DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 21/00685/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Guy & Anna Templer Proposal: Erection of a single storey extension and rear patio Site Address: Mullinaragher House Rheast Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 2HR Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.07.2021 _________________________________________________________________

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 is considered to be in accordance with Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 16 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the following plans and drawings, received 29.04.21: 258/001 - Location Plan

• 258/020 - Proposed Site Plan
• 258/021 - Proposed Floor Plan
• 258/022 - Proposed Elevations
• 258/023 - Proposed Section _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Mullinaragher House, on the southern side of Rheast Road - which links the Clannagh Road with the Mullinaragher Road. This part of Rheast Road accommodates three dwellings - Mullinaragher House being the westernmost, with Springside and Ballacorrin to the east. There are other dwellings to the north on Clannagh Road. - 1.2 The site accommodates a part two-storey, part single storey dwelling, Mullinaragher House, together with a substantial landscaped garden including a pond. The upper (northern) part of the site is lawned and planted with the lower, southern area more natural and unmanaged. There is significant vegetation including trees between the property and the Clannagh and Castletown Roads. - 1.3 The application site does not relate to any Registered Building or protected trees.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a hipped roof single storey side extension on the west elevation of the dwelling. The extension would project from the side of the dwelling by 6.8 metres, with a depth of 8.5 metres. Eaves height would be 2 metres, with ridge height at approximately 4.5 metres. The extension would be finished in painted render and tiles to match the main dwelling. - 2.2 The application also proposed a patio and sunken outdoor seating area behind the new extension.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site falls within an area not zoned for any particular purpose in the Area Plan for the East and is considered open countryside. - 3.2 Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, development therein should not have an adverse impact. - 3.3 Housing Policy 16 relates to extensions to non-traditional dwellings in the countryside. Any extension to such will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. - 3.4 Whilst the site is not in an area designated for development, General Policy 2 is still considered relevant in that it relates to matters around design and amenity. - 3.5 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application. Section 4.4 relates specifically to side extensions.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The application site has a lengthy planning history, although much of this is not recent. The following are two extensions to the dwelling approved in recent years:

• 4.1.1 15/00662/B - Alterations and erection of extension to replace existing sun room. Permitted.
• 4.1.2 18/01103/B - Erection of a detached building to provide a studio. Permitted.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highways have confirmed that they have no highways interest this application (08.07.21).

5.2 DEFA Biodiversity have provided the following comments (23.07.21) in relation to the hedge to the site boundary: "It is unclear from the documentation provided whether an area of hedge will need to be removed to facilitate the new extension. If hedge is to be removed then this has potential for nesting birds. All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected by law (Wildlife Act 1990) and it is an offence to:

• o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird
• o intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built
• o intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird
• o intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to 10,000 pounds. The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August

• or late September in the case of swallows or house martins. Thorough checks for nesting birds must be undertaken prior to hedge and gorse removal, and if nesting birds are present then removal must be delayed until nesting has finished and the young have fledged. Ideally any removal should take place outside of nesting season.

If any hedge is to be removed, we recommend that replacement features are created around the new extension as mitigation. Any new planting should be undertaken with Manx native species."

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are:

• - The principle of the development
• - the visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider surroundings; and
• - the residential amenity of neighbours.

6.2 Principle of Development

• 6.2.1 The application site is outside of any development boundary and is considered to be within the open countryside. There is therefore a general presumption against development. There are however exemptions to this presumption, including for the extension of existing rural dwellings. For non-traditional dwellings such as Mullinaragher House, Housing Policy 16 seeks to restrict extensions where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
• 6.2.2 The acceptability of the development is therefore determined via an assessment of the proposed design and of any impacts on the character of the site and wider area, residential amenity and any other relevant aspect.
• 6.3 Design and Appearance

• 6.3.1 As noted above, Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 requires that development proposals to extend or alter non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form in the countryside will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. General Policy 2 also seeks to ensure that development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape.
• 6.3.2 The Residential Design Guidance notes that generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publicly viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. Side extensions should respect the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and appear

• subordinate to the main dwelling. Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a twostorey house to give clear definition between singlestorey and two-storey elements.
• 6.3.3 The proposed extension would be within the existing garden area associated with the site dwelling and would not result in a loss of open countryside to the west. In this respect, no harm to the countryside is likely in accordance with Environment Policy 1.
• 6.3.4 The proposed patio and sunken seating area would be appropriate for a domestic garden and would not increase the impact of the site when viewed from the road or impact the setting of the surrounding countryside.
• 6.3.5 The extension would be sympathetic and subordinate to the main dwelling, using matching materials and a modest scale and height which would sit well under that of the existing dwelling. It is considered that the single storey extension would not increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public and would accord with Housing Policy 16, and General Policy 2.

6.4 Residential Amenity

• 6.4.1 General Policy 2 further requires that new development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents. Further details of how residential amenity can be impacted are set out in the Residential Design Guide. The key aspects are overlooking (loss of privacy), overbearing (loss of outlook) and overshadowing (loss of sunlight).
• 6.4.2 The proposed extension would introduce additional ground floor windows and a patio area to the rear. Given the rural location of the site and the proposed development, and the lack of neighbouring dwellings directly to the rear (south) or west, there would be no unacceptable overlooking or loss of light.

• 6.4.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposal as amended would not adversely impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties, in accordance with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.

6.5 Other Matters

• 6.5.1 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy team have commented on the application and noted that, if hedging is to be removed, any harm to nesting birds would be an offence. The application form and submitted plans and drawings do not indicate that there would be any removal of the hedging to the roadside boundary, nor is it evident that this would be required to facilitate the proposal. Nevertheless, the applicant is advised to take note of the related comments included within 5.2 of this report.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 In summary, the proposal is considered to accord with Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 16 and General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan. No unacceptable adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape or the residential amenity of the neighbours.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 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.

8.2 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.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 26.07.2021 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.