Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00860/B Applicant: Linda Ann Thompson \& Vaughn Peter Williamson Proposal: Extension to dwelling Site Address: Allandale Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2HB ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 09.08.2010 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Chief Fire Officer Notes: Comments received Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety impliactions. Consultee : Lezayre Parish Commissioners Notes: approved.
The planning application is before the Planning Committee at the request of the Senior Planning Officer as the proposal could be considered contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Plan.
The site Allandale, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, is indicated within the red line on the submitted location plan, on the northern side of the Ballamanagh Road and southeast of Sulby Village.
The application seeks approval for the extension to dwelling. The two storey side/rear extension would replace an existing single storey flat roofed extension.
The extension would have a maximum width of 6.9 metres, a depth of 9.2 metres and a ridge height of 8 metres. The front elevation of the extension would be setback from the front elevation of the main dwelling house by 4.5 metres.
The finishes would match the existing traditional dwelling.
The application site is within the area covered by the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998. Under this the application site is within an area recognised as being in an area of open space (including agriculture). Under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 the site is also within an area of high landscape value.
The following policies are therefore considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
"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Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein.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:
The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Erection of a two storey extension (comprising an amendment to 07/00003/B) - 09/00797/B APPROVED
Erection of a dwelling - 08/01431/B - REFUSED on the following grounds:-
Retention of vehicular access - Allandale Farm, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby - 07/00303/R - APPROVED Erection of a two storey extension to side elevation - 07/00003/B - APPROVED
Lezayre Parish Commissioners:- "approved."
Highways Division do not oppose:- "Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications." The Chief Fire Officer makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but raises concerns from a fire safety point of view.
The Authority has received no other privately written representations objecting to the application.
The main issues with the proposal relate to the appearance of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area but also upon the existing dwelling; and second the percentage increase of the proposal.
For the extension of properties within the countryside there are two possible policies to consider, these are Housing Policy 15 and 16.
Housing Policy 15 deals with traditional properties and states that generally the proposed extension/s should not be greater in terms of floor area over the original area by more than .
Housing Policy 16 deals with non-traditional dwellings or dwelling of poor form, and that no extension should be allowed which increases the appearance of the property from public view.
The existing dwelling is a traditional two storey which is typically symmetrical with three upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by single windows. A recent extension to southwest elevation has been completed which again is well proportioned with single windows at ground and first floor levels.
To the northeast elevation comprises of a single storey flat roofed extension (kitchen \& garage) which is inappropriate to the majority of the existing traditional dwelling. This extension has an adverse impact upon the existing property, and its removal as proposed under this application would be beneficial to the appearance of the existing dwellinghouse.
Overall, whilst there is an inappropriate and out of keeping flat extension attached to the main dwelling house, it is considered given the majority is of a traditional nature, that Housing Policy 15 is the relevant policy to be considered.
Reading Housing Policy 15, it states that; "Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than of the existing building in terms of floor space." The key words in the policy are "the existing building".
If the existing building, which includes the recently extended extension is included, then the proposal equates to a floor area increase of approximate .
However, it should be considered what Housing Policy 15 is trying to achieve. The policy is intended to protect the amenities and character of the countryside by ensuring that extensions to properties are sensitive to both the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. By limiting the extension of traditional or traditionally-styled properties to no greater than 50\% (measured externally) it is intended that the balance of such properties will be protected from inappropriate additions either as one-off larger extensions or incremental expansion through a series of smaller extensions. Without such measures in place, this could lead to significant more built development in the countryside, which in turn, could result in an adverse and significant impact upon the visual appearance and character of the countryside.
The application (07/00003/B) for the recently completed side extension was initially approved before the adoption of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, when such policies relating to a percentage increase did not exist. However, a further application (09/00797/B) was submitted last year which involved amendments (two gable windows included) to the previously approved two storey extension.
This recently completed extension equates to an approximate increase of the existing dwelling of that time, well under the generally permitted rule.
The main question therefore is whether this extension, especially given its very recent approval and construction, should its floor area be included as part of the "existing dwelling" or should the increase in floor area, be added to the proposed floor area of the extension now under consideration.
Perhaps before coming to a conclusion on this matter, it is wise to consider the calculations depending on which positioned is chosen.
If the recently constructed extension is regarded to be "the existing" and therefore its floor area is added to the original dwelling, then the proposed extension under consideration now would equate to a increase of the existing dwelling.
If however, the recently constructed extension floor area is not regarded to be part of the "existing dwelling", and its floor area should be added to the proposed new extension, then their combined floor areas result in a increase over the original dwelling. This broken down equates to the new extension floor area being a increase of the original dwelling and the newly constructed extension being a increase.
Overall, it is not considered the policy envisages each extension to be assessed as an extension to the then existing dwelling, but rather this policy allows extensions to the original dwelling. Therefore, the percentage increase of the floor area should combine the recently constructed and the proposed extension giving an approximately increase of floor area of .
Housing Policy 15 does indicated that in exceptional circumstances permission will be granted for extensions which measure more than of the existing building in terms of floor space.
The argument could be made that given the proposal would replace an existing single storey flat roofed extension with a more traditional two storey extension, improving the visual appearance, quality and character of the existing traditional property.
Currently, the flat roof structure is not overall apparent from public view when travelling along the Ballamanagh Road. This is due to its height, but mainly due to the 2 metre high hedgerow which runs along southeast boundary, fronting onto Ballamanagh Road. The flat roof extension is apparent from the access drive onto the highway, but this is the only clear view of the front elevation of the extension, that can be seen.
To the rear, the flat roofed extension does have a significant impact upon the property. So much so, that even with the recently constructed traditional two storey extension, your eyes are drawn to the unattractive flat roofed extension, which whilst smaller than the traditional aspect of the dwelling, has a major impact upon the visual amenities of the property.
Consequently, when viewing the front and rear elevations of the property, even though the majority of the property is traditional, due to the inappropriate extension, this damages the appearance of the property overall.
There is no question that the proposed extension will be to the betterment of the visual appearance and character of the existing dwelling. The question is whether an extension of this size would be appropriate.
Perhaps at this stage it is important to consider the design, scale and proportion. of the devalent For any extension to a traditional property in the countryside Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside requires consideration.
The proposal certainly in terms of scale, window fenestration and design follows the lines of the existing traditional property, therefore complying with the principles of Planning Circular 3/91.
The proposed extension would be setback 4.5 metres from the front elevation of the dwelling, which will help reduce the potential impact when viewed from the adjacent public highway. Furthermore this setback will help to ensure the proposal is subordinate to the main dwelling house.
As indicated previously the existing flat roofed extension is totally out of keeping with the existing property and does significantly damage the traditional character of the property. The flat roofed extension would not comply with the Planning Circular 3/91, and would be highly unlikely to gain favour if an application proposed such a scheme now.
Overall, it is consider the design, scale and proportion would be in keeping with the existing property and would be beneficial to the visual amenities of the dwelling and the area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is concluded, whilst the proposal would represent an increase of floor area of 26% over the generally permitted 50% ruling; given the significant benefits of the proposed extension in terms of the scale, design and proportion over the existing flat roofed extension, an exception to Housing Policy 15 is acceptable. Accordingly, it is recommended that the planning application be approved.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
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: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.09.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
