Loading document...
The application site forms the residential curtilage of Sarah's Cottage, Ballasloe, Cornaa, Ramsey, which is located east of the Cornaa. Current the site comprises of a partially built dwelling.
The application seeks approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The proposal would have an overall width of 15.5 metres, a maximum depth of 10 metres and a ridge height of 8.7 metres.
The proposal from the front elevation would appear as a traditional Manx farmhouse with three upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by single windows with a the two storey side extension.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "woodland and white land", under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; but is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:
"General
Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
"Environment
Policy 2: 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Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein.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:
"Housing
Policy 4: New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) 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:
"Housing
Policy 14: 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(1), 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."
The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- The erection of a replacement dwelling (amendments to PA 04/01353B) - APPROVED Erection of two storey dwelling to replacement existing cottage - 04/01353/B – APPROVED
a) Approval in principle for the replacement of existing dwelling - 03/00900/A - APPROVED b) Approval in principle for the erection of a new dwelling - 03/00900/PART – REFUSED
Maughold Commissioners:-
"The Commissioners acknowledged that the replacement dwelling for the original Sarah's Cottage would have to be larger. They also noted that the design was generally traditional and largely followed the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses.
However it is the view of the Commission that the additions indicated in these proposals will result in a dwelling that is unacceptably intrusive into the Ballasloe landscape. The proposed dwelling will act to undermine the character and landscape in this area just above Ballaglass Glen.
A variety of policies and guidelines set down in planning legislation are intended to protect such landscapes.
The Commission is also concerned that the site is being over-developed through a series of seemingly discrete applications. This series should not be allowed to lead to circumstances where a dwelling is approved that would not have been permitted should it have been the subject of a single application.
Members wish to express concern that the submitted plans also suggest that the separate garage is being domesticated with stairs and a shower now indicated. A previous application which sought the erection of two dwellings on the site was refused as it indicated over intensive use of the site. The Commission would oppose any further domestication of this garage facility."
Highways Division:-
"Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications."
The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas has objected to the application which can be summarised as; contrary to Environmental Policy 1.
The starting point is considering whether the development should be regarded as a replacement dwelling or an extension of the existing uncompleted dwelling.
The dwelling has partially been erected, but not in accordance with the approved drawings (04/01353/B). The dwelling and garage have been confirmed by the applicant's agent as being erected as shown in the new submitted plans.
Accordingly, the dwelling and garage have been erected unlawfully as they have not been erected in accordance with planning application 04/01353/B.
It should be noted that application 04/01353/B has now expired (19th December 2009). The current building has not been erected as per the approved plans, but built to what has now been submitted. Furthermore, given the Isle of Man Strategic Plan was adopted after the original approval (Housing Policy 14 not considered) then it would be unlikely such an approval would be granted now, given the initial approval represented a 215% increase in terms of floor area over the original Manx cottage, therefore failing HP 14.
However, the applicant commenced the building and submitted (4th December 2009) an additional planning application (09/01978/B) which showed minor alterations to the ground floor window fenestration of the originally approved application (04/01353/B). As the dwelling was not completed, the Planning Authority considered the scheme as the erection of a replacement dwelling and not just the minor amendments (amendments can't be made to an unfinished development).
The applicant is fortunate that application 09/01978/B was approved; otherwise they would likely have no approval on this site in place.
Due to these reasons, weight must be attached to planning application 09/01978/B, which has been approved. At the time of the application it was considered as building works had commenced (all though now it would appear the dwelling was not being built in accordance with the initial approved plans) and the proposed alterations only related to the change of fenestration and not to the overall size or massing of the dwelling; it was considered to be inappropriate to refuse the application on the grounds of Housing Policy 14. The application was therefore approved.
The new submission differs from any previous approval. The dwelling has a roof ridge one metre higher which has resulted in living accommodation within the roof space (four roof lights), a two storey side extension to the main dwelling and a rear single storey extension.
Due to these differences the application under consideration now needs to be considered against Housing Policy 14, which relates to the replacement of dwelling in the countryside.
Housing Policy 14 states that a replacement should generally be on the same footprint and should not be greater than 50% greater than that of the original building.
The original dwelling was a small single storey Manx Cottage (60sqm) whilst the proposal would result in a floor area of 268 sqm. The new dwelling would represent a 346% increase in terms of floor area, over the original dwelling. This is clearly contrary to Housing Policy 14.
Weight is required to be attached to planning application 09/01978/B which granted planning permission for a two storey traditional Manx property which had a percentage increase of 215% over the original footprint.
However, the proposals would be taller with a greater footprint, resulting in an increase in the massing and scale of the dwelling, situation on a very prominent position in the open countryside. The dwelling is very apparent from the adjacent public highway (A15).
Housing Policy 14 does indicated that 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.
The original single storey Manx property (from plans submitted in the original application 04/01353/B) would not have been considered of poor form, therefore the proposal would not comply with this aspect of the policy.
The next exception for a larger dwelling “where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact”. Again this development cannot comply with this aspect of the policy, given the dwelling is significant larger (346% increase) in terms of height, scale and massing, and being located in a prominent position in the countryside.
Consequently, whilst planning permission was originally granted for a substantially larger dwelling (215% increase) this was prior to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (HP 14) being adopted.
Again, whilst application 09/01978/B was approved more recently, and the application was considered against the Strategic Plan (HP14), at the time it was considered as the original application had been commenced and as it was presumed the dwelling was being built in accordance with the original application (albeit contrary to Housing Policy 14), and significant weight was attached that the previously approved application had commenced and permission was granted on this basis.
This new scheme which has been built/submitted, is clearly contrary to Housing Policy 14, and whilst an increase of 215% has been granted previously for the reasons indicated, it is not considered that a further increase is acceptable.
The next issue of the dwelling which needs consideration is the proportion, form and design of the proposed dwelling.
As indicated within Housing Policy 14 the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. This policy relates to traditional designed properties which take the form of Manx vernacular.
From the front elevation the proposal would follow the lines of Planning Circular 3/91 and would form a typically symmetrical with three upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by single windows. Therefore the property from the front elevation would comply with the policies as set out within the Circular.
What raises concern is the proposed rear/side single storey extension. This aspect appears as an extension which does not fit well with the main part of the dwelling house or the side extension aspect of the dwelling. The extension also has large modern ‘picture’ windows which are normally found in more modern properties, and arguably not appropriate to traditional styled properties.
Overall, the single storey extension design, position and window fenestration would appear to be a poor extension which makes no reference to the traditional property, and if built would appear to be an inappropriate extension to the dwelling, which would be apparent from public view. Consequently, it is considered the proposed rear single storey extension to be contrary to Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91.
Turning to the detached garage, the initially approved single storey detached garage, proposed a ridge height of 4.5 metres (maximum) whilst the constructed/proposed garage now has a height of 6 metres (maximum). The footprint of the garage remains similar.
This 1.5 metres increase in height provides a living accommodation within the roof space. Furthermore, the garage would have a shower room at ground floor level, with an internal staircase to the office (living accommodation) above.
This level of living and potential accommodation, could be considered to be tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling in the countryside.
It needs to be remembered that planning permission runs with the land and the building will remain long after the current owners cease to have an interest in the property. The long term use of the building must be a consideration in the determination of the application. Further to this point, if in time the building is used independently from the main dwelling house, then this independent use could become lawful, and could cause concern of the amenity which would result from having two independent dwellings in such close proximity to each other.
Fundamentally, in terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways. Firstly, the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted. Thirdly, the site is not identified in an adopted Area Plan as being within a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and therefore contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4. Fourthly the site is zoned within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance which seeks to prevent development unless the development is essential or would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, which the proposal would fail on both counts and therefore a refusal can also be legitimately made on that basis as well.
The proposed dwelling does not serve a viable agricultural holding nor replace an existing dwelling and therefore there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against. The development proposed by this planning application is therefore clearly contrary to the current policies of the Department. It should also be noted that the Isle of Man Strategic Plan makes no provision for infilling.
It is considered that the proposals would be contrary with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), and for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be refused.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:-
Maughold Parish Commissioners
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.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 11.02.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
