Loading document...
This application is recommended for consideration by the Planning Committee rather than under delegated powers on the recommendation of the Director.
The site represents the curtilage of Kafue Cottage, St. Judes Road, Sulby, which is a single storey detached cottage, located on the western side of the St. Judes Road (A17) and north of the Sulby Bridge.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'White Land', under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982, not zoned for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:-
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 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."
Policy 7: 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:
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Erection of replacement dwelling with detached garage - 04/02061/B - REFUSED at appeal on the following grounds:- "The Planning Committee considers the proposed development to be unacceptable by virtue of the size of the proposed dwelling and detached garage, the position of the proposed dwelling and detached garage in relation to the existing dwelling and the overly large size of the proposed residential curtilage. Accordingly, the planning application is viewed as being contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 1/88 'Residential Development - Houses in the Countryside' in that the proposed development represents a significant increase in size with associated detrimental visual impact and loss of traditional character."
Approval in principle for erection of replacement dwelling - 00/01207/A - REFUSED on the following grounds:-
PROPOSAL
The application site is in a relatively remote rural area with relatively flat topography. Consequently there are extensive views of the area, partly interrupted by trees and hedgerows.
As well as owning the application site, the applicant also owns the directly adjacent fields to the north and south of the site which run along the western boundary of the St Judes Road. These fields are not part of the application. The boundaries to the fields comprise of a variety of hedgerows and trees.
The application seeks approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling. The proposed dwelling is of a modern contemporary design set over two floors. The main block which accommodates the majority of the living accommodation, is set within a curved building (1/4 of a circle). Attached, to the southern elevation of the curved structure, it is proposed to erect a single storey square pitched roofed building, providing further living accommodation.
The proposed dwelling would have a total depth of 28 metres, a total width of 21 metres and a maximum height of 6.5 metres, and would be finished with Manx stone and a large amount of glazing especially along the south-eastern elevation. The roof would be seeded (seedam) and curved to reflect the main structure. The pitched roofed part of the proposal would be finished with natural slate.
The dwelling would be sited 32 metres west of St Judes Road and 21 metres west of the existing dwelling Kafue Cottage. The curtilage of the existing dwelling is not clear; the site adjacent to the dwelling is overgrown and is not distinguishable from the surrounding overgrown landscaping.
Further to the north of these fields (outside the control of the applicant) the boundary treatment which runs along the western boundary of the St Judes Road comprises of a 1.5 metre high hedgerow. This would appear to be maintained. This hedgerow continues up to the vehicular access for the residential property Ghat-e-Cashin.
REPRESENTATIONS
Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected to the application for the following reasons:-
"The proposed dwelling is a modern individual building, and is not in keeping with the surrounding properties. The proposed dwelling is not on the existing site and not using existing materials. The size of the new dwelling is against housing policy 14."
The Department of Transport Highway Division have deferred from making a decision on the following grounds:-
"Plans do not show visibility splays at the point of access. Splays of 2x160 metres (50mph) are required for this secondary, de-restricted road. Splays shall be kept clear of any object, vegetation, or other obstructions of a height exceeding 1.05m above the land of the adjacent carriageway."
The owners/occupiers of Ghat-e-Cashin, St Judes Road, Sulby, have concerns on the application which can be summarised as; there is room for a new dwelling on the existing Kafue Cottage and outbuilding site, the proposal would enter into land which has high agricultural value; proposal not in keeping with development in the area; and concerns of drainage and flooding.
The owner/occupier of The Craig, St Judes, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; previous concerns as indicated within application 04/02061; proposal very close to the Close Chairn drainage trench not shown on application and requires any development to be set a specific distance away.
2 June 2010
The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas, has objected which can be summarised as; the majority of the proposed new residential curtilage is a field; unwarranted intrusion into the countryside which is not zoned for such development.
The owner/occupier of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold, has commented on the application in that the proposal is vastly larger than the former cottage; and this could be a test case.
ASSESSMENT
As indicated previously, the relevant policy for the determination of this application is Housing Policy 14. This policy indicates that generally a replacement dwelling should not be larger than 50% of the existing floor area measured externally, sited on the existing footprint and comply with Planning Circular 3/91.
In this case the existing dwelling has a footprint of approximately 98 square metres, and the proposed dwelling would have a total footprint of approximately 559 square metres. This equates to a total increase of approximately 470% increase over the original building. Additionally, the proposal would not be on the existing footprint, but located 20.5 metres west of the existing cottage.
There is accommodation within the roof space of Kafue Cottage accessed via an internal staircase. This room's only source of light and outlook is via a gable end window. Additionally the space within this roof space is very limited due to the height and pitch of the roof. Consequently, only a small part of this area can be considered to be habitable accommodation, although no existing plans of the property have been provided so it is difficult to ascertain exact dimensions of the floor area of the 1st floor. However, photographs included in the previous application have been used and an approximation has been undertaken to calculate the floor area of the 1st floor habitable accommodation.
