19 May 2005 · Planning Committee (on review)
Rhenwee Cottage, Regaby West Road, Andreas, Isle Of Man, IM7 3hl
The proposal involved adding a substantial two-storey extension to the rear of Rhenwee Cottage, a 1949-built two-storey dwelling in the countryside, to create a study, lounge, bedroom with en-suite, plus internal reconfigurations including a new bathroom and loggia.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer considered the proposal's size and extent significant, creating substantial visual impact on a traditional Manx cottage sited close to the highway, conflicting with Planning Circular 3/91 …
Planning Circular 3/91 'Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside' Policy 3
Policy 3 requires extensions to existing buildings to maintain the character of the original form, with simple rectangular plans, gable ends, steep roofs avoiding L-shapes or flat roofs. Officer assessed the two-storey rear extension as significantly increasing scale, changing rectangular form to spreading L-shape despite gable, out of character with traditional patterns. Inspector confirmed conflict, noting it exceeded modernisation needs despite replicating some features like roof pitch and windows.
Planning Circular 1/88 Residential Housing in the Country
Requires particular care for significant size increases, discouraging proposals with detrimental visual impact or loss of traditional character to protect fragile countryside from proliferation of large dwellings while allowing sympathetic modernisation to prevent dilapidation. Applied to assess visual impact near road and character loss; extension seen as significant scale increase despite no poor design quality.
no adverse traffic impact
no objections
design was OK; satisfaction to the design
SPMC&E provided no comment on the application noting the extension size but acceptable design, Highways Division confirmed no adverse traffic impacts and no further representations, and Andreas Parish Commissioners raised no objections.
SPMC&E
No CommentExtensions of c.100% but design OK. No comment.
Department of Transport Highways Division
No ObjectionThe Highways Division of the Department of Transport has no views on the following application, the application having been considered and having no adverse traffic impacts.; The Highways Division does not wish to make further representation to the forthcoming review, beyond the response in the letter dated 23rd March 2005.
Andreas Parish Commissioners
No Objectionmy Commissioners have now considered the above proposed development, and have no objections thereto.
The original application PA/05/00387/B for a two-storey rear extension, new driveway, access and replacement shed to a 1949-built dwelling was refused by the Planning Committee citing conflict with Policy 3 of Circular 3/91 due to size and extent not maintaining the original form. The appellant argued the house was post-war not traditional, the design replicated existing features, visual impact was minimal due to screening, no third-party objections, and precedents existed for larger extensions nearby. The Council defended the refusal emphasizing significant size increase, loss of traditional character and visual impact under Circulars 1/88 and 3/91. The inspector accepted the design replicated features and had limited visual impact but found the extension excessively scaled, changing the rectangular form to an L-shape contrary to policy intent to prevent proliferation of large dwellings from modest ones, despite acknowledging need for some modernisation. The appeal was recommended dismissed, with the decision upheld without prejudice to a more modest proposal.
Precedent Value
Appeals for countryside extensions must propose modest scale maintaining original form, even for non-historic dwellings; larger designs risk dismissal despite design sympathy if altering to L-shape or spreading form. Future applicants should limit to essential modernisation and provide existing plans for precedents.
Inspector: David Ward
