Loading document...
The site, defined by a circle, represents land associated with an existing dwelling associated with Gibdale Farm which lies between St. Mark’s and Ballamodha. The farm is incompletely defined but accommodates a group of buildings in the centre of the site including a modern bungalow and older stone barn which has been converted to habitable accommodation. The group is visible from the west, south west and south. Access to the farm group is from the Bayrauyr (B30) to the south.
The existing dwelling is a single storey bungalow which has been joined to the original farmhouse which has a single storey flat roofed glazed structure in front of it.
The property is the subject of an agricultural occupancy tie. Advice has been sought from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry which would not appear to confirm that Gibdale Farm is being operated as a self-contained viable farm unit.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land", that is, not designated for development.
Planning permission has been sought for a number of developments on this site. Some refer to a tholtan on part of the site which has now been sold off. Other applications for the farm itself include the following:
Now proposed is the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new property. The footprint of the existing dwelling group is around 330 square metres with a small amount of first floor accommodation - the applicant's agent estimates a total of 380 sq m of total current floor area to be replaced: the footprint of the proposed dwelling is 365 square metres as shown on the drawings. The existing fabric is not particularly attractive and formed through the linking of old and newer buildings. As the existing buildings are mostly single storey, with the exception of some space in the upper floor of the older farmhouse, the proposed floor area of 365 sq. m on the ground floor, 252 sq.m on the first floor and in excess of 160 sq.m on the attic floor, amounts to what is quite possibly more than double the floor area, measured externally. The property will have a main core of 17m by 11m with projections beyond this at the front in the form of a porch and a two storey extension at the rear which projects 4m from the main rear wall. To the right of the main core is a single storey living room which is 8m by 9.9m and which has no accommodation shown above but which is the same height and dimensions as the annex on the other side which does have accommodation above, with rooflights in the rear and two dormers in the front pitch and accommodating two en-suite dressing and bathrooms. The annex on the left hand size has garaging on the ground floor with utility facilities at the rear and the en-suite facilities above as referred to above. The property is 10.6m in height with a roof pitched at 40 degrees.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division and Malew Parish Commissioners indicate that they have no opposition to the proposal.
Manx Electricity Authority recommend a note regarding electricity supplies to the development. This is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.
A resident of Port Soderick comments that the proposal is in accordance with Housing Policies 12 and 14 and the existing fabric is of poor form.
The proposal should be judged in relation to Housing Policy 14 which states that:
"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 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 generally, 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 which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one or more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
Provision is made within this policy for the development of dwellings which are larger than 50% greater than the existing footprint where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one or more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact. The new dwelling is undoubtedly more than 50% greater in footprint than the existing buildings to be replaced and as such the critical consideration in this case is therefore the change in the appearance and character of the site through the erection of this replacement fabric will bring about less visual impact or whether the new dwelling is of more traditional character.
The Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside, Planning Circular 3/91, suggests that the basic rural dwelling would have footprint dimensions of 11m by 5.5m with a standard ceiling height of 2.5m. Larger dwellings should follow the style and pattern of traditional farmhouses. It advises (Policy 3) that they should be rectangular in plan and simple in form and illustrations are provided of various ways of extending the basic footprint.
This property has dimensions which are considerably larger than those recommended in the Circular, resulting in a dwelling which is also substantially higher than the average two storey rural property and significantly larger and higher than the buildings which are on the site at present. As such, it is doubtful that the proposed dwelling could be accepted as a more traditional property. What may result from the proposal is the change from small scale, albeit largely unattractive buildings, with a much larger, more imposing and more visible dwelling which does not have the character of a traditional property, more a dwelling which stands in its own grounds and one which is more visible in the countryside. The existing buildings are part of a farm with no easily identifiable residential curtilage or grounds to speak of. As such it is not considered that an exception to the general rule that the size of replacement dwellings should not exceed the floor area of the existing property by more than 50%.
If the application is permitted, the condition applying to the existing property which is to be replaced, restricting the occupancy of the dwelling to persons engage in agriculture should be reiterated. This condition states "The dwelling may be occupied only by a person or persons engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants."
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues regarding working practices around existing supplies, which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 05.09.2008
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "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 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 generally, 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 which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one or more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
In this case, the proposed dwelling would exceed the general size and proportions of a traditional cottage referred to above and it is not accepted that it represents a building which is acceptable by virtue of it being more traditional than the buildings which it is replacing. Furthermore, the new building would be substantially higher and greater in mass than the existing collection of buildings to be replaced and as such would be more visible in the landscape. As such, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling accords with Housing Policy 14, would result in a property of untraditional proportions and which is more conspicuous in the landscape.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control)
Decision Made: Refused Date: 10/9/08
Signed: _________________________ 5 September 2008
M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
5 September 2008
5 September 2008
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
