Officer Report

Application No.: 17/01342/B Applicant: Canon Malcolm & Mrs Valerie Convery Proposal: Erection of a first floor extension Site Address: 50 Faaie-Ny-Cabbal Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HU Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 16.01.2018 Site Visit: 16.01.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.01.2018 _________________________________________________________________

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawing number 1 received on 27th December, 2017. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons none _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing semi-detached house situated within Faaie ny Cabbyl, a relatively new housing estate to the north western of Kirk Michael village centre. The estate comprises a mix of house types, two and single storey, detached and semidetached. The property in this case is part of a pair of semi-detached houses, one of three pairs which were originally identical but where some - number 42, 50 (the application property) and 52 have had extensions added to the side and some with extensions and conservatories at

• the rear. The extensions added to 42 and 52 are two storey, that at the application property is single storey. The extension at 42 has garaging at ground floor level, that at 52 has living accommodation with the driveway wide enough to accommodate two vehicles side by side.
• 1.2 The application property's drive is single vehicle width. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the upward extension of the existing side annex to provide an en-suite bathroom at first floor level. A window to match that at ground floor level will be added and the frontage will be set back by around 200mm from the existing dwelling. The frontage will have an eaves level which is around 250mm lower than that of the main house. This matches the approach taken on the other half of the pair. - 2.2 No other changes are proposed. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Kirk Michael Local Plan of 1994 as Residential. As such, the following Strategic Plan guidance is relevant:

General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality".

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The estate was built in the 1990s and the single storey extension was added under

• 04/01126/B. The extensions on numbers 42 and 52 were approved under 03/00224/B and
• 05/01804/B respectively.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services indicate that they do have no interest in the application (12.01.17).

5.2 Michael Commissioners have no objection (16.01.17). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The issue with extensions of this type is the effect on the streetscene, including an assessment of what would happen if all of the properties were subject to the same treatment, whether the proposal would result in any adverse impact on the living conditions of those nearby and also whether there would be any impact on highway safety, particularly where existing on site parking (often in the form of garaging), would be lost.

6.2 In reverse order, in this case, there is no change in the amount of parking provided on site as the ground floor has already been extended to cover the ground where a garage or parking space alongside the property, would be.

6.2 There is unlikely to be any change in the living conditions of those in the adjacent properties as the gable alongside at number 49, is blank and the space alongside used partly as car parking. There are not to be any windows in the gable of the extension. - 6.3 Two properties in the row have already been extended in the general form proposed here, although these are on the outside of the row and do not affect the space and rhythm of the group. Whilst there is perceivable space between the properties, this is not particularly

attractive space, mainly hard surfacing used for car parking. The most important characteristic of this property is its balance, or current lack of, with the adjoining property. Whilst the property at the other end of the row has been extended, the row is not seen in its entirety and the effect of this extension is less prevalent than that of the adjoining property. As such, the balancing of the pair will have a more signficant and beneficial impact than considering the effect on the row as a whole.

CONCLUSION

7.1 It is not considered that there are any adverse impacts from this proposal and it is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

• * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 31.01.2018 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer

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.