DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 23/00511/B Applicant: Mr Paul Ormand Smith Proposal: Erection of two storey extensions to each side of existing farmhouse together with replacement porches to front and rear Site Address: Kerrow Glass Mill Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 2LB Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Photo Taken: 14.06.2023 Site Visit: 14.06.2023 Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2024 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The proposed development is unacceptable because it would result in a design of an extended dwelling which fails to respect the form and scale of the existing dwelling and would be contrary to the 50% floorspace limit outlined in Policy H15 in the Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016). The existing dwellings floor area amounts to approx. 189m2. The overall floor area of the extended dwelling would amount to approx. 401m2 when taking into account the proposed accommodation on the ground and first floor levels and the removal of the small outbuilding between the dwelling and garage. This represents an increase of approx. 112%. Such an increase in proposed floor area exceeds the 50% Policy limit over that of the existing dwelling and is therefore, contrary to the provisions of Policy HP15 and as such is considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the main dwelling and the wider area. - R 2. The proposed development is unacceptable because the relationship of the proposed extensions, to each side of the dwelling with no set-in to the front elevation, or first floor rear elevation; or relief at eaves and ridge level to distinguish between the old and new elements, would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the dwellinghouse, which would be consumed by the scale and extent of these proposed additions, whereby any existing character and appearance it has would be lost. This is emphasised by the retention of the existing chimneys which currently 'bookend' the side walls of the existing dwelling. They would be absorbed in the roofscape and would appear odd and out of character and keeping. Overall, the footprint, scale, height and bulk, of the extensions would overwhelm the existing dwelling and would result in it appearing out of character with the landscape in which it would sit. This would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 parts b) and c); Policy HP15; and, Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake especially given the natural, predominantly open and exposed landscape in which the site is located. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of the existing traditional Manx farmhouse at Kerrow Glass, which is a detached, double-fronted, 2- storey dwelling, under a slate roof with chimney stacks to both gables projecting above the ridge-line. It has 2 No. large, nontraditional, centrally located, enclosed porches under pitched roofs, one to the front and one to the rear. Other original features include 4-pane, vertical wooden sliding sash windows. A detached garage of blockwork construction under a pitched roof with no main door is sited to the rear of the dwelling. A small outbuilding is located to the rear of the dwelling between it and the garage. The outbuilding is proposed to be demolished. The site is located off Greeba Mill Road. The dwelling and garage are presently both in a poor state of repair and at the time of the case Officer's site visit, the dwelling was unoccupied. - 1.2 The farm comprises approx. 30 acres of land, with the farmhouse accompanied by a number of traditional Manx stone barns/outbuildings of 1 and 2-stories in height which form a cluster of development in the countryside, which include a 2-storey detached cottage. These buildings lie outside the residential curtilage of Kerrow Glass. - 1.3 The property, apart from the cottage and outbuildings, sits isolated from any of the nearby properties within open countryside, with no other neighbouring dwellings located close-by. The site is surrounded by fields with the field closest to the house being used to store, 2 old cars, agricultural machinery, an excavator and various farming implements. The nearest neighbouring properties being Cooil Slieu Bungalow approx. 180m away to the south-east and Glion Kerral farm, approx. 400m to the west. The site lies within an area known as Greeba Plantation.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a two, two-storey side extensions to each side of existing farmhouse together with replacement porches to the front and rear. This follows on from the demolition of an existing outbuilding located to the rear of the dwelling. Stone from the demolished outbuilding will be used to assist in maintaining the character of this unique group of buildings. The applicants Design Statement advises:

"The traditional farm house has a floor area measured externally of 168m2 over 2 floors. Two non-traditional porch/sun lounges were added prior to the applicant's purchase creating an overall footprint area of 189m2. A further more derelict out building close to the house has a footprint area of 32m2 over two floors.

To achieve a viable layout whilst maintaining window symmetry associated with the elongated form referred to in Planning Circular 3/91, the two storey extensions to both sides of the farmhouse have a ground floor footprint area of 61m2 with an upper floor area of 41m2. The replacement smaller front porch is 12m2 and the replacement rear porch 13m2. After demolitions, this culminates in a final house size of 401m2."

2.2 Each side extension would measure approx. 5.32m wide x 11.4m deep. They would be deeper than the depth of the existing dwelling (approx. 7.7m deep) and would link up at the

• rear on the ground floor via a passageway (incorporating a flat-roofed porch) running across the rear elevation approx. 9.85m wide x 1.5m in depth where it would project out from the rear wall of the dwelling. It would have a new front porch measuring 3.1m wide x 2.0m deep under a pitched roof approx. 1.99m high to the eaves, and 2.6m high to the ridge.
• 2.3 At first floor level, the extensions would match the depth of the existing dwelling at approx. 7.87m and would correspond with the width of the proposed ground floor elements at would measure 4.8m out from the existing side wall by 6.6m wide which equates to the width of the existing dwelling, and 5.32m wide.
• 2.4 The proposals would result in the provision of the following accommodation:

Ground floor: Entrance porch; hallway and stars up; cloakroom/passageway, dining room; utility room and storage cupboard; shower room; Pool/Games room; kitchen; bedroom 4 with en-suite shower room; and passage across the rear linking the two sides of the house; domestic lift to first floor;

First floor: cloakroom/passageway linking land and stairs to lounge; 2-bedrooms with en-suite shower rooms; and, master bedroom with en-suite bathroom and walk-in dressing room; domestic lift to ground floor;

2.5 No trees would be removed to accommodate the extensions and there would be no changes to parking provision on site. - 2.6 The application was amended on 14/8/24 via revised plans showing the addition of a chimney stack to each end gable of the new side wings of the proposed extensions. No other changes were proposed.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East as land not designated for a particular purpose, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site area is not prone to flood risks. There are no registered trees on site, and the site is not within a registered tree area. - 3.2 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the East states thus concerning the area:

• 3.2.1 Greeba Valley (C1):
• 3.2.2 Landscape Strategy: "The overall strategy for the area should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the valley with its well-treed and enclosed character in the valley bottom, its distinct rectilinear field patterns and small scattered hill farms on the rising valley sides." "Key Views

• o Views from valley floor typically enclosed by the fragmented woodland and roadside trees on the valley floor.
• o More open views from the valley sides along the valley and up to the peaks of the Northern Upland peaks and the upper slopes of Foxdale."

3.3 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). General Policy 2 indicates that: "General Policy 2:

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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

However given there is an existing dwelling on the site, it is relevant to also consider Housing Policy 15 which guides extensions to traditional dwellings in the countryside.

3.4 Housing Policy 15: 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). - 3.5 Paragraph 8.12.2: Extensions to properties in the countryside As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property. In the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this. In addition, Housing Policy 16 advises:

"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."

3.6 Since the site has an established residential use, it would also be relevant to consider the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2. - 3.7 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). - 3.8 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant to the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Transport Policy 4, and Community Policies 10 and 11.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Planning Circular 3/91 (Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside) is considered relevant. The section on 'Proportions and Form' on page 4 provides advice on how to make variations to the floor area of traditional buildings (extensions).

• 4.1.2 Policy 3 states: "The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of the traditional farmhouse. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form".
• 4.1.3 Policy 4 states: "External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials". The supporting texts to policy 4 states that "Modern construction and materials may be used to achieve a similar external appearance".

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 This property has been the subject of a number of previous applications which are considered relevant in the determination of this application.

5.2 Approval was granted under PA 14/01117/B for Re-positioning field access to include visibility splays. Permitted 03.11.2014. - 5.3 PA 14/00387/B for Erection of an agricultural building - Refused 24.06.2014. Appeal Dismissed 4/11/2020. - 5.4 14/00385/B - Re-positioning of field access with inclusion of visibility splays - Refused 20.06.2014.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Highway Services (2/6/23) has expressed no interest as they have no implications for highway safety.

6.2 German Parish Commissioners (8/7/23) comments:

"23//0511 Kerrow Glass Mill Road Greeba erection of two story extensions to each side of farmhouse and new porches OBJECTION the Commissioners have noted that this application will utilise building of agricultural land rather than land designated for domestic use, as we have had an application refused elsewhere in the parish for the same reason, the board feels they must lodge an objection."

6.3 No comments have been received from occupants of any neighbouring or nearby properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

• a. Principle of development
• b. The visual impact of the proposal (HP15, GP2);
• c. Impact on neighbouring amenity (GP2);
• d. Impact on Highways (TP 4 & EP 16); and
• e. Impact on site ecology (EP 4).

- 7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

• 7.2.1 In terms of the visual impacts of the proposed works on the existing dwelling, it is considered that the proposed extensions would fail to respect the proportions, design and form of the existing dwelling and would not appear as subordinate additions to the main dwelling. Whilst the extensions are reflective of the design of the host dwelling, each side extension would measure approx. 5.32m wide x 11.4m deep, against a width of the existing dwelling of approx. 11.0m. This would effectively double the width of the dwelling to 21.64m. Each of the side extensions would be deeper than the depth of the existing dwelling (approx. 11.54m deep vs. the existing dwelling depth of 7.7m). Where the extension project outward beyond the rear of the dwelling, they would be flat-roofed and constructed with walls of Manx stone. These rear elements would link up across the rear of the dwelling on the ground floor via a passageway measuring approx. 9.85m wide x 1.5m in depth where it would project out from the rear wall of the dwelling. In addition, there would be a centrally located, flat-roofed porch.
• 7.2.2 At the front, the extensions would be constructed flush with the front elevation. There would be no inset in relation to both the front elevation and the rear elevation at first floor level. In these areas, the extensions would also appear flush with the dwellings eaves, roof slope and ridge height. The existing chimneys, which would be retained, would appear out of place where they would project above the ridge of the continuous roof-slope when viewed from both the front and rear. They would appear odd and out of character and keeping when they currently 'bookend' the side walls of the existing dwelling. Given these relationships with the existing dwelling, the new extensions are is considered to be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the main dwellinghouse, which would be consumed by the scale and extent of these proposed additions, whereby any existing character and appearance it has would be lost.

• 7.2.2 The existing farm house has a floor area measured externally of 168m2 over 2 floors. Two non-traditional porch/sun lounges have been previously added creating an overall footprint area of 189m2. The current proposal for the two storey extensions to both sides of the farmhouse would each have a ground floor footprint area of 61m2 with an upper floor area of 41m2. The replacement smaller front porch is 12m2 and the replacement rear porch 13m2. After demolitions of the existing front and rear porches and small outbuilding to the rear between the house and the garage, would culminate in a final house size of 401m2." This equates to an approximate 112% increase over the original floorspace area of 189m2.

• 7.2.4 Policy H15 of the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016) reads:

"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)."

• 7.2.5 Given the above, the proposed extension would exceed the floor area of 50% as per the above Policy constraint. The question is whether the extension to this traditionally styled property in the countryside would sufficiently respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, and constitute an exception to the 50% floor limit outlined in H15? In this case, given the above concerns, the answer is 'no'. It is considered that the proposal would

fail to accord with the provisions of Housing Policy 15 and of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016).

VISUAL IMPACT ON EXISTING DWELLING AND THE SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE

• 7.2.6 Housing Policy 16 indicates:

"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."

Whilst General Policy 2 indicates (inter alia) that new development should: "(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;

• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;"

• 7.2.7 In terms of the visual impacts of the proposed works on the existing dwelling, it is considered that the proposed extension would fail to respect the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and would appear as dominant additions to it. The extensions do not propose a more contemporary design and as indicated above would show no distinction between the old elements and the new with the chimneys whilst retained, retained, would no longer 'bookend' the side walls of the existing dwelling, and would appear out of character and keeping, and would detract from the character of the site and its countryside surroundings. This is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 b) and c) in the Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016).
• 7.2.8 The addition of the flat roofed rear extensions and porch extension which would involve the addition of a basic form which is somewhat at variance with Policy 3 of Planning Circular 3/91 which does not support the addition of basic forms to traditional properties. It is noted that the dwelling has no existing flat roofed elements. As such, it is considered that these elements of the proposed extensions would be appear incongruous and would not be well integrated into the existing built fabric on site. Given the above, and noting that the site lies in a relatively isolated location, it is considered that the proposal would result in an adverse visual impact on the character of the countryside and would fail to maintain the appearance of the site from views from afar, especially as the dwellings principle elevation faces south and is available to distant views from this direction against an upland vista. As such, the proposed development fails to comply with the requirements of Policy 3 of Planning Circular 3/91; Housing Policy 16; and, General Policy 2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016).
• 7.2.9 The amendments received 14/8/24 to the application involving the addition of a chimney stack to each end gable of the new side wings of the proposed extensions, are noted, however, these additions do not alter the consideration that the design and visual impact of the proposed extensions is unacceptable as outlined above.

- 7.3 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

• 7.3.1 With regard to impact on neighbouring dwellings, the site is in an isolated position in the countryside. There are no neighbouring or nearby residential properties within close proximity to the site other than the cottage referred to by the applicants which would appear to be within their ownership/control. It is considered that no neighbours' amenities would be affected as a result of the proposed development. This accords with the provisions of the first part of General Policy 2 g) in the Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016).

- 7.4 HIGHWAY IMPACT

• 7.4.1 With regard to Highway impact, the scheme does not propose any alterations to the means of access to the site or parking within the site. Highway Services has raised no objection to the proposals, and as such, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts on parking or highway safety resulting from the proposal. This accords with the provisions of General Policy 2 i) in the Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016).

7.5 IMPACT ON SITE ECOLOGY

• 7.5.1 In terms of impacts on ecology or biodiversity within the site, it is also important to establish if any real harm would result with respect to ecological and environmental concerns, it would relate to the removal of some vegetation to facilitate the erection of the extension. In this case, it is considered that the scale of the proposed works is such that it would result in minimal vegetation removal. Also, no trees would be removed as a result of the proposal. Therefore, any impacts on biodiversity within the site will be negligible, and will remain largely unchanged. This accords with the provisions of Environment Policy 4 in the Isle of Man Strategic Development Plan (2016).

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be refused. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

9.3 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 Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management 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

Decision Made : Refused Date : 14.08.2024 Determining officer

Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Acting Head of Development Management

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.