Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00832/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00832/B Applicant : Mr Mark Bettridge Proposal : Creation of first floor extension to dwellinghouse Site Address : Vaghee Roostey Tosaby Road Eairy Isle Of Man IM4 3JW
Planning Officer: Graham Northern Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.10.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Due to the property being of non-traditional design, the proposals to increase its scale significantly beyond the original building are considered none subservient and would dominate the original dwelling and are additionally out of character with the Countryside location, it is concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Housing Policy 14 and 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The design proposed is not considered subordinate and fails to provide a sensitive design that reflects the character and features of the original dwelling or the sites countryside location and as such is considered contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. __
Interested Person Status
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of the detached dwelling known as ' Vaghee Roostey ' Tosaby Road, Eairy. The property itself is in a dilapidated condition with no upkeep for years. It is a "U" shaped bungalow with low-pitched, mono-pitched roofs dipping to the centre flat roof. The roofs are constructed from asbestos cement sheets with no insulation beneath.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00832/B Page 2 of 5
1.2 Externally, the walls are largely rendered, but with a brick finish to the south-east corner, to contain the chimney breast, and the north-east gable. Below the eaves are hanging concrete tiles, varying in height to accommodate the pitch of the roofs.
1.3 Several of the windows are missing or broken and the back door has partially collapsed. The ceiling has given way in three rooms, caused by excessive damp, while there are holes in the ceilings in a further three rooms, possibly as a result of vandalism.
1.4 Due to the poor condition of the existing building it could be considered the use has been abandoned.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal seeks the complete refurbishment of the bungalow with a first floor extension and new pitched roof. The proposals effectively seek to add a second floor and pitched roof on top of the existing building which is a single storey flat roofed structure.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area not designated on the Area Plan for the East - (Map 3 - Proposals) adopted in 2020 and as such is within the Countryside.
3.2 The site is not within a conservation area or is identified as being at flood risk. There are no registered trees on site that are affected by the proposals.
3.3 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policy are considered to be the pertinent relevant policy in the determination of this application:
3.4 The protection of the countryside for its own sake is of paramount importance as stated in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and the exceptions to this are set out in General Policy 3. The plan also presumes against unsustainable development outside existing settlements in the Strategic Aim Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Strategic Policy 5 requires development to have a positive impact on the environment of the Island.
3.5 General Policy 2 indicates that generally house extensions and new houses within areas designated for development will be permitted, providing that they reflect and enhance the appearance of the existing property, adjoining properties, and their setting in terms of scale, design and materials.
3.6 Given the non-traditional form of the existing dwelling regard shall be given to both Housing Policy 16 in assessing the visual impact of the development which states,
"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."
3.7 Housing Policy 14 also references replacement dwellings in terms of size and difference stating: Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00832/B Page 3 of 5
on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
3.8 It is also recognised that the curtilage of the site sits close to Kion Slieu Plantation and Reservoir, as well as surrounding woodland, therefore regard shall also be given to both Environment Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan which seek to protect local habitats and woodland areas from undue harm.
3.9 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."
3.10 Environment Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."
3.11 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (b) Protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas.
Residential Design Guide (2021) 3.12 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
Section 4 of the residential design guide considers house extensions and the following sections are considered of relevance to this application: 4.2.2 Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No Applications of relevance.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Malew Commissioners commented (08/08/24) with no objection.
5.2 Highways Services commented (26/07/24) - No interest
5.3 Biodiversity 30/09/24 - No Objection subject to a condition which secures the erection of a box/brick suitable for jackdaws, or a bird species of higher conservation priority, on site.
6.0 Assessment 6.1 The key issues to consider here are the visual impacts of the proposals on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the visual impacts from public view and the impact on the countryside. It is also necessary to considered whether the proposal would result in any unacceptable harm to biodiversity.
6.2 The existing property is a non-traditional property with a flat roof design and is in a state of disrepair/ abandonment with clear evidence of substantial damage throughout.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00832/B Page 4 of 5
6.3 The proposed works would double the existing internal floor area, by adding a second floor on top of the existing bungalow. Character and appearance
6.4 Whilst the existing property is of a non-traditional design its visual presence is mitigated by the fact the dwelling is single storey and essentially of a low profile subtle form, and well screened.
6.5 The proposals add a substantial increase height to the point whereby the original dwellings form is consumed by the extent of alterations and additions proposed. The height of the new property would be two storeys with a hipped roof added. Features are also introduced which amplify the scale of the property with large expanses of glazing to the staircase, the large window openings to the two gables which are not features present on the existing property.
6.6 Essentially only the ground floor is original and the first floor and roof would be new which results in a significant change above and beyond an extension to the original property . As such the proposals completely remodel the dwelling and are tantamount to a replacement dwelling.
6.7 The proposals as such are considered by reason of its scale, form and design have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the property and locality in general which would be contrary to General Policy 2 part b), part c) and part g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Residential Design guide which outlines extensions should be subservient in form.
6.7 Design 6.8 The existing building is non-traditional poor quality design but given its modest scale at single storey has a minimal visual impact. The proposals to add a second floor and roof increase the scale significantly above 50% and the design presented is very urban and not in keeping with the countryside location.
6.9 The Residential Design Guide states, 4.2.7 General Policy 2 requires that any extension should respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.
4.10 Accordingly, the fact an extension cannot be publically visible is not a reason to allow poorly designed extensions.
6.11 Whilst the property is well screened from the main highway as paragraph 4.2.8 states this does not give reasoning to permit poorly designed extensions. The proposals are out of character with the existing property and introduce new features which add to the prominence. The increase in height is considerable and the additions are not subservient in form.
6.12 Such extensive additions require sensitive design in order to provide a material betterment and break up the massing of them, the proposals fail to do this and it is as such considered the proposals fail to accord with Housing Policy 16, General Policy 2 and The Residential Design Guide.
6.13 Biodiversity 6.14 The applicant has undertaken a bat survey at the request of DEFA Biodiversity and they have confirmed the details are acceptable subject to a condition requiring a nest box to be supplied. As such the proposals are not considered to impact on protected species or biodiversity and are acceptable in this regard.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00832/B Page 5 of 5
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Due to the property being of non-traditional design the proposals to increase its scale by addition a second floor are considered to result excessive additions beyond 50%, it is concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The design proposed is not considered subordinate and fails to provide a sensitive design that reflects the character of the original dwelling or the sites countryside location and as such is considered contrary to General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide, and is recommended for refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 01.11.2024
Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal