Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00442/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00442/B Applicant : Mr Trevor Boyles Proposal : Erection of a rear extension Site Address : 22 Reayrt Ny Crink Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2EA
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 20.07.2020 Site Visit : 20.07.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.08.2020 __
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is concluded that proposal complies with GP 2 and EP 22 of the IOM Strategic Plan and the RDG 2019 as the works are not considered to have an overall detrimental impact.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to Drawing Nos.0006_100, 0006_101 and 0006_102 date stamped and received on 29 April 2020.
__
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 6(4):
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00442/B Page 2 of 7
21 Reayrt Ny Crink, Crosby, as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 22 Reayrt Ny Chrink, a semi-detached dwelling located on a relatively modern housing estate to the north of Crosby. The site is situated on the northeast end of the estate and backs onto open fields with views over hills beyond.
1.2 The properties on the estate were built as a piece and share a common architectural language; the most noticeable difference being the rear where some were built with extensions, some were not, while others have been extended after the dwellings were originally built.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application seeks planning approval for the erection of a rear extension.
2.2 The scope of works would see a 5.9m x 5.1m extension on the rear elevation of the property. A new tri-fold door 2.8m wide and 2.1m high will be installed on the west elevation of the extension, while a window 3.2m x 1.5m will be installed on the rear elevation of the extension. This 2.8m high flat roofed extension will have its external wall will be finished in brick facework, while a brick parapet will line the edge of the flat roof on all sides.
2.3 Also a new log burner flue will be installed in this extension with its flue rising from the flat roof to the eaves of the existing roof of the main building, strapped back to the existing property. This flue will rise 1m above the rear eaves but will be completely confined to the rear roof plane as it will not be seen from the street scene.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "proposed residential use", under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
3.2 As such, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan applies; its relevant extract reads as follows:
"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; (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; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states:
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00442/B Page 3 of 7
"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."
3.4 Section 3.1 of the recently published Residential Design Guide will also be vital in the assessment of the current application.
Section 3.1: General Considerations 3.1.1 House extensions are one of the most common forms of development. Individually and cumulatively extensions can have a significant impact on the quality of the built environment. When altering or extending buildings in order to modernise, adapt, enlarge or extend them the overall character and form of the buildings and spaces around them are affected. Guidance is therefore required to provide advice as to what is acceptable in planning terms.
3.1.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IOMSP) indicates that generally house extensions and new houses within areas designated for development will be permitted, providing that they reflect and enhance the appearance of the existing property, adjoining properties, and their setting in terms of scale, design and materials. However, there are a substantial number of detailed issues that need to be taken into account in designing domestic extensions. This section provides general guidance on issues that are likely to apply to all forms of extensions, and then more detailed additional advice in relation to different potential types of extensions.
3.1.3 The main design elements that should be considered include:
o the relationship to the original part of the building - including materials, design and detailing (such as window materials and proportions); o the relationship with adjoining properties, including the building line, roof line, orientation, and the slope of the site; and o the pitch, shape and materials of the original roof, including the presence of original dormers and chimneys.
3.1.4 All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/main building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, well- judged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed, as the Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context. Such approaches, where well designed, can serve to both improve the sustainability of buildings and significantly improve the appearance of buildings to the general benefit of the streetscene.
3.1.5 However, where inappropriately designed, located and finished, such approaches can be harmful to the character of a building and its surrounds, and become a local eyesore. Therefore, in some cases, modern design approaches will not be the most appropriate solution and the character and form of the building and its context may require a more traditional and reserved design approach.
3.1.6 It should also be accepted that in some instances it may not be possible to design an acceptable extension due to the sensitivity of the site, limited space, or the relationship with neighbouring dwellings.
3.5 The following sections of the RDG are also considered to be relevant to the application. 3.5.1 Paragraph 3.2.2 3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally,
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00442/B Page 4 of 7
pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach - as set out on the next page.
3.5.2 Paragraph 4.2.3 4.2.3 The acceptability of the length/depth of a single storey extension will depend on the positioning and size of neighbouring properties. For terraced houses and narrower semi- detached properties, single storey extensions are unlikely to be supported where they project more than 3 metres from the back of the house.
3.6 Environment Policy 22 (in part) is also important to consider given the nature of development: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: ii) emissions of airborne pollutants."
3.7 The Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) provides advice on the installation of flues which states thus:
5.1.3 In recent years the Department has seen a number of planning application for flues serving wood burning stoves, and is broadly supportive of these. Consideration should be given to their placement, height, size and finish, as the main issue is likely to be the visual appearance of them and whether they would fit with the existing property and the street scene as a whole. Tall and/or prominent flues which have a detrimental impact to a property and/or street scene are unlikely to be supported. Where a flue may have an unacceptable detrimental impact, it may be possible to mitigate the impact by:
o colouring the flue to blend in with the existing colour of the wall the flue may adjoin (or a dark colour when the flue sits within a roof); o encasing the flue so that it appears as a chimney; or o incorporating the flue within the existing or new chimney stacks.
5.1.4 Before making any planning application, it is often helpful to discuss the required positioning and size of the flue required with the relevant Building Control Authority as Flues also require Building Control Consent (separate from planning approval). Details of flue sizing and positioning of the flue and installation of CO2 and heat alarms within the dwelling are all identified within the Building Regulations (Approved Document J - See 'Useful Contacts' at end of this report for details).
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of a previous application for the erection of a two storey extension to form garage / utility with living accommodation above on the site elevation of the dwelling under PA 07/01029/B which was permitted and erected, forming a part of the existing dwelling.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is 'No Highway Interest' in the letter dated 19 May 2020.
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00442/B Page 5 of 7
5.2 Marown Commissioners have written in regarding the application in a letter dated 21 May 2020 with the following comments:
The Commissioners are aware of a presumption against flat-roofed extensions which they support. They note that, in this case, provision of a pitched roof would be difficult or impossible owing to the design of the house. The extension at the rear of the property would not be visible from the highway.
The Commissioners resolved that the appearance could be improved with replacement of the Sun Tunnel by a lantern which would serve to break up the flat roof for the benefit of views from the neighbouring properties.
5.3 The Owner/Occupier of 21 Reayrt Ny Crink has written in with the following comments in a letter dated 28/07/2020:
With regards to the rear extension at 22 Reayrt Ny Crink Crosby. Ref 20/00442/B. I have discussed this with Trevor and at this time I have no objections from what he has told me.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The Assessment of the current application will be two fold; evaluating the impact of the proposed extension and the impact of the proposed flue on the property, the neighbouring dwellings and the locality as a whole.
6.2 Impact of rear extension 6.2.1 In respect of the impact of the extension on the existing dwelling, it is noted that the extension would be fairly well-hidden from public views given its position at the rear and the nature of the boundary treatment (timber fence, trees and shrubbery) which would considerably conceal the extension. Whilst the flat roofed design would be at variance with sections of paragraph 3.2.2 of the RDG 2019, the extension would be proportionate to the rear elevation in terms of size, height and appearance since it will be designed to match the existing dwelling in terms of material and finishing. As well, the external walls will be finished in brick facework which is common at the front elevation of the dwellings in this modern estate; as evidenced on the ground floor of the front elevation of the application dwelling. It is also noted that the retaining walls for the raised rear garden is finished in brick facework and as such the extension will fit seamlessly with the appearance of the existing building, thus complying with sections of paragraph 3.2.2 of the RDG which stipulates that extensions "should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling". Besides, this extension will appear as a subordinate addition to the main dwelling. The proposed walls will also improve the energy saving capacity of the extension and make it more functional during the hot and cold months.
6.2.2 With regard to impacts on neighbouring dwellings, the property most likely to be impacted would be No.21 which forms part of the semi-detached property to which the application site belongs. This is hinged on the fact that the external wall of the extension will be on the boundary with this abutting dwelling and will project about 5.9m along this boundary with the potential to impact on sunlight penetrating the rear of this dwelling.
6.2.3 Whilst it is noted that the length and position of the extension would be at variance with paragraph 4.2.3 of the RDG in that it would be more than 3m from the back of the existing dwelling and on the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling, with the potential to impact on 21 Reayrt Ny Crink, the owner of this abutting dwelling has written in to indicate support for the proposal. It is also noted that the semi-detached property to which the application site belongs has considerably large rear gardens, and there will be no windows on the affected elevation to introduce any form of overlooking. More so, the proposed height of 2.8m will not result in overbearing impacts on the neighbouring dwelling as it would project
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00442/B Page 6 of 7
into a rear garden which is about 800m high (with only 2m of the extension viewed from the position of the rear garden of 21 Reayrt Ny Crink.
6.3 Assessment of Flue 6.3.1 The advice in the RDG suggests that flues can be disguised in a variety of ways and that their impact can be reduced by painting them the same colour as the wall to which they are attached or a dark colour when the flue sits within a roof; as is the case of the application site.
6.3.2 There has been a recent application which was approved initially but refused on appeal following an adverse recommendation from the inspector. This application, 18/01125/B at Close Cowley was refused for reasons relating to the appearance of the flue and the effect of its use in terms of smell and smoke nuisance, to the immediate neighbour. The inspector accepted that that flue would only be seen by those living around the site but still considered that an adverse visual impact experienced by them would breach GP2 and the RDG. He was also concerned about the emissions from the flue, regardless of the fact that it appeared to have been installed by a registered installer and that Environmental Health had visited the site and had not experienced any smoke or smell. This flue was installed almost on the boundary of both properties and approximately 1m from the rear elevation, extending around 1m higher than the eaves of the main part of the two storey house. What is proposed here differs from the Close Cowley proposal as the position and location of the flue on the property, the distance of the abutting dwellings, and the direction and speed of the prevailing winds would ensure that there are no impacts on the neighbouring dwellings.
6.3.3 Discussions with the Head of Building Control and Standards within the Department indicate that in his view, the issue at Close Cowley was not with the location and installation of the flue which would appear to accord with the guidelines in the Building Regulations, but with the operation and it is possible that incorrect fuel was being used. There are procedures for this which would normally involve the installer returning to check the installation. Whilst in the Close Cowley case, the EHI visited the site it is clear that on their visit there was no smoke or smell nuisance. It would appear from the discussions with Building Control that there are both standards for flues and measures which can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection which can address issues should they arise.
6.3.4 As such, in the absence of any evidence that this current proposed flue will result in harm to the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, it is considered that the application is acceptable.
6.3.5 For these reasons, the flue is considered to be in accordance with GP2 as it is and additional mitigation as referred to in the RDG is not necessary.
RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Overall, it is concluded that the proposal complies with the relevant elements of GP2 and the RDG 2019, and is recommended for approval as a result.
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;
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00442/B Page 7 of 7
(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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 10.08.2020
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