the river to the application site, object to the planning application. They state that whilst they have no objections to the renovation of the existing building they consider the scale of the proposed development to be too great. They express concerns over the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and landscape. They question the accuracy of the submitted application and query the ability to provide acceptable parking and drainage for the proposed development. As part of their submission they refer to previous planning applications and question previous planning approvals. ### Assessment 24. As the replacement of existing dwellings within the countryside is a listed exception to the presumption against development within the countryside it is concluded that the basic principle behind the proposed development is acceptable. The main purpose of the planning application is therefore to consider the acceptability of the proposed replacement dwelling. 25. The key planning policy to take into account when considering a replacement dwelling is Housing Policy 14. In terms of that the existing dwelling has a measured floor space of 91 square metres and the proposed dwelling a measured floor space of 200 square metres, which equates to an increase of 120%. Housing Policy 14 allows for consideration to be given to larger replacement 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. In this instance whilst the percentage increase in floor space is considerable it needs to be borne in mind that the size of the existing dwelling is very modest. Compared to the average rural property the proposed dwelling is still relatively modest. Much of the increase in floor space is accounted for the addition of habitable accommodation within the roof space. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that planning approval already exists for the alteration and extension of the existing dwelling to create a dwelling of effectively the same size and appearance of that now proposed as a replacement. It would be somewhat illogical to oppose a replacement dwelling that effectively has the same impact as an approved alteration and extension of the existing dwelling. There are clear advantages to building a replacement over extending the existing in terms of build quality and energy efficiency. The impact on public amenity, and therefore landscape, is effectively the same that of the previously approved development. 26. In terms of private amenity the proposed development is more than sufficient distance from surrounding property so as to unduly affect the private amenity of those respective properties. The proposed development provides an acceptable level of private amenity space for itself. Overall, it is concluded that the impact of the proposed development on private amenity is acceptable. As for parking and highways issues the proposed development would be served by two on-site parking spaces, thereby satisfying the relevant requirement of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The impact of the proposed development on highway safety has been assessed by the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division, who have concluded that such impact is acceptable given the likely level of traffic generation and accident record for the area. Given that view, the level of traffic that could be reasonably expected in this locality, and the absence of evidence to the contrary it is concluded that the impact of the proposed development on highway safety is acceptable. 27. As the application site is directly adjacent to a watercourse it is necessary to consider the impact of development on that watercourse and potential flood risk. Those issues have been the subject of discussion and consideration with the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries Division and the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority respectively. The conclusions of those discussions were that the proposed development should not unacceptably harm the watercourse and that the proposed development was not at unacceptable risk from flooding. Accordingly, the proposed development is acceptable in these two respects. ### Recommendation 28. It is recommended that the planning application be approved. ### Party Status 29. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status: - Lezayre Parish Commissioners - The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority - The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries Division - The owners and/or occupants of Drakes (proximity to application site) - The owners and/or occupants of Woodmead (proximity to application site); and - The owners and/or occupants of Hill View (proximity to application site). 30. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status: - The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division - The Manx Electricity Authority; and - The owners and/or occupants of Robinswood (too distant from application site)

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.

C 2. This approval relates to drawing no. 0790/PL21 date stamped the 27th November 2012 and drawing no. 0790/PL20 rev. A date stamped the 19th February 2013.

C 3.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling the two on-site car parking spaces shown on drawing no. 0790/PL20 rev. A date stamped the 19th February 2013 must be set out and capable of use. Thereafter these spaces shall be maintained as such for use in association with the dwelling whenever the dwelling is occupied.

N 1.

The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries Division requests that the developer contacts them to discuss construction arrangements prior to the commencement of development.