Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00961/B Applicant: Mr Brian Kelly Proposal: Alterations and erection of extensions to existing former tholtan to provide ancillary living accommodation and vehicular access alterations to create a pedestrian access Site Address: Starley Cottage Port Lewaigue Ramsey Isle of Man IM7 1AJ Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 10.09.2015 Site Visit: 10.09.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE EXTENSION IN COMPARISON WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is Starley Cottage, Port e Vullen, Maughold. The site comprises a large detached dwelling house known as Starley House. The house has the appearance of being relatively new although it is of traditional Georgian design. It has two storeys and is finished in a white render with a slate roof. The windows are of a sash design but appear to be casements. The house has white painted stone quoins. - 1.2 Within the site is a single story building, known as Starley Cottage which was originally the only dwelling on the site. Starley Cottage sites approximately 4 metres to the northwest of the front elevation of Starley House which was constructed in the 1990's. - 1.3 The site is located to the eastern end of Port e Vullen, not far from the north east coast of the Island. The site is situated to the south side of the main road through the village and has an extended frontage to this road. The house is set in spacious grounds which extend significantly to the east. The land is relatively flat and open. There are two vehicular entrances from the road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for the alterations and erection of extensions to existing former tholtan to provide ancillary living accommodation and vehicular access alterations to create a pedestrian access. It is proposed that the applicant's daughter would occupy the unit. - 2.2 The proposal includes a front porch extensions to the eastern elevation having a width of 2.7 metres a depth of 1.9 metres and a ridge height of 3.2 metres. A second extension is proposed to the southern gable end elevation which forms a sun room. This extension would have a width of width of 3.7 metres a depth of 4.9 metres and a ridge height of 3.8 metres, approximately 0.1 metres lower than the ridge height of the main building. The third extension is to the western elevation which would provide the single bedroom, ensuite and utility room. This would have a width of width of 8.9 metres a depth of 3.1 metres and a ridge height of 3.7 metres.
2.3 With the exception of the sun room extension the proposed extension would be finished with painted render and a nature slate roof. The Sun room extension would also have a slate roof finish but would have a traditional laid Manx stone dwarf wall with a grey aluminium frames with glazing above forming the sun room. - 2.4 The existing vehicular access would mainly be blocked up, leaving only a pedestrian gate.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has been the subject of several applications; more recently connected to alteration and extension to the existing dwelling. However, the following applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 90/00785/B - approval granted for erection of dwelling and conversion of existing cottage to double garage. It should be noted the conversion of existing cottage to double garage was not approved. - 3.3 88/00569/A - approval in principle granted for extension and garage. - 3.4 87/04545/A - application refused for extension and alterations.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site is treated as open countryside for the purposes of the Isle of Man Development Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. The area is also designated an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 4.2 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are considered relevant: - 4.3 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
forestry;
which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
4.4 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." - 4.5 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or 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 different 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:
4.6 Housing Policy 13 states: "In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where:
This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space(3) measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Maughold Parish Commissioners - no objection (received on 08.09.2015). - 5.2 DOI Highway Services - no objection (received on 24.08.2015).
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key issue with the application is the principle of conversion of the existing property; potential visual impact the proposals would have upon the countryside, which is of high landscape value; and whether the use of the building as ancillary accommodation is appropriate on this site. PRINCIPLE OF CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY - 6.2 It is clear from visiting the property and considering historical maps that the property was once used as a single dwelling, known as Starley Cottage. The property in terms of design, layout and appearance; including sliding sash windows and chimneys to each gable end, all given the appearance of a traditional Manx single storey cottage. - 6.3 Due to this Housing Policy 13 is considered to be most relevant in the determination of the applicant. It is acknowledged that the submission proposes ancillary accommodation to the main house and HP 13 relates to the conversion of such building as a dwelling. However, it is considered this policy is most appropriate. - 6.4 In relation to HP 13 the policy requires that the building is substantially intact with at least three walls up to eaves level standing. The property has all four walls up to eaves level and has a roof. A structural report has been included and concludes the building is structural capable of conversion. It is therefore considered the proposal complies with this aspect of the policy. - 6.5 There is an existing access to the property via the existing driveway, accesses and parking/turning areas which would be shared with Starley House.
6.6 The site is also adjacent to a number of residential properties in the area and can be provided with water and of electricity. - 6.7 The main issue with HP 13 is floor area increase. HP 13 indicates that; "extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space(3) measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)." In terms of the existing property, it has a floor area of 50.5 square metres. The proposed extensions equate to a total of 50.7 square metres, resulting in a total floor area of 101.3 square metres which is a 100% increase over the existing floor area. - 6.8 Whilst the proposed extension doubles the size of the existing property, the property would still only be a modest one bedroom property. The proposed porch extension is a small structure, which is traditional in size, proportion, form and finish. The design is what you would expect for a traditional cottage. Accordingly, it is not consider this aspect of the property raise any concerns. - 6.9 In relation to the western elevation the extension (27.5sqm) again is traditional in form, appearance, design and finish. This again is not an uncommon feature to traditional cottages in the Manx countryside and would not have an adverse impact upon the character or quality of the existing property. - 6.10 The southern gable end sunroom extension is the most modern aspect of the proposal with a large amount of glazing to all three elevations. The success or failure of this aspect will depend on the material and finish of the window frames. UPVC should be avoided as this would appear to chunky and would result in a standard conservatory which is not appropriate for this traditional building. The applicants have indicated that the frames would be a composite timber framed with grey external aluminium cladding. This type of window has the potential to reduce the 'chunkiness' of the window frames. However, a condition should be attached which requires a sample and drawing at a 1:20 scale to ensure this is the case. - 6.11 Overall, the proposed extension would go beyond the generally permitted 50% threshold; albeit they equate to 50 square metres only. However, the proposed extension are traditional in form, appearance, design and finish and they would complement the existing traditional property. The proposal would also bring potentially one of the oldest properties in Maughold back into use and secure its long term future. Accordingly, whilst the proposals could be argued to go beyond the requirements of Housing Policy 13, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable in this case, on this site. POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT THE PROPOSALS WOULD HAVE UPON THE COUNTRYSIDE - 6.12 In relation to the potential visual impact the main policy to be considered is Environment Policy 2 given the site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. EP2 indicates that development will only be acceptable if the proposal would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development is essential. - 6.13 It should also be noted that views of the majority of the works would be screen from public views, with the exception of the northern gable wall, of the western extension, which faces the public highway. The remaining works would be screened from view given mature landscaping within the site and surrounding area. Notwithstanding this, it is considered even if the works would be apparent, perhaps with the removal of all the surrounding landscaping in time, the extensions proposed would not have an adverse impact upon the area, and arguable would be beneficial to be able to see the historical and traditional property from public views. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would comply with EP 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
6.14 The next issue to consider is whether the ancillary accommodation proposed is tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside. - 6.15 Ancillary in planning terms means that the said building is used by and for the people of the main property, in a secondary manner and the whole planning unit (including the additional building) remains as a single unit of accommodation. You cannot have an entirely independent property 'ancillary' to another. - 6.16 It boils down to whether something is a single household. A household contains a single person, a family or people who live as a family. Consequently, it is neither here nor there if someone owns the additional accommodation on the farm, in the garden and so on, what matters is whether they live separately (i.e. come and go, watch telly, eat, have different visitors etc) . If they do, then it is a separate dwelling. This also applies to relatives - even if it is someone's parents, or son/daughter, if they live separately, then it is a separate household. - 6.17 What needs to be considered when determining this is how a building is being used. It is very important to consider each application is judged on its own merits and the provision of ancillary accommodation is arguably one of the aspects of planning where this view applies most. One development to provide ancillary accommodation may be acceptable on one site, but totally inappropriate on another, even if the same design, layout and size of unit are proposed. - 6.18 Initially there was concern that the proposal could be used as a separate dwelling; given it is a one bed room self-contained unit. However, other factors need to be considered. The first is its very close proximity to the front of the main dwelling house. The proposal once the works are completed would be approximately 0.8 metres from the front elevation of the main dwelling house. The entrance of the accommodation building would be directly adjacent to the entrance of the main dwelling. The new dwelling would also have clear and direct views over the front garden and towards the windows within the front elevation of the main dwelling. Further consideration is also given that parking and turning for the new unit would be shared with the main dwelling house, rather than it having its own parking/access arrangements. Finally, the main views from the sun room would be over part of the garden of the main dwelling house and arguably the occupants of the main dwelling house would not want to be overlooked by non-guest/family. The applicants are proposing the unit would be occupied by their Daughter. It should be noted that whilst the points raised in this paragraph are considered to be reasonable arguments why the dwelling wouldn't be used totally independently from the main house and/or be occupied by relative; the fact does remain it could be, if the owners of the main dwelling wanted. This would result in their own residential amenities being affected, namely through loss or privacy by overlooking and by general disturbances of person coming and going form the unit given the close proximity of the new unit with the existing dwelling; but the currently or future owners may be happy with this arrangement. - 6.19 Overall, whilst the accommodation provided within the building could be used in an independent way, the manner in which it is proposed to be used by the daughter of the applicant it is considered to be ancillary. - 6.20 Significant weight is given that the property was once a dwelling and the proposal is utilising a traditional building which is considered worth of retention both for historical, architectural and social interest. It is likely if this application proposed a complete new build to provide the same accommodation, then such a scheme would not be viewed in a positive light. Furthermore, whilst it is considered the proposal complies with HP13, which allows the reinstate of former abandoned dwellings; it is considered the use of this building as a separate dwelling would be unacceptable. This is given the close proximity of "Starley House" and windows which directly overlook the gardens and within the front ground floor window of "Starley House". Accordingly, it is considered the proposal, if considered as a separate dwelling, would significantly and adversely affect the residential amenities of the occupants of "Starley House" due to overlooking, resulting in a loss of privacy
6.21 A condition can be attached to ensure the use of the building for ancillary purposes is maintained in the future. Furthermore, it should be considered to remove Permitted Development Rights to ensure no fencing can be erected to separate the properties.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would be an appropriate level of development which would have no significant impacts upon private or public amenities of the area. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved.
8.0 PARTY STATUS By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 as modified by the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.10.2015 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: The additional accommodation is sited in a position where the Department, having regard to the reasonable standards of residential amenity, access, and planning policies pertaining to the area, would not permit a wholly separate dwelling.
Reason: The application does not propose to create a separate unit of accommodation within the site and has not been considered as such and in the interest of highway safety.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 1 and 2 all received on 19th August 2015.
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 : C Balmer Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraphto the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
