DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/01527/B Applicant: Mr Malcolm & Mrs Anne Corkill Proposal: Alterations, erection of extension to replace existing garage and porch, installation of replacement windows and a detached shed Site Address: Kenilworth Crossag Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3DX Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.02.2021 _________________________________________________________________

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.

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

It is considered that the planning application complies with General Policy 2 and Environmental Policy 35, and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Policy CA/2 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Planning Circular 1/98 and the Residential Design Guide 2019.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the Photographs and Drawing Nos. C/6338/1, C/6338/4 (A), C/6338/5 (A), date stamped and received 16 December 2020.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions, there comments are that there is no flood risk management interest:

Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Kenilworth, Crossag Road, Ballasalla which is a two storey cottage situated to the western side of the A26. The property is set back from the edge of the highway by a vehicle length and sits within its own grounds. To the north is the residential property of Woodlyn and to the south Thie Gennal. To the rear (west) of the site is a service laneway that serves the rears of these properties for pedestrian access and links through to a dwelling Abbey Church House. - 1.2 Kenilworth is a traditional two storey cottage with the front elevation facing south into the garden. The building is effectively bookended with prominent chimneys on both gable ends. From the highway the property is viewed gable end on with a pitched roof, masonry porch and lightweight timber glazed lean-to extending the porch. The detached flat roof garage is opposite the driveway that is linked to the dwelling house with a lightweight structure. The property is bounded by a tall Manx stone wall that connects to Thie Gennal. Parking is available for two cars on the driveway. - 1.3 The dwellinghouse features, portrait shaped window reveals with timber sliding sash, single glazed windows and central glazing bars. The pitched roof is finished with asbestos tiles. To the front elevation (south) is a light weight lean-to glass house structure.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current application seeks planning approval for alterations, erection of extension to replace existing garage and porch, installation of replacement windows and a detached shed. - 2.2 The first element of the proposed works would involve the erection of a side extension to replace the existing garage and porch on the north (right side) elevation of the dwelling. The new extension would be a flat roofed extension that would project from the main dwelling by 3.6m and would run along the entire stretch of the side elevation (measuring 7.9m); only set back about 100mm on the front elevation. This extension will have its external walls finished in painted render, while a hipped roofed lantern 1m x 2m would be installed on the rear section of the flat roof, and over the kitchen extension. A lean to gable wall will be created on the front elevation of the extension and over the flat roof to make the extension appear as a mono-pitched side extension to the dwelling when viewed from the street scene. A new white UPVC French door 1.5m x 2.1m will be installed at the rear of the extension creating access to the rear garden, while new upvc sliding sash windows would be installed on the side and front elevations of this extension. The new extension would serve a new bedroom, a new shower room and an extension to the kitchen. - 2.3 The other element of the works would involve the replacement of the south, west and east elevations with white UPVC sliding sash windows. The existing red asbestos tiles on the roof of the main dwelling would be replaced with slate tiles (colour not indicated). - 2.4 Also proposed is the erection of a timber garden shed to the south west end of the garden south of the dwelling. The shed would measure 3m long, 2.4m wide, with a ridge height of 2.3m. It would have a pitch roof and the external walls would be finished in horizontal timber board cladding. - 2.5 Other works would involve:

• i. Removing the stock on stone on the walls of the front porch.
• ii. Removing the conservatory on the side elevation of the dwelling.
• iii. Replacing the entrance door on the side elevation of the front porch.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is in an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the South. The area is further designated as an 'area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance'. The site also sits within the Silverdale Conservation Area. - 3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.3 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part) 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:

• (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;

• (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; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
• (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;

3.4 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." - 3.5 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The standard specified in Appendix 7 is as follows:

• 'Typical Residential - 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling;

3.6 In terms of other material considerations it is important to consider the following guidance and policy documentation for alterations to buildings within conservation areas; - 3.7 Planning Circular 1/98 "Buildings in Conservation Areas" states: "If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows which would be readily visible from a public thoroughfare MUST HAVE THE SAME method of opening as the originals. Whatever the material used in their construction, the windows MUST HAVE THE SAME patterns and section of glazing bars and the same frame sections as the as the original windows. - 3.8 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) - Policy CA/2, (Conservation Areas); "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."

• Windows not readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same or similar pattern of glazing bars as the originals, but not necessarily the original method of opening, whatever the material used in the construction"
• 3.9 Other Material Considerations; The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which 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 property. This includes specific guidance on rear and side extensions in Section 4.0 titled; Types of House Holder Extension 4.4 talks above side extensions.

• 3.9.1 Section 4.4: Extension to Side Elevation
• 4.4.1 This type of extension is a common extension throughout the Island as many properties are built with an attached garage which can physically accommodate being built above. Generally, the main issues relate to the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring property (see Chapter 7).

• 4.4.2 It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.
• 4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single- storey and two-storey elements.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The application site has been the subject of two previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. - 4.2 PA 20/00712/B for Installation of replacement windows, erection of shed and first floor extension. This was refused in October 2020.

• 4.2.1 Reasons for Refusal: "R1: The proposed design of the two storey extension would has a detrimental visual impact upon the streetscene contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance.

• R2: The proposed two storey extension by its scale, form, design, height and massing would have a negative impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property, Woodlyn, through an over bearing impact, loss of light and overshadowing, contrary to General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guidance 2019.
• R3: The proposed two storey extension by virtue of its scale, form and massing would have a detrimental visual impact upon the character of the streetscene and the Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 35 and the Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/2.

• 4.2.2 The Registered Buildings Officer's Comments on the application stated thus: "I consider due to the scale, form and massing of the proposals that they will be overly dominant against the principle building, the increase in massing will impact upon the spacing of

• the property with that adjacent and will neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area".
• 4.3 PA 20/00713/CON for Registered building consent for demolition elements relating to PA 20/00712/B. This was approved in October 2020.

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

5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in the letter dated 19 January 2021. - 5.2 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division confirms that that there is 'No Flood Risk Management interest' in the letter dated 11 February 2021. - 5.3 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer who had previously written in to request for additional information in a letter dated 2 February 2021, have now written in with the following comments in a letter dated 4 February 2021:

Forward to my previous response. We have now been in communication with the applicant and consider that the risk to bats from the re-roofing is low.

However, we request that the care is taken when the re-roofing is being undertaken and if bats or evidence of bats is found then the work should stop and the Ecosystem Policy Team or Manx Bat Group be contacted.

5.4 Malew Parish Commissioners have indicated that they support the application in a letter dated 4 February 2021.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

• (i) visual impact of the proposed development; (GP2(b) & (c) (RDG'19)
• (ii) the impact upon the neighbouring amenities
• (iii) impact on the Conservation area (EP35 & PC1/98 & PPS1/01)
• (iv) Impact on Highway safety

6.2 Visual impact

• 6.2.1 The proposed extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and would appear as subordinate additions to the main dwelling. Whilst the extension would have a flat roof, the mono-pitched gable wall on the front elevation of the extension would ensure that it maintains the appearance of the main dwelling when viewed from the street scene. As well, the indented front elevation which would be set 100mm behind the position of the existing front elevation would make it appear subordinate to the main dwelling. Moreover, the side extension would be finished to match the main dwelling in terms of the render and window style which are judged to respect the design and proportions of the dwelling and are not considered to have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.
• 6.2.2 In regards to the street scene, it is noted that the streetscene is characterised by traditional dwellings most of which have had extensions to the rear and sides and as such the proposed works would not be out of place. In addition to the above, the extension would be finished in materials and detailing that would match the main dwelling, thereby maintaining the key features which characterises the street scene. Whilst the stuck on stones would be

• removed from the lower sections of the elevations of the front porch, this is not considered to an impact sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
• 6.2.3 The replacement windows with UPVC sliding sash throughout would be a welcome addition to the property as they would reinstate the traditional character of the dwelling. Granting the material used would be modern materials, the method of opening and appearance would reflect that of the existing thus ensuring that the window changes are in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling. In addition, the replacement slate roof tiles which would replace the non-traditional asbestos tiles would be a fitting addition to this traditional property and the street scene which is characterised by traditional slate roof coverings.
• 6.2.4 With regard to the proposed shed, it is noted that the shed would be of a modest scale and would be located within the rear garden of the property which is considerably concealed from public vantage points along the abutting highways due to the position and height of the existing boundary treatment and trees within the site area. It is also considered that its design and finish is timber cladding which is characteristic of most garden sheds on the island would not to have any adverse impacts on the character or appearance of the application property and the area, and would be acceptable for its setting.

6.3 Impact on neighbouring amenity

• 6.3.1 In terms of the impact of the proposed scheme, particularly the side extension on neighbouring properties, it is considered that the property most likely to be impacted would be Woodlyn situated on the northern boundary of the site and only 3.77m from the existing boundary wall on this boundary. Albeit, it is not considered that the proposed extension would have detrimental impact on this neighbouring dwelling given that the side extension would only be 2.8m high (only 1.4m higher than the existing boundary wall) and would have a flat roof which would ensure that there are no overbearing impacts on this neighbour. The position of Woodlyn situated northwest of the extension with the extent of its rear wall almost aligned with the front elevation of the extension would further diminish the possibility of any overbearing impacts to occur. Also, the only window on the north elevation of the extension is a narrow window serving the shower room, which would be considerably constrained by the existing 1.4m wall on this boundary. As such, it is considered that overlooking would also not result from the proposed side extension. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the side extension would not introduce any privacy concerns for the neighbours and there would be no loss of light and impacts on outlook as a result of the side extension; thus the works would conform to GP 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan.
• 6.3.2 It is not considered that the proposed shed would have any impacts on the neighbouring dwellings given its height, screened location and nature of boundary treatment around the rear garden of the property.

6.4 Impact on the Conservation Area

• 6.4.1 The replacement of the existing windows on the dwelling with UPVC sliding sash windows with slim line glazing would be an improvement on the existing as they would be more in keeping with the character of the dwelling; ensuring that this element of the scheme preserves the character of the Conservation Area, aligning with Planning Circular 1/98 and EP35 of the Strategic Plan.
• 6.4.2 The replacement of the roof tiles with slate tiles is also considered to respect the age and character of the property and as such is considered to be an appropriate replacement.
• 6.4.3 The erection of a garden shed would be deemed none contentious and is an acceptable garden structure.
• 6.4.4 On balance, these elements of the proposal would comply with PC1/98, PPS1/01, and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.

6.5 Highway Impact

• 6.5.1 With regard to Highway impact, it is noted that the removal of the existing detached garage would not impact on parking provisions within the site as the dwelling still has sufficient parking for two vehicles. Besides, the comment from DOI Highways clearly indicates that there are no concerns in relation to highway safety or parking. As such, it is considered that the proposed scheme would conform to General policy 2 (h & i) and Transport Policy 7.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would comply with General Policy 2 and Environmental Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/2 and the Residential Design Guide 2019 and as such is recommended for approval. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 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.

8.2 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

8.3 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 a Principal Planner 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: 23.03.2021 Determining officer

Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Principal Planner

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 onlineservices/customers and archive records.