**Document:** Officer Planning Report **Application:** 06/00906/B — Alterations and erection of a first floor extension to approved dwelling (PA 02/01097) **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2006-10-24 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/80740-colby-part-of-field-extension-dwelling/documents/1470281 --- # Officer Planning Report ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations **Consulttee:** Drainage Division **Notes:** **Consulttee:** Chief Fire Officer **Notes:** **Consulttee:** Manx Electricity Authority **Notes:** **Consulttee:** IOM Water Authority **Notes:** ### Officer’s Report #### The Site The site represents a parcel of land which stretches from the B33 Croit-e-Caley Road to the east. To the north are existing residential properties - 1-3, Pump Street, Lindisfarne, Homefield, Stone House, Colby Pump depot and Pineview. To the immediate south is the steam railway and to the east is open agricultural land. #### Planning Status The majority of the site lies within an area designated on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan as "Residential": that part to the east, below Pineview falls within the wider area designated as Open Space. The Written Statement explains that the site was the subject of an application in 1993 for the erection of a dwelling (PA 93/0867) although the detailed application for the dwelling was refused under PA 96/0544. In the plan the principle of the erection of a dwelling on this plot of land was accepted, expanding the boundaries of the potential residential curtilage eastwards over and above that accepted in 1993 to give "more opportunity for space between "Lindisfarne" and the proposed dwelling and more open space for the landscaping and softening of the impact of the new dwelling" (paragraph 17.2). The development brief contained within the plan requires that the development is restricted to a single dwelling and the new dwelling is a traditional Manx farmhouse complying with policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 - Design Guide for Residential Development in the Countryside. Also a landscaping scheme was required to soften the impact from the railway line and that the access should be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Transport. #### Planning History Planning permission was granted for the erection of a dwelling on the site under PA 02/1097. This was a single dwelling as required in the Plan but where the residential curtilage was larger than was suggested on the Plan itself, extending the residential curtilage as far as the eastern extent of "Pineview". The dwelling was somewhat larger than the traditional cottage described in 3/91 which is generally 11m by 5.5m. This was 15.5m by 9.5m with a long single storey annex providing a double garage and additional living accommodation. #### The Proposal Proposed now are alterations and extensions to the approved dwelling. The extension is over the southern side of the house where the single storey annex now sits. The chimney stack, previously at the southern edge of the two storey roof is to be relocated towards the centre of the dwelling to subdivide the building mass into two equal parts and to try to give the impression of two cottages rather than one large one. In my view, the additional accommodation would be much better provided under dormer accommodation, leaving the ridge level as it is and adding the new roof at a lower level and having the new windows partially in the roof space. This has been suggested to the applicant and they have now submitted revised proposals showing just this: the ridge of part of the main dwelling and the extension is now lower than that of the main house by some 0.6m. This not only reduces slightly the impact of the extension but also that of the main dwelling whose main ridge will now be 0.6m lower for around 5m of its length. The requirement for a traditional farmhouse in the Development Brief in the local plan is still being complied with, in my view – perhaps moreseo than with the originally permitted scheme as the ridge of the main part of the dwelling is now 10.5m – closer to the proportions of the traditional farmhouse advocated in the Planning Circular referred to. The plans also show a proposed new close boarded fence around the side and rear boundaries, up to a height of 1.8m above a new 500mm hedge. Previously the plan for PA 02/1097 showed simply "boundary fence" on the site plan, not indicating whether the fence was proposed or existing. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 1983 (then in force – now superseded by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005) was suspended in that application so permission would be required even for the erection of a 2m high fence in this instance. A landscaping scheme was recently submitted in respect of the previous application as was required by condition 5. This plan is the same as that submitted in respect of this latest application. The boundary treatment of this site would be much better provided as hedging or landscaping rather than fencing. The applicant has now provided an amended plan showing the retention of the roadside wall and the lowering of the fencing to an overall height of 1.8m together with the retention of the roadside vegetation and tree. The objectors accept these changes but still remain opposed to the size of the overall dwelling and its perceived overdevelopment of the site. Whilst the resultant dwelling is not modest, compared with what already has permission the impact of the proposed extensions and alterations does not create a dwelling which is unacceptable. ### Assessment Whilst there are objections from neighbours in respect of the size and character of the dwelling, much of this is already permitted under PA 02/01097. Objections also relate to the visual impact of the proposals which, taking into account the permission already granted, it is recommended are not unacceptable. Concern is expressed that the proposals do not accord with the policies of the local plan as the access is unsatisfactory because the access uses land shared with others, visibility is obstructed, the proposal will increase traffic and the access should be sited in the middle of the plot where the present field gate is located. There is however, no objection from the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division. The access is little different from that already permitted under PA 02/1097. The occupant of Pump Cottage raises issues of the safety of the site, which are not planning concerns but ones which should be raised with Health and Safety and the applicant. The occupants of Pineview suggest that the fencing will be out of keeping and will affect the outlook. This concern is shared by the occupant of Oldbrook. ### Party Status The occupant of Railway Cottage is immediately adjacent to the railway line which abounds the site and as such is directly affected by the proposal and should be afforded party status. His comments regarding the reduction in value of his property are not material planning considerations and alone should not be regarded as reason for affording party status under Government Circular 1/06 - Determination of Interested Party Status. The occupant of Stonehouse, whilst not on the side of the site where the extensions are proposed, is next to some of the proposed fencing and is close to the site so should be afforded party status in this instance. The occupants of Pineview, Pump Cottage, Lindisfarne and the co-owner of the field to the east of the plot are all next to or close to the site and should be afforded party status in this instance. Rushen Parish Commissioners and Department of Transport The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. Whilst the Fire Prevention Officer represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.10.2006 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : 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. This permission relates to the alterations and extensions and landscaping and access provision all as shown in the location plan received on 26th May, 2006, plan reference WL/06/991A received on 26th July, 2006 and the site plan received on 11th September, 2006. C 3. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer. C 4. The proposed development must be connected to the main foul sewer. NOTE: A Drainage Connection Fee will be payable to the Drainage Authority on this development C 5. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects. C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval.) N 1. For water connections that comprise more than a single connection to a water main or service, or where new water mains and hydrants will be required, the applicant should contact the Isle of Man Water Authority Planning and Projects Section, telephone 695958. N 2. The applicant is advised that there are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in the planning application. Please contact Anthony Kinrade or Ian Horsey, Operations and Maintenance Department, Network Services, Manx Electricity Authority, (Tel. 687705) to discuss working practices around Cables and Overhead Lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site. The applicant is also advised to contact the M.E.A. for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 and GS6. N 3. The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection. I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer) Decision Made : Permitted Date : 23/10/05 Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control --- *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/80740-colby-part-of-field-extension-dwelling/documents/1470281*