DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/01145/B Applicant: Mr Thomas & Mrs Michelle Quinn Proposal: Erection of a detached double garage with living accommodation / home office above Site Address: Primrose Lodge Slieau Lewaigue Lewaigue Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BH Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.10.2022 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposals do not constitute one of the defined exceptions to allowing development in the countryside, whilst comprising a disproportionate form of development which would not be ancillary in terms of scale, footprint or use relative to the host dwellinghouse. Furthermore, the proposals would in effect be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the Island's spatial strategy. The proposals are therefore contrary to Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016). - R 2. The development would comprise an unduly prominent and visually intrusive feature within the locality which, given the isolated and exposed nature of the site, would lead to a detrimental impact upon the character of the surrounding landscape. The proposals are therefore contrary to General Policy 2 (b) & (c) of the Strategic Plan (2016). _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None. _____________________________________________________________________________

- 1.0 THE SITE

Officer’s Report

1.1 The application site comprises the detached dwellinghouse of Primrose Lodge and its associated sizeable residential curtilage, situated on the western side of the A2 (Lawaigue). The site is situated within a fairly isolated and exposed location in the countryside, surrounded by open fields on all sides with very limited development in close proximity. The topography of the site rises gently from east to west, whilst being sited on noticeably higher ground than the corresponding highway.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached building laid out over two storeys, incorporating 4 no. parking spaces at ground floor with what appears to comprise a 1bedroom apartment at first-floor. The building would incorporate a traditional pitched roof with

3 no. gabled dormers spanning the eaves with 3 no. rooflights in the rear roofslope to facilitate first-floor accommodation; accessed via an internal staircase.

2.2 The development would include double garage doors on the front (southern) elevation, French doors at ground floor and a double window with Juliet balcony at first-floor (western side elevation) with a further first-floor window and Juliet balcony (eastern side elevation). - 2.3 The building would extend to an eaves height of 4.2m and ridge height of 6.7m, comprising a total depth of 7.5m and width of 11.7m. The development would be finished in unspecified grey rooftiles and render to match the existing dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site benefits from a fairly extensive planning history including various extensions and alterations, in addition to the conversion of an adjacent barn to tourist accommodation (PA 03/00491/B). More recently, permission was granted for a replacement dwelling of an almost identical form to the previously extant/extended property in 2015 (PA 15/00730/B). This permission was further varied in 2019 (PA 19/00863/B) and subsequently implemented, and included a condition removing permitted development rights for the property.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is identified on the 1982 Development Plan as 'white land' and therefore within an area of countryside that is not designated for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area or within a Flood Risk Zone. - 4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;

Strategic Policy

• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact

Spatial Policy 5 New development will be located within defined settlement. Development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3

General Policy

• 2 General Development Considerations
• 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside

Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside

Transport Policy

• 4 Highways safety

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Garff Commissioners - do not object - 26.10.22 - 5.2 Highways Services do not object - 30.09.22

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

• - Principle of development (SP3, GP3, EP1)
• - Design and visual impact (SP5, GP2, b, c)
• - Impact upon neighbouring amenity (GP2, g)
• - Highway safety and parking (TP4, 7)

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 The site falls outside of a defined settlement boundary within the open countryside, is not designated for residential development within the Development Plan and does not technically accord within one of the defined exception criteria outlined in General Policy 3.
• 6.2.2 Housing Policies 15 and 16 make provision for the extension to dwellinghouses within the countryside, however no provision is made within the Strategic Plan for the erection of ancillary buildings within the curtilage of established and lawful dwellings. Notwithstanding this however, the general approach of the Department is to support the erection of proportionate ancillary structures, provided they are of an appropriate design, scale and siting, would not result in an adverse impact upon the wider landscape setting, safeguard residential amenity and be clearly ancillary and subordinate in nature and use.
• 6.2.3 It is further recognised that the erection of ancillary outbuildings and garages may be permissible under permitted development, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012. In this instance however, it is noted that permitted development rights were removed for the property by a condition attached to the 2019 planning permission (PA 19/00863/B) for a replacement dwelling, which has been implemented.

• 6.3.2 In the case of this application, the proposed structure is of a significant scale, extending to a maximum ridge height of circa. 6.7m. Whilst of a marginally reduced scale compared to the host dwelling, the height of the proposed building is considered to be highly excessive and would serve to dominate the host dwelling to which it would relate. Furthermore, the proposals include what effectively comprises a 1-bedroom apartment above the quadruple garage below, extending to a gross internal floor area of circa. 75sqm, fully complete with a kitchen/living/dining room, bathroom and sizeable bedroom with a walk-in wardrobe.
• 6.3.3 Such proposals are effectively tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling, which would clearly not consist of an ancillary use with respect to the host dwellinghouse. The proposals are therefore deemed contrary to the Island's spatial strategy by not conforming to an exception to development in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3, nor consisting of a proportionate and ancillary domestic outbuilding which have the potential to be viewed favourably on individual merit.

- 6.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

• 6.3.1 As noted, the scale and footprint of the proposed building is considered to be significant and, whilst not wholly unacceptable in isolation from a design standpoint, is completely disproportionate to the existing dwelling whilst adding a substantial footprint of additional built development on site.
• 6.3.2 The site is further notably isolated and exposed, being sited on slightly higher ground than the corresponding highway to the east, whilst being surrounded by open fields on all sides. The resultant development, particularly spanning circa. 11.5m in width with a blank

• facing rear (northern) wall, would appear bulky and stark, unduly prominent and visually intrusive within the wider landscape. The proposals would clearly not safeguard the surrounding landscape, and indeed result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the surrounding countryside, without any justification provided for the need of the building which would override the clear harm posed by development from a visual standpoint.
• 6.3.3 The development is therefore contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c), and Environment Policy 1.
• 6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

• 6.4.1 The application site is fairly isolated and is not within close proximity to any other dwellinghouse, the closest of which is circa. 160m to the north. The proposals would therefore no result in any material impact upon the amenities of surrounding residential properties, nor would they prejudice the amenities of the host dwelling. The proposals are therefore compliant with General Policy 2 (g) & (h).

6.5 HIGHWAY SAFETY AND PARKING

• 6.5.1 No objections have been raised by Highways Services over the proposals, which would not interfere with the site's existing access, whilst providing additional on-site parking for 4 vehicles.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposals do not constitute one of the defined exceptions to allowing development in the countryside, contrary to the Island's spatial strategy, whilst comprising a disproportionate form of development which would not be ancillary in terms of scale, footprint or use relative to the host dwellinghouse. The development would further comprise an unduly prominent and visually intrusive feature within the locality which, given the isolated and exposed nature of the site, would lead to a detrimental impact upon the character of the surrounding landscape. The proposals are therefore contrary to Spatial Policy 5, General Policy - 2 (b) & (c), General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016), 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

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: 28.10.2022 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.