Loading document...
Application No.: 11/00629/B Applicant: Ms Karen Duggua Proposal: Alterations and extensions to dwelling Site Address: Harleys Killane Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5BB ### Considerations Case Officer: Mrs Jade Craig Photo Taken: 02.06.2011 Site Visit: 02.06.2011 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation ### Written Representations None received at time of drafting report ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consulttee: Ballaugh Parish Commissioners Notes:
The application site represents the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling in the countryside; Harleys, Killane, Ballaugh.
The dwelling is a dormer bungalow, located on the eastern side of the A10 Ballaugh to Jurby coast road, near to the junction with the Ballamona Straight.
The dwelling was built under the Agricultural Workers Tied Housing Scheme, previously administered by the Local Government Board. Planning permission was granted for the erection of the dwelling in 1964. In 2010, a certificate of lawfulness was agreed for the use of the building as a residential dwelling, with no planning conditions restricting the occupancy of the dwelling. The residential curtilage of the site was confirmed in 2010.
Proposed are alterations and extensions to the dwelling, including the erection of an extension to the side (south) elevation and a porch extension to the front (east) elevation.
The existing floor area of the dwelling is approximately 102 square metres. The floor area is measured externally and the upper floor includes all areas with a greater ceiling height than 1.5
metres. This ceiling height of 1.5 metres has been applied, as it is used as a definition of "net floor space" in the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982.
The proposed floor area is approximately 148 square metres, which represents an increase in floor area of 45% over the existing.
The proposed extension on the side (south) elevation would extend the main house across by 4 metres. The extension would be 5.7 metres deep, which is narrower than the width of the main house. The roof of the main dwelling would be lengthened across the extension. The external finishes of the extension would match the existing dwelling.
The proposed porch extension on the front (east) elevation would extend the main roof downwards over an area of 2.15 metres by 1.2 metres. This roof over the porch would have a slightly different angle to the main roof, in order to achieve the door height. There are existing sections on the front and rear of the house which extend the main roof downwards and the porch would be adjoining one of these sections on the front elevation.
The curtilage of the site is defined in red on the site and location plans. The applicant's land ownership also includes the corner part of a field to the south and east of the site. The original plans which were submitted in this application also included this larger plot within the residential curtilage, but this has since been amended to show the correct curtilage.
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: IDO 19238 – Permitted 24.04.64 Tied Farmworker's Cottage, Ballamona Ballaugh (The applicant was the Local Government Board of the Isle of Man Government) PA 01/01815/B – Refused at Appeal 05.08.02 Alterations and extension to dwelling and erection of car port
R.1 By reason of the size of the extension and the nature of the alterations proposed the development would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent that the resultant dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
PA 05/00939/B – Refused at Appeal 15.03.06
Erection of replacement dwelling, driveway and vehicular access
R1. The proposed residential development would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88, Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 3 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that
i) by reason of the siting, design, size and massing of the proposed development it would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent the resultant development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance; and
ii) the proposed curtilage would amount to being a significant encroachment of a residential curtilage into the open countryside which will further diminish the openness, character and quality of the surrounding area
which would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality.
R.2 The proposed entrances do not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.
PA 10/01648/LAW – Certificate of Lawfulness AGREED 21.12.10
Application for a certificate of lawfulness to confirm the lawfulness of the use of a building as a residential dwelling
C1. From the evidence provided, and from historic archive, there are no planning conditions attached to the planning permission dated 20th April 1964 for the erection of a dwelling on the land and defined by the red line on the Site Plan herewith attached and now known as Harleys, Jurby Coast Road, Killane.
This decision was made by the Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority delegated under the Government Departments Act 1987.
The application site is located within an area designated as White Land that is not designated for development, in addition to an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
Due to the land use zoning of the site and the nature of the proposal, the relevant planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16.
"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
"The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not object to this application, as there are no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
No written responses have been received from the general public.
The site is a non-traditional dwelling lying within an area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Development Order. Due to this land use zoning, the proposal is constrained by Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16.
This policy stipulates that within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, the protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration, unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character of the landscape, or that the location for the development is essential.
The site is located within a wider area which is characterised by open, relatively level fields. There is some sporadic development northwards of the application site, along both sides of the road. This dwelling and others in the locality are clearly visible from the public highway. There is a sod hedge to the roadside boundary and some trees in front of the house, but no other vegetation screens the site from view.
In terms of the impact on the countryside, the dwelling already exists, so some degree of impact is there at present. From visiting the site, it was noticed that the dwelling is readily visible, as it is adjacent to the road and there is little in the way of natural screening. There are also other
properties nearby, so the site is set into a wider context and is not an isolated dwelling. The dwellings in the wider area are a mixture of styles, including traditional two storey cottages, modern bungalows and modern two storey dwellings.
The side elevations of the property are publicly visible when the dwelling is approached from the north or the south. Due to the position of the dwelling, the front elevation is only really visible when the viewer is directly in front of the site on the road.
The proposed extensions would be contained within the residential curtilage of the site, without the need for the residential area to encroach into the countryside.
Overall, it is considered that this proposal is finely balanced. Whilst it would extend a non traditional dwelling in the countryside, there are other dwellings in the vicinity which have a variety of styles and many of which have been altered and extended in the past. Unlike the previously refused extension in PA 01/01815/B, it is judged that the current extension would not significantly alter the impact of the dwelling or extend it outside the residential curtilage into the countryside. In terms of the impact on the character of the landscape, it is considered that this proposal would not be so detrimental that it would warrant a refusal of this application.
As stated in Housing Policy 16, where a dwelling already exists in the countryside it is important that when altered or extended, the property does not detract from the amenities of the countryside. Extensions which would increase the impact of non-traditional properties as viewed by the public will generally not be permitted.
The existing dwelling is visible to the general public from the A10 Ballaugh to Jurby coast road. Due to the location of the proposed extensions, they would be publicly visible from the road and would therefore increase the impact of the property. Housing Policy 16 does not generally permit such dwellings to be extended and it is therefore important to judge whether the proposal should be allowed as an exception to the policy. Unlike with traditional properties, there are no specific guidelines for extensions to non-traditional properties.
The property is not in a traditional style and in my opinion is quite plain with no remarkable features. The alterations and extensions would reflect the existing style of the dwelling, extending the roofline across and downwards over the proposed extensions. It is considered that the proposed alterations and extensions would be in keeping with the overall form of the existing dwelling.
From researching the planning history of the site, the dwelling was approved in 1964 as a small agricultural worker's dwelling and it has not been altered or extended since. Planning application 01/01815/B was refused for alterations and extensions, due to the size of the proposed extension having a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the Area of High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Following this, planning application 05/00939/B was refused for a replacement dwelling, as it would increase significantly the level of built development to the extent that it would have a detrimental effect on the character of the area, because the increased residential curtilage would diminish the character of the area and because the proposed entrances would not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site.
The extensions in refused planning application 01/01815/B would have significantly increased the footprint and altered the style of the existing dwelling. The alterations and extensions included a storey and a half extension to the front elevation, a dormer bungalow extension to the side elevation much longer than the existing dwelling, dormer windows, glazed walls and roof, and a lean-to car port. The residential curtilage of the site would also have been extended. It is considered that the extensions now proposed would be of a much smaller scale, in keeping with the existing dwelling and would not result in an encroachment of the property into the countryside, as the residential curtilage would not be altered.
With regard to this current proposal, it is considered that although the impact of the dwelling would be greater than it is at present, the extensions now proposed would be of a much smaller scale than the previously refused extensions, they would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and would not result in an encroachment of the property into the countryside, as the residential curtilage would not be altered.
Overall, the decision has to reflect the nature of the individual site and the proposed appearance of the property. The proposal would result in the impact of the dwelling being greater to the public, but due to the size and form of the extensions being in keeping with the existing dwelling, it is considered that there could be a provision to extend this non-traditional dwelling.
For the above reasons, this proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
It is considered that the following parties should be afforded interested party status: Ballaugh Parish Commissioners.
It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should not be afforded interested party status: The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 14.07.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to alterations and extensions to dwelling; as shown in drawing numbers 337/1/1 and 337/1/2, date stamped 6 June 2011; in addition to drawing numbers 337/1/3, 337/1/4 and 337/1/5, date stamped 3 May 2011.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 11/7/11
Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate
Signed : Jennifer Chance Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown