Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00485/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00485/B Applicant : Mr Edward Quirk Proposal : Alterations and erection of two storey extension to front elevation Site Address : Squeen Farm Ballacrye Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5BP
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken :
Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.07.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R1 The two-storey front extension would be at an uncomfortable height above the gutter-line but below the pitch and in alignment with one side of the house and extending across more than half of the main part of the house at the front elevation. It is therefore not considered to be subservient to the main part of the house. The materials and overall form of the building (including windows) are clearly distinct from the existing core of the house. Whilst having a distinct and new element to a building can be a legitimate design approach in some circumstances, to enable the building to be read as an older building with a newer extension, what is proposed here would result in an unsympathetic extension which pays no regard to the core of the dwelling and as such raised concerns in broad design terms. The original roof of the dwelling is arguably the best-preserved vernacular feature, and this would be undermined by the proposed alterations to accommodate the abutting extension.
A traditional approach in the countryside is generally preferred, the existing context of the site is of a traditional cottage which despite some modern alterations retains its traditional core. Although the site dwelling is arguably not particularly visible from public view and does not occupy an especially prominent location within the landscape, this is not considered to justify a poor quality design or overall approach which departs from Housing Policy 15 and General Policy 2(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00485/B Page 2 of 6
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following 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)):
Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society
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
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling at Squeen Farm, accessed from Ballacrye Road via a farm lane which serves other farm dwellings, an agricultural business and assorted outbuildings. The dwelling in question is to the north of this cluster of rural buildings. The site is bounded by open fields to the north side, a yard with commercial/agricultural buildings to the south and mature and trees to the front (east) and rear (west).
1.2 The site dwelling is a two-storey rendered dwelling which retains some core features traditional cottage style dwelling including stone verges, gable end chimney stacks, slate roof and informal painted render finish. The dwelling has however been altered in the past, with a part flat roof, part cat slide roof extension to the rear, a flat roofed porch to the front, a pitched roof store adjoining with a corrugated roof and modern white upvc windows throughout.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the small flat roofed porch to the front elevation with a two-storey flat roofed extension, projecting front the front elevation by 3.94 metres with a width of 5.47 metres and height of 4.9 metres. The first floor would be rendered and painted to match the main dwelling with the ground floor finished in grey cladding.
2.2 The proposed extension would feature a new upvc entrance door and a number of windows, including floor-length windows to the front and south side.
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.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00485/B Page 3 of 6
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, indicating development should be suppported provided it, "respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them...".
3.7 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as it states, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions. It is envisaged that separate guidance will be provided for dwellings in the countryside, although some of the broad principles set out within this document may still be relevant to such proposals". In addition, Planning Circular 3/91 provides a guide to development in the Manx countryside.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No relevant planning history has been identified for this site.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DOI Highways have confirmed that they have no highways interest this application (18.02.21).
5.2 Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society object to the proposal (16.06.21). "Squeen farmhouse is a single depth, fairly steep pitched roof vernacular style farmhouse possibly dating from the late 18th century. The farm house has been extended but in a manner that still retains the traditional style frontage. The Society believes that the addition of a 2-storey flat roofed extension on part of the front elevation would totally destroy the ambience and balance that the current vernacular frontage has. Albeit the property may not be seen from the public highway the Society believes that approval of this application would set an unfortunate precedent for alteration of other vernacular buildings. There is no clear reason why either a new extension or alteration to the existing extension cannot be made to the rear or side of the property. As such Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society objects to this application as it is contrary to Isle of Man Strategic Plan Housing Policy 15 and the guidance given in Planning Circular 3/91."
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
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00485/B Page 4 of 6
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.
6.2.2 The dwelling has had some alterations, in particular the flat roofed porches are non- traditional and single pane windows have been added to the south elevation. However, when taken as a whole and noting the original 'core' of the dwelling has been retained, it is not considered that the development has been so altered that it can be considered non-traditional overall. For this reason, Housing Policy 15 applies in the assessment of this application.
6.2.3 The acceptability of the development is therefore 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 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.
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. Planning Circular 3/91 seeks to encourage traditional design and materiality when extending traditional dwellings.
6.3.3 The two-storey front extension would be at an uncomfortable height above the gutter- line but below the pitch and in alignment with one side of the house and extending across more than half of the main part of the house at the front elevation. It is therefore not considered to be subservient to the main part of the house. The materials and overall form of the building (including windows) are clearly distinct from the existing core of the house. Whilst having a distinct and new element to a building can be a legitimate design approach in some circumstances, to enable the building to be read as an older building with a newer extension, what is proposed here would result in an unsympathetic extension which pays no regard to the core of the dwelling and as such raised concerns in broad design terms. The original roof of the dwelling is arguably the best-preserved vernacular feature, and this would be undermined by the proposed alterations to accomodate the abutting extension.
6.3.4 The comments from Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society are noted in relation to the proposal being non-vernacular. The Residential Design Guidance is also noted in relation to its general opposition to flat roofed extensions.
6.3.5 It is acknolwedged that the dwelling is somewhat unusual due to its siting adjacent to a working yard and forming part of a cluster of largely utilitarian buildings. The front elevation itself is not readily identifiable as such given the layout of the site and its proximity to tall mature trees directly opposite. However, in the application of Housing Policy 15 and broader design considerations, it is not considered that these factors would overcome the significant concerns.
6.3.6 A traditional approach in the countryside is generally preferred, the existing context of the site is of a traditional cottage which despite some modern alterations retains its traditional core. Although the site dwelling is arguably not particularly visible from public view and does not occupy an especially prominent location within the landscape, this is not considered to
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00485/B Page 5 of 6
justify a poor quality design or overall approach which departs from Housing Policy 15 and General Policy 2(b).
6.3.5 Overall, the proposed extension, is not only non-traditional, but does not respect the existing dwelling in terms of its size, shape or design detail and as such would be contrary to Housing Policy 15 and General Policy 2.
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 would introduce additional first floor bedroom windows. These would not provide views onto neighbouring dwellings within 32 metres of the site, and the front of the dwelling is largely screened via existing trees. It is therefore considered that there would be no increased overlooking risk resulting from the proposals. Similarly, the extension would not be in close proximity to any other residential dwelling insomuch as to result in any other adverse impact on amenity.
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 General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposal is considered to fail Housing Policy 15 and General Policy 2 (in relation to design) and as such is recommended for refusal.
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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00485/B Page 6 of 6
Decision Made : Refused Date: 22.07.2021
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Principal Planner
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