Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00947/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00947/B Applicant : Mr Steven Colley Proposal : Erection of single storey extension and installation of a first floor juliette balcony Site Address : 4 The Church View Braddan Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4TF
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.10.2020 __
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 considered that the development satisfies the requirements of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance 2019.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings C/807/5, C/807/6, C/807/1(A) and C/807/6 (A) all received on 26th August, 2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 4 Church View, which is a large detached dwelling situated in a residential cul-de-sac just off the A23 Braddan Road just south of its junction with the Ballafletcher Road. Although the cul-de-sac is laid out fairly
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00947/B Page 2 of 5
conventionally, with dwellings on either side of the road, no.4 sits discreetly just off the main road via a private access lane. It is visible from within Church View itself and also from the A23, but could not be said to be prominent from either. The land slopes downwards from the east, which further adds to its discreet visual impact.
1.2 A neatly proportioned, two-storey dwelling with prominent gable features (both front and rear) and an attached garage, no.4 shares an architectural language with the other dwellings on the cul-de-sac, but each is individually designed. The dwelling is finished in a cream-coloured render and brown concrete ridge tiles. The estate originates from the late 1990s.
1.3 The dwelling is surrounded on all sides by other dwellings of similar size and with similarly and proportionately large grounds. Some of these dwellings - nos.1, 2 and 6 Church View - are on the same cul-de-sac, to the north, northeast and northwest respectively. Other dwellings are found on the River Walk cul-de-sac, which sweeps around the remaining compass points: nos.11, 13, 15 and 17 River Walk all share a boundary with the application site, with no.11 being situated to the southeast and no.17 due west: nos.13 and 15 lie to the south and southwest respectively. The nearest of any of the dwellings to the application site is 6 Church View, which is 14m to the northwest. The dwellings' curtilages are bounded by a mixture of robust evergreen hedging, trees, walling and fencing.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for the erection of single storey extension and installation of a first floor Juliette balcony. The works would involve the erection of a single storey side extension on the north-west elevation to provide for a new family room for the dwelling. This extension would be 5.3m long, 4.5m wide and 5m high from the ground level to the ridge (2.7m to the eaves). This pitched roofed extension would have two gable ends, one on the side and another at the rear where the feature window would be installed.
2.2 The external walls of the new extension would be finished in painted render to match the existing. The roof tiles would also match the tiles on the roof of the main building. Also, the feature window to be installed at the rear would be new powder coated aluminium glazed units finished in dark grey, while a Georgian styled UPVC casement window would be installed on the front elevation of the extension.
2.3 Additional works would involve the removal of two windows at the rear of bedroom 1 with views to the rear garden, the insertion of a new lintel, removal of wall to floor level and the installation of a new UPVC framed window door unit. In addition, a new glazed Juliet balcony 1.2m high would be installed by the new window unit.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. As such, the proposal falls to be considered against the relevant extracts of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, and also paragraph 8.12.1 of that Plan; the former reads as follows:
3.2 General Policy 2 (in part): "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; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00947/B Page 3 of 5
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality
3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan reads as follows: "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 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 provides advice on the design of new residential development and how the impact may be measured on the living conditions of those in adjacent properties.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of three previous planning applications which are considered to be of material relevance to the determination of the current proposal.
4.2 PA 16/01350/B for the erection of a two storey side extension to dwelling. Approved.
4.2.1 The two storey extension which was proposed for the North West elevation of the dwelling has not been implemented as shown on the existing layout submitted under the current application.
4.2.2 The proposed single storey side extension would be built on the North West elevation and on a smaller footprint than the two storey side extension that was approved in 2016.
4.3 PA 97/01952/B for erection of dwelling (amendment to previously approved planning application 97/0098) plot 47, Church View, Braddan Hills, Braddan. Approved.
4.4 PA 93/01349/B for erection of detached dwelling with double garage, Plot 47, Braddan Hills, Braddan. Approved.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have indicated that there is 'No Highway Interest' in a letter dated 9 September 2020.
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners have indicated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 7 September 2020.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 Given the nature of the scheme, the key considerations in the assessment of this application are: i. The impacts on the visual amenity of the area and the street scene, ii. Impacts on neighbouring residential amenity with respect to overlooking and loss of privacy.
6.2 The visual impact
6.2.1 From the Church View, the ground floor of the North West elevation of the property is not visible, given the presence of mature trees on this boundary of the property with the neighbouring dwelling (6 Church View), as well as the presence of a 2m masonry wall that separates the front and rear gardens of No. 6 Church View. More so, the existing house and grounds in which the property sits is large and can accommodate sensitive and appropriately subordinate extensions. As well, the extension would remain well below the existing dwelling's
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00947/B Page 4 of 5
roof apex given that it is a single storey extension and would be finished to match the roof pitch, wall finishing, window type and design of the main building on the site.
6.2.2 Whilst the new feature window at the rear of the extension would be a new introduction to this modern estate, it is not considered that it would be unsympathetic with this modern dwelling. Besides it would be installed on the rear elevation where there would be existing high hedges that encloses the rear garden would screen view to the development. As such, it is concluded that the design of the proposed extension is well-considered and appropriately subordinate to the main dwelling and would not have detrimental impacts on the visual characteristics of the main dwelling and the surrounding street scene; thus complying with the relevant sections of General Policy 2 and also paragraph 8.12.1.
6.2.3 With regard to the new Juliet Balcony to be installed on the first floor of the rear elevation, it is noted that the balcony would only be slightly visible from some sections of River Walk, although with significant restrictions to views given the significant number of mature trees that line the boundary of the rear gardens of the properties on River walk with the properties of Church view. Besides, its scale or position would be in keeping with the residential area and the dwelling itself as most of the properties on the northern side of River Walk which is an adjacent modern residential estate have first floor balconies on their front elevations; thus it is not likely to appear as incongruous or eye-catching in relation to the wider site. In this respect, the proposal complies with GP2 (b, c & g), and is considered visually unobtrusive.
6.3 Impact on neighbouring living conditions
6.3.1 The dwellings of Church View are large and set in commensurately sizeable curtilages, and as such it is somewhat surprising to note that the shortest distance between existing dwellings is only 14m. A general 'rule of thumb' for such distances would be 20m, and might be expected to be greater in cases such as Church View where the estate has a fairly low density. With this in mind, it is right to have some concern about how the proposed extension might affect the existing relationship between nos.4 and 6 Church View.
6.3.2 Whilst the extension would bring the two dwellings to within 10m of one another, which, again, is lower than would normally be expected for a residential cul-de-sac of this density, it is noted that the extension will be a single storey extension and there would be no windows installed on the elevation overlooking No.6 Church View. As well, there is a thick cluster of trees on this boundary with the abutting dwelling and as such it is not considered that the scheme would result in detrimental impacts on the privacy of No. 6 Church View. It size and the fact that it is a single storey extension would also ensure there are no impacts on the outlook of No. 6.
6.3.3 Regarding the Juliet Balcony on the rear elevation, the biggest consideration in this assessment is the impact of the proposed Juliet balcony on the abutting properties on the south west boundary of the site (Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 19 River Walk). However, the possibility for overlooking to occur from this element of the proposed scheme is diminished by the distance between the application site and these dwellings (No. 13 would be 28.7m away; No. 15 is 37.4m away; No. 17 is 31.1m away; while No. 19 is 44.2m away). Granting this balcony will have restricted views of the rear garden of these abutting properties (over the existing hedges and through the thick tree line), its impact will be negligible and as such it is not considered that there would be detrimental impacts on the neighbouring dwellings.
CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the application accords with the policies outlined in this report for the above reasons assessed and is recommended for approval on that basis.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00947/B Page 5 of 5
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; (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: 28.10.2020
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