Ballavarkish Beg Grenaby Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4HD
Officer's Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSED EXTENSION WOULD BE OVER THE 50% THRESHOLD AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL.
The Application Site
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 south-eastern side of Grenaby Road which runs from Ballabeg to Grenaby.
Currently, when approaching the site from Ballabeg the property is fairly well screened from public view due to existing Manx sod bank (approximately 2/2.5m high) which runs along the roadside, albeit parts of the existing upper roof of 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 dwelling is more apparent, albeit not form distant views only from close views. Again there is landscaping along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site which do screen the majority of the property in summer months, and limit the appearance in winter months. When stood viewing the dwelling immediately adjacent to the Grenaby Road (along the north-west boundary of the site), the dwelling is well screened (albeit aspects of the the white render walls are partly noticeable) due to a substantial Manx sod bank and mature hedgerows/buses and trees which run along the entire length of the boundary fronting onto the Grenaby Road.
Planning History
The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Alterations and erection of extension to dwelling - 12/00380/B - REFUSED on the following grounds:-
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.
Case Officer:
Mr Chris Balmer
Photo Taken:
03.12.2012
Site Visit:
03.12.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
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."
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
Proposal
The application seeks approval for alterations and extension to dwelling. The proposed extension would be located to the front elevation of the existing dwelling and run along parallel with the Grenaby Road. The extension would be set over two floors, albeit the lower ground floor aspect of the extension is mostly set below ground level and could be considered / described as a basement.
The extension would have a maximum front projection of 8 metres from the existing northwest gable of the existing dwelling, a width of 18 metres and a ridge varying in height (due to ground levels) between 4 & 5 metres. The basement level would accommodate a swimming pool, associated plant and games room whilst the first floor would accommodate two bedrooms, a bathroom, office, small store room and living room. A void area (21 square metres in area) is also proposed. This first floor can be access via an external entrance to the north elevation or via the internal staircase.
In comparison, it should be noted that the recent refused application (12/00380/B) proposed a full two storey extension with a maximum front projection of 11 metres, a width of 18 metres and a maximum ridge height of 8.2 metres which projected 3.5 metres above the roof ridge of the existing dwelling. The ground floor proposed to accommodate a swimming pool and associated plant and games room whilst the first floor would have accommodated three bedrooms, kitchen/dinner, two bathrooms and living room. This first floor would have been accessed 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 3.8 metres and a ridge height of height of 4 metres.
Planning Policy
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.
Due to the location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
"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."
"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."
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."
REPRESENTATIONS
Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application and make the following comments:-
"Note that consideration efforts have been made to reduce the visual impact and therefore they do not object to this revised proposed development."
Highways Division have no objection to the proposal.
ASSESSMENT
It is considered there are two issues to consider, firstly, does the creation of the proposed living accommodation at ground floor level 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.
In terms of the proposed accommodation at first floor level, as identified earlier within this report, the previous application (12/00380/B) raised concerns that the level of accommodation, type and layout would have resulted in the creation of three bedroom unit which had two bathrooms, kitchen/dining room and a living room which where all served via a hallway leading to a lobby with cloakroom to the front door. Further to the internal layout there was further concern that 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 increased concern that the unit could be used totally independently from the main dwelling house, given it could have had a
separate space for off road parking/turning and access. No reasoning for the accommodation was provided with this submission.
To overcome this concern the new submission is far more reliant on the main dwelling, with the removal of a separate kitchen/dining room and having direct access from the proposed living accommodation to the kitchen and main dwelling house. Previously, a person would need to walk down a flight of stairs to the ground level of the proposed extension, into a hallway, then into the existing kitchen to the main dwelling house. Other concerns raised have been addressed with the removal of the only direct entrance to the previous first floor accommodation within the northern elevation. Further changes include the blocking up of the existing field gate access which was located adjacent to this entrance to the first floor accommodation. The access is proposed to be blocked up with a Manx sod bank with landscaping above to a height to match existing. This will ensure all vehicles to the site using the existing entrance used by the existing dwelling as well as parking and turning provisions.
The applicants have submitted their reasons for the proposals, indicating that the applicant farms sheep and she needs assistance from both her daughter & daughter's fiancée to do so and look after the land. They indicate that this is intensive, but only for two months each year. Furthermore, the applicant's Daughter breeds and raises grand prix standard warm-blood horses from stallions which are the world's current and immediate previous world champions. The foals are the equivalent to the highest level of "State Premium" and will be sold world-wide. They indicate that the rearing, stabling, development and training of such high-bred horses is extremely labour intensive, occupying the applicants and her Daughter for approx 6 hours a day at the start and end of each day, 7 days per week. Relating to the proposed swimming pool the applicants indicate that this will provide therapy facilities for the applicant (Mr. Letch) who is recovering from significant foot/ankle injuries a few years ago. Furthermore, such provision will enable their son (who is mildly autistic) to swim which he enjoys, and which is the only form of physical exercise he does. However, recently he has stopped swimming in public pools as he has a phobia with being obsessive with hygiene. The proposal will enable him retain his fitness and health. Whilst personal reasons are seldom sufficient to allow the approval of an application (planning approval runs with the land not persons), the reasoning are hoped to explain why the proposed extensions are proposed and the reasoning why they are required.
Whilst it could be argued that the room layout could be altered without planning permission, In this case it is considered given its position, connection and shared provisions (parking, tuning facilities and/or external amenity space) the proposal would unlikely result in a separate dwelling.
Perhaps 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.
The previous application raised concerns given the proposal would have resulted in a full two storey extension and therefore due to its height, size and massing it would have been very apparent from all directions when travelling along Grenaby Road, more so than the existing property. Therefore, it was considered it would result in a significantly increase the impact of the building from public view and contrary to Housing Policy 16.
The applicants have tried to overcome these concerns by significantly reducing the height of the buildings, which in turn reducing the massing and the appearance of the
proposal compared to the previous application. This has been achieved by taking advantage of the ground level of the site, which enables the lower ground level being set below the surrounding ground level forming a basement. Due to this the majority of the proposed extension appears as a single storey building. This would especially be the case when approaching the site from Grenaby (southwest direction). It is also noted that this extension would likely be of the same or similar height in relation to the existing dwelling, whether the basement was proposed or not. The basement aspect of the extension does not result in the building having to be greatly raised/if at all, in height to accommodate it.
There is a limited aspect of the development which does appear as a full two storey extension, that being to the south east elevation which faces away from the Grenaby Road. However, this aspect would only been fully apparent when stood immediately adjacent to the site (lower patio). Views from elsewhere, within the site, the extension would appear as a single storey structure. No public views of this aspect of the extension would be apparent from any direction.
As identified earlier in this report, the aspect of the dwelling which is most apparent from the public view is when travelling towards the site from Grenaby. Although it should be noted that due to the position of the existing mature landscaping, the area where the proposed extension would be sited is well screened from public view, more so than the area where the existing dwelling is sited. The aspect of the dwelling which is most noticeable is not necessary the built form, but the white painted render which does draw the eye.
In terms of design the proportion, form and size of the extension would seem to have been design to appear as a traditional property finished with stone, with 'Art stone' kneelers and quoins and a slate roof, which results in an attractive design of high quality.
The submission does propose to finish the extension fully in stone to all elevations, as well as clad the existing gable end wall of the existing detached (most visible aspect of dwelling). Furthermore, an open sided canopy (northeast elevation) finishes with stone dwarf walls and stone pillars with a lean-to glazed roof, would be erected over the existing front door of the dwelling and a doorway into the new extension. All aspects would either reduce the visual appearance of the existing dwelling or the proposed extension, compared to a painted white render finish.
It is considered the proposed extension in terms of proportion, form, finish and design is of a high quality and would improve the visual appearance of the existing dwelling considerably. Reading Housing Policy 16, this indicates that the extension of non-traditional dwellings will not generally be permitted if this increases the impact of the building as viewed by the public. The policy does not say that no permission will be granted, but generally. In this case it is considered that given the proposed design, size, siting, mature landscaping along the boundaries of the site/road and the limited visual impact upon public views, the proposal could be a exception to the 'not generally permitted' as indicated within the Housing Policy 16 for the reason given.
Recommendation
In conclusion, for the reasons indicated it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore recommended that the application be approved.
Party Status
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
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: 04.01.2013
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
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the alterations and extension to dwelling as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings PL 01, PL 02, PL 03 and PL 04 all received on 21st November 2012. Handwritten note: 26B
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the proposed extension/s approved under this application the existing vehicular access to the northwest of the extension shall be blocked up with a sod grass bank to a height matching adjacent banking as shown in drawing PL-02 and maintained and retained thereafter. Handwritten note: 26B
C 4. No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include planting behind the sod bank infilling of the existing access and additional planting to the north-eastern corner of the site.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
