**Document:** DEC Officers Report
**Application:** 14/01195/B — Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of a replacement two storey extension together with erection of a detached double garage
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2014-11-26
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/35409-maughold-thie-y-chleree-replacement-demolition/documents/1092215

---

# DEC Officers Report

### Officer's Report

[Table omitted in markdown export]

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL.

### 1.0 The Site

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Thie Y Chleree (sometimes also spelled "Thie ny Chleree"), which sits to the north of the grass triangle to the west of the entrance to Maughold Church. The site is within the Maughold Conservation Area. The house sits more than 20m from the carriageway and there is a lane which runs north, to the west of the site, and which leads to public conveniences, which are adjacent the site, and private garaging, which is presumably associated with the adjacent dwelling ("The Old Vicarage").

1.2 As viewed from the front, the dwelling has a number of traditional features, offset somewhat by a characteristic and unusual two-storey front projection with a castellated flat top, which has a single sliding sash window in each floor of a kind that matches those in the main house frontage. This frontage is prominent in the streetsceene. To the rear, Thie Y Chleree has been significantly re-modelled and extended with a large pitched roofed annex running parallel with the main ridge but longer than this and separated therefrom by a pitched-roofed link, which, given the angle at which the larger annex is set, takes something of a wedge-shaped form. The original house has a depth of 5.3m: the whole dwelling has a depth of 14.0m. The length of the site is around 64.0m with the widest part at the northern, top end.

1.3 The property is clearly visible from the main road, as well as from the lane to the west, the public highway to the east that runs around the perimeter of the church, roughly 39m to the east of the site. Direct views of the rear elevation are only possible from within the site and private land stretching to the rear.

### 2.0 The Proposal

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the demolition of the entirety of the rear extension, along with its connecting pitched-roof link, and its replacement with a new extension. This new extension would sit on the footprint of the existing extensions, but would also have two-storey projections to the northeast and southeast. Also proposed is a small

basement level. This application follows approval of an application for a large rear extension in 2012 (PA 12/00476/B - see Planning History section for details). The helpful Design Statement submitted as part of the application identifies the floorspace measurements as follows:

- Existing extended property: 277sqm
- Approved extended / re-modelled property: 331sqm (19% net increase)
- Proposed extended / re-modelled property: 407sqm (47% net increase)
- Proposed extended / re-modelled property, excluding the basement, which would not be visible: 370sqm (34% net increase)

2.2 The fabric that is to be demolished was added in 1991 (PA 91/0157), which was a replacement/alteration of fabric that was already in place and clearly not original as the extensions at the rear had flat roofs at two- and single-storey levels. The 1991 approval added more fabric at first floor level and added more height in the form of the pitched roofing but did not add to the floor area.

2.3 Now proposed is the removal of all of the later additions and the extension of the property in a contemporary fashion, but also with an acknowledgement of the otherwise traditional styling of Thie Y Chlere.

2.4 The main body of the extension would be irregularly-shaped but would provide something of a double-pile aspect to the dwelling when viewed from the northwest. It would be fully two-storey and finished mainly in a roughcast render but with Manx stone on the elevation parallel to the dwelling's principal elevation. This elevation would be partially seen to the right of the elevation when viewed from the public highway, but would be at its most visible when viewed from the lane to the west of the site; it would be visible because the 'link' extension between the existing house and the proposed annex would not completely fill the gap between those two elements, and it would also be formed entirely of frameless glazing panels.

2.5 The rear elevation would have a projecting gable and which would be filled with glazing panels in the gable and also at ground floor level; the upper floor would provide the master bedroom while the ground floor would provide the living room. It would be beneath this element of the proposed extension that the basement level, which would provide a gym and wine store, would be accessed via a spiral staircase.

2.6 In terms of finishings not already outlined, the rear extension's roof would be finished in zinc, while the windows would be grey uPVC sliding sash units. The two proposed rooflights would be of a conservation-style.

### 3.0 Planning History

3.1 As stated above, alterations and extensions were undertaken in 1991 prior to which there had already been flat roofed extensions added. Also approved in 2008 and 2013 were replacement windows and the installation of a flue respectively. Both of these approvals have been fully implemented; the flue was installed on the rear annex approved in 1991.

3.2 Of more relevance, however, was the planning approval granted in 2012 for "Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of a replacement two storey extension including erection of detached double garage". More explicitly, and in the case officer's words, proposed was: "...the removal of all of the later additions and the extension of the property in the form of two parallel rear extensions at right angles to the main ridge and extend to 7m on the lane side and slightly more, 11m on the east where the extension extends further out to the west in single storey form. The main extensions will have pitched roofs with chimneys which are slightly slimmer than those on the main original dwelling but

reflect their proportion and form. Also proposed is the erection of a new double garage at the top end of the site. Two trees will be removed to facilitate this."

3.3 In terms of the merits of the proposal, which had a more traditional emphasis than the current proposal, the case officer continued: "the existing fabric is not of sympathetic form and what is proposed will be a significant improvement in terms of the design and appearance of the dwelling as a whole as well as those parts which are publicly visible."

3.4 Her conclusion ran as follows: "The existing extensions are visible from the public highway, to the west and east. What is proposed would result in a more attractive and sympathetic than the existing in both cases and would result in a more compact and streamlined overall building mass. The Forestry Officer has indicated that the two trees to be removed to facilitate the garage development are not of sufficient aesthetic benefit to warrant refusal on this basis."

3.5 The current proposal would, if approved, supersede this 2012 approval in respect of which no work has commenced.

### 4.0 Planning Policy

4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, within an area of ecological interest and within the perimeter of the site of a scheduled Ancient Monument (St. Maughold's Church). The site is also within Maughold's Conservation Area, which was adopted in 1992. No Character Appraisal exists for the Conservation Area, which is by far the largest on the Island and includes small collections of buildings along with farmsteads and individual dwellings but is primarily countryside. The area in which the application site sits presents the largest collection of buildings, but even this is limited to around 15 individual properties. The area could be characterised as comprising dwellings of fairly traditional but also somewhat unusual form and design – none of which are considered especially inappropriate – set within a sloping hillside that commands quite significant long views westward into the Island but is perhaps surprisingly well hidden from the sea to the east. It is also true that there is a very limited amount of contemporary architecture in the area.

4.2 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states at paragraph 19 (3) "A building to which this section applies [the section is entitled Conservation Areas] may not be demolished without the consent of the Department; and accordingly sections 15 and 16 apply to such a building as they apply to a registered building, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations." As such it is important that the fabric which is to be demolished is considered as historically important unless it can be demonstrated that it is not of such value. In this case, the fabric is much more modern than the original cottage and is not of particularly attractive or appropriate form. Were the building to be Registered, there would be no objection to the demolition of this fabric. This position was first stated in respect of the 2012 planning application discussed above.

4.3 The Strategic Plan policies of material relevance to the consideration of this application are set out below.

4.4 Strategic Policy 4 states: "Proposals for development must:

- (a) protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;

- (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value or urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
- (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance"

4.5 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

4.6 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of 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 difference 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:

a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) the location for the development is essential."

4.7 Environment Policy 35 is perhaps the crucial policy: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." This echoes the provision of Planning Policy Statement 1/01, policy CA/2, which states: "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application.

Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."

4.8 Also of strong relevance is Housing Policy 15: "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."

## 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services, in an email dated 7th November 2014, do not oppose the application subject to the imposition of the following condition: "The applicant shall contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Infrastructure prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs. Telephone 686665".

It is not considered that this would be an appropriate condition to attach although, if approval were to be forthcoming, it would be appropriate as an advisory note.

6.1 The property is a prominent and important one in the heart of Maughold's Conservation Area and one that has already been altered and extended in not necessarily the most sympathetic manner. This situation has not changed since the previous approval in 2012, and there have been no amendments to planning policy since that time to indicate a different assessment approach should be taken in 2014. That being said, the proposed extension is quite significantly different in its design approach than the previous scheme. In the first instance, and as outlined in paragraph 2.1 of this report, it should be noted that the principle of extension proposed meets the provisions of Housing Policy 15 inasmuch as the dwelling is of traditional character and the 50% threshold is not breached. What remains to be considered is whether or not the proposed works "respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property".

6.2 While some welcome effort has been made to retain a traditional form on the 1991 annex, and the double-piled impression given is fairly successful, the fact of its sitting at a rather awkward angle to the original dwelling and lack of chimneys gives the dwelling something of an unsettled appearance. It is, however, fairly compact in form and this, too, is successful from the point of view of a traditionally-Manx appearance. While it is not necessarily considered to be poor of poor form, the loss of the existing annex would not be lamented. It should also be noted that the location of the public conveniences is a difficult constraint to rearward extension to the property.

6.3 The applicants indicated that they wished the extension to have a "wow factor". In this, their architect has succeeded. Whether or not this has resulted in a successful design outcome in the context of Housing Policy 15 remains to be considered. The effect of the proposal on the dwelling and its wider surroundings also needs to be assessed in the context of Environment Policy 35.

6.4 The proposal, as outlined, is a far more contemporary approach than that previously approved or currently in place. While the form and massing is rather different to the existing and with a couple of projections beyond the main, more compact, footprint, there is judicious use of traditional detailing. The window proportions are good, and sliding sash lights is welcome. Chimneys atop gable ends retain the double-piled impression, while the lack of eaves and replication of window lintels on the existing dwelling are also successful and welcome. Perhaps of more immediate impact, though, is of the materials, massing and form proposed, which would be a departure from the existing to quite a notable degree.

6.5 Turning first to the wider visual impact of the proposal, it cannot be ignored that the new extension would, as outlined earlier, expand the existing dwelling beyond its existing, fairly compact, form. However, this 'expansion' is formed by a couple of projections - one to the side elevation and one to the rear - and it is necessary to consider those projections in terms of how they would affect the form of the existing dwelling.

6.6 That which is proposed to the side is unobjectionable. It would result in a better indication of the double-piled design approach than the current extension, which merely continues the line of the frontage of the dwelling. While this is normal for double-piled dwellings, the glazed element within the centre of the dwelling's two main elements provides for an interesting and important separation between the new and the old. As such, while the side projection looks a little awkward in plan form, it is considered that, when viewed from the highway to the east of the site, it would provide the massing necessary to give the contrast between these two elements. It also offers an essentially traditional built form and would replicate that form of the existing dwelling's gable.

6.7 The rearward projection is more different again. A projecting gable, it would be dominated by its glazing and offers little to reflect the dwelling's otherwise traditional window

and door arrangements and proportions. However, it could not be viewed from any publicly accessible position such that public amenity would not be harmed. Normally, such a dominating glazed feature might be resisted. On this occasion, however, the otherwise traditional form of the gable, and the roof with a similar pitch to those found elsewhere on the dwelling, successfully ties together the old with the new. This conclusion, coupled with the projection's essential invisibility from the public realm, is such as to render a fundamental objection to this element of the proposal inappropriate.

6.8 Turning to what is perhaps the most controversial element of the proposal, we find a fully-glazed linkage between the original dwelling and the rearward extension. While glazing, which offers a clean visual impression, can be used successfully in integrating new buildings with old, it is generally only when the glass is itself restrained and used as a transition, or visual 'break', that such an approach will be successful. The glazed section would sit fairly happily and reticently between the two blockwork elements. It could not be readily seen from the main highway, although the same could not be said for the road to the east of the site: in any case, the success of this element of the proposal, which underpins the "wow factor" mentioned earlier, is such that this lack of visibility is, really, quite unfortunate. (However, the site's location, positioning and siting adjacent the public conveniences mean that it would be fairly difficult to make this element of the proposal any more visible than is proposed.)

6.9 It is also noted that the glazing would enable plenty of light to access the rearward extension (and the glazed element itself), which, given the southern positioning of rearward extension, is welcome and important for the amenity of the occupants.

6.10 Finally, in terms of the form, massing and size of the dwelling, is the proposed gym and wine store. This would be beneath the kitchen-lounge and accessed via a spiral staircase. It would not have any visible elements and, in fact, is entirely possible could not even be built. It is therefore unobjectionable.

6.11 The stone-faced element of this proposal, which would face the highway, would add a new but traditional material to the streetsce and is also therefore unobjectionable. The agent's supporting information indicates that part of the rationale for this is to give the impression of the rearward element of the dwelling as being an older outbuilding since converted to residential use. The success of this would be only fully realised from the front of the dwelling as the other three elevations of the rearward extension are rendered and therefore do not read in this way. It therefore gives the impression that the design is perhaps trying too hard to contextualise its older and newer elements against one another - however, the design intention is certainly unobjectionable.

6.12 Turning finally to the proposed finishings, the glazing element is, as noted, welcomed, and its use in respect of the dwelling is not objected to. More than this, the main extension would also have a zinc roof. Also proposed are areas of Manx stone and a timber gate, while the windows would be dark grey, uPVC-framed units. Not all of these could be said to be traditional, but the use of grey successfully draws on the slate roofs and churchyard setting, while timber (even though in a small way) and Manx stone are found throughout the area. Perhaps the most significant intervention is the zinc, and this is considered potentially the most controversial.

6.13 Before coming to a final view on the application, it is also important to consider the proposal against its built and natural environment context. When viewed from the highway, This Y Chleree is really only 'read' against the adjacent Pink House and Old Vicarage. Both of these offer some traditional forms and features and, although have limited contemporary design elements, the fact that the proposed extension would not be especially visible when set against these are to its favour. Equally, the use of stone in part on the Old Vicarage and also, and more strongly, on the adjacent church is successfully picked up as part of the proposals.

6.14 The view of the proposed works from beyond and through the churchyard are fairly limited and long-distance, and would read well against the Old Vicarage beyond but, also, would not be altogether dissimilar from the form presented now.

6.15 The visual impact of the garage will be slightly different from that previously approved on the site - while it was previously proposed to be Manx stone, it will now be render albeit that its size, form and location has not altered. While Manx stone might be preferred, that the garage would sit near the other built development that is also rendered is such that there would be unlikely to result in any visual harm as a result. The garage would, therefore, preserve the character / appearance of the Conservation Area.

### 7.0 Conclusion And Recommendation

7.1 The use of contemporary architecture in the manner proposed by the application is a welcome intervention in the area. In light of the above assessment, which has considered the design of the proposed works relative to the existing dwelling and also against its setting within the Maughold Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal would result in an enhancement to the character, and appearance, of that Conservation Area.

7.2 It is therefore recommended that the planning application be approved.

### 8.0 Interested Person Status

8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.

## Recommendation

**Recommended Decision:** Permitted

**Date of Recommendation:** 17.11.2014

---

### 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 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.

#### N 1.

The applicant shall contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Infrastructure prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs. (Telephone 686665.)

---

The approval hereby issued relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 17th October 2014: 01, 14 1083/1, 14 1083/2, 14 1083/3, 14 1083/4 and 14 1083/5, as well as the Design Statement.

---

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:** APPROVED
**Committee Meeting Date:** 24/11/2014

**Signed:** [Signature]
**Presenting Officer**

**Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required.**
Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
☑ YES ☐ NO

---

*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/35409-maughold-thie-y-chleree-replacement-demolition/documents/1092215*