**Document:** Planning Review Statement **Application:** 05/01366/B — Conversion of existing bungalow into a two storey dwelling with split level extension to provide sun lounge with garage under **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2005-10-03 **Parish:** Santon **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/78901-santon-high-bank-conversion-extension/documents/1449538 --- # Planning Review Statement Written Statement in support of Planning Application No 05/01366/B – On Review for Conversion of existing bungalow into two storey dwelling with extension to provide Sun Lounge with Garage over at High Bank Knock Froy, Santon Prepared by: EMC DESIGN Eighty Bucks Road Douglas ## The Site ![A dim photograph showing an existing single-story bungalow on the left and a dark, two-story block structure on the right, likely representing the proposed extension or new dwelling in an overgrown rural setting.](https://images.planningportal.im/2005/07/544793.jpg) High Bank is approached via a side road off the A6. The side road is 170m long and there is a sharp bend that leads to the 150m long private driveway which leads to the property. The driveway, which is secluded by manx banks both sides, is privately owned by the applicant. Whilst the applicant's ownership of the driveway ceases at the point of entry into High Bank, access to Cronk Froy is afforded via rights of way along that drive. Whilst High Bank enjoys some sea views and extensive rural views it is remote from public view. Photographs of the various views and surrounding buildings are attached on drawing no 0021/06 appended separately and an ariel photograph showing the general topography of the area in question is attached at Appendix 1 High Bank cannot be photographed from the A6 due to the distance involved and the intervening Manx banks etc. To put this in context, the A6 and its banks are completely hidden from High Bank. When looking towards the A6, which is at least 200m away at the closest point, only the tops of telegraph poles can be seen. See photograph 6 on drawing no 0021/06 and corresponding photograph no 7 as taken on the A6 side. The properties in the area are a mixture of single and two storey modern style developments with High Bank being a modern style bungalow with a footprint circa 170m2. The property nearest to High Bank was a 100 year old cottage at Cronk Froy, however this has recently been demolished and is currently being replaced by a two storey development with integral garage occupying a footprint of some 230m2. Whilst construction is not yet up to roof level High Bank is already being dwarfed by the two storey re-development that is currently taking place only meters away at Cronk Froy. See photograph below which shows the impact the 11/2 storey element as constructed to date is already having, the full impact has yet to be seen. ## The proposals As previously stated, the site currently has approval for a 50m2 single storey extension comprising a further lounge, Bedroom and en-suite Bathroom to be constructed to the west of the bungalow in a modern style that matches that of the existing building. However the accommodation and layout proposed together with the problems of layout that already exist in the property would be totally un-satisfactory for long term use. Rather than extending closer to Cronk Froy with single storey accommodation the proposal is therefore to extend vertically over the traditionally built element in a style that fully reflects that which already exists. This would enable the 50m2 of additional living accommodation to be created within the footprint of the existing dwelling i.e. two Bedrooms with en-suite facilities, together with associated circulation space. In order to ensure the transition from single storey to two storey is asthetically pleasing, the ridge of the Cambar element has been raised by 1.0m and dormer accommodation has been introduced. The Sun Lounge extension to the east with integral garage under produces a further 30m2 of additional living accommodation. Whilst not strictly compliant, it accords with the ethos of permitted operations i.e. the erection of a private garage within the curtilage of a dwelling. The overall increase in extended living accommodation is circa 80m2 excluding dormer areas. This representing an overall increase in massing of 45%, with only 15% being an enlargement of the existing footprint and an enlargement on that which already has planning Permission. We believe the proposed vertical enlargement as opposed to creating a longer lower extension as per the current planning approval will be more in keeping with the adjacent new development. Whilst not of traditional rural character, opportunity has been taken to replace wherever possible existing urban aspects with more rural aspects, and we believe the proposals as submitted represent a significant visual improvement on the current building. As per the Planning Officer's request we did consider with our Client whether total re-development was an option, however we concluded that replacement of a bungalow that is less than forty years old and purchased at full market value was not sustainable for the reasons set out in our letter of 12 September 2005 (see appendix 2) ## Planning policy and legislation applicable to the site We would concur that the 1982 Development Plan shows the site in question to be in an area of high landscape or costal value and scenic significance. Planning Circular 3/91 "Guide to the design of residential properties in the countryside" therefore applies. In general this Circular is directed at the subject of new developments, with only one Policy Statement referring to extensions. It states very clearly under Policy 3 "The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form." We believe the proposals as currently presented fully comply with this requirement. We appreciate that moves are afoot to replace the 1982 Development Plan with The Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the intent of the current draft could also reviewed. Again the only reference in the draft documentation to extensions in the countryside are referred to under Policy 16 where it states that: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings ... will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public ... We would re-iterate that the building cannot be viewed by the public and as such would maintain that the proposals as submitted also accord with the intent of future planning policy. In addition we would suggest that whilst not strictly compliant, the massing and general appearance of the Sun Lounge/integral garage accords with the ethos of the Permitted Development Order. In conclusion we believe the proposal is in line with both published and draft guidelines ## Objections from Neighbours As previously advised through our correspondence of 12 September 2005, the neighbours concerns were discussed with them prior to the Planning Committee's determination, and their subsequent correspondence was submitted for the Planning Committee's consideration. Whilst they had expressed verbal support to the proposals prior to submission the correspondence they submitted for the Planning Committee's consideration still expressed reservations over the lack of rural character of the development. We fully appreciate that as a new development they are required to comply fully with Planning Circular 3/91. However there is no comparison between the two schemes as the neighbours sought to replace a 100 year old traditional property with a complete new development, whereas our Client simply wishes to make a modest extension to a relatively new dwelling. Whilst we believe our proposals to be fully compliant with current legislation, in order to be neighbourly, our Client has again met with them and their advisors with a view to establishing with that advisor whether the existing bungalow would lend itself to being modified to introduce a more rural character using the existing structure. The clear conclusion was that the bungalow did not lend itself to being altered to achieve rural aspects. They acknowledge that the proposals are a significant improvement on that which exists and they have therefore confirmed in their letter of 30 October that they will not contest the decision at review of the Planning Committee (See Appendix 3) ### Summary In summary we believe the proposals as submitted should be approved in that: - The reason cited in the refusal notice is not consistent with published policy. - The building is at the end of a long private drive, and can not be seen by the public. - The increase in footprint area is a nominal 15% over and above that for which approval has already been granted - The existing bungalow does not lend itself to being extended in traditional style. - Complete re-development of a property that is less than 40 years old is not sustainable - Mr Garvey has reviewed the alternatives with the neighbours and they have subsequently confirmed they will not contest the decision at review of the Planning Committee - The proposals fully accord with published and draft planning policy and are a significant improvement on that which already exists. We urge the Planning Committee to re-consider their decision and grant approval to the scheme as presented --- *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/78901-santon-high-bank-conversion-extension/documents/1449538*