Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91266/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91266/B Applicant : Mr Michael Sloane Proposal : Installation of replacement decking, replacement of wooden fencing with glass balustrade to rear of property (retrospective); erection of boundary wall to north of property (amendments to 23/00889/B) Site Address : Hawthorn Cottage Maughold Isle Of Man IM7 1AS
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken : 13.02.2025 Site Visit : 13.02.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.03.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed elevated plastic decking to the rear with glass balustrade and erection of a wall to the front have been considered to have a detrimental visual impact upon the character of the Conservation Area and that of the street scene whereby the proposals neither preserve or enhance. The raised position and visual appearance of the decking and glass balustrade to the rear would attribute to an overly dominant feature that would lead to overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy to the dwelling at the rear contrary to General Policy 2 and Environmental Policy 35. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DoI Highways - No Objection
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: Garff Parish Commissioners - Objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Hawthorn Cottage, Maughold, a two storey detached property located within the centre of Maughold Village. The property is essentially two cottages linked together. The site is bounded to the north by the road with a
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91266/B Page 2 of 6
mature un-kept hedgerow approx. 2m high with a metal pedestrian gateway leading to the front door.
1.2 The character of this area is quiet hamlet of traditional styled detached properties with facing onto a central green triangle area. The parish church sits to the east and the neighbouring property to the east is Dhrynane and to the west is Church House.
1.3 A farm lane runs along the rear (southern) boundary of the site and separates the property from the neighbouring fields and which sits just south of the application site and the neighbouring dwelling Baldromma Cottage.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks the installation of replacement decking to the rear of the property, replacement of the wooden fencing with glass balustrade to rear of property (retrospective); erection of boundary wall to north (front) of property (amendments to 23/00889/B) from a block on flat to a block on edge and painted render to match the dwellinghouse.
2.2 The applicant notes; "Permission requested to construct the wall by placing blocks vertically rather than horizontally supported by piers spaced at 3m intervals. Piers to be built to the same height as the boundary wall and will only be visible from the garden of Hawthorne Cottage".
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is on land not designated for development but also within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is also within Maughold Conservation Area.
3.2 There are no registered trees on site nor is it within an area of flood risk.
3.3 It is appropriate to consider the following planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016;
Strategic Policy 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
General Policy 2 - (b,c,g) - General development considerations
Housing Policy 15 - Extension or alteration to traditional styled properties in the countryside
Environment Policy 35 Preserve or enhancement for Conservation Areas 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
4.6 Residential Design Guide (2021) 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.
4.7 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91266/B Page 3 of 6
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 24/00249/B -Installation of replacement conservatory; installation of replacement windows and door to main dwelling. Approved.
4.2 23/00889/B - Construction of a boundary wall along the roadside frontage of Hawthorn Cottage. Approved with two conditions for soft landscaping and bird boxes.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online) Statutory Consultations 5.1 Garff Parish Commissioners - (07/03/25) Object, and comment "The works undertaken are not in keeping with the conservation status of Maughold Village and have significantly impacted both the privacy of neighbouring residents and the wider character of the area". Within their comments they have submitted additional information and photos to strengthen their objection which highlights, the accuracy of the application and their objections are set out in two; The works to the rear elevation; the statements submitted are inaccurate, the retrospective nature of the application, increase in ground levels on site, inappropriate use of glass balustrade, impact upon the conservation area, overlooking and privacy to the bungalow to the rear, overly dominant given the increase in height, potential impact upon the existing trees, drainage and floor risk. With regard to the changes to the front boundary wall; won't have a traditional profile and not in keeping with a conservation area, the level of finish is not appropriate.
5.2 Highways Services - Do not object (11/02/25)
5.3 DEFA Ecology (03/03/25) No objection subject to a condition to seek measurers to prevent bird strikes on the clear glass balustrade.
Public Representations 5.3 None.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
The key considerations in the determination of the application are; o Section 18(4) test o Principle o Design & Visual impact o Impact upon the character and streetscene & Conservation area o Impact upon the neighbouring properties
SECTION 18(4) TEST 6.1 The property is situated within a Conservation Area, as such it is necessary to test the application under section 18(4) of the Town and Country Act (1999), see section 4.2 of this report, on whether the works would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area. The proposals as further assessed below will ascertain whether there is any detrimental visual impact from the different profile boundary wall with balustrade atop and decking to the rear of the property. With this in mind and noting that the proposal is within the curtilage of an existing dwelling house, the proposals are scale that could have a visual impact on the wider Conservation Area as a whole, the proposal at this stage could pass the Section 18(4) test by helping to preserve the Conservation Area subject to further assessment below.
PRINCIPLE 6.2 The site falls outside of any defined settlement boundary and sits within the parish of Maughold and flanked by residential dwelling houses forming a rural hamlet adjacent to Maughold Church. As the site is not zoned for development on the land use plan, but is an existing residential dwelling, consideration shall be given to a number of policies within the Strategic Plan including Strategic Policies 1 and 5 which seek to make best use of existing developed sites and ensuring new development is of good design, Spatial Policy 5 and General
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91266/B Page 4 of 6
Policy 3. Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, and in this specific case the most relevant will be Housing Policy 15 in ensuring that development does not increase the impact of non-traditional properties when viewed by the public, and the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which sets out a number of general development standards for alterations to existing dwellings including neighbouring amenity.
DESIGN & VISUAL IMPACT 6.3 In terms of the removal of the hedging to the front and the erection of a wall, this proposal is an amendment to the former approval ref 23/00889/B, where the boundary wall will be a block on edge rather than a block on flat with piers along its length. The wall will now measure 100mm thick and will be rendered and painted to match the dwelling house.
6.4 From outside of the site there will be little discernible difference in the appearance of the wall from the former approval which is a strong material consideration and noting the neighbouring property (Thie Dhrynane) features a pillared entrance with a painted boundary wall with hedging behind.
6.5 However, the only noticeable aspect will be the top of the wall, here in lieu of a capping stone it will be a domed top across its width. This would give the appearance of a slimmer wall and due to the reduced thickness of wall and the lacking of any appropriate capping atop would not be considered appropriate and would be read at odds with the neighbouring wall which is considerably thicker, and more akin to the previous approval granted here.
6.6 This site being within a conservation, further consideration is given as to whether the proposals for a slimmer wall, would either preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area to this part of Maughold. Whilst the proposal would be read within the residential context of the property and that of the street scene, it is considered by it method of construction giving a slimmer appearance and no capping on top or a chamfered finish to match the neighbours would be read at odds with an element of visual harm and would be contrary to GP2b,c, and Ep42.
6.7 With regard to the raised plastic decking platform to the rear elevation, this is more retrospective in nature and at the time of the site visit was present with a hot-tub on top with the underside of the decking, essentially the platform, resting on top of the Manx stone boundary wall.
6.8 Access to the rear of the dwelling is also available and visible from a laneway that leads from a private trackway that serves the adjacent farm buildings and a bungalow "Baldromma" that sits opposite the site. Whilst not wholly visible from the front elevation, it is clearly visible from the laneway and given the elevated position twinned with the proposed glass balustrades would be read at contrast to the neighbouring boundary treatment either side and would be introducing a contemporary incongruous feature that would not be appropriate for a conservation area and would have a detrimental impact on the visual rural character here and contrary to GP2b,c, and Ep1.
CONSERVATION AREA 6.9 With regard to any adverse impact upon the existing conservation area the character of the street scene to the front, given the commentary above regarding the wall, it has been considered there would be a detrimental visual impact and is considered there would be material harm to the character of the conservation area.
6.10 The decking and balustrade to the rear of the dwellinghouse and its garden could have a limited impact upon the Conservation area given the location of the works with a limited vantage points to view.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91266/B Page 5 of 6
6.11 However there would be a degree of material harm given the overall traditional character here and the laneway to the rear that gives access to the traditional farm buildings and the boundary treatment being predominately Manx stone and mature hedging above. Therefor the proposals would be out of character here and would have a negative impact upon the conservation area and are contrary to EP35 as the proposals do not preserve or enhance the conservation area.
NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 6.12 In terms of whether there is any material harm to the neighbouring amenity, essentially concerning the works to the rear of the property. Taking into consideration the nature of the site and intervening distance from the proposals to the immediate neighbouring properties built forms, it is not considered to have any negative impact upon their living condition through any loss of light.
6.13 However, the raised decking to the rear would be seen to be overbearing given the increase in height and dominant appearance at the rear and would attribute to a high level of overlooking to the property at the rear, namely Baldromma which is unacceptable and proposal would be contrary to GP2c.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would be considered have a detrimental visual impact and would not comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for refusal.
8.0 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.
8.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91266/B Page 6 of 6
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 : Refused Date : 21.03.2025
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