Loading document...
Application No.: 21/01124/B Applicant: Mr John Bean Proposal: Alterations, erection of first floor extension and erection of a detached garage Site Address: Ballakelly Cottage Ballakilpheric Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BT Technical Officer: Mr Thomas Sinden Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 27.09.2022 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The application fails the tests of Housing Policy 15 as the proposals do not respect the form and appearance of the existing property. - R 2. The proposals fail the tests of General Policy 2 as the proposed extension does not respect the form and design of the existing building, and affects adversely the character of the surrounding landscape. - R 3. The application is contrary to Environment Policy 1 as the development would adversely affect the countryside and does not help to preserve the rural character of the countryside. - R 4. The proposed extension is contrary to Policy 3 within Planning Circular 3/91 as it does not maintain the character of the original form. _______________________________________________________________
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Ballakelly Cottage, Ballakilpheric, Colby. The property is a two storey traditional cottage with a single storey extension to the side (south-west) that is partly pitched and partly flat roofed. Also attached to the building is a pitched roof store that projects from the rear of the cottage in a northerly direction. The store and the flat roofed extension are both finished in brick, while the main cottage and pitched roof extension are finished in Manx stone. - 1.2 The dwelling is in the western part of Ballakilpheric, situated a field to the west of Ballakilpheric Farm and the collection of properties near Ballakilpheric Chapel. The property is served by a track which branches off the Ballakilpheric Road at the chapel. The dwelling has a parking area, sufficient for two vehicles, situated directly northwest of the dwelling and to the side of the attached store.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The submitted documentation is somewhat rudimentary in some places, with the angle of the extensions not demonstrated to their full extent, particularly on the 'Proposed Left Elevation' where the north-western gable should appear at least in part. However, the application seeks planning approval for alterations and extensions to the dwelling, essentially raising the side and rear extensions to match the eaves and ridge level of the principal dwelling, creating first floor accommodation to provide two additional bedrooms. The new roof is proposed have a gable on the property's front elevation, with a pitched roof behind on the footprint of the existing extension below. The proposed pitched roofs would be finished in slate, the external walls would be finished in local stone (slate), while the windows, fascias and rainwater goods would be UPVC. - 2.2 The proposed development will also include the erection of a pitched roof garage that would be 8m wide, 8m long and 4m high to the ridge (2.2m to the eaves). The external elevations of this garage are proposed to be finished in Manx slate to match the main dwelling, while its roof would be finished in grey tiles to match the main dwelling. A garage door 2.7m wide and 2.1m high would be installed on the front elevation (south elevation), while a pedestrian access door and window would be installed on the left side (west elevation) of the garage. The garage would be approximately 3.8m from the store at the rear of the dwelling.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES - 3.1 The application site is a domestic curtilage within an area of open countryside that is not classified or zoned for development as identified on the Area Plan for the South 2013. The Landscape Assessment Areas (Map 2) within the Area Plan for the South 2013 defines the surrounding area as Incised Inland Slopes. The site is not within a Conservation Area, not prone to flood risk, is not in a Registered Tree Area, and there are no protected trees on site. - 3.2 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:
3.3 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
Environment Policy 1: 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.
3.7 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are:
Strategic Policy 12, Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 7, Community Policy 10 and Community Policy 11.
3.8 Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside Policy 3: Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guide (2021) is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions. It is envisaged that separate guidance will be provided for dwellings in the countryside, although some of the broad principles set out within this document may still be relevant to such proposals".
5.1 Application 85/00503/B permitted the erection of a storage shed at the property. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Department's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division state that they 'Do not oppose' the application (14.10.2021).
6.2 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners have stated that they support the application (26.10.2021). - 6.3 The Department's Registered Buildings Officer has stated that the proposed roof would have a negative visual impact upon the principal building as a result of its scale, massing and poor architectural form (22.2.2022).
7.1 As the application proposes alterations/extensions to an existing traditionally styled property in the countryside, it is judged that the most relevant policies are Housing Policy 15 and General Policy 2 sections (b) and (c).
7.2 Numerous discussions via email and site visits have taken place with the applicant, their intended contractor and structural engineer regarding the proposals. The applicant is keen to utilise the structure of the existing extensions. This desire has provided a number of constraints on the possible designs. Whilst the wish to utilise existing fabric is positive, it is not considered that the constraints imposed can be used to justify a design that does not otherwise comply with the policies within the Strategic Plan and elsewhere. - 7.3 Given that the roof level of the side and rear extensions are proposed to be raised to the level of the cottage roof, the new roof does have the potential to adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape, as well as the potential to have a negative impact on the property itself. The application proposes to have a front facing gable on the extension, with the roof ridge extending out to meet the gable. It is judged that this front gable clearly fails to respect the form, proportion and design of the existing cottage. This element of the design is also judged to affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape given its unsympathetic form. As such, the first floor extension as proposed is considered to fail the tests of General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan 2016. Given that there is clearly no over-riding national need, the extension is also judged to be contrary to Environment Policy 1 as the development would adversely affect the countryside and does not help to preserve the rural character of the countryside. As the extension clearly fails to maintain the character of the original form, the proposals are also judged to be contrary to policy 3 within Planning Circular 3/91. - 7.4 Strategic Policy 12 states that favourable consideration will generally be given to proposals for improving the quality and condition of the existing housing stock. In this instance, whilst the condition of the host dwelling's extensions could be seen to be improved in terms of its construction, the host dwelling is in generally good condition following recent works. Given the proposed form and the adverse impact this would have on the character of the existing dwelling, any possible improvement to the condition of the extensions is not judged to be sufficient to justify the negative impact. - 7.5 Whilst general policy 2(n) requires a design to have due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption, this is a requirement in addition to the other general policy 2 policies and
not a stand-alone requirement. The requirements within GP 2(b) and (c) still apply. Whilst it is agreed that reusing the existing structure is good practice in this regard and better than starting from scratch, adding any extension will use significant amounts of embodied carbon in the construction materials (including those in the existing roof that is proposed to be removed). When considered along with the materials used and the energy of construction itself, adding an extension, with the additional heated rooms that will be created, is very unlikely to reduce the overall energy consumption of the property when all factors are taken in to account. In terms of general policy 2(n), whilst the requirement to have regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption is to some extent being followed, this does not override the need to comply with general policy 2(b) and (c).
7.6 With regard to the proposed garage, it is considered that given the size, form, location and wall finish, the garage would be an acceptable addition to the property and would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding landscape. In addition to the above, the garage would provide covered parking which would be usable during all weather conditions and may result in a reduction in vehicles visible in the countryside. - 7.7 Given the nature and scale of the proposals, the application is judged to comply with Infrastructure Policy 5 and Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
8.1 Overall it is concluded that the proposals fail the tests of Housing Policy 15 as they do not respect the form and appearance of the existing property. It is also judged that the proposals fail the tests of General Policy 2 as the proposed extension does not respect the form and design of the existing building, and affects adversely the character of the surrounding landscape. In addition, the application is judged to be contrary to Environment Policy 1 as the development would adversely affect the countryside and does not help to preserve the rural character of the countryside. The proposed extension is also judged to be contrary to Policy 3 within Planning Circular 3/91 as it does not maintain the character of the original form. It is therefore recommended that the application is 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:
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 : Refused Date: 27.09.2022 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer 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 online services/ customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
