Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01059/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01059/B Applicant : Mr Trevor Boyles Proposal : Alteration from parapet flat roof to a pitched roof on approved extension (PA 20/00442/B) Site Address : 22 Reayrt Ny Crink Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2EA
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.11.2020 __
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.
C 2. All external facing and roofing materials shall remain as shown on the plans and specified within the list of external finishes on the submitted Drawing (Plans and Elevations), date stamped as having been received 14 September 2020. No new types of materials shall be added to the external elevations of the development, hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to accord with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the Location Plan, Site Layout and Drawing (Plans and Elevations), all date stamped and received 14 September 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
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01059/B Page 2 of 6
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
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 SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 22 Reayrt Ny Crink, 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 alteration from parapet flat roof to a pitched roof on approved extension (PA 20/00442/B).
2.2 The scope of works would see the alteration of the previously approved parapet roof for the rear extension to a pitched roof. The new pitch roof would be 1.2m high from the eaves to the ridge. This moderately pitched roof would be finished in tiles to match the existing roof on the building, while two roof lights 750mm x 750mm would be installed on either of the roof panes.
2.3 Other changes would include: i. Lowering the eave height from 2.6m to 2.4m. ii. Installing the existing French door and window on the rear elevation of the kitchen on the east elevation, instead of the bifold doors that were initially approved for this elevation under PA 20/00442/B. iii. Relocation of the approved flue from the eastern end of the extension to a position about 2.8m towards the western end of the new extension. The flue would still be strapped back to the existing property and will still rise 1m above the rear eaves of the main dwelling but will be completely confined to the rear roof plane as it will not be seen from the street scene. iv. A large picture window would be installed on the north elevation of the extension, instead of the previously approved casement window. v. The width of the extension has been reduced from 5.1m to 4.8m.
2.4.1 There would be no changes to the finishing of the external wall as it will be finished in facing brick.
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:
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01059/B Page 3 of 6
"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: "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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01059/B Page 4 of 6
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, 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.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most relevant application to the current application would be PA 20/00442/B where approval was granted for erection of a flat roofed rear extension to the dwelling. The design elements also involved elements that would be altered by the current application.
4.2 The application site has also 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 9 October 2020.
5.2 Marown Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 22 October 2020.
5.3 The Owner/Occupier of 21 Reayrt Ny Crink has written in with the following comments in a letter dated 15 September 2020:
I am aware my neighbour has resubmitted planning application regarding a change to the roof of the planned extension, from flat to pitched. From discussing it with him he assures me that this will have less impact on me than the initially approved flat roof. Therefore I have no objections to the change to the planning application.
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01059/B Page 5 of 6
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The assessment of the current application will be two fold; evaluating the impact of the proposed extension on the property, the neighbouring dwellings and the locality as a whole.
6.2 Visual impact
6.2.1 With regard to the impact of the extension on the existing dwelling, it is considered that the works which would be confined to the rear of the dwelling are unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area, given the nature of the boundary treatment (timber fence, trees and shrubbery) which would considerably conceal the extension. The pitch roof of the extension, as well as its finishing which would be tiled to match the existing roof finishing would ensure that the extension ties in with the main dwelling, whilst remaining a subordinate addition to the dwelling. In addition, 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". The proposed external walls will also improve the energy saving capacity of the extension and make it more functional during the hot and cold months.
6.3 Impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring dwellings
6.3.1 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. However, the location of the rear extension northwest of the neighbouring dwelling would ensure that any loss of light on the neighbouring kitchen is minimal; given that the sun's orientation is East to West (Paragraph 7.3.1 of the RDG 2019). Thus, it can be concluded that the orientation would ensure that there would be no overshadowing or blocking of direct sunlight coming to the kitchen of the abutting dwelling.
6.3.1 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 fact that the shallow pitch roof of the extension would lean away from this neighbouring dwelling would ensure that any overbearing impact is diminished. It is also considered 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. Besides, the owner of this abutting dwelling has written in to indicate support for the proposal.
6.3 Assessment of Flue 6.3.1 With regard to the flue, it is noted that this element of the scheme has already been granted. Moreover, the relocation of the position of the flue along the rear elevation of the rear dwelling (within the rear extension) is not considered to exacerbate its impact or create conditions that would be significant different from the previously approved location. As well, it is not considered that the new location within the rear extension will result in harm to the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, as it would not introduce conditions that would be at variance to the previously position. 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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01059/B Page 6 of 6
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; (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: 10.11.2020
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