DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 19/01316/B Applicant: Miss Michelle Garrod Proposal: Erection of glazed porch on front of building to replace timber portico. Site Address: Ballakaneen Chapel Andreas Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4EN Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 19.12.2019 Site Visit: 19.12.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.01.2020 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. The proposed extension in terms of its form, siting, design and finish would adversely affect the character and quality of the converted chapel building and therefore be contrary to General Policy 2 & Environment Policy 34 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide July 2019.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Ballakaneen Chapel, Andreas Road, Andreas which is a converted chapel situated to the eastern side of Andreas Road within the village of Andreas.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of glazed porch on front of building to replace timber portico. The proposal would have a front projection of 3m, a width of 3m and a

• ridge height of 3.6m. The extension would include a dwarf wall with uPVC framing with glazing (windows/door) above with a solid roof.
• 2.2 It should be noted that there does not appear to be any permission for the existing timber portico which is proposed to be replaced by this application.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is within an area of 'residential use', under Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is neither within a Conservation Area nor within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 3.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:- - 3.3 General Policy 2 states: "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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (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;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (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;
• (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;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.4 Environment Policy 34 states: "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred." - 3.5 Residential Design Guide July 2019 states: "HOUSEHOLDER EXTENSIONS

- 3.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

• 3.0.1 House extensions are one of the most common forms of development. Individually and cumulatively extensions can have a significant impact on the quality of the built environment. When altering or extending buildings in order to modernise, adapt, enlarge or extend them the overall character and form of the buildings and spaces around them are affected. Guidance is therefore required to provide advice as to what is acceptable in planning terms.
• 3.0.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IOMSP) indicates that generally house extensions and new houses within areas designated for development will be permitted, providing that they reflect and enhance the appearance of the existing property, adjoining

• properties, and their setting in terms of scale, design and materials. However, there are a substantial number of detailed issues that need to be taken into account in designing domestic extensions. This section provides general guidance on issues that are likely to apply to all forms of extensions, and then more detailed additional advice in relation to different potential types of extensions.
• 3.0.3 The main design elements that should be considered include:

• the relationship to the original part of the building - including materials, design and detailing (such as window materials and proportions);

• o the relationship with adjoining properties, including the building line, roof line,
• orientation, and the slope of the site; and o the pitch, shape and materials of the original roof, including the presence of original dormers and chimneys.

• 3.0.4 All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/main building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, welljudged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed, as the Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context. Such approaches, where well designed, can serve to both improve the sustainability of buildings and significantly improve the appearance of buildings to the general benefit of the streetscene.
• 3.0.5 However, where inappropriately designed, located and finished, such approaches can be harmful to the character of a building and its surrounds, and become a local eyesore. Therefore, in some cases, modern design approaches will not be the most appropriate solution and the character and form of the building and its context may require a more traditional and reserved design approach.
• 3.0.6 It should also be accepted that in some instances it may not be possible to design an acceptable extension due to the sensitivity of the site, limited space, or the relationship with neighbouring dwellings."

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There have been a number of previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: - 4.2 Replacement of existing windows, additional new windows and canopy over new front door (Amendments to previously approved 01/02027/B) - 02/00809/B - Split decision with the proposed canopy being refused on the following ground:

"The proposed canopy would appear as a discordant feature and would be out of keeping with the building."

4.3 Amendments to approved chapel conversion 01/02027B (b) raising of eaves height 03/00620/B - APPROVED - 4.4 Conversion of former chapel to dwelling - 01/02027/B - APPROVED - 4.5 Conversion of former chapel to dwelling including conservatory and car port 00/01967/B - REFUSED on the following ground: "R1. The alterations to the building as proposed, and in particular the proposed dormers, windows, balcony and patio doors, porch and conservatory, would result in a dwelling of nontraditional appearance which would be out of keeping in a prominent location on the edge of the village.

NOTE: This refusal is without prejudice to an application which proposes conversion works that are sympathetic to the appearance of the existing building."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services have no objection to the application (received on 09.12.2019). - 5.2 Andreas Parish Commissioners do not object (30.12.2019).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issue to consider for this application is whether the proposed extension would have a potential adverse visual, impact upon the existing chapel building and/or street scene. - 6.2 As outlined within the previous history section of this report, there have been proposals for porch/conservatories of similar size and location to what has been proposed now; these where refused due to the visual impact. - 6.3 Whilst the property is within an area where there is a presumption in favour for development and extensions to properties, such works still need to be appropriate to the individual property and street scene. With this in mind the Residential Design Guide and General Policy 2 & Environment Policy 34 are required to be considered. - 6.4 The existing traditional converted Chapel, is rectangular and liner in form and currently when viewing the property, its character as a former Chapel building is still clear and present. It is considered if the proposed extension where to be added, this would alter this character and quality of the building resulting in a detrimental visual impact. The front projection located centrally, would unacceptable alter the form and appearance of the converted chapel building and would be an intrusive feature to the linear form of the building. Furthermore, the proposal which is constructed of uPVC and is essentially a conservatory with a light weight roofing system (not natural slate roof as existing) above, in terms of design, size, quality or finishes would be at odds with existing building. The proposal would appear as a modern conservatory you would expect to be found to the rear of a more modern property which is wholly inappropriate for this former chapel building which still retains its quality and character. Clearly, this issue has been raised on previous occasions and the conclusion of the current application is no different. - 6.5 Whilst it is considered the visual impact upon the existing property is unacceptable; it would be difficult to argue the proposal would have a significantly adverse impact upon the street scene. Its position, whilst apparent when passing the site, would not be a prominent feature which would adversely affect the street scene sufficient to warrant a refusal.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Overall, for the reasons indicated within this report it is considered the proposal would not comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide July 2019 therefore it is recommended that the application be refused. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 28.01.2020 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.