230005

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal : Site Address: H/01052/B Mr Ian Thompson Extension to existing detached garage with roof terrace over Thie Ny Cronk Ballajora Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 IBL Mr Edmond Riley 07.10,2014 07.10,2014 Officer Delegation Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Levei: Officer's Report 1,0 THE SITE The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling known as Thie Ny Cronk situated on the northern corner of the crossroads at Bailajora where the Dreemskerry Road meets the road which leads towards Maughold Church; to the south is the road which leads to Hibernia. 1.1 The property is a modest, hipped, Westmoreland-slate roofed dormer bungalow set in attractively landscaped gardens. The dwelling sits immediately alongside the road and has a triple garage with steeply-pitched roof alongside the dwelling; the garage has living accommodation above that is tied by planning condition as ancillary to Thie Ny Cronk. The dwelling and garage are finished in smooth render. 1.2 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an extension to the existing garage block. The footprint of the proposed extension would be turned 90 degrees from the existing and would measure roughly SOsqm, compared to the existing garage of 60sqm and would be finished to match the garage itself. It would be flat-roofed and have a glass balustrade surround. If implemented, the building would be L-shaped, offer four garage doors and room for further storage space. 2.1 The fiat roof would provide a balcony, access to which would be provided by a new door within the dormer accommodation. The submitted plan does not indicate the proposed finishings for the new windows, doors, waliing, and nor for the terrace. 2.2 3.0 PLANNING STATUS The site lies within an area designated as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. On the draft Landscape Character Map the site lies within an area identified as Incised Siopes where the following advice is provided: 3.1 7 November 2014 14/01052/B Page 1 of 6

==== PAGE 2 ====

"4.5 Type D: Incised Slopes The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields. Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:- Care should be taken to ensure that housing and business development does not detract from the distinctive identity and setting of settlements, and avoids coalescence with other settlements within this Landscape Type; The design and layout of new housing and business development should include appropriate native structure planting to soften urban edges and enhance the transition to the wider landscape; Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settiements within these landscapes should be enhanced; Linear development along roads from settlements that extends urbanising influences into the wider countryside should be avoided; The use of local vernacular building styles and materials should be encouraged; New farm buildings that would compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes should be discouraged; Care should be taken to minimise loss of hedgerows, sod banks, and other distinctive boundary features along road corridors; Tourist-related development, such as camp-sites, should avoid visually prominent locations, particularly those which can be viewed from higher land and those which would extend urbanising influence along the coast; Care should be taken to avoid the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) corridors; 0) Tall vertical telecommunications masts or structures which detract from the sloping landform or create visual clutter should be avoided." In terms of the Development Plan, Environment Policies 1 and 2 are directly relevant. EPl reads in full: 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A,3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 3.2 EP2 states: "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: 3.3 (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." 7 November 2014 14/01052/B Page 2 of 6

==== PAGE 3 ====

3.4 Although the site is within the countryside, it cannot be ignored that the site is an existing dwelling. With this in mind, and given the nature of the proposal (i.e, for a garage extension), it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2, which reads in part: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality." Housing Policy 16 refers directly to house extensions, although the principle underlying that policy is certainly considered relevant to the assessment of this application; it states: 'The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public." 3.5 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY Planning permission was sought for extensions and alterations under PAs 10/00750, 10/00342, 01/02093, 00/00928, 99/01556 and 98/02150. The garage in question was approved under the 2000 application. 4.1 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS The Manx Utilities Authority note the presence of "underground cables/overhead lines" in the vicinity of the application site and request the applicant contact them on 687766 before carrying out any work on the site. 5,1 Maughold Parish Commissioners in a correspondence received 15th October 2014 indicate that they do not object to the application. 5,2 6.0 ASSESSMENT Concern was raised with the agent in the first instance that the extension would be large - an almost doubling of an existing triple garage - and not especially attractive in that it would offer a flat roof and be of a fairly awkward height and angle relative to the existing building. While 'common sense' exceptions can be made for new garages and other residential paraphernalia in the countryside, it cannot be ignored that the property already benefits from a triple garage along with various sheds. As such, it is considered that the property could not be said to be wanting for storage or garaging space. 6.1 In responding to officer concerns, the agent made efforts to alter the impact of the proposal by suggesting a pitched roof option or different finishing methods, but was clearly hamstrung by his client's desire to have a garage extension of the size sought. Unfortunately, officer suggestions to set the extension behind the line of the existing slightly and continue that building line were not acceptable to the applicant. 6.2 With this in mind, a balance needs to be struck between the provisions of General Policy 2, Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16. 6.3 The property - and its garage - is readily visible from the highway. Although there are trees and walls lining the site, the garage's location fairly near the highway access to the dwelling is such that the site opens out a little here, and the proposed extension would more or less face out of this access. It would certainly increase the impact of the existing garage. 6.4 7 November 2014 14/01052/B Page 3 of 6

==== PAGE 4 ====

However, it is also the case that the site as a whole is well-screened and longer views into the site are not possible. It is set in a well-treed location, the surrounding topography of which successfully screens the site from further afield. 6.5 It is considered that the proposed extension is large and poorly-designed, albeit that the location of the existing garage relative to the shape of the site is such as to be fairly constrictive. However, it is also considered that the public harm that would arise would not be sufficient to warrant the application's refusal. For similar reasons, while the proposed design is rather clumsy and would not appear as a natural addition when read against the existing garage, the fact of the site's rural and well-screened location means that a refusal on grounds of the proposal's effect on the existing dwelling are also unlikely to be sustainable in an appeal situation, 6.6 On the above bases, it is considered that the proposal represents a significant missed opportunity; the likelihood is that, were the dwelling any more visible from near or far distances, the application could justifiably be refused on grounds of poor design and its failure to comply with the provisions of Environment Policy 2, Housing Policy 16 or parts 'b' and ’c’ of General Policy 2. However, in light of the foregoing, this is not considered the case and therefore no objection is raised on grounds of public amenity. 6.7 Turning more briefly to private amenity, the submitted plans are not dear that there is a significant leylandii treeline separating the application site from the neighbouring dwelling ('Valentia'). Although the proposal would result in the potential for additional overlooking via the proposed terrace atop the garage extension, this treeline would provide for sufficient screening between the two sites to prevent any undue loss of privacy, While of course the presence of trees should not be a reason to approve something inappropriate, the robustness of the trees is such to accept that even with some thinning the density of the vegetation would still provide sufficient screening. No objection is therefore raised on this point. 6.8 6.9 In other matters, the agent advises that the sheds on the site have been in place for eight years. As such, although they are of a size and location to require the submission of a planning application, they are now immune from enforcement action. 6.10 The proposed loss of a tree is unfortunate but not considered reason enough to refuse the application given the otherwise very treed nature of the site. 6.11 Finally, in the absence of information on the matters of finishing, it is recommended that any approval notice should carry a condition requiring the windows, walls and doors be to match the existing materials. No condition is recommended in respect of the terrace, which could not be seen from anywhere except while on that terrace. 7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The site's generally secluded nature is such that the fairly inappropriate design and mass of the proposed garage would be sufficiently hidden from public view such as to not unduly harm amenity. As such, it is considered that the proposal is not in such significant conflict with the relevant Development Plan policies to warrant the application's refusal. As such, it is recommended that the application be approved. 7.1 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 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 8.1 7 November 2014 14/01052/B Page 4 of 6

==== PAGE 5 ====

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. In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: 8.2 • The Manx Utilities Authority Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 07.11.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : 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. To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Reason; Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C2. The development hereby approved shall, in all matters save for floor of the roof terrace, match the existing materials of the existing garage. Reason: in the interest of the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. N 1. The applicant is recommended to contact the Manx Utilities Authority on 687766 before carrying out any work on the site. This approval relates to the plan 745.01, date-stamped as having been received 5th September 2014, 7 November 2014 14/01052/B Page 5 of 6

==== PAGE 6 ====

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 :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed :.LJ\j\A^ Jennifer Chance 7 November 2014 14/010S2/B Page 6 of 6