Officer Planning Report

Application No.:	12/00380/B
Applicant:	Mr Paul & Mrs Anita Letch
Proposal:	Alterations and erection of extension to dwelling
Site Address:	Ballavarkish Beg Grenaby Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4HD

Officer's Report

The Application Site

1. The application site represents the residential curtilage of Ballavarkish Beg, Grenaby Road (B40), Ballabeg, which is a single storey detached bungalow. The property is located on the southern side of Grenaby Road which runs from Ballabeg to Grenaby.

1. Currently, when approaching the site from Ballabeg the property is fairly well screened from public view due to existing grass bank which runs along the roadside, albeit the existing roof the dwelling is apparent from certain locations. The dwelling is most apparent when travelling along the highway in the opposite direction from Grenaby where the majority of the dwelling is apparent, even though there is landscaping along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site.

Proposal

1. The application seeks approval for the alterations and erection of extension to dwelling. The proposed extension would be located to the front elevation of the existing dwelling and run along parallel with the adjacent public highway. The extension would be set over two storeys with a maximum front projection of 11 metres, a width of 18 metres and a maximum ridge height of 8.2 metres. The ground floor would accommodate a swimming pool and associated plant and games room whilst the first floor would accommodate three bedrooms, kitchen/dinner, two bathrooms and living room. This first floor can be access via an external entrance to the north elevation or via the internal staircase.

The submission also includes the erection of a single storey conservatory to the western elevation. The proposal would have a width of 4.8 metres, a depth of 5 metres and a ridge height of height of 4 metres.

Planning Policy

1. The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'White Land', not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 and under the Modified Draft Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

1. Due to the location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-

Case Officer:	Mr Chris Balmer
Photo Taken:	28.03.2012
Site Visit:	28.03.2012
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

Environmental Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

1. Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

• (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) the location for the development is essential."

1. General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

1. Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

1. Housing 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."

Planning History

1. The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

Conversion of existing integral garage to additional living accommodation - 07/01436/B - APPROVED

Alterations and extensions to existing bungalow - 06/01005/B - APPROVED

Alterations, erection of a single storey extension to provide living room, hall / dining room, kitchen / breakfast and utility to side elevation with lower ground storage under living room and conversion of existing garage to provide a bedroom (Re-submission of 04/00622) - 06/00137/B - REFUSED

Alterations and extensions to dwelling - 04/00622/B - REFUSED

Removal of agricultural workers tie on existing dwelling - 04/00426/B - REFUSED at appeal

Representations

1. Malew Parish Commissioners have objected to the application on the following grounds:-

"Bearing in mind that this building, on a very conspicuous site, was originally permitted as a very modest agriculturally-tied bungalow for a retired farmer and that it has already been substantially extended, the Commissioners feel that this proposed extension represents over-development of the site.

It is understood that the planning regulations contain guidelines as to the maximum percentage increase in floor area that is permitted when properties are extended, and on the face of it, it appears that these have been exceeded compared with the original building."

1. Highways Division have no objection to the proposal.

Assessment

1. It is considered there are two issues to consider, first does the creation of the first floor accommodation result in the formation of an additional dwelling in the countryside, and second is the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the countryside by the proposed extension.

1. In terms of the proposed accommodation at first floor level, as identified earlier within this report the proposal would result in the creation of three bedroom unit which has two bathrooms, kitchen/dining room and a living room which are all served via a hallway leading to a lobby with cloakroom to the front door. The unit can also be accessed via the proposed enclosed internal staircase which runs from the proposed hallway down to the ground floor of the proposed development.

1. The application makes no reference to this proposed aspect, except indicating the description of the development which reads; "Proposed extension and alterations to provide additional living accommodation".

1. Concerns are raised given the existing property which has benefited from a substantial extension already, which has a kitchen/breakfast room, dining room and living room. This proposal would result in the dwelling having two kitchens, two dining rooms, two living rooms and a total of nine bedrooms (including existing study). Further concern with the proposal is the proposed external steps leading to a front door set within a projection gable end feature, which leads to a lobby and cloak room. This layout and provision would seem to suggest that this upper floor unit would be used separately from the main dwelling house. Further evidence of the upper floor being used as a separate unit is due to the size, the type and the amount of living accommodation and facilities proposed, all of which again suggest this unit could be used as a independent unit and have no reliance on the main property for any provisions. There is

an enclosed internal stairwell which links the upper floor to the ground floor aspect of the extension and to the main dwelling house. However, given there is a door way at the top of the stairs and the stairs are enclosed, it is not unreasonable to consider this could be locked if required. Finally, the unit would also benefit from the existing access which is located along the northern boundary of the site, approximately 40 metres to the southwest of the main vehicular access for Ballavarkish Beg. This again increases concern that the unit could be used totally independently from the main dwelling house, given it would also have a separate space for off road parking/turning and access. This potential parking area would be adjacent to the front door of the unit.

1. Consequently, given the level of self contained living accommodation provided and for the further reasons identified, it is considered the proposed scheme would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside.

1. An argument could be made that the first floor accommodation is ancillary accommodation for the main house. However, 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 Ballavarkish Beg, then this independent use could become lawful, and could cause concerns for the amenity which would result from having two independent dwellings in such proximity to each other.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. Fundamentally, in terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways. Firstly, the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted. Thirdly, the site is not identified in an adopted Area Plan as being within a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and therefore contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4. Fourthly, the site is zoned within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance which seeks to prevent development unless the development is essential or would not harm the character and quality of the landscape.

1. The proposed dwelling does not serve a viable agricultural holding nor replace an existing dwelling and therefore there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against. The development proposed by this planning application is therefore clearly contrary to the current policies of the Department.

1. It is perhaps important to also note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 apply to this submission. Environmental Policy 1 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. It is not considered the proposal would serve an over-riding national need, therefore the proposal would be contrary to this policy.

1. As the site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance Environment Policy 2 also applies. This policy states that within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that, the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development is essential. It is not considered the proposal would comply with this policy.

1. Additionally the Isle of Man Strategic Plan section 8.8 deals with groups of houses in the countryside. Whilst adding further dwellings to these groups may not accord with strategic objectives, the Department has however identified a number of these opportunities and in future Area Plans all groups of houses in the countryside will be assessed for development potential by identifying the village envelope or curtilage and providing the opportunity for appropriate development within this area. There may be some settlements where no additional dwellings will be permitted. In considering the definition of this curtilage or envelope, particular regard will be had to the value of existing spaces in terms of their contribution to the general character of the settlement or to public amenity more generally. It is important; however that such development is controlled by the development plan process rather than as ad hoc decisions taken in isolation.

1. Therefore, this application like the majority of applications the Planning Authority receives each year for new dwellings in the countryside, should be refused for being contrary to strict and established planning policy which seeks to protect the countryside from development.

1. The next issue to consider is whether the extensions in terms of their design, scale, massing and proportion would be appropriate in terms of the visual appearance of the countryside and upon the existing property. From studying the plans and from visiting the site it is clear that the property is of a non-traditional design (i.e. not a traditional Manx property but a modern bungalow). Therefore Housing Policy 16 is the relevant policy to take into consideration. 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.

1. The proposal would increase the size and footprint of the dwelling considerably (126 % increase in terms of floor area). Furthermore, given the proposed extension is two storey this would increase the massing of the property, which is current single storey in height. The proposed ridge height would be 3.6 metres above the existing ridge height of the property.

1. The proportion, form and size of the extension would seem to have been design to appear as an 'old schoolhouse' three elevations (front and gable ends) finished with stone, with 'Art stone' kneelers and quoins and a slate roof. Whilst the proposal is an attractive design, but makes no reference to the existing dwelling which is a modern single storey bungalow.

1. As indicated by Housing Policy 16 extensions of non-traditional dwellings which increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public will not generally be permitted. The proposed extension due to its height, size and massing will be very apparent from all directions when travelling along the adjacent Grenaby Road, more so than the existing property is. Therefore, given the proposal would significantly increase the impact of the building from public view, and as the proposed extension in terms of its design and height would have no relation to the existing dwelling, it is considered the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the area by the significant increase in built development in the open countryside, contrary to Housing Policy 16.

RECOMMENDATION

1. In conclusion, for the reasons indicated it is considered the proposal is contrary to the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore recommended that the application be refused.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:

Malew Parish Commissioners

1. 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.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 13.06.2012

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 proposed accommodation provided at first floor level is considered to be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside, within an area not designated for development therefore contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside and directing new residential development to locations that accord with sustainable development principles. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environmental Policies 1 & 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

R 2.

The proposal, due to its size, height and design within close proximity to a public highway, would result in a noticeably larger dwelling with an increased visual presence in the countryside contrary to Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 13/6/12

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed: _________________________ Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed: _________________________ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager