Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01400/B
Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01400/B Applicant : Miss Yvonne Brown Proposal : Alterations and erection of extension to dwelling Site Address : Reayrt Ny Marrey Ballakaighen Ballabooie Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AH
Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 06.04.2017 Site Visit : 06.04.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.0 SITE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of Reayrt-Ny-Marrey, Ballakaighen, Peel, located north of the winding Ballabooie Road which links the Staarvey Road with the Coast Road (A4) from Peel to Kirk Michael in the west of the Isle of Man. The property sits on a large plot set back from the highway which is accessed by a shared single track drive with neighbouring property Meadowcroft. The application site is bound and bordered by vegetation, this combined with the sod banks and hedgerows lining the nearby public highways it makes it difficult to see the property from the main road.
1.2 The property is isolated within the Manx countryside with only 4 properties in the nearby vicinity, Meadowcroft to the west approx. 30m away, Westerley to the south east approx. 65m away, Greengate Farm to the east approx. 90m away and Ballabooie Farm 135m away to the south. The property sits within the south-west corner of the site edged in red on the associated plans with the front elevation facing south-west and the rear elevation facing north-east up and over the rear garden.
1.3 Reayrt-Ny-Marrey comprises 3 parts; a traditional Manx vernacular two storey cottage sitting centrally between an adjoining lean-to single storey corrugated living unit on the western side elevation and an adjoining larger 2 storey barn on the east side elevation which comprises both residential living accommodation and an integral garage on the ground floor.
1.4 Whilst conducting a site visit it was noted that the property appeared to be used for a multitude of both residential and business purposes.
1.5 The lean-to unit is joining with but is accessed separately to the main cottage by two doors on the front elevation. The central Manx cottage has an access on the front elevation with a sitting room and bathroom on the ground floor and two bedrooms on the first floor. The Manx cottage connects with the 2 storey barn on the ground floor via an existing entrance which leads to an existing kitchen. The integral garage is accessed separately from the main house by the garage door on the front elevation. Above the existing garage and kitchen is an existing first floor area which is connected to the main cottage at first floor level and also has its own stair access and door on the south-east elevation.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01400/B
Page 2 of 13
1.6 On the submitted drawings the first floor space is annotated as being a lounge, although the only historic planning application submitted for the site is approved application PA 03/01620/B which annotated this area as a work room associated with the main dwelling house, although it was not connected at first floor level it was accessed via an internal staircase in the existing garage and by the existing external staircase. PA 03/01620/B was also approved showing the existing kitchen at ground floor level and the single storey lean to on the left hand side. The 8 roof lights approved in this application were never installed but it appears that a number of the other elements were actioned or already in place and regularised through the approval of the application.
1.7 In terms of visual appearance the existing property has a number of fenestrated elements on the front elevation which vary in size but all face south-west towards Peel and the coast. The windows on the main central cottage form symmetrically around the central front door, the three windows on the 2 storey barn are sporadic and consist of a large feature window at first floor level. The existing lean to structure has an existing flue on the front elevation and a mix match of large glazed windows, two glazed doors and a solid door. In contrast to the front elevation the entire rear elevation of the property has no fenestration and is built and finished in a solid stonewall construction.
2.0 PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application is subsequent to a previous planning application PA 16/00595/B for the alteration and erection of an extension similar to the current proposals. The application was refused at Planning Committee due to the adverse impact of the proposed first floor roof terrace on the privacy of neighbouring property Meadowcroft. The current application replicates exactly what was proposed under PA 16/00595/B however the first floor roof terrace has now been omitted and replaced by a lean to slate roof design.
2.2 The current planning application seeks approval for the alteration and extension of the existing property to improve the current living accommodation, to create additional living accommodation, and to gain approval for and regularise the first floor access in to the work room which has recently been converted in to a lounge for residential use.
2.3 The main body of the application seeks approval for the erection of an extension at the rear of the property, comprising 3 key components linked by a circulation hallway space.
2.4 The first component is a single storey pitch roof single garage on the south-eastern (right hand) side of the rear elevation. This shall include a single window on the south-west facing elevation and a garage door on the rear elevation.
2.5 The central component to the rear extension is a two storey pitch roof new front entrance at ground floor with a WC and utility above to serve the first floor of the dwelling. This element will include a front door and 2 windows on the ground floor and two windows to the WC and utility above.
2.6 The third and final component to the rear extension is a proposed single storey pitched roof bedroom and bathroom extension on the north-west (left hand) side to serve the main dwelling house. This is to include 2 windows to the main bedroom space and a single window to the bathroom. There are also two roof lights proposed on the south-east slope of the roof.
2.7 Each of the proposed components on the rear extension are to be connected by a new hallway space which shall also connect to the existing living accommodation spaces within the main dwelling house.
2.8 In addition to the new rear extension, the application also seeks approval for several alterations and amendments to the existing dwelling to create 3 bedrooms on the ground floor, 2 of
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01400/B
Page 3 of 13
which will have en-suite bathrooms and a separate bathroom to serve the third and living accommodation on the first floor.
2.9 In order to create one of the bedrooms the existing garage door on the front elevation is to be removed and replaced with new bi-fold glazed doors. The replacement of an integral garage door with a window can often be carried out under Permitted Development subject to conditions, one of which required the replacement windows to match the existing windows of the main house, as the proposed bi-fold doors do not match and therefore require planning approval.
2.10 The first floor window above the existing garage door is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new larger window to serve the first floor lounge.
2.11 The existing lean to extension on the western side of the front elevation is to have its rear and side wall retained whilst the front elevation wall and roof is to be removed and replaced with a new masonry built front elevation wall which is predominantly glazed with bi-folding doors to allow access into the front garden. The roof is to be finished with a lean to sloping slate roof. Internally the new extension shall provide a living room on the ground floor of the main dwelling.
2.12 On the first floor of the dwelling the application seeks approval for the installation of 8 roof lights replicating the formation of the roof lights approved but not installed from PA 03/01620/B and the installation of a multi-fuel burner and associated flue finished in black on the front elevation roof slope.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There have been two previous planning applications for the site PA 03/01620/B for the installation of 8 roof lights to the proposed first floor barn which was named within the drawings as a store/work room. This was granted full approval in 2003 although it was noted from a recent site visit that the roof lights were never installed.
3.2 The most recent planning application and the most relevant in the determination of the current application is PA 16/00595/B for the alterations and erection of an extension to the dwelling which was refused at Planning Committee in 2016. The original application replicated what is proposed now although the original application included a roof terrace above the proposed single storey extension. It was determined by the Planning Committee that the general scheme was well presented and reinvigorated a traditional Manx vernacular property into one complete residential unit without detriment to the overall character of the area. However due to the size, nature and position of the proposed first floor roof terrace it was considered that its inclusion within the application would adversely impact the privacy of nearby property Meadowcroft and was therefore refused on these grounds.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Although the site is not designated for development or zoned for a particular purpose or use, given that there is an existing building already on the site we can assess the application using the following policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
4.2 Due to the nature of the proposed works, the following polices of the IOM Strategic Plan are considered relevant in the assessment of the application. While the majority of the existing property is of traditional form the single storey corrugated unit is not and as such both Housing Policy 15 and 16 have been included.
4.3 Housing Policy 15:
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01400/B
Page 4 of 13
"The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
4.4 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."
4.5 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."
4.6 Whilst not strictly required given the land use designation of the application site being in the countryside that we may consider elements of General Policy 2 which sets out a number of general standards towards development:
4.7 General Policy 2 states:
"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."
4.8 We may also consider to include Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan which makes specific reference to the conversion of traditional properties:
4.9 Housing Policy 11:
"Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:
(b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest; (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
Such conversion must: (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building. Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/01400/B
Page 5 of 13
Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."
4.12 In addition to the above policies of the IOM Strategic Plan we may also consider three elements of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 which indicates a number of development works which can be carried out within residential curtilages without planning (subject to conditions):
4.13 Class 19 Replacement of waste water treatment system -
"The replacement of a waste water treatment system (sewerage treatment facility) within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Conditions: The general conditions applicable to Section A."
4.14 Class 24 Installation of replacement windows and doors -
"The installation of a window or an external door in an existing aperture in a dwellinghouse. Conditions: (a) no alteration may be made in the size, shape or position of the aperture; (b) no windows or doors may open over any part of the highway or boundary of the dwellinghouse; and (c) the dwellinghouse must not be located within a conservation area which is proposed in a published document."
4.15 26 Class Garage doors -
"The replacement of a garage door and frame with another garage door or a window. The internal garage space may then be used as part of the main dwelling to which the garage is attached. Conditions: (a) the works are allowed only where the garage is either an integral or attached garage (ie not detached from the dwellinghouse); (b) where a garage door is replaced with a window, the proportions of the window must replicate the proportions of the windows on the ground floor of the same elevation of the door to be replaced; and (c) operations within this class are allowed only if, on completion of the operations, at least 2 car parking spaces remain within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. For the purpose of paragraph (c) the minimum size permitted for a car parking space is 6 metres by 3.25 metres. For the purpose of this Class, the internal space of an integral or attached garage may be used as part of the main dwelling to which the garage is attached. This does not constitute development."
4.16 Class 28 Roof-lights -
"The installation of a roof-light in the roof of a dwellinghouse or garage Conditions: (a) no more than 3 roof-lights are permitted on any roof slope in the roof of the dwellinghouse; and (b) no roof-light may exceed 1 square metre in size."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 There have been an extensive number of objections submitted by the owners of both neighbouring properties Westerley and Meadowcroft, and also comments from the applicant in response to the objections. For clarity the submitted comments have been set out below in date order.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/01400/B
Page 6 of 13
5.2 On 11/01/2017 the owners of Meadowcroft submitted initial comments stating a number of significant errors within the application and application forms. These referred to: o the advertised description of the proposed works which should have indicated the conversion of the first floor barn to a lounge; o the incorrect annotation of the existing survey drawings and the incorrect floor area of the existing property leading to miscalculation of the proposed floor area of the new development; o the existing use of the property as a commercial unit and not as noted on the application forms and drawings as residential; o a number of trees and Manx sod hedges in the vicinity that are not noted on the submitted drawings although are evident in the supporting images. It specifically mentions a hedge which adjoins where foundations would be required; o the resubmitted plans have omitted the roof terrace, however the construction detail titled 'Walls' on plan still references a roof terrace in the text although not shown on the drawings and discrepancies between plans in terms of the distance of the exterior wall in relation to the boundary; o the erection of the new rear garage would require the removal of part of the banked garden area although no information has been provided on site levels; o the location of the existing sewerage provision and its unsuitability to provide suitable provisions for the proposed development.
5.3 German Parish Commissioners objected to the application (12/01/2017) on the following grounds; o the Commissioners feel that the layout and density of the building will be in excess of 50% of the original building; o "there will be a significant loss of privacy to neighbouring properties"; o the capacity of the existing sewerage system is questionable; o "the general look of the proposed extension will totally obliterate the present traditional look of the property"; o the Commissioners understand the property is on the market and in their opinion the application is "not borne out of need but rather it is speculative"; o they feel that the retrospective works should be dealt with under a separate application to regularise the development and that" further extensions should be left to the purchasers of the property who will no doubt wish to amend the application anyway."
5.4 On 16/01/2017 additional comments were submitted by another person at the same address of Meadowcroft objecting to the current application on both environmental and general grounds stating that the proposed extension would harm the character of the original building. In addition to this the objection also stated that the application was purely speculative as the property was up for sale and the size of the overall development would impose on the landscape and development works would be visible from the main road. Furthermore the development would require a significant removal of stonework from the barn which would reduce its historic qualities.
5.5 On 20/01/2017 the owners of Westerley submitted a letter of objection which opposed the application with specific reference to the following points: o that the current use of the property is as an office and not as annotated on the drawings as residential accommodation and that the tenants of the property are an elderly gentleman living in the single storey lean to, and a business occupying the main cottage; o the conversion of the first floor of the barn into a lounge prior to the submission of the application; o the replacement of the existing solid wood barn door with a new glazed door on the gable end which has a detrimental impact on their privacy and that there is no need for this door considering there are two other windows and 8 glazed rooflights providing natural lighting. The objection specifically references that Westerley is 65m from the Reayrt -ny-Marrey and that their vegetable plot and greenhouse are 25-30m away and that their boundary hedge is 6m away, as they spend many hours in their garden that they do not wish to be overlooked by this glazed door;
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/01400/B
Page 7 of 13
o the application form states incorrect proposed increase for the floor area, the objection includes a number of calculations which conclude the proposal is a 143% increase of the original house; o specific reference is made to a number of retrospective activities of the application and that Question 11 of the application form which asks if the activities are retrospective or as a result of an enforcement case has been filled in as 'no'; o that there will have to be alterations to the access into the property in order to obtain access to the garage that will have onset impact on the adjacent public footpath and the amendments would also include a change in site levels; o no indication of an existing or proposed soakaway; o the unsuitability of the existing septic to cope with the proposed development; o the omission of the kitchenette from the previous application has also remained omitted in the current application and that the owners of Westerley suspect that this will re-appear at a later date; o lack of information regarding existing trees and hedges on site in relation to the existing property; o the location of a small lane side ditch on the southside of the access lane which collects surface water from the lane which is in danger from untreated effluent similarly an underground culvert which is within the curtilage of Westerley and opposite Reayrt- ny- Marrey may be at risk; o the size and scale of the proposal is too large and out of keeping with the existing property and that its existing appearance would be lost in a plethora of timber clad extensions and the proposed windows in the existing barn would impact its agricultural appearance; o further calculations are referenced outlining that the "Total Area of Extensions is 123.15sq.m" which equates to a "% increase of 88.5%" and questions the previous officers report from PA 16/00595/B and the acceptability of the Permitted Development Order 2012 in relation to 3 elements of the proposal including the replacement of windows and doors, the installation of roof lights and the renewal of waste water systems; o the objection was summarised at the end in to 3 points highlighting their objection to the gable end glazed door, the size and scale of the proposal being out of keeping and the existing sewerage system being too small to cope with the proposal.
5.6 On 20/01/2017 further comments were received from the owners of Meadowcroft which reiterated many of the comments raised in objections dated 11/01/2017 although added further additional concerns regarding their loss of privacy from the proposal due to the upstairs accommodation incorporating a new large window, the capacity of the sewerage system, the out-of- keeping nature of the proposal in terms of finished materiality and that the house as existing would provide sufficient area for a family home without further extension. The letter of objection was supported by a number of images which relate to the comments raised in terms of visual outlook from the curtilage of Meadowcroft and a copy of an image from a website showing the internal space of the proposed first floor lounge.
5.7 The Department of Infrastructure commented on the application on 20/01/2017 stating that "the proposal is to provide additional residential accommodation. There will be no impact on the parking or access arrangements", as such there is no highways interest in the current application.
5.8 On 08/03/2017 comments were received by the applicant in response to the submitted objections, within which the applicant summarised and explained the following points: o the refusal outcome of PA 16/00595/B. Although the Planning Committee complemented the merits of the design the application was refused due to the impacts of the proposed roof terrace on neighbouring property Meadowcroft; o the unintentional breach of planning and the immediate concern in complying wholly with all planning legislation through the submission of the current application; o a brief history of the property including how the office use came to be and the historic use of the garage and kitchen by the previous owner in 1968;
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/01400/B
Page 8 of 13
o the existing access from the main cottage in to the first floor of the barn through an existing opening which is thought to have been created when the cottage was built onto the barn almost 150 years ago; o the historic use of the first floor of the barn as a work room and in later years as an area of storage for the applicant furniture, the area tended to be closed off due to the practicalities of reducing heat loss; o since owning the building the applicant has carried out a large number of repair and maintenance works including re-roofing, renewing floors and repairing and replacing external doors in an attempt to renovate the property; o the existing sewerage system has been in-situ for over 33 years and has never experienced any issues or been questioned by neighbours. The applicant explained that should one family occupy the property that whether the proposal had one bathroom or several bathrooms the load on the system would not change. The provision of en-suite bathrooms and a utility room does not add additional drainage loads but separates the individual activities into appropriate areas; o the applicant concludes their response by reiterating the extensions will be at the rear of the property and that the front of the house and its visual appearance will not be materially changed, and the few changes that are proposed would offer an improvement. To close the applicant offers a site visit to the Committee should they wish to visit the property in order to appreciate the distances (on-site) between Reayrt -ny- Marrey and each of its neighbours.
5.9 Further correspondence from the person at the same address of Meadowcroft were submitted on 26/03/2017 making specific reference to the damage that such an application would have on the designated area of high landscape value due to its size and visual and physical appearance. The comments state that the extension and conversion will reduce the historic value of the property due to the use of non-traditional materials and the layout of the original house will be lost diminishing internal value. Specific reference is made to the previous extension of the property and the failure of the conversion to meet with Housing Policy 11 due to the increase in building volume, the unacceptability of the proposal under Planning Circular 3/91 which indicates extension should maintain the character of the original form and that the proposal does not comply with General Policy 3.
5.10 Additional comments were submitted by the owners of Meadowcroft on 27/03/2017 which replicated many of the issues raised in earlier comments and again highlighted their concerns regarding the conversion of the barn, the capacity of the existing sewerage system and included an indicative drawing supplied by the MU of the services in the area.
5.11 Following a site visit at the request of the owners of Meadowcroft to indicate on site their areas of concerns, additional comments were submitted on 21/04/2017 underlining their significant concerns towards the existing capacity of the sewerage system, the impacts of the proposed development on the landscape character of the area, their concerns regarding the construction implications of the single storey lean to and concern regarding the overlooking of the proposal on their garden and patio area.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The current application for Reayrt-ny-Marrey comes following the refusal of previous planning application PA 16/00595/B which replicated what is proposed now with the only exception that the previous application included an external first floor roof terrace above the replacement single storey lean to extension. It was commented by the Planning Committee previously that the entire proposal created a coherent flow of the dwelling given the constraints of the site, and that the rear extension and the overall scheme which reinvigorated a traditional Manx vernacular dwelling should be commended. During the same Planning Committee meeting the Committee raised comments regarding the disproportionate window proposed at first floor of the barn and the capacity of the existing sewerage tank but deemed both elements unsufficient reasons for refusal given that the existing sewerage system could be replaced without a planning application, whilst the slightly unconfortable size of the window was not a concern enough to refuse the whole scheme.
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/01400/B
Page 9 of 13
However, the Planning Committee concluded that the proposed roof terrace by virtue of its size and position would adversely impact the privacy of neighbouring property Meadowcroft and not to comply with (b) and (g) of General Policy 2. For this reason only the application was refused. It was noted on the decision notice of the previously refused application that whilst the application site was outside of an area designated for a specific use or purpose, that there are provisions set out in General Policy 2 which can be used in the determining of applications where it sets out a number of general standards towards development.
6.2 Essentially, the current application before us now, replicates exactly the previous application but without the roof terrace. The application continues to propose the erection of an extension to the rear which will include an integral single garage, a bedroom and a new entrance on ground floor level and a utility and WC at first floor level, the removal of the existing garage door on the front elevation and its replacement with bi-folding doors to create an internal bedroom space and the replacement of the lean to side extension to provide an additional lounge and now finished with a sloping lean to slate roof rather than the previously refused roof terrace.
6.3 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment and determination of this planning application are the impacts of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building and the impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape area and the impact on amenity of the nearest neighbours.
6.4 There have been an extensive number of objections received for the current application from both neighbouring properties; Meadowcroft and Westerley and from the Local Commissioners. Many of the objections share common concerns including the previous conversion of the existing barn, the capacity of the existing sewerage system and the existing and proposed floor areas of property. In addition to this, concern has been raised in terms of the general impact of the proposal on the character of the original building and on the surrounding landscape, impacts of the first floor accommodation on privacy of both neighbouring properties and impact of the proposal on the historic qualities of the existing property.
6.5 It has been difficult to address each and every one of the comments, while some replicate earlier objections others do not relate to material planning considerations but appear to stem from personal circumstances. In order to respond the key planning issues raised I have assessed each area of the application under its own heading.
6.6 Proposed Replacement Side Extension
6.6.1 The existing corrugated single storey extension was shown and detailed within drawings submitted and approved under PA 03/01620/B, its development is considered lawful.
6.6.2 Visually the current application proposes the retention of the existing rear and west side elevation stone wall and the replacement of the front elevation and lean to roof with bi-folding doors and a sloping single storey slate finished roof. The internal space is to provide a ground floor lounge area ancillary to the main house.
6.6.3 Is it considered that the removal of the existing corrugated unit which is in a poor state of repair and visually unappealing, and its replacement with a new predominantly glazed and cedar clad fronted elevation and slated roof will help to visually improve the appearance of whole property whilst improving the internal environment of the extension.
6.6.4 As the existing side and rear walls are to be retained on this structure, it is considered that the construction of the front elevation will have minimal impact on vegetation which lines the western boundary. While comments have been raised about the detailed construction of this wall it is considered that this is not a matter for the planning application process.
6.7 Proposed Rear Extension
==== PAGE 10 ====
16/01400/B Page 10 of 13
6.7.1 The largest element of the current proposal is the extension on the rear blank elevation of the existing property. Its development will allow for the creation of linear circulation space that will allow for easy navigation within the property with minimal impact on the existing internal spaces of the main cottage and barn and retaining the key features of the property without impacting the significant traditional character of the front elevation whilst maximising the internal spaces.
6.7.2 Looking at the property in the landscape from the adjacent main highways the area of the proposed extension at the rear will likely go unnoticed given its location behind the property, while partial views will be available to those passing the property to gain access to Meadowcroft that these views will be fleeting. Similarly the orientation of the property and the location of each of its 2 nearest neighbours will result in minimal impact of the rear extension to their visual outlook and general amenities.
6.7.3 In terms of the impact of the extension on the character of the area the extension will likely go unnoticed to any members of the general public, whilst the location of the property within the landscape and the location of the extension at the rear will not impact the rural character of the area or impact the designated AHLV.
6.8 Conversion of the 'barn', Impact of Fenestration and Privacy of Neighbours
6.8.1 Previously an application was approved for the use of the barn as a work room in connection to the residential use of the dwelling. Submitted objection comments indicate the recent replacement of an existing solid door with a glazed door, and the replacement of an existing solid door on the first floor of the front elevation with a window. In both instances no alterations were made to the size of the existing aperture.
6.8.2 If the work room was in use, the conversion of such doors can be carried out under the Permitted Development order where it states that such alterations can be carried out on any dwelling house subject to conditions relating to no change in the size or position of the opening, no opening method over the highway and no works within a Conservation Area. There are no restrictions in the design or style of the replacement, and no restrictions on the swapping of a door for a window.
6.8.3 However there is no clear evidence to support each case. While the replacement of each element may already be lawful, it may be considered important to assess their existence within the application now. Given that the apertures have not altered it is considered that the installation of a window of the front elevation is not considered to impact the character of the existing building or to generate any considerable impacts on the privacy of the neighbours above what is already in existence from the other first floor windows of the existing property.
6.8.4 From the front elevation of the barn to the nearest elevation of Meadowcroft is 40m, the distance from the barn to the nearest garden boundary with Meadowcroft is approx. 16m. It is expected that there will be little impact on privacy and amenity of the main dwelling of Meadowcroft at this distance. Although there will be views from the application site towards and over the garden of Meadowcroft towards the coast, that these impacts are already in existence given the topography of the land and that the application site sits at a level much higher than Meadowcroft and given the existing windows at first floor of the main house.
6.8.5 While the objectors state that the proposed winodows at first floor level, it is considered that views of their property can be easily achived and in existence from the use of the public footpath which borders the south boundary of the site and forms part of the shared access for each of the properties. While views from the first floor are outwards and over the house, the same views are available from the public footpath which runs past Westerley and between Reayrt Ny Marrey and Meadowcroft.
