Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01220/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/01220/B Applicant : Mrs Kimberley Powell Proposal : Alterations and erection of a two-storey extension to side elevation and single storey extension to rear elevation. External works to provide parking and turning area Site Address : Ballasaige House Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BF
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.02.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed side extension is considered disproportionate to the scale, footprint and massing of the existing building, whilst being of a design and built form that would be incongruous to its historic and traditional character. The development further has the potential to appear unduly prominent within the context of the wider landscape as it is not subordinate to the original building, thereby resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the original building, and as such is contrary to Housing Policy 15, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 2. Whilst there is no issue with the single storey extension to the rear, the height, size and form of the alterations to the two storey rear element as shown would add significantly to the massing of the dwelling to the extent that the character and appearance of the dwelling would be affected adversely; as seen both from the adjacent highway, and in its landscape setting in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, contrary to Environment Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan.
R 3. The scheme clearly creates an additional unit of accommodation, which could exist completely independent of the main dwelling on site, given its layout which suggest it will be occupied separately from the main house. This new unit of accommodation would be contrary to the Strategic Aim, Future Housing Strategy detailed with Paragraph 8.3.1, Housing Policy 4, and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, as it does not meet any of the exceptions for allowing a new independent unit of accommodation in the countryside.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01220/B Page 2 of 8
R 4. The proposed quantum increase in floor area by 67% over the existing (and 145% increase when measured cumulatively over the original floor area of the dwelling) would be inconsistent with Housing Policy 15, particularly because the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the existing traditional dwelling, and no exceptional justifications were provided to support the increase in floor area. The development is, therefore, contrary to Housing Policy 15 and Paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Ballasaige House, which lies on the western side of the Dreemskeery Road. The site is bounded by open fields to the west (rear) and south. The detached dwelling of Glen Lodge is adjacent to the north. The site has an elevated position above, and close to, the road, due to the topography of the land rising from east to west.
1.2 The site dwelling is a two-storey rendered dwelling which retains the form of a traditional cottage style dwelling when viewed front-on from the road. The slate pitch roof and double gable chimney stacks with coping stones, and the 5-window layout to the front elevation provide a traditional appearance. The window and door proportions and positioning on the front elevation also retains the traditional form. The dwelling has however been altered in the past, with a part flat roof, part cat slide roof extension to the rear which is visible from the road. There is a collection of informal roofed timber structures to the northern side which do not appear to benefit from planning approval.
1.3 The site is bounded by mature hedging and features planting throughout. Access it to the northeast corner of the site via a driveway which curves in towards the dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for alterations and erection of a two-storey extension to side elevation and single storey extension to rear elevation. External works to provide parking and turning area.
2.2 The details of the proposed works are as follows: a. Erecting a two storey side extension that would match the roof ridge, as well as the front and rear elevation of the dwelling in terms of building line positions, with only a small recess measuring 1.2m wide and about 500mm deep introduced to serve as a break to the front elevation. This extension which would measure 7.5m on the front and 8m to the rear, would provide for a double garage, a stairway and hallway on the ground floor, while the first floor would house a bedroom with ensuite, and another small sized room (not labelled). The only connection between this extension and the main dwelling is a door that would be introduced on the side of the hallway.
b. Erecting a single storey pitch roofed rear extension at the rear of the main dwelling that would measure 4.8m x 5.7m. This extension would serve as a kitchen to the main dwelling.
c. Altering the rear roof plane to create a new roof structure with three projecting roof gables that would be set about 120mm lower than the main roof ridge.
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01220/B Page 3 of 8
2.3 All the extension would be finished externally in painted masonry, while the roof would be finished in slate tiles. The recessed section would be fished in stone cladding. All the new windows would be white UPVC units.
2.4 The proposed works would result in the creation of new floor areas that would result in an overall increase of 67% over the existing floor area and 11% less than the previously approved floor area increase of 78% under PA 21/00025/B.
2.5 There would be alterations to the site area to create new parking and turning areas within the site. These alterations would create parking areas for at least three cars parked within the curtilage.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The site falls within an area not zoned for any particular purpose and considered open countryside within the 1982 Development Plan. This plan also shows the site as being within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV). The site is not within a Conservation Area or Registered tree Area, and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also not prone to flood risks.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However given there is an existing dwelling on the site, it is relevant to consider Housing Policy 15 which makes provision for extensions or alterations to traditional properties in the countryside. Housing Policy 16 is also relevant as the dwelling has non-traditional element to the rear which are visible from the adjoining highway.
3.2.2 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. c. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. d. Environment Policy 2 - Requires that within AHLV the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless considerations certain conditions are met. e. Housing Policy 4 - sets out the exceptions for allowing new housing in the islands countryside. f. Housing Policy 15 - extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside. g. Housing Policy 16 - Extension of non-traditional styled dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form in the countryside. h. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. i. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. j. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages. k. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact l. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3.
m. Future Housing Strategy: Paragraph 8.3.1 - "It is now generally accepted that, whilst there should be available a wide range of housing throughout the Island, new housing should be located only where it can be properly and economically serviced, where it does not involve excessive travelling to and from work and amenities, and where it does not damage the character, appearance, and ecology of the Island."
n. Paragraph 8.12.2 states:
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01220/B Page 4 of 8
"Extensions to properties in the countryside As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Planning Policy Statement 3/91 which provides guidance on the design of residential development in the countryside.
4.1.1 Policy 3 states: "The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of the traditional farmhouse. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form".
4.1.2 Policy 5 sates: "Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms."
4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.2.1 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. Section 3.1 deals with Local Distinctiveness, 4.0 on Householder Extensions, while Section 7.0 deals with Impact on Neighbouring Properties.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of two previous planning applications that sought extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling on site.
5.2 Planning approval was granted for Alterations and extension to form kitchen under PA 85/00846/B which was approved by the Planning Committee on 13 September 1985. The original dwelling that existed on site prior to the extension measured approx.11.5m long and 5.5m wide, creating a floor area over both floors measuring 126.5sqm. The extension added a further 59.5sqm to the existing floor area, which is a 47% increase in floor area.
5.3 A recent application for Alterations and erection of a 2 storey extension to side elevation and single storey double garage with terrace to rear elevation under PA 21/00025/B was approved for the site. The proposal sought a 78% increase in floor area from 186sqm to 331sqm. The two storey extension was also to be erected such that its front elevation would be set back by about 450mm from the front elevation of the existing dwelling, while the roof ridge was to be set at about 130mm lower than the existing roof ridge. The extension was also integrated into the existing dwelling to form a single unit of accommodation via connecting corridors and opening up of wall sections.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01220/B Page 5 of 8
6.1 DOI Highways have no interest in the application (27 October 2023).
6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise that the applicant to be aware of and demonstrate compliance with the referred documents (1 February 2024).
6.3 Garff Commissioners have no objection to the application (3 November 2023).
6.4 No comment have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are: a. The visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider surroundings; b. The Acceptability of the proposed increase in floor area; and c. Impacts on neighbouring residential amenity
7.2 Visual Impact (HP 15, HP 16, GP 2, GP 3 & EP 2) 7.2.1 As has been clearly articulated in Housing Policy 15, 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.
7.2.2 With the current dwelling on site, it is considered that there has been notable alterations to the rear which has considerably distorted the appearance of the rear elevation, with the changes considered to diminish the character of the existing dwelling when viewed from the rear. However, the front and south (side) elevations, which are particularly noticeable from the adjoining highway still retaining their traditional character, with the north elevation which has an inappropriate flat roofed extension largely retaining a significant proportion of its traditional elements (such as the gable chimney and dominant pitch roofed gable elevations), which reinforces its traditional appearance.
7.2.3 In assessing the visual impacts of the proposed scheme, there is concern with the overall design of the side extension which is judged to result in adverse impacts on its character, given that the works do not respect the traditional proportion, form, and appearance of the existing property. The existing building is in most part traditional in appearance and character. However, the proposed side extension in terms of its width, depth and height would result in an extension found more in modern properties and is not appropriate to the traditional dwelling on this site. This extension is set at the same height as the main dwelling, has similar width, and the front elevation is not set back from the front building line of the existing dwelling, and as such a clear break is not created between the existing and proposed. It is also clear that the extension is not subordinate to the main dwelling on site since it has similar height as the main dwelling.
7.2.4 With regard to the works to the rear, it is considered that the alterations would tidy up the appearance of the rear elevation as there can be no doubt that the existing disjointed roof forms which dominate the rear views are unappealing, detracting from the traditional character and appearance of the house and its setting. Notwithstanding these positives, the proposal would create a large rear elevation that is reminiscent of non-traditional dwellings within urban locations, as the three projecting rear gables in no way represent traditional additions in the vernacular architecture. Thus, the works at the rear are not judged to represent an opportunity to improve the appearance of the rear elevation of the property. Whilst the rear work would not be prominent features in the landscape, distant views would still be achievable from School House Road to the south west. Besides, Housing Policy 15 relates to extension/alterations to traditional properties whether they be apparent from public view or not, thus it is still important that changes are in keeping and appropriate for the existing traditional property. Given the above, it is considered the proposed roof alterations to the rear
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01220/B Page 6 of 8
would not respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, and therefore would be contrary to Housing Policy 15.
7.2.5 Further to the above, the scheme as currently proposed would unbalance the building as the window and door symmetry would be considerably altered, creating a lopsided view in terms of window symmetry relative to the position of the central door. These would be completely at variance with the proportions stipulated in Planning Circular 3/91 (which is echoed within Paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan), particularly as the recess which was intended to break the views to the front elevation and distinguish the existing traditional dwelling from the extension has failed to achieve its goal. The failed design attempt to break the views is as a result of the building height being maintained across the extension, and as the recess does not break the roof line, thereby resulting in a building that has a lopsided proportion, with a line of windows flanking the left of the main door while four window lines sits to the right, and there is no continuation of the window line on both floors within the recess. Therefore, the scheme would also be at variance with Paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan and Policy 5 of Planning Circular 3/91.
7.2.6 Granting arguments could be made in favour of the development on the basis that the rear elevation is not traditional and as such cannot be fully subject to the requirements of Housing Policy 15, it would be vital to note that Housing Policy 16 does not support extensions to inappropriate forms where such extensions would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. In this case, the proposed extensions to the side and rear alterations to the roof plane would increase the impact of the dwelling when judged against the background of the existing dwelling on site, and be noticeable from the immediate street scene and surrounding landscape, particularly when approaching the dwelling from the north along Dreemskerry Road. Also, distant views would be achievable from School House Road. Therefore, the proposal would also fail to align with the requirements of Housing Policy 16.
7.3 The Acceptability of increases to floor area (HP 4 and 15, and Paragraph 8.3.1 of the Strategic Plan) 7.3.1 In terms of the acceptability of the proposed increase in floor area, which is also a key consideration under Housing Policy 15, it is considered that the proposed 67% increase in floor area (from 186sqm to 310sqm) would be at variance with Housing policy 15. Housing policy 15 is clear that only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space.
7.3.2 Whilst it is noted that the proposed increase in floor area would be about 11% lower than that previously approved for the site, it appears that one intention of Housing Policy 15 is to ensure that where development exists, in an historic form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. From review of the Officer report for the recently approved planning application for the site, which sought a 78% increase in floor area that is considerably higher than the stipulated 50% threshold in Housing Policy 15, it is clear that the previous application was considered to limit the visual impact of the some of the more recent inappropriate additions to this traditional dwelling, and would increase the scale of the dwelling in a way which would be sympathetic to both the site and the surrounding rural context.
7.3.3 With the current scheme, it is considered that although the works to the rear would tidy the appearance of the rear elevation, the overall scheme would result in significant alterations to the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, such that the resulting scheme would bear a non-traditional appearance, and detract from the character of the existing dwelling on site. Besides, the approach taken with the floor area assessment in the previous application, does not invalidate the requirements of Housing Policy 15 or weaken its requirements, as in this case, it is not clear from the information available that there are exceptional grounds to justify the proposed 67% increase in floor area.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01220/B Page 7 of 8
7.3.4 It should be noted that the existing net floor area of about 186sqm is considerably higher than most dwellings in the countryside, and as such moderate additions to improve functionality would be appropriate. However, the scheme seeks an increase to 310sqm in manner that fails to respect the existing character of the dwelling on site. Thus, it is considered that the quantum increase in space is objectionable, particularly as it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, yet the application is not supported by any justifications for the proposed increase in floor area.
7.3.5 In addition, when the increases in floor area is measured cumulatively through the dwellings history, it is considered that the proposed increase would amount to an increase of 145% over the original floor area of the dwelling which measured 126.5sqm. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the scheme as currently proposed would fail to align with the principles behind the stipulation of the 50% floor area increase within Housing Policy 15.
7.3.6 Aside from the inappropriate floor area increase, the scheme clearly creates a side extension with layout that suggests that it will be occupied separately from the main house. Firstly, there is no connection between the first floor areas, with the only link on the ground floor being a door connected to the new hallway which could be blocked up without the need to submit a planning application; particularly as the main dwelling still has its front and rear access. Also, the garage on the ground floor could be altered internally to create a semi- detached dwelling when considered as a whole with the first floor area (It must be emphasized that internal alterations to dwellings do not require planning approval). The concern with the new layout is exacerbated by the fact the overall floor area within the side extension would total about 114.2sqm (over both floors), which is more than suitable for an independent unit of accommodation, particularly as the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2017 stipulates that 87sqm of net floor area would be suitable for permanent accommodation housing 6 persons. A review of the layout also shows that there is a door to the stairway leading to the first floor accommodation over the garage, and the unannotated room has cabinets that depicts a kitchen layout. Thus the first floor extension represents an independent unit of accommodation with bedroom, kitchen and bathroom.
7.3.7 Given the above, it is considered that the proposed increase in floor area, and layout of the side extension, which is tantamount to the creation of an independent unit of accommodation on site (that does not meet the exceptions allowable in the countryside) would be contrary to the Strategic Aim, and Future Housing Strategy detailed with Paragraph 8.3.1 of the Strategic Plan. The scheme would also fail to align with Housing Policy 4 as it would not meet any of the exceptions for allowing new housing in the countryside.
7.4 Impact on neighbours (GP 2) 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on neighbouring amenity, it is considered that there would be no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity given that the nearest properties 'Geay Vooar' and 'Glen Lodge' are situated about 23m, and 34m respectively from the proposed development. It is also considered that the intervening landscaping which separates the application site from both neighbouring properties, would serve to diminish any concerns with regard to neighbouring amenity.
7.4.2 Given the above, it is judged that the proposed alterations and extensions would not result in adverse impacts upon the living conditions of the neighbouring properties, and as such the proposal would conform to Business Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan.
8.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered that the form, design, size, and appearance of the proposed alterations and side extension are not sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing property and would not have a positive impact on the surrounding environment, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2, Strategic Policy 5, and Housing Policy 15. Furthermore, the creation of a self-contained living accommodation within the proposed side
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/01220/B Page 8 of 8
extension would also be contrary to the Strategic Aim, Future Housing Strategy detailed with Paragraph 8.3.1, Housing Policy 4, and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable, and the scheme is recommended for refusal.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
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
Decision Made : Refused Date : 04.03.2024
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal