DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/00222/B Applicant: Mr Andrew & Mrs Joanne Walker Proposal: Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address: Ballaleigh Ballaleigh Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1HJ Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.07.2022

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 3. The Tree Protection Plan and construction exclusion zones as indicated on drawing 20 1360 03 shall be erected and retained for the duration of the construction works.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention (to the north of the site) are adequately protected, in the interests of maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

• C 4. The existing trees shown as being retained on the approved drawings shall be retained and in the event that the retained tree becomes damaged or otherwise defective due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.

Reason: To ensure that tree marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposal complies with Housing Policy 12 and although over the 50% threshold the proposal is considered not to have any adverse visual impact on the countryside in line with Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policies 1.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 7th March 2022:

• o Drawing No. 20 1360 01
• o Drawing No. 20 1360 02 - Site Plan
• o Drawing No. 20 1360 02 - Proposed Site Plan
• o Drawing No. 20 1360 03
• o Drawing No. 20 1360 04
• o Drawing No. 20 1360 05
• o Measured Survey This decision also relates to tree planting details under drawing no. 20 1360 03, dated received
• on the 14th June 2022 _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO HOUSING POLICIES OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within the residential curtilage of "Ballaleigh," Ballaleigh, Road, Kirk Michael which is a one and a half storey property with dormers across both sides of the roofscape, situated to the Northern side of Ballaleigh Road. - 1.2 The existing property measures approximately 20m long by 9m wide and 7m to the ridge. There is an additional 2.6m wide single storey flat roof conservatory along the side gable and wrapping the rear elevation. - 1.3 The property has a mix of stone and pebbledash finishes to the external elevations and the roof is finished with concrete tiles. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing dwelling with a more modern split level dwelling, which will sit almost on the same site as the existing dwelling. - 2.2 The existing house has a floor area of approximately 305sq m with a height to the top of the chimney stacks of approximately 6.67m from ground floor situated at road level. - 2.3 The proposed dwelling would have a floor area of approximately 585sq m and would sit almost upon the footprint of the existing albeit with a slightly larger ground floor area to

• accommodate the proposed garage. The proposed dwelling would have an overall height of approximately 7.55m from ground floor at road level.
• 2.4 The proposed roofing is to be natural grey slate, rainwater foods are to be uPVC black and all the windows and doors are to be in a black/grey aluminium or uPVC units set over grey/black concrete cills and the walls are to be smooth rendered with all stonework being natural grey. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There have been several applications on the site, of which the most recent is the most relevant, PA20/01554/B which was for "Alterations and erection of an extension and garage" which was approved. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Area of Private Woodland or Parkland" and within an "Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.

4.2 Given the designation of the site and the nature of the development it is relevant to consider the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the assessment of this application, General Policy 3 (d), paragraph 8.11.1, Housing Policy 12 and 14 for the replacement of existing rural dwellings, Environment Policy 1 for the protection of the countryside, General Policy 2 for the general standards towards development and Transport Policy 7 with regards to parking standards.

• 4.1.3 It is also necessary to assess the proposal against Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside.
• 4.1.4 The recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 is also a material consideration and whilst focused on dwellings within settlements, does offer advice in relation to the impacts on neighbours.
• 4.1.5 Furthermore consideration shall also be given to Community Policies 7 and 11 in respect of reducing outbreak of fire and preventing criminal activity and Infrastructure Policy 5 in respect of water conservation.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following representations can be seen online in full, below is a short summery;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "- After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The Applicant is advised to consider the provision of bicycle parking and an electric vehicle charging point." (17.03.22)

5.3 No comments have been received from Michael Commissioners at the time of writing this report.

5.4 DEFA Forestry has considered the application and state, "The planting plan is adequate mitigation and in line with the initial consultation we are therefore happy to withdraw the objection. I recommend implementation of the planting plan is made a condition of approval. (17.03.22 & 20.07.22) ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

• - principle of design / impact
• - impact on highways

• - impact on neighbours
• - impact upon trees

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DESIGN / IMPACT

• 6.2.1 Firstly when looking at the principle of the proposal, it is necessary to note that there has recently been an application PA20/01554/B which was for "Alterations and erection of an extension and garage." The officer in charge of the application made reference to how the proposal within this application was akin to a new dwelling stating, "In terms of the current proposal the works are fairly extensive and although some of the existing walls of the main house are shown as being retained, the level of work is akin to a replacement dwelling". As such whilst this application was approved under Housing Policy 16, Environment 1, 2 & 3 and Strategic Policy 4(b), this application has been taken into account within the report below.

• 6.2.2 When looking at the relevant Strategic Policies for this application, as stated in section 4 of this report, Housing Policy 12 is the first main policy and gives clear guidance on the replacement of existing dwellings within the countryside of which the proposal is to comply with. When looking at the existing dwelling it is accepted that the existing dwelling has not lost its residential use by abandonment nor is the property of architectural or historic interest as such the next logical step within the Strategic Policies is Housing Policy 14, as the proposal is more than the 50% of the existing dwelling.

• 6.2.3 The expectation of Housing Policy 14 is that dwellings are 'generally' designed in line with Planning Circular 3/91, in exceptional circumstances, "permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact". HP14 also states: "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."

• 6.2.3 It can clearly be seen that the proposed design approach within this application is more of a contemporary take on modern architecture, as well as the proposed palette of materials from what was formerly approved under PA20/01554/B which was a more late 90's early 2000's traditional approach. Whilst innovative, modern design can be subjective, due to different ideals of the word innovative and modern. The proposal within this application would be considered as a "normal" contemporary property, with there being nothing innovative about its design, appearance or structure.
• 6.2.4 As such the proposal would fail under Housing Policy 14 in both the sense that the property is not traditional in appearance nor innovative.
• 6.2.5 This would normally mean that the proposed application should be refused, as Housing Policy 14 is a major Strategic Policy. Whilst this is the case as stated above there was a previous application for alterations and extensions to the dwelling. These alterations and extensions, stripped the property and basically created a new dwelling, whilst keeping some of the external and internal walls.
• 6.2.6 The proposal within this application, whilst a new dwelling is almost on the same floor area as the previously approved with the overall ridge height of the proposal being over one metre lower in height. As such the overall proposal would have a lower impact upon the overall environment more than the previously approved.
• 6.2.7 The proposed design due to being neither traditional enough nor innovative enough is read at odds with Housing Policy 14, however having had the previously approved application makes this application difficult to refuse, even though it does not comply with the policy.

• 6.2.8 The main difference between the two approvals is the design of the proposal. Design is very subjective with there always being a mix response to any one design, what is proposed within this application might appeal to certain people and be rejected by others. The proposed design can also be seen within several properties on the Island, which lends itself to there being a following of this time of architecture.
• 6.2.9 Whilst the proposed design may not stand the test of time as much as the traditional design that was previously approved, as stated above the impact of the overall proposal will be less due to the overall height being lower and the overall floor area being smaller.
• 6.2.10 Finally balancing the narrative above, and it's a subjective decision on design, the proposed contemporary design could be initially read as contrary to the Strategic Polices applicable to the proposal, but on balance considering all the narrative above and taking into account the previously approved application, it is debateable whether this is a strong enough reason to refuse the application solely on the grounds of its design. Especially when it is noted that the site itself is surrounded by mature trees and woodland areas, some of which are registered and as such would provide a backdrop for the dwelling which means it would be minimally seen within the overall streetscene.

- 6.3 IMPACT ON HIGHWAYS

6.3.1 When looking at the proposal in terms of highway's it can be seen that firstly Highway Services have raised no issues with there being no alterations to the already existing entrance into the property. There is a suitably large turning area and three car garage, as such the proposal complies with Transport Policy 7 in accordance with Appendix 7.

- 6.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS

6.4.1 The closest neighbour to the property is "Gorseleigh House" which is situated over 120m away to the South East of the site, as such it is deemed that the proposal is acceptable in the impacts upon the neighbouring amenity.

- 6.5 IMPACT UPON TREES

• 6.5.1 Turning towards the trees upon the site, as several of them are proposed to be removed. Further information was received from the agent on behalf of the applicant, to which DEFA Forestry are happy with the information on the basis that the implementation of the given planting plan is made a condition of approval.

CONCLUSION

7.1 Whilst the proposal does not comply with the Strategic Policies for a replacement dwelling, bearing in mind the previously approved application which was to create a dwelling with more of an impact upon the overall environment abide a design which would stand the test of time. It would be hard-pressed to refuse this application based on the design of the proposal, bearing in mind that the property cannot be seen from a public vantage point and that the design is marginally better than the existing dwelling.

7.2 As such the proposal is recommended for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;

• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 08.08.2022

Signed : V PORTER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.