Loading document...
Application No.: 24/91206/B Applicant: Mr Juan Brown Proposal: 2 storey extension to south-east elevation. Single storey extension to north-west side of main dwelling. Removal of porch to south-east elevation. External alterations including replacement of roof slates and windows. Site Address: Dreemskerry Cottage Dreemskerry Hill Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BE Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Site Visit: 31.10.2024 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.12.2024 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The siting, size, height, bulk and scale, of the proposed front extension and its forward position in relation to the existing dwelling would result in an obvious and overly bulky addition to it, which would be visible from the public realm. This would result in an unacceptable visual impact on both the appearance of the dwelling; and; on the character and appearance of the site and its countryside surroundings, particularly when viewed from Dreemskerry Hill. Furthermore, the floor-space that would be created by the proposed extensions which would amount to a 61.83% increase in floor area, which fails to meet the 50% floor space limit imposed by Policy H15, thereby emphasising the unacceptability of the scheme. Overall, it is considered that these proposals fail to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 b), c) and g) (visual amenity); and, Environment Policies 1 and 2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, would be harmful to the character of this area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) as shown on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal: Local Authority - Objection received on planning grounds. It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No Objection
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.00 THE SITE - 1.1 Dreemskerry Cottage, comprises a detached, 2-storey dwelling of white painted rendered walls under a pitched slate roof, with garage attached to its SW side elevation which sits in the eastern corner a quite a large triangular shaped plot, and which fronts onto Dreemskerry Hill. It is served by 2 No. gated vehicular access points, and is screened from the road by a mature hedge. The site is in a rural location and is to the west of the Dreemskerry Halt on the Manx Electric Railway (Douglas to Ramsey). Dreemskerry Hill is a single track, metalled highway. The applicant also owns/controls the field to the rear (north) of the dwelling and its curtilage. - 1.2 In its current state the dwelling measures approx.
2.00 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed development involves the erection of a 2 storey extension to south-east elevation. The addition of a single storey extension to north-west side of main dwelling. The removal of the porch to south-east elevation; and, external alterations including the replacement of roof slates and windows. Specifically, the extensions are as follows:
Ground floor: Hall, Lounge, Porch (with flat roofed canopy over) and Utility Room/WC; First floor: Bedroom, Bathroom, Gallery Landing
The extension would measure approx. 9.7m long x 5.4m wide x 4.8m high to the eaves and
It would have a smooth painted render finish to the walls, and new natural slate for the roof covering. 6 No. Solar PV Panels are proposed to be attached to the south-west facing roofslope. The porch, hallway and part of the galleried landing would be fully glazed on 2-stories
Ground floor only: Flat roofed Sun Lounge with internal access obtained from the existing Dining Area.
The extension would measure approx. 4.3m long x 4.0m deep x 3.2m high to the eaves of the new flat roof which would have a concealed parapet gutter. This would amount to a Gross External Floorspace Area increase of 17.2m2.
It would have smooth painted render finish to the walls, with a fully glazed 4 panel, full-height set of bi-fold doors in the north-west elevation; 3 full-height windows in the south-west elevation; and, 2 full-height sliding patio doors and a window in the north-east elevation. It would have an insulated metal clad flat roof. All windows and doors would be clear glazed. The proposals also involve:
2.2 The whole dwelling would be re-roofed in a new natural slate covering in place of the existing fibre cement slates. - 2.3 The area of new floor-space proposed as a percentage of the existing floor-space would amount to:
Existing floor-space = to a Gross External Floor Area over 2 floors of 197.25m2. Proposed floor-space = first floor of 104.76m2 + ground floor of 17.2m2 = 121.96m2.
3.00 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site lies within an area not designated for development and within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. In the Daft Area Plan for the North and West (2022) the site is featured as an area not designated for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 3.2 In the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment (July 2008) at Figure 3.1 'Landscape Character Types and Areas', the site is identified as being within a Landscape Character Area that is broadly classified as 'D Incised Slopes' and is annotated as 'D1 Ballajora and Ballaglass.' - 3.3 Within the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Written Statement (July 2008) under section 3.0 Landscape Character Area (LCA), page 60, the Landscape Strategy is:
"The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of this area with its tranquil, relatively sparsely settled nature, its distinctive field patterns, its rural road network, its numerous areas of fragmented woodland and the setting of the various archaeological and historic features within the area."
" Key Views
3.4 It is noted the site is not identified as being at flood risk. - 3.5 The site is not within a Registered Tree Area. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). - 3.6 Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3. - 3.7 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.8 Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states "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:
3.9 Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)." - 3.10 Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states "The extension of nontraditional 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."
4.00 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 None.
5.1 Highways DC (12/11/24) comments: "Highway Services HDC has no interest (NHI) in: 24/91206/B." - 5.2 Garff Parish Commissioners (11/11/24) comments that:
"It was noted that the proposals entailed an increase in floor plan area of around 100% which is beyond that set in planning policy. The concern of the Board was that the visual impact of the extensions could be significant and potentially have impact on the character of the immediate vicinity. They request that the planning officer and Committee consider these matters carefully. Notwithstanding this, the Board acknowledge that the expectations of 21st Century living are not those of previous centuries and recognise that the two potentially opposing considerations are resolved sensitively by the officer and Committee."
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The dwelling has been lawfully erected. And there are no outstanding enforcement issues relating to it. The principle of development is, therefore, accepted. - 6.2 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.3 Policy H15 of the Strategic Development Plan indicates that "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)." - 6.4 There have been no previous extensions to the property, and it is in need of updating to provide a modern standard of living accommodation. The addition of the currently proposed extensions which would amount to a combined floor area of approx. 121.96m2 would result in a further increase in the floor area of the property. This compared to the existing total floorspace area of the dwelling and attached garage of 197.25m2, would amount to a 61.83% increase in floor area. This fails to meet the 50% floor space limit imposed by Policy H15. The next question is, therefore, whether the proposed extensions would be in scale and keeping with the existing dwelling, and whether any adverse visual impact would arise as a result of their being added to the dwelling. - 6.5 The most obvious extensions would be those that would be visible from the public realm, namely, the two-storey front extension to provide a ground floor Hall, Lounge, Porch (with flat roofed canopy over) and Utility Room/WC; and, first floor: Bedroom, Bathroom, Gallery Landing, when viewing the property from the road - Dreemskerry Hill. The flat roofed, single storey rear sun lounge extension would be obscured from public view from the road by the dwelling and would have little visual impact on the character of the site and surroundings. The two-storey extension to the front of the existing dwelling would add significantly to its bulk due to its extent of approx. 9.7m long x 5.4m wide, eaves height of 4.8m; and, 6.6m ridge height. The submitted drawings show the front extension to be taller in terms of its ridge height than the ridge of the main roof over the dwelling by approx. 0.75m. This would represent a significant variation in ridge heights, and it is considered that this would result in an overly dominant addition the dwelling, which given its position to the front of the dwelling
6.10 No neighbour representations have been received in respect of this application. Given the position of the extensions and distance - 50.0 metres - from the nearest dwelling at White Farm Cottage to the west of the site on the same side of the road; and, the similar distance and dense tree and shrub screen in front of Ballakilley Beg on the opposite side of the road from White Farm Cottage, it is considered that the proposed extensions and alterations would not give rise to any loss of privacy, or result in an overbearing relationship with these nearest neighbouring dwellings, or any other nearby dwelling. - 6.11 Overall, with regard to the potential impact of the development on neighbouring residents amenities, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and accords with the provisions of Policy GP2 (g) (neighbours amenity) and (h), of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 6.12 Other considerations - none.
7.1 For the above reasons it is considered that the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of General Policy 2 b) c) and g); Environment Policies 1 and 2; and, Housing Policy 15 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and therefore, is unacceptable. Recommendation - Refuse. - 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
8.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
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: 17.12.2024 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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
