Loading document...
The planning application is before the Planning Committee at the request of the Development Control Manager.
The existing site represents the residential curtilage of Cronk Ny Killey, Jallow, Maughold, which is a single storey detached Manx cottage, located on the north-western side of the A15 road and southwest of Maughold Village. The application site lies on a hillside, and consequently the ground level rises gradually.
As well as owning the application site, the applicant also owns the directly adjacent field to the north and west of the site.
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 west elevation. The roof would be seeded (seedam) and curved to reflect the main structure.
The proposed dwelling would be sited 6 metres to the A15 highway and 39 metres northeast of the existing dwelling Cronk Ny Killey.
The curtilage of the existing dwelling measures at it greatest points has a width of 40 metres and a depth of 23 metres. As the new dwelling footprint is proposed 39 metres northeast of the existing footprint, the applicant has moved the residential curtilage. Consequently, approximately only a third of the existing curtilage (remaining 2/3rds to form agricultural land) is included in the new curtilage. This new residential curtilage at it greatest points, has a width of 69 metres and a depth of 39 metres.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'White Land', under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is within Maughold Conservation Area and 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."
"Environment
Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
"Environment
Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
PLANNING HISTORY The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- Erection of a replacement dwelling - 10/01418/B - REFUSED (Appeal decision pending) for the following grounds:-
"1. The proposed replacement dwelling would result in a floor area 118% larger than the existing dwelling to be replaced, contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan and as such would not relate closely in terms of impact to the existing dwelling. The resulting visual impact would have an adverse affect upon the character of the surrounding area recognised as being an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and Maughold Conservation Area and accordingly by causing harm to the character and quality of the landscape, the proposal would also be contrary to the provisions of Environmental Policies 1, 2 & 35.
Erection of a replacement dwelling - 09/01935/B – REFUSED for the following grounds:-
"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 and Environmental Policy 2 & 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and would be significantly detrimental to the visual amenities of the area."
REPRESENTATIONS
Maughold Commissioners have objected to the application for the following reasons:-
"21.10.10 - it proposes a significant intrusion into the landscape, particularly in terms of height and the complete transfer of the footprint. (see comments).
08.10.10 They feel that it can not be looked at until a drawing of the footprint of the existing dwelling is submitted."
The Department of Transport Highway Division do not oppose:-
"Has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications."
The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold, have objected on the following grounds: site not within ownership of applicant so proposal is a new dwelling in the countryside; design is transplanted from the recently submitted Kafue Cottage, Sulby; proposal on rising ground but plans seem to make no cognisance of this; if proposal was dug-in it might be acceptable but as submitted will have an unfortunate resemblance to a bent Nissen Hut or a one-sided Dutch Barn; and straight copying of a design form one site to another, seldom works, particularly when the original is dead flat.
As the property is located in Maughold Conservation Area (designated in 1992) the content of this application has been considered with particular regard to are General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Policy CA/2 Special Planning Considerations from Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment) is also considered to be relevant.
"Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
"When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application.
Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."
Cronk-Ny-Killey the existing single-storey dwelling, is a much extended Manx cottage, set gable on to the road and running along the contour line. It is visible within Jalloo, a small grouping of three dwellings at the foot of the hill climbing past Baldromma Beg and Ballakilley toward Maughold Village on the very southern edge of the Maughold Conservation Area. This grouping is interesting, sited as it is the crossing point of a minor brook discharging into the sea at Port Mooar and the road connecting the village with the surrounding countryside and the south.
All three dwellings are of similar vernacular finishes (painted render and slate roofs) and all three have been much extended but clearly in a manner which could be considered to be intended to minimise their increase in height. The progression of extensions to the three properties has resulted in overly complicated and cluttered forms rather than the simple lines of Manx vernacular buildings in the countryside.
In the case of Cronk-Ny-Killey, the cottage has been extended along its length with a return to the west elevation creating an 'L' shape with a flat roofed section infilling this 'L' to some extent to the rear. The front elevation has been further altered with the increase in size and alteration of the front windows from the vernacular portrait, likely sliding sash format of windows, to the more modern landscape format casement windows. Descending from Maughold village, the rear of the property is highly visible set as it is immediately adjacent to the road with a backdrop of the trees.
It could be considered that the vernacular character of the existing property is compromised by the additions and alterations, but this is nevertheless the architectural and historic character and context within which the site is located within this part of the Maughold Conservation Area.
Proposed here is the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a dwelling of non-traditional form. That proposed does not occupy the same footprint of the existing dwelling, but sits
further up the hill toward the village. It is noted that the drawings show a horizontal ground line for the proposed which gives rise to questions about their accuracy. Given that the proposed is set either into or on a hillside, either the ground immediately around the dwelling is formed into a level platform which should result in some embankment/retaining earthworks to accommodate this and not shown on the drawing, or the side elevations at least, should have a sloping ground line. In addition, if the building is 'dug in', it would suggest that the rear the windows to the north eastern elevations are potentially obscured by the actual ground line. A series of site sections would have illustrated this fact and perhaps acted as a design 'tool', an opportunity that does not appear to have been taken in these proposals. This would also suggest that the building is not sited to take advantage of the contours of the site and is designed more for a flat site.
In terms of the proposed design, the two storey dwelling neither draws on the local vernacular, with its pitched slate roofs and rendered highly modelled facades, nor does it appear to utilise the site and its surroundings. The use of the curved, sedum finished roof is not understood. No precedent is offered as to why this form is considered appropriate here. Given that there is an opportunity to design the house specifically for this site, its orientation does not appear to utilise the path of the sun as its form and massing would heavily overshadow the western elevations for a large part of the day. It is also surprising that the bedrooms have not been orientated to use the morning sun, rising in the east. This is not the case here, as the bedrooms certainly to the first floor, have no east facing windows. Having had consideration of this fact, and that it does not appear to have been sited to take advantage of the contours as previously mentioned; this raises questions about the appropriateness of the dwelling in this location. In addition to this, the scale of that proposed is considerably larger than the existing dwelling on the site which will in turn make the proposed out of scale with 'Yn Jalloo' and 'Jalloo Cottage', the immediate neighbouring properties and context within which this proposal should be considered. The application lacks a Design Statement, which could have been used to explain the approach to the design of the dwelling and it's positioning on the site.
When designing a building, specifically a dwelling for a given site, the path of the sun, the direction of the prevailing wind, particular views and the location of particular rooms and their windows etc to take the best advantage of this, are all factors that would be of consideration to an architect. These factors help 'shape' a design. This is not evident within this design and the appropriateness of this design on this site is further brought into question as this design would appear to have been used elsewhere on the Island, as commented by the Planning Officer.
Having considered the character of the immediate locale within the Maughold Conservation Area within which the proposed is sited and that the design of the property which neither complies with the 3/91, nor does it appear to have been designed specifically for this site, this application is considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area and is therefore not acceptable.
It is important to note at this stage that the previous application 10/01418/B has been heard at an appeal hearing; however, the decision is still pending.
It is considered this application can be determined before a decision is made on the previous application, for a number of reasons. Firstly the design, size and siting differs totally from the previously application which proposed a traditional Manx property. Secondary the residential curtilage whilst being of a similar size is located in a different location. Thirdly, the previously application was argued that the existing dwelling was of 'poor form' and the proposal was of a more traditional character. This new submission would not follow this line of discussion, but instead to be put forward as having a 'less visual impact' over the existing.
Starting with the principle of the development, the existing dwelling is a single storey Manx Cottage which has had a number of alterations which include a flat roof rear extension and enlargement of the window apertures and the installation of modern styled picture windows. The argument of whether the existing dwelling is of 'poor form' still has not been resolved.
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 floor area of the dwelling is approximately 98.1 square metres, and the proposed dwelling would have a total floor area of approximately 388.7 square metres, which is a 296% increase over the existing building. The proposal would not be on the existing footprint, but located 39 metres northeast of the existing.
For these reasons the proposal would not comply with the first paragraph of Housing Policy 14.
However, the second paragraph of Housing Policy 14, does indicated 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 secondary, or where by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.
As indicated previous the issue of whether the existing dwelling is of 'poor form' has not been determined by the Minster as of yet. The applicant argues that the existing is of poor form due to the rear flat roofed extension and the structure is poor because of its age. However, this line of argument is considered flawed, because even if the existing was considered to fall into this category, this section of the policy states that if the dwelling is of 'poor form' then the replacement is required to be 'one of more traditional character'. It is clear the proposal would not be given it modern contemporary design, therefore cannot comply with this exception, whatever the conclusion of whether the existing dwelling is of 'poor form'.
Therefore the only exception for a larger dwelling which the proposal can rely on is that "by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact".
The applicant has indicated that by locating the new proposed seedam roofed dwelling, in the top right hand corner, lower than the existing hedge, it will be virtually unseen from the road.
From visiting the site and the surrounding area, it is evident the existing/proposed dwelling is most apparent from south-west of the application site, when travelling along the A15 road, heading towards Maughold Village.
In terms of the wider landscape, the existing dwelling is apparent as indicated above when travelling along the A15 road, especially before you reach the nearby properties of Yn Jalloo and Jallow Cottage, both of which are of a traditional design, with Jallow Cottage being a traditional two storey Manx farmhouse property. Property Yn Jalloo has also had a large rear extension erected in the past.
These two properties are in a slight depression, which gradually starts to increase resulting in the application site being on a hillside. Due to this, when viewing the cluster of existing properties from the southwest along the A15 road, Cronk Ny Killey appears to float above Yn Jalloo.
From this southwest view, the proposed dwelling will be apparent. The proposed dwelling would have a finished floor level of 103.00. The existing has an approximate floor level of around 98.14 (not indicated on drawings). From this it can be determined the proposal finished floor level would be approximately 4.8 metre higher than the existing finished floor level.
In terms of dimensions the proposed dwelling would have a ridge height of 6 metres creating a two storey property, compared to the existing single storey which has a ridge height of 4.6 metres. In terms of width the proposed dwelling would measure 19.8 metres whilst the existing dwelling is 12.7 metres. In terms of depth the proposal would be 19.8 metres, whilst the existing depth is 9 metres.
It is clear from these dimensions that the proposal is substantially greater in terms of its footprint, scale, massing and height. Consequently, the argument that the proposal has less of a visual impact over the existing would not seem to be supported of the applicants view.
The Planning Authority has approved dwellings which are larger than the generally permitted 50% threshold, whilst being of a more modern contemporary design on the grounds that they had a less visual impact. These approved design were generally on hillsides, like the application site, but were dug into the hillside/site and designed to fit the contours and topography of the land.
There is concern that the proposed design is identical to another application which is also under consideration at Kafue Cottage, Sulby which is a relatively flat site. It appears the proposal has been transposed from one to another without much consideration taken for the topography or gradient of the land.
The elevational drawings show the dwelling being on a flat site, whilst the site plan (has limited ground levels shown) again appears to show the dwelling being on a flat site. No sectional drawings are submitted. Possible retaining walls which would likely be needed around the dwelling have not been indicated.
Consequently, the dwelling whilst being on the slope of the hillside will have a single level and would be built detached from the hillside i.e. not built into the ground.
It is noted there is a single tree which will help limit the appearance of the property during certain periods throughout the year (leaves on tree) from certain perspectives. However, this is not considered a significant enough reasons to allow a dwelling of this size and scale.
The tree is directly adjacent to the existing dwelling, so damage to the tree could occur if demolition took place. Notwithstanding this whilst the applicants propose to retain the tree, there can be no guarantees in the future that they would.
The application also proposes 150 trees to be planted outside the application site, but within the adjacent field which the applicant owns.
A 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 commented; "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.
This concern indicated by the Appeals Inspector can be applied to this application, especially as the existing landscaping is substantially less than the existing landscaping at Ballabeg Farm.
In terms of views when travelling along the A15 highway from Maughold Village (westerly direction) towards the application site, the applicant has indicated that due to the height of the proposal and due to the existing banking and hedging the proposal would be virtually unseen from the road.
They indicate the existing dwelling is directly adjacent to the pubic highway and therefore in a prominent position.
It is agreed that from certain points when travelling along the A15 from a westerly direction towards the site, the existing dwelling is apparent. This is particularly once you exit the bend in the road which is approximately 50 metres from the dwelling.
The new dwelling would be sited 6 metres from the highway, but behind an existing sod bank with hedging (gorse) on top which overall is approximately 3 metres in height (measured on roadside).
The site plan shows that the highest point of the site is 105.35 (eastern corner of site) which is adjacent to the highway/boundary. Above this point there is gorse hedging which has approximate height of 1 metre. The finish floor level of the dwelling would be 103.00, i.e. 2.35 metres (105.35-103.00) below the ground level of the boundary and approximately 3.35 metres below the top of the gorse hedging.
Therefore, it is reasonable to consider if the dwelling would have a height of 6 metres and taking the above levels into account, the proposal would be 2.65 metres taller than the top of the boundary sod bank/gorse hedging. It is very important to note that whilst the dwelling would remain at this height (footprint sited on level ground), due to the topography of the land which continues to decrease in level in a south-westerly direction, the dwelling will become more and more apparent due to the boundary height and ground level decreasing. The driveway access (eastern boundary) has a ground level of 100.00, three metres lower than the finish floor level of the dwelling.
The proposed dwelling would be sited 6 metres away from the boundary, but even with this distance and taking the perspective into account, it is considered this height above the existing boundary/landscaping (no guarantees the gorse could remain) will still result in the proposed enlarged dwelling being more apparent when viewing the site from the west along the A15 road.
It is perhaps prudent to consider the issue of the access of the site. The letter accompanying the submission indicates that the existing access is to be reused and will not be altered.
However, the plans would not seem to support this statement. The drawings indicated that the entrance onto the highway would seem to have a width of 18 metres, which would require a substantial amount of sod banking and hedgerow being removed. This would lead to the dwelling having a greater visual impact from the public highway.
Viewing the previous application (10/01418/B), this showed a more detail scheme in terms of the driveway access and visibility. The proposal could implement this same access layout without significantly impacting the existing boundary/landscaping which fronts onto the highway. However, this would require the red line (application site) to be extended to include all land within the visibility splay.
The policy test is clear, would it have a less visual impact compared to the existing cottage.
It is noted that the application does proposed 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 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 in "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, 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 Kafue Cottage, Sulby (11/00458/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.
It is considered given the substantial size increase in terms of floor area, the proposal would be two storeys and therefore taller than the existing single storey cottage in turn increasing the massing of built development, and due to the design and siting further up the hillside, the proposal would result in a dwelling substantial more visible in the countryside. Therefore, it is considered that this two storey proposal would have a greater visual impact upon the countryside.
The Conservation Officer details concerns he has with the proposal and concludes that the proposal, given its siting and design, would be detrimental to Maughold Conservation Area. Consequently it is felt that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area contrary to Environment Policy 35
Turning to the proposed residential curtilage, the proposal would increase the residential curtilage of the site significantly. This curtilage has an approximate maximum width of 69 metres and a depth of 39 metres which directly fronts onto the public highway. This is approximately double the existing residential curtilage.
The residential curtilage as proposed, would likely 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.
The previous application 10/01418/B (pending appeal) was also refused on the grounds of 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 Policies 1, 2 & 35.
It is considered this previous reason for refusal should apply again for the reasons indicated.
In conclusion, the proposal would result in a substantially larger dwelling (approx 296% increase) both in terms of footprint but also massing given the proposal would be two storeys and therefore taller than the existing single storey cottage. Furthermore, the design and siting further up the hillside would result in the introduction of large dwelling in an increased prominent position within the countryside and the Conservation Area. 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 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: Maughold Commissioners 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, Kirk Maughold
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.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 08.06.2011
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 site is within Maughold Conservation Area, consequently any development should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. It is considered the design, scale, massing and siting would have a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area and is therefore not acceptable contrary to Environmental Policy 35.
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
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
9 June 2011
9 June 2011
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
