Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00509/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00509/B Applicant : Mr Andrew & Mrs Eleanor Harding Proposal : Alterations and erection of a 2 storey extension Site Address : Ashtree Cottage Ballavitchel Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2DL
Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.07.2021 __
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 16 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following plans and drawings, received 29.04.21:
20 1480 01 - Location Plan, Site Plan 20 1480 03 - Proposed Plans and Elevations __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00509/B Page 2 of 6
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of Ashtree Cottage, an existing dwelling to the west of Ballavitchel Farm, accessed from Ballavitchel Road via a farm lane which serves other farm buildings. Ballavitchel Farm and Ballavitchel Lodge are the east of the site. The dwelling in question is to the west of this cluster of rural buildings, with a small stream running along the western edge. There are mature trees and large farm buildings to the south and a garage with a copse of trees beyond to the north. The site, and the Ballavicthcel more widely, is in an elevated position with the land falling from north to south. The site dwelling is partially visible at a distance from Ballavitchel Road to the south.
1.2 The site dwelling is a two-storey rendered dwelling which retains some core features traditional cottage style dwelling including gable end chimney stacks and slate roof. The dwelling has however been altered in the past, with a two-storey shallow pitch extension to the rear. There are two pitched dormers to the front.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is a two-storey side extension to the dwelling. The extension would have a contemporary form and finish, with open glazing to the western gable and ground floor single storey element to the front. It would have a pitched roof to the rear, matching the ridge height of the main dwelling, sloping to a single storey to the front, projecting beyond the main front elevation by approximately 2.1 metres. The height of this front element of the extension would be 2.5 metres to the eaves.
2.2 A balcony is proposed at first floor level to the western side elevation. A flat roof dormer feature is proposed above the single storey element serving an ensuite. Overall, the extension would run approximately 12 metres from south to north, and would increase the frontage width of the dwelling by 5.15 metres to 16.2 metres. The footprint of the dwelling would be increased by 67.5 square metres, with a footprint at first floor level of 44.5 square metres. The overall increase in floorspace would be just under 50%.
2.3 In terms of materiality, the first floor would feature dark metal cladding to the first floor and roofing, along with burnt timber and glazing to the ground floor.
2.4 The access to and parking at the site would be retained as existing.
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).
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00509/B Page 3 of 6
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. Planning Circular 3/91 provides a guide to development in the Manx countryside.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No recent planning history has been identified for this site. Previous alterations have been approved and built.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DOI Highways have confirmed that they have no highways interest this application (04.06.21).
5.2 DEFA Fisheries initially requested (04.06.21) details of potential impacts on the adjacent watercourse. Following the submission of this, Fisheries have confirmed (06.07.21) that they have no objections to this development from a fisheries perspective, provided that there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse - due to the nature of both the watercourse and the proposed works.
5.3 Marown Parish Commissioners have no objection (18.06.21).
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.
6.2.2 The dwelling has a cottage style to the front which is retained, although a first floor with dormers has been added later and the dwelling as a whole has been altered substantially. There is a large shallow pitched two-storey extension to the rear and the upvc windows throughout. As a result, when taken as a whole and despite the retained traditionally styled frontage and proportions of the dwelling, it is not considered to be a traditional dwelling for the purposes of this assessment. For this reason, Housing Policy 16 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
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00509/B Page 4 of 6
6.3.1 As noted above, Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 requires that development proposals to extend or alter non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form in the countryside will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. 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 extensions should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach. Its states 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. The Guidance notes in section 5.3.3 that "it is recognised that in some circumstances, a distinctive break in style/finishing/details may be appropriate and there have been good examples of the use of more contemporary high quality design and finishes to traditional buildings." Planning Circular 3/91 seeks to encourage traditional design and materiality when extending traditional dwellings and is more directly relevant to well-preserved traditional forms of dwelling.
6.3.3 The proposed extension would use contemporary design and materials which would contrast with the muted design of the existing dwelling with its rendered walls and relatively limited use of glazing. The ridge height of the extension at its highest point would match that of the main dwelling however, and the extension would be less than 50% of the width of the existing front elevation. Whilst the low level frontage of the extension would project beyond the existing front elevation, the bulk of the extension including two-storey elements, would be set behind it.
6.3.4 The scale and roof design of the extension would be a notable contrast but would remain subservient to the main dwelling through the use of lower eaves heights, glazing and appropriate scale and height. The use of dark 'agricultural' materials including metal cladding and timber would also provide a natural link between the dwelling and the surrounding trees and open landscape to the north and west, as well as the surrounding farm buildings. The brightly coloured render of the main dwelling would also ensure that it remains the dominant visual feature of the site.
6.3.5 Whilst a traditional approach in the countryside is often preferred, the existing context of the site is of a semi-traditional, semi-modern dwelling which already has some contemporary features and other later additions - including the large extension to the rear. As the site dwelling is not readily visible from public view and given its current appearance as discussed, it is not considered reasonable to enforce a particular design on the property. The key test of the visual amenity is harm, and it is considered that the proposal would not result in any demonstrable harm to the character or appearance of the site or surrounding landscape.
6.3.6 The removal of 6 small trees along the eastern side of the stream to the west of the dwelling and planting of 6 trees of the same species to the northwest would be acceptable. The key trees on the site are the larger mature trees to the south and north which partly screen to site and contribute to the character and appearance of the landscape. These larger trees will be retained.
6.3.7 Overall, the proposed extension, whilst not traditional, would not be readily visible from public view and would and would not increase the scale or visual impact of the dwelling in a way which would be unsympathetic to the surrounding rural context. It is not considered that there would be any significant loss of or harm to rural heritage given the existing context. In
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00509/B Page 5 of 6
this regard, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Strategic Plan policies EP1, EP2, GP2 and HP16.
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 close to the site, being on the western elevation facing open countryside. 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 accord with Environment Policies 1 & 2, Housing Policy 16 and General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan. No unacceptable adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the character and appearance of the 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 __
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.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 09.07.2021
Determining officer
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00509/B Page 6 of 6
Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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