Loading document...
The application site is formed by the curtilage of the detached property "The Gatehouse" situated on the western side of the Ballaleigh Road, Kirk Michael and part of Field 231019. The dwelling is located so that its front elevation is adjacent to the roadside. The property has an integral double garage and is relatively modern in design.
The application site is located within an area identified as being High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance by the 1982 Development Order.
The proposal should be assessed having regard to Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, Housing Policy 16 and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan:
EP1 sets out that the countryside should be protected for its own sake and that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted. EP2 relates to areas recognised as being of High Landscape or Coastal value and Scenic Significance. It sets out that the protection of the
character of landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that either the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or that the location of the development is acceptable. HP16 applies to non-traditional rural dwellings. It is set out that extensions will only be permitted where this would not increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. TP4 sets out that new highways which serve any new development must be capable of accommodating vehicle and pedestrian journeys in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner.
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Planning application 86/00780/B sought approval for alterations and extensions to provide additional living accommodation and garage. This was refused.
Planning application 87/00520/B sought approval for alterations and extensions to form additional living accommodation and a garage. This was permitted.
Planning application 08/00371/B sought approval for the alterations, extensions and conversion of garage to provide additional living accommodation. This was refused for the following reason:
"The proposed development would remove the current turning area afforded by the garage resulting in vehicles having to turn on the public highway or using private property to undertake this manoeuvre."
Michael Commissioners object to this application. Their objection may be summarised as concerns that the site has been overdeveloped and that the 50% rule appeared to be breached by this application.
The Highways Division does not oppose this application.
The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark Douglas has expressed an interest in this application.
This application seeks approval for alterations, extensions and the conversion of the existing garage to provide additional living accommodation. The existing curtilage would be substantially enlarged to accommodate a new vehicular entrance, driveway and parking/turning area. The extended curtilage would be fenced off from the remaining field. The sod bank which fronts the highway would be realigned so as to be set back in order to attain visibility splays for the new access.
The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application are the impact of the proposed development upon the visual amenities and character of the area and highway safety.
There are two main components to this proposal; the extension and alterations to the building, and the extension of the residential curtilage through the incorporation of part of the adjacent field.
The building is non-traditional in form and the proposed extensions would increase the size and massing of the building. The existing single storey outlet would become two storey and the addition of smaller extensions plus a conservatory would further amplify the buildings presence. It is judged that the impact of the building as viewed by the public would be increased, contrary to HP16. Furthermore, the design of the main extension is such that it would detract from the building and the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
The extension to the curtilage represents the erosion of open countryside. The principle of such a change is contrary to both EP1 and EP2. It is judged that the impact of extending the curtilage,
introducing visibility splays which open up the site frontage and require the realignment of the roadside boundary would be unacceptable. As a result, the proposal would also fail TP4 as the new access would not be in accordance with the environmental objectives of the Strategic Plan.
Refuse.
It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:
Michael Commissioners.
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.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 21.02.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed extensions to the dwelling, which is of non-traditional, would increase its impact as viewed by the public contrary to Housing Policy 16.
R 2. The proposed extension to the residential curtilage represents the erosion of the countryside to the detriment of its character contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2.
R 3. The proposed access which would involve the set back of the existing roadside boundary and the extension of the curtilage would be contrary to the environmental objectives of the Strategic Plan and to Transport Policy 4.
R 4. The design of the proposed extension would not only increase the visual impact of a non-traditional rural dwelling but would also detract from its appearance to the detriment of the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 21/2/11 Signed: [Signature] Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown