Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00850/B Applicant: Mr Chris & Mrs Jo Bateson Proposal: Alterations and erection of extension to existing detached ancillary living accommodation Site Address: Walton House Bridge Road Ballasalla Isle of Man IM9 3DA Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 11.10.2016 Site Visit: 11.10.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Walton House, which is a large, two-storey detached dwelling located on the southeastern side of Bridge Road in Ballasalla. - 1.2 As well as Walton House itself, the site also contains a detached, two-storey building comprising ancillary accommodation and a garage with storage above. It is the ancillary accommodation building that is the subject of this planning application. Alongside the existing building is another, timber building that is described in the design statement as a barn, but which to most people would likely be considered a shed. The ancillary building sits immediately on the boundary of the application site. - 1.3 The boundary to the rear (southwest) is formed by no.33 Silverburn Drive; the dwelling itself sits roughly 6m from the application site. The boundary is formed by a hit-and-miss timber fence roughly 1.5m in height. - 1.4 The site is only partially visible from Bridge Road given the extensive northwestern boundary formed of a wall (broken by the highway access to the site, complete with a rather grand entrance and a gate) and vegetation, as well as the side elevation of Walton House itself. While the dwelling is eminently visible from Bridge Road, and the ancillary accommodation can be discerned through a wall in the gateway, the latter is somewhat screened by the existing garage that has recently been enlarged with planning approval.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications - no fewer than four in 2014 alone - but the majority are not considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application. - 2.2 PA 14/01025/B sought approval for the installation of a Juliet balcony in the gable of the ancillary accommodation, in replacement of an existing window. This application, which was approved, also showed a kitchenette at the ground floor and shower room at first floor. The assessment noted that the approval should be issued with a condition requiring the accommodation be used as ancillary to the main dwelling only, but in fact carried a condition making reference to the floor above the garage being used in this fashion. It is possible that this condition referred to previous applications (PA 14/00542/B and 14/01012/B), as they both carried a similar but not
16/00850/B Page 1 of 7
identically worded condition - both these applications sought approval for slightly different designs for an additional room above the garage, and from the site visit it was clear that one of these two approvals was in the process of being implemented. In any case, neither of these two applications is considered specifically material to the assessment of this application.
2.3 PA 14/01025/B effectively established the use of the building as accommodation ancillary to Walton House: although the description of the application did not make this clear, the drawings submitted show the internal layout of the building as proposed and these drawings clearly demonstrate that there would be living accommodation within the building. - 3.0 THE PROPOSAL
3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the erection of an extension to the ancillary living accommodation. This would take the form of a single storey, L-shaped addition set at a right angle to the existing building. The extension would have a pitched roof with small gable feature above the proposed front entrance door. The eaves would be 2.3m above ground level, with the roof pitch 3.7m above ground level. There would be a chimney near the southeastern (side) gable, while three rooflights are proposed across the three roof pitches that are above the proposed extension. It would be finished in Manx slate with rendered walls to match the existing building, and there would be windows in each of the elevations proposed. - 3.2 The rearranged accommodation together with that proposed would provide a bedroom, bathroom, hallway (in the crook of the 'L' of the extension, at the rear), and a lounge-kitchen-dining room. The overall accommodation, just at ground floor, would measure roughly 50sqm in size. - 3.3 Accordingly, the overall accommodation proposed would, in normal circumstances, be considered large enough and with sufficient internal space to comprise an independent dwelling. Again, in normal circumstances, such a proposal might attract very significant concern as proposals for 'ancillary accommodation' tend to be more commonly found outside of established settlement boundaries when they might be viewed as 'back-door' methods of achieving a new dwelling on land not zoned for it. However, on this occasion, the site is more or less within the centre of Ballasalla where the principle of residential development would be acceptable subject to normal development considerations. Those considerations, set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, will also apply to this assessment. - 3.4 No changes are proposed to the upper floor of the existing two-storey building, which is very limited in terms of the accommodation it can provide owing to its narrowness and low roof height. - 3.5 Amended plans and an additional design statement were submitted during the course of the application's assessment, and these showed the extension as being 0.2m higher and the eaves and 0.3m higher at the roof apex than the design now currently under consideration. These plans and design statement were submitted following receipt of a letter of objection from the owner / occupier of no.33 Silverburn Drive, and also following a meeting between the case officer, applicant and that objector. The amended plans and design statement were circulated for a two-week period, and the interested parties and the private objector were contacted, advising them of this. - 3.6 The design statement explained that the building the subject of the application "is not designed as independent accommodation". It has been occupied intermittently by friends and family following its refurbishment, particularly during holiday periods. The architect explains that the applicant has "specific reason" to ensure the building will be accessible for disabled users, and that the intention is for the building to be occupied "periodically for guests and visitors. Approximately 6 to 8 months of the year". He concludes by stating:
"Due to the nature and layout of the accommodation it is clearly unsuited as an independent dwelling within the main building's curtilage and the applicant would accept a planning approval condition stipulating this arrangement".
16/00850/B Page 2 of 7
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site is within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential, and also within a proposed Conservation Area, under the Area Plan for the South 2013. As such, it is considered appropriate to reflect on the relevant parts of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI offered no objection to the application in comments received 9th August 2016. They explained:
"The proposal consists of an extension to an existing ancillary dwelling. The proposed work will not increase the requirement for car parking or adversely impact the existing car parking situation. There is unlikely to be an increase in traffic generation."
5.2 Malew Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 4th August 2016.
"I wish to strongly object to the proposed plans as this extension will severely reduce light in my rear garden and main bedroom at the rear of my property. The proposed extension is much higher and goes much further across the rear of my property than the existing wooden structure."
5.4 No further comments were received following the circulation of the amended plans. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 There are three key issues with the proposal: firstly, the use proposed; secondly, the design of the extension proposed, and, thirdly, the impact this extension would have on neighbouring living conditions. Each is taken in turn. The proposed use - 6.2 It is considered that the use proposed now is acceptable. While the accommodation proposed is clearly large enough to be registered as a lawful dwelling under the Housing Standards (Regulations) 2013, its use as such is not proposed here. Moreover, the applicant is content with a condition restricting its use as being ancillary to the use of Walton House. Although the zoning indicates that an independent dwelling here be acceptable in principle, consideration would be required of the access and impact on neighbouring living conditions before reaching a view on this. As such, while normally in circumstances such as this a condition restricting the building be 'ancillary' to the main dwelling might be ultra vires, in this case it is considered appropriate to attach to an approval notice should one be forthcoming. The design
16/00850/B Page 3 of 7
6.3 The existing building attractive and neatly proportioned without necessarily being worthy of protection. Accordingly, it follows that its extension in a suitably subordinate manner would be acceptable. That which is proposed here is considered to meet the key test of part (b) of General Policy 2. The extension would have features of interest (such as the gable) and has been designed to complement the existing building; the use of appropriately traditional materials and finishes is similarly welcomed. The impact on neighbouring living conditions - 6.4 It cannot be ignored that the dwellings to the rear - both of those being contacted directly by the Department seeking their views - sit near the proposed extension. 33 Silverburn Drive would be particularly affected: the extension would run for 7m along its rear boundary. Although it would be set back from that boundary, and it is further noted that there is already a fairly high fence forming that boundary, it remains the case that the extension would, to some degree, be unneighbourly. The reduction in height and, consequently, in massing of the extension is welcomed. It is noted that the extension would replace a wooden shed, account of which will also need to be taken in reaching a conclusion with respect to how the proposed situation will alter the existing situation. - 6.5 The existing hit-and-miss fence is a rather less robust, and a certainly more temporary, psychological 'barrier' than the masonry construction here proposed. It would certainly also be the case that the roof pitch proposed is not particularly steep and, set at a distance of a minimum of 1.8m from the existing boundary, it would have some effect of 'disappearing' away from view rather than being a single, undifferentiated mass right at the boundary. - 6.6 Having twice visited no.33 Silverburn Drive, and viewed the site of the proposed extension both from inside the dwelling and within its garden, with visual aids to help appreciate the position of the roof apex, it is concluded that the impact would not be so serious as to warrant the application's refusal. This is a somewhat balanced view, and one that does not give significant weight to the reduction in eaves / apex height relative to the original submission. - 6.7 In the first place, it is unlikely that direct sunlight will be affected by the proposal to any significant degree given the geographic orientation of the building / extension. The main impact will be during sunrise, but there are other elements of built development obstructing direct sunlight to the east, and the shallow roof pitch as proposed for the extension would help restrict its massing. Although it would be visible above the existing hedgeline, which is within the control of no.33, it would in most positions from within that property's garden be viewed against the existing massing of Walton House. Further to the north of the garden, and when looking northeast, the roof would be visible and would certainly block out some, currently open, sky. However, from the majority of the rear garden, views and consequently outlook would remain fairly open. - 6.8 In addition to this, it is noted that the extension will not run for a majority of the rear length of the common boundary of the properties. The garden to the rear of no.33 Silverburn Drive is shallower than others on the estate, and this further acts to provide a somewhat uncomfortable relationship between the existing dwelling and proposed extension. However, it is also a wide garden, and the extension is proposed to both replace an existing shed and also be added to a piece of built development that already exists. That which exists is also higher than what is proposed such that the impact of the new element will be balanced against an existing, and larger, presence of built fabric. This means that the outlook from the rear garden will not be unduly affected across the fullness of its length, and further note is made of the fact that adding built development to existing - larger - built development will have less of a domineering effect than if the extension were to be a new standalone building. - 6.9 It is therefore concluded that the extension would not be unduly overbearing, even if the concerns raised by the owner of the adjacent property are well understood.
16/00850/B Page 4 of 7
6.10 There can be no argument that locating the extension in a different position would have been preferable from the point of view of protecting neighbouring living conditions, but this is not reason itself to object to the formally submitted scheme. The extension in this position also allows the historic fabric to be retained better than other options may have done, which is to some degree welcome from the point of view of EP35. - 7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the above, it is concluded that the application is not in such conflict with the key tests as set out in Environment Policy 35 parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan as to warrant its refusal. It is accordingly recommended the application be approved, subject to the condition as discussed in paragraphs 3.6 and 6.2 of this report. - 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:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
C 1.
16/00850/B Page 5 of 7
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The outbuilding the subject of this application shall not be occupied at any time other than ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Walton House, Bridge Road, Ballasalla as identified on the approved plans and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling unit.
Reason: To protect the existing residential amenity and enjoyment of Walton House and to prevent use of the building as a permanent, independent dwellinghouse.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 010 and 020, both date-stamped as having been received 21st July 2016, and to Drawings 050 A and 060 A, both date-stamped as having been received 10th November 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 : Permitted Date: 13.12.2016 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
16/00850/B Page 6 of 7
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown