Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00691/B Applicant: Mr William McCracken Proposal: Extension to existing dwelling. Site Address: Bungalow Ballamenagh Moar Farm Ballamenagh Road Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6AJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 20.07.2016 Site Visit: 20.07.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage, plus an additional parcel of land, of an agricultural worker's dwelling associated with Ballamenagh Moar Farm outside of the built up area of Baldrine. It is very apparent from the highway to the northwest. - 1.2 The dwelling is a bungalow with a detached garage and is set is quite generous grounds, which include a large driveway and garden land. - 1.3 There is a residential dwelling located to the south, but the area is very much rural in nature.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension to the bungalow. The accommodation within the extension comprises a pair of double bedrooms and a Jack-and-Jill bathroom in the first floor (within the roofspace, with light to be provided by six rooflights) along with a living room and kitchen / dining room at the ground floor. The extension is proposed to be sited at the northeastern elevation of the dwelling, and outside the current, defined residential curtilage and into the adjacent Field 613057. It would be in more or less the same position as a storage building for which approval was granted in 2015 (see Planning History section below). An independent access is proposed in the form of a set of double doors on the northwestern elevation, facing the field. - 2.2 Although two storeys in height, the ridgeline is not dissimilar to that of the main bungalow, which highlights the proportionally large size of the existing bungalow's roof.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The dwelling was approved under PA 99/02086/B, and this followed the Approval in Principle issued earlier in that year. A condition was attached that limited the occupancy of the dwelling to a person or persons engaged in agriculture full time, or widow or widower of such a person. - 3.2 In 2009, PA 09/01450/B was approved. This sought for the erection of an extension to the existing bungalow that would have given it more of an air of being more akin to a dwelling of traditional Manx vernacular, albeit some way removed from the specifics defined in Planning Circular 3/91 to that end. This application was not, however, implemented and has now expired.

• 3.3.1 Most recently, planning approval was granted to PA 14/01137/B, which sought for the erection of a standalone building on the site for a small agricultural building. The application as submitted contained no details to explain that it was needed for agricultural purposes, and it was refused under delegated authority on grounds that it represented unwarranted development in the countryside. However, this was clarified at the appeal, with the appellants / applicants noting a need to repair plant / machinery in a secure place - i.e. near their home. As such the Inspector recommended the application be approved subject to a condition requiring full and complete drawings of the building be provided to the Department and another requiring it be used for agricultural purposes and also removed at such point as it is no longer needed for those purposes.
• 3.3.2 This application remains unimplemented (and the condition relating to the submission of drawings undischarged), though it was approved for a four-year period on 12th March 2015. However, were the current application approved then it would be on the same site as this approved building and therefore only one of the two applications could be implemented.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as (a) open space/agricultural use, and (b) High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. - 4.2 In view of the nature of the proposal and its location, the following Strategic Plan policies are relevant:

Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."

Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

• (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• (b) make best use of public transport;
• (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• (d) encourage pedestrian movement."

General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

• Environment 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:

• (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) the location for the development is essential."

Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

Housing Policy 16: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."

4.3 Although potentially somewhat counter-intuitive, consideration should also be given to the general development criteria as set out in General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure commented on the application on 26.07.2016 as follows:

"General Comments: The proposals generally comprise an extension providing additional living space and an additional two bedrooms. The application states that there is currently in curtilage parking for in excess of 5 vehicles. The submitted plans would indicate that the impact on the existing parking will be minimal. On that basis, the proposed development is not considered to have an impact on the existing highway network.

"Recommendation: Having reviewed the supporting information, the Department of Infrastructure does not oppose this planning application."

5.2 Garff Commissioners offered no objection on 25.07.2016.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Although the application has been described by the applicants as an extension to form additional living accommodation, the fact is that it is large enough to be an independent dwelling; that there is an independent access further confirms this view. Accordingly, the application falls to be considered against this context. - 6.2 The agent to the application was advised that the application was likely to be considered contrary to Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 16 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan 2016 in view of the above but also in view of the extension to the curtilage and somewhat ungainly design of the extension as proposed. No response from the agent was received, but the applicant emailed the Department on 14th October 2016, advising that they are getting elderly and require extra living accommodation for a carer as his wife is disabled but as shown on the plan, he needs it linked to my house. He explains that he needs the second storey as he feels the extension he would have to build would be very damaging to the area on one level. He considers that any live-in carer would require a separate kitchen and bathroom and has he has no neighbours who can view the extension doesn't feel it would be damaging to the surrounding area. He believes this to be a modest extension and aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding area and 4 bungalows in surrounding have been given planning approval for two storey extensions which he feel is a contradiction to any concerns about his. He considers that the extension is only slightly outside the curtilage of the original dwelling on land which he also owns . He confirms his belied that Manx farming is in a very poor state and any investment would be a complete loss which is why he no longer requires a workshop extension. - 6.3 Prior to receipt of this information, the applicant had identified to the Department via telephone that he wished the application to be assessed on the submitted information and that no amended design would be forthcoming. The principle of a new dwelling in this location - 6.4 It is to be remembered that the application has not been advertised as representing a new dwelling, but for the reasons outlined above the application must be considered as representing such development. - 6.5 No justification in agricultural terms has been made: indeed, the explanation of the applicant indicates that the justification for the new accommodation arises from his disabled wife requiring a carer. While there is obviously considerable sympathy for this, it does not fall within one of the exceptional criteria as set out in General Policy 3. It therefore needs to be decided as to whether or not the proposal comprises such an exceptional need as to warrant its being favourably considered under Section 10(4)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act, which identifies that planning applications must be assessed having regard to all "other" material considerations - the first three being "(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3, and (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application". - 6.6 Without further information as to the need for a live-in carer for the applicant's wife, and noting that no further information will be forthcoming at this stage, it is difficult to reach the conclusion that the application does indeed reflect an essential or exceptional need as outlined in both law and policy. - 6.7 It is therefore concluded that, despite the sympathy with the applicant's situation, there is at present insufficient grounds to offer support to an application that essentially comprises a proposal for a new dwelling in the countryside. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused on grounds that it represents unwarranted development in the countryside with poor access to sustainable transport options, contrary to Strategic Policy 2, parts (a), (b) and (d) of Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4.

• The design of the extension proposed
• 6.8 Housing Policy 16, albeit a policy that sets out design guidelines for extensions rather than new dwellings, provides an important basis against which to assess the application. Consideration should also be given to General Policy 2 in reaching a view on the design: it would be more inappropriate to not have regard to the general development considerations of GP2 than to ignore them altogether, even though the principle of the proposal remains unacceptable.
• 6.9 While the ridgeline of the extension is intended to match that of the existing dwelling, its mass and form is at odds with it. The different angle of the roof's extension relative to that of the main bungalow would sit entirely uncomfortably on the site and given the dwelling a very disordered and awkward appearance. The situation of a gable on the extension forward of the main building line would fail to allow for any subordination of the extension to the bungalow. The massing of the extension, on a smaller footprint than the bungalow, would result in a visual 'competition' between the two elements to the detriment of both.
• 6.10 The dwelling can be seen from the highway, but even if it could not the resulting design discordance is sufficient to conclude that the resulting visual impact would be contrary to Housing Policy 16 and parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2, as well as Environment Policy 2. The proposed extension to the residential curtilage
• 6.11 This, too, was an element not advertised on the application although it clearly forms a part of the proposal.
• 6.12 In recommending that the Minister approve the application for the storage unit on this parcel of land, the Inspector had regard to the agricultural justification for the new building, and concluded that the essential need for such a building in this location "outweighed by necessity in the terms of Environment Policies 1 and 2". He also had close regard to the proposed use of the workshop building, and noted that an extension to the existing garage at the property presented practical issues. No such exceptional justification exists in this case, and moreover there are much fewer constraints to the extension of the dwelling than there are with respect to the garage in respect of the dwelling's position on the site. Therefore, the conclusions of the Inspector of his assessment of PA 14/01137/B carry very minimal weight in the assessment here.
• 6.13 In consideration of this issue in the previous application, the case officer commented as follows:

"Environment Policy 1 is clear that the countryside is to be protected for its own sake. The proposal would change the existing land use from agricultural use to that of residential curtilage. While it would be possible to limit any future development of the land by removing Permitted Development rights, such a limitation would not prevent the character of the land from changing. Many forms of domestic paraphernalia do not require planning approval and simple things such as regular mowing of grass, planting of specimen shrubs/trees, siting of children's playing equipment and the hanging of washing lines would all contribute to a change in the character of the land which would be outside of the control of the Department.

"While the land around the proposed building is limited such that the main impact would arise from the building's very presence rather than a changed nature of the land, the point is an important one.

"It is concluded that the proposed new building and the proposed extension of the residential curtilage would constitute an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the open countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage of the dwelling. As such, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan."

6.14 There does not seem to be a reason to come to a different conclusion on this occasion. The concern expressed previously appears to have been somewhat in balance in view of the defined agricultural need for the approved building (its agricultural nature not having been clearly defined until the Inquiry itself, however). In this case, however, there is no dispute that the application is entirely residential in nature. As such, the in-principle concerns with respect to the extension of residential curtilage cannot be balanced against other material considerations sufficient to conclude that the arising harm to the character and appearance of the countryside would be acceptable in the context of General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 For the reasons set out above, the application is concluded to be unacceptable in both principle and detail. Reflecting the concerns outlined, the application is recommended for refusal on three grounds.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, in this case Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2016

• R 1. Notwithstanding the sympathy for the applicant's personal circumstances, the application fails to clearly demonstrate an agricultural or other justification for a new dwelling in this location and, as such, proposes unwarranted development in the countryside where access to public transport is limited. The application remains fundamentally contrary to Strategic Policy 2, to parts (a), (b) and

• (d) of Strategic Policy 10, to General Policy 3, to Environment Policy 1 and to Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which collectively seek to promote sustainable patterns of development and to protect the Manx countryside for its own sake.

• R 2. By virtue of is massing, scale and position forward of the existing building line, the built fabric proposed would be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling to which it is proposed to be attached and the countryside in which it sits. Accordingly, the application is contrary to Housing Policy 16, to parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2, and to Environment Policy 2, of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 3. The extension of the residential curtilage proposed is not necessary and nor would it have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, which is to be protected for its own sake. In the absence of a clearly defined and essential need for this extension of residential

curtilage, this element of the application is contrary to General Policy 3 and to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 27.10.2016 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

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.