Loading document...
Application No.: 05/00939/B Applicant: Mr A D Radcliffe Proposal: Erection of replacement dwelling, driveway and vehicular access Site Address: Harleys Killane Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5BB ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken: 08.07.2005 Site Visit: 08.07.2005 Expected Decision Level: Committee Decision ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Consultee: Ballaugh Parish Commissioners Notes: no objections Consultee: Chief Fire Officer Notes: smoke detectors Consultee: S.P.M.C. & E. Notes: there are no drawings or pictures to show what style the building was in so it is difficult to say whether it is an improvement or not. ### Policy
The application site is situated on the south eastern side of Killane, (A10). The site is located within the open countryside and an area of High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The existing property is clearly visible from the A10 and A13. The area is characterised by open, relative
level fields. There is some sporadic development northwards along both sides of the road in the vicinity of the application site. Killane Nursery, which includes a large area under glass, is on the opposite side of the road.
I consider the first issue to bear in mind is the issue of the existing property having lost its residential use due to abandonment. In June 2002, a planning application for alterations and extensions to a dwelling and the erection of a carport was submitted. The application was refused on the grounds that by reason of the size of the extension and the nature of the alterations proposed the development would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent that the resultant dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
However, the inspector appreciated the appellant's understandable wish to improve the standard of accommodation for the tenants. Since the application was submitted within the last ten years I consider the property has not lost its habitable status.
The existing building is currently unoccupied and has not fallen into a state of disrepair. The applicant has not submitted a report from a Structural Engineer to demonstrate the existing property could not be renovated and brought back to use. The building and the curtilage of the site has not been maintained in any form for a number of years. This evidence shows it has been the intention not to abandon the residential use of the property. I therefore consider the existing site has not lost its residential use.
In respect of the impact of the proposed replacement dwelling, the existing building has a footprint of approximately 62.4 sq m. The proposed replacement dwelling will create a footprint of 121.2 sq m. This would see a 94% increase in footprint of the original building. I therefore consider the proposed replacement would be disproportionate in scale, form and appearance compared to the existing building and would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which is High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significant
The application site is visible from both directions of the A10. The replacement dwelling would be highly visible from the public highway. I consider the proposal would be seen as significant addition to the landscape and would detract from the openness of the locality. The removal of 2 x 13m sod hedge and replace with a smooth rendered walls and post for the new entrances to the site would disrupt the character and appearance of the sod hedge and introduce urban characteristics into the street scene. I therefore consider the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the openness and character of locality which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the open countryside.
The application is also seeking approval to increase the existing residential curtilage of the site, which is tightly drawn around the existing property. The surrounding land is currently left in a fallow state. The curtilage would be extended approximately 82m to the south along the frontage of the A10, 60m to the west from the existing curtilage. This encroachment would allow the proposed replacement dwelling to be built on the site and to provide the necessary access ways into the site. This is a significant encroachment of a residential curtilage into the open countryside.
The application forms state the existing use of the site is residential. However, aerial photography in 2001 shows that the entire site does not form part of the residential curtilage. Furthermore, while conducting my site visit it was apparent that not all of the site was in residential use and would be regarded as agricultural land. I therefore consider this proposal is a serious encroachment into the open countryside which would further diminish the openness of the surrounding area and would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality.
The A10 has a 50mph speed limit. It is advised that the visibility splays should be 2.4m x 160m. However the proposed entrances do not provide adequate visibility along the A10. The proposed entrances would be prejudice highway safety
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 11.07.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed residential development would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88, Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 3 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that
i) by reason of the siting, design, size and massing of the proposed development it would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent the resultant development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance; and
ii) the proposed curtilage would amount to being a significant encroachment of a residential curtilage into the open countryside which will further diminish the openness, character and quality of the surrounding area
which would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality.
R 2. The proposed entrance do not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
P.C Confirmed initial decision at review on 21/10/05
I. Brooks Case Officer
Please put this additional note on the review decision notice:
"The applicant is encouraged to enter in discussions with a Planning Officer concerning an alternative design for a replacement dwelling."
JB Case Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
