Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/01291/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/01291/B Applicant : Mr Matt Thorpe Proposal : Erection of flat roof dormer to rear of dwelling Site Address : Annandale 69 Slieau Curn Park Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1EW
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 19.08.2019 Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 27.01.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By reason of its position, size, mass and design the proposal results in an unacceptable level of perceived overlooking and unacceptable impact on general outlook adversely affecting neighbouring amenity contrary to both the development plan policies GP 2 (g) and the Residential Design Guidance Sections 4.6, 7.4 and 7.5.
R 2. By reason of its position, size, mass and design the proposal results in an unacceptable and adverse impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and on the visual amenity of the surrounding area contrary to both the development plan policies GP 2 (b) and (c) and the Residential Design Guidance Section 4.6. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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 6(4):
No. 68 Slieau Curn Park as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of No. 69 'Annandale', which is a semi- detached dwelling with accommodation in the roof, the dwelling sits at the far south-western
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/01291/B Page 2 of 5
cul-de-sac of Slieau Curn Park. The dwelling is situated 84m south east of the Builders Yard, off Main Road, Kirk Michael.
1.2 At the front the dwelling has single roof light and a single storey peaked gable mirroring that peaked gable of its adjoining neighbour. Running along the end gable is an existing driveway for at least 2 vehicles parked in tandem.
1.3 At the rear there are two roof lights. The adjoining neighbour No. 68 has an existing flat roof dormer approx. 3m wide and 1.5m high.
1.4 The surrounding dwellings within the estate are of a similar design and style to the application dwelling.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Albeit the submitted drawings do not appear to correlate with the written scale, as far as can be ascertain it appears that full planning approval is sought for the erection of a flat polyroof dormer extension at the rear approx. 7m wide covering the full width of roof slope and approx. 2.5m high built up directly from the ground floor walls of the rear elevation.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of three previously approved applications two facilitating the conversion of the loft to living space, and one recently in 2019 for the installation of a dormer. The adjoining neighbour has also been subject to one previous application for a dormer considered to be material:
3.2 No. 69 (applicant) o 19/00880/B _ Erection of a rear flat roofed dormer : o This application was approved for a 6.7m wide dormer set within the roof slope and around 1.5m back from the edge of the roof eaves. o The officer assessing the application concluded that: "the rear dormer would not appear as an intrusive or unacceptably tall alteration to the building. It must also be considered that there are a number of similar dormer windows on the rear of properties within Slieau Curn Park estate. This proposal must of course be assessed on its own merits, however, an additional rear flat roofed dormer, whilst unacceptable within most parts of Kirk Michael would not be regarded as an unacceptable addition in this case. Part of the reason for this is that the dormer would not be highly visible from public thoroughfares within Slieau Curn Park. As well, the setting of the dormer below the existing roof ridge, and the positioning set back from the eaves and slightly away from the gable, would ensure a secondary appearance."
3.3 No.68 (neighbour) o 10/01091/B - Alterations and creation of a dormer window: o Relatively modest addition finished to match the existing house, although the flat roof dormer is somewhat unattractive, due to its location at the rear it would not be highly visible from the public highway and would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the property or the street scene. The distance from the rear towards the rear neighbouring property is approximately 27m which would reduce the impact of overlooking and loss of privacy substantially.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Residential' on Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The application falls to be assessed against the general standards towards development set out in General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan 2016, and consideration shall also be given to the recently released Residential Design Guide 2019.
4.2 General Policy 2 states (in part):
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/01291/B Page 3 of 5
"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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;"
4.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 states:
"As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
4.4 Section 4.6, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Residential Design Guide 2019:
"4.6 DORMER EXTENSIONS 4.6.1 Dormer extensions are often problematic as they can adversely affect the character and appearance of both the individual property and the wider streetscene. Unless they are for non- habitable rooms such as bathrooms with obscured glazing, they can also create overlooking. They are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or streetscene.
4.6.2 There are various types, and applicants should consider which is most appropriate for their house. Traditional properties should avoid having flat roof dormers, as pitched roofed dormers may be more appropriate. Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge. Therefore they are only generally appropriate on more modern properties (1960/70's bungalows) and/or properties where the area is characterised by houses with flat roofed dormers. Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact.
4.6.3 The position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported."
"7.4 OVERBEARING IMPACT UPON OUTLOOK 7.4.1 Any development should ensure that existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being impacted by an overbearing building/structure. The positioning, design and scale of an extension/new build dwellings should not be dominant or have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that may be present in a neighbouring property. It is normally possible to avoid overlooking with careful design and by following the guidance set out within this document. The impact on a private garden may include consideration of the overall size of the garden and whether only a small part of it is likely to be impacted on detrimentally.
7.5 OVERLOOKING RESULTING IN A LOSS OF PRIVACY 7.5.1 The "20 metre guide" provides a useful way to identify where overlooking is likely to be a concern. It refers to the distance between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms that face each other - if this distance is over 20 metres, overlook is unlikely to be a concern. This distance can be relaxed where the design or orientation is such that privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property is not compromised. In dense urban areas where there is already a level of mutual overlooking a lesser standard may be acceptable. The required
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/01291/B Page 4 of 5
distance may need to be greater if there is a change in topography, which would result in an adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property.
7.5.2 The presence of existing or proposed landscaping features (e.g. fences, walls and hedges) may help to mitigate overlooking at a ground floor level (depending on relative heights). Although the permanent retention of such landscaping cannot be guaranteed, it would be within the gift of both neighbours to retain/maintain/replace such landscape features."
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division - do not oppose (05/12/2019)
5.2 Michael Commissioners - OBJECTION (06/12/2019) - the proposal is not in keeping with the other properties in the area.
5.3 The Owners of No. 68 Slieau Curn Park - OBJECTION (09/12/2019) - concerns were expressed for the 2019 application and the proposal now amounts to a larger first storey extension with a wall approx. 5 ft away from our bedroom window blocking our light, the proposal is also not in keeping with the existing dormer conversions along the road.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are the potential impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site dwelling and wider street scene, and the amenity of the neighbours.
6.2 Character and Appearance
6.2.1 Flat roofed dormer extension are not generally welcomed as positive additions to a roof but can be considered acceptable where the dormer is of modest size and does not completely change the character of the property.
6.2.2 Paragraph 4.6.3 of the Residential Design Guide (March 2019) states: "the position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported." 4.6.1 of the guidance also states that they are unlikely to be supported where they are publicly visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or street scene.
6.2.3 Whilst the dormer is set down from the roof ridge and is located to the rear, its installation it would result in a negative eye-catching feature due to its substantial size, mass and flat roof arrangement, whether viewed from an acute angle from the cul-de-sac road, or viewed in isolation from the rear of the adjacent properties. The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and harmful to the general visual amenity and appearance of the estate.
6.3 Neighbour Amenity
6.3.1 It is also important to assess any potential loss of amenity from the perspective of neighbours. Referring to the recently published DEFA Residential Design Guidance (March 2019), the main consideration around this would be loss of privacy and overlooking - particularly on dwellings or gardens within 20 metres of the extension. In this case here the dwellings joining the rear boundary would be around 27m away (elevation to elevation) which
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/01291/B Page 5 of 5
would generally be considered sufficient to minimise privacy impact from the proposed three windows at first floor. However, compared with the previous dormer scheme and the adjacent dormer, the proposal now would result in a development far greater in size and mass and substantial prominence likely to result in an unacceptable level of perceived overlooking.
6.3.2 In terms of outlook, particularly on the adjoining neighbours' dormer, the proposal would project around 1.5m beyond their existing window and 3m tall. This would likely present a significant and notable change to their general outlook with a fairly overbearing and dominating extension abutting directly along the boundary, an impact here which is considered to be unneighbourly.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is concluded that the proposal by reason of its position, size, mass and design results in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and an adverse impact on the existing dwelling and visual amenity and of the area. The proposal is considered contrary to both the development plan policies (GP 2 b, c, and g) and the Residential Design Guidance (4.6, 7.4 and 7.5) and therefore recommended for refusal.
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 Planning Committee 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. __
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.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 29.01.2020
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal