Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00025/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00025/B Applicant : Mr Peter Leonard Proposal : Alterations and erection of a 2 storey extension to side elevation and single storey double garage with terrace to rear elevation Site Address : Ballasaige House Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BF
Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.05.2021 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 15 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in addition to the Residential Design Guidance in that no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following plans and drawings: PL-002 - Location Plan PL-003 rev A - Block Plan PL-005 rev A - Proposed Plans PL-007 rev A - Proposed Elevations __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article (4(2)):
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00025/B Page 2 of 7
o Glen Lodge, Dreemskerry
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
o DoI Flood Risk Management
It is recommended that Isle of Man Victorian Society should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2)):
As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy, are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy, and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS PLANNING APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AS THE PROPOSAL IS FOR AN EXTENSION TO A DWELLING RESULTING IN AN INCREASE OF FLOOR AREA OF MORE THAN 50% AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
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 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 structures to the northern side.
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 The main aspects of the proposal are:
2.2 Firstly, a pitched side extension to the north side of the dwelling. This extension would have a 15cm set down from the main roof ridge with a matching eaves height (5.3m), and matching roof pitch by virtue of a 0.4m check back from the front elevation. This extension would measure 6.85m x 7.44 (51m2 footprint). This extension would replace timber lean-to structures.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00025/B Page 3 of 7
2.3 Secondly, a rear flat roof garage extension positioned behind the original part of the dwelling on the western (rear) elevation. The garage would be 6.4 x 6.81m (43.5m2 footprint) with an additional set of external steps. The garage would have a roof terrace accessed from the first floor, with glass balustrade surrounding it on 3 sides. The rear extension would replace a small lean-to conservatory.
2.4 A north elevation first floor balcony was initially proposed but following discussions with the case officer and submission of amended plans, has been removed from the proposal.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 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).
3.2 Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, development therein should not have an adverse impact.
3.3 Environment Policy 2 states that within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's), 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.
3.4 Housing Policy 15 is specifically relevant to the extension of existing dwellings in the countryside, which are considered traditional. Such extensions must 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).
3.5 Housing Policy 16 relates to extensions to non-traditional dwellings in the countryside. Any extension to such will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
3.6 Whilst the site is not in an area designated for development, General Policy 2 is still considered relevant in that it relates to matters around design and amenity.
3.7 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No recent or relevant planning history has been identified for this site.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DOI Highways do not oppose this application (05.02.21).
5.2 DEFA Inland Fisheries initially sought further information relating to the proposal (11.03.21). The applicant has confirmed submission of the required information and no further response from Fisheries has been received.
5.3 DoI Flood Risk Management state that there is no flood risk management interest in this application (11.03.21).
5.4 Garff Commissioners have no objection to the application (09.02.21), and state the following: "Housing Policy 15 was particularly noted in the discussion of these proposals by the Board. It was noted that the 50% guideline would have to be set-aside if this application were to be
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00025/B Page 4 of 7
removed. It was also noted that the extension would be 'stepped' back from the original building line and was largely in keeping with the current dwelling. The Board resolved that they had no objection to the proposals."
5.5 Isle of Man Victorian Society (12.02.21) recommend approval subject to a condition requiring the ground floor windows to be 'correct'. They note that "the removal of temporary and incongruous buildings and their replacement with a more permanent structure in keeping with the existing dwelling is to be applauded." They also state that the single pane front elevation ground floor windows, both as existing and proposed, are not prefered.
5.4 The owners/occupants of Glen Lodge, Dreemskeery objected to the initial proposal (17.02.21) citing the following: o No objection to an extension in principle; o Overlooking and loss of privacy from the proposed balconies; o Concern over the potential for contractors vehicles to cause an obstruction parking in front of their property. The above address was reconsulted for 14 days following the submission of amended plans, with no response received.
the residential amenity of neighbours.
6.2 Principle of Development 6.2.1 The application site is outside of any development boundary and is considered to be within the open countryside. There is therefore a general presumption against development. Housing Policy 15 allows for the extension of traditionally styled properties in the countryside where these are sympathetic to the original dwelling. For non-traditional dwellings, Housing Policy 16 seeks to restrict extensions where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
6.2.1 The dwelling has been altered substantially and is not considered to be a well-preserved example of vernacular architecture. It is however, considered that the most visible part of the building (front elevation) has traditional form and design features. For this reason, Housing Policy 15 applies in the assessment of this application.
6.2.2 The proposed extensions would increase the floorspace of the dwelling by approx. 78% from 186m2 to 331m2. For this reason, the proposal is not in accordance with Housing Policy 15, exceeding the '50% limit' to extensions to rural dwellings. Nevertheless, the overall impact of the proposal is balanced against the failure to accord with HP15, as outlined below. The acceptability of the principle of the development is determined via an assessment of the proposed design and of any impacts on the character of the site and wider area, residential amenity and any other relevant aspect.
6.3 Design and Appearance 6.3.1 As noted above, Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 requires that development proposals to extend or alter traditional dwellings in the countryside respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. General Policy 2 also seeks to ensure that development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. The site is within an AHLV, and impact on the character and appearance of the landscape must be considered against Environment Policies 1 & 2.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00025/B Page 5 of 7
6.3.2 The Residential Design Guidance notes that generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publicly viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The guidance also states in section 4.4, that it is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.
6.3.3 The two-storey side extension would be set back from the front elevation and down from the ridge as outlined in the proposal description within this report. The width of the extension would be between one-half and two-thirds that of the existing, and the ridge height would also be slightly below the main roof. The form of the extension would ensure that it retains a subordinate appearance relative to the main body of the dwelling. The matching roof pitch, external finish materials and fenestration layout and size, would ensure that it is sympathetic to the design and character of the main dwelling. The rear facing gable element would also respect the general form and design of the dwelling and would screen the visual impact of the flat roof elements (as proposed and existing).
6.3.4 The rear garage would feature a flat roof and would have a functional appearance relative to the main dwelling and the side extension. It would however be situated largely out of public view and would not be a dominant feature of the dwelling or the surrounding street scene and landscape, by virtue of the scale of the parent building and the steep topography to the rear.
6.3.5 Overall, the proposed extensions would limit the visual impact of the some of the more recent 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. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Strategic Plan policies EP1, EP2, GP2 and the first section of HP15 (extensions must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property). The proposal is considered to be an acceptable exception to the '50% rule' for the reasons outlined.
6.4 Residential Amenity 6.4.1 General Policy 2 further requires that new development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents. Further details of how residential amenity can be impacted are set out in the Residential Design Guide. The key aspects are overlooking (loss of privacy), overbearing (loss of outlook) and overshadowing (loss of sunlight).
6.4.2 The proposed extensions are not in such close proximity to neighbouring dwellings to the degree that any significant overshadowing or overbearing would result.
6.4.3 The proposed balcony and the side extension would additional viewpoints from the dwelling. The neighbour to the north (Glen Lodge) objected to the initial plans partially on the basis of the risk of overlooking. Following concerns regarding the appearance and overlooking risk (particularly towards Geay Vooar to the opposite side of the road), the applicant removed the north elevation balcony from the proposal. It is not considered that the first-floor north elevation window proposed would unacceptably overlook Glen Lodge as it would be approx. 36m from the southern elevation of that dwelling - which sits higher at ground level.
6.4.4 The balcony/terrace to the rear would be slightly under 40m from the conservatory of Glen Lodge and the south side elevation. Views to the side garden of Glen Lodge at 13.5m and greater, would not be partially restricted by existing planted screening and would not be considered likely to result in a loss of residential amenity given the size of the amenity area in question.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00025/B Page 6 of 7
6.4.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposal as amended would not adversely impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties, in accordance with GP2 of the IOMSP.
6.5 Other Matters 6.5.1 The existing access to the property will be retained, and the rear parking and turning area altered to ensure that there would be on-site parking for at least two cars. DoI Highways do not object to the proposal.
6.5.2 A concern has been raised in an objection letter relating to construction traffic blocking access. Whilst this is not a material planning consideration, the applicant is encouraged to ensure that all access points remain unobstructed during construction where possible.
6.5.3 Following additional information being provided to DEFA Inland Fisheries from the applicant, no further response has been provided in terms of impact on the nearby watercourse. Subject to appropriate care during construction, the extensions are not considered to be in close enough proximity to the watercourse to cause harm.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposal is considered to accord with Environment Policies 1 & 2, Housing Policy 15 and General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan in addition to the Residential Design Guidance. No unacceptable adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the appearance of the site and surrounding landscape or the residential amenity of the neighbours.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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.
8.2 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
8.3 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00025/B Page 7 of 7
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 24.05.2021
Signed : S BUTLER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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