Single-storey extensions to east and south elevations; erection of porch; erection of detached storage building

Refusal Reasons

• ✗The principle of development is unacceptable because it would result in the storage building and Orangery extension being out of scale and character with the countryside location. In this case, the close proximity of the storage and garage/workshop building to the dwelling, is read as an extension to the dwelling. Policy H15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, permits up to 50% increase in floor space for rural extensions. The combined floor-space of the new structures, together with those previously approved and implemented, would represent a total increase of 77.95% floor area, which demonstrably exceeds this floor-space limit. Therefore, the proposal would result in an excessive form of development in the open countryside, out of scale for the site and its rural surroundings, and would be contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy ST2; Spatial Policy SP5; General Policy GP2 b) and c); General Policy GP3 a), b) and c); and Housing Policies H15 and H16 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, Planning Circular 3/91.
• ✗The proposed extension to the 'Orangery' is unacceptable because it would be out of scale and keeping with the dwelling on site. Its poor design would result in it appearing as a visually intrusive, and incongruous addition to the traditional Manx farmhouse appearance of the host dwelling. Whilst views of the site and surroundings are limited it would represent a large oversized structure which would be poorly related to its rural surroundings and as such it would be contrary to the provisions of Policies GEN2 b) and c); GEN3 c) H15; ENV1 and ENV2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and, Planning Circular 3/91.
• ✗The proposed erection of the detached storage building is unacceptable because it would result in a large scale, single storey structure in a visually prominent part of the site within this open rural landscape which would be out of scale, character and keeping with this countryside location and its surroundings. As such, it would be contrary to the provisions of Policies GEN2 b) and c); GEN3 c), H15; and, Planning Circular 3/91. Furthermore, this element of the proposals would be contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy ENV1 which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake; and, Environment Policy ENV 2 which indicates that such development will only be permitted where: '(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.' In this case, neither of these criteria in Policy ENV2 are met.