229047

==== PAGE 1 ====

1 October 2014 14/00949/B Page 1 of 5 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 14/00949/B Applicant : Mr David & Mrs Alison Allvey Proposal : Erection of an extension to dwelling Site Address : Dreemskerry Farm Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BF

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 29.01.2014 Site Visit : 29.01.2014 Expected Decision Level :

Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of a dwelling known as Dreemskerry Farm, Dreemskerry, which is a large, two storey-detached building finished with Manx stone, white render (in places) and grey slate roof tiles. The dwelling, which is horseshoe-shaped and has a central courtyard, is set within a significant area of surrounding land and includes and open- faced three-berth garage.

1.2 A collection of dwellings lie to the southwest of the application site along the Road of Scarffe's Ridge, with the nearest, Geay Vooar, some 150m from Dreemskerry Farm. There are few trees in the area, but Dreemskerry Farm is, topographically, set down with views into and out of the site being primarily limited to long-distance. The land within the ownership of the applicant is bifurcated by the Manx Electric Railway, which borders the application site to the north east. Maughold Conservation Area can be found 450m to the northeast.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for an extension to take the form of a sun lounge to the "top" of the horseshoe - that is, to its northwestern elevation. The sun lounge would have a flat roof with two glazed, frameless lantern rooflights set within it. The walls would be finished with Manx stone and smooth-painted render in places, but the vast majority would be glazed with thin, aluminium frames. It would measure roughly 45sqm in footprint and the flat roof would sit just shy of 3m high from the ground floor; the top of the lanterns, by contrast, would be 3.8m above ground floor level and would sit in front of the two windows at the first floor level of the main dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The original approval for the dwelling and barn conversions was issued under PA 07/02192/B. Planning approval has recently been granted for the "erection of a single storey extension to dwelling and alterations to two existing windows" (14/00025/B) and "removal of existing detached garage and erection of replacement garage/equipment store" (14/00700/B). It is not believed that work has commenced in respect of either of these proposals.

==== PAGE 2 ====

1 October 2014 14/00949/B Page 2 of 5 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of land use planning, the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose and, as such, constitutes 'white land' on the 1982 Development Plan Order. The application site is also located within a wider area of land that is designated as having high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.

4.2 Given the nature of the proposal and its location, it is considered that the most relevant policies of the Strategic Plan are Environment Policies 2 and 36, and Housing Policy 15; the former reads in full: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.".

4.3 Housing Policy 15 reads in full: "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 extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)".

4.5 As noted, the application site is approximately 450m from Maughold Conservation Area. While normally the assessment of an application site's proximity to a Conservation Area would be seen in the context of Conservation Areas' generally urban nature, the fact that the Maughold Conservation Area includes a significant amount of countryside means that Environment Policy 36 of the Strategic Plan is considered to apply. It states: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area".

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Maughold Commissioners, in a letter dated 2nd September 2014, comment as follows: "The Commissioners have no great objection to the conservatory/sunroom as proposed which it appears will act to have a small impact on the landscape.

"However, they note that the size, scope and impact of this property has increased on the lower Maughold landscape in recent years and the Board would not support any further extension to the property which would act to have a detrimental effect on others who inhabit or visit the area. It is likely that any further built, leisure/equestrian development at this prominent property would be opposed by the Commissioners. The property is already a significant presence in a rural landscape and any further development that is proposed will be scrutinised carefully by Members."

5.2 Highway Services offer no objection to the application in a letter dated 2nd September 2014.

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In his report into the planning application for the replacement dwelling, the case officer noted the following: "Given that the form and size of the proposed development is

==== PAGE 3 ====

1 October 2014 14/00949/B Page 3 of 5 similar to that of the existing development the impact is not significantly different from the present situation. Visually, the proposed development could be viewed as an improvement on the existing development as the existing dwelling could be said to be of limited architectural merit or interest. The proposed dwelling is essentially traditional in form and it is considered that it represents a visually beneficial improvement over the existing dwelling. The conversion element of the proposed development brings the full courtyard of buildings back into beneficial use and results in an attractive form of development that should sit comfortably within the surrounding area".

6.2 It is noted that there was no presumption that no extensions should take place in future, and no permitted development rights for extensions were removed. There was therefore no concern that there might be additional extensions to the dwelling beyond its substantive footprint at the time the replacement dwelling was approved. Planning applications for extensions should be assessed in this context.

6.3 The extension proposed falls a little between two stools in that it is neither fully traditional and nor is it wholly contemporary. The use of glass is a contemporary feature and is an interesting counterpoint to the stonework proposed, while similarly glass lanterns set within a flat roof represents a nod to more traditional styling to single-storey elements of Victorian dwellings.

6.4 Following due consideration, and discussion of the proposal with the Conservation Officer and agent, it is not considered that this variation between contemporary and traditional is fundamentally unacceptable, and nor is the extension unacceptable in the sense that it would alter the footprint of the dwelling as a whole. The applicant was advised, prior to the submission of an application, that the success of the existing dwelling is in its robust and traditional form, and the loss of this via an extension might be unfortunate. It is understood that this is one reason underpinning the glass-led design, and also reflects the fact that the most visible elevation will be that which is dominated by the glass, thereby reducing the visual impact of the building as seen from across the valley. This is the most sensitive view of the site, and therefore it is welcome that attention has been paid to reducing the visual impact of the extension through the use of frameless glass panels.

6.5 It is therefore considered that the form of the proposed extension, along with the proposed traditional materials and ones to match the existing building, is acceptable and, although the scheme as a whole perhaps represents a missed opportunity, it is not considered that an objection on the basis of the design, scale or mass proposed could be sustained.

6.6 However, it is noted that the agent and architect have given extensive thought to how the extension would be used by the occupants and also that the existing "Breakfast Area" would now rely solely on borrowed light. It should be noted that the applicant is also the owner / occupier, and also that these concerns - both in respect of the potential darkness of the existing Breakfast Area and also the design - have been communicated to both the applicant and agent.

6.7 This conclusion is reached in light of, and having regard to, the comments of the Commissioners, which are acknowledged and considered important to note should any future applications for development be submitted on the site.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the application should be approved subject to conditions.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

==== PAGE 4 ====

1 October 2014 14/00949/B Page 4 of 5 8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted

Date of Recommendation:

29.09.2014

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 approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

--

This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 7th August 2014: 770/040, 770/041, 770/042 and 770/043.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : ...

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed :... Chris Balmer

Senior Planning Officer

Signed :... Sarah Corlett

Senior Planning Officer

Signed :...

Signed :...

==== PAGE 5 ====

1 October 2014 14/00949/B Page 5 of 5 Michael Gallagher

Director of Planning and Building Control Jennifer Chance

Head of Development Management