Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01187/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Jeremy Dawson Proposal: ______________________________ ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications. Consultee: Rushen Commissioners Notes: ______________________________ object Site Address: - Graystones - Ballakillowey Road - Colby - Isle Of Man - IM9 4BN ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 22.09.2010 Site Visit: 22.09.2010 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations - High View Cottage: Ballakillowey Road, Colby Isle Of Man - **Objects to the
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT PROPOSES AN EXTENSION OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE ORIGINAL FLOOR AREA, TO A TRADITIONAL DWELLING AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling, Graystones, which lies on the eastern side of Ballakillowey Road (A36) just to the north of the Ballakillowey estate, all to the north of the A7 Ballagawne Road. The property is a traditional two storey stone cottage with a more modern rendered flat roofed two storey extension on the rear and a lean-to garage/store on the eastern gable. The property sits right alongside the road.
Walton Cottage lies to the north, a traditional dwelling which has been altered and extended under a relatively recent application - PA 07/1440 where the existing property provided 112 sq m of floor area and the additional floor area was 105 sq m - an increase of 94%. There were no objections to this
application and reference was made in the officer's report to extensions to High View Cottage and Empress Cottage both of which had existing extensions which were of a similar size and of less attractive appearance.
The site lies within an area designated on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan as Open Space and of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. On the draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 the site lies within an area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is available:
Landscape Character Area 3 - Port Erin and Port St Mary: Much of this area forms the immediate setting for the villages of Port Erin and Port St Mary, and the smaller settlements of Ballafesson and Ballakillowey. It also serves to separate these settlements from each other. However, as is indicated in the Landscape Character Assessment report, there is generally little tree cover.
Environment Policy 5: Additional residential development at the edge of Port Erin, Port St Mary, or Ballafesson should include landscaping which softens the existing hard edges of the settlements and includes generous tree-planting, such as not only to mitigate the landscape impact of the development, but also to maintain effective separation between the settlements.
Also, the draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development states:
The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields. Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-
Planning permission was sought for the alterations and extensions of the property under PA 09/1461 and was withdrawn prior to a decision being taken.
Now proposed are alterations to and extensions of the property. The applicants and their agent have spoken with the Planning and Conservation Officers prior to the submission of the application. Following the submission of objections the applicant has withdrawn the garage element of the proposal.
The application proposes to extend what is presently a traditional Manx cottage with a basic footprint of 8.4 m by 5.3 m , with a two storey flat roofed extension which adds a further 2.7 m by 6 m and an lean-to attached outbuilding/garage which is 5 m wide and 4.8 m deep. The existing dwelling and rear extension (excluding the garage/store) is 124 sq. m.
The house will be extended to the side (east) by 5 m , this extension going back beyond the existing rear elevation of the main house, and providing a further 94 sq.m of floor area - an increase of of the existing floor area. The extension will have a mainly glazed front elevation with the glazed element projecting forward of the main cottage frontage by 400 mm . The side elevation, looking eastwards over agricultural land will have a Juliet-style balcony and vertical windows.
Also proposed is the reconstruction of the rear flat roofed annex which will now have a pitched roof tying in to the main roof at right angles to it with the replacement of the existing square modern windows replaced with sliding sash look-alikes. The side extension will project some 2.6 m beyond the rear extension.
Also originally proposed was a detached garage to the north east of the house, some 16.5 m from the main road. This was to be 8.6 m long and 5.8 m wide and 5.4 m high to the ridge. The roof was to be asymmetrically pitched and the ground floor provides a garage which would accommodate two vehicles, a garden store and a staircase to the upper floor which would have provided a further 15 sq m of floor area. This garage is no longer part of the application.
Finally, the existing front porch, which is a mono-pitched structure with the apex adjoining the centre of the front elevation, is to be replaced by a porch of a similar size pitched to run at right angles to the main ridge.
The occupants of Strathcona and High View Cottage both express concern at the size of the proposed extensions, the inclusion of so striking a glazed feature and the size of the garage.
Highways and Traffic Division indicate that there are no traffic management, parking or road safety implications from the proposed development. The proposal involves modification to the parking and manouevring space on site and as such there is an impact - a positive one - on the parking provision on site.
Rushen Parish Commissioners object to the design of the extension on what is a prominent dwelling and consider it out of keeping and suggest that the extension gives the impression of a second dwelling alongside the existing cottage. They welcome the removal of the flat roof on the rear extension. They suggest that the policy requires that extensions are generally no more than of the floor area of the existing and this represents more than this and is contrary to the policy by which others have to abide.
The proposal should be considered in respect of Housing Policy 15 which 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 of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
In addition to the above, it should be borne in mind that the proposal includes provision to remove an unsightly flat roofed annex and its replacement with a pitched roof extension which does not provide any further floor area but significantly improves the appearance of the property as viewed from the public highway. There is also an unattractive single storey outbuilding in part of the area which will be occupied by the proposed side extension.
The applicant also describes the existing cottage as having extremely thick walls which reduce the usable floor area by .
The Landscape Character Assessment policy recommends considering the distinctive character and identity of settlements and whilst the site does not sit within a settlement, the character of the roadside in the immediate area is one of original and vernacular cottages which have been extended and altered, some in visually pleasing ways and others not so. In this case it is suggested that the extension of the property would not be out of keeping with the area where all of the traditional properties in the area and the removal of the flat roofed area will be a considerable improvement to the appearance and character of the cottage.
The extension to the side of the property is unashamedly modern. Properties may be extended such that the extended building looks like a newer, larger version of what previously existed. Alternatively, and what is often a better approach is to retain the existing property intact and to add an extension which appears to be clearly a new extension although still subordinate to the existing property. In this case the extension is distinctive and will add an identity to the property whilst not projecting forward of the porch or higher than the existing ridge. The result is the retention of the existing cottage, the removal of the unfortunate flat roofed extension and a larger, but compact dwelling with a distinctive glazed frontage. It is considered that this does not detract from the amenities or character of the area.
The extension is larger than the recommended 50\%. However, within the proposed works is the removal of a large and unattractive flat roofed annex which is visible and ugly as one passes the site. The extension will not be viewed in it entirety from any one viewpoint.
The application is recommended for approval.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
High View is situated to the north west of the site but the curtilage of this property is directly opposite the application site and as such this party should be afforded party status
Strathcona is some 85 m to the south and not immediately alongside the property and as such this party should not be afforded 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.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 30.09.2010 5 October 2010 10/01187/B
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alteration and extension to the dwelling and creation of parking and turning facilities all as shown in drawings 10/2307/01, 2010/2307/02, 2010/2307/03 and 10/2307/04 all received on 10th August, 2010. For clarification, no approval is hereby granted or implied to the erection of the garage shown in the submitted plans.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date :
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
