Loading document...
Application No.: 24/00289/B Applicant: Mr Richard Dixon Proposal: Erection of attached garage and ancillary accommodation and detached garden store Site Address: Mount Auldyn House Jurby Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3PF Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Photo Taken: 17.04.2024 Site Visit: 17.04.2024 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.10.2024 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. Whilst having no impact on neighbouring amenity, and the principle of the ancillary accommodation is considered acceptable, the proposed extension, with its windows and gate proportion deviating from that of the existing windows and door, detracts from the design of the existing house. Therefore, the proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. - R 2. Whilst having no impact on neighbouring amenity, the proposed garden store, with its composite cladding and flat roof, detracts from the smooth finish and pitched/hipped roofscape of the existing house. In addition, the risk of losing existing trees, would further harm the appearance of the area, is not mitigated with the existing submission. Therefore, it is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 (b) (c) (f) (g) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. _______________________________________________________________
None ___________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Mount Auldyn House, Jurby Road, Ramsey, a detached house located south of the junction between Jurby Road and Ash Grove. The house sits in the middle to the east of the site. There is a driveway in front of the building and there is a garden surrounding the side and rear of the building. The garden also protrudes to the front of the west extension.
1.2 The house has a two-storey hipped-roof main building. There are several extensions on the east side but only one extension on the west side. Immediate to the main building, there is a two-storey extension on each side. These extensions are set back from the front elevation of the main house. Their ridge height is lower than that of the main house and is almost the same as the eave height of the main house. The front elevation has six-over-six sliding sash windows. - 1.3 There are several trees near the west boundary. Some of the trees are visible from far away from the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed is the erection of a two-storey hipped roof side extension and a singlestorey flat-roof garden store. The first floor of the extension will be an ancillary accommodation. - 2.2 The proposed extension has a front elevation beyond the existing west extension as well as that of the main house. The proposed extension, on its front elevation, has two double garage doors on the ground floor and three sliding sash windows with no glazing bar on the first floor. The ground floor is a double garage and the first floor is a two-bedroom flat. The flat can be accessed both from the garage and from the existing extension. The garden space in front of the new extension is converted into a paved driveway. - 2.3 The garden store is approx. 9m long, 6m wide and 3.2m tall. It sits to the southwest of the proposed extension.
3.1 Erection of detached garage and store was APPROVED under PA 17/00210/B. The proposed building is approx. 11m long, 6.1 m wide and 6.2 m high. The building is located closer to trees compared to the current garden storage proposal. Forestry comment stated that the protective measures and arboricultural monitoring would minimise the impact on nearby trees. The protective measures were conditioned as part of the approval. - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific
4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the 1982 Development Plan.
Strategic Policy
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (f) (g) PPS and NPD - 4.3 There is no planning policy statement or national policy directive considered materially relevant to this application.
5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
6.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners does not object to this application (22.03.2024).
6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (18.03.2024). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, providing the proposals remain ancillary to the existing accommodation via a condition. - 6.3 DEFA Forestry object to this application (10.04.2024). The comment states that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on a number of high amenity value trees, including two category B trees. This impact will lead to physiological decline which will cause crown dieback and leave the trees increasingly susceptible to pests, pathogen and disease. The comment also states that the proximity of the proposed structures to the trees is likely to lead to increased pressure to remove the trees as a result of apprehension and nuisance issues. This apprehension is likely to be particularly severe as the trees begin to show symptoms of the anticipated physiological decline. The comment also states they would update their comment if an arboricultural method statement is provided.
7.1 The key considerations of this application are:
7.2 The site is large enough to accommodate ancillary accommodations. However, the proposed accommodation can have independent access and have full function with no interaction with the main house, meaning it can become an independent accommodation. Therefore, if recommended for approval, a condition should be attached to ensure the accommodation proposed is only used in connection with the main house. Extension - Design of the House Itself - 7.3 The extension appears subordinate to the main dwelling given the ridge of the proposed extension is below the height of existing ridges and the mass of the extension is smaller than that of the main house as well. - 7.4 However, its front elevation protrudes beyond the existing front elevation. In addition, the scale and proportion of the proposed windows do not match that of the existing windows. The consistent scale of the existing windows and doors is a highlight of the character of the house. Therefore, the proposed extension is considered to detract from the existing design of the house. Extension - Character and Streetscene of the Area - 7.5 The site is visible to the public through open gates. The existing building is also a positive contribution to the character of the area. Given 7.4, the proposal is considered to detract from the characters and streetscene of the area. Extension - Neighbouring Amenities - 7.6 The proposal is not considered to have an additional overbearing, overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties.
7.7 The window on the side elevation severs the stairs. Given people generally do not linger on staircases, it is considered that there is no additional overlooking impact on neighbouring properties. Garden Store - Character and Streetscene of the Area - 7.8 The store is of a practical appaerance. Its finishes have a sharp contrast from the traditional design of the house and its flat roof does not fit within the existing roofscape. The proposal also increases the risk of losing existing trees near the west boundary, which are key positive features of the area. Therefore, the store is considered to detract from the character of the area. Garden Store - Neighbouring Amenities - 7.9 The proposal is not considered to have an additional overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impact on neighbouring properties. Garden Store - Trees - 7.10 Forestry considers the store would significantly harm important trees. Compared to the 2017 approval, the current proposal is further away from the existing trees. However, it is believed that Forestry has since changed its position on how much tolerance to have about how development might affect tree preservation in the long term. Therefore, the potential for harming the trees is not considered to be acceptable.
8.1 While has no impact on neighbouring amenities, and the principle of the ancillary accommodation is considered acceptable, the proposed extension, with its windows and gate proportion deviating from that of the existing windows and door, detracts from the design of the existing house. Therefore, the proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.
8.2 While has no impact on neighbouring amenities, the proposed garden store, with its compost cladding and flat roof, detracts from the smooth finishes and pitched/hipped roofscape of the existing house. In addition, the risk of losing existing trees, which would further harm the appearance of the area, is not mitigated with the existing submission. Therefore, it is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 (b) (c) (f) (g) of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide. - 8.3 Given 8.1 and 8.2, the proposal is recommended for a refusal.
9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
9.2 The decision-maker must determine:
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. _____________________________________________________________________
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 17.10.2024 Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
