Loading document...
The application site represents the residential curtilage of Sloe Cottage, Cornaa, Ramsey, which is a large single storey detached modern bungalow. The property is located on the southern side of the Cornaa Road (A15) and north of the settlement of Cornaa.
Attached to the application site to the eastern and southern boundaries of the site is a field which is within the same ownership of the applicant.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "white land" under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; but is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Relevant policies include:
Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policy is relevant for consideration:-
Policy 16: "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."
The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
The application seeks approval for the alterations, erection of an extension to form ancillary accommodation and extension to residential curtilage.
The proposed extension would be one and a half storeys in height, with a overall width of 6.4 metres, a depth of 10.8 metres and a ridge height of 5.7 metres.
The extension of the residential curtilage involves a strip of land along the entire eastern boundary of the site. The maximum projection from the existing boundary into the neighbouring field would be 11 metres; however, the majority would only project approximately 4 metres form the existing boundary into the field. It should be noted that a substantial landscaping scheme is proposed within the majority of this extended curtilage and no part of the extension would project into this area.
Maughold Parish Commissioners:-
"The Commissioners considered the application and additional material again last night (08.08.11).
They noted the new plan and the comments of the applicant's agent.
They remain opposed to the principle of appropriating agricultural land, but are now satisfied enough to leave determination of this application to yourself and the Committee.
If the proposals remain as currently submitted it is my understanding that they would not be minded to object if the application is approved.
I hope that this clarifies the situation in regard to the view of the Commissioners."
Highways Division:-
"Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications."
The Planning Authority has received no privately written representations objecting to the proposal.
The first issue is the relevant Housing Policy to consider for this application. From studying the plans and from visiting the site it is clear that the property is a modern bungalow (60's/70's) and therefore considered to be a dwelling of a non-traditional design.
Therefore this application should be considered with Housing Policy 16 as the dwelling is considered to be of a non-traditional.
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.
The proposal would increase the size and footprint of the dwelling; however, it is important to consider that the proposal in terms of proportion, design and massing would appear very similar to a tradition Manx barn and does not follow the lines of the existing modern non-traditional property.
From public view the dwelling is sited adjacent to the Cornaa Road; however, given the substantial mature landscaping along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, the property is very well screened from public view, with only a small section of the roof being apparent from certain limited locations (east of site). If the proposed extension was erected, it is likely only a small section of the roof would be apparent.
The proposal involves the retention of all the existing landscaping along the boundaries and within the site. Furthermore, it is proposed to plant further landscaping within the proposed extended curtilage, adding to the existing boundary landscaping.
The next issue to consider is whether the proposal is in keeping with the existing property. The proposed design does differ from the existing bungalow. Furthermore, the proposal would be finished with timber cladding and with a slate roof, again differing from the finishes of the existing property (pebble dash/concrete roof tiles).
The proposal is also taller than the existing dwelling, and would projected 0.5 metres above the existing roof ridge. This level difference will not be apparent from public view, as the only section of the dwelling which would be apparent (limited positions to the east) is part of the roof of the proposed extension. This would block views of the existing dwellings roof.
The majority of the proposal will only be apparent from within the site and whilst the design and finish differs from the existing property, it is considered this will add interest and be beneficial to the appearance of the property.
Regarding the extension of the residential curtilage and the comments received from the Commissioners. It is important to note that the majority of this area would be used for the additional planting along the eastern boundary (landscaping condition should be attached). This could be done without planning permission.
There is a small section to the northeast corner of the site were the driveway would be extended into the new extended curtilage which the applicants have indicated is to enable better turning provision and additional parking.
From visiting the site it was clear that turning round this section of the drive is tight and in affect is turning round a blind corner. The proposal will certain make this manoeuvre easier for the applicants and visitors.
Overall, it is considered given the majority of the extended curtilage would be used for additional landscaping and as the driveway extension is very modest in size and a low level form of
development having very little visual impact upon public view; the proposal would be acceptable in this case.
In terms of the extension providing ancillary accommodation, the proposal would be linked to the existing property and would share the existing access, driveway and garden with the main dwelling house.
The ancillary accommodation is required to enable the current owner (Mrs Begbie) to live within. Her son, (Mr Ben Begbie) his wife and son (a 2nd child is due in August) would move into the main dwelling house.
It is necessary to firstly address the description of the proposal. What the applicants are proposing is a self contained unit to be used in connection with the dwelling that exists on the site. The use of the term ancillary always needs to be used with care. It implies a reliance on a primary or host dwelling and one which is used by a single household unit. However if it is fully self contained, then it is designed to be used as a separate residence.
The proposed works are linked to the main dwelling house but provide self contained accommodation and could be considered tantamount to the creation of a new residential unit. The proposed unit would comprise 2 bedrooms, a kitchen/lounge and a bathroom.
It needs to be remembered that planning permission runs with the land and the building will remain long after the current owners cease to have an interest in the property. The long term use of the building must be a consideration in the determination of the application. Further to this point, if in time the building is used independently from Sloe Cottage, then this independent use could become lawful, and could cause concern of the amenity which would result from having two independent dwellings in such proximity to each other.
The use of a self contained unit by a member of family or relative of an adjoining house does not in itself render it ancillary to that property. There would be no material difference in nature between an unrelated family using the property and relatives using it.
A condition could be attached which prevents the building being occupied as a separate dwelling, but concern could be raised as the unit proposed could create a separate independent dwelling and therefore such condition would be breached as soon as the dwelling is occupied. In this instance a statement has been submitted which indicates that the lives of the applicant and her son would be interlinked (help with household chores and childcare) which suggests that there would not be two separate households living entirely independent from the other.
However, the degree of self-containment is only one aspect that provides an indication of how a property would be used and its relativity to another dwelling. In this case the physical attachment to the main house and its access and driveway arrangements, which run closely past the front elevation of the main house and the proposed unit, suggest that the two units are unlikely to be divided.
The occupants of the dwelling would not want unknown people within the curtilage of their own property and overlooking their house.
Furthermore, the rear elevation of the extension has a total of two windows which view and open out to the rear garden (which would be shared) of the main dwelling. These windows are the main source of light and outlook for the proposed living room and bedroom. Consequently, to support the scheme it could also be argued that owners of the main property would not want their front driveway (parking and turning provisions), garden and dwelling being overlooked by persons who were not related to the main dwelling house.
Because of this, it is also unlikely the proposed unit would be sold off or be occupied by people unrelated to the main dwelling house.
Overall, for these reasons the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Maughold Parish Commissioners
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 01.09.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the alterations, erection of an extension to form ancillary accommodation and extension to residential curtilage as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 01 and 02 A received on 16th June 2011 and 3rd August 2011.
C 3. No development shall take place until full details of a soft landscaping works showing planting along the eastern boundary have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. All planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.
C 4. The residential unit hereby approved may be occupied only by persons related to the owners or occupants of "Sloe Cottage". For the avoidance of doubt no approval is hereby given for the use of unit to be used as a separate dwelling, but incidental to main dwelling house "Sloe Cottage" as a single dwelling.
C 5.
Prior to the commencement of any building operations, there must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority a sample of timber cladding proposed. This approved sample is required to be implemented in accordance with this approval.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 21 September 2011
Signed : _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate
Signed : _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
