**Document:** Officer Report **Application:** 15/00213/B — Alterations, erection of extension and creation of new driveway to dwelling **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2016-02-16 **Parish:** Michael **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/21575-ballaugh-mylvoirrey-extension-dwelling/documents/1014378 --- # Officer Report **Application No.:** 15/00213/B **Applicant:** Mr & Mrs Stewart Cleator **Proposal:** Alterations, erection of extension and creation of new driveway to dwelling **Site Address:** Mylvoirrey Glen Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5JD Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley **Photo Taken:** 18.03.2015 **Site Visit:** 18.03.2015 **Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee ## Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT. 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE AND RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a one storey building. The building provides two different kinds of accommodation, and there are two names ('Mylvoirrey' is the primary element of and 'Keeil Voirrey' the much smaller element). - 1.2 Keeil Voirrey was formed following the grant of planning approval (PA 04/00623/B) to convert the then-garage of Mylvoirrey into what was described on the application form as "additional living accommodation". In reality, the officer was clear that what was proposed was a "self-contained residential unit to be used in association with the main dwelling [Mylvoirrey]". The officer concluded that, "On balance, the proposal is a reasonable alternative to an application for a new agricultural worker's dwelling", and the application was approved subject to four conditions, three of which related to time limits, approved plans, and the finish of the building. The fourth condition read as follows: "The additional living accommodation must be used in association with the main dwelling known as 'Mylvoirrey' and must not be sold or let off separately." Although the case officer stated that it would be "linked" to the existing bungalow (i.e. Mylvoirrey), this would appear to be a relational rather than physical link as the submitted drawings for that application are clear that no doorway between the two units of accommodation was proposed. This remained the case at the time of the site visit early in 2016. 1.3 The building is finished in cream-coloured render, some stonework and brown/grey concrete roof tiles. It is set back from the road and both units of accommodation benefit from off-road parking to the front. Within the site is an associated garage and garden. - 1.4 Beyond the site to the southwest is an agricultural business. The building and adjacent farm are in the same ownership. Immediately to the north is the garden of a dwelling ("Mill Bank Cottage"), which is roughly 27m from Mylvoirrey itself; the boundary between the two is well-treed. 1.5 The area has a rural feel. It is quite open, with a few mature trees amongst the hedging bounding the agricultural fields / highway. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an extension to the rear of the building, and solely connected to Keeil Voirrey, which would be two storeys in height. The land steps down to the rear such that the submitted plans understandably carry the labels "ground floor" and "lower ground floor". Also proposed is a turning area to the rear and, although the application description refers to a new vehicular access, this access already exists and appears to be associated with the farm business mentioned above. The turning area will be finished with concrete. - 2.2 The extension would incorporate a garage at lower ground floor level, while above would be a hallway serving two new bedrooms and a new bathroom. The ridgeline would sit 0.5m higher than the ridgeline of the existing rear outrigger, but would match the height of the main dwelling. The footprint of the garage would be 6.8m by 4.1m, while the footprint of the accommodation above would be identical to this in addition to an area 5.0m by 4.2m that would 'connect' the lowermost part of the proposed extension with the existing dwelling. It would be finished in all ways to match the existing building. - 2.3 A new external staircase would also be provided to access the garden from the proposed hallway serving both bedrooms. - 2.4 As originally submitted, the plans showed the building subdivided as two dwellings. However, in view of the fact that no planning history for the sub-division of the building existed and also being mindful of the fact that there was an approval for a new farmworkers' dwelling on the landholding in 2008 (PAs 08/00208/A and 08/02093/REM), the assessment of which took into account that there was a single unit of accommodation here, rather than two - an amended plan showing the entirety of the building and its curtilage within the red line was sought and duly provided. This plan was circulated for a 14-day period. 3.0 OTHER PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site and its surroundings have a fairly extensive and varied planning history. There have been a number of applications approved for extensions and alterations to the building in question from 1984 onwards, while there has also been the 2008 approval for a new agricultural farmworkers' dwelling to the south. More than this, several agricultural buildings have also been approved in the past. 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site is zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being within an area of 'woodland' not zoned for development; the site is not within a Conservation Area, but is within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance. - 4.2 With this in mind, Housing Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan is the most relevant: "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." - 4.3 Parts of General Policy 2 also apply: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: - (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; - (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; - (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; - (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; - (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways". 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services on 24th March 2015 recommended a condition should be attached to any approval that may be forthcoming: "The proposed new drive should have nothing erected/planted over 1.05 metres which may cause interference to visibility". - 5.2 Ballaugh Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 26th March 2015 and 2nd September 2015. 