Alterations and erection of extensions to dwelling (amendment to PA 08/02275/B)
Site Address:
Boodee Beg Bride Road Bride Isle Of Man IM7 4AF
Officer's Report
The Application Site
The application site is the curtilage of a parcel of land incorporating a detached two storey dwelling known as Boodee Beg and a cattery, east of Bride Road and south of Bride village. The dwelling lies approximately 27 metres south-east of Ballavair Cottage on Bride Road. The greater majority of the application site – excluding the vehicular access – is separated from Bride Road by a triangular parcel of land siting the application property approximately 29 metres from the highway.
The Proposal
The proposal seeks approval for amendments to previous application 08/02275/B for alterations and erection of extensions to dwelling. The fundamental differences to the previously approved application are:
There will be no porch on the front elevation nearest the public highway (Bride Road);
A single storey extension extending 1.5 metres from the north-west facing side elevation with a gable- end roof will be added, which will be set 1.8 metres back from the building line of the front elevation;
The extension to the south-east facing side elevation will extend 7 metres outwards like the previously approved extension, however all of the extension will be two storey in height with a continuation of the same roof pitch on the existing dwelling as opposed to the previously approved extension that was half two storey and half single storey providing a ground floor sun room;
Two large apertures will be created in the gable-end of the two storey extension to the south-east facing side elevation – a set of bi-folding doors at ground floor and a large glazed facade with balcony railings;
One extra, but substantially larger, gable end will be added the rear elevation; and,
A greater expanse of mono-pitch roofing will be added along the rear elevation.
Case Officer:
Mr Jamie Leadbeater
Photo Taken:
12.06.2012
Site Visit:
12.06.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Officer Delegation
Planning History
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, one of which is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
08/02275/B – Alterations and erection of extensions – Permitted.
Planning Policy
In terms of land use designation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982 the application site is designated as un-zoned ‘white land’ in land-use planning terms, but falls within a designated Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. Environment Policy 2 states:
"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV’s) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
(b) the location for the development is essential".
Housing Policy 15 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)".
Housing Policy 16 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".
Planning Circular 3/91 called ‘Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside’ is an adopted planning document that provides guidance for assessing proposals for extensions to dwellings in the countryside. It includes the following policy that is considered specifically material to this application:
Policy 3 states:
"The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form".
Representations
Bride Parish Commissioners recommend that the application be refused on the basis it would represent overdevelopment of the site.
The Highways Division has recommended approval of the application as it has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
Assessment
The application property in its current form has a mixture of 'traditional' characteristics and 'non-traditional' characteristics, and consequently it is appropriate to assess the proposal against the provisions in Housing Policy 15 and Housing Policy 16 to ensure a balanced and comprehensive assessment is achieved.
The scale of the proposed extension to the south-east elevation of the dwelling is substantially larger in massing terms than the extension approved in previous application 08/02275/B. The current proposal would effectively double the impact of the existing dwelling on the landscape as viewed from Bride Road when approaching from Ramsey, as opposed to the previous proposal that would increase the impact of the existing property by 50%. This is due to the height of the hedge that separates Bride Road from the triangular field in front of the application site limits visibility of the application property to the first floor level and roof only. As a consequence, it is not considered this part of the proposal would enhance the character of the existing property or the surrounding landscape.
The proposed extension to the rear elevation of the property is not visible from Bride Road and as such would not affect public amenity. However, unlike the proposed large extension to the south-east side elevation, it is considered to be more innovative that adds character to the building that has some similarities with the proposal approved in previous application 08/02275/B.
Overall, whilst the proposal has some merits, it is outweighed by the fact it would increase the mass of the application property by approximately 100% as viewed from the public highway. Moreover, the proposed large side extension is not considered to be appropriately proportioned to the existing and is not of a form that enhances the character of the existing dwelling. The large side extension alone would significantly increase the prominence of the property on surrounding Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and subsequently fail to respect its existing character or improve it. In conclusion, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy 3 in Planning Circular 3/91, Housing Policy 16 and Environment Policy 2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and therefore is not considered acceptable.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the planning application be refused.
Party Status
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
The local authority, Bride Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The proposal, in its entirety, would more than double the massing and externally measured floor space of the existing property and as such far surpass the generally recognised optimum figure increase of 50% provisioned in Housing Policy 15 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The increase in mass, in conjunction with the proposed design of the extension on the south-east side elevation does not respect the proportion form and appearance of the existing property - from the public highway or up close. As such, the proposal does not comply with the provisions in Housing Policy 15 and 16 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and therefore should be refused.
R 2. By way of substantial increase in visual appearance as viewed from the public highway (as approaching from Ramsey), the dwelling would become more prominent on the landscape designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, and therefore would not enhance the character or quality of the landscape. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions in Environment Policy 2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and therefore should be refused.
R 3. By way of nearly doubling the proportion of the front elevation of the dwelling as viewed from the public highway, the proposed creation of two different sized gable-ends on the rear elevation, and the creation of a gable-end side extension on the north-west side elevation, the extensions do not maintain the character of the original form. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions in Policy 3 in Planning Circular 3/91 and therefore should be refused.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused
Date of Recommendation:
27.06.2012
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 28.6.12
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed : _________________________ Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed : _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : Donouet Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed : _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
