Loading document...
Application No.: 22/01470/B Applicant: Mr Keith Hoyes Proposal: Refurbishment, partial demolition of exisitng extension and erection of a new single-storey extension Site Address: Thie Dhorlish Rhenab Road Cornaa Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1EL Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.03.2023
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
This application is considered to comply with General Policy 2, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 2, Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan and Policy 3 and 5 of the Planning Circular 3/91.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the documents, door and windows details and drawing no. TD-01, TD02, TD-03, TD-04, TD-05 which have been received on 29th November 2022 and drawing no. TD-06A, TD-07A which have been received on 22nd February 2023.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Owners/Occupiers of Croit-Ny-Meagh, Rhenab Road, Glen Mona, Ramsey as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Thie Dhorlish, Rhenab Road, Cornaa, Ramsey, a two-storey detached dwelling located on the east of Rhenab Road. - 1.2 The house is of traditional Manx countryside dwelling character. It consists of a twostorey pitched-roof main dwelling, a single-storey pitched-roof porch, a single-storey monopitched-roof extension on the rear elevation and a single-storey mono-pitched-roof porch rear extension on the rear extension. - 1.3 There is a mono-pitched roof garage on the west corner of the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is the demolition of most parts of the rear extensions and the erection of a single-storey pitched-roof rear extension. - 2.2 The proposed extension will project out of the south elevation of the main dwelling. It will have a bi-fold door on the rear elevation and on the south elevation. The front elevation will be a blank wall.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Approval in principle to build a replacement three bedroom two story house with a separate garage and workshop was REFUSED under PA 22/00618/A. The reason for refusal was "failing to comply with General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 12 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016."
4.1 The site is not within an area with a specific land use designation in the 1982 Development Plan, meaning it is considered to be part of the countryside.
4.2 The site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV). Strategic Policy - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
PPS and NPD
4.4 Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside provides a standard for typical housing developments in rural areas: - 4.5 Policy 3 states: "… Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form." - 4.6 Policy 5 states: "Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms."
5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) provides guidance on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property, as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
6.1 Clerk Garff Commissioners has not commented at the time of the report (03.01.2022).
6.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application. (14.12.2021). - 6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team wrote in requesting a bat survey (20.12.2022). - 6.4 Owners/Occupiers of Croit-Ny-Meagh, Rhenab Road, Glen Mona, Ramsey wrote in favour of the application. The comment states that the undermanagement of the site has negative impact on the their property so any proposal that attemp to rehabilite the site is welcomed by them.
7.1 The key considerations of this application are the principle of the Development, its impact on the house itself, on the character and street scene of the area, on the amenities of the neighbours and on wildlife. Principal of the Development
7.2 Although the site is within the countryside, and General Policy 3 discourages development in the countryside, it is a dwelling and their extensions are still permitted based on the quality of design under Housing Policy 15. Therefore, having a design that respects the character of the countryside would be the determining factor of this application. Given the location of the site within an AHLV, consideration of visual/landscape impacts in relation to Environment Policy 2 is also a key consideration. - 7.3 As a traditional dwelling, Housing Policy 15 states that the extension should be no bigger than 50% of the existing building. Since the proposal fit within this restriction, the extension would be acceptable if it respects the proportion, form and appearance of the existing cottage. Design of the House Itself - 7.4 The rear extension is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling, except for the bifold doors. The large-pane bi-fold doors and glass screens do not match the proportion of the window panes or the traditional windows. However, given the extension has a similar apperance with the main dwelling in general, these bi-fold doors distinct th extension from its original dwelling. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal respects the form and appearance of the existing cottage. Character and Landscape
7.4 The south elevation of the proposal would be partially visible from the road, despite the obstructed sightline from the existing garage. As mentioned in section 7.4, the bi-fold door would stand out from the traditional design of the cottage and its rural setting but is not considered to have negative impact on the appearance of the house. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not negatively impact the character of the building group as well as the landscape of the area. Neighbouring Amenities - 7.5 The extension is single-storey and passes the "45-degree Approach". Therefore, it is considered that there is no concern for overshadowing or overbearing. - 7.6 There is no property within 20m of the proposal. Therefore, there is no concern for overlooking. Wildlife - 7.7 As the application is recommended for an approval, a bat survey would be conditoned.
8.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 2, Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan and Policy 3 and 5 of the Planning Circular 3/91. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval. - 9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS
9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
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: 17.03.2023 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown