Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00915/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00915/B Applicant : Mrs Karen Jones Proposal : Erection of extension and terrace to dwelling Site Address : Woodlands House Lower Foxdale Isle Of Man IM4 3AY
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.11.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The forward projection of the proposed terrace would have an adverse impact upon the Copper Beech tree and its root area and would be detrimental to its longevity contrary to General Policy 2(c), Environment Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of Woodlands House, Lower Foxdale, a detached two storey property situated on the western side of the A3 road. The dwelling sits side on or gable facing the highway. The rear elevation faces due south and features a raised timber decking platform area projecting out 3.5m from the rear elevation across its width.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a sunroom / conservatory of the rear elevation measuring 7.2m wide across the rear elevation and 3.5m deep projecting out from the rear elevation. The conservatory frames are to be coloured in a light green colour and dwarf walls to the lower sections to match the existing in red brick.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00915/B Page 2 of 4
2.2 Also proposed is the extension and formation of a terrace area with concrete Balustrade and finished in Manx stone to match the house.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "not zoned for development" and an "Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" on the 1982 Development Plan - South Map. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone. There are some mature trees to the south and west of the application site as discussed below.
3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 4(b) Protection of the landscape and biodiversity
Spatial Policy 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside
Housing Policy 15 Extension or alteration to traditional styled properties in the countryside
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 2 Protection of the character of AHLV 3 Protection of Trees and woodland
3.4 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides general advice on residential development, including sustainable development and climate change resilience, design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 09/00816/B Replace existing window with french doors to dwelling house. Approved. 90/01549/B Alterations and extensions to provide increased living accommodation and double garage. Approved. 91/01839/B Re-roofing of dwelling. Approved at appeal. 93/00797/B Alterations to dwelling and construction of garage. Approved at appeal. 99/00891/B Extension to dwelling. Approved.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online) 5.1 Patrick Commissioners (15/09/22) no objection. 5.2 Highways Services (11.09.22) no objection 5.3 DEFA Forestry (08.09.22) has concerns regarding the high quality copper beech tree and the proximity of the works.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) Principle
(ii) Design (iii) Visual Impact (iv) Neighbours impact
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00915/B Page 3 of 4
(v) Impact on the trees
Principle 6.2 The site falls outside of a defined settlement boundary and within a part of the countryside and sits amongst other dwellings flanking either side of the highway. However, housing Policy 15 and its supporting text do include the provision for extensions to traditional dwellings within the countryside, provided such additions are of a high quality design, with a focus on proportion, form and general appearance that would not detract from the character and appearance of the property. This is further examined below.
Design 6.3 The design of the proposed rear / side conservatory would be introducing a built form where presently there is none. In terms of size and height and the general level of fenestration all help to ensure the proposed conservatory would remain subservient in general to the rear / side elevation of this property. These design attributes all help to keep the massing proportionate to the rear elevation and designed to serve that specific purpose for a conservatory / habitable room extension.
6.4 Turning to the proposed terrace, the extent of the projection of the terrace from the rear elevation would measure from the plans approx. 7.3m, (the existing measurers approx.3.5m) whilst this in itself can in theory be accommodated on site could be seen to be disproportionate to the size of the dwelling and would be extending out towards and existing tree (Copper Beech) and over the root area (discussed below). On balance the terrace could be seen as overdevelopment to the property.
Visual Impact 6.5 In terms of visual impact, the proposal is located to the side and rear of the dwelling and it is noted there are limited public views given the setting in its own curtilage and orientation to the highway. It would be partially apparent when passing, mainly the conservatory, but not so detrimental to the property. The location on the rear elevation would be set back from the highway and read within the existing residential context of the property and surrounding street scene. The level of finish would seek to match the rear elevation and will ensure the built form is in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling. These aspects of development are deemed to be an acceptable form of development that complies with those sections of General Policy 2(b) & (c) and the RDG 2021.
6.6 Turning to the proposed terrace, whilst this would be finished to be in keeping to the dwelling its sheer size could detract from the character of the property in terms of over development.
Neighbours Impact 6.6 With regard to any neighbouring impact, the level and scale of development proposed here, especially being at distance from the neighbours are considered to be relatively modest and not judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of those adjoining properties or considered to harm their neighbouring amenity, specifically those either side.
Trees 6.7 Part of the proposal seek to add a layer of protection to the large Copper Beech tree to the south west corner of the site and would be approx. 3m from the edge of the terrace. There are general annotations on the plan that highlights the intent to protect the tree and workings on site, however there are no definitive tree protection plans submitted that would identify a construction exclusion zone and methods on how this would be installed to retain and protect the tree and its roots.
6.8 As such, it is important to understand the significance of the existing tree and balance the aspiration of development against any adverse impact upon this tree. The current proposal
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00915/B Page 4 of 4
causes concern from DEFA forestry as noted above. Considering this, the proposal and its close proximity to the tree is likely to incur significant damage to the rooting area of the tree and given the extent of the projection of the terrace would, in the future, add pressure for its removal given the proximity to the terrace. As such and on balance, the retention and protection of the tree would outweigh any benefits of the proposed development and would be a strong enough reason to refuse the application on its impact upon an existing tree and would be contrary to General Policy 2(c), Environment Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the extension and terracing would have an adverse impact upon the Copper Beech tree and its root area and would be detrimental to its longevity and recommended for refusal.
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
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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 : Refused Date: 14.11.2022
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
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