Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 24/91400/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Joe and Susie Faragher Proposal: Alterations including replacement front porch, extensions to South East and South West elevations, and conversion of garage to provide additional living space Site Address: Woodlands Summerhill Road Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3BR Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.04.2025 _________________________________________________________________

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal complies with policies EP1, GP2, GP3 and H15 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and is recommended for approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information; The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings:

• Drawing No. F/8113/2 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan, Elevations, and Sections;
• Drawing No. F/8113/3 - Site Location Plan, and Proposed Block Plan; _________________________________________________________________

Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Department of Infrastructure Highways Services - No objection. Jurby Parish Commissioners - No comments received. Neighbours - none - no comments received.

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of Woodlands, a single storey, detached dwelling, located on the west side of Summerhill Road, Jurby. It is has white painted render finish under a double roman tiled roof. It has an integral garage and a conservatory style front porch to its front elevation. It is set back from the road with mature trees in the sod bank roadside boundary. A similar, older single storey dwelling lies adjacent to the north, whilst a workshop building with independent access stands to the side and rear of the application dwelling. Other than these neighbouring structures, the surroundings are rural and in planning terms the site lies in the open countryside.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for alterations including the replacement of the existing front conservatory/porch, single storey extensions on the South East and South West elevations to provide a new lounge and kitchen with the lounge having a vaulted ceiling and the kitchen a flat roof with a roof lantern on top, and the conversion of the existing integral garage to provide additional living space comprising a new dressing room and enlargement of bedroom 1. New roof-lights are proposed to be inserted in the existing front (5 No.) and rear (3 No.) roof-slopes, and in either side of the new rear extension roof-slopes (2 each side). The existing window proposed to serve the en-suite shower room serving Bedroom 1 is proposed to be reduced in width from 3 casements to 2. - 2.2 The new porch and covered area to the front of it to be attached to the front elevation to replace what is effectively a wrap around conservatory, would measure approx. 2.6m wide x

• 2.0m deep x 2.4m eaves height and 3.6m ridge height. It would be constructed in materials to match the existing dwelling.
• 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the North and West as land not designated for a particular purpose, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site area is not prone to flood risks. There are no registered trees on site, and the site is not within a registered tree area. - 3.2 The Isle of Man Landscape Character Appraisal 2008 describes the area as:

• 3.2.1 The Lehn (F2):

"THE LHEN UNDULATING LOWLAND PLAIN Key Characteristics

• o Predominantly arable farmland, delineated by a combination of stone walls and low Manx hedgerows.
• o Mixture of small to medium, relatively regular rectangular fields.
• o Flat, to gently sloping, landscape which falls from south to north towards the sea.
• o Several narrow, single-track lanes which connect the area with the beaches and coastal strip to the north.
• o Scattered and isolated settlement pattern, consisting of several traditional Manx stone buildings.
• o Generally few vertical elements.
• o Open and glimpsed views to sea from several locations within the area.
• o Civic Amenity waste site at Ballacallow
• o Glen Truan Golf Course
• o In places, the ruins of former farm buildings, set against the dramatic distant upland backdrop, provides strong recognisable character and sense of place.

• Key Views
• o Open and glimpsed views northwards towards the sea from several locations along the A10 road corridor.
• o Distant backdrop of uplands within views southwards.
• o Open views across the sea (and adjacent coastal strip) from the western ridge.

3.3 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However given there is an existing dwelling on the site, it is relevant to consider Housing Policy 15 which guides extensions to traditional dwellings in the countryside. - 3.4 Housing Policy 15: "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)." - 3.5 Paragraph 8.12.2: Extensions to properties in the countryside As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property. In the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this. In addition, Housing Policy 16 advises:

"Housing Policy 16: 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."

3.6 Since the site has an established residential use and the site is within a location with existing properties, it would also be relevant to consider the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Planning Circular 3/91 (Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside) is considered relevant. The section on 'Proportions and Form' on page 4 provides advice on how to make variations to the floor area of traditional buildings (extensions).

• 4.1.2 Policy 3 states: "The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of the traditional farmhouse. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form".
• 4.1.3 Policy 4 states: "External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials".

The supporting texts to policy 4 states that "Modern construction and materials may be used to achieve a similar external appearance".

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 This property has been the subject of a number of previous applications which are considered relevant in the determination of this application.

5.2 96/00872/B - Erection of a white uPVC conservatory, Woodlands, Summerhill Road, Jurby. Permitted - 23.10.1996. - 5.3 91/00047/B - Construction of garage for storage of agricultural machinery, Woodlands, Summerhill Road, Jurby. - Approval granted . - 5.4 90/00219/B - Construction of garage/store extension, Woodlands. Summerhill Road, Jurby.

• Refused.

5.5 89/01460/B - Construction of garage, Woodlands, Summerhill Road, Jurby - Refused on Review. - 5.6 89/01192/B - Alterations and extensions, Woodlands, Summerhill Road, Jurby - Permitted. - 5.7 86/00989/B - Alterations and extensions to form garage, front porch and W.C., and widening of vehicular access, Woodlands, Summerhill Road, Jurby - Permitted.

- 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 HDC - Highways (3.2.25) - replies that: "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as at least 2 off street parking spaces will remain once the proposals are implemented."

6.2 Jurby Parish Commissioners - no comments had been received by the Report Drafting stage (14/4/25). (13.6.24) - 6.3 No comments have been received from occupants of any neighbouring/nearby properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• a. Principle of development
• b. The visual impact of the proposal (HP 15, GP2);
• c. Impact on neighbouring amenity (GP2);
• d. Impact on Highways (TP 4 & EP 16); and
• e. Impact on site ecology (EP 4).

- 7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

• 7.2.1 The site comprises an existing, detached, single storey dwelling with integral garage located in the open countryside which has been lawfully erected. Polices GP3 and ENV1 are of relevance as is Policy H15 which indicates that: "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)."

• 7.2.2 Policy H16 indicates that: "Housing Policy 16: 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."
• 7.2.3 It is noted that the dwelling has previously been extended in 1986 and 1989 to provide a garage, front porch and W.C., along with the widening of vehicular access; and, in 1996 via the erection of a white uPVC conservatory. It is likely that the proposed extensions would in conjunction with those previously approved and added to the dwelling would breach the 50% floor-space provision element of Housing Policy 15. It would comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 16 given that the extensions would be sited to the rear of the dwelling and would not be readily visible from any public vantage point along Summerhill Road.
• 7.2.4 It is considered that the principle of development conflicts with the provisions of Housing policy H15 and that consideration of the visual impact6s of the proposals I in respect of "Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)." Element of this policy would be the determining factor bearing in mind the extensions would comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 16.

- 7.3 VISUAL IMPACT ON EXISTING DWELLING AND THE SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE

• 7.3.1 In terms of the visual impacts of the proposed works on the existing dwelling, it is considered that the proposed extensions which would be located on the rear elevation of the dwelling, respect the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and would appear as a subordinate additions to it. The ridge height of the pitched roof of the proposed lounge would be lower than that of the main dwelling, and therefore, not seen from the road. Whereas the new flat-roofed kitchen extension is considered to be more contemporary in design, it is considered that it would complement the mew lounge extension and would in part be screened by both it and the main dwelling from public views. It would also be screened in part by the separate garage/workshop that forms part of the property located to its side and rear on the south side. Notwithstanding, the flat roof finish, the extension with lantern, atop both extensions would be located to the rear of the dwelling and would ensure that its key features are not obscured by these additions. Thus, they would appear as a contemporary but subordinate addition to the dwelling.

• 7.2.2 It is also noted that the flat roofed extension which would involve the addition of a basic form to the rear of the dwelling is somewhat at variance with Policy 3 of Planning Circular 3/91 which does not support the addition of basic forms to traditional properties. This is noted. The dwelling is single storey, and the new extensions to be added to the rear would be unobtrusively attached to the existing dwelling.
• 7.2.3 With regard to potential impacts on the character of the surrounding countryside, it is considered that the proposed works would modernise the appearance of the existing property, whilst being erected in a position on the property where they would not be prominent when viewed from the surrounding countryside. The proposed extensions in terms of their proportion, form, scale, and design are in keeping with the property and would not detract from the appearance of the property, and would make them a fitting addition to the site and area.
• 7.2.4 In respect of the front replacement porch to be attached to the front elevation, this would replace what is effectively a wrap-around conservatory across the existing front door. It would measure approx. 2.6m wide x 2.0m deep x 2.4m eaves height and 3.6m ridge height. It would be constructed in materials to match the existing dwelling. This would represent an improvement on the existing arrangement and in visual terms is considered to be acceptable.

• 7.2.5 The development would not result in the loss of any surrounding trees or impact on any tree on site, ensuring that the development does not cause harm to the visual amenity of the locality or surrounding countryside. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal is acceptable and would not adversely affect the openness of the countryside or harm the character and quality of the landscape comprising the site and its surroundings and, therefore, complies with policies EP 1, GP2, GP3 and H15 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 7.3 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

• 7.3.1 With regard to impact on neighbouring dwellings, the site is in a relatively isolated position in the countryside. There is one neighbouring residential property within close proximity to the site, and the proposed rear extensions and new porch would be attached to the host dwelling away from the neighbour. The neighbours residential amenities would be unaffected by the proposed development. This complies with policies EP 22 and EP23 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

7.4 HIGHWAY IMPACT

• 7.4.1 With regard to Highway impact, Highway Services HDC found it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as at least 2 off street parking spaces would remain once the proposals are implemented. It is considered that there would be no adverse impacts on parking or highway safety resulting from the proposal. This complies with policies T4 and T7 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

7.5 IMPACT ON SITE ECOLOGY

• 7.5.1 In terms of impacts on ecology or biodiversity within the site, it is also important to establish if any real harm would result with respect to ecological and environmental concerns, no vegetation would need to be removed to facilitate the erection of the extensions. In this case, it is considered that the scale of the proposed works and provision of the 2 contiguous rear extensions, and the replacement front porch would not result in any impacts on biodiversity within the site, and the retention of the rural character of the site will remain considerably unchanged. This complies with the provisions of policy and ENV4 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with policies EP1, GP2, GP3 and H15 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and is recommended for approval. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 9.2 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

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 : Permitted Date: 15.04.2025 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.