**Document:** Officer Report **Application:** 15/00328/B — Erection of a single storey extension to side and rear elevation **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2015-05-12 **Parish:** Andreas **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/5862-andreas-lough-view-extension/documents/916683 --- # Officer Report **Application No.:** 15/00328/B **Applicant:** Mr Michael Price **Proposal:** Erection of of a single storey extension to side and rear elevation **Site Address:** Lough View Andreas Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4EN Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley **Photo Taken:** 29.04.2015 **Site Visit:** 29.04.2015 **Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation ## Officer’s Report 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a piece of land incorporating a field as well as the residential curtilage of the detached dwelling known as Lough View Cottage, which is situated to the north of Andreas Road as it travels northwest from Ramsey, and roughly 1.2km southeast of Andreas village itself. Lough View is visible from the highway, and access is gained through a gated gap in an existing hedgerow that runs along the boundary between the site and the highway. The entirety of the site, with the exception of the dwelling, is grassed over. What appears to be the residential curtilage of Lough View is quite long and narrow, and made to feel rather smaller than it appears on the submitted plans due to the very mature vegetation in the area. The land to the north beyond this appears to be a paddock of sorts. - 1.2 The dwelling is not a traditional Manx cottage but it does exhibit traditional proportions and possess some charm, partially owing to its diminutive size and being set in what are attractive grounds. The dwelling offers just three rooms on the ground floor, one via an apparent extension with traditional cat slide roof. A flat-roofed porch to the front was probably originally open-fronted, but is now enclosed although still provides the main entrance to the house. The upper windows are set partly within the roofspace, but are not dormers. The roof is finished in natural slate. It is understood that the dwelling is constructed of Ballacorey brick. - 1.3 There are other dwellings in the nearby vicinity but the character of the area is very much rural in feel. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a single-storey extension to wrap around the side and rear elevation and would replace the existing rear extension that provides the bathroom. To one side elevation the extension would appear as a cat-slide roof, while to the other a gable end would be shown. The roof pitch would not match that of the main dwelling. The extension would provide for an extended lounge (to include a study) and a new bedroom and replacement bathroom. 2.2 The walls would be rendered to match the existing, the windows would "be in keeping with the existing" while the rooftiles would be fibre cement in material. - 2.3 Only ground floor plans have been provided, which is unfortunate, and doubly so since the Existing Ground Floor plan is inaccurate. The drawings appear to have been photocopied from an original, with some of the width of the kitchen (it would seem from comparison with the Proposed Ground Floor plan roughly 0.5m of its actual width) accidentally removed. This is hinted at by the fact that the kitchen is labelled "kiten" and the Proposed Side Elevation drawing above this appears to be incomplete with the porch roof overhang missing from the drawing. However, since these errors apply most seriously to the Existing plan and to the kitchen where no external works are proposed, it is considered that there is sufficient information on which to reach a decision on the application. - 2.4 In the absence of accurate plans and also in the absence of complete floorplans, it is impossible to be certain, but it would appear that the existing footprint of Lough View measures roughly 48sqm, while that proposed measures roughly 77sqm. The proposed increase in the size of the footprint of the dwelling is therefore roughly 60%. - 2.5 Also proposed are pitched roofs to the upper windows and the porch; an additional chimney to balance the appearance of the dwelling is also proposed. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 An application seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling on the aforementioned paddock land (PA 87/04330/A) was refused at appeal in 1988. A similar application, which included land to the west (which also included a derelict barn) some years later (PA 94/00502/A) was also refused. - 3.2 PA 86/01250/B sought approval for "Alterations to form new vehicular entrance way"; this was subsequently approved and now forms the existing entrance in replacement of one that was previously in place immediately opposite Lough View itself. - 3.3 In 1997, Approval in Principle was granted to PA 97/00092/A seeking the conversion of a barn further north of Lough View; this included (presumably as the residential curtilage) the aforementioned paddock land and was actually the exact same application site as that of PA 94/00502/A. However, on the approval of the full details for that conversion (PA 00/01279/B) did not include the paddock land within the application site at all. 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site sits within an area of 'white land' as zoned on the 1982 Development Plan: although it is not always easy to determine the exact position of rural sites on this Plan, Lough View is readily apparent on the map, and it is also clear that it lies near to rather than within an area of Private Woodland. - 4.2 On this basis, and having regard to the architectural style of the dwelling, it is considered that the application should be assessed against Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan, which reads in full as follows: "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 offered no objection on 14.04.2015. 6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The agent to the application contacted the Department for advice prior to a formal submission, and presented a scheme not dissimilar from (if not identical to) that now under consideration. The Department advised that the proposal was certain to be assessed as being contrary to Housing Policy 15. The agent was provided with a copy of the policy, its supporting text and also a copy of Planning Circular 3/91 ("Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside") for guidance, along with some suggestions - made after consultation with the then Conservation Officer - as to how sensitive alteration to the dwelling could be approached. In view of this, it is surprising that the application has been submitted in the form it has and without any supporting statement. - 6.2 Housing Policy 15 is clear that proposed extensions must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. The proposal fails to meet all of these criteria. - 6.3 It is important to consider how visible the proposal would be - clearly, where a site is especially prominent, significant attention needs to be paid to a proposal's impact on public amenity - and it cannot be ignored that Lough View is quite well-screened from the highway against which it sits. However, it is also inappropriate to accept an unacceptable design purely on the grounds that the proposed works would not be easily visible. Such an approach would be contrary to the aim of Housing Policy 15. - 6.4 The roughly 60% increase in size would fail to respect the proportion of the existing building. Lough View is, as noted, small and has a certain charm because of this. As such, any extension would need to be sensitively designed to ensure that charm was retained. While it is true that the proposed front elevation would not be hugely changed by the proposals - a small side extension would be the primary difference - this is not the most readily available view of the dwelling, which is actually that of the western (side) elevation where the proposed side elevation would sit. This elevation is very apparent from the highway when travelling southeast through the existing highway access. The sizeable depth in relative terms of the proposed extension to this side of Lough View would be harmfully unsympathetic to the dwelling's existing and appropriate proportions and is therefore considered contrary to Housing Policy 15. - 6.5 For similar reasons, the proposed extension would fail to respect the existing form of Lough View. The proposed roof pitch, is significantly different from that of the main dwelling and, again, is proposed on the most publicly visible side of the dwelling. While cat-slide roofs are, traditionally, of a shallower pitch than that of the dwelling to which they relate - and the eastern elevation of the dwelling would give the impression of the extension being a cat-slide - the use of a gable end to the side of Lough View on the most publicly visible elevation would not fail to give this impression and would, in view of its form, fail to respect the existing form of Lough View. 6.6 The extension to the rear is less problematic in that it would give something of an impression as being a cat-slide or similar rear extension of a kind fairly commonly found on traditional rural cottages. However, the fact that both the rear and side elevation are part of the same built form means they are inextricably linked, and any positive light that the rear extension might be viewed in is more than outweighed by the negative effects of the side element proposed. - 6.7 The proposed pitches to the upper storey windows and porch are essentially unobjectionable. While flat-roofed porches are perhaps more common in the north, they are - as much a feature of a landscape that historically provided good quality slate, which means that flat-roofed porches are fairly well-spread throughout the Island. The principle of a new chimney is welcomed, although it is unfortunate that the existing - and presumably original chimney is also proposed for replacement. The chimneys are certainly a little short and suffer from a lack of pots, but they are not objectionable in principle and the fact that Lough View is proposed to have two would result in a pleasing balance to the main body of the dwelling. However, none of this is considered sufficient to outweigh the serious concerns raised with respect to the alterations to the proportions and form of the dwelling as proposed. - 6.8 Housing Policy 15's reference to the appearance of a dwelling is taken to mean the general finishes of the dwelling, including the windows and rainwater goods and the like. The existing windows are not shown on the Existing plans. However, the site visit confirmed that those that open are in a top-hung casement style with glazing bars. The proposed installation of side-hung casement windows would not fit alongside these, even though the existing windows are neither original nor traditional. The retention of the copings to the main dwelling is welcome, but it is considered that failing to replicate this feature on the proposed extension is a missed opportunity. The proposed use of cement tiles alongside what appears to be existing - and presumably original - natural slate on Lough View itself is inappropriate. The plans do not indicate that there would be any sills beneath the windows, but this would appear to be an appropriate approach given that Lough View - at least its original, main element - also offers no sills, highlighting the simplistic way in which the dwelling is detailed. The use of render is acceptable and, probably, given the nature of the building's construction from Ballacorey brick, a necessity. No materials for the rainwater goods are shown so nu judgement can be reached on these. - 6.9 Overall, the finishing approaches are considered, on balance, to be inappropriate. The cement tiles and windows proposed would not sufficiently respect the existing appearance of Lough View. The use of render and sill-less windows is fairly unobjectionable, while the lack of detail regarding the rainwater goods is unfortunate - cast iron might be traditional and preferred, but something that replicated this finish would probably be acceptable. However, in view of the objection in respect of the proposed roof tiles and window styles, it is considered that the finishes proposed are sufficiently inappropriate with respect to the existing dwelling as to warrant an objection in respect of Housing Policy 15. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 There has been no reason put forward as to why an increase of greater than 50% should be acceptable here. There are circumstances where such an approach could be (and has been) considered acceptable, but clear and effective reasoning is usually put forward in such cases. In the absence of any such reasoning, the fact that the proposal is judged to be objectionable when assessed against the three clear criteria of Housing Policy 15 (proportion; form; appearance) is sufficient reason to refuse the application. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.04.2015 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 R 1. The proposal to increase the size of Lough View by roughly 60%, (1) in addition to the use of an inappropriate roof pitch relative to that of the main dwelling, (2) inappropriate architectural details relative to those found on the main dwelling and (3) inappropriate finishes relative to those found on the main dwelling are together sufficient to conclude that the application is, on a number of grounds, contrary to Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. 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 : Refused Date : ..08.05.2015 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed :…………………………………….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management --- *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/5862-andreas-lough-view-extension/documents/916683*