Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01141/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01141/B Applicant : Mr Leon Turner And Mrs Yvonne Plumbing Proposal : Extension at first floor level to provide additional living accommodation Site Address : 103 Fairways Drive Mount Murray Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 2JL
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.12.2020 __
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. For the avoidance of doubt no approval is hereby given for the installation of a first floor window ('New Master bedroom') to the side gable end elevation (west).
Reason: In the interest of residential amenities of neighbouring property.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Residential Design Guide 2019.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the Photographs, Planning Statement and drawings PL001, 008/EX001, and 008/EX002, date stamped and received 2 October 2020, and PL002/02 date stamped and received 25 November 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 ====
20/01141/B Page 2 of 6
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
104 Fairways Drive, Mount Murray, Douglas
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
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 103 Fairways Drive, Mount Murray, Douglas which is a modern two storey detached property situated to the northern side of Fairways Drive, which is within the Mount Murray housing development. The property has an integral garage on the western side of the front elevation which is served by the existing driveway for the dwelling.
1.2 The properties on Fairways Drive are all quite similar in terms of their size and design with mock Tudor detailing, although with varying layouts. The rear elevation of the properties on this side of Fairways Drive overlooks the golf course to the south.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for extension at first floor level to provide additional living accommodation.
2.2 The extension above the garage would run across the entire length of the garage which has a utility room at the rear and would have a roof level that will be 250mm lower than the main roof level. The extension would be finished in smooth render and painted to match the existing dwelling. Also, the roof would be finished in slate roof tiles to match existing, while the black Tudor boardings to gable end like that of the existing gable ends of the main house would be created. The black fascias and soffits would also be retained on the extension, and all new windows would be white UPVC double glazed windows to match existing.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The site is designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Predominantly Residential. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
3.2 General Policy 2 states: "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; (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; n) Is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01141/B Page 3 of 6
3.3 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."
3.4 The following sections of the RDG 2019 would also be vital in the assessment of the application:
3.4.1 Section 4.4: Extension to Side Elevation
4.4.1 This type of extension is a common extension throughout the Island as many properties are built with an attached garage which can physically accommodate being built above. Generally, the main issues relate to the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring property (see Chapter 7).
4.4.2 It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.
4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single storey and two-storey elements.
4.4.4 Generally, where the property stands in a line of detached/semi-detached dwellings and the extension would fill in the gap; there is a risk that the extension will create a terraced appearance This is not always in the interests of maintaining the character of the street, individual house, and in the interests of visual amenity, should be avoided.
4.4.5 One way of maintaining a visual break would be to set back the extension behind the front of the dwelling by a metre to create a clear break. In some circumstances only the first floor would be required to be set back by 1 metre, although this will be determined on a case by case basis. However, it is still advisable that the ground floor should be set back behind the front elevation, even if only by 0.3m to create a "shadow" which avoids the unsightly joining of old with new finishes, whilst also providing a distinction, albeit modest, of the extension from the main house.
4.4.6 A second way of maintaining a visual break would be by leaving a gap of at least 1 metre between the side of the extension and the boundary of the property. However, a slight setback should still be retained, potentially at first floor level at least. Again, this design helps avoiding the "terracing effect". In any case, where space permits the Department would encourage applicants to retain a pedestrian passageway, between the side extension and common boundary. This will also enable access for maintenance purposes, filling of oil tanks, allow transportation of refuse and garden waste, without passing through Habitable Rooms and give the dwelling a setting within its own plot.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered specifically material in the assessment of the application.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01141/B Page 4 of 6
5.0 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 23 October 2020.
5.2 Braddan Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 30 October 2020.
5.3 The owners/Occupant of 104 Fairways Drive, Mount Murray, a property immediately adjacent to the site have written in to object to the application on the following grounds in a letter dated 28 October 2020:
I wish to object to the proposed application on the basis the planned side window in the development would look directly into and on my conservatory causing a loss of privacy.
The conservatory is used as a living space incorporating all the attributes would expect to find in a family lounge as well as a home gym.
The vista from the proposed window would allow an unrestricted view into the conservatory.
The blinds within my conservatory are permanently fixed but are only drawn as they are too fragile to pull and are starting to fail due to the age.
My neighbour did discuss the extension with me but made no mention of a side window and only showed me a photo on a mobile phone which appeared to be taken by leaning out of a rear bedroom window. This image only showed a small percentage of my property. No mention of a side window was made.
5.3.1 In response to the comments made the Owners/occupants of 104 Fairways Drive, Mount Murray, the applicants have submitted revised plans (Drawing No. PL002/02) dated 27 November 2020, which omits the proposed window on the side elevation of the first floor from the scheme.
5.3.2 Having reviewed the revised plans submitted by the applicants, the Owners/occupants of 104 Fairways Drive, Mount Murray, have sent in revised comments in an email dated 28 November 2020:
The Comments: I have noted the amended plans for 103 Fairways Drive dated 27 November 2020. On the basis the the side elevation window overlooking my property has been removed from the proposed extension in perpetuity, I withdraw all my previous objection to the planning application from the date of this email.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In considering extensions such as this in a residential area, it is important to have specific regard to potential impacts on neighbours and their amenity, and the appearance of both the site itself and the street scene or character of the area.
6.2 Appearance of the Site and Street Scene
6.2.1 The proposals would result in a reasonably significant increase in development on the site, resulting in a noticeably larger dwelling. The main form of the dwelling would however be retained, as would the wall, roof and window finishes and design features. Moreover, the side extension would appear as a continuation of the existing dwelling and not so large as to result
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01141/B Page 5 of 6
in an out of balance appearance. In addition, the roof ridge would be set lower than the main roof ridge making the extension appear subordinate to the main dwelling. Therefore, the proportions, form, scale, design and finish of the extension is such that the proposal would be an appropriate form of development. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would not have significant impacts upon the amenities of the existing property to warrant a refusal.
6.2.2 With regard to impact on the street scene, it is noted that the proposed extension would bring the first floor level closer to the neighbouring dwelling at No. 104 fairways Drive. However, this is not considered to be at variance with the character of the street scene or the locality as the layout of the properties on Fairways Drive is such that the spaces between the buildings are narrow. Observations on a recent site visit to the area on 14 September 2020 showed that the distance between Nos. 77 & 78, 113 & 114, 112 & 113, 111 & 112, 107 & 108, considerably narrower than exists between the application site and 104 Fairways Drive. As such, what is proposed will not have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of Fairways Drive.
6.3 Impacts on Neighbours
6.3.1 When considering potential impact on the residential amenity of neighbours, general concerns of overlooking, shadowing and overbearing are assessed.
6.3.2 Firstly, overlooking risk is assessed by applying the '20 metre rule'. If a neighbours habitable room (living, dining, bedroom etc.) or garden area is within 20 metres of a proposed window opening there may be a risk of overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy. When this rule is applied with regard to Nos. 94 and 104 Fairways Drive, which are the properties most likely to be impacted by the development, it is not considered that overlooking would result, given that the windows on the added floor are in front and behind, and the orientation of the application site would ensure there are no clear views to the rear garden of the neighbouring property at 104 Fairways or the habitable rooms at No.94 which can be viewed from the ensuite window on the front elevation of the extension (as the windows would be angled away from these dwellings). Whilst No. 94 will be within the line of sight from the ensuite window, with windows situated within an 18m range, the orientation of both dwellings would ensure overlooking does not result from the proposed development. For these reasons, overlooking risk is not regarded as sufficient insomuch as to warrant a reason for refusal.
6.3.3 The level of shadowing can be estimated by the following; a simple check can be undertaken by drawing a section in a plane perpendicular to the main face of the building affected. If the potential obstructing extension subtends an angle to the horizontal, at a height 2 metres from ground level, less than 25° then there will still be the potential for good daylight to the interior. If this rule is applied, it is not considered that there would be a detrimental loss of light to the neighbouring property at No. 104 from the first floor extension over the existing integral garage given that the the spaces between the properties within the estate is considerably narrow, and the fact that there are no windows on the side elevation of the neighbouring dwelling.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Overall, it is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with aforementioned General Policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for approval.
8.0 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);
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01141/B Page 6 of 6
(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: 02.12.2020
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