Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00042/B
Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00042/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs John Kinley Proposal : Erection of extension to rear elevation Site Address : 31 Erin Way Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6EF
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 28.01.2016 Site Visit : 28.01.2016 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of no.31 Erin Way, a two-storey detached dwelling located on the southeastern side of Erin Way in Port Erin.
1.2 Erin Way is characterised by properties of a similar design as the application site. The rear of the row of houses in which the site sits can be seen from the public open space and Erin Lane further to the south.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a rear extension. The extension would be pentagonal in plan with a roof to match above; it would have a dwarf wall around the base to the wall parallel to the house, while the northeastern wall would be solid and the southwestern elevation almost fully glazed with a pair of French doors predominant. The extension would be 3.40m deep and 4.55m in width, with the northeastern wall roughly 0.8m from the boundary with no.29 Erin Way to the northeast. The wall with the French doors would sit roughly 4m from the other neighbouring dwelling though it is difficult to be absolutely certain as a proposed site plan has not been provided.
2.2 The extension would have rendered blockwork walls, tiled roof, and uPVC windows and doors to match the existing dwelling. There would also be a roof light in each of the side roof pitches.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site itself has not been the subject of any previous planning applications of material relevance to the determination of the current proposal, but it is noted that there are two other properties in this row of dwellings that have been the subject of similar extensions in recent years (PAs 14/00087/B and 13/91282/B at no.25 and PA 07/01528/B at no.27).
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site lies within an area zoned as residential under the Area Plan for the South 2013; in view of this and the nature of the proposal, it is considered that General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan apply.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal on 21.01.2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00042/B
Page 2 of 3
5.2 A representative of the neighbouring property (no.29) contacted the Department on 7th February 2016, noting her client's concern "about the proposed extension with respect to his house given the former's alignment with respect to his house and the difference in level between the two properties. The application provides no details with respect to his adjacent property". Although they advised that further detailed comments would follow, at the time of writing (5 days after the end of the consultation period) no further comments have been received.
The agent to the application was contacted with a view to understanding how he wished to proceed on this basis, and he requested the application be determined now as his clients would be unlikely to wish to change the design.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The proposal is considered to be unobjectionable in form, reflecting similar treatments found elsewhere along this row of dwellings. This is an important consideration as the public open space at the south affords unusually direct views of the rear elevations of these dwellings. However, it would be of a scale and mass appropriate to the dwelling against which it would sit and is therefore concluded to be of an acceptable form. The garden land that would remain would be fairly limited in scale but could not be considered inadequate.
6.2 Consideration has been given to reducing loss of privacy to no.29 to the north, along with the loss of light and overbearing impact, where the extension would sit fairly close to the neighbouring property, through the provision of a blank wall. While this might be slightly stark, it is probably preferable to full glazing, which would directly overlook the garden of that property. Even so, the relationship between the existing dwellings and proposed extension would not be so uncomfortable as to warrant an objection to the proposal, although the closeness of the extension to no.29 has caused some concern in the assessment process. The only window facing the extension from no.29 appears to be obscure-glazed, which further reduces concern about the resulting relationships between the dwellings even if there is a height difference between the two dwellings.
6.3 The proposed extension would be sufficiently far from the other neighbouring dwelling that this issue would not be of significant concern, and the lack of objection from either neighbour is noted. The roof would step away from the side elevations, while the chamfer at the back of the proposed extension and would help reduce any overbearing impacts or loss of light that might otherwise have resulted were the extension taller or nearer to the boundary than is proposed.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Overall, it is concluded that the proposed extension accords with the relevant provisions of General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
7.2 For the reasons set out above the planning application is recommended for approval.
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.
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00042/B
Page 3 of 3
In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The owner / occupier of 29 Erin Way, which is directly adjacent the application site.
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: 17.02.2016
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 approved relates to drawings 00, 01 and 02, all date-stamped as having been received 18th January 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: 19.02.2016
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