135339

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 16/00169/B
                                 Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 16/00169/B Applicant : Mr Darren Kerruish Proposal : Erection of a sun room extension to rear elevation Site Address : 26 St Runius Way Glen Vine Isle of Man IM4 4FG

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 31.03.2016 Site Visit : 31.03.2016 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage a detached house sited on the southeastern side of the junction of St Runius Way and Elm Bank in Glen Vine.

1.2 Number 26 is fully rendered and of contemporary construction and appearance and has its rear garden running south of the Elm Bank highway; this is separated from the highway by lollipop fencing. It backs onto no.5 Elm Bank; the rear elevations of the two dwellings are 21m away from one another.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a single storey extension at the rear. This would have a gable end and a shallow roof pitch, and would be finished to match the existing dwelling. The extension would measure 28sqm in an almost square plan form (5m deep and 5.3m wide). A multi-fuel stove is shown in the northeastern corner of the room, and connected to this would be a flue protruding 1.4m up from the roof but only 0.6m above the apex. Bi-folding doors would open out onto the garden from the side, while there would be a new picture window in the gable end. The wall to face the Elm Bank highway is formed entirely of masonry.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications, save for that relating to its original construction in 1999. None of the neighbouring dwellings have been the subject of any applications considered material to the assessment of this one.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local plan policy the application site is located within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Isle of Man 1982 Development Plan.

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

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:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 16/00169/B
                                 Page  2  of  4

(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 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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services indicated the proposal has no highway implications on 25.02.2016.

5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners offered no objection in principle to the proposal on 18th March 2016, but "They have concerns, however, that the flue for the multi-fuel stove is poorly positioned and not high enough. They believe the current proposal for this will likely cause a smoke nuisance to neighbouring properties." In comments received 22nd April, they state that the Commissioners consider that the long chimney alone will not address their concerns, and that the proposed chimney is too close to the adjacent property; they suggest it should be "relocated at the far end of the extension".

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 There is a presumption in favour of extensions where these are appropriate in design terms and will not affect neighbouring living conditions or public amenity to an unduly harmful degree.

6.2 The extension proposed is fairly unremarkable but of an appropriate scale, form and finish to this contemporary dwelling. While the roof pitch is a little shallow, and if there were others that it would be read against more obviously, this may present something of a concern but the main gable is to the front of the property and therefore what is proposed will not suffer by comparison with this. It may also appear slightly longer than might be preferred from the side but, again, not to a degree sufficient to conclude that it would harm the character or appearance of either the dwelling or streetscene in which it sits.

6.3 There would be additional mass and overlooking with respect to the neighbouring property on St Runius Way, but this would be at a distance of 5m to the boundary and 6m to the dwelling, and in view of the fairly open nature of the back gardens here the resulting relationship between the two dwellings would not be harmfully altered from the existing situation. This is something of a balanced conclusion, though, and clearly the bi-folding doors would be better sited within the gable end of the extension to this end. However, in view of the fairly comfortable relationship that would result and the lack of objection from the neighbour, no objection is raised on this point.

6.4 The distance at the rear means that there is even less concern in respect of the proposal's impact on the Elm Bank dwellings. The resulting distance of in excess of 15m between the properties, and acknowledging the fact that there would actually be a reduction in fenestration facing out from the rear (two doors and a window would be replaced with a single window), it is considered that the resulting relationship would, again, remain comfortable and acceptable as a result.

6.5 The request for the chimney flue to be relocated to the far end of the extension is not understood. The flue is shown as far away from all neighbouring dwellings as would appear to be possible. While the concern of smoke nuisance is appreciated, it must be remembered that the flue would serve a domestic multi-fuel stove and would be unlikely to produce smoke to an extent that could be considered as unduly harmful to the amenities of neighbours.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 16/00169/B
                                 Page  3  of  4

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the above, then, it is concluded that the proposal is not at such significant odds with the relevant parts of GP2 as to warrant the application's refusal. The extension is proportionally quite large in plan and elevation form, and would result in a limited loss of privacy in the garden of the adjacent dwelling, but in neither case to such a scale as to demand an objection on these issues. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) 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 The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.04.2016

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 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 drawing 2016/DK/01, date-stamped as having been received 16th February 2016, and to drawing 2016/DK/02 Rev A, dated as having been received 31st March 2016.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 16/00169/B
                                 Page  4  of  4

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: 29.04.2016

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.