DEC Decision Notice

Isle of Man

Government S. 111.11.11.11.11.11.11.11

Penketh - Millar 23 West Quay Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1DL

Town and Country Planning Act 1999

The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013

In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order the Department of Infrastructure determined to APPROVE a planning application by Mr \& Mrs Tim Foster, Ref 13/90966/B, for the alterations and erection of extension to dwelling at Elgin Jacks Lane Port E Vullen Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1AW subject to compliance with the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans: Drawing Numbers 129681 (site location plans), 12968 2, 12968 3 (existing) and 129685 (proposed first floor plan) received on 14 August 2013; and Drawing Number 12968 4A (proposed ground floor plan and elevations) received on 14 October 2013.
3. The extension hereby approved shall not be used other than as accommodation incidental to the habitable use of the existing house and shall not be occupied as a separate and independent planning unit.
4. The window on the north east elevation of the extension, shown as serving an ensuite bathroom on the approved plans, shall be fitted at all times with obscured glazing.

Date of Issue: 1st November 2013

M ballayher

Director of Planning and Building Control

Guidance Note

This decision was made by the Development Control Manager in accordance with the authority delegated to her.

This permission refers only to that required under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013.

In accordance with Article 8 of the same Order any appeal against this decision must be in writing and must be received by this Department within 21 days of the date of this notice.

Should you wish to appeal against this decision your request must be in writing, signed by you as appellant, and submitted to the Department within 21 days of the date of this Notice. To further validate the appeal your request must contain:

• Payment of a planning appeal fee as prescribed in an order made by the Department under Section 1(1) of the Fees and Duties Act 1989 (currently £150);
• The reasons for making the appeal; and
• An election to have the appeal conducted by means of an inquiry (a hearing) or by means of written representation.

An appeal form and guidance notes are available from either the Planning Office, Tel 685950, or to download from the Department's website http://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning-development-control/planning-decisions-and-powers-of-appeal/

Please note that a copy of the Officer's report which led to the decision, together with correspondence relative to the application, are available for inspection at the Department.

The proposed development must not be commenced until either;

• The time for requesting an appeal has expired; or
• Any appeal has been determined;

Whichever is the later. If no appeal is lodged within 21 days of the date of issue overleaf, and this decision becomes final, the Department's public reference copy (counter copy) of the planning application may be collected by the applicant or their agent from Murray House.

Please note that if the counter copy of the application is not collected within THIRTY DAYS following the last date on which a planning appeal can be made it will be destroyed without further notice.

Department of Infrastructure, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SFTel (01624 685950) email; [email protected]

(m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.'

1. Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is relevant:

'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).'

Representations

1. Maughold Parish Commissioners - no objection. However, it is requested that the planning committee considers the proximity of the extension to the adjacent property.
2. Highways Division - no objection.
3. Representations - the occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold comment that the dwelling is one of the better (or even best) houses in Maughold and that it really ought to be considered for Registering. The extensions are at the rear and seem un-objectionable.

Assessment

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area

1. The proposal is for the erection of a single storey rear extension to what is a traditionally style property. Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan therefore applies. The existing footprint of the dwelling would be increased from approximately 152 square metres to 197 square metres, an increase of about $30 \%$. Although only single storey, the extension would appear proportionally quite large in comparison with the existing dwelling, particularly because the roof at the rear of the existing dwelling has quite a low pitch. The north east elevation is not especially well resolved, particularly the change in the level of the eaves and the largely blank elevation that the east elevation will present. This elevation would be open to the neighbouring dwelling to the immediate east with no physical boundary between the two. The south west elevation, facing towards the dwelling's garden, is better resolved, and the north west gable has less of an impact.
2. That being said, despite these reservations about the design and size of the extension, particularly with regard to the treatment of the north east elevation, the extension would have very limited impact on the public realm. It would be situated some 35 metres from the road and would be partially screened by the existing roadside hedge. The extension would not have a harmful impact on public amenity. The extension would be very visible from the neighbouring property to the other side of the shared access drive, being exposed to the boundary of the site with no physical boundary between the two properties. However, the design of the extension is not itself inherently poor; perhaps it could possibly be better executed, but it is satisfactory. On balance, it is felt that the design of the extension is acceptable. There would be no harm to the public realm and it is considered that it would not to be in the public interested to refuse the application on grounds of impact on visual amenity.

The effect of the proposal on neighbour amenity

1. The only neighbour whose amenity would be affected by the proposal is that immediately next to the site to the other side of the shared access drive. The distance from the north east elevation of the extension to the facing elevation of the neighbouring dwelling