Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00588/B Applicant: Mr George Linwood Proposal: Alterations and erection of extension with integral garage Site Address: Brown Roofs Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BN Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 20.09.2019 Site Visit: 20.09.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.11.2019 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
This approval relates to location plan, drawing numbers 1479.1 and 1479.2 all date stamped and received 21/05/2019, and drawing number 1479.3 revision 1 date stamped and received 11/10/2019.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owners of High View Cottage - as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling known as 'Brown Roofs' located on the western side of the A36 Ballakillowey Road just to the north of the Ballakillowey estate, all to
the north of the A7 Ballagawne Road. The property is a non-traditional single storey dwelling with additional living accommodation in the roof. The property sits with its eastern end gable facing the road and its principle elevation facing south towards Port Erin, at the rear there is an existing driveway and two single flat roof garages running along the boundary with neighbouring property High View Cottage.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current application proposes the demolition of the existing garages and the erection of an extension to the main house including garaging a ground floor and additional living space within the roof space above. The extension will have pitched roof finish with its gable end facing north towards the boundary with High View Cottage. A pitched roof dormer window is proposed on each side of the roof slope. - 2.2 The application also include a proposed increased to the size of the driveway hardstanding and a number of alterations to the main house including the replacement of the roof tiles throughout, the installation of bi-folding doors on the south facing elevation and the installation of stone cladding matching the proposed stone cladding on the east elevation of the garage extension. - 2.3 The current proposal now omits a high level window proposed on the end gable of the proposed extension following receipt of concerns from High View Cottage regarding privacy and overlooking impacts. The drawings now also include a clarification as to the northern boundary treatment being formed in a wall and the position of the surface water drainage.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There are no previous applications for the site or surrounding area considered relevant in the case of this application.
4.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the Area Plan for the South
"Port Erin and Port St Mary (D15): The overall strategy is to maintain and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the local built vernacular and integrity of the nucleated settlements of Port Erin, Port St. Mary and Ballagawne, the scattered traditional farm dwellings and to maintain the field pattern and semi-upland character of the upper slopes.
Key Views: Extensive panoramic views from higher ground on hill slopes along coast to the Calf of Man, inland over the Scarlett Peninsula and up the Southern Uplands and Meayll Hill."
4.2 Given that the land use designation, the nature of the current proposal and the nontraditional status of the existing dwelling HP 16 is most relevant in the assessment of the proposal: - 4.3 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."
4.4 Environment Policy 42:
"New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners - In support (dated 09/07/2019) - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division - Do Not Oppose Subject to Condition (dated 30/07/2019). The existing access has substandard visibility, and there is concern that any separate use of the extension could intensify traffic at this substandard access and a condition should be added to ensure no separate use in the interest of highway safety. - 5.3 The owners of High View Cottage - objection (28/06/2019, 11/07/2019 and 01/11/2019). Concerns expressed with regards to high level garage window facing their property and resulting in loss of privacy, concern for loss of boundary wall, concerns for their being no legal agreement for septic tank and tail drains which run into their adjacent field and potential for increase run off due to size of proposed extension and that no electricity poles are to be situated on their property.
6.0 ASSESSMENT Housing Policy 16 and Environment Policy 42 - 6.1 The proposal should be considered in respect of Housing Policy 16 where development should not increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. In the case of this application the existing dwelling is non-traditional and the proposed extension is of a style, size, mass and arrangement that it generally in keeping with this. While the proposed extension is fairly modern in its appearance, the application also includes a number of alterations and renovation works to the main house that will result in an overall modern uplift and uniform appearance throughout. Traditional stone materials can be found in the immediate area and on adjacent Manx cottages, the inclusion of stone cladding materials on the proposed extension and retro-fitted to the main house takes account of the particular character and identity of the area and positively reflects the traditional and rural context of the site and streetscene. The proposal is not expected to adversely impact the building as viewed by the public and in this respect the works are considered to comply with HP16. Neighbouring Amenity - 6.2 The areas for additional assessment in the case of this application are those points raised in objection from High View Cottage and concerns expressed by Highway Services. - 6.3 The issues in respect of privacy are considered to have been addressed through the omission of the high level end gable garage window and that the 25m distance between the nearest elevations and boundary treatment between the two dwellings is sufficient to limit any privacy or overlooking impact from any ground floor apertures. - 6.4 The application now indicates the erection of boundary treatment on a position where the previous garage block stood, and addressing the concerns of the neighbours. - 6.5 The application now includes information demonstrating that surface water drainage could be accommodated within the site. When it comes to the efficiency and or capacity of such tanks this is generally a matter for Building Control Regulations. The proposed development is not expected to result in an increased need for additional capacity and any concerns in this regard would be a civil matter to be discussed between the two parties. - 6.6 The application includes annotation that indicates they have been in consultation with MUA. The application does not indicated any relocation of such services and in any case this would be a matter to be dealt with by MUA directly and outside of the remit of planning in this case. Highways
6.7 The separation of the dwelling or any separate use of the extension as a single planning unit would require the submission of a separate planning application. The application does not propose these works and as such has not been assessed for such. Given that the application does not include these works it would be unreasonable to apply any such condition as request by Highway Services. In addition to this, the access is existing, and we would not have control over the use of the existing dwelling or extended dwelling whether occupied by a single person or whether occupied as a family home with say each parent having a vehicle and three children each having their own vehicle. On top of which family and friends would have unrestricted visits.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposal is considered to be in-keeping with the existing dwelling, streetscene and the wider character of the rural area, and the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbours. - 7.2 The application is considered to comply with HP16 and EP42 of the IOM Strategic Plan and recommend for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The Planning Committee must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 26.11.2019 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
