Appeal by Mr Ian J Morrow against refusal for erection of a garden room extension with link, Riverside Barn, King Edward Road, Onchan IM4 6AB

Site visit Monday 25th June 2012

Preamble

1. When I visited the site, accompanied by an officer of the Chief Secretary's Office, I briefly met an occupant at Riverside Barn but with no discussion regarding the appeal.

Site and Development

2. Riverside Barn is a detached, timber clad dwelling, single storey plus accommodation in the roof space, created as a 'barn conversion' following approvals under PA 10/00337/B and 11/00030/B. It sits on a parcel of land running northward alongside King Edward Road (A11) but with access off a minor side turning, Bibaloe Beg Road. This rises westward first across the Manx Electric Railway track and then on past the appeal site. Immediately opposite, on the south side of Bibaloe Beg Road, is an evidently long established two storey house in extensive wooded grounds indicated as in the same ownership as Riverside Barn. The locality is predominantly open countryside and strongly rural in character.

3. The appeal proposal is to erect a single storey, flat roofed, timber clad extension a little behind and above Riverside Barn linked by a hallway containing a flight of stairs. I cannot find any stated dimensions, but the main area of the extension scales a little over 8 metres by a little under 7 metres, which allowing also for a proposed bay and the hallway is consistent with the stated total floor area of some 76 sq metres.

Reason for Refusal

4. The planning application proposes significant extension of a building previously converted into a dwelling as an exception to the provisions of Housing Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. In order to protect against the loss or reduction of original interest and character, Housing Policy 11 states that further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted. As such, the proposed extension would be clearly contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 11 and thereby harmful to rural character and amenity of the countryside.

Gist of the Case for the Appellant

5. The extension would be within the existing curtilage. Whatever the preceding processes, Riverside Barn is now an established rural dwelling and the current application needs to be considered on that basis. The locality is zoned as 'Open Spaces' in the Onchan and the Laxey and Lonan Local Plans, however Housing Policy 11 states only that the further extension of converted rural buildings "will not usually be permitted". The Policy therefore admits of flexibility, which is implicit in the Planning Officer's report, paragraph 13, where it asserts that conflict with the Policy arises not inherently but "in this instance as the proposal would significantly increase the size and alter the character of the overall dwelling."

6. However, the proposal does not exceed the Strategic Plan's size allowance and would not cause the loss or reduction of original interest and character at the converted building. Housing Policy 15 includes that "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 be permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing floor space (measured

Appeal No AP12/0056

Application No 12/00296/B

Inspector's report

externally)." Riverside Barn is some 165 sq metres and so the 76 sq metre extension would represent a 45% increase, clearly defined as a separate, subservient element respectful of the main house and in a well screened location.

7. Strategic Policy 11¹ has the aim of meeting the Island's housing needs, by providing sufficient development opportunities for 6,000 additional dwellings including those created by conversion. The appeal proposal aligns with that aim.

Gist of the Case for the Onchan District Commissioners

8. The application should be approved.

Gist of the Case for the Planning Authority

9. The previous garage/workshop/store was not the type of building normally envisaged as a potential residential conversion under Housing Policy 11, but was accepted as having sufficient merit to set aside parts of the normal requirements. Flexibility was exercised both in the initial approval (10/00337/B) and subsequently in adding an additional dormer window (11/00030/B). The further extension now sought would significantly increase the size and alter the character of the overall dwelling, causing a loss or reduction of its original interest and character. This would represent a further, unreasonable, exception to the provisions of Housing Policy 11 that would cause an unacceptable impact on rural amenity.

Conclusions

10. The main issue in this case is whether the extension would harmfully amount to unwarranted development in the countryside. Riverside Barn is attractive and I can understand why approvals were granted to convert the previously existing building. However, it is in a rural, largely isolated location where there are firm planning policies against most forms of development. These policies have the important aim of safeguarding the Manx countryside, a precious asset.

11. Housing Policy 11 is plainly material and is normally, though not inflexibly, opposed to further extensions on converted rural buildings. This conversion has resulted in a simple, essentially rectangular dwelling; notwithstanding the additional dormer it is not difficult to discern the building's likely former interest and character. The outcome now proposed would very substantially change the overall form and character of the dwelling: there would be in effect two contrasting linked buildings at different levels.

12. The extension would be behind, that is to say deeper into the countryside away from King Edward Road. Although the site was well screened at the date of my visit it would be less so in winter months, and in any event simply by its presence the new development would make this locality a little less rural and a little more built up than now. No additional bedroom would be created but the overall increased accommodation might in time make Riverside Barn more attractive to a larger household, increasing the level of residential activity and coming and going. Also, some increased domestication could be expected around the extension, where at present the land retains a largely natural grassland character. These types of consequential changes would add to the impact.

13. I accord limited weight in this case to the provisions of Housing Policy 15 given the clear and direct relevance here of Housing Policy 11. To the extent that it has been raised, I see its limit (other than exceptionally) of a 50% increase in floor area not as something that may be aimed towards but as a further, quantitative, rural safeguard that comes into play only with respect to proposals that are qualitatively acceptable. These proposals are not, for the reasons I have just

¹ Incorrectly referenced in the submissions but correctly quoted and the point being made is clear.

2

outlined. I do not lose sight of the Strategic Plan's overall housing aim, however there is nothing in the Plan, quite the reverse, to suggest that contributions may be inappropriately located in the countryside. In any event, this proposal would not provide for an additional dwelling. 14. The extension has been thoughtfully designed in itself and I do understand why the occupants of Riverside Barn may wish to so enlarge their home. However, this is a home in the countryside, in a location where new housing would rarely if ever be approved, and it came into being only on the basis that it converted a previously existing building. Rural safeguarding policies are there to protect the countryside in the public interest but they do also frequently have the incidental effect of safeguarding the setting of rural houses. However, the corollary is that rural houses, in this case Riverside Barn, are themselves subject to planning controls that do not apply within built up areas or land zoned for development.

Recommendations

15. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.
16. In the event that the Minister reaches a different conclusion, then I recommend that any approval given should be subject to the following conditions.
17. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
18. This approval relates to drawings No. (EX)01, (EX)05, (EX)10, (PE)15, (PE)16, (PL)05, (PL)10revA, (PS)10, (PS)11 & (PS)12, date stamped the 28^{\text {th }} February 2012.

Alan Langton Inspector