Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00765/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00765/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Geoff Cormode Proposal : Alterations and erection of extension Site Address : 1 Cooil Veg Andreas Isle of Man IM7 4EU
Head of Development Management: Miss Jennifer Chance Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.12.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed extension due to its size, design and form would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the host dwelling and on the street scene, as such it would be contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The proposed extension, due to its proximity to 25 Oatlands Avenue, would be unduly imposing and result in an undue loss of privacy contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site is a detached true bungalow set in a cul-de-sac along with 5 other bungalows.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The current bungalow is 12m x 7.3m, with a height of just under 5m. Attached to it is what would have once been a garage measuring 3.5m x 5.5m but is being used as additional living space.
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00765/B Page 2 of 4
2.2 It is proposed to erect an extension to the rear measuring 16m x 6.5-7.5m with a height of 5.8m. The extension would have two storeys of accommodation formed by two side facing dormers.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'residential use', under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
o Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 o The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2016)
The following policy is considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
"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: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY None
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Andreas Parish Commissioners (5.9.18): No objection Highway Services (23.8.28) make a lengthy submission (see file or on-line for detail) setting out that the driveway has already been extended but the dropped kerb is now of insufficient width to serve that drive and that this should be rectified irrespective of the outcome of this planning application, to prevent illegal vehicle movements across the public footway. They also state that the plans show discrepancies in the driveway width and length and suggested a revised drawing showing the proposed driveway as it is unclear if the site parking will change from the current layout. They suggest that a driveway space should be at least 2.5m x 5.5m in size provided that there is a separate footpath to the dwelling front door and that this should also be shown on the revised site plans. They request that the application is deferred to allow the applicant to consider the above.
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00765/B Page 3 of 4
6.0 ASSESSMENT The main considerations in the assessment of this application is the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and street scene and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Character and appearance Both Cooil Veg and the main road to its front, Oatlands Road, are characterised by single storey, shallow pitched roof, bungalows. To the rear of the site are two storey dwellings on Crellin Green, Bride Road.
The proposed extension would introduce an extension higher than its host dwelling and those in the cul-de sac and on Oatlands Road. The flat roof side facing dormer would represent an incongruous feature that would be apparent in the street scene, particularly at the junction of Cooil Veg with Oatlands Avenue. Consequently the proposal would not respect the site and surroundings in terms of its scale, form or design, instead it would have a negative impact on the property and on the street scene such that a refusal is warranted.
Impact on neighbours The proposed extension would occupy much of the rear garden space of the applicant property and would sit in close proximity to its rear boundary adjacent to a communal green space within the Crellin Green development. A very high hedge separates the two. The extension would result in the loss of sunlight in the morning to some of the gardens in Crellin Green but not to such an extent that would warrant refusal on this basis.
Of more concern is the impact of the development on 25 Oatlands Road. While the new extension would be to the north of no.25 and thus would not result in an undue loss of light, the extension would be 5m away from no.25's rear garden (or 4m if measured from the proposed porch) and the dormer windows would overlook the garden at a distance of 7.5m and the rear of the house at a distance of 12-13m. Consequently the extension would be imposing and would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking to the detriment of the amenities of the occupants of no.25.
Parking and highway safety: The comments of Highway Services are noted, however the application seeks no change to the driveway which can accommodate two cars. The driveway is shown indicatively on the plans. The dropped kerb should probably be widened to gain easier access but it appears possible to get access to both parts of the driveway from the existing dropped kerb.
7.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 7.1 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.
7.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00765/B Page 4 of 4
In this instance there are none. __
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.
Decision Made : Refused
Date: 11.12.2018
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
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