Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91117/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91117/B Applicant : Miss Yvonne Brown Proposal : Erection of an entrance extension to rear elevation and new window in South-East elevation Site Address : Reayrt Ny Marrey Ballabooie Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AH
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.11.2024 __
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.
Note . FOR YOUR INFORMATION Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025.
You therefore are encouraged to ensure that your proposed development includes alternatives to fossil fuel heating systems if you believe that such works will not be completed by that date.
To this end, if you propose an alternative, such as air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning approval, the details of this should be addressed now. This may require you to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative permitted heating system proposed.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would also not result in adverse impact on the character and quality of the site or surrounding landscape. The proposal would also not harm the use and enjoyment of the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties, or result in adverse highway safety impact. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Housing Policies 15 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91117/B Page 2 of 9
This decision relates to the documents and plans received 26 September 2024.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o DoI - Highways Services - No objection o Peel Town Commissioners - No Objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Reayrt-Ny-Marrey, Ballakaighen, Peel, located north of the winding Ballabooie Road which links the Staarvey Road with the Coast Road (A4) from Peel to Kirk Michael in the west of the Isle of Man. The property sits on a large plot set back from the highway which is accessed by a shared single track drive with neighbouring property Meadowcroft. The application site is bound and bordered by vegetation, this combined with the sod banks and hedgerows lining the nearby public highways, makes it difficult to see the property from the main road, although, the property would be clearly noticeable by the public from the Public footpath U94 which flanks the entire southern boundary of the site.
1.2 The property is isolated within the Manx countryside with only 4 properties in the nearby vicinity, Meadowcroft to the west approx. 40m away, Westerley to the south east approx. 65m away, Greengate Farm to the east approx. 90m away and Ballabooie Farm 135m away to the south. The property sits within the south-west corner of the site edged in red on the associated plans with the front elevation facing south-west and the rear elevation facing north-east up and over the rear garden.
1.3 Reayrt-Ny-Marrey comprises 3 parts; a traditional Manx vernacular two storey cottage sitting centrally between an adjoining lean-to single storey corrugated living unit on the western side elevation and an adjoining larger 2 storey barn on the east side elevation which comprises both residential living accommodation and an integral garage on the ground floor.
1.4 The existing property has a number of fenestrated elements on the front elevation which vary in size but all face south-west towards Peel and the coast. The windows on the main central cottage form symmetrically around the central front door, the three windows on the 2 storey barn are sporadic and consist of a large feature window at first floor level. The existing lean to structure has an existing flue on the front elevation and a mix match of large glazed windows, two glazed doors and a solid door. In contrast to the front elevation the entire rear elevation of the property has no fenestration and is built and finished in a solid stonewall construction.
1.5 The barn attached to the main dwelling appears on the 1860's maps of the area, which highlights its historic significance for the site and area, although the existing dwelling is not shown on the map.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of an entrance extension to rear elevation and new window in South-East elevation.
2.2 The proposed extension would project from the rear of the main dwelling core (traditional cottage), and would measure 9.2m long, project 4m from the rear of the dwelling,
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91117/B Page 3 of 9
be 4.1m tall where it meets the main roof of the dwelling, and about 2.3m from the ground level to the eaves. This extension would have a cat slide roof over, and would have a floor area accommodating a bedroom and entrance/hallway/stairway.
2.3 The proposed extension would be erected from dense concrete block work cavity construction, clad in 200mm thick traditionally laid Manx, while its roof would be finished in dark grey/black natural roof slate. Four Velux conservation style rooflights shall be installed over the roof plane. Four new dark grey/black traditional sliding sash window units shall be installed on the northeast elevation, one on the northwest elevation, while a new cottage style door shall be installed on the southeast elevation. Other works would include the creation of a new window fenestration on the southeast elevation, and the installation of a new sliding sash window unit, to serve the garage.
2.4 No trees would be removed to facilitate the development. Surface water run-off would be discharged to the existing/proposed soakaway. There would be no changes to the foul sewage disposal system as a result of the development.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not within a Conservation Area or Registered Tree Area, and there are no registered trees on site. The site is largely not prone to flood risks, although the rear of the dwelling, where the development is proposed in considered to have high susceptibility to surface water flood risks.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). Greater protection is also given to sites within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance within Environment Policy 2, where the protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration unless it can be shown that the scheme meets two exceptions which border on the level of harm to the character and quality of the landscape or that the location for the development is essential.
3.2.2 Given that there is an existing dwelling on the site, it is relevant to consider Housing Policy 15 which makes provision for extensions or alterations to traditional properties in the countryside. Housing Policy 16 is also relevant as the dwelling has non-traditional elements to the north which are visible from the surrounding countryside. However, as the proposal does not involve changes to the non-traditional element, this policy would not be applicable.
3.2.3 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. c. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. d. Environment Policy 2 - Requires that within AHLV the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless considerations certain conditions are met. e. Environment Policies 10 and 13 - Flood concerns. f. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. g. Housing Policy 15 - extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside. h. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. i. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. j. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages. k. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91117/B Page 4 of 9
l. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3. m. Paragraph 8.12.2 states: n. "Extensions to properties in the countryside o. As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property."
3.3 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST
3.3.1 It must be noted that at the time of writing, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation and no material weight is given to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Planning Policy Statement 3/91 which provides guidance on the design of residential development in the countryside.
4.1.1 Policy 3 states: "The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of the traditional farmhouse. They should be rectangular in plan, and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form".
4.1.2 Policy 4 states: "External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials". The supporting texts to policy 4 states that "Modern construction and materials may be used to achieve a similar external appearance".
4.1.3 Policy 5 sates: "Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms."
4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.2.1 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 3.1 deals with Local Distinctiveness, 4.0 on Householder Extensions, while Section 7.0 deals with Impact on Neighbouring Properties.
4.3 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.3.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.4 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91117/B Page 5 of 9
5.1 The application site has been the subject of several planning applications the following are considered to be materially relevant to the current application.
5.2 The most recent planning application for the site under PA 23/01227/B for Erection of proposed entrance extension to rear elevation and new ground floor level window in side, south-east, elevation to dwelling was refused on 3rd April 2024. The application was refused for the following reasons: R1. The proposed rear extension is considered disproportionate to the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, 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 broader site context given its position at the rear of the dwelling where no built form exists beside the blank stone wall, 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 General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan (2016), as well as Planning Circular 3/91.
R2. The height, size and form of the extension to the rear would add significantly to the massing of the dwelling when viewed from the adjoining public footpath (U94), to the extent that the character and appearance of the dwelling would be affected adversely; as seen both from the public footpath, 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.
5.3 PA 20/00986/B for Conversion of first floor outbuilding to additional living accommodation (Retrospective), lowering of an existing window sill, installation of roof lights and removal of front porches. Approved.
4.3.1 This scheme provides a traditional appearance to the existing window by replacing the existing top hung casements on the main cottage with new sliding sash windows. The proposal also removal the inappropriate front porches in front of the dwelling and attached barn. Overall, the scheme sought to reinforce the traditional appearance of the property.
4.4 PA 16/01400/B for Alterations and erection of an extension to the dwelling which was approved by Planning Committee in May 2017 but refused at appeal. The scheme which was refused is not substantially different in terms of design save for the removal of the two projecting gables at the end of the corridors and the change in the external finish. The scheme still retains the large glazed sections with single pane windows.
4.4.1 The Appeal Inspector in dealing with the application made the following comments regarding the Scale, Design, Character and Appearance: "74. The alterations to the existing traditional buildings would result in the large, solid door to the current garage being replaced by a modern, glazed bifold door. At first floor level there would be two enlarged, domestic windows. Combined with the eight roof lights inserted into the original pitched slate roof, these extensive, modern, glazed areas would detract from, and fail to re-establish, the original appearance of the rustic barn, as required by HP11.
The appearance of the cottage would not be much altered, whilst the replacement construction of the lean-to would not be objectionable in itself and would be an improvement to the property. However, the extensive additional glazing to the front of the lean-to and its higher roof would make it visually more prominent in comparison with the cottage and detract from its appearance in public views from Meadowcroft and PFP U94, contrary to HP16.
The proposed rear extension, in weathered timber and large areas of glazing, would contrast with the traditional Manx stone barn and cottage, despite sharing its overall pitched roof form with matching natural slate. I am conscious that natural timber can work well with traditional stonework in a redevelopment context, where the stonework is difficult to replicate.
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91117/B Page 6 of 9
However, notwithstanding the opinion of the Planning Authority that the rear extension would be likely to go unnoticed, it would clearly be visible to the public from PFP U94, as well as and from Westerley, as standing back-to-back with the original buildings and masking their traditional, plain Manx rear stone walls. By extending beyond the full length of the cottage and barn, with the side wall flush with the gable wall of the barn, the extension would seem excessively dominant compared with the older buildings. This would detract from their traditional appearance, fail to respect their proportion and form and lead to a loss of their original interest and character, contrary to HP15 and HP11.
It is difficult from this conflicting evidence to determine the true percentage increase in floor area. In my own consideration, it is reasonable to omit the lean-to from the area calculations altogether, as it would be replaced by the same area of new construction. Comparison of the traditional buildings only, even including the workroom and garage, would then clearly result in a greater increase than 50 per cent.
The Planning Authority regards the 50 per cent size criterion of HP15 as a mere guideline and gives greater weight to its view that the development would beneficially reinvigorate the existing building and leave the AHLV unaffected. However, any exceedance of such an adopted policy provision must count against the proposal unless there is exceptional justification in terms of planning benefits.
Nevertheless, in this particular case, whether or not the extension would comply with the strict size criterion of HP15, the adverse effects of the development on the existing buildings are the overriding considerations. For this reason, the proposal is contrary to HP11 as well as the provision of HP15 that the alterations and extension should respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property.
I recognise that the design would improve internal circulation and maximise space within the single dwelling proposed, although I do not understand or accept the claim of the architect to the Applicant that the extension would be kept to a minimum.
I do accept that the appeal site is screened from some viewpoints by hedge banks and boundary vegetation. There is some concern that the development could cause root damage and loss of a frontage tree close to the lean-to, increasing the visual exposure of the buildings. However, such concerns could be addressed by the imposition of a planning condition requiring a full landscape planting scheme. This could replace lost vegetation and soften the appearance of the development to some extent by reinforcing the boundary screening.
Importantly though, mere screening or unobtrusiveness is no ground for permitting a development which would harm traditional buildings protected for their own sake, notwithstanding any benefit of improved living space.
In any event, the development would remain highly visible not only at neighbouring property but along PFP U94, from where both the modified front and extended side elevations would be readily observed in the wider countryside context.
It follows that that the alterations and extension would fail to respect the site and surrounding landscape of the AHLV. In this respect, the development as a whole would be in unacceptable conflict with EP2, GP2(b) and (c) and also EP23 and SP4 of the adopted Strategic Plan."
4.4.2 The application was refused at appeal on the following grounds: "The development would fail to respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property and would harm the character and quality of the landscape of the surrounding Area of High Landscape Value, contrary to Housing Policies 11 and 15, Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91117/B Page 7 of 9
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways Division have no interest (11 Oct 2024).
6.2 Peel Town Commissioners have not made any comments at the time of writing although they were consulted on 4 October 2024.
6.4 No comment have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment this application are: 1. The Visual Impact of the existing dwelling and wider surroundings (HP 15, GP 2, GP 3 & EP 2, & PC 3/91); and 2. Flood Risk Concerns (EP 10, 13 & GP 2).
7.2 The scheme does not propose any alterations to the means of access to the site or parking provisions within the site. As such, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impacts on parking or highway safety resulting from the proposal.
7.3 There would be no adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity as the development would not introduce new window fenestrations at positions that would result in overlooking, although the single storey element of the proposal and the existing boundary treatment would have diminished any concerns in this regard, if new windows looked towards neighbouring properties. The position of the extension relative to the position of neighbouring properties would also ensure overshadowing or overbearing impacts does not occur.
7.4 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT 7.4.1 In terms of visual impacts resulting from the proposed development, reference is made to Housing Policy 15 which indicates that 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. In this case, it is considered that the extension will incorporate the main features of the existing dwelling on site in terms of its roof design, slate roof finish, introduction of sliding sash windows, and stone finish. As such, the scheme as proposed is judged to accord with EP 15.
7.4.2 Granting the proposed works would be clearly noticeable from the adjoining public footpath (U94) which flanks the entire southern boundary of the site, the design of the scheme is such that clearly aligns with the guidelines stipulated in Planning Circular 3/91 with regard to the form of extensions, its roof design, materials used and position of fenestrations. Thus, it is considered that the scheme aligns with the relevant policies within Planning Circular 3/91 (Policies 3, 4, 5, and 7), and Environment Policy 2, as the scheme would not be at variance with the acceptable appearance of extensions in the countryside, and would in turn be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.
7.4.3 Further to the above, the scale and massing of the proposed extension is considered to be in keeping with the existing dwelling on site, given that it would appear as a subordinate addition to the dwelling, and would not dominate views towards the dwelling when viewed from the adjoining thoroughfare.
7.5 FLOOD RISK CONCERNS 7.5.1 In terms of potential flood risk concerns, it is noted that the proposal is situated within a Flood Risk Zone with the works involving the introduction of new door fenestrations at the rear, and at a part of the property that is considered to have a high potential for surface water
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/91117/B Page 8 of 9
flood risks, with General Policy 2(i) and Environment Policy 13 asserting that development which is prone to unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding (either on or off-site), will not be permitted.
7.4.2 Notwithstanding the potential flood concerns at the rear of the property, there would be no changes to the site levels or the floor levels within the property such that there would be easy ingress of water. Likewise, the new door opening at the rear would be set at about 150mm above the ground level, and at the southeast elevation of the extension which leans away towards the public footpath, such that any flood water would drain away from this fenestration. Therefore, it is not considered that there would be unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposed single storey extension would broadly comply with the requirements of Housing Policies 15, Environment Policy 2, and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and Policies 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Planning Circular 3/91. Therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
__
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: 05.11.2024
Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/91117/B Page 9 of 9
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