Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00880/B Applicant: Miss Faye Moffett & Miss Lily Mo Proposal: Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of a replacement two storey extension and erection of a detached double garage (comprising amendments to PA 14/01195/B) Site Address: Thie Y Chleree Church Road Maughold Isle Of Man IM7 1AS Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 07.11.2014 Site Visit: 07.11.2014 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A RECENT, AND SIMILAR, APPLICATION ON THIS SITE WAS ALSO BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Thie Y Chleree (sometimes also spelled "Thie ny Chleree"), which sits to the north of the grass triangle to the west of the entrance to Maughold Church. The site is within the Maughold Conservation Area. The house sits more than 20m from the carriageway and there is a lane which runs north, to the west of the site, and which leads to public conveniences, which are adjacent the site, and private garaging, which is presumably associated with the adjacent dwelling ("The Old Vicarage"). - 1.2 As viewed from the front, the dwelling has a number of traditional features, offset somewhat by a characteristic and unusual two-storey front projection with a castellated flat top, which has a single sliding sash window in each floor of a kind that matches those in the main house frontage. This frontage is prominent in the streetscene. To the rear, Thie Y Chleree has been significantly remodelled and extended with a large pitched roofed annex running parallel with the main ridge but longer than this and separated therefrom by a pitched-roofed link, which, given the angle at which the larger annex is set, takes something of a wedge-shaped form. The original house has a depth of 5.3m: the whole dwelling has a depth of 14.0m. The length of the site is around 64.0m with the widest part at the northern, top end. - 1.3 The property is clearly visible from the main road, as well as from the lane to the west, the public highway to the east that runs around the perimeter of the church, roughly 39m to the east of the site. Direct views of the rear elevation are only possible from within the site and private land stretching to the rear.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the demolition of the entirety of the rear extension, along with its connecting pitched-roof link, and its replacement with a new extension. This new
extension would sit on the footprint of the existing extensions, but would also have two-storey projections to the northeast and southeast. Also proposed is a small basement level. This application follows approval of an application for a large rear extension in 2012 and 2014 (PAs 12/00476/B and 14/01190/B - see Planning History section for details). The helpful Design Statement submitted as part of the application identifies the floorspace measurements as follows:
2.2 The fabric that is to be demolished was added in 1991 (PA 91/0157), which was a replacement/alteration of fabric that was already in place and clearly not original as the extensions at the rear had flat roofs at two- and single-storey levels. The 1991 approval added more fabric at first floor level and added more height in the form of the pitched roofing but did not add to the floor area. - 2.3 Now proposed is the removal of all of the later additions and the extension of the property in a contemporary fashion, but also with an acknowledgement of the otherwise traditional styling of Thie Y Chleree. - 2.4 The main body of the extension would be irregularly-shaped but would provide something of a double-pile aspect to the dwelling when viewed from the northwest. It would be fully two-storey and finished mainly in a roughcast render but with Manx stone on the elevation parallel to the dwelling's principal elevation. This elevation would be partially seen to the right of the elevation when viewed from the public highway, but would be at its most visible when viewed from the lane to the west of the site; it would be visible because the 'link' extension between the existing house and the proposed annex would not completely fill the gap between those two elements, and it would also be formed entirely of frameless glazing panels. - 2.5 The rear elevation would have a projecting gable and which would be filled with glazing panels in the gable and also at ground floor level; the upper floor would provide the master bedroom while the ground floor would provide the living room. It would be beneath this element of the proposed extension that the basement level, which would provide a gym, wine store, swimming pool and plant room, would be accessed via a spiral staircase. - 2.6 In terms of finishings not already described, the rear extension's roof would be finished in zinc, while the windows would be grey uPVC sliding sash units. The two proposed rooflights would be of a conservation-style.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 As stated above, alterations and extensions were undertaken in 1991 prior to which there had already been flat roofed extensions added. Also approved in 2008 and 2013 were replacement windows and the installation of a flue respectively. Both of these approvals have been fully implemented; the flue was installed on the rear annex approved in 1991. - 3.2 Also worth noting is the 2012 approval, which was for "Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of a replacement two storey extension including erection of detached double garage". More explicitly, and in the case officer's words, proposed was: "…the removal of all of the later additions and the extension of the property in the form of two parallel rear extensions at right angles to the main ridge and extend to 7m on the lane side and slightly more, 11m on the east where the extension extends further out to the west in single storey form. The main extensions will have pitched roofs with chimneys which are slightly slimmer than those on the main original
3.4 More directly relevant, though, is the recent approval on the site. This was essentially identical to that for which approval is now sought, but did not include a swimming pool in the basement. The respective figures for that application relative to those outlined in paragraph 2.1 above are:
3.5 In view of the nature of that application, it was brought before Planning Committee for consideration. The minutes of that meeting read as follows: "The case officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report.
"The comment from the Commissioners was considered; it had been received after the officer report had been concluded and requested that Committee, when assessing the application, take account of Environment Policy 35 in the context of Maughold Head.
"Mr Penketh as agent spoke in support of the application. He stated that the applicants had resided in the property for some 11 years and were very aware of the history of the dwelling and its import to the surrounding area and conservation status.
"The need for this extension had been considered to address internal need of the applicants and those for the surrounding area.
"Proportions and materials for the windows had been considered, along with the sympathetic separation of the extension from the original house.
"Each policy impacted was listed along with how each had been addressed.
"In clarification of the key issues the Members enquired whether the Conservation Officer had been consulted. Mr Riley confirmed that he had, had provided opinion to suggest tinting to the glazed roof (although this was not considered necessary to require by condition) and had accompanied Mr Riley on his site visit.
"The size of the proposed windows was clarified and it was recognised that the photo montages had been very helpful.
"The amount of glazing proposed in the rear elevation was questioned. Mr Riley explained the extent and use of glazing, along with the placement of chimney to improve the design had been raised during pre-application discussion.
"Concern regarding the use of non-reflective glazing was raised, although it was noted that the large glazed elevation to the rear was north-facing and would not result in significant glare as a result. The size of the extension and comparison against policy was discussed."
The application was unanimously approved subject to the standard time limit condition.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, within an area of ecological interest and within the perimeter of the site of a scheduled Ancient Monument (St. Maughold's Church). The site is also within Maughold's Conservation Area, which was adopted in 1992. No Character Appraisal exists for the Conservation Area, which is by far the largest on the Island and includes small collections of buildings along with farmsteads and individual dwellings but is primarily countryside. The area in which the application site sits presents the largest collection of buildings, but even this is limited to around 15 individual properties. The area could be characterised as comprising dwellings of fairly traditional but also somewhat unusual form and design - none of which are considered especially inappropriate - set within a sloping hillside that commands quite significant long views westward into the Island but is perhaps surprisingly well hidden from the sea to the east. It is also true that there is a very limited amount of contemporary architecture in the area. - 4.2 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states at paragraph 19 (3) "A building to which this section applies [the section is entitled Conservation Areas] may not be demolished without the consent of the Department; and accordingly sections 15 and 16 apply to such a building as they apply to a registered building, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations." As such it is important that the fabric which is to be demolished is considered as historically important unless it can be demonstrated that it is not of such value. In this case, the fabric is much more modern that the original cottage and is not of particularly attractive or appropriate form. Were the building to be Registered, there would be no objection to the demolition of this fabric. This position was first stated in respect of the 2012 planning application discussed above. - 4.3 The Strategic Plan policies of material relevance to the consideration of this application are set out below. - 4.4 Strategic Policy 4 states: "Proposals for development must:
4.5 Environment Policy 1 states: "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."
4.6 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
4.7 Environment Policy 35 is perhaps the crucial policy: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." This echoes the provision of Planning Policy Statement 1/01, policy CA/2, which states: "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application.
Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."
4.8 Also of strong relevance is 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)."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal on 14th August 2015. - 5.2 Maughold Commissioners made some lengthy comments on the proposal, dated 8th September 2015: "The Commissioners declare an interest in this application. They have been approached by the applicant with a view to the purchase of the public toilets and land that are on the current boundary of the property. The Commissioners are currently investigating an arrangement with the applicant in which new conveniences would be provided in an alternative location in the village.
"Notwithstanding this declaration the Commissioners have instructed me to make the following comments on their behalf:
"In general, the Commissioners wish to reserve comment on this application, and defer to the expertise of the Planning and Conservation Officers.
"However, Members request that the size, scope and impact of these proposals be fully considered; particularly Environment Policy 35."
5.3 In view of the above, Manx National Heritage were contacted for their views. In response, they noted on 11th September 2015 that "a medieval cross slab was in fact found on this site or very close nearby which puts a different complexion on the potential impact of groundworks and demolition". Following further discussion, the Curator within MNH subsequently confirmed on 24th September 2015 that "a condition affording MNH access during demolition and groundworks will be sufficient". The agent to the planning application indicated that he believed his client would readily accept such a condition.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The property is a prominent and important one in the heart of Maughold's Conservation Area and one that has already been altered and extended in not necessarily the most sympathetic manner. This situation has not changed since the previous approvals in 2012 and 2014, and there have been no amendments to planning policy since that time to indicate a different assessment approach should be taken in 2015. The proposed extension is very similar in its design approach to the previous scheme. - 6.2 While some welcome effort was made to retain a traditional form on the 1991 annex, and the double-piled impression given is fairly successful, the fact of its sitting at a rather awkward angle to the original dwelling and lack of chimneys gives the dwelling something of an unsettled appearance. It is, however, fairly compact in form and this, too, is successful from the point of view of a traditionally-Manx appearance. While it is not necessarily considered to be poor of poor form, the loss of the existing annex would not be lamented. It should also be noted that the location of the public conveniences is a difficult constraint to rearward extension to the property. - 6.3 The applicants indicated that they wished the extension to have a "wow factor". In this, their architect has succeeded. Whether or not this has resulted in a successful design outcome in the context of Housing Policy 15 remains to be considered. The effect of the proposal on the dwelling and its wider surroundings also needs to be assessed in the context of Environment Policy 35. - 6.4 The proposal, as outlined, is a far more contemporary approach than that previously approved or currently in place. While the form and massing is rather different to the existing and with a couple of projections beyond the main, more compact, footprint, there is judicious use of traditional detailing. The window proportions are good, and sliding sash lights is welcome. Chimneys atop gable ends retain the double-piled impression, while the lack of eaves and replication of window lintels on the existing dwelling are also successful and welcome. Perhaps of more immediate impact, though, is of the materials, massing and form proposed, which would be a departure from the existing to quite a notable degree. - 6.5 Turning first to the wider visual impact of the proposal, it cannot be ignored that the new extension would, as outlined earlier, expand the existing dwelling beyond its existing, fairly compact, form. However, this 'expansion' is formed by a couple of projections - one to the side
6.12 Turning finally to the proposed finishings, the glazing element is, as noted, welcomed, and its use in respect of the dwelling is not objected to. More than this, the main extension would also have a zinc roof. Also proposed are areas of Manx stone and a timber gate, while the windows would be dark grey, uPVC-framed units. Not all of these could be said to be traditional, but the use of grey successfully draws on the slate roofs and churchyard setting, while timber (even though in a small way) and Manx stone are found throughout the area. Perhaps the most significant intervention is the zinc, and this is considered potentially the most controversial. - 6.13 Before coming to a final view on the application, it is also important to consider the proposal against its built and natural environment context. When viewed from the highway, Thie Y Chleree is really only 'read' against the adjacent Pink House and Old Vicarage. Both of these offer some traditional forms and features and, although have limited contemporary design elements, the fact that the proposed extension would not be especially visible when set against these are to its favour. Equally, the use of stone in part on the Old Vicarage and also, and more strongly, on the adjacent church is successfully picked up as part of the proposals. - 6.14 The view of the proposed works from beyond and through the churchyard are fairly limited and long-distance, and would read well against the Old Vicarage beyond but, also, would not be altogether dissimilar from the form presented now. - 6.15 The visual impact of the garage will be slightly different from that previously approved on the site - while it was previously proposed to be Manx stone, it will now be render albeit that its size, form and location has not altered. While Manx stone might be preferred, that the garage would sit near the other built development that is also rendered is such that there would be unlikely to result in any visual harm as a result. The garage would, therefore, preserve the character / appearance of the Conservation Area. - 6.16 A new issue has arisen since the determination of the previous application and the submission of this. As discussed, a mediaeval cross has been recently discovered nearby the site, and so a condition requiring access be made to an appropriate professional to examine the site during the works and prior to demolition is recommended accordingly. This will enable any findings made while on site to be properly recorded.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 The use of contemporary architecture in the manner proposed by the application is a welcome intervention in the area. In light of the above assessment, which has considered the design of the proposed works relative to the existing dwelling and also against its setting within the Maughold Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal would result in an enhancement to the character, and appearance, of that Conservation Area. - 7.2 It is therefore recommended that the planning application be approved. A condition requiring a named archaeologist be allowed access to the site in order to be able to record any matters of interest is recommended; this is the sole amendment to the condition set attached to the previous approval on this site.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.09.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: Archaeological finds have recently been made in the immediate vicinity, and access will ensure that any archaeological remains and features are adequately recorded.
The approval hereby issued relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 4th August 2015: 01, 14 1083/1, 14 1083/2 Rev A, 14 1083/3 Rev A, 14 1083/4 , 14 1083/5 and 1401083/6, as well as the Design Statement.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
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 service/customers and archive records.
The signature reflects the Officer who endorsed the Officer Recommendation.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
