DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/00435/B Applicant: Mr John Cubbon Proposal: Alterations and extensions to dwelling formed by earlier approval to reinstate (and extend) Tholtan Site Address: Field 425114 Nancy's Ballaglonney Farm Ronague Road Ronague Castletown Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.10.2022 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. The proposed development is considered disproportionate to the scale, footprint and massing of the existing building, whilst being of a design and built form that would be incongruous to its historic and traditional character. The development further has the potential to appear unduly prominent within the context of the wider landscape, to the detriment of its character. The development is therefore contrary to General Policy 2, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Housing Policies 13 and 15 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the remains of a former dwelling (tholtan), which is understood to have last been occupied approximately 80 years ago, together with a small rectangular shaped parcel of land surrounding the building which would comprise the curtilage of the resultant dwelling.

1.2 The building comprises all four stone walls but no roof, together with both of its chimneys, and comprises distinctive courses of beach stone and white quoins on all corners. The building is noted as being visible from the B42 (Ronague Road) to the south-west but not overly prominent, whilst being set within relative proximity to Ballaglonney farmhouse (150m) to the south, which comprises a fine example of a Manx stone faced cottage. The site is bounded by agricultural fields to the north-east, north, west and south-west, and is therefore relatively exposed within the context of the wider landscape. - 1.3 The site is served by an existing access route running southward toward the B42, which has already been provided following the previous grant of planning permission to reinstate the building as a dwelling in 2015 (PA 15/00448/B). The access has not been included within the red line of the application, which has been submitted on the basis that the 'dwelling', now known as Nancy's, has been established following the abovementioned grant of planning permission and subsequent implementation.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application has been submitted on the basis of comprising alterations and extensions to a dwelling already formed following the previous grant of planning permission to refurbish, restore and extend the existing tholtan to form a dwellinghouse (PA 15/00448/B). The submitted planning statement considers that, given the provision of the new access road which formed part of the previous submission has been undertaken, the permission has subsequently been implemented and the building now comprises a dwelling. - 2.2 In reality, whilst it is accepted that the 2015 permission has likely been implemented, no works appear to have been undertaken to the principle building itself, which remains an uninhabitable ruin of a former dwelling. It is therefore considered that the use of the building as a dwellinghouse has not been established, and indeed would remain unestablished until such works as permitted were largely complete to the point that the resultant dwelling became habitable. It is however accepted that the 2015 permission has been implemented and could be completed, comprising the refurbishment and extension of the building to form an enlarged dwelling. - 2.3 The present submission effectively comprises an alternative scheme to refurbish and extend the building to form an enlarged habitable dwelling. The previous permission would have resulted in a 2 bedroom dwelling, however the accompanying planning statement has claimed that, following consultation with estate agents, it was deemed that a 2-bedroom dwelling would not be viable, and therefore recommended that a 3/4-bedroom dwelling should be designed and pursued. - 2.4 The 2015 permission included the reinstatement of the roof, the erection of a moderate glazed porch on the front elevation with a stone faced single-storey side extension connected to the principle element of the dwelling by a rendered link section with a lowered ridge; equal to the eaves. Such development was considered by the Department to be appropriate and proportionate to the original building. - 2.5 By contrast, the current proposals include the erection of a two-storey side extension, described as a 'barn' in the planning statement, incorporating a pitched roof to be clad in 'dark vertical boarding', with almost the entirety of the south-west facing gable to be glazed. The eaves and ridge of the extension would be set only marginally below that of the principle element of the resultant dwelling. As per the previous permission, the extension would be connected to the historic section of the resultant dwelling by a single-storey rendered link element, albeit of a marginally greater width on the south-west elevation with a greater ridge height roughly equidistant between the eaves and ridge of the dwelling's principle section.

2.6 The proposed treatments to the original section of the current building remain largely unchanged, with only minor fenestration changes on the north-east elevation.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 15/00448/B - Refurbishment, restoration and extension of existing tholtan to form a dwelling house. Approved.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is identified in the Area Plan for the South as 'white land' within the countryside that is not zoned for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area or an area identified as being at risk of flooding. - 4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy

• 1 Efficient use of land and resources
• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
• 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact 11 Housing needs

Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3 General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside Environment Policy

• 1 Protection of the countryside
• 2 Protection of Areas of High Landscape Value

Housing Policy 4 Exceptions to allowing new housing in the countryside 13 Conversion of abandoned rural dwellings to form a new dwelling

Transport Policy

• 4 Highways safety

7 Parking provision Infrastructure Policy

• 5 Water conservation and management

Community Policy 7 Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 11 Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire

4.5 Residential Design Guide (2021) 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. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners - do not support the application on the basis that the proposals represent a significant expansion of the original proposal and would be wholly inappropriate for this rural location (29.04.22). - 5.2 Highways Services do not object, however applicant is advised to consider the installation of cycle parking and an electric vehicle charging point (08.04.22).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

• - Principle of development (SP5, GD3, HP13)
• - Design and visual impact (SP5, GP2, EP1, 2)
• - Residential amenity (GP2, g, h)
• - Highway safety and parking (TP4, 7)
• - Other matters (RDG, CP7, 11 and IP5)

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 The subject building comprises an abandoned former dwelling in the countryside, the reinstatement of which may be permissible in accordance with Housing Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan (2016), subject to the following:

"a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and

• b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where
• c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway.

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 measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."

• 6.2.2 In this instance, planning permission has already been granted for the reinstatement and extension of the building to form a new dwelling, with that permission having been implemented. Likewise, whilst the previous permission was granted under the guise of the previous iteration of the Strategic Plan from 2007, the wording of Housing Policy 13 remains unchanged. Consequently, the principle of development remains acceptable, subject to compliance with the stipulations contained within Housing Policy 13.
• 6.2.3 In line with the previous permission which has been implemented, all 3 of the above referenced stipulations, a - c, are considered to have been complied with and therefore the current proposals remain acceptable in this context.
• 6.2.4 However, the subsequent paragraph which forms an integral part of Housing Policy 13 requires any extensions proposed to be clearly subordinate to the original building, and in particular should not exceed the floorspace of the original building by more than 50%.
• 6.2.5 Although not considered to technically comprise a dwelling in its current habitual state, Housing Policy 15 is also considered to be of relevance in this instance, which requires extensions to existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside to respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Moreover, only in exceptional circumstances will extensions measuring more than 50% of the floor area of the exiting building be permitted.

• 6.2.6 In this case of the current proposals, the proposed 'barn' extension would appear to comprise an identical footprint to that of the existing building, with accommodation at both ground and first floor levels. This would be in addition to the porch and 'link' extension connecting the original portion of the building to the 'barn' extension. Roughly therefore, the proposals extensions would amount to an increase of approximately 150% over and above the floor area of what would have comprised the original Manx stone cottage. Such an uplift in floor area clearly exceeds the maximum thresholds permitted by Housing Policies 13 and 15 by a significant margin.
• 6.2.7 Furthermore, the scale and massing of the extensions, particularly the 'barn' element, effectively replicates the original building in footprint, floor area and scale, and therefore cannot be realistically described as being subordinate to the original building, contrary to Housing Policy 13.
• 6.2.8 Consequently, whilst the principle of the reinstatement and extension to the building to form a dwelling may be acceptable; the scale, massing and footprint of the proposed additions are considered to significantly exceed the maximum threshold permitted by Housing Policy 13. The principle of development is therefore unacceptable in this instance.

- 6.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

• 6.3.1 The previously permitted scheme included a more modest single storey extension, demonstrating a subordinate continuance of built form in line with the existing building, with much reduced glazing and the utilisation of Manx stone for the exterior; all of which is considered to be generally more appropriate and in keeping with the original building.
• 6.3.2 By contrast and as noted above, the scale and footprint of the proposed extensions relative to the original, historic building are considered to be wholly disproportionate. Moreover, the built form and architectural detailing of the 'barn' extension is completely at odds with the traditional and understated vernacular of the original Manx stone cottage, whilst being finished in a form of unspecified composite cladding which would further detract from the character and appearance of the original building. In particular, the use of substantial glazing is not considered to be appropriate, with the built form perpendicular to the original building, thereby creating a further enlarged and exacerbated built envelope.
• 6.3.3 Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and states that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted. Environment Policy 2 adds that within Area of High Landscape Value, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration.
• 6.3.4 The site falls within an area of landscape designated as part of the Incised Uplands Slopes (Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks), with the Area Plan for South stating that the overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, which includes its numerous traditional buildings.
• 6.3.5 Aside from the impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the original building, the proposals further have the potential to result in an unduly prominent form of development within the wider landscape. Indeed, the site is particularly exposed within the corner of an agricultural farm, and whilst the existing building is historic and part and parcel of the wider rural landscape, the resultant dwelling as proposed facilitated by unsympathetic and disproportionate extensions is not. There are strong concerns that the 'barn' extension would clearly stick out in the context of wider landscape views to the north, west and south-east.
• 6.3.6 Given the above, the development is considered to result in a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the historic building, whilst having the potential to adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape. The development is therefore contrary to General Policy 2 and Environmental Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

- 6.4 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

• 6.4.1 The proposed dwelling would clearly afford future residents a high-standard of living, with a generous garden area commensurate with the size of the resultant dwelling. Likewise, given the site's general isolation, no concerns are raised with respect to the impact of the proposals upon residential amenity.

- 6.6 HIGHWAYS SAFETY AND PARKING

• 6.6.1 No objections have been raised by Highways Services over the current application, and indeed the presently consented access has already been implemented to serve the resultant dwelling. Sufficient space would also be evident within the site for in excess of 2 vehicles, in accordance with the adopted parking standards. The proposals are therefore compliant with Transport Policies 4 and 7. The proposals are therefore compliant with General Policy 2 (g) and (h).

6.7 OTHER MATTERS

• 6.7.1 No concerns are raised in relation to the design and layout from the perspective of criminal activity or the spread of fire. Whilst the development included the creation of a new dwelling at the site, it is not expected that the water usage associated with the development will be significant, and therefore there are no new issues in this respect. With respect to drainage, no information has been provided with respect to surface water run-off from noting 'natural wastage' on the application form. Further detail would have been requested in this respect had planning permission be recommended for approval, or indeed controlled by condition. Likewise, foul sewerage is noted on the application form as being disposed of via a septic tank, which is considered acceptable in this location.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development, whilst acceptable in principle and providing a high standard of living for future occupants without detriment to the amenities of surrounding properties, is considered disproportionate to the scale, footprint and massing of the existing building, whilst being of a design and built form that would be incongruous to its historic and traditional character. The development further has the potential to appear unduly prominent within the context of the wider landscape, to the detriment of its character. The development is therefore contrary to General Policy 2, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Housing Policies 13 and 15 of the Strategic Plan (2016). - 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

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: 07.10.2022 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.