Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00269/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00269/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Ian Jones Proposal : Erection of extension to rear elevation Site Address : 15 Close Cubbon Peel Isle of Man IM5 1NS
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 06.04.2016 Site Visit : 06.04.2016 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is an almost rectangular parcel of land that comprises the residential curtilage of 15 Close Cubbon, a hipped-roof bungalow situated within a residential area of Peel.
1.2 The dwellings on the cul-de-sac were constructed in the late 1980s / early 1990s and are of a design fairly typical of that period. No.15 has a garage set back from the main frontage of the dwelling by some 7.8m. The entirety of the dwelling is finished with dashed render and the roof with grey tiling. The rear of the dwelling can be seen from a northwest cul-de-sac within Close Cubbon, and also from Derby Drive and the Shoprite car park to the south.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a flat-roofed side extension to the rear of the garage and also extended backwards beyond the rear building line. The extension would provide for a new kitchen and utility room and would allow for the conversion of the existing kitchen into a dining room, which the dwelling currently lacks. The utility room would have a door facing forwards towards the northeast although, given the angle of the boundary relative to the neighbouring no.16, this would not be altogether visible from the highway itself, and nor would the front wall of the proposed kitchen. The result would be something of a staggered appearance to the western side of the dwelling.
2.2 The extension would have two windows: one to the side and one to the rear. It would be finished to match the existing dwelling, though no information is given regarding the roofing material proposed.
2.3 The land falls away towards the southwest and so the extension would require a slight raising of the land level.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Other than PA 95/01116/B, which sought and was granted approval for the erection of the existing dwelling, the site has not been the subject of any previous applications considered material to the assessment of this one.
3.2 No.16 - approved some seven years earlier - also subsequently had approved the construction of a rear patio under PA 89/01314/B. This has been implemented.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00269/B
Page 2 of 4
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" on the Peel Local Plan 1990. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
4.2 General Policy 2: "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 is also worth noting: "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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure and Peel Town Commissioners offered no objections to the proposal on 15.3.16 and 04.04.2016 respectively.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key issues arising from the proposal are its impact on public amenity (i.e. is the design acceptable?) and its impact on neighbouring living conditions.
6.2 Turning to the issue of design, it remains the case the flat roofs are never an ideal solution from either an aesthetic or a maintenance perspective, and unless one is proposed to continue an existing flat-roofed extension it can be difficult for them to be successfully accommodated without undermining the whole appearance of the dwelling to which they would be attached.
6.3 In this case, it must be accepted that though the existing dwelling is neatly proportioned and essentially unobjectionable in and of itself, and also fits in with the surrounding dwellings of similar form, it could not be said to reflect high quality architecture worthy of preservation. There are, moreover, many other examples of flat-roofed extensions (usually, admittedly, garages) on Close Cubbon and to this end the proposed extension would not be out of keeping with the vernacular. It would not unduly harm the amenity of the area for this reason, and moreover would sit fairly unobtrusively behind the garage, which, it must be remembered, also lies some way behind the main frontage of the dwelling.
6.4 The flat-roofed element would be most conspicuous from other locations on Close Cubbon, Derby Drive and the Shoprite car park and while, again, it could not be said to be an ideal design solution, it remains acceptable. A form of hipped roof could be provided on the extension but the roof form would probably be a little awkward and would very likely be expensive to a degree unwarranted given that the impact from this proposed flat roof would not be especially objectionable.
6.5 The massing and scale is also acceptable - however, under a scheme that sought a hipped roof instead of the flat roof proposed, one or other of these may have resulted in an unsettled outcome, especially in terms of the impact on neighbouring living conditions.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00269/B
Page 3 of 4
6.6 Perhaps the clearest view of the development will be from the Shoprite car park. From the site visit it was evident that the dwellings of Close Cubbon share a dashed render finish with dark brown rooftiles above. Since the dwellings are close together, the built form tends to be read as a single 'piece' rather than as individual elements set alongside one another. The extension would not sit above the eaves line of the existing dwelling and its walls would be finished in a manner to match: as such, there would be minimal visual impact from the Shoprite car park since the walls of the extension would continue to form a part of the built form as viewed from here without affecting the overall massing or appearance to a significant degree. A similar argument to a much lesser scale could be made with respect to the front elevation.
6.7 Turning to the impact on neighbouring living conditions, then, it must first be noted that the extension will sit really quite closely to the boundaries of the dwellings nearby, but only no.16 Close Cubbon would likely be materially affected by it. The dwellings wo the immediate west feel rather further away than they might appear on reviewing the plan owing to the height differences here. The extra mass would also not bring the dwelling significantly or harmfully closer in respect of impacting on their private amenity.
6.8 The receptor of most concern, then, is no.16, and particularly so given its raised patio to the rear. The existing patio is large and nearly abuts the application site. However, although it is raised, it remains lower than the floor level of the application site and the hit-and-miss fencing acting as the boundary between the two dwellings would remain. It should be remembered that only one new window is proposed to face the patio. It would not be in a location or of a size that could be said to unduly affect neighbouring living conditions: the neighbouring patio is large and does not provide the only outdoor amenity space for no.16, which in any case has a fairly open aspect towards the west and south. It is likely that the use of the patio will feel a little less comfortable than has previously been the case but any resulting reduction in enjoyment to this end, for the reasons outlined, could not be said to be to a harmful degree.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the assessment outlined above, it is concluded that the proposal complies with the relevant extracts of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, and furthermore that there is insufficient reason to go against the presumption in favour of extensions as set out in its paragraph 8.12.1. Accordingly it is recommended that planning approval is granted.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.05.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00269/B
Page 4 of 4
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development hereby approved relates to JTM-053-P-10-00, JTM-053-P-01 and JTM-053-P-02, all date-stamped as having been received 4th March 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 09.05.2016
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
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