Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00736/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00736/B Applicant : Miss Kim Powell Proposal : Alterations and extensions to existing cottage to form new two storey rear extension and single storey garage to side. Site Address : Ballasaig House Dreemskerry Maughold Isle Of Man IM7 1BF
Planning Officer: Toby Cowell Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.11.2024 __
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.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The integrated bat boxes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details noted on drwg. no 24 181705 Rev A.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.
C 3. No external lighting shall be installed unless a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to the Department and approved in writing.
Reason: To avoid and mitigate against ecological impacts.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development is considered to amount to appropriate extensions to a traditional styled property in the countryside, without detriment to the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene or wider landscape. The proposals are therefore deemed compliant with Spatial Policy 5, Strategy Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, Housing Policy 15, and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00736/B Page 2 of 6
This approval relates to the following drawings and documents;
24 1817 - 04 RevA - proposed site plan 24 1817 - 05 RevA - proposed elevations and first floor plan Bat Report Received 23.09.24
24 1817 - 01 - site location plan 24 1817 - 02 - existing site plan 24 1817 - 03 - existing floorplans and elevations Received 02.07.24
__
Interested Person Status
None. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to the detached dwellinghouse and associated curtilage of Ballasaig House, which lies on the western side of the Dreemskerry Road. The site is bounded by open fields to the west (rear) and south. The detached dwelling of Glen Lodge and its associated curtilage border the site to the north. The site occupies an elevated position above, and close to, the road, due to the topography of the land rising from east to west.
1.2 The existing dwelling comprises a two-storey rendered property which retains the form of a traditional cottage style dwelling when viewed front-on from the road. The slate pitch roof and double gable chimney stacks with coping stones, and the 5-window layout to the front elevation provide a traditional appearance. The dwelling has however been altered in the past, with a part flat roof, part cat slide roof extension to the rear which is visible from the road. There is a collection of informal structures to the northern side including a car port.
1.3 The site is bounded by mature hedging and features planting throughout. Access it to the northeast corner of the site via a driveway which curves in towards the dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is sought for erection of a two-storey rear extension and a single- storey side garage extension. The rear extension would comprise a dual-pitched roof, but with a cat-slide on the southern elevation thereby limited first-floor accommodation on this side. A wide square based chimney breast would be sited at the rear and centrally location, with the extension to be largely finished in natural timber cladding, with Manx stone for the exterior of the chimney, standing seam metal cladding for the roof and grey aluminium window and door frames. The extension would facilitate the creation of an open plan kitchen/dining family room, with an additional master bedroom at first-floor level.
2.2 The proposed side extension would consist of a mono-pitched roof with rear (western) access for the parking of a single vehicle which would extend outward into an open car port. The front (eastern) elevation of the extension would be finished in painted render to match the exterior of the existing property and include a single window.
2.3 The proposed extensions would amount to a gross internal floor area of 75.5sqm, resulting in a net increase of 66.5sqm less the loss of the existing 9sqm conservatory at the
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00736/B Page 3 of 6
rear. This represents an increase in floor area of 35.7%. The proposals would further include the demolition of the existing car port/storage building adjacent to the front of the dwelling, however this has not been included in the floorspace calculations referenced above.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 A series of permissions to extend and alter the dwelling exist from the mid to late 1980s, whilst a more recent permission (PA 21/00025/B) was granted for a two-storey side extension and single-storey rear attached garage. This permission has not been implemented but remains extant. Most recently planning permission was refused for a revised scheme for a two-storey side extension and single-storey rear garage (PA 23/01220/B) for the following reasons:
R 1. The proposed side extension is considered disproportionate to the scale, footprint and massing of the existing building, whilst being of a design and built form that would be incongruous to its historic and traditional character. The development further has the potential to appear unduly prominent within the context of the wider landscape as it is not subordinate to the original building, thereby resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the original building, and as such is contrary to Housing Policy 15, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 2. Whilst there is no issue with the single storey extension to the rear, the height, size and form of the alterations to the two storey rear element as shown would add significantly to the massing of the dwelling to the extent that the character and appearance of the dwelling would be affected adversely; as seen both from the adjacent highway, and in its landscape setting in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, contrary to Environment Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan.
R 3. The scheme clearly creates an additional unit of accommodation, which could exist completely independent of the main dwelling on site, given its layout which suggest it will be occupied separately from the main house. This new unit of accommodation would be contrary to the Strategic Aim, Future Housing Strategy detailed with Paragraph 8.3.1, Housing Policy 4, and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, as it does not meet any of the exceptions for allowing a new independent unit of accommodation in the countryside.
R 4. The proposed quantum increase in floor area by 67% over the existing (and 145% increase when measured cumulatively over the original floor area of the dwelling) would be inconsistent with Housing Policy 15, particularly because the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the existing traditional dwelling, and no exceptional justifications were provided to support the increase in floor area. The development is, therefore, contrary to Housing Policy 15 and Paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site falls within an area of countryside that is not designated for development in the 1982 Development Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area or an area at risk of flooding.
