DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 23/01487/B Applicant: Mr John Angiolini & Ms Rose Sandilands Proposal: Erection of a single storey extension Site Address: Elm Lodge Patrick Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3BP Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.02.2024

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with Housing Policy 15, Environment Policies 1, 2, and 3, and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, as the form, design, size and appearance of the proposed extension is considered to respect the character and appearance of the existing property, and the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment, highway safety, or neighbouring amenity.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the flowing documents and plans:

• o Cover Letter; and Drawing Nos. 2208 PL1000 rev A, 2208 PL1002 received 29 December 2023; and
• o Drawing No. 2208 PL1001 rev D, received 21 February 2024. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Elm Lodge, Patrick Road, St Johns which is a single storey traditional cottage situated to the Southern side of Patrick Road. - 1.2 The property is constructed out of Manx Stone with a slate roof, has a porch to the Western elevation and a flat roofed extension to the South elevation. The flat roofed extension is finished in a

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of a single storey extension to dwelling. The extension which would measure approximately 6.2m by 4.7m with an overall height of approximately 4.1m would project from the front of the existing flat roofed extension to the side of the dwelling. When measured as a whole, the proposed extension and alterations would result in a side extension that would measure about 10.7m x 4.7m. - 2.2 The new extension which would have its pitch roof set about 435mm lower than the roof ridge of the main dwelling on site would have external walls finished in white smooth render, while the roof would be finished in natural slate tiles. All doors and windows are to be low-e UPVC units. - 2.3 Also proposed within the scheme is a pergola that would site between the west elevation of the dwelling and the neighbouring garage. - 2.4 The applicants have provided a Cover Letter that states the following:

• o They seek to extend forward of the flat roofed extension to the side of the dwelling.
• o The extension will be heated with electric radiators and will be in accordance with the current building regulations.
• o The proposed footprint increase will not be more than 50% of the existing.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific

• 3.1.1 The site lies within an area zoned as an "Area of Private Woodland or Parkland" and an "Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" on the 1982 Development Plan - South Map. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Zone. There are also no registered trees on site, although the entire southern boundary and large parts of the western boundary adjoins a registered tree area.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 3.2.1 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not zoned for development, and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However given there is an existing dwelling on the site, and the nature of the existing dwelling on site, it is relevant to consider Housing Policy 15 which makes provision for extensions or alterations to traditional properties in the countryside.

3.3 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies:

• a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside.
• b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• c. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology.
• d. Environment Policy 2 - Requires that within AHLV the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless considerations certain conditions are met.
• e. Environment Policy 3 - Seeks to prevent unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.
• f. Environment Policy 22 - pollution.
• g. Housing Policy 15 - extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside.
• h. Housing Policy 16 - Extension of non-traditional styled dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form in the countryside.
• i. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources.
• j. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.
• k. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages.
• l. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
• m. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Planning Policy Statement 3/91 which provides guidance on the design of residential development in the countryside.

• 4.1.1 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".
• 4.1.2 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".
• 4.1.3 Policy 5 sates: "Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms."

4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021)

• 4.2.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.

4.3 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

• 4.3.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of a recent planning application for 1st floor extension to rear of house under PA 23/00034/B which was the subject of an appeal. The application was refused at Appeal on the following grounds: "The development proposed would lead to unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. The reasons put forward to justify the development are not sufficient to

• outweigh that harm, bringing the development into conflict with Housing Policy 15, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 2 of the Structure Plan."
• 5.2 The Appeal Inspector made the following comments which are relevant to the current application: "27. There can be no doubt that the existing single-storey extension at the appeal property is unappealing, detracting from the traditional character and appearance of the house and its setting. In this regard, the opportunity to improve the appearance of the property is welcome. In that context, as agreed at the Inquiry, the main issue in this case relates to the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area.

• 29. The presence of the neighbouring garage, in an elevated position to the rear of the existing extension provides the opportunity, in principle at least, for some form of extension at Elm Lodge, above the existing single-storey extension. Its presence also suggests that there may be scope for any extension to step up from the existing cottage, reflecting the steeply rising ground levels to the rear - in a similar way that the adjacent garage is stepped up higher than the frontage bungalow, and indeed higher than Elm Lodge.
• 30. However, the extension as proposed would, I consider, dominate the host building architecturally, rather than appearing subordinate. Whilst I appreciate that the glazed gable feature at first floor draws on the shape of the existing porch, it is much larger than the porch, in a more prominent position, almost 'perched' at first-floor level, emphasising the visual presence of development at first-floor level, competing with the modest, understated vernacular character and appearance of the original cottage. I appreciate that the overall height of the extension would not be dissimilar to that of the adjacent garage, but it is its relationship with the host dwelling that is key here. The development proposed would thrust the extension to the forefront architecturally, which would be inappropriate in the context of the existing cottage, with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the area.
• 31. As confirmed at the Inquiry, the extension would increase the floor space at the property by some 56.5%, greater than is generally allowed for by Housing Policy 15. In this instance however, having regard to the net floor space currently available for the occupiers (which is less than the minimum floorspace for a two-person flat) and being mindful of its shortcomings as set out elsewhere in this report, the quantum increase in space is not, of itself objectionable, and I find no harm in this regard.
• 32. I recognise the desire of the appellants to improve the thermal efficiency of the property and am mindful of the Governments drive to reach interim targets and net zero emissions by

1. However, that is not a consideration in this instance, that justifies the harm that would be a consequence of the development proposed. The same can be said for the argument that the accommodation would meet more contemporary expectations for a home in terms of space and its usability. In any event, as confirmed by the planning officer at the Inquiry, there is scope to extend the property in other ways."

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

6.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking (5 January 2024). - 6.2 Patrick Commissioners and the neighbours have not made any comments as at the time of writing this report.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

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

• a. Impact on the appearance of both the dwelling, site, and surrounding countryside; and
• b. Potential impacts on neighbours and their amenity.

7.2 Impact on Appearance of the Dwelling and nature of the locality (HP 15 & GP2)

• 7.2.1 In terms of visual impacts resulting from the proposed development, reference is made to Housing Policy 15 which indicates that 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. In this case, it is considered that the extension will incorporate the main features of the existing dwelling on site in terms of its pitch roof design, slate roof finish, UPVC windows, and painted render (which is an existing feature given that the existing building has a bled on stone, painted brick and painted render finish).
• 7.2.2 The extension would also be set lower than the existing dwelling such that it would remain subordinate to the main dwelling, being single storey. Whilst it would have been more appropriate to keep the proposed extension behind the front building line of the existing dwelling, the site constraints in terms of land size, narrowness, and site topography dictates that the extension be set forward of the existing extension to the side. It is also noted that the main elevation when viewed from the front would be retained, with the key change being the addition of the extension to the side. Besides, the extension would offer an improved appearance over the existing flat roofed extension to the side and would be read within the backdrop of the main dwelling on site. As such, it is considered that the proposed design and layout of the development would meet the requirements of Housing Policy 15.
• 7.2.3 With regard to the resulting increase in floor area which is also a key consideration for Housing Policy 15, it is considered that the fundamental change in terms of floor area (measured externally) would be 43.5%, when the increase in floor area from 72.75sqm (existing) to 104.38 (proposed) is factored in, given that the floor area would be increased by 31.6sqm. As such, it is considered that the changes to floor area would be compliant with Housing Policy 15, not minding the fact that the increase in floor area by 56.5% was already considered acceptable by the Appeal Inspector for the previous application, who noted that the quantum increase in space is not, of itself objectionable, and would result in no harm, due to the net floor space currently available for the occupiers of the existing dwelling which is less than the minimum floor space for a two-person flat.
• 7.2.4 Additionally, the proposed scheme would not result in the loss of any surrounding tree or impact on any tree on site, ensuring that the development does not cause harm to the visual amenity of the locality or surrounding countryside. Also, the proposal would not bring development closer to the boundary of the surrounding registered tree area further than the existing building development on site. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal is acceptable and would not adversely affect the countryside or harm the character and quality of the landscape and therefore comply with Environment Policies 1, 2, and 3.
• 7.2.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development would align with the requirements of Housing Policy 15, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and General Policy 2 in terms of visual impacts.

7.3 There would be no impacts on neighbouring amenity as the development would not introduce new window fenestrations at positions that would result in overlooking of neighbouring properties, although the single storey element of the proposal and the existing boundary treatment would have diminished any concerns in this regard, if new windows looked towards neighbouring properties. The position of the extension relative to the position of neighbouring properties would also ensure overshadowing or overbearing impacts does not occur. - 7.4 The scheme does not propose any alterations to the means of access to the site or parking provisions within the site. As such, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impacts on parking or highway safety resulting from the proposal.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The application is considered to align with the principles of Housing Policy 15, Environment Policies 1, 2, and 3, and General Policy 2, as well as Planning Circular 3/91, and will have no unacceptable impact, and as such is recommended for approval. - 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:

• o 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

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 : Permitted Date : 28.02.2024 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.