Planning Officer Report

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:22193}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AS IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

Introduction

1. This application seeks approval for the alterations and erection of extensions to a traditional property in the countryside. The application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

The Site

1. The application site is the curtilage of Stuggadhoo, St Marks Road, Braaid which is a two storey detached property which is situated off a track which is to the south western side of the St Marks Road. To the north of the application site is "Upper Stuggadhoo" which is a detached two storey property. Also within the curtilage of the application site is a stable block.

The Proposal

1. The application seeks approval for the erection of a single storey extension and a two storey extension off the west elevation. The two storey extension would be finished with a pitched roof resulting in a projecting gable. This would have French doors at ground level and French doors at first floor level with a Juliette balcony.

1. The single storey extension would have bi-folding doors and full height windows. The full height windows and French doors would be Aluminium in gun metal grey to match the bi-folding doors. The roof would be dark grey reproduction lead roof.

1. Also proposed are alterations which include smooth painted render to part of the building which is currently Manx stone. The existing timber windows would be replaced with uPVC "Cottage Range".

Planning History

1. There have been a number of applications for this site. In 1993 there was an application (PA 93/00515/B) which was described as alterations and extensions, but was actually for the conversion of a redundant rural building including alterations and extensions. This application was permitted. The conversion of the building did involve some rebuilding of

some of the walls and a sizeable extension which was close to the footprint of the stone building. This application was recommended for refusal as it did not comply with Planning Circular 3/89, the recommendation was overturned by the Planning Committee.

1. In 1999, there was an application (PA 99/01813/B) for an extension; this application was refused for the following reason:

R1. The present residential accommodation was created through a conversion and partial rebuilding of existing buildings which were considered suitable for conversion under the Department's Planning Circular 3/89 - Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside. This Circular makes it quite clear that extensions to the original buildings will only be approved where essential facilities are required and that once converted further extensions are unlikely to be approved.

The proposed extension would add half as much again as what presently exists which is considered a significant extension for something which should not be extended further in accordance with the prevailing policy. No supporting information has been provided to suggest why this policy should be set aside in this case. The extension would add significantly to the existing buildings and would produce a large mass of building, the majority of which is rendered, which would represent a significant departure from the style, size and character of the original buildings which were renovated. The extensions would also bring the building close to an existing tree whose location has not been accurately portrayed and which may be fatally affected by the proposed works.

1. In 2006 there was an application (PA 06/01746/B) for the erection of a stable block, this application was approved.

Development Plan Policies

1. The application site is within an area zoned as "whiteland" identified on the 1982 Development Plan. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Housing Policy 11 and Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).

1. Housing Policy 11

Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:

a) Redundancy for the original use can be established; 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 a 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.

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.

1. Housing Policy 15

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 extension which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally).

CONSULTATIONS

1. Highways Division do not oppose as it has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.

1. Marown Commissioners have no objection to the application be approved.

ASSESSMENT

1. The application site was the subject of an application for the conversion of a rural building and the erection of an extension to create a dwelling. This application was considered and approved in 1993. It was assessed against Planning Circular 3/89 which has now been superseded by Housing Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).

1. Under Housing Policy 11 there are a number of points that a development must comply with, in particular "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". It then goes on to say "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".

1. The dwelling as existing has significantly changed in character from what was on site originally, the extension which was approved in 1993 could not be considered modest or subordinate and increased the size of the building substantially. It is considered that the original approval for alterations and conversion significantly altered the character and appearance of the building which now appears to be a fairly large traditional dwelling. The original stone building was altered under this application. The alterations included raising the height of the roof by approximately 1.3m to accommodate a full upper floor, and provided additional door and window openings which were not original to the existing building.

1. Whilst Housing Policy 11 suggests that further extensions would not usually be permitted as it would lead to a loss or reduction in the original interest and character, it is judged that this may not be the case in this instance. Given that the roof had to be raised, additional window and door openings were created and a large extension was added, it could be argued that it has already lost much of its original character.

1. The application in 1999 was refused at appeal, the Inspector felt that the extension being about 63% bigger could not be considered modest, and it did not provide essential facilities. The inspector went on to say that the proposal would substantially increase the bulk and massing of the dwelling and the prominence of the building in the landscape. The Inspector felt that it would reduce still further any resemblance the building had to the character and appearance of the original buildings and be seriously contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 3/89.

1. The Inspector in this instance felt that the extension would significantly increase the footprint of the existing dwelling, and would substantially increase the bulk and massing of the dwelling.

1. The applicant's agent has submitted supporting information indicating why they feel that the existing building should no longer be considered under Housing Policy 11.

1. Firstly, they have looked at the original conversion in 1993 which involved the raising of the original barn walls and roof to provide new first floor accommodation which doubled the original floor area. They also note that the creation of new doors and window openings has been difficult to assess, but the building is now of a domestic appearance. Furthermore a substantial two storey extension was also added.

1. They go on to say "We understand that the purpose of the current housing policy is to protect the character of the original barn. However, if that character has already been lost by the original development nearly 30 years ago then we believe the policy is no longer relevant."

1. If it is considered that Housing Policy 11 is no longer relevant, it is judged that Housing Policy 15 should be considered in assessing the acceptability of the current proposal. Housing Policy 15 allows for the extension of traditionally styled properties in the countryside where developments respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing dwelling.

1. The extension proposed under this application is significantly different from what was refused under the previous application. The previous extension was approximately 63% bigger than the existing floor area and was attached via a link porch. This would have resulted in the dwelling stretching out and appearing more visible from the public thoroughfare, resulting in the increase in bulk and massing of the dwelling.

1. Housing Policy 15 goes on to say that only exceptionally will permission be granted for an extension which measures more than 50%. In this instance the application is for an extension which is under the 50% of the existing floor space.

1. The existing floor space is approximately 234sqm, 50% of this would be 117sqm. The proposed extensions measure approximately 103sqm, this would be just below the 50% of the existing floor space.

1. Also in need of consideration are the proportion, form, scale and overall design of the proposed extension and whether it would respect the existing dwelling.

1. The proposed extension takes the form of a two storey pitched roof traditional element with a single storey adjoining extension with a lean-to roof. Both the two storey and single storey extensions would be off the West elevation.

1. When viewing the property from the West and the East it is considered that the proposed extensions would be read against the existing dwelling and would not appear to increase the impact of the building when viewed from the public thoroughfare. The closest public view is from the east travelling along the St Marks Road, from this angle the proposed extension would not be visible.

1. When viewed from the north and from the south the extensions would be visible but given the distance from the main public thoroughfares it is considered that the proposed extensions would not appear overly dominant.

1. Whilst Housing Policy 11 states that further extensions to converted buildings will not usually be permitted it is considered that the character of the original building was significantly altered when it was first extended and therefore the proposed extension would not adversely affect the character of the existing building and on balance is judged to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

Party Status

1. The local authority Marown Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 19.11.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the alterations, erection of a single and two storey extension and installation of replacement windows as shown in drawings 1205/01, 1205/02, 1205/03, 1205/04 and 1205/05 received 28th August 2012.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made: Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 26/11/12

Signed: [Handwritten signature] Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

19 November 2012

19 November 2012