Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00606/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00606/B Applicant : Mr John Bellis Proposal : Erection of a first floor extension above existing garage to provide ancillary living accommodation Site Address : Jandakot Old Castletown Road Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BB
Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.07.2021 __
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.
C 2. The extension hereby approved shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as Jandakot, Old Castletown Road as identified on the approved plans and shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling unit.
Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage.
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 15.07.21:
P02 A - Floor Plans, Elevations, Section and Site Plan as Proposed and drawing received on 26/05/21 referenced; P01 - Location Plan and existing elevations
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00606/B Page 2 of 5
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing bungalow at Jandakot, accessed from the north side of Old Castletown Road via a narrow lane which also serves farmland, and the adjacent bungalow at Thie Ain to the northwest. The site is bounded by open fields with the exception of the adjacent bungalow to the northwest. The topography of the area falls away from north to south, resulting in the application dwelling being lower at ground level than Thie Ain.
1.2 The site dwelling is a bungalow which has been renovated to a modern standard and extended recently, with a garage to the south side and a link between it and the dwelling. The garage sits at a lower level than the bungalow reflecting the topography of the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current proposal is an amended and reduced scheme following discussions between the applicant and case officer. The application seeks approval for a first floor extension above the existing garage, matching the footprint of the ground floor element, and featuring a flat roof with parapet.
2.2 The proposed extension would be finished in horizontal timber or timber effect cladding throughout, with large black upvc framed windows. The extension would increase the eaves and ridge heights of the garage by 3 metres and 1 metre respectively. It would slightly below the ridge of the main dwelling.
2.3 The extension is sought to provide supported yet semi-independent living accommodation for a member of the applicant's household.
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 or Area Plan for the East 2020. 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 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.
3.5 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.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00606/B Page 3 of 5
3.6 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 PA 16/01392/B - Alterations, erection of extension, creation of new driveway and relocation of vehicular access. APPROVED Jan 2017.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DOI Highways have confirmed that they have no highways interest this application (21.06.21).
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (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. One exception to this is for extensions to existing dwellings. For non-traditional dwellings such as the relatively modern bungalow in question, 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 additional living space would in effect be a self-contained apartment or granny flat type arrangement, with kitchen and bathroom facilities. Due to the positioning of the small 55 square metre apartment adjoining the main dwelling, and sharing access and amenity, it is accepted that the living accommodation would be ancillary to the main dwelling and would not constitute a standalone dwelling. A condition will be added to approval to ensure that this remains the case.
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 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 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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00606/B Page 4 of 5
6.3.3 The proposal would see a two-storey flat-roofed element on the side of a bungalow. The Residential Design Guidance as above, and general design patterns in residential areas or on traditional buildings generally render such development as visually unacceptable. In this case, the topography of the site and wider area would limit the visual impact. Thie Ain to the north west sits higher than Jandakot, which itself falls away steadily to the south, resulting in the garage as extended being lower than the ridge of the main dwelling. Whilst the massing would increase, the scale of the extended garage would not be such as to dominate the much larger dwelling to which it is attached. The dwelling is not readily visible from public view and this would remain the case. No unacceptable impact is likely on the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside.
6.3.4 The use of horizontal cladding and dark materials would further limit any risk of a dominant appearance, with the first-floor blending with the existing roof to a degree The use of the contemporary design and the cladding also contributes to the design being acceptable in this specific context. It is also noted that the applicant is unable to extend at ground floor level due to the positioning of soakaways and other utilities, which would make it unviable.
6.3.5 Overall, the proposed extension would not be readily visible from public view 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 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 habitable room windows. These would not provide views onto neighbouring dwellings, looking over open fields. 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00606/B Page 5 of 5
(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: 20.07.2021
Determining officer
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