Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91015/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91015/B Applicant : Manx Beef Ltd Proposal : Roof, window / door alterations and erection of garage extension (partial retrospective) Site Address : Farmhouse Bibaloe Moar Whitebridge Hill Onchan Isle Of Man IM4 5AE
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : 28.01.2025 Site Visit : 28.01.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.02.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal complies with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 19th September 2024; o Drawing No. P0101 Rev 00 o Drawing No. P1100 Rev A o Drawing No. X1100 Rev 00 o Planning Statement
This decision also relates to drawing no. P0102 Rev A dated 4th February 2025.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection DOI Highway Drainage - No objection Onchan District Commissioners - No objection __
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91015/B Page 2 of 5
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The overall site is within the curtilage of Bibaloe Moar Farm which is an extensive agricultural holding located to the immediate North East of Onchan. The holding comprises the principal farmhouse and a collection of agricultural buildings located at its centre and laid out in a liner fashion from North to South.
1.2 The application site is the farmhouse which is the first building when coming into the main yard and situated to the North of the site, within its grounds.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks for part retrospective works and part non retrospective works. The retrospective works are as follows;
2.2 Further to the above the proposed works which are not retrospective are the continuation of the proposed garage, which is proposed to be a double garage and the erection of rear porch.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following are applications have had the application site included in the red line boundary; PA22/01303/B - Retrospective application for alterations to agricultural dutch barn and addition side extension. Full planning approval applied for proposed cladding of the barn and extension
PA11/01078/B - Alterations to existing vehicular access - Permitted
PA09/01825/A - Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling - Refused at Appeal.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East, Map 6
4.2 These policies are then followed by Strategic Policy 5 which seeks that new development should make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island, General Policy 2 sets out general development control standards in connection with the Residential Design Guidance and General Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan other than a number of stated exceptions, which do not include the extension of existing dwellings
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91015/B Page 3 of 5
4.3 The Department has published the Residential Design Guide (2019) which, although focused on dwellings within settlements, does offer advice in relation to visual impact and the impact on neighbours.
4.4 It is also relevant to note Planning Circular 3/91 "Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside," which provides advice on residential development within the countryside.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "No Highways Interest." (21.10.24)
5.3 Onchan District Commissioners have considered the proposal and state, Approved for planning purposes only. (08.10.24)
5.4 DOI Highway Drainage have considered the proposal and state, "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highways Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads." (21.10.24)
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.2 PRINCIPLE 6.2.1 The site is not designated for development, nor does it meet the expectations criteria in General Policy 3. However, Housing Policy 15 and its supporting text clearly allows for residential extensions in the countryside where they would not detract from the countryside which, in the case of extensions in the countryside where they would not detract from the countryside, which for the case of traditionally styled properties, must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing dwelling, of which only exceptional permission will be granted to extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building.
6.2.2 The existing dwelling is well seen within the overall streetscene from several vantage points, with most parts of the dwelling being seen. Whilst this is the case the existing dwelling already had a front bay situated upon it, abide different to the proposed, and the proposed garage is situated within a part of the site which due to the mature trees surrounding the overall site and due to the distance of views would not be generally noticed within the overall streetscene. If the garage were to be seen from a distance, any views of the proposal would be minimal and seen as a residential extension/alteration on an already existing residential dwelling.
6.2.4 Therefore on balance, it is considered the proposed alterations and extension to the main dwelling are deemed acceptable from a principle/ character and appearance point of view and would comply with Housing Policy 15.
6.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE 6.3.1 When looking at the character and appearance of the proposal, the main aspects would be whether the extension would be suitable in terms of its design, form, size and finishes. The alterations to the property are deemed acceptable from a character and appearance point a view with most of the alterations in keeping with the main dwelling. The removal of the eaves
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91015/B Page 4 of 5
level peak and the replacement bay windows to the front elevation, whilst noticeable due to the difference ultimately do not impact the main dwelling in terms of its character and appearance.
6.3.2 Whilst the proposed roof of the double garage does not match the existing, it does assist in the garage in appearing subordinate to the main dwelling and it is understandable/ logical on why the proposed roof has been chosen, as such overall the proposal is relatively modest in relation to the main dwelling and would be in keeping with the character of the property itself.
6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.4.1 Another factor when looking at extensions such as this is whether they would create an impact on the neighbouring properties amenities. The closest neighbour to the works are situated approximately 520m to the South, and are within Windermere Avenue, as such it is deemed that the proposed works would not impact neighbouring amenity above and beyond what is currently in place.
6.5 HIGHWAY IMPACT 6.5.1 Due to the surrounding area of the site and the addition of the proposed garage, it is deemed that there is no impact with regards to Highway Safety.
6.5.2 Turning towards the comments raised by Highway Drainage, the site is approximately 330m away from the main Whitebridge Road, with the property being at a higher elevation that the farm buildings situated to the East and South of the site, as such it is highly unlikely that any water run off would go onto the main road, as such it is deemed that there would be no issue with regards to this matter.
6.6 OTHER MATTERS 6.6.1 The proposed works are an extension/ alterations to an already existing dwelling, as such the proposal is not expected to create any changes or new issues in respect of criminal actively or spread of fire. The proposal whilst increasing the surface area of the dwelling, any water run-off will be dealt with as per the existing arrangement of the main dwelling. The proposed extension will not increase water usage of the dwelling and therefore there are no new issues in this respect.
CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable.
RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 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).
8.2 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.
8.3 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.
8.4 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);
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91015/B Page 5 of 5
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 the Head of Development Management 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 : 27.02.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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