Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01227/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/01227/B Applicant : Miss Yvonne Brown Proposal : Erection of proposed entrance extension to rear elevation and new ground floor level window in side, south-east, elevation to dwelling. Site Address : Reayrt Ny Marrey Ballabooie Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AH
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.03.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed rear extension is considered disproportionate to the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, 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 broader site context given its position at the rear of the dwelling where no built form exists beside the blank stone wall, 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 General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan (2016), as well as Planning Circular 3/91.
R 2. The height, size and form of the extension to the rear would add significantly to the massing of the dwelling when viewed from the adjoining public footpath (U94), to the extent that the character and appearance of the dwelling would be affected adversely; as seen both from the public footpath, 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.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01227/B Page 2 of 9
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Reayrt-Ny-Marrey, Ballakaighen, Peel, located north of the winding Ballabooie Road which links the Staarvey Road with the Coast Road (A4) from Peel to Kirk Michael in the west of the Isle of Man. The property sits on a large plot set back from the highway which is accessed by a shared single track drive with neighbouring property Meadowcroft. The application site is bound and bordered by vegetation, this combined with the sod banks and hedgerows lining the nearby public highways, makes it difficult to see the property from the main road, although, the property would be clearly noticeable by the public from the Public footpath U94 which flanks the entire southern boundary of the site.
1.2 The property is isolated within the Manx countryside with only 4 properties in the nearby vicinity, Meadowcroft to the west approx. 40m away, Westerley to the south east approx. 65m away, Greengate Farm to the east approx. 90m away and Ballabooie Farm 135m away to the south. The property sits within the south-west corner of the site edged in red on the associated plans with the front elevation facing south-west and the rear elevation facing north-east up and over the rear garden.
1.3 Reayrt-Ny-Marrey comprises 3 parts; a traditional Manx vernacular two storey cottage sitting centrally between an adjoining lean-to single storey corrugated living unit on the western side elevation and an adjoining larger 2 storey barn on the east side elevation which comprises both residential living accommodation and an integral garage on the ground floor.
1.4 The existing property has a number of fenestrated elements on the front elevation which vary in size but all face south-west towards Peel and the coast. The windows on the main central cottage form symmetrically around the central front door, the three windows on the 2 storey barn are sporadic and consist of a large feature window at first floor level. The existing lean to structure has an existing flue on the front elevation and a mix match of large glazed windows, two glazed doors and a solid door. In contrast to the front elevation the entire rear elevation of the property has no fenestration and is built and finished in a solid stonewall construction.
1.5 The barn attached to the main dwelling appears on the 1860's maps of the area, which highlights its historic significance for the site and area, although the existing dwelling is not shown on the map.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of proposed entrance extension to rear elevation and new ground floor level window in side (south-east) elevation to dwelling. The proposed single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling is to create an entrance hall with circulation corridors.
2.2 The proposed extension would measure 17.85m long (when measured along its longest elevation), its depth would be 2.2m at it narrow point along the corridors and 3.4 m at its deepest point where the entrance would be situated. This entrance would have a pitched roof that would attain a maximum height of approximately 4 metres, while the proposed corridors either side would have a lean-to roof that would attain a maximum height of approximately 3.2m where it meets the rear of the dwelling, and 2.4m from the ground level to the eaves.
2.3 The proposed extension would be clad in Manx stone some of which would be reclaimed from the sections of wall that would be removed to create the opening within the proposed extension. The roof would be slate to match the existing dwelling/ barn and the glazing would be UPVC. It is proposed that the proposed entrance would be predominantly glazed. The windows are to be single pane windows
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01227/B Page 3 of 9
2.4 The proposed works would also include: a. The installation of a window into the side of the proposed integrated garage. b. No trees would be removed to facilitate the development. c. Surface water run-off would be discharged to the existing/proposed soakaway. There would be no changes to the foul sewage disposal system as a result of the development.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not within a Conservation Area or Registered Tree Area, and there are no registered trees on site. The site is largely not prone to flood risks, although the rear of the dwelling, where the development is proposed in considered to have high susceptibility to surface water 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). Greater protection is also given to sites within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance within Environment Policy 2, where the protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration unless it can be shown that the scheme meets two exceptions which border on the level of harm to the character and quality of the landscape or that the location for the development is essential.
3.2.2 Given that 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 elements to the north which are visible from the surrounding countryside. However, as the proposal does not involve changes to the non-traditional element, this policy would not be applicable.
3.2.3 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. Environment Policies 10 and 13 - Flood concerns. f. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. g. Housing Policy 15 - extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties 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. Paragraph 8.12.2 states: "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."
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01227/B Page 4 of 9
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 4 states: "External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials". The supporting texts to policy 4 states that "Modern construction and materials may be used to achieve a similar external appearance".
4.1.3 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.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of several planning applications the following are considered to be materially relevant to the current application.
4.2 PA 20/00986/B for Conversion of first floor outbuilding to additional living accommodation (Retrospective), lowering of an existing window sill, installation of roof lights and removal of front porches. Approved.
4.2.1 This scheme provides a traditional appearance to the existing window by replacing the existing top hung casements on the main cottage with new sliding sash windows. The proposal also removal the inappropriate front porches in front of the dwelling and attached barn. Overall, the scheme sought to reinforce the traditional appearance of the property.
4.3 PA 16/01400/B for Alterations and erection of an extension to the dwelling which was approved by Planning Committee in May 2017 but refused at appeal. The scheme which was refused is not substantially different in terms of design save for the removal of the two projecting gables at the end of the corridors and the change in the external finish. The scheme still retains the large glazed sections with single pane windows.
4.3.1 The Appeal Inspector in dealing with the application made the following comments regarding the Scale, Design, Character and Appearance: "74. The alterations to the existing traditional buildings would result in the large, solid door to the current garage being replaced by a modern, glazed bifold door. At first floor level there would be two enlarged, domestic windows. Combined with the eight roof lights inserted into the original pitched slate roof, these extensive, modern, glazed areas would detract from, and fail to re-establish, the original appearance of the rustic barn, as required by HP11.
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01227/B Page 5 of 9
75. The appearance of the cottage would not be much altered, whilst the replacement construction of the lean-to would not be objectionable in itself and would be an improvement to the property. However, the extensive additional glazing to the front of the lean-to and its higher roof would make it visually more prominent in comparison with the cottage and detract from its appearance in public views from Meadowcroft and PFP U94, contrary to HP16.
The proposed rear extension, in weathered timber and large areas of glazing, would contrast with the traditional Manx stone barn and cottage, despite sharing its overall pitched roof form with matching natural slate. I am conscious that natural timber can work well with traditional stonework in a redevelopment context, where the stonework is difficult to replicate. However, notwithstanding the opinion of the Planning Authority that the rear extension would be likely to go unnoticed, it would clearly be visible to the public from PFP U94, as well as and from Westerley, as standing back-to-back with the original buildings and masking their traditional, plain Manx rear stone walls. By extending beyond the full length of the cottage and barn, with the side wall flush with the gable wall of the barn, the extension would seem excessively dominant compared with the older buildings. This would detract from their traditional appearance, fail to respect their proportion and form and lead to a loss of their original interest and character, contrary to HP15 and HP11.
It is difficult from this conflicting evidence to determine the true percentage increase in floor area. In my own consideration, it is reasonable to omit the lean-to from the area calculations altogether, as it would be replaced by the same area of new construction. Comparison of the traditional buildings only, even including the workroom and garage, would then clearly result in a greater increase than 50 per cent.
The Planning Authority regards the 50 per cent size criterion of HP15 as a mere guideline and gives greater weight to its view that the development would beneficially reinvigorate the existing building and leave the AHLV unaffected. However, any exceedance of such an adopted policy provision must count against the proposal unless there is exceptional justification in terms of planning benefits.
Nevertheless, in this particular case, whether or not the extension would comply with the strict size criterion of HP15, the adverse effects of the development on the existing buildings are the overriding considerations. For this reason, the proposal is contrary to HP11 as well as the provision of HP15 that the alterations and extension should respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property.
I recognise that the design would improve internal circulation and maximise space within the single dwelling proposed, although I do not understand or accept the claim of the architect to the Applicant that the extension would be kept to a minimum.
I do accept that the appeal site is screened from some viewpoints by hedge banks and boundary vegetation. There is some concern that the development could cause root damage and loss of a frontage tree close to the lean-to, increasing the visual exposure of the buildings. However, such concerns could be addressed by the imposition of a planning condition requiring a full landscape planting scheme. This could replace lost vegetation and soften the appearance of the development to some extent by reinforcing the boundary screening.
Importantly though, mere screening or unobtrusiveness is no ground for permitting a development which would harm traditional buildings protected for their own sake, notwithstanding any benefit of improved living space.
In any event, the development would remain highly visible not only at neighbouring property but along PFP U94, from where both the modified front and extended side elevations would be readily observed in the wider countryside context.
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01227/B Page 6 of 9
87. It follows that that the alterations and extension would fail to respect the site and surrounding landscape of the AHLV. In this respect, the development as a whole would be in unacceptable conflict with EP2, GP2(b) and (c) and also EP23 and SP4 of the adopted Strategic Plan."
4.3.2 The application was refused at appeal on the following grounds: "The development would fail to respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property and would harm the character and quality of the landscape of the surrounding Area of High Landscape Value, contrary to Housing Policies 11 and 15, Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways Division have no interest (27/10/23)
6.2 The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team - Request that the applicant undertakes thorough checks around the property prior to and throughout the works, and should bats or evidence of bats be found at any point the works must stop and advice be obtained from the Ecosystem Policy Team on 651577. They further advise that checks will also need to be made in any area, including under the eaves, which could be blocked by scaffolding (14/11/23).
6.3 The German Parish Commissioners have no objection (8/11/23).
6.4 No comment have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment this application are: a. The Principle of the proposed development (GP3, EP 1, EP 2, HP 15); b. The Visual Impact of the existing dwelling and wider surroundings (HP 15, HP 16, GP 2, GP 3 & EP 2, & PC 3/91); and c. Flood Risk Concerns (EP 10, 13 & GP 2)
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposed extension would mask a substantial amount of the existing rear elevation which is currently a blank wall. It is also noted that when this buildings were being converted to a dwelling, the absence of any development on the rear elevation was integral in retaining the original character of the traditional former agricultural building to which the main dwelling is attached, and which is the oldest building on site as it pre-dates every development on site being situated on the 1860's maps of the area.
7.2.2 The reference that approval was granted for a larger scheme on site, with the applicants providing supporting evidence by way of the decision notice issued on 8th May 2017 is noted. However, it must be emphasized that the application under PA 16/01400/B, which is being referred to was the subject of an appeal where the decision of the Planning Committee was overturned, with the application refused at appeal. As such, the key reference should be the Appeal Inspector's report and appeal decision notice, which clearly indicates that the scheme under PA 16/01400/B was refused for the reasons articulated in Paragraph 4.3.2 of this report. As such any reference to the decision by the Planning Committee holds no weight in the current case, as the decision following the appeal is the material consideration when assessing this application, and not the decision of the Planning Committee.
7.2.3 Paragraph 85 of the Inspectors statement is considered of particular relevance to this application and that reads as follows;
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01227/B Page 7 of 9
"Importantly though, mere screening or unobtrusiveness is no ground for permitting a development which would harm traditional buildings protected for their own sake, notwithstanding any benefit of improved living space". It must be emphasised that the argument that the scheme maximizes the internal space holds less weight relative to any impacts on the character of the existing dwelling. Besides, it is not considered that the creation of the rear extension is the only means to improve circulation within the dwelling as doors and hallways could still be created within the building to facilitate internal circulation as has already been carried out on the building in its current form to connect the barn to the main dwelling. The above particularly casts doubts to the rationality of the proposed works, as the dwelling could be made more functional without the need for the proposed scheme.
7.2.4 Given the factors highlighted above, it is not considered that there are sufficient grounds to allow the current proposal which would diminish the character of the original building to what is considered an unacceptable level. Thus the proposal would fail to align with GP3, EP1, EP2, and HP 15 of the Strategic Plan.
7.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT 7.3.1 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. With the current dwelling on site, it is considered that although there were unsympathetic alterations to the dwelling, the recent application under PA 20/00986/B sought to re-invigorate the traditional appeal of the existing dwelling on site, elements which would be more in keeping with the traditional character of the dwelling when implemented.
7.3.2 With regard to the impacts of the current scheme proposed for the site to erect that large corridor and rear entrance extension to the rear, and at a part of the site which would be clearly noticeable from the adjoining public footpath (U94) which flanks the entire southern boundary of the site, it is considered that this scheme would considerably distort the appearance of the rear elevation, as the changes would create a prominent entrance with adjoining corridors that would project the rear as the most important elevation, thus diminishing the character of the existing dwelling on site.
7.3.3 It must be emphasized that the overall design of the rear extension which is not traditional, and which does not bear the existing character of the dwelling in terms of window position and proportions, or reflect the character of the original form of the dwelling being designed contrary to the provisions of Policy 3 of Planning Policy Statement 3/91, and its supporting texts, which clearly sets out how extensions to traditional properties should be carried out, is judged to result in adverse impacts on character of the dwelling, 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 rear extension in terms of its width, depth, height, and overall design would result in an extension found more in modern properties and is not appropriate to the traditional dwelling on this site, even if it utilizes the dominant stone finish on the existing dwelling.
7.3.4 A key failing of the current scheme is that it would create a prominent non-traditional entrance at the rear, which would shift the focus from the traditional frontage of the dwelling towards the rear, making the principal (front) elevation appear as the secondary elevation. As has already been noted, the existing barn to which the traditional dwelling is attached is of historic significance, being one of the oldest buildings in the area which has largely retained its character (save for few alterations), with the scheme seeking to introduce a non-traditional extension that would appear on the most prominent elevation when approaching the property from a public access, and this would diminish the historic significance of the existing barn (and dwelling), by replacing a prominent historic fabric with a non-traditional prominent rear elevation with large glazed sections which detracts from the traditional character of the existing dwelling on site.
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/01227/B Page 8 of 9
7.3.5 Granting the applicants argue that the site is bound and bordered by vegetation, combined with sod banks and hedgerows lining the nearby public highways, which makes it makes it difficult to see the property from the main road, it must be noted that the U94 which adjoins the site is also a public access and is no less significant than a highway, given that it provides key vantage points for the public to view the property. 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 extension would be contrary to Housing Policy 15.
7.3.6 In addition, the scale and massing of the proposed extension is considered to be relatively large for a hallway and corridor when viewed within the context of the ground floor of the dwelling and the degree of the rear elevation that would be masked. The fact that the proposed extension would be particularly noticeable from a public perspective also weighs against the proposal in terms of landscape impacts, as the scheme would distort the historic fabric of the barn and cottage which now exists as part of the landscape character, and there is no indication that the location of the development is essential. Whilst, the proposal would be clad in reclaimed Manx stone and the slate roofing which would match that of the original barn and cottage, it is not considered that the design of the proposed extension would preserve or enhance the original features of the traditional former agricultural building and cottage, and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 15, Environment Policy 2, and General Policy 2 (b, c & g) of the Strategic Plan, and the principles promoted by Planning Circular 3/91.
7.4 FLOOD RISK CONCERNS 7.4.1 In terms of potential flood risk concerns, it is noted that the proposal is situated within a Flood Risk Zone with the works involving the introduction of new door fenestrations on the ground floor, and at a part of the property that is considered to have a high potential for surface water flood risks, with General Policy 2(i) and Environment Policy 13 asserting that development which is prone to unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding (either on or off-site), will not be permitted.
7.4.2 With regard to the flood concerns for the existing dwelling, it is noted that there would be no changes to the site levels or the floor levels within the property. However, the scheme would introduce new door opening at the rear where flood concerns exist, and the rear door would only be situated about 150mm above the ground level, which would increase the vulnerabilities beyond that which is currently attainable at the property and exacerbate any flood concerns at the site. It should be noted that there are currently no fenestrations at the rear, as such flooding has not been any issue even though the proposed development location has high potential for surface water flood risks. However, this relationship would be altered by the proposed development which would increase the built footprint within the flood prone area on site, whilst creating new openings that would allow water in should floods occur, and this weighs against the proposal.
7.4.3 Notwithstanding the flood concerns noted above, it is considered that the installation of new flood doors at the rear could forestall any flood impacts on the dwelling, as the flooding here is mainly surface flooding, and only affects a small portion of the rear garden; a matter that could be conditioned should approval be granted for the scheme. As such, it is not considered that there would be unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, it is considered that the form, design, size, and appearance of the proposed rear extension is 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
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/01227/B Page 9 of 9
Policies 1 and 2, Strategic Policy 5, and Housing Policy 15. 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
9.3 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 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 : 02.04.2024
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