Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00520/B Applicant: Mr Richard Stanley & Mrs Jennifer Stanley Proposal: Alterations and additions including extension over existing garage Site Address: Park Farm Clannagh Road Santon Isle of Man IM4 2HP Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 21.06.2017 Site Visit: 21.06.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Park Farmhouse, which a detached dwelling with an irregularly shaped footprint situated immediately adjacent the Clanna Road highway in a rural part of Santon. The dwelling is largely two-storey but an attached garage is single storey. The main element of the dwelling is linear but the garage is set at right angles to it. This garage is immediately adjacent the highway and it, along with the mature trees here, effectively screen the dwelling from the highway.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an extension above the aforementioned garage, which would provide for an additional en-suite bedroom and box room. - 2.2 The extension would be finished in a pitched roof to match that of the present garage, with the ridgeline 0.2m higher than that of the main dwellinghouse, though the eaves of the extension would be identical to the height of the roof apex of the present garage. There would be windows inserted in each of the four elevations, along with a single small rooflight, with a further 'optional port hole window' within the side gable wall. Following discussion between the Department and the agent, faux window reveals are now proposed in the first floor to match the size and positions of those already in place on the ground floor. Also amended following discussion with the Department was the application site, which was originally submitted to include agricultural fields but was amended to refer only to the curtilage of the house. The amended plans were circulated for a short period for information as the changes from the original submission were limited; although the application site was amended quite significantly, this amendment reduced the land the subject of the application and therefore was not deemed sufficient to warrant the application's readvertisement as might normally occur with such a change. - 2.3 The extension would be finished in render and natural slate in a manner to match the main dwelling house. - 2.4 An existing en-suite bedroom would be rearranged internally to allow a corridor access to the new rooms, but this would not result in any additional external alterations beyond those described above.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous applications seeking approval for various alterations to the dwelling and also in respect of the associated agricultural enterprise. The dwelling does not appear to have an agricultural tie, however. The applications
include the erection of a new porch with chimney stack (PA 98/00442/B), associated alterations and extensions and the erection of a garage (PA 98/00091/B), further porches (PA 00/01154/B) and further extensions (PA 07/01647/B).
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area of 'white land' not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan. - 4.2 Given the appearance of the dwelling, while it is not judged to be specifically of poor form, it is also not judged to be traditional. It is accordingly considered that the proposal should be assessed having regard to both Housing Policies 15 and 16 of the Strategic Plan. - 4.3 The former states: "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)." - 4.4 The latter states: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the DOI offered no objection on 05.06.2017, while Santon Commissioners also offered no objection on 15.06.2017 having initially sought a deferral on 01.06.2017.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The existing dwelling does not exhibit any especial architectural merit, but it is also not of poor form. This application should demonstrate that the proposed changes do not increase the impact of the building as view by the public, and it is to be noted that the part of the dwelling where the works are proposed is perhaps the most publicly visible element. - 6.2 The additional mass as proposed would result in the dwelling being almost entirely at the same height. There is nothing inherently negative about this, with the dwelling's varied elevational treatment being retained with the finishes of painted render and natural slate roofs helping give a welcome uniformity to the dwelling overall. That the upward extension would be higher than the main dwelling is perhaps slightly unfortunate, but where there are different heights on a dwelling it is a matter of fact that one part will be higher than another. Generally this is preferred to be the larger element such that the smaller elements are more subordinate, but the difference that would result here would be only 0.2m and therefore cannot be considered significant. - 6.3 The use of faux window reveals within the first floor will add welcome interest to what would be the highway-facing elevation, reducing the starkness of the overall massing in a very welcome manner. - 6.4 Overall, the resulting visual impact is judged acceptable in the context of the two Housing Policies of the Strategic Plan; while the extension will give the dwelling a greater visual impact in terms of its massing, this impact is not concluded to be negative.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In view of the favourable conclusions reached in respect of the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan and the application is, therefore, 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: 27.06.2017 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 Drawings 1 and 3, both date-stamped as having been received 11th May 2017, and also to Drawings 2 Rev A and 4 Rev A, both date-stamped as having been received 14th June 2017.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 29.06.2017 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown