Loading document...
The application is for approval in principle for the erection of two detached dwelling with garages to replace an existing dwelling known as Ballaradcliffe House on Kiondroghad Road in Andreas.
Whilst the scale of the 1982 Development Plan Order can make identifying exact zonings difficult it appears to me that the application site falls within an area that is zoned as being predominantly residential. Accordingly, in terms of zoning I consider that the proposal is acceptable.
The dwelling proposed to be replaced is quite sizable and within its own grounds. However, it has been established in a previous application that the Conservation Section confirmed that it is neither registered nor on the list of potentially registerable buildings. Since the previous application, the Conservation Section has carried out an initial re-assessment of the building. The Conservation Officer concludes that the building is of registerable quality. This is initially based on the building has architectural interest and landmark qualities which should be preserved. I therefore consider this application should be refused on those grounds.
Furthermore, Paragraph 9 of Circular 1/88 states:
"the redevelopment of dwelling will generally be accepted as the gradual decay and dilapidation of such buildings would clearly be detrimental to the rural amenities. The Planning Committee will examine with particular care any proposal involving a significant increase in size and applications which create a detrimental visual impact, or which would lead to a loss of traditional character will be discouraged".
The applicant has not submitted a structural report to demonstrate the building is beyond reasonable and economic repair. Therefore the loss of this significant building would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality.
In light of this advice I consider the proposal would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88. This assessment is further supported by Housing Policy 12 of the draft strategic plan which states: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will be permitted provided that
Since the opinion of the Conservation Officer is that that building is potentially registerable and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the building is not capable of renovation, I consider the proposed demolition and erection of a two new dwellings on the site is inappropriate and would be contrary to the Housing Policy 12 of the draft Strategic Plan. I therefore recommend that approval in principle be refused.
Highways Division have no adverse traffic impacts subject to the imposition of a condition stating that a 2m by 160m visibility splay is provided to serve the needs of the development.
The indicative plans show the dwelling within Plot A is a sufficient distance from any of the trees on the site and therefore would not impact on the long term viability of the trees. The trees are an important feature within the locality I consider the trees should be retained as part of any development.
I therefore consider the principle of redevelopment would be unacceptable due to the loss of a significant building from landscape.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 17.01.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The proposed demolition of existing dwellinghouse would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88 and Housing Policy 12 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that:
i) the proposal will result in the loss of a potentially registerable building from the landscape which is considered worthy of retention because of its architectural interest and landmark quality; and ii) the Planning Committee considers no justification has been submitted to support the demolition of the dwelling. Furthermore, the Planning Committee considers the demolition of the existing dwelling to be unnecessary and unwarranted.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Pc Confirmed the initial decision at review on 29th June 2006 with amendment to the refusal reason.
Please amend 1) as follows
IB Case officer 29/6/06
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
