DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/01539/B Applicant: Miss Lisa Charker Proposal: Alterations and erection of a two storey extension Site Address: Ballacallin House Niarbyl Road Dalby Isle Of Man IM5 3BS Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken: 06.04.2022 Site Visit: 06.04.2022 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.04.2022

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.

• C 2. For the avoidance of doubt, no approval is hereby given for the subdivision of the proerty into two planning units and this assessment has been on the basis the proposed extensin is ancillary in use to the main dwelling Ballacallin House, Niarbyl Road. Reason: To avoid splitting of the property into two planning untis
• C 3. The extension hereby approved, may only be used for the domestic use in relation to the occupation of Ballacallin House, Niarbyl Road as defined on the submitted plans, or as otherwise approved by the Department. Reason: To ensure that the building is used for purposes appropriate to its residential setting.
• C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

• Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed extension would accord with General Policy 2, Environmental Policy 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to drawings submitted on 20 December 2021, referenced; LC-21-03_A Existing and Proposed Floor Plans LC-21-02 Existing and Proposed Elevations and Sections LC-21-01 Location and Existing Proposed Site Plans

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Ballacallin House, Niarbyl Road, Dalby. The property is characterised with traditional vernacular that is two stories high with a pitch tiled roof, bookended by prominent chimney stacks with a single storey lean to porch extension on the south elevation and on the west elevation and finished in a painted render. The fenestration is typical of a property of this age on the south elevation, with three window to the first floor a central doorway on the ground floor and flanked by windows either side. The windows appear all of the same portrait style with 50/50 glazing frame arrangements and two roof lights in the western roofscape. - 1.2 The property sits on a prominent corner position with the junction with the A27 Dalby Road and Niarbyl Road. To the east and west are the aforementioned public highways with vehicle access off both roads leading into the property.

1.2 The area is characterised as a rural hamlet with residential dwellings to both sides of the road with the application site sharing a boundary with Fuchsia Cottage to the North and Mannville to the west. - 2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing lean to extension (utility and bathroom) on the west elevation and in its place the erection of a larger, two storey extension off the western gable end of the building with a pitch tiled roof. - 2.2 The footprint of the proposed side extension would measure 6.3m wide and 8.1m deep, internally the floor plans show a layout that offers a lounge on the first floor with a large apex

• glazed window facing west (out to sea) and on the ground floor, two bedrooms, a separate bathroom, reception area and staircase up to the lounge above. Access from the extension into the existing dwelling is show on both levels to the side of the existing chimney stack.
• 2.3 The agent has noted on the drawings the following calculus; Ground floor - 7.8m x 10.095m = 78.74sqm Side extension - 2.060m x 7.095m = 14.62sqm Front porch - 3.520m x 2.500m = 8.80sqm Total= 102.16sqm

6.6 The foot print of the proposed extension would measure externally, Main Building - 10.095 x 7.800 = 78.74sqm New Extension - 6.320 x 8.140 = 51.44sqm

+ 1.600 x 0.450 = 0.72sqm Front Porch - 3.520 x 2.500 = 8.80sqm Total= 139.70sqm or 36.7% increase on the existing.

2.4 The drawings show the finish of the proposal would use;

• o natural roof slates and concrete verges to match the existing;
• o Velux roof lights to match existing;
• o Smooth sand and cement render painted to match existing;
• o Woodgrain Upvc to match existing.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area not zoned for any particular development under the 1982 Development Plan (south map); it is also within an area zoned as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on that Plan. - 3.2 The site is not within a Conservation area, there are no registered trees identified on site and the site is not identified as being within High Risk Flood Zone (River and Tidal) on the DoI's Flood map hub. - 3.3 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;

Strategic Policy 5 Design and visual impact General Policy

• 2 General Development Considerations (a-n)
• 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside Environment Policy

• 1 Protection of the countryside and its Ecology
• 2 Protection of the character of AHLV

Housing Policy 15 Extension or alteration to traditional styled properties in the countryside

3.4 The principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which sets out a number of general development standards for alterations to existing dwellings including neighbouring amenity and the creation of new dwellings and sustainable methods of construction.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 07/01261/B - Erection of a replacement porch. 04/01908/B - Installation of uPVC replacement windows to replace existing, 02/00625/B - Installation of replacement windows. 92/00689/B - Installation of velux roof lights, Ballacallin House, Dalby, - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online)

5.1 Patrick Commissioners commented (04/02/22 & 18/02/22) with no objection

5.2 Highways Services do not object (No Highways Interest) 13/01/22 - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

• (i) Principle (SP5; GP3)
• (ii) Design (STP5; GP2b)
• (iii) Visual impact (Ep1,2; HP15; GP2,c,f,)
• (iv) Neighbouring amenities (GP2g)
• (v) Sustainable Construction (GP2n)
• (vi) Any other matters arising

6.1 Principle The starting point here is the land designation within the area plan which designates the site as land not zoned for development as it sits within a rural area and an area of high landscape value. As General Policy 3 would be applicable in this instance, the proposal is for an extension to an existing residential property that sits within a small hamlet surrounded by other residential dwelling but does not specifically fit into any of the criteria for acceptable development (a-h). Therefore regard must be given to the reasonableness of the scale and siting of the proposed development within the defined residential curtilage in view of their subsequent visual impacts on the character of the area and streetscene.

6.2 In this case it is relevant to give weight to Housing Policy 15 which allows for extensions to traditionally styled properties in the countryside with the emphasis on visual impact and also any built additions must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property and generally no larger than a 50% increase in floor space. Environment Policies 1 which protects the countryside for its own sake and restricts development that would have an adverse visual impact on the countryside and greater protection is offered through Environmental Policy 2 to ensure there is no harm to the character and quality of the landscape. Also the general principles contained with GP2 (a-n) offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general development control principles. On balance the principle of extending this dwelling house is acceptable form of development for increasing the floor area subject to the further assessment below.

• (ii) Design

6.3 The property sits in a unique position where options to extend the footprint are constrained by the highways to two sides and close proximity to the rear boundary with the neighbour. In this instance the acceptable side would be to the west where there is an existing extension and the rear garden. In terms of size, height and the general appearance, the design extends outwards from the side (west) elevation in a basic square floor plan at two stories that has been designed to serve that specific purpose for extending within the context of this site, whilst retaining the outlook from those existing windows on the side elevation at first floor level. - 6.4 The extension is contained solely to this side elevation and would be utilising the existing ground levels which means there is a change in level signified by two steps (approx. 400mm) from the proposed up to the existing. When considering whether the extension would

• be proportionate to the property, it is worth noting the existing and proposed increase in footprint.
• 6.5 When looking at the proposal, from a theoretical position, it is worth noting the existing property when measured externally (scaled of the drawings and cross referenced with the agent) totals= 102.16sqm. With the removal of the existing side extension of 14.62sqm and in its place the new extension would measure 51.44sqm. The proposal would be seen to increase the overall footprint by 36.7% increase and whilst this is not considered excessive given the scale of the property, its form of extending into the rear garden could be seen to be theoretically acceptable.

6.7 The design of the proposed extension has been designed to ensure the existing proportions of the dwelling house are reflected in the extension, noting the width, heights and massing to glazing proportions and window positioning. In this case, the proposed ridge height is lower than that of the existing property and the building line of the extension is set back from the front elevation of the house. Equally the front (south) roof pitch matches that of the house, and to the rear (north) features a cat slide roof, which is noted as a traditional method of extending the roof alignment from PC3/91 which in doing so ensures these individual elements helps give the visual impression of being subordinate to the main dwelling. - 6.8 Whilst the 2 storey extension would introducing a larger built element when compared to the existing, it could be deemed to respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. The level of finish would seek to copy that of the dwelling house elements ensure the existing dwelling and proposed extension are read as one residential unit (and conditioned as such) which ensures the proposed additions would be in accordance with STP5 and GP2b.

• (iii) Visual Impact

6.9 In terms of how visible the scope of works are to the existing, Hp16 seeks that the impact when or if viewable is respectful to the properties proportions and appearance. The visual appearance of the extension would be visible from the highway (Niarbyl Road and Dalby Road) would be clear to see when driving along this road, mainly when heading north, but those passing views of the site would be read in the same residential context as the property, that of its neighbours and streetscene, which would not appear out of keeping given the level and scale of the proposal. The matching levels of finish in terms of wall finish, doors, windows and roof tiles, helps to visually link the two together. - 6.10 On balance, the proposals would be considered appropriate when read within the context of the area in terms of its height and design which would be subservient to the scale and character of the main dwelling house. It is considered the proposal would be an acceptable form of development that would be read in accordance with Ep1, HP15, GP2, and would not have any adverse impact on that of the countryside or on the dwelling house and its rural setting.

• (iv) Neighbouring Amenities

6.11 When considering the impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties. It is noted the nearest neighbouring property that would be impacted by the proposal would be 'Mannville' who share as a boundary with the site to the west. At the time of the site visit, the owner of Mannville was present and the application was discussed with them and they verbally confirmed they had no objection to the proposals and didn't think it would have an issue on them. Nevertheless, an assessment needs to be carried out to ensure there is no adverse impact upon the current or future occupants of 'Mannville'. - 6.12 This proposal would be increasing the built form closer to their property, going from 10m with a single storey extension to what is now proposed, is two stories high and 7m from

• the north east corner of the 'Mannville'. At this point it is noted we have not formally received any objections or comments from the adjoining neighbours and the local authority do not object.
• 6.13 Having visited the site and noted the specific context of the site and that towards the neighbouring property 'Mannville' a detached bungalow, it was noted there is a single story detached garage that sits between 'Mannville' and the application site, which restricts the outlook from the windows of Manville at the rear of the property. It was also observed on site that their lands, gardens / private amenity space is located to the west of their property and would not be apparent from the application site given the angles involved and the boundary hedging.
• 6.14 In terms of loss of privacy, there were concerns regarding the apex picture window in the western gable and overlooking towards 'Mannville' which could lead to a loss of privacy, however the land ownership, topography and orientation of the properties could allow for an increase of overlooking (from the proposed living room on the first floor) above the current levels but not to the detriment that would warrant a refusal on these grounds. A landscaping plan could be conditioned to bolster this if necessary to help mitigate this. In terms of overlooking, loss of privacy to the rear towards Fuchsia Cottage, the existence of windows in the existing house already have a degree of overlooking and the proposal would be adding two more but not to the detriment of Fuschia Cottage, given those windows serve the living room which features an open plan layout with glazing on three sides and the main outlook or aspect would be west out to sea or down towards the applicants gardens.
• 6.15 When considering whether there would be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the extension, given the orientation of the built for and that of the surrounding properties and the sun path around, any shadowing from the sun would be largely contained within the application site. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
• 6.16 Sustainable construction The erection of a new extension would have to conform to building regulations standards which ensures the thermal efficiency of the building is maximised. In addition the design of the extension places the majority of the glazing to take advantage of the south and west facing elevation and utilisation of glazing to these elevations. These are all seen as positive design attributes to reducing energy consumption for domestic dwellings as sought from GP2n.
• 6.17 Any other matters arising None.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the proposal would accord with General Policy 2, Environmental Policy 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for approval. - 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 the Head of Development Management 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 : 07.04.2022 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.