Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91284/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91284/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Roy Niven Proposal : Erection of replacement garage with living accommodation over, with link extension to main house. Replacement of single story rear conservatory with extension with accommodation over, with link extension connected to main house. Site Address : Paper Mill East Baldwin Isle Of Man IM4 5EP
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.12.2024 __
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. Prior to occupation the flood resistance measures, as shown in the Flood Risk Assessment dated received 25th November 2022/ reviewed November 2024, must be provided and easily available at all times and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of occupants' safety in the event of a flood.
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, dated received on 19th November 2024; O Drawing No. 2P01 O Drawing No. 2P02 O Drawing No. 2P03 O Drawing No. 2P04 O Drawing No. 2P05 O Drawing No. 2P06 O Drawing No. 2P07 O Drawing No. 2P08
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91284/B Page 2 of 5
O Drawing No. 2P09 O Drawing No. 2P10 O Drawing No. 2P11 O Drawing No. 2P12 O Drawing No. 2P13 O Drawing No. 2P14 O Drawing No. P07 O Drawing No. P08 Rev A O Drawing No. P09 Rev A O Drawing No. 2P10 O Drawing No. 2P11 O Drawing No. 2P12 O Drawing No. 2P13 O Drawing No. 2P14 O Bat Statement O Design Statement O Flood Statement
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Braddan Commissioners - No objection DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team - No objection __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Papermill Cottage, East Baldwin a detached two storey dwelling set within large grounds. The property sits in a clearing of trees on the western side of the East Baldwin Road and is accessed from the main highway by its own private lane. The property is not overly visible from the main public thoroughfares.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the removal of the existing single storey garage extension and erection of a two storey extension to the east of the property, which is to have a roof height of the existing dwelling.
2.2 The proposal will add a two car garage, utility/ boot room and extension to the ground floor kitchen to ground floor level, with an addition of three bedrooms, two with adjoining bathroom and laundry room to first floor level.
2.3 To the rear of the proposed extension is a single storey extension which is to house a store.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following are previous applications relevant to the assessment of this application;
3.2 PA22/01408/B - "Rebuild the existing garage building and replace it with a new garage and bedroom accommodation over connected to the main house. An existing single storey conservatory to the rear of the property is to be demolished and rebuilt" - Permitted, with the following condition,
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91284/B Page 3 of 5
"Prior to occupation the flood resistance measures, as shown in the Flood Risk Assessment dated received 25th November 2022, must be provided and easily available at all times and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of occupants' safety in the event of a flood."
3.3 PA24/91070/MCH - "Minor Change to 22/01408/B - Amendment to flat roof with roof lantern design over kitchen extension to incorporate gable detail to rear elevation at 1st floor/ roof level," - Refused.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is not designated for development on the Area Plan in the East and is not situated within a Conservation Area. The property is situated within both a River and Tidal & Surface Water Flood Risk Zone. In terms of planning policy, the key policies are Environment Policy 1 which seeks that the countryside is protected for its own sake, Housing Policy 16 in respect of the visual assessment of the proposal within the streetscene and rural area, along with the general standards towards development as set out in General Policy 2 notably those parts referring to amenity and highway safety (parts b, c, g, h and i). Due to the proposal being within a Flood Risk Zone, Environment Policy 10 is also relevant, which seeks that a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation is received with an application.
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, Environment Policy 1 seeks to prevent development which would adversely affect the side other than in exceptional circumstances 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
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state, "After reviewing this application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the layout and site access are suitable for the proposals." (25.11.24) 5.3 Braddan Commissioners have considered the proposal and state they have no objection. (09.12.24)
5.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer have considered the application and have no objections but would like to make the applicants aware to contact them or the Manx Bat Group if any bats are found at the site during the works. (06.12.24)
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 the proposal meet the expectation criteria in General Policy 3. However, Housing Policy 16 and it's supporting text clearly allows for residential extensions in the countryside where they would not detract from the countryside, in the case of extensions of non-traditional, poor or dwellings of inappropriate
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91284/B Page 4 of 5
form, this means that they must not increase the overall impact of the dwelling when viewed by the public.
6.2.2 The property due to its elevation within the overall streetscene and due to its location upon the East Baldwin Road, the site is very shielded from any public vantage points, as such it is deemed that the overall principle in general is acceptable, it is required to see whether the proposed works on the site would be acceptable.
6.3 DETAIL OF DESIGN 6.3.1 Turning towards the overall design appearance of the proposal, it is necessary to note that the bulk of the proposal within this application was previously approved under PA22/01408/B, of which the officers report stated the following regarding the main bulk of the proposal, "6.3.2 When looking at the main bulk of the proposal which is the removal of the existing single storey side extension and erection of a two storey side extension which is to provide a utility room, garage and store to ground floor level and two bedrooms with laundry room to first floor level, we can see that the proposal has been designed to match the features such as window fenestrations, above window accents and pitches from the already existing property. Whilst there is no difference in the roof height from the main dwelling and the proposed extension, nor could the proposed extension be called subordinate when viewed as a whole, ultimately the proposal fits within the already existing dwelling and would not detract from the existing dwellings appearance enough to warrant a refusal."
6.3.2 With the above in mind, that part of the proposed extension is deemed acceptable. The main alteration from PA22/01408/B is the change from a proposed single storey conservatory to a two storey masonry extension. Ultimately the proposed two storey extension to the rear will match the existing dwelling in terms of design and size, and does not look out of place with the ground floor details matching the main dwelling. As such this part of the proposal is also deemed acceptable.
6.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMNEITY 6.4.1 With regards to neighbouring amenity, the site has an additional property situated to the South of "Paper Mill," "Highcliffe" which is approximately 30m away at a higher elevation than "Paper Mill" and as stated within the accompanying Design Statement, within the applicants ownership. Whilst this is the case, due to the elevation difference in the sites and the distance it is unlikely that the proposed extensions to "Paper Mill" would impact "Highcliffe" above and beyond what is currently in place enough to warrant a refusal.
6.5 LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT 6.5.1 In terms of landscape impact, given the findings above it is not considered that there are any concerns that would warrant refusal.
6.5.2 Whilst it is noted that the site is situated next to a river, Inland Fisheries have considered the application and have no objections. Turning towards the fact that the property is within a Flood Risk Zone, the applicants have provided a Flood Risk Statement which has several mitigation measures. DOI Flood Risk Management Division have stated that they do not oppose subject to all building materials and methods being flood resistant, as such a condition should be applied.
6.5.3 Turning towards the comments raised by DEFA Ecology requesting a Bat Survey, this was received on the 11the of May and further comments received my DEFA Ecology state that they have no objections to the work, but do want the applicants to be vigilant for bats when doing the woks. 6.6 HIGHWAYS
6.6.1 Noting the scope of the proposal, the available parking on the site already and the response from highways, no concerns are raised in this regard.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91284/B Page 5 of 5
6.7 OTHER MATTERS 6.7.1 The proposed works are an extension 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 The proposed extension is deemed acceptable in terms of their form, mass and design by providing a suitable extension to an existing residential property and as such complies with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16.
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); 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: 17.12.2024
Determining Officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
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