6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 In the first case, the nature of the use of the building must be addressed. The agent to the application has stated as follows: "I have spoken to my clients and, although the dwelling has two names, it is actually one dwelling occupied by two separate people. There is one electricity and water service to the property and all foul drainage is connected to a single septic tank and tail drain system. "Your correspondence dated 1st April 2015 is correct in that, the case officer for a previous application refers to the fact that there is one dwelling on the site currently, and this is 'Mylvoirrey'. The property has not been separated "formally" and no planning application has been submitted requesting sub-division of the property." Later, an email was received from the applicant: "We are writing this email as written confirmation that the intention for Keeil Voirrey is to be used in association with Mylvoirrey and will comply with Condition 3 to the planning approval issued to PA 04/00623/B." 6.2 It has become clear that a second address has been added in order to provide clarity for the postal service, but that the bills remain singular. Taking a pragmatic view, the reality is that the two units of accommodation are both large enough to be occupied independently from one another and, while the extant and intended use for Keeil Voirrey is such that it will be occupied by the son of the applicant, to describe Keeil Voirrey as 'ancillary' would be incorrect in Planning terms. It is also, already, sufficiently large enough to be occupied as a single dwelling under the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2013. - 6.3 That being said, there is a clear association with the two properties. The front garden and rear patio appear to be shared. The building is on the same plot of land as the farming business, and the occupants in the past are understood to have been relatives of the applicants - and future occupants would also be relatives. As such, there is some kind of a relationship between the two units of accommodation even if, in a Planning sense, neither could be considered as 'ancillary' to the other. - 6.4 The applicants have also confirmed that the new occupants, as noted, would be relatives, and that the condition attached to the 2004 planning approval (a) has been complied with, and (b) would also be acceptable on this occasion. - 6.5 The fact that Keeil Voirrey is potentially, via 'Planning creep', moving towards becoming a new, independent dwelling should be noted and considered. The fact remains, though, that when - the alterations were previously approved the unit of accommodation was also of a size sufficient to be occupied as a single dwelling. The proposal in itself would not change this situation, and so to take a pragmatic view it is concluded that, from this point of view, there would be no materially harmful impacts arising from the proposal. As such, and having considered the situation carefully, it is considered that an objection to the proposal on this ground would be unreasonable. - 6.6 It remains necessary to consider the detail of the extension proposed and the impact on highway safety that might result from the proposal. - 6.7 While there have been a number of alterations to the building since its construction, it does not give the appearance of having been much-altered. As such, a new extension would not necessarily be viewed negatively in principle since the building offers what is (given the Planning history) a perhaps surprisingly simple and uncluttered form. - 6.8 Proposed is a two-storey extension to a single-storey building. Generally such an approach would be resisted for reasons of form and scale, but it is noted that the extension would, owing to the land stepping down, actually not sit any higher than the existing building. - 6.9 The extension would be to the rear, and views into this part of the site are consequently limited. The extension would be of an appropriate scale and mass relative to the existing building. As such, it is considered the proposal complies with the provisions of Housing Policy 16. - 6.10 There would be no concern with respect to the proposal's effect on the living conditions of adjacent dwellings given the site's well-screened and fairly isolated nature, although the shared use of land to the front and rear means that this conclusion is reached having strong regard to the existing and proposed relationship between Mylvoirrey and Keeil Voirrey. - 6.11 The access arrangements would result in a shared situation with the building and the adjacent farm, but this does not present any major concern. The building is the only non-farmrelated building that would use this access, which already appears to be in use as such in any case, and it is therefore considered that the interaction between different types of vehicle would be limited to an extent sufficient to not raise a concern in respect of highway safety. The condition suggested by Highway Services is logical, and is accordingly recommended to be attached to the approval notice. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 On the basis of the above, it is recommended that planning approval should be issued subject to the conditions discussed. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: - o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; - o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested - o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and - o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.09.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions - C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - C 2. Nothing exceeding 1.05m in height must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within the driveway as shown on plan SM14/355/1. Reason: In the interest of highway safety. - C 3. The accommodation unit currently known as 'Keeil Voirrey' shall be used in association with 'Mylvoirrey' and must not be sold or let off separately therefrom. Reason: Assessment of the proposal has taken account of the fact that the two elements of living accommodation within the building have a functional relationship to one another. Any use of one independently from the other would comprise development and would therefore require separate consideration under a fresh planning application. The approval hereby issued relates to plans SM14/355/2 and SM14/355/3 (date-stamped as having been received 26th February 2015) and plan SM14/355/1 (date-stamped as having been received 2nd September 2015). I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority. Decision Made : ……PER…….. Committee Meeting Date:…15.02.2016 Signed :…………A MORGAN………….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO ## 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. --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/21575-ballaugh-mylvoirrey-extension-dwelling/documents/1014378*