Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:1193}} ### Considerations {{table:1189}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:1190}} {{table:1191}} {{table:1192}}

Officer's Report

The Site

The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling situated on the southern side of the Corlea Road. The site is very long - extending some 230m to the south of the highway. The house is a two storey, modern house which is visible from the Corlea Road when approaching the entrance from the west but not so from further afield to the south.

Planning Status

The site lies within an area which is not designated for development on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 and on the draft Southern Area Plan in which the site lies within an area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is provided:

"Incised Slopes - Ballamodha -<br/>Landscape Character Area 2 - Ballamodha, Earystane, and St Mark's:<br/>This is a fairly resilient landscape which has accommodated incursions of modern built development without severe detriment. However, some of the larger-scale residential developments lack either the topographical setting or the groups of trees which might have mitigated their visual impact.

The draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development states:

4.5 Type D: Incised Slopes

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:

• Care should be taken to ensure that housing and business development does not detract from the distinctive identity and setting of settlements, and avoids coalescence with other settlements within this Landscape Type;
• The design and layout of new housing and business development should include appropriate native structure planting to soften urban edges and enhance the transition to the wider landscape;
• Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced;
• Linear development along roads from settlements that extends urbanising influences into the wider countryside should be avoided;
• The use of local vernacular building styles and materials should be encouraged;
• New farm buildings that would compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes should be discouraged;
• Care should be taken to minimise loss of hedgerows, sod banks, and other distinctive boundary features along road corridors;
• Tourist-related development, such as camp-sites, should avoid visually prominent locations, particularly those which can be viewed from higher land and those which would extend urbanising influence along the coast;
• Care should be taken to avoid the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors;
• Tall vertical telecommunications masts or structures which detract from the sloping landform or create visual clutter should be avoided.

Planning History

Planning permission has been sought and granted for the following developments at this site:

• PA 85/0089 - alterations and extension to form additional living accommodation - permitted
• PA 85/1159 - extension to form kitchen, office and twenty kennels - permitted
• PA 93/0150 - provision of porch and stable - permitted

Most recently planning permission was refused for extensions - PA 10/1400 for the reason that the extensions would have increased the visual impact of the property which is not considered to be traditional nor attractive, in accordance with Housing Policy 16.

The Proposal

Proposed now is the extension of the dwelling but a reduced scheme compared with the most recent application, effectively only proposing the extension on the rear - south-facing - elevation. This will project 5.8m from the existing rear elevation and is 8.7m wide and is the same height as the main ridge. There will be a balcony at the first floor level and patio doors (six in number) at ground floor level.

Representations

Malew Parish Commissioners and the Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application

The Manx Electricity Authority make representations relating to the provision of an electricity supply, which is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.

ASSESSMENT

The proposal should be considered in respect of Housing Policy 16 which states:

"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."

In this case it is relevant to consider PA 10/00866/B at Ecklands, further to the west of this site where proposals to extend the property were refused as they would increase the impact of the property. That property is single storey and proposed was a dormer on the southern elevation (ie not the elevation facing towards the road), a side porch and the infilling of a porch on the roadward side.

In this present case the property is presently visible from the main road although the proposed southern extension would not render the property any more visible and as such the proposal would not contravene the provisions of HP16 and is recommended for approval.

PARTY STATUS

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.

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.

MEA does not raise material planning concerns and as such should not be afforded party status in this case.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.02.2011 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : 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 permission relates to the alterations and extension shown in drawings reference AT1040.1, AT1040.2, AT1040.3 Rev 1 and AT1040.4 Rev 1 all received on 11th January, 2011.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 15/2/11

Signed : Senior Planning Officer