Loading document...
Application No.: 09/01601/B Applicant: Mr Norman West Proposal: Alterations and erection of an extension to dwelling house Site Address: Ballasleig Croft Ballacorey Road Andreas Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee : Andreas Parish Commissioners Notes: no objections.
The application site comprises the curtilage Ballasleig Croft, Ballacorey Road, Andreas, which is a two storey traditional two storey Manx farmhouse, located on the northern side of Ballacorey Road and southeast of Andreas Village.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policy is relevant in the consideration of the application:- "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 of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Erection of two detached timber agricultural buildings - 09/01607/B - PENDING CONSIDERATION
The application seeks approval for alterations and erection of an extension to dwelling house. The extension to the northeast gable elevation of the existing dwelling would have the appearance of a two storey property, with the same ridgeline as the existing which forms part of a two storey dwelling. However, the extension internally only has a single floor level (ground floor), as the applicant wishes the extension to be an open plan space within the extension.
The extension would have a width of 9.6 metres, a depth of 7.3 metres and a ridgeline height of 5.2 metres.
The existing property is a traditional Manx farmhouse design with three windows set above a central door way at ground floor level, render finish and with a cat slide roof to the rear. The proposal in terms of massing and form follows the existing property; however, the ground floor elevations are made up of entirely glazing, with the external finish of the elevations being timber boarding with a small dwarf wall finished with Manx stone.
Attached to and wrapping around the north and east elevations of the extension would be a timber lean-to covered terrace, which projects approximately 3 metres from the extension elevations, with a maximum height of 3.4 metres.
Andreas Parish Commissioners:- "No objections." Highways Division do not oppose:- "Has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications."
The first issue is the relevant Housing Policy to consider for this application. From studying the plans and from visiting the site it is clear that the property is a traditional two storey Manx farmhouse. Whilst the property is not in the best state of repair, the overall vernacular and appearance is traditional. Therefore this application should be considered with Housing Policy 15.
This policy states 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 of the existing building in terms of floor space.
The applicant states that this proposal given the open plan nature of the ground floor, and consequently no first floor, should be considered as a single storey extension.
If this was the case the proposal would be an increase of approximately over the existing floor space. This is slightly above the generally permitted which is allowed, therefore contrary to Housing Policy 15.
Housing Policy 15 seeks to control the inappropriate extensions of properties in the countryside and uses a increase as a means of doing this. Whilst the proposal would be open plan internally, externally it is very clear the proposal appears as a two storey property, as the existing dwelling.
It is not considered acceptable that just because the internal workings are not over two floors that this can be considered as a single storey extension, especially when the design, height and window fenestration at first floor level, all result in making the property visually two storeys in appearance.
The external appearance of a property and the impact upon the amenities of the countryside is the priority for the Planning Division when determining extension of this type. If this type of development was accepted as being appropriate, then this could result in much larger extensions and built development in the countryside, with significantly less floor space, therefore having an impact upon the traditional character and appearance of the existing property and having a significant visual impact upon the countryside. This view is considered contrary to Paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan states:- "...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."
Furthermore given the inclusion of first floor windows and roof lights within the extension, it could be quite possible to install a first floor without planning permission. On the other hand, if an extension was submitted when the proposal was finished for additional roof lights/dormers, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal given the two storey aspect would be in place.
If a first floor was in place, which would have more space than the existing dwelling at first floor level, then this would result in an approximate in terms of floor space over the existing property.
Dealing with the design, any extension to a traditional dwelling requires policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 to be considered. These policies deal with the design, proportion and massing of the proposed dwelling.
As indicated previously, the proportion and massing of the proposed extension are in keeping with the existing property and therefore are in compliance with Planning Circular 3/91. However, the finish, the large amount of ground floor glazing and the inclusion of a sizeable covered terrace would not comply with this policy.
The applicants have indicated that the Strategic Plan indicates that of Planning Circular 3/91 is to be "revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement", as the current circular is out of date and needs upgrading. Whilst this is the case, until this has been undertaken the policy is the relevant policy to consider in terms of design.
The applicants have indicated that they did consider the replacement of the existing dwelling with the replacement of an innovative, modern design property (Housing Policy 14), however they did not wish to demolish the existing cottage. Consequently, the proposal entails the retention of the existing property, but with a more modern contemporary approach given the amount of ground floor glazing.
It should be noted that Housing Policy 14 does allow the replacement with an innovative, modern design property; however this is when the dwelling is being replaced. This is not the case as the proposal is an extension, and therefore should be in line with Planning Circular 3/91.
The dwelling is located approximately 340 metres northwest of the Ballacorey Road, and is well screened from public view given substantial landscaping around and within the site. An argument could be made that due to the dwelling being screened from public view, then the proposed extension in terms of design and size, whilst contrary to the relevant planning policy could be
considered acceptable. However, the policies are in place to ensure appropriate development throughout the Island even to properties which are very well screened from public view.
RECOMMENDATION
It is considered that the proposal would not comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) for the reasons set out in this report, accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Recommendation
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that the extension in terms of design and size increase would not respect the traditional appearance of the existing property detracting from the existing character of the property and from the visual amenities of the countryside.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused
Date : ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Application No. : 09/01601/B Applicant : Mr Norman West Proposal : Alterations and erection of an extension to dwelling house Site Address : Ballasleig Croft Ballacorey Road Andreas Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Senior Planning Officer
Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose
Consultee : Andreas Parish Commissioners Notes: no objections.
The application site comprises the curtilage Ballasleig Croft, Ballacorey Road, Andreas, which is a two storey traditional two storey Manx farmhouse, located on the northern side of Ballacorey Road and southeast of Andreas Village.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policy is relevant in the consideration of the application:- "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 of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Erection of two detached timber agricultural buildings - 09/01607/B - PENDING CONSIDERATION
The application seeks approval for alterations and erection of an extension to dwelling house. The extension to the northeast gable elevation of the existing dwelling would have the appearance of a two storey property, with the same ridgeline as the existing. However, the extension will not be two storeys, as the applicant wishes the extension to be an open plan space within the extension.
The extension would have a with of 9.6 metres, a depth of 7.3 metres and a ridgeline height of 5.2 metres.
The existing property is a traditional Manx farmhouse design with three windows set above a central door way at ground floor level, render finish and with a cat slide roof to the rear. The proposal in terms of massing and form follows the existing property; however, the ground floor elevations are made up of entirely glazing, with the external finish of the elevations being timber boarding with a small dwarf wall finished with Manx stone.
Attached to and wrapping around the north and east elevations of the extension would be a timber lean-to covered terrace, which projects approximately 3 metres from the extension elevations, with a maximum height of 3.4 metres.
Andreas Parish Commissioners:- "No objections." Highways Division do not oppose:- "Has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications."
The first issue is the relevant Housing Policy to consider for this application. From studying the plans and from visiting the site it is clear that the property is a traditional two storey Manx farmhouse. Whilst the property is not in the best states of repair, the overall vernacular and appearance is traditional. Therefore this application should be considered with Housing Policy 15.
This policy states 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 of the existing building in terms of floor space.
The applicant states that this proposal given the open plan nature of the ground floor, and consequently no first floor should be considered as a single storey extension.
If this was the case the proposal would be an increase of approximately over the existing floor space. This is slightly above the generally permitted which is allowed, therefore contrary to Housing Policy 15.
Housing Policy 15 seeks to control the inappropriate extensions of properties in the countryside and uses a increase as a means of doing this. Whilst the proposal would be open plan internally, externally it is very clear the proposal appears as a two storey property, as the existing dwelling.
It is not consider acceptable that just because the internal workings are not over two floors that this can be considered as a single storey extension, especially when the design, height and window fenestration at first floor level, all result in making the property visually two storeys in appearance.
The external appearance of a property and the impact upon the amenities of the countryside is the priority for the Planning Division when determining extension of this type. If this type of development was accepted as being appropriate, then this could result in large extensions in terms of external appearance, and having a significant impact upon the traditional character and appearance of the existing property and having a significant visual impact upon the countryside due to an increase in built development.
Furthermore given the inclusion of first floor windows and roof lights within the extension, it could be quite possible to install a first floor without planning permission. On the other hand, if an extension was submitted when the proposal was finished for additional roof lights/dormers, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal given the two storey aspect would be in place.
If a first floor was in place, which would have more space than the existing dwelling at first floor level, then this would result in an approximate in terms of floor space over the existing property.
Dealing with the design, any extension to a traditional dwelling requires policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 to be considered. These policies deal with the design, proportion and massing of the proposed dwelling.
As indicated previously, the proportion and massing of the proposed extension are in keeping with the existing property and therefore are in compliance with Planning Circular 3/91. However, the finish, the large amount of ground floor glazing and the inclusion of a sizeable covered terrace would not comply with this policy.
The applicants have indicated that the Strategic Plan indicates that of Planning Circular 3/91 is to be "revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement", as the current circular is out of date and needs upgrading. Whilst this is the case, until this has been undertaken the policy is the relevant policy to consider in terms of design.
The applicants have indicated that they did consider the replacement of the existing dwelling with the replacement of an innovative, modern design property (Housing Policy 14), however they did not wish to demolish the existing cottage. Consequently, the proposal entails the retention of the existing property, but with a more modern contemporary approach given the amount of ground floor glazing.
It should be noted that Housing Policy 14 does allow the replacement with an innovative, modern design property; however this is when the dwelling is being replaced. This is not the case as the proposal is an extension, and therefore should be in line with Planning Circular 3/91.
The dwelling is located approximately 340 metres northwest of the Ballacorey Road, and is well screened from public view given substantial landscaping around and within the site. An argument could be made that due to the dwelling being screened from public view, then the proposed extension in terms of design and size, whilst contrary to the relevant planning policy could be considered acceptable. However, the policies are in place to ensure appropriate development throughout the Island even to properties which are very well screened from public view.
It is considered that the proposal would not comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) for the reasons set out in this report, accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.
PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Andreas Parish 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: 01.07.2010
R 1. The proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that the extension in terms of design and size increase would not respect the traditional appearance of the existing property.
Do you want to add anything about visual impact on the community? I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date :
Signed : Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown