Loading document...
The application site is set on the eastern side of the A17 and the northern side of the A13 at St. Judes Crossroads. The site is set in the countryside and an area not zoned for development. The application site has previously been extended to the rear and side. The site has derelict barn set to the north of the existing dwelling, which also subject to a separate planning application.
The application seeks to demolish a two storey traditional style property, which has been extended to the side and rear, and the erection of a new dwelling.
In considering this application, Circular 1/88 – Houses in the Countryside is the appropriate policy document to assess the application against.
The property is not currently in residential occupation. I consider the residential use of the property has not been abandoned.
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 provided any justification for the demolition of the property. I consider the proposal would result in the loss of traditional property in the countryside without any form of justification of its loss.
In light of the advice in Circular 1/88, I consider the proposal would be contrary to the Planning Circular.
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
I consider the proposed demolition and erection of a new dwelling is not necessary and would be contrary to the Housing Policy 12 of the draft Strategic Plan.
Notwithstanding the above, the dwelling needs to be considered against Planning Circular 3/91 and HP14 of the emerging strategic plan.
The applicant has tried to replicate a traditional Manx property on the site. However, the proportion, form and detailing of the proposed dwelling if out of keeping with the surrounding properties on the St.Judes Junction. I feel the proposed dwelling is too large and has more of an urban characteristic rather than a rural one. I therefore consider the proposed dwelling would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/91.
In respect of the impact on the street scene, there is substantial landscaping running along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the public highway. The existing property is not obscured from public view. The proposed dwelling is set a significant distance within the site. Notwithstanding the above issue of the design of the dwelling, the siting of building does not have a positive relationship with the public highway. The frontage of the building should face towards the public highway so as to provide enhance the appearance of the locality. I consider the proposed dwelling would detract the character and appearance of the locality which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.
The Department of Transport has objected to the proposal on the grounds that there are insufficient details given of the access, including sightlines, for the access onto the adopted highway, to serve the needs of the development. There is insufficient information to evaluate the application in respect of access and turning arrangements. The proposed development does alter the existing vehicular access.
Therefore, the Department of Transport can reassess the proposed access arrangements for this new dwelling and require sufficient sightlines to be provided as part of the development. Since the plans does not provide sufficient information, I consider the concerns of the DoT to be well founded and consider the proposal would be prejudicial to highway safety as the application does not demonstrate that an adequate visibility spray can be provided.
I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused for the above reasons.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 23.01.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed demolition of a 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 traditional property from the countryside; 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.
R 2. The proposed dwellinghouse by would be contrary to Planning Circulars 1/88 and 3/91 and Policy HP 14 of the emerging Strategic Plan by reason of its size, siting, design, height and massing in this prominent location would result in the introduction of a disproportionately large dwellinghouse into the streetscence, disrupting the rhythm of development, detracting, from the open character and layout of the surrounding development and causing serious harm to the visual amenities of the locality.
R 3. There are insufficient details given of the access, including sightlines, for the proposed drive onto the adopted highway, to serve the needs of the development and therefore it would be premature to consider this application in the interests of highway safety.
Furthermore, there is insufficient information to evaluate the application in respect of access and turning arrangements, in the light of the proposed usage and vehicles to be used.
23 January 2006 05/02045/B Page 4 of 4
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
