Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00342/B Applicant: Mr Douglas Grant Proposal: Erection of a first floor extension above existing garage to provide guest accommodation Site Address: Spindrift Pooilvaaish Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4PJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 06.01.2016 Site Visit: 06.01.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of an existing and rather isolated dwelling located on the northern side of the Pooilvaaish Road as it runs from Fisher's Hill to Balladoole. The property, known as Spindrift, is a substantial one with a circular feature in the centre of the front elevation and a circular single storey sun room on the south eastern elevation. In addition to this very prominent feature, it also has a rather unusual footprint shape, and on the northwestern edge there is a large - perhaps four-bay - garage attached to a conservatory, which is attached to the main dwelling. The garage is largely hidden from view from the highway to the west and south by the conservatory. - 1.2 Aside from the tower, which is stone-clad, the dwelling is wholly finished with render.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an extension above the garage, to which no external access will be provided. (As originally submitted, a staircase was proposed, but on the advice of officers regarding concerns in respect of the potential subdivision of the Planning unit / creation of a new dwelling in the countryside, this was removed.) This will be finished in timber effect cladding to a large degree, and otherwise finished in render. - 2.2 The extension will provide for four new rooms, which unfortunately are not labelled on the submitted drawings but the accompanying Design and Access Statement indicates there would be a pair of bedrooms and a lounge; the fourth room is clearly a bathroom from the drawings. Again, as originally submitted, what appeared to be kitchen units were shown, but on advice of officers these were removed from the proposed plans. - 2.3 The amended drawing showing the abovementioned changes was circulated for information.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The following applications have been submitted in respect of this site:
3.2 Adjacent to the site, at Tighnabruaich, a replacement dwelling was approved under PA 15/01346/B. Work has yet to commence thereon.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site falls within an area of land not zoned for any particular kind of development on the Area Plan for the South. There are some land-use designations applying to the site that are worth noting, however. - 4.2 Firstly, the site might potentially be viewed as falling within the provisions of Landscape Proposal 9: "Additional new built development (other than development ancillary to existing properties) should not be permitted alongside the coastal road between the Shore Hotel and Pooil Vaaish Farm." While the Farm is on the main A5 road, the fact this policy exists suggests a general need to protect the appearance of the area. - 4.3 This is somewhat backed up by Landscape Strategy E9 and the important views that accompany it: "The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of the tranquil and coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views, sites of archaeological importance and to conserve the coastal setting of Port St. Mary." "Key Views:
"Extensive, panoramic views from Raad ny Foillan across the sweeping and ever-changing seascape to the south. "Open views across the bay, with distant sense of enclosure provided by headlands to the east and west. "Open views across adjacent Undulating Lowland Plain to the north."
4.4 The site is within a much wider area characterised as being in an Undulating Lowland Plan, although none of the Landscape Strategies are considered to directly apply to the site. - 4.5 The access lane within the application site falls within an 'Area of Ecological Importance Draft'. - 4.6 Paragraph 7.5.3 of the Area Plan applies to the site, which falls within an "Area with building height restrictions" on Map 1 - Constraints relating to Ronaldsway airport; the text of that paragraph requires that "the final height of any development is controlled so that it does not interfere with the operations of…the Airport". - 4.7 In respect of the Strategic Plan, regard should be had to both Housing Policies 15 and 16. While Spindrift is clearly not of traditional Manx vernacular, nor would it be appropriate to consider it of poor form. It is an unusual design, certainly, and to many people it will be inappropriate for a rural location, but its uniqueness does not make it of poor form by definition. However, it remains appropriate to give greatest weight to HP16 in this case.
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered the view that the proposal had no highway implications on 31.03.2016, while Arbory Commissioners offered no comment in comments received 25.04.2016. - 5.2 The owners of Tighnabruaich, a detached dwelling situated adjacent Sprindrift, and which was the subject of a recent approved application for replacement dwelling, object to the application on grounds of additional noise, disturbance and reduced privacy that the additional traffic resulting from the proposal would cause to their property. They note that the entrance used for Spindrift runs alongside their property, rather than being the other entrance for which approval was granted in 2009. They note that the property is a self-contained residential unit and, while they have no objection to its physical existence, it is the use that is of most concern. These comments were received on 21.04.2016 and, though there was correspondence between the owners of Tighnabruaich and the case officer with respect to potential conditions that could be applied to the application were it approved, no further formal comment was received. - 5.3 In response to the abovementioned comment, the applicant confirmed that the additional rooms were to allow family to have additional privacy during their stay with him, while the access referred to was used in emergencies only. This letter was received on 26.04.2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Spindrift's single storey elements are large and, being located all to one side of the property, have something of an effect of elongating the mass of the building in a manner that might be said to be to the detriment of its overall appearance. Therefore, a proposal to increase some of the size of the dwelling such as that proposed may help to balance the overall massing, even if there can be no doubt that the additional 14% of floorspace will increase the prominence of the building. - 6.2 The additional massing as proposed is large and sat atop the present garage could have had quite an overbearing impact had it been undifferentiated in any way. In this, the use of faux-timber cladding is welcome to a degree, although the use of additional windows might have been equally successful and called less attention to the size of the extension. However, in such a circumstance, the expanse of render might have been rather dominating. Therefore, the approach as proposed is considered to represent an acceptable way forward in view of the acceptable nature of the additional massing proposed. - 6.3 The removal of the external access along with the kitchen units, in addition to the clarification from the applicant, is sufficient to conclude that the extra accommodation cannot and will not be used independently from Spindrift. While kitchen units could, physically, be installed, these are not shown on the submitted drawings and accordingly any such installation would be contrary to those approved plans. Moreover, a condition preventing the rooms being occupied independently of Spindrift would satisfactorily control this and thereby prevent the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside. - 6.4 The concern raised by the owners of the neighbouring property is understood to some extent. Additional comings and goings of people in a very rural and little-trafficked area such as this will be far more noticeable than in a more built-up area. However, the applicant's point that the site has another access is noted, and in any case it is concluded that the infrequent use of the building by people visiting the applicant will be limited to such a degree as to not represent a material change to the existing situation. To object to the application on this ground would be unreasonable.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 It is concluded that the proposal complies with Housing Policy 16 and, subject to the condition discussed, does not conflict with the Strategic Plan objective of restricting the creation of
new dwellings in the countryside. Accordingly, subject to that condition being attached, the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
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.
Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage.
The development hereby approved relates to the Drawings 1531-GS-100 and 1531-GS-101, both date-stamped as having been received 21st March 2016, and also to Drawing 1531-GS-200-B, datestamped as having been received 31st May 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 22.06.2016 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
