Officer Planning Report 06/00649/B

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:287203}} ### Considerations {{table:287198}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:287199}} {{table:287200}} {{table:287201}} {{table:287202}}

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is the residential property of Ballacoraigue House. The application site is set on the western side of The Cronk Road.
• The property has been extended to the rear and side.
• The application site is situated within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
• To the south of the application site is the residential property of Dreemkerry.

Proposal

• The application is seeking permission to demolish the existing rear annexe and garage to be replaced with a two storey rear extension and garage.
• The two storey extensions will project 8m to the rear of the property and will be 9.2m in width.
• The height of the two storey extension will be 7.2m to the ridge.
• A 5.6m x 2.7m extension will be constructed between the proposed garage and the two storey extension. The height of this linking extension will be 2.6m. The link extension will have a flat roof.
• The garage will be 5.5m in width and 6.5m in length. The height of the garage will be 4.4m to the ridge.

Relevant Planning History

• 05/0/1548/B - Conversion of Barn to tourist accommodation – refused at review on 17.03.2006
• 94/00901/B - Construction of new bathroom – granted 17.11.1994
• 89/01872/B - Renovation and provision of new roof of barn – granted

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982
• Planning Circular 3/91 – Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside.

Statutory Consultation Responses

• Ballaugh Parish Commissioners – no objection
• Highways Division of the DoT have objected to the application because the large extension will result in the additional generation of traffic through a driveway access which affords inadequate visibility on to a local road.

Public Responses

• Press notice were posted on 27.04.06
• Representations have been received from the MEA.
• The MEA have advised the applicant should contact them with regarding working practices around underground cable/overhead lines.

Issues

• The site is set in the open countryside and within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The application site has previously been extended to the rear and side.
• The main consideration is the visual impact within the locality. The application site is visible from the A10. It is proposed to construct a two-storey extension at the rear with a single storey flat link extension to the proposed garage. The extensions and outbuilding would be highly visible from the public highway of the A10. The ridge of the new extension would be 12.8m in length.

• Whilst the existing single storey extension will be removed it would be replaced with an extension of a greater mass and scale. Due to the length of the ridge the extension would be out of proportion with the existing property.

• There would be an adverse impact on the visual amenities of locality when viewed from the road because the elevation when viewed on the approach from the south will be exposed when the development is finished. The plans indicate the existing boundary wall and shrubbery will be maintained to a maximum height of 1050mm. This implies the existing close boarded fence currently on top of the boundary wall will be removed and the shrubbery will be cut back to that height mentioned in the plans.

• Also the extension would be visible through an existing gap between the application site and neighbouring property of Dreemskerry. The design of the extension appears out of character with the appearance of the building. It would also introduce a prominent and incongruous feature into the area and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.

• I therefore consider the proposal would be disproportionate in scale, form and appearance compared to the existing building and would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which is an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

• In respect of the impact on Dreemskerry, the application site is set to the south. The proposed garage is the nearest structure to the property of Dreemskerry. The structure would be set 7.8m away from a window which serves a habitable room. The two storey extension does not project directly in front of this window. The extension will be set 11.2m away from the window. This window is not the only source of light to the room. There are other windows on the rear elevation which provide any alternative source of light. I therefore consider the window on the side elevation to be a secondary window. I do not feel the proposal will cause any significant impact from overshadowing.

• In terms of overlooking, the north facing elevation of the extension will have two windows (one at ground floor level and the other at first floor level. to serve habitable room. The two storey extension will be set 5.4m off the boundary. There is a conifer hedge running along the boundary between the application site and the neighbouring property which will partly obscure any views of the neighbouring property. The height of the hedge is between 2m – 3m. However, the hedging does not extend the full length of the boundary. Furthermore, it is outside the control of the applicant and can be removed at any time. I therefore consider the proposed extension will overlook the neighbouring property to the detriment of the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

• In terms of the highway safety, the DoT has objected to the proposal. The existing property currently has three bedrooms and the proposed extension will provide an additional three bedrooms. The DoT considers the extension will result in the additional generation of traffic through a driveway access which affords inadequate visibility on to a local road and would be prejudicial to highway safety.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

I consider that the following should be granted party status due to them being Statutory Consultees:

• Ballaugh Parish Commissioners
• Highways Division of the Department of Transport
• MEA

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 02.08.2006

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed development by reason of its height, design, siting, massing and extent of projection would

• (i) be disproportionate in scale, form and appearance compared to the existing building and would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which is in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance;

• (ii) introduce a prominent and incongruous feature into the landscape, disrupting the rhythm of development and would cause demonstrable harm to the visual amenities of the locality; and

• (iii) be in close proximately to the adjacent property to result in demonstrable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of Dreemskerry from overlooking and loss of privacy.

R 2.

The visibility from the proposed access driveway onto the public highway is inadequate to serve the increased traffic movements from the site and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Decision Made : Refused Date: 2/8/06

Signed: [Handwritten signature]

M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control

2 August 2006 06/00649/B Page 5 of 5