DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00652/B Applicant: Mr James & Mrs Jennifer Creasey Proposal: Erection of a two storey extension to southwest elevation Site Address: The Gatehouse Ballaleigh Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1HJ Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.08.2021 _________________________________________________________________

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: 01 - Location Plan (28.05.21) 03 A - Proposed Floor plans and elevations (26.07.21)

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

- 1.0 THE SITE

Officer’s Report

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of The Gatehouse, Ballaleigh Road, Kirk Michael, an existing two storey dwelling sited on the western side of the highway. Its front elevation faces directly on to the main road and the rear elevation looks south west over the fields at the back and towards Glen Mooar. The old dismantled railway and footpath runs along the southern side of the house. - 1.2 The Gatehouse is one of several houses dotted along the Ballaleigh Road, most of which are separated by areas of farming land and fields. The application site does not relate to any Registered Building or protected trees.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of duo-pitched two storey extension to the rear elevation, replacing an existing flat roofed extension with balcony above. The extension would have a length of 11.15 metres along the rear of the dwelling, and would project slightly over 2.8 metres beyond the rear elevation. The ridges of the two hipped elements to the roof would be set below the main roof ridge, with the eaves matching. - 2.2 In terms of materiality, render to the external elevations, roof tiles and window style and material would match the existing dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site falls within an area not zoned for any particular purpose in the 1982 Development Plan and is considered open countryside. The site also falls within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 3.2 Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, development therein should not have an adverse impact. Environment Policy 2 states that for development proposals within an AHLV, they should not harm the character and quality of the landscape. - 3.3 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. - 3.4 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. - 3.5 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application. Section 4.3 of the guidance relates specifically to two-storey rear extensions.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 There have been 5 previous planning applications made on the site, however none is considered materially relevant in the assessment of this application.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highways have confirmed that they have no highways interest this application (21.06.21, 28.07.21). - 5.2 Michael Commissioners initially requested that the application be deferred pending their next meeting (02.07.21).

• 5.2.1 Michael Commissioners confirmed on 05.08.21 that they have no objection.
• 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. There are however some limited exemptions to this presumption within planning policy, including for the extension of existing rural dwellings. For non-traditional dwellings such as The Gatehouse, 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 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.
• 6.3.2 The Residential Design Guidance notes that generally, extensions should have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. 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.
• 6.3.3 The rear of the existing dwelling is an outdoor amenity area associated with the site dwelling and would not result in a loss of open countryside. In this respect, no harm to the countryside is likely in accordance with Environment Policy 1. The proposed extension would be solely to the rear of the existing dwelling and would feature a duo-pitch roof with angle complementing the main dwelling. The roof ridge would be set down from the main dwelling, and the modest projection would not result in a dominant visual feature relative to the main dwelling.
• 6.3.4 The extension would be sympathetic and subordinate to the main dwelling, using matching materials and a modest scale and height which would sit well under that of the existing dwelling. The replacement of the existing flat roofed rear element with balcony above, and replacement with a design more in keeping with the main part of the dwelling, would offset the 34.7 percent increase in floorspace. It is considered that the two storey extension would not significantly increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public, with limited views only from further down Ballaleigh Road and would accord with Housing Policy 16, 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 windows to the rear, although it would remove an existing balcony. Given the rural location of the site and the

proposed development, and the lack of neighbouring dwellings directly to the rear, there would be no unacceptable overlooking or loss of light.

• 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: 11.08.2021 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.