DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Mr Kevin Amphlett Proposal Erection of a single storey extension on to the side of existing garage Site Address Balliargey Abbeylands Isle Of Man IM4 5EE Case Officer : Mr Nick Salt Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 08.04.2021

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 within an area designated as open countryside and is not supported by any specific planning policies. Nevertheless, no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified. As such, and given the proposed use and form of the development and the existing site context, this application is recommended for approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following plans and drawings received on 09.02.21: 20-598 PL 100 - Proposed Floor Plans 20-598 PL 200 - Proposed Elevations 20-598 PL 300 - Proposed Sections And the following amended plans received on 01.04.21: 20-598 X 001 A - Location Plan 20-598 PL 001 A - Proposed Site Plan

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

DOI (Floodrisk) should be afforded IPS as they have made comments on a material issue. ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS PLANNING APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AS IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is a detached building within the wider curtilage of the main dwelling at Balliargey, approximately 1.5 miles north of Strang within a small area of woodland to the east of Baldwin River. - 1.2 The site is accessed via the end of Ballamenagh Road and shares this access with the main part of the site to the south. The north, east and west of the site is surrounded by trees and open fields. - 1.3 The site building is an L-shaped timber clad outbuilding/garage and has a footprint of approximately 222 square metres. It forms one of a number of outbuildings within the wider property.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is an extension to the northern side of the stables/garage building. The single storey extension would run flush with the eastern elevation and project by 9.326 metres to the north. Beyond this, an attached car port projecting a further 3.74 metres is proposed. The car port would be covered by a pitched roof overhang, with the roof of the extension sat slightly below the main ridge height of the existing and eaves matching it. - 2.2 The proposed 84.26 square metre extension would facilitate leisure rooms ancillary to the main dwelling and would be finished to match the existing stables/garage building. The existing car park would be retained with no access alterations proposed.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site falls within an area not zoned for any particular purpose and considered open countryside. The Onchan Local Plan identified the land as Woodland. - 3.2 Strategic Policy 2 states that development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in General Policy 3. - 3.3 Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, development therein should not have an adverse impact. - 3.4 Environment Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value. - 3.5 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. - 3.6 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 A planning application (19/00356/B) for a detached garage at the site was withdrawn in May 2019. - 4.2 The building subject to this application was approved as stables and garaging under PA 12/00013/B. 09/00597/B was approved, relating to the renovation of the main dwelling,

• various extensions and the conversions of outbuildings. Amendments were sought via 12/00887/B and approved. A further extension was approved via 13/00214/B. A garden store to the southern boundary of the site was approved via 12/00759/B.
• 4.3 It is evident from the planning history of this site that there has been substantial incremental development over recent years.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DoI Highways do not oppose this application (11.03.21). - 5.2 DoI Flood Risk Management team have confirmed that there is no flood risk management interest in this application (30.03.21).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are:

• - The principle of the development
• - the visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider surroundings; and
• - 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.
• 6.2.2 Whilst proposals relating to previously developed land are one of the exemptions to the general presumption against development in the countryside, there is no presumption that on land that is previously developed the whole of the curtilage should be developed. The proposal in question would not constitute previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. Therefore, the proposal cannot be considered one of the exceptions outlined in General Policy 3 and the principle of the proposal does not accord with the development plan.
• 6.2.3 However, given the site context, it is considered the acceptability of this proposal therefore rests on an assessment of the material harm of the development as set out below.

6.3 Design and Appearance

• 6.3.1 As noted above, General Policy 2 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 area identified as woodland, and impact on the character and appearance of the landscape must be considered against Environment Policies 1 & 3.
• 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. Whilst the application does not directly relate to a dwelling, the above design principles are considered relevant.

• 6.3.3 The proposed extension would increase the floorspace of the garaging/stables by approximately 38 per cent from 222 square metres to 306 square metres. The extension would have a roof form and ridge and eaves heights similar to the main building, ensuring that it does not become the dominant or eye-catching feature. The siting of the extension on the northern elevation would ensure that, being surrounded by trees at varying distances, the extension would not be readily visible from any public vantage point.
• 6.3.4 The proposal would not result in a loss or harm to existing woodland, occupying an area of lawned garden to the north. The slate roof and timber clad finish on the existing dwelling would be replicated, and given the scale and design of the proposal, no visual harm to the character and appearance of the site is considered likely.
• 6.3.5 With regard to visual amenity, the proposal would not increase the impact of the building to an extent which would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and woodland. In this respect, the proposal is considered to accord with Strategic Plan policies GP2, EP1 and EP3.

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 extension is not in close proximity to any neighbouring dwellings insomuch that any overshadowing, overlooking or overbearing would result.
• 6.4.3 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.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 As outlined above, this proposal is for built development in the countryside where there is a general presumption against development. Whilst exceptions to this are set out in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, the proposal does not meet any of the listed criteria and is therefore contrary to the wider development plan. - 7.2 Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered to otherwise accord with Environment Policies 1 & 3 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. - 7.3 Given the above, the proposed use and form of the development and the existing site context, the planning committee are recommended to approve this application.

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

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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: 26.04.2021

Signed : N SALT 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.

Planning Committee Decision 26.04.2021

Application No. : 21/00123/B Applicant : Mr Kevin Amphlett Proposal : Erection of a single storey extension on to the side of existing garage Site Address : Balliargey Abbeylands Isle Of Man IM4 5EE

Planning Officer : Mr Nick Salt Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The case officer requested an amendment to his recommendation in that an additional condition be added that the building be used only as incidental to the main dwelling, and not to be used as a separate dwelling. Following discussion and a vote, the Members agreed to accept the additional condition as proposed by the case officer.

C2. The extension to the stable/garage building hereby approved shall be used only for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of "Balliargey" as a dwellinghouse. No separate curtilage shall be formed and the resultant building shall at no time be used as an independent dwellinghouse without the express grant of planning approval from the Department.

Reason : The use of the residential annex hereby approved as an independent dwellinghouse would not comply with the Strategic Plan 2016 policies regarding new residential development in this area and the application has been assessed only in terms of this restricted use and any other use may have an adverse effect on the character and amenity of the area contrary to relevant Polices in the Strategic Plan 2016