==== PAGE 11 ====
16/01400/B Page 11 of 13
6.9 Floor Areas
6.9.1 Below are two calculations for the floor areas of the existing property and the proposed development. The existing calculations include separately the addition of the first floor work room PA 03/01620/B of the barn and the existing integral garage. As the lean to was approved in PA 03/01620/B this has been included within the existing calculations as its existence exceeds the 4 year period which makes it immune from enforcement.
Existing Lean-to
29.75sqm Main House (GF) 32sqm Main House (1s) F) 32sqm Barn (kitchen) 17sqm
Total: 110.75sqm
Barn (work room 1st F) 38sqm
Total: 148.75sqm
Barn (garage) 20.25sqm
Total: 169sqm
Proposed Lean-to
29.75sqm Main House (GF ) 32sqm Main House (1st F) 32sqm Barn (GF)
38sqm Barn (1st F)
38sqm Rear Extension
82.75sqm
Total: 252.5sqm
Comparative Percentage increase
Without work room and integral garage of existing- 110.75sqm to 252.5sqm = 129%
With work room (PA 03/01620/B) and integral garage- 169sqm to 252.5sqm = 49.4%
6.9.2 While the above calculations define the percentage increases, it is considered that the 50% indicated in Housing Policy 15 is merely a guideline for percentage increases and not a restriction. It is considered that in either scenario that the increase in floor area is considered acceptable due to the beneficial reinvigoration that the proposed scheme brings to the existing building whilst avoiding any impacts on the quality and character of the existing building and ensuring the character of the rural countryside landscape and AHLV remains unaffected.
6.10 In general the erection of the rear extension and the alterations to the existing dwelling are considered to protect to countryside and ecology to the best of its ability by extending efficiently as close to the existing dwelling are restoring redundant spaces of the existing barn, furthermore the location of the new development at the rear of the property similarly protects the designated Area of High Landscape Value in accordance with both Environment Policy 2. Although not necessary applicable given that land designation, in terms of General Policy 2 the proposal respects the site and the existing dwelling and does not adversely impact the amenities of its neighbours. The proposal successfully unifies the entire property without detriment to the historic qualities of the existing Manx vernacular cottage and adjoining barn. While the proposed increase of the overall floor area is considered acceptable and not to detriment its local environment, character or neighbours and enhances the traditional Manx merits of the existing building. The proposal is considered acceptable and to comply with Housing Policy 15 and Housing Policy 16, Environment Policy 2, parts (b), (c), and (g) of General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 11.
==== PAGE 12 ====
16/01400/B Page 12 of 13
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Overall it is considered that the proposal provides a successful scheme which reinvigorates the existing Manx vernacular property of Reayrt-Ny-Marrey which will enhance its appearance within the landscape whilst protecting the characteristics of the local countryside and the designated are of High Landscape Value. Although it may not be agreed upon by the neighbours, the proposal is not expected to adversely impact the privacy of either of the neighbouring properties or to adversely impact their amenities.
7.2 Given the reasons set out in the assessment and the conclusion the application is recommended for approval.
8.0 PARTY STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure, and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
o The owners of Westerley, Ballabooie Road, Ballakaighen, Near Peel, German, Isle of Man IM5 2AH. o The owners of Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road, Peel, Isle of Man IM5 2AH o Resident of Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road, Peel, Isle of Man IM5 2AH
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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.04.2017
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.
==== PAGE 13 ====
16/01400/B Page 13 of 13
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 proposed flues must be finished in matt black.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
C 3. 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 4. The application site must be used as one single residential dwelling only.
Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage.
C 5. No permission is hereby granted for the roof terrace referenced within annotation on drawing numbers 3A and 4B.
Reason: In the interest of amenity of neighbouring property Meadowcroft.
This approval relates to drawing numbers 1, 2, 3A, 4B and 5 all date stamped and received 21/12/2016 and associated photographs also date stamped and received 21/12/2016.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:...08.05.2017
Signed :...S CORLETT... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
NO
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal