DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00061/B Applicant: Mr Jason & Mrs Jessica Bulliment Proposal: Alterations and erection of an extension with integral garage Site Address: Borodaill Peel Road Glen Mooar Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1HL Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.03.2021 _________________________________________________________________

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.

• C 2. This approval relates to the extension and alterations of the existing property creating a larger property which may only be used as a single dwelling house, including those uses appertaining to dwellinghouses as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Change of Use) (Development) (No.2) Order 2019 or any Order superseding this.

Reason: to control the creation of unauthorised dwellings in areas not designated for development.

• C 3. The garage accommodation may be used only for the storage of vehicles or domestic items associated with the occupation of Borodaill as defined in red in the application and may not be altered or used other than as shown in the submitted drawings. Reason: to protect the amenities of the countryside.
• C 4. No trees may be removed as part of the development hereby approved.

Reason: to ensure that the existing wooded setting of the site is retained in the interests of the visual character of the area and its ecology.

N 1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the Wildlife Act 1990 in particular to the protection of nesting and breeding birds and the effect on them from any site clearance.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to accord with Housing Policy 16

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings reference NB/BORODAILL, NB/JB/1601 and NB/JB/1603 Rev C all received on 4th January, 2021. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

Department for Infrastructure's Flood Risk Management Team should be afforded interested person status as they are a Government Department which has raised material planning considerations.

It is recommended that the following party 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):

the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment 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, they 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 APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSED EXTENSION IS MORE THAN 50% LARGER THAN THE EXISTING DWELLING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE 2021/04

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling which sits on the coastal side of the A4 coast road to the south west of Kirk Michael village and alongside the entrance to Glen Moar. - 1.2 The house site at the end of a long driveway and is a traditionally proportioned property albeit with external chimney breasts, non traditional windows, a hipped roofed bay window and porch. - 1.3 The site and location plans seem to indicate that there is a separate access from the main road to the property whereas in practice the access is off the Glen Moar Road. The property is visible through varied vegetation between the A4 and the property as one passes the site. Due to it sitting within a valley, it is not visible from further afield from either direction whereas other properties which are higher up the glen slopes can be seen but not particularly prominently in the landscape. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the extension of the property in a southerly direction at two storey height as well as a two storey projection on the front elevation, a replacement of the existing lean-to

• annex with a wider one on the northern elevation and the replacement of the rear annex with a wider, dual pitched extension. The two storey extension to the side is to accommodate four garages, two enclosed with garage doors, with two bedrooms above.
• 2.2 The principal extension will add 16m to the footprint of the property with a link section which adds a further 3m. On the ground floor there is to be garaging - two garage doors and two openings without doors with the link piece finished in glazing with a standing seam roof. The extension on the front will be finished in what looks on the drawings like stone as will be the ground floor level of the garage building on the front and side elevations. The bedrooms above the garage will be accessible only through the main house via a stair case in front of the new front door which will provide access to the whole of the first floor.
• 2.3 These plans are similar in mass to the previously refused scheme referred to in the Planning History although the layout is now one single dwelling with less likelihood of the space being subdivided into more than one unit of residential or tourist accommodation which was proposed previously. The extensions are all now more in keeping with the style and design of the existing property. The roofing is to be finished in slate.
• 2.4 The applicant has responded to concerns about the proposal by explaining that he should have ticked the box on the form which indicates that there are trees within 15m of the proposed works and that the tree identified by Ecosystems Policy is a self seeded sycamore which sits on top of the main gas line and which will be looked at separately in respect of its removal in relation to that. There are no intentions to remove any further trees and the proposed development will not cause concern for this. The applicant is aware of the nesting season and will check prior to the removal of any vegetation. He confirms that there is no Japanese Knotweed on the site as it is on the valley banks below.
• 2.5 In respect of the comments from the SPMCE, the applicant responds by stating that the splayed siting of the extension is intended to align with the embankment behind it and could not be set at right angles due to the access and the arch heads over the garage doors is the applicant's preferred design. They consider that having the extension finished in full stone would be too much and it is their preference to have a mixture of stone and render. They consider that the existing property is not traditional and they are not trying to build a traditionally styled property. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for a particular purpose and within or next to an area of Woodland and also within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. As such, the protection of the countryside for its own sake is of paramount importance as stated in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and the exceptions to this are set out in General Policy 3. The plan also presumes against unsustainable development outside existing settlements in the Strategic Aim Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Strategic Policy 5 requires development to have a positive impact on the environment of the Island. Strategic Policy 8 states that tourist developments will generally be supported where they make use of existing fabric and Business Policy 11 makes it clear that tourism-related development will be subject to the same protective policies as other forms of development in the countryside. Guidance on the extension of non-traditional houses in the countryside is provided in Housing Policy 16:

"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."

3.3 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which 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 property.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning approval has been granted in the past for the installation of a gas tank and an agricultural building but the most relevant previous application is 20/00103/B which was refused for the following reasons:

• 1. The scheme clearly creates two additional units of accommodation, one of which is completely separate from the others and the other, whilst annotated as Accommodation 2/bedroom 4, has a kitchenette and bathroom, which suggest it will be occupied separately from the main house. These new units of accommodation are contrary to the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10 and do not comply with General Policy 3, Business Policy 11 or Strategic Policy 8.
• 2. The extension will more than double the frontage of the property and in a form which detracts from the appearance of the front elevation of the building - the addition of the two storey projecting annex almost turns this into a rear elevation, the rear elevation would appear unsympathetic to the main house by virtue of its finish and shape and the garage and tourist accommodation addition is disproportionately large to the house and of a design and appearance that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property as viewed from the highway, contrary to Housing Policy 16, Strategic Policy 5 and Environment Policies 1 and 2.

4.2 This current scheme differs from that in that there is no external staircase to the accommodation above the garage, the accommodation is part of the main dwelling, the rear elevation extension will not be a different material or have a slightly sloping roof.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have no objection to the application (05.02.21).

5.2 The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment express concern over the proposals as the description refers to integral garaging although what is proposed is four garages and the garage is set at an angle to the main house and appears to be trying to look like a converted agricultural building and the scheme involves a mixture of different finishes. They consider that the scheme should respect the traditions of dwellings, crofts and farmsteads and make suggestions about how the design could be improved. They object to the application on the basis that the extension to the dwelling is not traditional and with the mix of finishes present an incongruous intrusion into the countryside (16.02.21).

5.3 Ecosystems Policy Office note that there are trees present despite the application form indicating that there is not and the development will affect an area of scrub in which there may be ecological interest. They refer to the Wildlife Act 1990 (19.02.21).

5.4 Michael Commissioners have no objection (12.02.21). - 5.5 Department for Infrastructure's Flood Risk Management Team advise that there is no flood risk management interest in this proposal (11.03.21).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The scheme omits the elements which were previously found to be objectionable and now comprises sympathetic extensions to the main house and whilst the garage is a similar size to what was previously refused, its finishes are improved and the link is now lower than the adjoining buildings, making it appear much more as a link to the main house and not an extension to it, although the two are joined. Even though the staircase does not appear on the

first floor plan, there is clearly now only one means of getting to the first floor, thus inextricably linking the accommodation over the garage to that in the main house.

6.2 The test set out in Housing Policy 16 is whether works would increase the impact of the property as viewed by the public and due to its location, it is unlikely that the new fabric will be seen and if so, it would not be prominent. In any case, what is now proposed is more sympathetic and it is considered that the impact, even if it were visible would not be increased, nor would it be unacceptable.

6.3 The concerns of the SPMCE are noted although given the existing property is not traditional or of a particular style, it is not fully understood why such concern has been expressed in respect of the proposal, particularly given that what is now proposed is much improved over that in the previous application which elicited no comments at all from this Society.

6.4 The proposed works will not affect any trees and the vegetation required to be cleared to facilitate the development could be removed without any need for planning or any other control regardless of the application. A note should draw the applicant's attention to the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of the site clearance and potential effects on nesting or breeding birds. CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposal is considered to accord with Housing Policy 16 and is recommended for approval. 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.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 29.03.2021

Signed : S CORLETT 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.