**Document:** DEC Officers Report **Application:** 14/00227/B — Alterations and garden room extension and linked replacement outbuilding to provide garaging/office and storage accommodation **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2014-04-11 **Parish:** Michael **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/34353-jurby-sunnycroft-replacement-extension/documents/1088151 --- # DEC Officers Report Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 10.03.2014 Site Visit: 10.03.2014 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation ## Officer's Report ### 1.0 The Application Site 1.1 The application site comprises the residential curtilage of Sunnycroft, Rhendhoo Road, Jurby, which is a modern detached dormer bungalow which incorporates a two storey converted barn to its north gable end wall. To the west of the dwelling area number of garages and outbuildings which vary from modern construction to more traditional stone barns. 1.2 The site is located on the western side of the Rhendhoo Road and south of Jurby East. The site is accessed via a gated entrance from the Rhendhoo Road with a driveway running westerly direction (approximately 70 metres in length) to the dwelling. ### 2.0 Planning Policy 2.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 2.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed development the following policy is relevant to be considered:- 2.3 Housing Policy 16 states: "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." ### 3.0 Proposal 3.1 The application seeks approval for alterations and garden room extension and linked replacement outbuilding to provide garaging/office and storage accommodation. 3.3 The proposed building would replace an existing garage building of a similar footprint which is currently to the western elevation (rear) of the dwelling. The new proposal would have a width of 11.9 metres, a depth of 7.8 metres and a ridge height of 5.8 metres (same ridge height of the bungalow). The front elevation of the proposal would be set back 1.5 metres from the existing front elevation of the existing garage. At ground floor level the building will accommodate two double garages and a toilet, with a staircase which leads to [Table omitted in markdown export] storage/office accommodation within the roof space. Four rooflights are proposed within the north east elevation and two pitched roof dormers to the south west elevation are proposed to provide light and outlook for the storage/office accommodation. The garage would be linked to the main dwelling house via a new single storey garden room/lobby extension. 3.4 For reference the existing building to be replaced has a width of 11.5 metres, a depth of 4.8 metres and a ridge height of 3.9 metres. It is of a modern construction (block work) with a roof finished with metal sheeting. ### 4.0 Planning History 4.1 The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application; 4.2 Alterations and extension to dwelling - 08/00708/B – APPROVED 4.3 Erection of uPVC conservatory - 96/00950/B – APPROVED 4.4 Erection of agricultural building - 91/01407/B – APPROVED 4.5 Barn extension with access steps to existing floor storage area to adjacent barn - 87/01899/B - APPROVED ### 5.0 Representations 5.1 Jurby Parish Commissioners have not stated whether they object to the proposal or not, rather asked the following matters are taken into account: a. Proposed extensions are an over intensification of the area b. The area surrounding the existing property has a high water table and the run off from surface water from the proposed development would only add to these problems. c. Should PC approve development, a condition should be added that the first floor area above the garage is not to be converted to living accommodation at a later date." 5.2 Highways Services do not oppose ### 6.0 Assessment 6.1 When considering any application to extend an existing property within the countryside, it first needs to be determined whether the existing dwelling is of a traditional design or a dwelling of non-traditional and/or poor form. 6.2 In this case the existing dwelling is clearly a modern bungalow and therefore falls under the category of non-traditional dwellings. Consequently, Housing Policy 16 requires consideration in this case. This policy states 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. 6.3 The proposed works would be sited approximately 77 metres from the adjacent public highway Rhendhoo Road, therefore the proposal would only be seen from a distance. The boundary which runs along the western edge of the Rhendhoo Road comprises of 1/1.5 metre high (approximately) grass banking with tree planting behind which does reduce the appearance of the dwelling when travelling/walking along the Rhendhoo Road, albeit the dwelling is still apparent. 6.4 The existing garage building which would be replaced by the proposal is only apparent from the north and east of the site, given the building is set behind the bungalow and therefore views of the garage are screened. 6.5 The proposal will be seen from the north-east and given it is a taller building it could be argued the proposal would have a greater impact. However, the building is set next to the existing bungalow and the two storey barn buildings either side of the proposal. The proposal would also be set 1.5 metres back from the existing garage building which will help reduce the impact of the building. The use of stone cladding to the front elevation of the building, the garage doors being GRP or timber boarded (condition should be attached to require the doors to be retained a dark colour) and the roof finished with slate, will all help reduce the appearance of the building, especially when viewed in context with the larger bungalow and attached two storey barn, which are finished in painted render and therefore will draw the eye much more than the proposal. 6.6 In terms of concerns from the Commissioners that the proposal would be an over "intensification of the area", it is considered given the proposal would be within the main groups of building and have a similar sized footprint as the existing building (which will be replaced), the Planning Authority does not agree with the Commissioners that this would be an "over intensification of the area". Regarding comments to the high water table and the run off from surface water, no objection has been received from the Manx Utilities Authority. Furthermore, the footprint of the existing building is very similar to the existing; therefore it is reasons to argue the amount of surface water run off would remain similar. 6.7 In relation to the Commissioners third point which seeks a condition to be added to ensure the floor area above the garage is not to be converted to living accommodation at a later date. This point raise an important issue as whether the proposal could be considered to be a new dwelling and whether such accommodation would be compatible with the existing dwelling. 6.8 There is some case law that has accepted fully self-contained accommodation as being ancillary to the principal residence, i.e. when they have been occupied by a dependant relative or disabled child, or even a servant, and certainly who pays the bills is a factor. However, in most cases the test of whether it is a separate planning unit rests upon its severability. i.e. If the alleged ancillary use could practically and viably operate on its own were the primary use of the premises cease or cease to be in the ownership of the same person. Consequently, in this case, given the size of the proposal, it is proposed as an office/store (any use for the roof space to be used as a separate flat/tourist unit etc would require a change of use application), its location integrated to the main dwelling house, using the same access and driveway as the main dwelling house, and having dormer windows directly overlooking the rear patio area of the main dwelling house, would all seem to help the argument that in practical terms it is unlikely to be occupied as a separate household to the main dwellinghouse and therefore would not constitute a new residential dwelling, but would be accommodation incidental to the main dwelling house. 6.9 Overall, it is considered whilst the proposal is a fairly substantial extension, however, it is considered due to the distance the dwelling is from the public highway, and the design, finish and siting of the extension and as it replaces an existing building of poor form, it is considered the proposal would comply with Housing Policy 16. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Overall, it is consider would comply with the relevant Planning Policies as indicated within the Strategic Plan. For these reasons the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore it is recommended the application be approved. 8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) and should be afforded interested party status: ## Recommendation **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 04.04.2014 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal **C:** Conditions for approval **N:** Notes attached to conditions **R:** Reasons for refusal **O:** Notes attached to refusals **C 1.** The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. **C 2.** The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the submitted documents and the following plans 07 0281/5, 07 0281/6 and 07 0281/7 all received on 26th February 2014. **C 3.** The proposed garage and store/office within the roof space may be used only in association with the main dwelling house ‘Sunny Croft’ and for purposes incidental to the use of main dwelling house ‘Sunny Croft’ as a single dwelling and for no commercial purposes. **C 4.** The two garage doors within the north east elevation as shown on drawing number 07 0281/5 are required to be finished/painted/stained in a dark colour and retained thereafter. ~~This approval relates to~~ I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. **Decision Made:** Permitted **Date:** 10/4/14 ### Determining officer (delete as appropriate) **Signed:** _________________________ **Chris Balmer** **Senior Planning Officer** **Signed:** _________________________ **Sarah Corlett** **Senior Planning Officer** Signed: S. M. Galle Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed: 1 Signed: S. M. Galle Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed: 1 Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management 9 April 2014 Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management 9 April 2014 --- *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/34353-jurby-sunnycroft-replacement-extension/documents/1088151*