38975

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 15/00542/B
                                 Page  1  of  5

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 15/00542/B Applicant : Mr Nigel Kermode Proposal : Alterations and erection of extensions to provide additional living accommodation (amendments to PA 07/01196/B) Site Address : Kerrow-Ny-Glough Cottage Mill Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 3LA

Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken :

Site Visit : 26.05.2015 Expected Decision Level :

Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFFERED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE AND THE PROPOSED EXTENSION MEASURING MORE THAN 50% OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Kerrow-Ny-Glough, a large two storey Manx cottage with a two storey conservatory extension. The site lies on the eastern side of Greeba Mill Road, Greeba.

1.2 The site is not visible in its entirety from Greeba Mill Road but is partially visible as one views the site from the access to the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the alterations and erection of extension to provide additional living accommodation. The application proposals are similar to those in a previously approved, but now expired application PA 07/01196/B.

2.2 The application proposes the extension of the existing dwelling by the construction of a linked structure, of varying heights, both single and two storey and with a partial basement. The extension would be linked by a single storey corridor with the existing dwelling forming guest accommodation. The extension would be constructed with smooth render with extensive glazing, particularly to the circular main lounge. The design is considered to be modern and innovative.

2.3 The application differs from the previous in the following respects:

• The ridge height would be 640mm higher than the previously proposed 8 metres;
• The Kitchen would be 1.62 metres above ground level to be same level of the rear garden and dining room;
• A basement would be provided underneath the kitchen;
• The proposed glazing to the main lounge would now be fully rounded glazing and a single access door rather than two single doors;
• The kitchen bay window would be bigger;

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 15/00542/B
                                 Page  2  of  5

• The 'northern building' would be 1.8 metres larger than that previously approved;
• The creation of porch entrance to the southern elevation measuring 0.9 x 1.2 x 1.3; and
• The access from the dining room to the terrace would be from the southern elevation rather than the eastern.

2.4 The internal arrangement also differs.

2.5 No information has been submitted that provides detail in relation to the size of the existing dwelling, the size of the extension that was previously approved, or the size of the extension currently proposed. Officers have therefore taken measurement from the drawings that indicate the existing dwelling is 133.7sqm and the proposed dwelling as a whole would be approximately 347sqm resulting in an increase of approximately 279%.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The application site lies within an area zoned as an Area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Significance and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Development Plan Order.

3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains four policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11); c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

Environment Policy 1 states: "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".

Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of 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 difference categories of

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 15/00542/B
                                 Page  3  of  5

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."

Housing Policy 15 states: "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)."

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 As previously mentioned, planning approval was granted in 2007 for the alterations and erection of extensions to provide additional living accommodation under PA 07/01196/B. The approval was granted on 16 October 2007 and expired on 25 June 2011. There is no indication that the approval was implemented.

4.2 Prior to this, in 2006 approval in principle was sought for the cottage to be used as guest accommodation, with the erection of a replacement dwelling. This was refused both initially and then on appeal on 22 January 2007.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 German Parish Commissioners have reservations with regard to the height of the roof however they agreed they will leave the decision to the planning committee (03/06/2015).

5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application (04/06/2015).

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application should be assessed in the light of the policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and any material considerations. The fact that there was an application approved on the site for a very similar development, which was assessed in the light of the same policies that are applicable today, is a material consideration.

6.2 In the assessment of the previous application, the officer indicates that the relevant policy is Housing Policy 15 and explains that the policy sets out that only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions that are more than 50%. The officer then sets out the explanatory paragraph for Policy HP15 'As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exisits, 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.' The officer reached the conclusion that the property was well screened and that the extension was designed so that the existing dwelling would retain its character as a result of the extension being linked via galleries, and as such the existing dwelling would still be viewed as a traditional extended cottage with a modern form to the side and rear.

6.3 The previous officer's assessment of the application shows how widely policy can be interpreted. It is true that the proposed extension would allow for the vernacular of the original cottage to be easily 'read' as being the original building. Whether such an approach 'respects the proportion, form and appearance' of the existing dewlling is somewhat arguable.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 15/00542/B
                                 Page  4  of  5

The element of the policy that relates to size in terms of it being in proportion to the original dwelling and that they should be no greater than 50% appears to be largely ignored, or at least set aside on the basis that the proposal is innovative and not destroying the character of the original dwelling.

6.4 The application seeks approval for a new dwelling in the countryside, utilising the existing Manx cottage more as an appendage to the new build, as opposed to being a typical extension to an existing dwelling, whereby the extension is a lesser part of the original. If this approach was taken to all extensions to houses in the countryside, whether traditional or not, there could be far reaching implications. When taken in the light of the Government's Strategic Plan's presumption against new built development in the countryside, or the overriding philosophy of minimising the impact of new built development on the countryside, it is suggested that such an approach should be taken with the utmost caution.

6.5 What is proposed under this scheme represents an extension that is considerably over 50% of the existing building. The extension has not been designed to match the existing vernacular style but to be a divergence from it. Such an approach is not entirely unique and can work very well. In this case the actual design of the extension appears to be of good quality. It is also acknowledged that it is well screened from the adjacent highway and views into the site are limited to partial and distorted views through boundary trees and across the bridge to the site.

6.6 Although it is not accepted that the development sits comfortably within the policy framework as suggested by the previous planning officer, it is acknowledged that a similar application was approved, the design of the extension is attractive and its impact on the wider countryside is not significant. 6.7 The nearest neighbouring property is Balladuke which is sited 20 metres to the north of the application site. Between the application site and Balladuke is a boundary of tall trees which would screen the extension, at least when the trees are in full bloom. When the trees are not in full bloom, the extension would be visible, however given the separation distance of the application site and Balladuke, it is considered that the extension would not adversely impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring property.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For the reasons set out above it is considered that the extension proposed is acceptable and is recommended for approval.

8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation:

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 15/00542/B
                                 Page  5  of  5

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 Drg No P03, P04, P05, P06, P07, P08, P09, 11 F, 12 F, 13 F, 14 F, 15 F, 16 B and 20 all date stamped as received on 18th May 2015, and Drg No P01, P02 date stamped as received on 26th June 2015.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Approved Committee Meeting Date: 29.06.2015

Signed : Melissa McKnight Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO