Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00863/B Applicant: Mr Ian Thompson Proposal: Erection of extension to existing detached garage with roof terrace over (comprising amendments to PA 14/01052/B) (retrospective) Site Address: Thie Ny Cronk Ballajora Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BL Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Site Visit: 08.09.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling known as Thie Ny Cronk situated on the northern corner of the crossroads at Ballajora where the Dreemskerry Road meets the road which leads towards Maughold Church; to the south is the road which leads to Hibernia. - 1.2 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, and it was evident from the site visit that the extension has been completed albeit not in line with the approved plans.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 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 was approved under the 2000 application, with an extension to it approved under PA 14/01052/B and described as follows:

"The footprint of the proposed extension would be turned 90 degrees from the existing and would measure roughly 50sqm, 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.

"The flat 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, walling, and nor for the terrace."

2.2 The case officer's assessment of that application is as follows:

• "6.1 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.
• "6.2 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.
• "6.3 With this in mind, a balance needs to be struck between the provisions of General Policy 2, Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16.
• "6.4 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.
• "6.5 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.
• "6.6 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.
• "6.7 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.
• "6.8 Turning more briefly to private amenity, the submitted plans are not clear 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.
• "6.9 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."

3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Now sought is retrospective planning approval for a broadly similar scheme, with the differences being floor-to-ceiling windows inserted in the front and side elevations. In the side elevations, these are in place of a pair of approved side-hung casement lights, while to the front this is in place of a single such light. Also proposed for the front elevation is a twopanel door, access down to the garden from which is provided by steps of an indeterminate material.

4.0 PLANNING STATUS - 4.1 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 Slopes where the following advice is provided: "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:-

• (a) 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;
• (b) 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;
• (c) Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced;
• (d) Linear development along roads from settlements that extends urbanising influences into the wider countryside should be avoided;
• (e) The use of local vernacular building styles and materials should be encouraged;
• (f) New farm buildings that would compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes should be discouraged;
• (g) Care should be taken to minimise loss of hedgerows, sod banks, and other distinctive boundary features along road corridors;
• (h) 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;
• (i) Care should be taken to avoid the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors;

• (j) Tall vertical telecommunications masts or structures which detract from the sloping landform or create visual clutter should be avoided."

4.2 In terms of the Development Plan, Environment Policies 1 and 2 are directly relevant. EP1 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." - 4.3 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:

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

4.4 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."

4.5 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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services and Maughold Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 13.08.2015 and 26.08.2015 respectively.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 It is considered that the assessment outlined in respect of the previous application on the site is as applicable today as then since no change in policy has arisen, nor have there been any appeal decisions that indicate a different approach to the assessment should be made. - 6.2 The scheme now proposed is broadly identical to that already approved. The alterations would not be readily seen from public viewpoints, but in any case are considered to be something of a minor improvement to the approved scheme.

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In view of the above, the application is recommended for approval. Conditions relating to time limits and the finishes of the building, attached previously, are not necessary on this occasion since the application is retrospective in nature.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o 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;
• o Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.09.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions The development hereby approved relates to plan 745.01A, date-stamped as having been received 31st July 2015. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to a Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Permitted Date; 15.09.2015 Determining officer Signed :………………………… Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :………S CORLETT….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer