Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00534/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Michael Price Proposal: Alterations and erection of extensions to dwelling Site Address: Lough View Cottage Ballasyre Andreas Road Andreas Isle of Man IM7 4EN Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 16.06.2016 Site Visit: 16.06.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO HOUSING POLICY 15, BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a piece of land incorporating a field as well as the residential curtilage of the detached dwelling known as Lough View Cottage, which is situated to the north of Andreas Road as it travels northwest from Ramsey, and roughly 1.2km southeast of Andreas village itself. Lough View is visible from the highway, and access is gained through a gated gap in an existing hedgerow that runs along the boundary between the site and the highway. The entirety of the site, with the exception of the dwelling and a small brick outbuilding adjacent, is grassed over. What appears to be the residential curtilage of Lough View is quite long and narrow, and made to feel rather smaller than it appears on the submitted plans due to the very mature vegetation in the area. The land to the north beyond this appears to be a paddock of sorts. - 1.2 The dwelling is not a traditional Manx cottage but it does exhibit traditional proportions and possesses some charm, partially owing to its diminutive size and being set in what are attractive grounds. The dwelling offers just three rooms on the ground floor, one via an apparent extension with a traditional cat slide roof. A flat-roofed porch to the front was probably originally openfronted, but is now enclosed although still provides the main entrance to the house. The upper windows are set partly within the roofspace, but are not dormers. The roof is finished in natural slate. It appears that the dwelling is constructed of Ballacorey brick. - 1.3 There are other dwellings in the nearby vicinity but the character of the area is very much rural in feel.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 An application seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling on the aforementioned paddock land (PA 87/04330/A) was refused at appeal in 1988. A similar application, which included land to the west (which also included a derelict barn) some years later (PA 94/00502/A) was also refused.
2.2 PA 86/01250/B sought approval for "Alterations to form new vehicular entrance way"; this was subsequently approved and now forms the existing entrance in replacement of one that was previously in place immediately opposite Lough View itself. - 2.3 In 1997, Approval in Principle was granted to PA 97/00092/A seeking the conversion of a barn further north of Lough View; this included (presumably as the residential curtilage) the aforementioned paddock land and was actually the exact same application site as that of PA 94/00502/A. However, on the approval of the full details for that conversion (PA 00/01279/B) did not include the paddock land within the application site at all.
"To one side elevation the extension would appear as a cat-slide roof, while to the other a gable end would be shown. The roof pitch would not match that of the main dwelling. The extension would provide for an extended lounge (to include a study) and a new bedroom and replacement bathroom.
"The walls would be rendered to match the existing, the windows would "be in keeping with the existing" while the rooftiles would be fibre cement in material.
"Only ground floor plans have been provided, which is unfortunate, and doubly so since the Existing Ground Floor plan is inaccurate. The drawings appear to have been photocopied from an original, with some of the width of the kitchen (it would seem from comparison with the Proposed Ground Floor plan roughly 0.5m of its actual width) accidentally removed. This is hinted at by the fact that the kitchen is labelled "kiten" and the Proposed Side Elevation drawing above this appears to be incomplete with the porch roof overhang missing from the drawing. However, since these errors apply most seriously to the Existing plan and to the kitchen where no external works are proposed, it is considered that there is sufficient information on which to reach a decision on the application.
"In the absence of accurate plans and also in the absence of complete floorplans, it is impossible to be certain, but it would appear that the existing footprint of Lough View measures roughly 48sqm, while that proposed measures roughly 77sqm. The proposed increase in the size of the footprint of the dwelling is therefore roughly 60%.
"Also proposed are pitched roofs to the upper windows and the porch; an additional chimney to balance the appearance of the dwelling is also proposed."
"The agent to the application contacted the Department for advice prior to a formal submission, and presented a scheme not dissimilar from (if not identical to) that now under consideration. The Department advised that the proposal was certain to be assessed as being contrary to Housing Policy 15. The agent was provided with a copy of the policy, its supporting text and also a copy of Planning Circular 3/91 ("Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside") for guidance, along with some suggestions - made after consultation with the then Conservation Officer - as to how sensitive alteration to the dwelling could be approached. In view of this, it is surprising that the application has been submitted in the form it has and without any supporting statement.
"Housing Policy 15 is clear that proposed extensions must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. The proposal fails to meet all of these criteria.
"It is important to consider how visible the proposal would be - clearly, where a site is especially prominent, significant attention needs to be paid to a proposal's impact on public amenity - and it
cannot be ignored that Lough View is quite well-screened from the highway against which it sits. However, it is also inappropriate to accept an unacceptable design purely on the grounds that the proposed works would not be easily visible. Such an approach would be contrary to the aim of Housing Policy 15.
"The roughly 60% increase in size would fail to respect the proportion of the existing building. Lough View is, as noted, small and has a certain charm because of this. As such, any extension would need to be sensitively designed to ensure that charm was retained. While it is true that the proposed front elevation would not be hugely changed by the proposals - a small side extension would be the primary difference - this is not the most readily available view of the dwelling, which is actually that of the western (side) elevation where the proposed side elevation would sit. This elevation is very apparent from the highway when travelling southeast through the existing highway access. The sizeable depth in relative terms of the proposed extension to this side of Lough View would be harmfully unsympathetic to the dwelling's existing and appropriate proportions and is therefore considered contrary to Housing Policy 15.
"For similar reasons, the proposed extension would fail to respect the existing form of Lough View. The proposed roof pitch, is significantly different from that of the main dwelling and, again, is proposed on the most publicly visible side of the dwelling. While cat-slide roofs are, traditionally, of a shallower pitch than that of the dwelling to which they relate - and the eastern elevation of the dwelling would give the impression of the extension being a cat-slide - the use of a gable end to the side of Lough View on the most publicly visible elevation would not fail to give this impression and would, in view of its form, fail to respect the existing form of Lough View.
"The extension to the rear is less problematic in that it would give something of an impression as being a cat-slide or similar rear extension of a kind fairly commonly found on traditional rural cottages. However, the fact that both the rear and side elevation are part of the same built form means they are inextricably linked, and any positive light that the rear extension might be viewed in is more than outweighed by the negative effects of the side element proposed.
"The proposed pitches to the upper storey windows and porch are essentially unobjectionable. While flat-roofed porches are perhaps more common in the north, they are as much a feature of a landscape that historically provided good quality slate, which means that flat-roofed porches are fairly well-spread throughout the Island. The principle of a new chimney is welcomed, although it is unfortunate that the existing - and presumably original - chimney is also proposed for replacement. The chimneys are certainly a little short and suffer from a lack of pots, but they are not objectionable in principle and the fact that Lough View is proposed to have two would result in a pleasing balance to the main body of the dwelling. However, none of this is considered sufficient to outweigh the serious concerns raised with respect to the alterations to the proportions and form of the dwelling as proposed.
"Housing Policy 15's reference to the appearance of a dwelling is taken to mean the general finishes of the dwelling, including the windows and rainwater goods and the like. The existing windows are not shown on the Existing plans. However, the site visit confirmed that those that open are in a top-hung casement style with glazing bars. The proposed installation of side-hung casement windows would not fit alongside these, even though the existing windows are neither original nor traditional. The retention of the copings to the main dwelling is welcome, but it is considered that failing to replicate this feature on the proposed extension is a missed opportunity. The proposed use of cement tiles alongside what appears to be existing - and presumably original - natural slate on Lough View itself is inappropriate. The plans do not indicate that there would be any sills beneath the windows, but this would appear to be an appropriate approach given that Lough View at least its original, main element - also offers no sills, highlighting the simplistic way in which the dwelling is detailed. The use of render is acceptable and, probably, given the nature of the building's construction from Ballacorey brick, a necessity. No materials for the rainwater goods are shown so nu judgement can be reached on these.
"Overall, the finishing approaches are considered, on balance, to be inappropriate. The cement tiles and windows proposed would not sufficiently respect the existing appearance of Lough View. The use of render and sill-less windows is fairly unobjectionable, while the lack of detail regarding the rainwater goods is unfortunate - cast iron might be traditional and preferred, but something that replicated this finish would probably be acceptable. However, in view of the objection in respect of the proposed roof tiles and window styles, it is considered that the finishes proposed are sufficiently inappropriate with respect to the existing dwelling as to warrant an objection in respect of Housing Policy 15."
"The proposal to increase the size of Lough View by roughly 60%, (1) in addition to the use of an inappropriate roof pitch relative to that of the main dwelling, (2) inappropriate architectural details relative to those found on the main dwelling and (3) inappropriate finishes relative to those found on the main dwelling are together sufficient to conclude that the application is, on a number of grounds, contrary to Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the erection of a pair of side extensions to the dwelling, and also a new rearward extension, which would also involve the demolition of the existing, small outbuilding. All the extensions would be single storey. As part of the proposals, the existing flat-roofed porch and upper floor windows would each be given a pitch with a gable, while all the windows would be replaced with grey aluminium-framed units. The rainwater goods would also be (galvanised) aluminium. - 3.2 Taking the extensions in order, that to the right (east) would be set at a slight angle to the main dwelling and would reflect the same size, angle and form - although not quite the position - as the existing outbuilding, and would present a gable end to the front elevation. It would be linked to the dwelling by an entirely glazed portion; the extension itself would be finished in red brick similar to the existing outbuilding and natural slate. Floor-to-ceiling glazing panels are shown in the front and rear elevations; the side would be fully brick. Its footprint would measure roughly 15sqm, and it would provide a 'family room'. - 3.3 The complementary extension to the left (west) of the principal elevation would be of similar mass and finish but would be turned sideways with the gable parallel to that of the retained dwelling. There would be an interesting chimney breast feature, which for roughly half its height would be of traditional brick form but for the remaining half apparently stainless steel or similar and forming a more modern flue. The entirety would measure 4.9m in height, relative to the extension's ridgeline height of 4.1m. Either side, the gable would be almost entirely glazed. Its footprint would measure roughly 18.5sqm, and it would provide a living room. - 3.4 The rear extension would reflect something of a cat slide appearance and would replace that which is existing; it would measure roughly 28sqm in footprint, although there is a small 'kink' outwards centrally within that elevation, which is required in order to provide sufficient internal space for an en-suite bathroom. Also proposed within this extension is a new utility room. Above this, and again set centrally, would be a fairly large dormer window, finished in rolled lead, and which would provide a single bathroom for the two bedrooms on this floor that are to be retained. - 3.5 Fitting in between the three extensions would be two areas of patio paving which would 'square off' the footprint of the entire dwelling in plan form, though of course the patio areas would be open and the extension enclosed.
3.6 The agent has provided calculations outlining that the extensions would represent a 70% net increase over the existing floorspace. (The agent also notes that, including the outbuilding, the overall net increase would be 47%, but the Strategic Plan is clear that in making such calculations outbuildings should be excluded - see p118 of Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan.)
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site sits within an area of 'white land' as zoned on the 1982 Development Plan: although it is not always easy to determine the exact position of rural sites on this Plan, Lough View is readily apparent on the map, and it is also clear that it lies near to rather than within an area of Private Woodland. - 4.2 On this basis, and having regard to the architectural style of the dwelling, it is considered that the application should be assessed against Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan, which reads in full as follows:
"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 extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services sought additional information from the agent with respect to access and parking on 27.05.2016. In response to that query, the agent commented by return on the same day as follows:
"The proposed application is simply for alterations and extensions to the existing cottage, the use of the site does not change as a single dwelling so there is no increase in traffic volume.
"There are no alterations proposed to the existing vehicle access or the existing on-site parking and it can be easily seen from the submitted documentation/photographs, that the site has more than adequate parking space and space to manoeuvre vehicles within the confines of the site, so that you can enter and exit the site in a forward gear."
The agent also noted that no objection had been received to the previous application (PA 15/00534/B) on the site.
No response from Highway Services has been made known to the Department in respect of these comments at the time of writing (21.06.2016).
5.2 Andreas Parish Commissioners offered no objection on 21.06.2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 In assessing this scheme, it should be noted that the existing dwelling is in a fairly parlous state of repair - it is understood to be somewhat cold and damp, and the Ballacorey brickwork is failing (as is its wont). However, the applicant is keen to ensure that the existing property remains
6.2 The previous application on the site was palpably unacceptable and refused accordingly. On this occasion, however, the agent (different to that previously) has approached the redevelopment sympathetically and creatively.
6.3 There is a pleasing mix of contemporary and traditional finishes - red brick, contemporary flue, rolled lead, aluminium window frames, render, extensive glazing - that would help retain the existing proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. While it is noted that the dwelling has lost much of its original, traditional character (removal of original windows; change to the porch; render failing), it still retains a very definite sense of charm almost by virtue of its remarkably diminutive size and proportions. Another key part of this charm is the complete lack of formal 'gardening' of the site, and lack of hardstanding for parking, in a manner that may well have been the case many decades ago when it was first built. - 6.4 Although the extensions proposed are not large in themselves, because the dwelling itself is small they do appear rather larger as a result. However, at single storey in height - and with one extension separated by a wholly glazed link - they sit comfortably subordinately from the main dwelling and thereby help its character be retained. The proposed use of (and potential re-use of existing) red brick in the side extensions is also particularly welcome in this regard since the existing outbuilding forms a part of the character of the site. Re-imagining this in the manner proposed is considered to be an appropriate way forward, and particularly so as the extension proposed to almost replicate it would be set at a similar angle to the existing outbuilding and therefore gives the whole a slightly more organic appearance than would a more strictly square / perpendicular arrangement. - 6.5 The outbuilding is further from the dwelling than the extension proposed in its place and, while it is probably beyond repair in any case, to renovate and link it to the main dwelling would probably have resulted in something of a 'stretched' appearance to the front elevation. - 6.6 Considered to be of most concern is the dormer window proposed, which is very large, and would match the ridgeline of the main dwelling. It would be noticeable from the highway and in this sense would be unfortunate as presenting a fairly nondescript development feature. However, there are strong points in mitigation: firstly, views of the dormer would be really quite limited given the hedgerow screening and angle from the highway, as well as to some degree from the proposed side extension (views to the property are up from the road, which sits lower); secondly, any other approach to achieve the desired accommodation space would need far more massing, and could be said to inappropriately 'lose' the original character / appearance of the dwelling, and thirdly the dormer will be finished in rolled lead, which will reduce its dominance by virtue of being both dark but also a traditional finish. No objection is raised to this. - 6.7 The loss of the flat roofed porch and windows might also be viewed negatively by some, with these features being particularly common to the north of the Island. However, the use of pitched roofs will tie in with the gable features of the extensions and, for many people, will probably represent a more traditional approach. - 6.8 The proposal does not affect any other material consideration and it is not considered that any change is required of the existing access or parking arrangements as a result of the proposal.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal represents an appropriate departure from the 50% limit outlined in Housing Policy 15. The existing dwelling's proportion, form and appearance will continue to be easily discerned independently of the proposed alterations and the overall design approach in terms of providing additional interest while being respectful of the opportunities of the site is very much welcomed. - 7.2 Accordingly, it is concluded that the application is acceptable and is recommended for approval.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.06.2016 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawing 16 1163 1, 16 1163 2, and 16 1163 3, all date-stamped as having been received 12th May 2016.
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.
Decision Made : Permitted. Committee Meeting Date: 04.07.2016
Signed : C Balmer Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown