Loading document...
The application site forms the residential curtilage of Baldromma House, Maughold, which is located on the eastern side of the Maughold Village and southwest of Maughold Church. The existing property is a traditional two storey property which has had a single storey extension undertaken a number of years ago.
The application seeks approval for the erection of a first floor extension to the eastern elevation of the dwelling.
The proposal would have a side projection of 5.7 metres, a width of 5.2 metres and a maximum ridge height of 7.8 metres. The proposal would be designed and finished to a tradition form.
The site has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being "white land" not zoned for development; being within Maughold Conservation Area, but also within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
"Environment
Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
"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)."
"Environment
Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
PLANNING HISTORY The following planning application are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: Alterations and extensions to create a new porch and study - 95/01044/B – APPROVED Construction of new sun room, new cattle grid, and erection of satellite dish with aerial - 93/01271/B – APPROVED REPRESENTATIONS Maughold Commissioners have no objection.
Highways Division have no objection:-
"Has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications."
The Water and Sewerage Authority make no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The starting to point is the consideration of Housing Policy 15 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. The policy goes on to indicate that only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space.
The proposal equates to a 12% increase over the existing floor area. Consequently the proposal would be well below the 50% threshold and therefore from this aspect the extension would be acceptable.
In terms of design, the proportion and form of the extension would be in keeping with the existing traditional property.
The new proposed uPVC casement windows would not match the method or size of the original windows within the main part of the dwelling house. However, this is not possible to undertaken given the height of the extension. The extension could be increased in height to have a ridge level the same as the existing dwelling house (i.e. not have a setback), however, it was felt this would not be an appropriate form of development and the proposal would be better in terms of a overall design.
For these reasons it is considered the proposal would comply with Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
In terms of the proposed extension and the impact upon the Conservation Area, Environment Policy 35 needs consideration. This policy indicates that the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.
The proposal would be sited in a position which would be apparent from public view, especially when viewing Maughold Village from the south. However, as indicated previously, the design, proportion and form of the extension would be appropriate and in keeping with the visual amenities of the existing traditional property and therefore will ensure the proposal would not adversely affect the character and quality of the Conservation Area as a whole.
The Conservation Officers has considered the design of the extension and window fenestration in the context of Maughold Conservation Area and the existing traditional property and has no objection.
Overall, for these reasons it is considered the proposal would preserve the character or appearance of the Area complying with Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
In terms of potential impacts upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, namely Baldromma Cottage which is a single storey modern bungalow located approximately 6.5 metres northeast of the proposed extension (closest point). The proposed extension would face on the blank gable end wall of this property, and would not have any significant loss of light to any window which serves this property.
The proposal would increase the overbearingness of the property, partially when viewed from the side garden. However, it is considered the significance of this impact would not to be substantially more than the existing situation, or enough to warrant refusal on this ground.
No windows are proposed within the northeast elevation of the extension; therefore the proposal would not give raise to overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. The proposal would result in a new bathroom window at first floor level within the southeast elevation of the main part of the dwelling house. This would look directly towards the garden areas of the property. Therefore a condition requiring obscure glazing should be attached.
Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
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: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 14.04.2011
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the erection of an extension to dwelling as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 10-J0101–MAC 01, 10-J0101–MAC 02, 10-J0101–MAC 03, 10-J0101–MAC 04, 10-J0101–MAC 05 and 10-J101 1 all received on 1st March 2011. Rev 2
C 3. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects.
C 4. Obscure glazing (Grade 5) shall be installed in the southeast elevation of the first floor ensuite bathroom window and shall be kept and maintained thereafter.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 14.04.2011
Signed: Senior Planning Officer (Signature)
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown