Loading document...
This application is recommended for consideration by the Planning Committee rather than under delegated powers on the recommendation of the Senior Planning Officer.
The site is land located on the eastern side of the A17 highway which links Sulby with St. Jude's. The site includes the curtilage of Kafue Cottage as well as additional land to the west, extending the curtilage by up to 36m in this direction. The curtilage of the existing cottage is approximately 0.3 acres: the site and thus the proposed curtilage is 0.7 acres.
The existing cottage is single storey with accommodation in the roof space accessed by an internal staircase. The roof space is limited by the height and pitch of the roof. The footprint of the existing cottage is 98 sq m.
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 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 all of the living accommodation, is set within a curved building (1/4 of a circle). The proposal also includes a single storey flat roofed section which follows the curvature of the southwest elevation. This integrates into the main curved block forming living accommodation and a roof terrace above which can be accessed via the bedrooms within the 1st floor.
The proposed dwelling would have a total depth of 19.8 metres, a total width of 19.8 metres and a maximum height of 6 metres, and would be finished with Manx stone and a large amount of glazing especially along the south-western elevation. The roof would be seeded (seedam) and curved to reflect the main structure.
The dwelling would be sited 34 metres west of St Judes Road and 20 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. However, it is reasonable to consider from visiting the site that the proposal would result in the extension of the residential curtilage by a sizeable amount (67m x 47m).
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.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'White Land', on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982, that is, 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:-
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."
Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
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 a replacement dwelling - 10/01580/B - Erection of a replacement dwelling - 09/00688/B - REFUSED on the following grounds (APPEAL PENDING):
Erection of a replacement dwelling - 09/00688/B - REFUSED on the following grounds (APPEAL PENDING):
"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.
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:
Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected to the application for the following reasons:
"The land for the proposed property is not zoned for development. The proposed property is not stylistically in keeping and out of proportion with surrounding properties. The proposed building is not on the original footprint."
The Department of Infrastructure Highway Division:
"Has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications."
Water and Sewerage Authority:
"The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority are unable to assess the above planning applications due to a lack of a Flood Risk Assessment, and would request that this application is deferred until such time that the applicant supplies a Flood Risk Assessment.
If this application can't be deferred then the Isle of Man Water & Sewerage Authority's stance is objection until such time that the above information is supplied and has been assessed."
The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Maughold, have concerns on the application which can be summarised as; site is liable to flooding; and proposal is not a modest replacement.
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 more than 50% greater than the existing floor area measured externally, sited on the existing footprint and must 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 388.7 square metres. This equates to a total increase of approximately 330% over the original building. Additionally, the proposal would not be on the existing footprint, but located 20 metres west of the existing cottage.
The previous Appeals Inspector for application 04/02061/B commented that he considered; "that some modest increase in size could be acceptable here and that given the very close proximity of Kafue Cottage to the road, slightly more setback within a more modest curtilage could be justified."
The Planning Authority does not consider that the proposal would fall under this description.
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 (27sqm) can be considered to be 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 36 metres in length, has a bellmouth of 9 metres reducing to a width of 5 metres, which eventually increases to a width of 14 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 it's 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 it's 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.
Therefore the proposal would not comply with the first part of the second paragraph, as the existing dwelling is not of poor form.
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 layer of landscaping, would result in the proposed dwelling having 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 (04/02061/B), although the proposal would require the residential curtilage to be significantly increased to accommodate the proposed dwelling and gardens and driveway/turning area associated with the property.
Nevertheless, the building would be wider, higher and deeper and set in a flat open landscape. Consequently it is bound to be more apparent in the surrounding countryside.
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 388.7 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 a very prominent structure, totally exposed within the countryside. Landscaping can help limit the appearance of development; however, this application would rely solely on the landscaping, which it must be said isn't the greatest of quality, especially around Kafue Cottage.
Furthermore, Housing Policy 14 requires that by its 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.
With the previous application (09/00688/B) for the more modern design (lower in height, albeit greater footprint) the applicant had submitted photo montages which included 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 did show the dwelling in a prominent position when viewing the site from the north.
The proposal will have a much greater visual appearance than the existing dwelling; in particular the northern elevation of the dwelling would be apparent. This could result in an approximate width of 18 metres of built development being apparent from public view, even with the existing or proposed
landscaping. The proposed landscaping along the north boundary of the site will take many years to reach the height of the proposed dwelling (6 metres).
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 afforded the same status compared to mature trees. Whilst it is difficult to determine the amount or 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 demolish the existing traditional property and replace it with a larger Georgian style property which equated to a 124% increase in terms of floor area. The existing dwelling was well screened, but the applicants proposed further planting to 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 applicants are depending on existing trees, they are proposing a grass sod bank with hedging on top along the northern boundary of the site and adjacent to the dwelling following the curvature of the dwelling, all to help reduce the appearance of the dwelling.
The policy test is clear, would it have a less visual impact compared to the existing cottage.
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 prominent and would introduce a large built development, harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside.
It is noted that the application does propose a curved roof which runs from ridge height to just above the tops of the windows, giving a eaves height of 2.4 metres. This roof would be finished with a roofing system with ecological and low maintenance surfacing (seedam) which is hoped would reduce the visual appearance of the proposal.
The design has been put forward to comply with Housing Policy 14 which indicates 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. There are concerns however, that at the same time as this application is under consideration, an application for another replacement dwelling in the countryside has been proposed at Cronk Ny Killey in Maughold (11/00496/B) which is identical in design and size. This raises the question whether the proposal is of an "innovative design" when an identical copy is also proposed.
Turning to the proposed residential curtilage, 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 part of an agricultural field to the west of the existing site. This curtilage has an approximate maximum width of 47 metres and a depth of 67 metres which directly fronts onto the public highway.
The three previously refused applications 04/02061/B, 09/00688/B & 10/01580/B also proposed a large extension to the existing residential curtilage by having a width of 78 metres a depth of 81.5 metres or 67 metres wide by 64 metres in depth or a width 60 metres by 90 metres in depth respectively. The proposal would have the smallest increase compared to previous schemes.
The Planning Inspector for application 04/02061/B 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 from the previous schemes (04/02061/B, 09/00688/B & 10/01580/B) the proposal now under consideration would still be significant and over three times the size of the existing curtilage. Consequently, the concerns of the previous Inspector would apply to this application.
The previous applications were 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.
The Water and Sewerage Authority have not received the required flood risk assessment to make a determination of the potential flood risk on this site and therefore have objected to the application.
As no details have been provided it is again considered 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 and would have a potential impact upon a water course, contrary to Environmental Policy 7.
In conclusion, the introduction of a much larger dwelling (approx 330% increase), which relies heavily on the existing and proposed landscaping within the site and along the boundaries of the site to reduce the visual impact, cannot be considered acceptable given such landscaping cannot have a future guarantee. Furthermore, whilst the proposed design which includes a curved seedam roof would help reduce the impact, it is not considered the substantial size, massing and proportion increase of the building could have a less visual impact over the existing modest cottage. Under these circumstances, it is 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 and would represent an unwarranted encroachment into the countryside, to the detriment of the character of the landscape contrary to planning policy.
For these reasons and further 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:
Lezayre Parish Commissioners Water and Sewerage Authority
The following parties do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Maughold
The 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: 07.06.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons 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 size of the proposed dwelling would result in an increase in the existing residential curtilage which would represent an unwarranted encroachment into the countryside, to the detriment of the character of the landscape contrary to Environmental Policy 1.
R 3. The area is recognised as being particularly sensitive in terms of surface water drainage; no 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. Furthermore, the proposed development could have a potential impact upon a water course, contrary to Environmental Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
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: R. Suse Committee Meeting Date: 17/6/11
Signed: Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ YES / ☐ NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
