Loading document...
The site represents a parcel of land associated with an old cottage - formerly having retained its original four walls and recently having undergone renovation work which has removed all but the front wall which has been underpinned. The land sits on the eastern side of the A3 Ballamodha Straight between Solomon's Corner (the junction with the Corlea Road B39) and the junction with the shoulder road to The Sloc (A36). To the north of the site is Honey Cottage and to the south is another modest cottage - also known as The Croit. The site as defined extends eastwards some 140m from the A3 and the plot has a frontage to the A3 of some 60m. The only building on the site is the former cottage. Work has commenced upon the recently approved scheme and the entrance has been formed, the driveway into the site has been put into place and trees felled to make way for the entrance, in accordance with the approved plans.
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. An overhead electricity line is also shown as running through the site on this Development Plan although this runs some 40m to the east of the building.
PA 94/0908 - approval in principle for erection of dwelling and garage - refused and
PA 03/0467 - renovation and extension of redundant cottage and creation of new vehicular access - refused on appeal. The application was refused on appeal where the Inspector notes that "Having looked at the existing structure at my site visit, I have no doubt that this proposal relates to a ruin which has not been 'habitable' for many years". The applicant takes issue with this, describing the building as having four walls and a roof, which is correct. The Inspector went on to recommend that "The space is not available for the normal everyday requirements of even a single person household...It is clear to me that the very well presented architectural scheme of the proposed development amounts to major extensions to what was a very modest traditional cottage which basically consisted of two rooms. The first floor accommodation over this cottage would inevitably result in a considerable raising of the roof and build up of the gable walls. The scheme effectively amounts to a new building albeit structured around an original Manx cottage...I consider that this proposal does not meet the requirements of policy as expressed in Circular 3/89 which expressly does not sanction the re-building of ruins". (see Appendix One)
Permission was then sought for the renovation of the building, re-building the easternmost annex in a similar form to the original building together with a structural engineer's report which confirmed that the works were practicable. This application, PA 06/1556 was permitted subject to certain works being undertaken to retain the stability of the building (see Appendix Two). Permission was then sought for minor alterations to this. This application, PA 08/0362 was also permitted. Another Structural Engineer's report was submitted confirming that the works were practicable subject to certain works being undertaken particularly in respect of the northern rear wall. (see Appendix Three)
There is a site to the south of this one on which there was a small building which has been the subject of the following applications and which is now The Croit - a habitable dwelling:
Proposed is what is described as the renovation of the cottage as was previously proposed and approved, with the retention only of the front wall and the reconstruction of the rear and two side walls. The scheme otherwise is as previously submitted.
The supporting information submitted with the application explains how in renovating the property two internal side walls have been removed without permission and the north facing wall also removed. This work was apparently undertaken on site without the applicants' knowledge or authority. It refers also to work which was undertaken on the rear wall to remove a 3 - 4m section which was discussed with the Planning Officer and the Building Control Officer prior to being undertaken. This was authorised by the Planning Officer on the basis that in no way would this threaten the structural viability of the remaining walls and without being aware that the two side walls had already or were to be removed. On removing this section of the remaining rear wall, it is stated that the remainder of the wall crumbled. The applicant confirms that two and a half original walls are still standing, relating to the provisions of Housing Policy 13, the original stone is to be used, electricity and water are available and a usable track is now in place, having been approved under the previous application.
Malew Parish Commissioners and Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they have no objection to the application.
The application should be judged against the designation of the site as white land, the provisions of Housing Policy 13 and with consideration also given to recent decisions for relevant development and to the circumstances leading to the present situation.
The site lies within an area where development is generally discouraged. Indeed two planning applications for the principle of new residential development have been refused within 220m of the application site (PAs 90/4102 and 04/2090). As such, housing development may only be permitted where there is specific justification - namely in the form of agricultural need for a new-build property or, in the case of the re-use of an existing building where the requirements of Strategic Plan policy are met. Housing Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan requires that:
"In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where
a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway.
This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (ie. in terms of floor space measured externally, the extensions measures less than 50% of that or the original)."
In this case, the present situation, prior to the re-construction of the rear walling was that the front wall of the main part of the cottage was still intact and had been underpinned but the two sides walls, one of which (the eastern wall) was approved as being removed and rebuilt as an internal wall, had been removed, thus only one of these walls remained intact. The small annex on the western side which adjoins the main cottage was and still remains in place. Thus the entire frontage (the original cottage and the lean-to annex) remains in place and the side wall of the western annex is in place together with the rear of the western annex which represents approximately 36% of the length of the rear wall of the cottage and the annex (it represents 24% of the overall finished rear elevation including the rebuilt eastern annex). There is no doubt that the cottage in this condition would not satisfy the requirement for a building to be structurally intact with at least three of the walls standing to eaves level. As such, the proposal now does not comply with Housing Policy 13.
The information which has been submitted in respect of the three applications for planning approval for this plot are relevant. The Structural Engineer employed by the original applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Keown was also retained by the current applicants, Mr. Ronan and Miss Brocklebank so there has been advice from only one engineer throughout this project. The first advice provided when PA 06/1556 was submitted noted that "The south facing and gable walls are in a satisfactory condition and the various defects noted such as loose stonework, loose and friable mortar can all be addressed satisfactorily. In the north facing wall the construction of a concrete ring beam, new 'A' frames and a slate roof will give additional restraint to the top of the wall. Additional buttresses built along the length of the wall will give further support and preclude further excessive movement taking place. I am therefore of the opinion that subject to the above works being carried out, the principal walls can be considered to be in serviceable condition and that therefore the property can be renovated satisfactorily". This report is dated 20th January, 2003.
The second report, submitted with PA 08/0362 for the amended details of the renovation of the cottage is dated 19th February, 2008 and includes the following comments: "The South elevation, West facing gable and the North rear elevation could be satisfactorily retained subject to additional buttresses being built along the length of the rear elevation wall, which will give further support and preclude further excessive movement taking place. The various defects noted, such as all loose stonework, loose and friable lime mortar, can all be addressed satisfactorily. Additional restraint to all walls will be given by the construction of a concrete ring beam, new 'A' frames, purlins and slate roof. With regard to the North facing gable wall, I would recommend that this be rebuilt, as the lean at the top and the full height separation crack is causing the wall to be unstable. Care should be taken in not disturbing the corner quoin stones when the wall is taken down. I am of the opinion that, subject to the above works being carried out, the three remaining principal walls can be considered to be in a serviceable condition and that the property can be renovated satisfactorily." It is not clear what the "North facing gable wall" is – the underpinning detail which was prepared by the same engineer does not show the rebuilding of either the main cottage rear gable or the western annex rear wall and there is also reference to the three remaining principal walls being retained. The only reference to a vertical separation crack in the Inspection section of the report refers to the eastern gable.
The third report submitted in respect of the method statement required by condition 9 of the approval notice for PA 08/0362 represents the report of 19th February, 2008 and a plan showing the order of sections for underpinning of the rear and front walling of the cottage and the western gable of the cottage together with all three walls of the western annex. Also there are two sections which support the rear wall, to be introduced at the start of the underpinning sequence.
It would appear that part if not all of the reason for the failure of the building to withstand the renovation works without demolition/collapse was a failure to provide the necessary underpinning and support of the rear wall whilst at the same time taking away the side walls and roof. Whilst permission was given for the rebuilding of the eastern gable, in order to support the rear wall prior to the introduction of the underpinning and ring beam, it is doubtful that this wall should have been removed at the outset and more likely that the wall should have been removed once the remaining three walls were fully supported as set out in the method statement and engineer's report.
This application needs to be treated on its merits but it is relevant to take account of other relevant planning decisions. Of particular note is the property to the south of the application site, also known as The Croit, which was the subject of a scheme of renovation. Applications, PA 95/1718 and PA 96/1805 both approved the renovation of the existing building to form a dwelling. When works commenced on site, unauthorised demolition was undertaken. This is reported in the appeal statement as follows: "Unfortunately, in the course of the preliminary works, and after the removal of the existing roof, the gable at the upper end collapsed on the removal of the leaning chimney stack and then, without authorisation, the builder removed the adjacent single brick wall at the rear and part of the front wall because he believed them to be unsafe. Fortunately a wall containing unique Manx thatch ties and its associated porch remain, together with a large part of another wall." (paragraph 3)
The Inspector goes on to state "I note that under the description of renovation, the Planning Committee was content to approve in detail what was in fact in large part a rebuild of the existing structure. Indeed, in considering the application in principle, the Planning Committee appears either not to have considered the extent to which the existing fabric had to be replaced to provide modern living facilities, or if they did consider this matter, not to have attached much weight to it in granted their approval And whilst the note attached to the approvals ought to have acted as a warning to all on the development side, it also suggests that the present situation cannot ever have been far from the mind of the Committee. This initial consideration and the events which followed now form a sorry tale of misadventure which has placed all concerned in a most unfortunate position. For this reason, the situation does not seem to me to be one where the strict application of policy is altogether apt. What is important now is to consider rationally the effect on the environment. Faced now therefore with a choice between a derelict building site and a replica of an interesting little Manx cottage, my own preference is for the replica, containing as it would a little of the existing fabric and two its more
interesting features" (paragraphs 16, 17 and 18). Permission was thus given for the rebuilding of a major part of the structure.
The two applications have significant differences from the current situation in that the plans approved for the current application property did not involve a reconstruction of a substantial part of the original building, nor was there a structural engineer's report accompanying those applications that concluded that the building could be renovated whilst retaining three of the principal walls.
The Inspector concludes that there will be little material difference between the originally approved scheme and a rebuild, and when considered in purely visual terms, the same could be concluded in the application property proposal, as is evidenced by the quality of the unauthorised stonework which has been undertaken on site to date and it must be acknowledged that the front and side elevations are to be retained which are two of the three elevations which are visible by the public.
However, there are fundamental principles at stake which are not simply concerned to replicate existing structurally intact buildings in the Island's countryside for visual purposes (although the visual impact is a very important consideration). The requirement to re-use existing fabric supports sustainable building where the importation of new materials and the energy which is associated with new build rather than utilisation of existing solid fabric is avoided and it also ensures that the historic qualities of the existing built fabric are conserved for the future. The effect of Housing Policy H13 is to enable housing development to take place in locations that would not otherwise be desirable or permissible but the policy is clear that this is only justified where there is strict adherence to the criteria set out. If this were not the case then Housing Policy 13 would accept the rebuilding of any of the buildings which satisfy the three requirements for eligibility, which it does not. If permission is granted for the reconstruction of the rear and side wall of the cottage as is proposed, this will establish the principle that Housing Policy 13 may be successfully applied to properties which are more ruinous than as presently required and may further reduce the effectiveness of the policy and be applied to buildings which will require to be completely rebuilt. A present application for such a development at Dalby in Patrick in the west of the Island has been submitted (PA 08/1082) with the applicant suggesting that the finished visual impact will be the same as the scheme for renovation which has approval, which includes some rebuilding. This application was refused and is presently the subject of an appeal.
As such, while there is considerable sympathy with the applicants who apparently did not personally undertake the unauthorised works which have taken the scheme outside the provisions of Housing Policy 13, it is a simple matter of dfact that the proposal no longer complies with the provisions of this policy. The planning system exists to serve the public interest and a fundamental characteristic of the system is the consistency in decision making and the certainty for all users of the system that results from the fact that decisions are taken having regard to the formally adopted policies of the Strategic Plan (which policies have been adopted following extensive public consultation). Any decision that would fly in the face of such policy requires very good justification and in the case of the current proposal no material circumstances have been identified that would support such a departure. Members are aware that the personal circumstances of an applicant are rarely material to a planning decision, especially where the consequences of such a decision would have permanent effect and that the fact that a proposal is submitted on a retrospective basis must not influence the consideration of the application in either a positive or negative way. Had the proposal been submitted initially in the form that is now proposed there is considered to be no doubt that the recommendation would have been to refuse planning permission. To grant planning permission for the current proposal would establish the principle that properties which have fewer than 3 walls standing to eaves level, are not structurally capable of renovation without considerable re-building and where the original building is not to be, in the main, retained, may be redeveloped to form dwellings in locations where such development would usually not be permitted. This would of course be directly contrary to Policy H13 and to the other policies of the Strategic Plan that exist to chanel development to more sustainable locations and to protect the Manx countryside for its own sake.
If this application is refused, consideration must be given to what will happen next. What stands on the site represents a building which has been partially demolished, which requires planning permission which has not been obtained. As such, and as the works to reconstruct part of the cottage have not been authorised and the demolished fabric cannot be reinstated (without planning permission), it should be a requirement that the structure on site should be cleared and the site restored to its condition prior to the commencement of work - ie the removal of the access and driveway.
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.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 07.01.2009
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
The proposal would result in the amount of walling of the original cottage to be retained, being fewer than the three walls required to be retained in Housing Policy 13 and as such, the proposal would not comply with the provisions of this policy and would represent unwarranted development in an area not designated for development.
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: ... Reporting Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
