DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 24/90993/B Applicant: Fraser Reid Design Limited Proposal: Alterations, erection of extensions and landscaping works Site Address: Peace House Lhoobs Road Eairy Isle Of Man IM4 3JA Planning Officer: Graham Northern Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2024 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The form, design, scale and appearance of the proposed extensions are not considered to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing property and would not have a positive impact on the surrounding environment, contrary to Housing Policy 16, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Strategic Policy 5. - R 2. As a result of preliminary site clearance works and the lack of information to inform ecological mitigation, the proposals fail to preserve or enhance the natural landscape and as such are considered contrary to Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Department of Infrastructure Highways - No interest Patrick Commissioners - No Comments received therefore not assessed ___________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of an existing detached dwelling in the countryside, known as Peace House formerly known as Curragh House. The dwelling is approximately 800m along Lhoobs Rd from the Eastern junction with the A24 Foxdale Road. - 1.2 The property is set back from the road however views from the main road are clear of the dwelling. A number of trees and vegetation surround the properties curtilage and its clear that the site has been cleared of some vegetation.

1.3 The existing property is a predominately single storey dwelling raised on a stilted platform which results in living accommodation effectively throughout at first floor level. A garage is the only element that is situated at ground floor and forms a small portion of the footprint as a two storey section and is the more prominent part of the dwelling. - 1.4 The overall design is non-traditional with a flat roof finish and all over timber clad upper level.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current application seeks approval for a number of extensions and alterations to remodel the dwelling. The works proposed would result in accommodation across 3 storeys of the dwelling including a pitched roof. - 2.2 The proposals create a complete ground floor, first floor above and then large gable sto the front and side which accommodate a steep pitched roof and accommodation within. - 2.3 The proposals also result in creating an "L" shaped property due to the enlarged footprint extending the property to the rear. - 2.4 The existing internal floor area of the dwelling is 284 m². The proposals will increase the total internal floor area to 679 m². This represents an increase of approximately 395 m², or a 139% increase in the overall floor area. - 2.5 The proposed plans show that the garage walls which presently exist to the ground floor would be the only walls retained. As such the proposals result in a substantial amount of new build.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There is one previous planning application which is very relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 Approval in principle for the provision of "granny flat" accommodation - 06/01318/A REFUSED

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site sits within and area not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan and as such lies within an area of Countryside. - 4.2 The protection of the countryside for its own sake is of paramount importance as stated in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and the exceptions to this are set out in General Policy 3. The plan also presumes against unsustainable development outside existing settlements in the Strategic Aim Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Strategic Policy 5 requires development to have a positive impact on the environment of the Island. - 4.3 General Policy 2 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. - 4.4 Given the non-traditional form of the existing dwelling regard shall be given to both Housing Policy 16 in assessing the visual impact of the development which 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."

4.4 Housing Policy 14 also references replacement dwellings in terms of size and difference stating:

• Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
• 4.5 It is also recognised that the curtilage of the site sits close to Kion Slieu Plantation and Reservoir, as well as surrounding woodland, therefore regard shall also be given to both Environment Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan which seek to protect local habitats and woodland areas from undue harm.
• 4.6 Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix

3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

4.7 Environment Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." - 4.8 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (b) Protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas. Residential Design Guide (2021) - 4.9 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.

Section 4 of the residential design guide considers house extensions and the following sections are considered of relevance to this application:

• 4.2.2 Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house.
• 4.3.3 In the case of dwellings which form part of a group of properties and which have a prominent appearance within the streetscene, it will be especially important to ensure any extension does not adversely affect either the overall group of dwellings or the individual dwelling.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery; - 5.2 LOCAL AUTHORITY

• Patrick Commissioners - At the time of writing the report no comments had been received and as such it was assumed no objections.

- 5.3 STATUTORY BODIES

• - Highways Services 06/09/2024 - No Interest
• - Ecosystems Officer 11/09/2024 - This application is contrary to Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016: Proposals for development must: (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas. Despite the Planning Statement stating that the proposed extension has been designed to ensure that it does not negatively impact on the existing natural features, the supporting photographs and aerial photography show that much of the site has been recently stripped of semi-natural vegetation, this includes the area where the extension is to be constructed.

Potentially trees above the size required for a felling licence have been removed. Forestry will comment on this aspect separately. Details about the vegetation and trees which have already been removed to facilitate the development should be provided in order to inform the required ecological mitigation. Details of ecological mitigation should also be provided, including new landscaping, bird nest boxes/bricks and measures to prevent bird strikes on clear glass balustrades. It may also be appropriate to include bat boxes/bricks, depending on what vegetation has been removed.

5.5 No comments received from neighbouring properties. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues to consider here are the visual impacts of the proposals on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the visual impacts from public view and the impact on the countryside. It is also necessary to considered whether the proposal would result in any unacceptable harm to biodiversity and trees.

6.2 The existing property is a non-traditional property with a flat roof design and timber cladding the predominate material. Part of the property also having a raised level with stilted supports which offer views underneath the property. - 6.3 The proposed works would more than double the existing internal floor area, from 284 m² to 679 m², a 139% increase over the existing floor area. Character and appearance - 6.4 Whilst the existing property is of a non-traditional design its visual presence is mitigated by the fact the dwelling is made up of low profile subtle forms in terms of a more dominant two storey section and a raised (stilted) single storey section which remains subservient in form under a flat roof. - 6.5 The proposals add a substantial increase in footprint, scale and height to the point whereby the original dwellings form is consumed by the extent of alterations and additions proposed. The height of the new property is more akin to 3 storeys with a projecting forward gable with windows across 3 storeys of accommodation. The roof to ceiling windows to the stairwell to the front also span across three levels and form a very dominating feature. - 6.6 The plans show only a small proportion of the existing building would be retained in the form of the ground section of the two storey part. As such the proposals completely remodel the dwelling and are tantamount to a replacement dwelling. - 6.7 The proposals as such are considered by reason of its scale, form and have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the property and locality in general which would be contrary to General Policy 2 part b), part c) and part g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Residential Design guide which outlines extensions should be subservient in form.

• Visual Impact
• 6.8 The proposals result in a dwelling of substantial greater mass, footprint and height to what presently exists and would result in a far more prominently exposed feature from the road and street scene. The present property whilst non-traditional does have a modest impact visually due to its low profile and two and single storey sections.
• 6.9 The proposals introduce dominating features such as the forward gable and the windows to 3 levels across the frontage which add to the buildings scale when viewed from the frontage.
• 6.10 In addition the sites curtilage has been cleared of vegetation and as per the Ecosystems Officers consultation response which likely included some substantial trees which would have formed screening to the site. As such preliminary works have been undertaken to facilitate the alterations which have resulted in the site being more exposed and visible.
• 6.11 The form, design, size and appearance of the proposed extensions are not considered to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing property and would not have a positive impact on the surrounding environment, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Strategic Policy 5. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable. Biodiversity
• 6.12 Despite the Planning Statement stating that the proposed extension has been designed to ensure that it does not negatively impact on the existing natural features, the supporting photographs and aerial photography show that much of the site has been recently stripped of semi-natural vegetation, this includes the area where the extension is to be constructed.
• 6.13 Potentially trees above the size required for a felling licence have been removed. Forestry will comment on this aspect separately. Details about the vegetation and trees which have already been removed to facilitate the development should have been provided in order to inform the required ecological mitigation. Details of ecological mitigation should also be provided, including new landscaping, bird nest boxes/bricks and measures to prevent bird strikes on clear glass balustrades.
• 6.14 As a result of the site clearance and the lack of information to inform mitigation the proposals fail to preserve or enhance the natural landscape and as such are considered contrary to strategic policy 4 of the strategic plan.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The form, design, scale and appearance of the proposed extensions are not considered to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing property and would not have a positive impact on the surrounding environment, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Strategic Policy 5. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable.

7.2 Additionally the sites clearance and the lack of any supporting ecological mitigation means the proposals fail to preserve the natural landscape and as such conflict with strategic policy 4 of the plan. - 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL

8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);

• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

8.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal _____________________________________________________________________

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 and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 24.10.2024 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.