79094

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/01116/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/01116/B Applicant : Mr Robert Currey Proposal : Erection of extension to form store room at second floor level Site Address : Mill House Old Castletown Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1EX

Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 31.10.2022 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. By reason of its large flat roof design the extension has an adverse visual impact on the existing traditional property contrary to Housing Policy 15 and contrary to the principles of Planning Circular 3/91, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Residential Design Guide 2021. The incorporation of the horizontal cladding exacerbates the large flat roof design having an adverse visual impact on the existing property.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

THE SITE 1.1 The site relates to 'Mill House', a large traditional mill building sitting between the New and Old Castletown Roads and just a 'stone's throw' from the hairpin corner known as 'blackboards'.

1.2 Adjacent to the main mill building is an outbuilding. Both have permissions in place to facilitate tourist accommodation under 19/00231/C and 22/00838/C.

THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/01116/B                                     Page  2  of  4

2.1 Proposed is the upwards extension of an existing cat slide extension at the rear of the Mill building. The proposed extension will have a flat roof joining just below the ridge of the curved Mill building. The external walls are to be part finished in render to match the existing and part finished in horizontal larch planking to the upper part. Although stepped in parts, the flat roof is to measure approx. 8.3m x 5.5m.

2.2 The floor plans indicate that the extension is to provide a new store room accessed through a break in the wall from an office area.

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of previous applications for alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling, but most recently there have been a number of applications for the creation of ancillary accommodation in an outbuilding, and then its subsequent approval for its use for tourism. PA's 19/00231/C and 22/00838/B were both approved for additional use of parts of the main house for tourist accommodation.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is within an area not designated for any particular purpose on both the 1982 Plan and the Area Plan for the East 2020. The 1982 plan also indicates the site as being within an area of AHLV, partially designated as woodland and also recognised as being within an area with height restrictions or other air safety regulations.

4.2 In assessing the physical works to the property Housing Policy 15 is fundamental in protecting the traditional character and appearance of the exiting dwelling, Planning Circular 3/91 offers guidance on the design of residential development in the countryside. In addition consideration will also be given to Strategic Policies 1 and 5 which seek to make best use of existing developed sites and ensuring new development is of good design, Spatial Policies 2 and 5 in ensuring development remains within settlement boundaries in line with the spatial hierarchy, paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 in ensuring development meets with the general standards towards acceptable development and not having an adverse impact on its surroundings or on the neighbours. Section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 also offers further guidance on extensions to existing residential dwellings and Section 7 addresses good neighbourliness, both are relevant in this case. Transport Policies 9 and 11 seek to safe guard the airport from unacceptable development unless it can be mitigated.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Santon Commissioners - no comments received as of 31/10/2022.

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No highways interest (15/09/2022)

5.3 DEFA Ecosystems - Concerns 27/09/2022 - the building has high potential for bats due to its age, style, setting and surroundings and a preliminary bat survey should be provided.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 When it comes to the alteration or extension of traditional dwellings HP15 makes it clear than development will normally only be approved where it respects the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property and only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions measuring more than 50%.

6.2 Planning Circular 3/91 provides guidance in rural situations and indicates that flat roofs would be unacceptable. General Policy 2 sets out general development standards and requires proposals to respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and to positively contribute to the

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/01116/B                                     Page  3  of  4

character of the locality. Residential Design Guidance 2021 sections 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.2.9 indicate that where inappropriately designed or failing to respect the site extensions or alterations can become a local eyesore. In some instances, it may not be possible to design an acceptable extension due to the sensitivity of the site, limited space, or the relationship with neighbours. If mitigation or a deliberate design approach is to be put forward the thinking behind it should be explained as part of a design statement together with clarification on why the applicant thinks this approach should be accepted. The Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context, and well- judged modern designs can serve to both improve the sustainability and appearance of buildings in the streetscene.

6.6 Section 4.2 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 states that extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house and should generally 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. Roof finishes should be well designed, especially if publically viewable and pitch roofs matching the roof of the existing dwelling are preferred, compared to flat roofs, which generally introduce a new form of roof type to a property. The Department has however seen a rise in flat roofed typed extensions in recent years, some being more successful than others. Applications should explain the reasoning for why a flat roofed design was considered and why the design approach has been chosen.

6.5 Every application is judged on its own merits (as one size does not fit all) and what may be accepted to one property, may not be acceptable to another. Poorly designed or finished flat roofed extensions are likely to be resisted, and replicating existing poor extensions is not a reason to allow further inappropriate flat roofed extension.

6.6 In this case the extension is below the 50% threshold referred to in HP15, however by reason of its large flat roof finish the proposal is considered to be unacceptable having a significant adverse visual impact on the overall traditional quality of the existing building. The proposed extension would be out of keeping and would harm the character, appearance and form of the existing property contrary to the requirements of HP15, and contrary to the development standards and guidance provided in Planning Circular 3/91, General Policy 2 and Residential Design Guide 2021. It is also felt that the large flat roof design coupled with the horizontal cladding exacerbates the inappropriate design of the extension to this traditional host dwelling.

Impact on Airport and Bats 6.7 The overall scale of development being attached to the existing building and not being any taller than the tallest part would not be considered to harm the airport or flight paths.

6.8 The site is recognised as being at high potential for bats, however given the above concerns in respect of the design it is felt unreasonable to delay the application to ask for this bat information if the application is to be refused on other grounds.

CONCLUSION 7.1 By reason of its large flat roof design the proposal is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the existing dwelling contrary to Housing Policy 15 and contrary to the principles of Planning Circular 3/91, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Residential Design Guide 2021. The incorporation of the horizontal cladding as shown on plan also makes worse the large flat roof design and exacerbates it's inappropriate and adverse visual impact to the host property.

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);

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/01116/B                                     Page  4  of  4

(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: 31.10.2022

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.