Also due to the siting, the proposal includes a new gravelled driveway from the existing agricultural access (existing cottage access proposed to be block up), which is approximately 38 metres in length, has a initial width of 5 metres and which eventually increases to a width of 24.5 metres to provide a turning facility and a parking area which would accommodate a number of vehicles.
For these reasons the proposal would clearly not comply with the first paragraph of Housing Policy 14 in terms of the percentage increase.
However, the second paragraph of Housing Policy 14, does indicate that there may be some flexibility. The paragraph forms two parts; firstly, the proposal is replacing an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character and secondly, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.
In terms of the first part of the above paragraph, the existing dwelling is not a traditional Manx cottage in appearance; this is mainly due to its decorative brick finish, instead of a render or Manx stone finish. However, regarding its massing, proportion and form the proposal would be very similar to a modest single storey Manx cottage in appearance. The existing dwelling in terms of appearance is attractive and certainly could not be described as a dwelling of 'poor form'. The dwelling would appear not to have been occupied for a number of years and the previous planning applications would seem to support this view. However the external appearance seems to be in generally good condition.
The proposed dwelling as indicated within the proposal section of this report is a contemporary design and consequently would not be replacing a dwelling with one of a more traditional character.
Therefore, as the existing is not of poor form, nor is the proposal of a more traditional design, the dwelling cannot be judged on the basis of the first part of this paragraph.
2 June 2010
The second aspect of the policy indicates that a large dwelling may be acceptable "where by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact". The applicant has indicated that this part of the policy is the most relevant aspect of the policy when judging this application.
As indicated previously, due to the landscaping within and along the eastern boundaries of the application site and to the fields to the north and south of the application site, the site is screened from the St Judes Road.
Put simply, the applicant is therefore arguing that given Kafue Cottage is visible from public view (given it is directly adjacent to St Judes Road), then positioning of the larger dwelling away from the public highway and behind the thick layer of landscaping, would result in the proposed dwelling having a less visual impact and would therefore comply with Housing Policy 14.
It is perhaps important to consider the previous application (04/02061/B) which proposed a traditional two storey detached Manx farm house property. The proposal was considered prior to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore the percentage increase in floor area was not taken into account.
The proposed dwelling (309sqm) was a substantial size increase over the existing cottage (98sqm) and was sited 26 metres to the northwest of Kafue Cottage.
The Planning Appeal Inspector made comments to this application which also relate to the proposal now under consideration.
The first aspect relates to the high and unkempt hedgerow which runs along the boundary adjacent to the St Judes Road. The Inspector stated; "While their land does have high and unkempt roadside hedges which would screen if from certain directions there can be no guarantee that they would remain. Moreover, the roadside hedge to the north is being managed and is at a much lower level giving unobstructed views over the appeal site. The view is over undeveloped countryside to the backdrop of the northern hills. The proposed dwelling would be highly prominent in this view and unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside."
The proposed dwelling has been sited closer to the original cottage compared to the previous application. The applicants considered that the finish and height of the proposal (Manx stone/seeded roof) would result in it being less apparent than a painted render finish dwelling, which is correct in some respects.
However, this only forms part of the consideration; the issue of the size of the proposed dwelling needs to be taken into account as well.
The proposed dwelling would equate to approximately 559 square metres, which would be a substantial dwelling. In some respects the applicants are correct that with the roadside hedgerows in place, the majority of the dwelling would be screened.
However, the previous concerns of the Inspector can also be applied in this case. Whilst the applicants may propose to retain the hedgerows, there can be no guarantees in the future that they would be. Without these hedgerows the proposal would result in being a very prominent structure and totally exposed within the countryside.
Furthermore, Housing Policy 14 indicates that by it's design or siting, there would be less visual impact. The existing dwelling Kafue Cottage is only visible when viewed directly adjacent to the site from the St Judes Road. As indicated by the previous Inspector's report and within the proposal section of this report, the existing landscaping obscures views of the dwelling to the north and south of the cottage.
2 June 2010
The applicant has submitted photo montages which includes a photo taken from the north of the site, near to the entrance of the neighbouring property Ghat-e-Cashin. Whilst this photo has been taken when standing on a grass bank (elevated position above the public highway), it does show the dwelling in a prominent position when viewing the site from the north.
In particular the northern and eastern elevations of the dwelling would be apparent, due to the curved nature of the design. This could result in an approximate width of 21 metres of built development being apparent from public view, even with the existing landscaping.
This view was taken by the previous Inspector indicating that; "the roadside hedge to the north is being managed and is at a much lower level giving unobstructed views over the appeal site".
It is perhaps important to note that the hedgerows and semi-mature trees along the boundary are not of a particular quality and would not be afford the same status compared to mature trees. Whilst it is difficult to determine the amount of type of trees/hedges within the site, it is considered the hedgerows would not required a Tree Felling Licence to remove from the site, and it is likely the semi-mature trees would not be afforded the same status compared to mature trees and therefore have the potential to be removed from the site. This matter further raises concerns of their future.
Further to this a recent planning application for a replacement dwelling at Ballabeg Farm, St Jude's Road, Andreas (08/01707/B) went to an appeal where it was proposed to demolition the existing traditional property with a larger Georgian property which equated to a 124% increase in terms of floor area. The existing dwelling was well screened, but the applicants proposed further planting help screen distant views.
The Planning Inspector comments; "A damaging precedent could be set in the countryside if it was accepted that hiding a large new house behind dense new landscaping was acceptable practice. On this basis many small farm houses could be demolished and replaced by large Georgian country houses hidden by new Manx banks, new hedgerows and belts of trees. I do not think this novel approach complies with Strategic Plan policies for replacement dwellings in the countryside." The application was consequently refused being contrary to Housing Policy 14.
Whilst the applicant is depending on existing trees, they are proposing a grass sod bank with hedging on top along the northern and southern boundaries of the site, to help reduce the appearance of the dwelling.
Overall, even if the existing landscaping was retained there are concerns that the proposed dwelling, given the size and massing of the proposal, would still be highly prominent and would introduce a large built development, harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside.
Dealing with the design for any replacement dwelling, policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 are required to be considered. These policies deal with the design, proportion and massing of the proposed dwelling.
However, Housing Policy 14 does indicate that 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.
The proposal is a contemporary design and is considered to be innovative, modern design and of high quality. Furthermore the proposal incorporates solar panels, ground source heating pumps, rain water harvesting systems and triple glazing for a high energy efficiency. Therefore from these aspects the proposal would be acceptable in terms of the principle of its design.
The proposal would increase the residential curtilage of the site significantly. The proposed site as indicated with the red line includes the likely existing curtilage and also the part of an agricultural
field to the west of the existing site. This curtilage has an approximate width of 64 metres and a depth of 68 metres.
The previously refused application also proposed a large extension to the existing residential curtilage by having a width of 78 metres and a depth of 81.5 metres.
The Planning Inspector commented that; "The proposed dwelling would be located on the centre of a substantial curtilage. Despite the currently expressed desire of the appellants to plant trees 'leaving a rural wild feel' that may change, the future occupiers may have a different view. It seems to me to be inevitable that a residential curtilage will attract all the normal artefacts of day to day living. This would add significantly to the harmful visual impact of the dwelling."
Whilst the proposal has reduced the residential curtilage, the site would still be significant, and the concerns of the previous Inspector would apply to this application.
The previous application was also refused on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted as to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be prone to flooding or would not result in increased flooding nearby. The Close Chairn drainage trench runs through the site and near to the proposed dwelling. Again, no details have been provided regarding the drainage ditch which is designated a Main River under the Land Drainage Act 1934. Under this act an 8 metre gap either side is required to ensure maintenance requirements.
As no details have been provided it is again considered that there is insufficient information has been submitted as to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be prone to flooding or would not result in increased flooding nearby and would have a potential impact upon a water course, contrary to Environmental Policy 7.
A concern is that the introduction of a much larger dwelling (approx 470% increase), relying solely on the existing landscaping and boundary treatments to reduce the visual impact cannot have a future guarantee. It could have, under these circumstances, an unacceptable form of development, and could therefore result in a significant impact upon the visual appearance of the countryside. It would therefore be contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
The residential curtilage as proposed, would also increase development into the countryside through artefacts associated with day to day living, furthering the impact of the dwelling within the landscape, which would be contrary to planning policy.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set out in this report, it is considered the proposal would contravene the relevant policies as indicated within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
The following parties meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
The following parties do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
2 June 2010
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.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.05.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
R 1. The proposed dwelling would result in a substantial increase over the floor area of the existing dwelling and would represent a much larger, taller building, with a substantial residential curtilage resulting in a dwelling which is significantly more prominent and isolated within the landscape. As such the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and would be significantly detrimental to the visual amenities of the area.
R 2. The area is recognised as being particularly sensitive in terms of surface water drainage; insufficient information has been submitted as to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be prone to flooding or would not result in increased flooding nearby and would have a potential impact upon a water course, contrary to Environmental Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 3. Insufficient information has been submitted as to demonstrate that the proposed development could provide the required visibility splays of 2 metres x 160 metres.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made: .............................. Committee Meeting Date: .................................. Signed: .............................. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate 2 June 2010
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