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00736/B Page 4 of 6
5 Development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside
Housing Policy 15 Extension or alteration to traditional styled properties in the countryside
4.3 Residential Design Guide (2021) 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.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Garth Parish Commissioners - Members noted that the character of the main dwelling will be maintained, and that the extension is predominantly to the rear; in this circumstance they felt that is unlikely to cause any visual impact from the Dreemskerry Road or any public vantage point. They also considered the modern design of the extension with the consensus being that it would not have a detrimental impact on the current dwelling. The Commission has no objection to the proposals. (08.08.24)
5.2 Highways Services - No highways interest. (12.07.24)
5.3 DEFA Biodiversity - No Objection subject to condition. The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that the Manx Bat Group's (MBG) Preliminary Assessment for bats dated September 2024 is all in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. No evidence of roosting bats was discovered. However, two favourable potential roost features were found, which will be destroyed by the proposed alterations, and therefore mitigation should be provided in the form of integrated bat boxes and low level lighting. Penketh Millar's 'Proposal Drawing' (Drawing No. 24 181705 Rev A) shows the location of 3 bat boxes and we are content with the locations. These should be secured via condition.
The Ecosystem Policy Team recommend that conditions on approval are secured for the following:
No external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. Reason - To avoid and mitigate ecological impacts.
The applicant should undertake the works in compliance with the timing recommendations contained in the Manx Bat Group's report - "Works to remove the slates on the sloping rear roof and to remove the flat roof of the extension should take place before the start of the bat breeding season (ie before the end of April) or after the end of the breeding season (ie after the end of September). If this proves impractical because of construction or permit delays then those parts of the roof should be stripped before the end of April and protected with a waterproof membrane until the work can commence in full. The two Greenwoods Eco-habitat bat boxes should be installed prior to the initial removal of the slates and flat roof."
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00736/B Page 5 of 6
We would also add that thorough checks for bats must be made prior to works on the roof commencing. As well as bats, other signs to look out for include bat droppings (similar to mouse poo but they crumble and look sparkly when squeezed), urine streaks, piles of moth wings, and sometimes noise and odour if a large colony is present. (03.10.24)
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority - No response received at the time of writing.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site falls outside of a defined settlement boundary within the open countryside, is not designated for residential development with the proposals not according within one of the defined exception criteria outlined in General Policy 3. Housing Policy 15 and its supporting text do however include provision for extensions to traditional styled dwellings within the countryside, provided such additions 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 floorspace.
6.2 In this instance, the proposals amount to an increase of 35.7% over and above the floor area of the existing dwelling as detailed in Section 2 of this report, and are therefore considered to be policy compliant in this respect. It is further noteworthy that an extant permission remains in place to considerably extend the existing dwelling by a greater quantum of floorspace and massing than the current proposals. The current proposals are considered to result in a materially reduced visual impact relative to the extant permission from 2021 referenced in Section 3 of this report.
6.3 The majority of additional development proposed would be located at the rear of the dwelling and therefore not readily visible from the majority of public vantage points along Dreemskerry Road. The site further notably rises from east to west and therefore more long distance views of the extension in the context of the wider landscape would also not be significant. In any case, the proposed rear extension is considered to comprise a more modernist approach to traditional Manx vernacular that contrasts positively with the original and more traditional element of the property. The proposals would further result in the loss of the existing flat roof serving the two-storey rear element which appears at odds with the traditional design of the remainder of the dwelling.
6.4 Turning to the garage element, the modest scale and use of a mono-pitched roof displays a clear level of subservience to the existing property and is uncomplicated in design. Such proposals would result in a significantly reduced visual presence relative to extant permission which includes a sizeable two-storey extension to the side, with the current proposals deemed to represent a far more appropriate solution to extend the property and make better use of the site.
6.5 Given the relative isolation of the property and location of the extensions relative to surrounding properties, the proposals are not considered to result in a material impact upon the amenities of surrounding residential property. Likewise, no concerns have been raised by Highway Services over the proposals, with the resultant dwelling to benefit from a level of on- site parking provision in excess of the minimum standards defined in the Strategic Plan.
6.6 Finally, no concerns have been raised by the Ecosystems Policy Officer on the basis of the Preliminary Assessment for Bats having been subsequently submitted at their request and the mitigations measures outlined therein.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is considered to amount to appropriate extensions to a traditional styled property in the countryside, without detriment to the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene or wider landscape. The proposals are therefore deemed compliant with Spatial Policy 5, Strategy Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, Housing
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00736/B Page 6 of 6
Policy 15, and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval.
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 (DEFA) 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 : Permitted
Date: 22.11.2024
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