Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00489/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00489/B Applicant : Mr Gary A Proctor Proposal : Restoration and remodelling of property including removal of lean- to extension and replacement with extension to north-east elevation Site Address : 21 Lime Street Port St. Mary Isle of Man IM9 5EF
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 21.06.2017 Site Visit : 21.06.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 21 Lime Street, which was once a traditional, three-bay Manx dwelling situated in a terrace of four similar dwellings. The dwelling has had a side extension added between it and the neighbour, which is finished in identical pebbledash finish to the existing dwelling but the position of the chimney remains in its original position and therefore the dwelling has a somewhat ungainly, stretched appearance, particularly given that the other three dwellings in the terrace more or less retain their traditional appearance. It is understood that these three were originally quarry-workers' cottages, while no.20 was built later and is set at a noticeable angle from the adjoining terrace.
1.2 To the rear of the dwelling, which faces northeast and over the bay, there has been added a full-width extension that presumably was an attempt to emulate a cat slide roof, but which is dominated by a flat-roofed projecting garage that extends beyond the larger extension. Views of this and the neighbouring buildings are readily achievable from the rear lane that runs behind the dwellings (albeit this may not be adopted), and also from the nearby pier / breakwater. It is evident from this position that the rhythm of the rear dwellings is defined largely by gable walls with pitched roofs above, although flat roofs are evident. No.20 has been extended in this fashion, with timber cladding latterly affixed to give it a contemporary feel.
1.3 Of the terrace, three have flat-roofed porches (the adjoining 22 Lime Street being the exception). Nos.19 and 20 to the northwest are finished in natural stone with prominent render band detailing around the windows, while the application site and no.22 are identically finished in pebbledash. Both nos.19 and 20 have sliding sash windows, while nos.21 and 22 have casement windows. No.22 was apparently built later than nos.19-21, with the aforementioned 'gap' between nos.21 and 22 understood to have been filled in during the 1950s.
1.4 Immediately adjacent the terrace is the southeast is Port St. Mary Lifeboat Station. To the northwest lie two further two-storey dwellings with clearly traditionally Manx leanings, although not quite vernacular in form or finish. One of these is a fairly recent new-build.
1.5 The surrounding area is quite varied in architectural and historic terms. Beyond the terrace within which the application site sits are some bungalows of fairly limited architectural merit and a hotel converted to an apartment block to the southwest, with the recently renovated warehouse to
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00489/B
Page 2 of 11
the northwest, which utilised a contemporary design approach. In addition to the dwellings, there is also the pier / breakwater and areas of open green space.
1.6 The site is within the proposed Port St. Mary Conservation Area.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The submitted application seeks approval for a full-scale renovation of the property along with some significant extensions and alterations, both to the front and rear. A comprehensive Planning & Design Statement has been submitted with the application to explain the design approach taken, which notes that the gross extension to the dwelling will be 30%, or 70sqm.
The front 2.2 All the pebbledash will be removed from the original part of the dwelling to expose the Manx stonework that the neighbouring nos.19 and 20 exhibit, and will be re-pointed with lime render. The windows in the original part of the dwelling will be replaced with timber sliding sash units. The later extension will be removed, with a new wall set slightly back and clad in grey or bronzed coloured metal or zinc cladding, while the two windows will have metallic frames and reveals. The existing asbestos roof tiles would be replaced with natural slate on the original part of the dwelling, with the metal-clad lining proposed on the elevation to continue upwards onto the roof of the infill section - albeit this latter section would be predominantly given over to a flush-mounted solar panel "if feasible", according to the Planning Statement.
2.3 Also proposed is a new porch. This would be flat-roofed. No materials are given for this, but it has been drawn in a manner that matches entirely the porches drawn at No19 and 20 - the application helpfully includes a Lime Street elevation of the four-dwelling terrace.
2.4 Also to the frontage, it is proposed that the existing low level wall, which is finished in pebbledash, will be smooth-rendered to match those alongside.
The rear 2.5 The proposals to the rear are much more significant in scale. They would not, however, be particularly visible from Lime Street - a section drawing has been provided that shows the top of the pitched roof may be visible from the other side of the street to the application site, but if so only a small element would be apparent.
2.6 The existing cat slide roof and projecting garage extension would be removed. These would be replaced with a three-storey extension to the southeastern part of the rear elevation and a part- single and part-double-storey extension with a roof terrace above to the northeastern part of the rear elevation. The single storey element, which would project some 11.8m further back than the taller part of the three-storey extension and 13.8m further back than the two-storey element, would be flat-roofed to accommodate the terrace above. It would be finished with a smooth render. The two storey element would also be flat-roofed and would be fully glazed below a brown roof, albeit that there would be only a single pair of French doors opening onto the terrace beyond.
2.7 The larger element would provide accommodation over three storeys with a prominent gable wall form, albeit that this, too, would be almost entirely glazed. The 'frame' of the walling within which the glazing is proposed would be finished in stone, which would be continued around the side elevations of this part of the extension proposed. The roof would be finished in a standing seam metal roof, which would be not dissimilar to the style that may be used on the front elevation. Within the fully glazed element are some timber sliding screens, which appear to be louvred, on the middle storey and a metal balustrade at the top floor.
2.8 The existing back wall is understood to have been regularly altered over previous decades. It is proposed that this be partially removed to allow for construction access, after which it would be partially reinstated with a white render finish and access gate made of timber and metal. Also proposed is a ground floor terrace, with the garden otherwise laid to grass.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00489/B
Page 3 of 11
2.9 The Planning Statement sets out the design approach, variously, as follows:
"Generally, the blend of natural stone, smooth render finishes, with occasional punctuation of timber and grey- or bronze-coloured metal, will give a pleasing visual impression and complement the finishes used on adjacent, existing buildings while expressing the extension in a more contemporary language.
"The overall height of the proposal was considered appropriate in scale to its environment and neighbouring properties... The varied expressions of set back and projecting gable elements was continued with the projecting gable [proposed] having a pitched roof...to follow the architectural language of the surrounding area."
Other matters 2.10 The Planning Statement outlines a number of environmentally friendly features (wall insulation to both new and existing fabric; ensuring air-tightness of windows and doors; solar panels; heating controls; brown roof for water attenuation and biodiversity) that the scheme includes.
2.11 The Planning Statement also explains that impact on neighbouring amenities - specifically loss of daylight and privacy - have also been taken into account in the development of the proposal. It notes that the larger element of the extension is positioned furthest east to ensure that the majority of overshadowing will occur on the applicant's own land. It notes that a single window, comprising less than 1sqm of glazing, will be inserted in the [south]east-facing elevation and at a high level. To the [north]west-facing elevation is proposed a dormer window that the Statement explains will provide access to the brown roof and will also provide light to the upper floor's shower room. The Statement explains that the terrace proposed follows examples of others at nos.18 and 20 Lime Street where terraces have been added in recent years.
2.12 The Statement also explains that the existing access and garage will be replicated.
2.13 The Statement notes that the site is partially within an area identified as being at high risk of tidal flooding [case officer note: this area appears to extend to the entirety of the garden of the dwelling, and ever so slightly into the existing dwelling's footprint]. As the existing building and its entrance towards Lime Street are located approximately 150mm above (and outside of) the tidal flooding zone, the Statement is clear that no specific flood prevention measures are required for the proposed development.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site itself has not been the subject of applications considered to be of material relevance to the determination of the current scheme.
3.2 There are, however, applications that have been submitted nearby that are considered to be material.
3.3 Nos.19 and 20 have been the subject of no fewer than 14 applications since 1982: these properties are in the same ownership and for about 8 years were occupied as a single dwelling, but PA 15/00347/B allowed for the blocking up of an internal wall such that the original arrangement of two dwellings was again arrived at. (That being said, there was also a subsequent approval that also allows no.19 to be used as tourist accommodation.)
3.4 Of perhaps clearer relevance are the applications relating to the rear of no.20, which is the adjoining dwelling to no.21: PA 08/01057/B sought and was granted approval for the larger of the two projecting gable extensions, which is predominantly glazed, as well as the use of part of the flat-roofed garage as a terrace. Subsequently, PA 09/01180/B sought approval for the installation of horizontally laid timber cladding on the existing, smaller gable projection: the case officer noted
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00489/B
Page 4 of 11
that the timber offered a welcome improvement to the existing dashed finish while also introducing an appropriate element of seaside character, and the application was approved.
3.5 The roof terrace at no.18 was approved under PA 05/01188/B, which was an application for the erection of a replacement dwelling.
3.6 Slightly further afield, but also within the vicinity, is the aforementioned warehouse building. This is relevant because the application proposed some contemporary treatments to the exterior of the building, and which was (and is) one of historic interest. Some members of the Planning Committee may recall their consideration of this application (PA 13/91520/B) on 24th February 2014. Some members expressed concern with the design that was proposed, while others offered support. There was concern raised regarding flooding because the site fell within the same area of tidal flood risk as the site the subject of this report, and it was agreed that this should be addressed by way of an advisory note on the approval notice. The case officer in making her assessment of the scheme wrote the following, which is very relevant to the assessment of the current proposal:
"The existing annex to the building is neither original nor attractive and its replacement with a new annex is welcome. The applicant has attempted to create an extension which retains the distinctiveness of the original building whilst not drawing too much attention to the extension itself. The setting back slightly of the extension and the use of different materials is designed to assist this. Whilst a more conventional design, reflecting the traditional nature of the existing building, could have been followed, this may not have resulted in the preservation of the main warehouse building as does the current scheme. It is a subjective judgement as to whether the approach is acceptable, but it is recommended that the approach adopted, to create a distinctive but subordinate annex is acceptable and that the impact of what is proposed is also acceptable. The use of modern materials, such as for the windows is therefore considered appropriate although the external door handles as shown in the typical technical details could appear a little clumsy and as such further details of these should be approved prior to the installation of any doors."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated as Mixed Use on the Area Plan for the South and also, as noted, within a proposed Conservation Area that includes much of the bayside areas of the village.
4.2 The site also lies within an area designated as being at high risk of tidal flooding on the Area Plan for the South.
4.3 The building itself is not mentioned within the Character Appraisal, but there is mention of Lime Street, and particular reference is made to the poor form of the rear of those dwellings.
4.4 In respect of the development proposed, then, it is considered that General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan has the most relevance:
"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; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (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;
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00489/B
Page 5 of 11
(k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
4.5 Environment Policy 34 is also relevant:
"In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred."
4.6 Finally, Environment Policy 35 is also considered to have material relevance, even if the Conservation Area has not been adopted. Planning Inspectors have given the view that a proposed Conservation Area is a material consideration in the assessment of applications within them and, accordingly, the main policy that is used to assess applications so located must also be a material consideration:
"Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
4.7 Finally, 'Planning Circular 1/98: The Alteration and Replacement of Windows' provides guidance in respect of the alteration or replacement of windows:
"If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows which would be readily visible from a public thoroughfare MUST HAVE THE SAME method of opening as the originals. Whatever the material used in their construction, the windows MUST HAVE THE SAME pattern and section of glazing bars and the same frame sections as the original windows.
"Windows not readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same or similar pattern of glazing bars as the original method of opening, whatever the material used in the construction."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services stated on 31.05.2017 that the proposal had no highway implications.
5.2 In their response Port St. Mary Commissioners, on 25.05.2017, noted that while the majority of the Board had no objections to the principle of the proposal, members did feel that the balcony at the rear of the property [this is presumably the terrace, rather than the upper floor balcony] is too high and would visually impair the privacy of the people opposite.
5.3 The owner / occupier of 20 Lime Street, which is the dwelling adjoining the application site to the northwest, and who is also the owner of 19 Lime Street, wrote in support of the application in comments received 22nd May 2017. He notes that the plans and style of development are quite different to anything else on the back of Lime Street and this is what makes it exciting. He also states that he is delighted that the next generation can see the potential of this fabulous location and he fully supports the proposals to bring the property into the 21st century.
5.4 The owner / occupier of 22 Lime Street, which is the dwelling adjoining the application site to the southeast, wrote in objection to the application in comments date-stamped as having been received 30th May 2017. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as:
o the application as submitted bears little resemblance to the plans initially shown to them; o if the adjoining element of the dwelling is removed as proposed this will expose my gable wall, and the new stairwell proposed here must not afford support from that wall and will require a new cavity wall parallel to the gable; o any new foundations could undermine my gable wall; while agreeing that reasonable mutual access between adjoining properties should be allowed for maintenance and repair, the proposed
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00489/B
Page 6 of 11
three-storey extension cannot be built as shown as access cannot be guaranteed for the new construction; o the three-storey extension is considered to be out of context in both appearance and proportion to the adjoining properties and in particular with regards loss of light and privacy to 22 Lime Street; o the proposed roof terrace similarly affects a loss of privacy to 22 Lime Street with direct views into the living areas; o my property appears to be dimensionally misrepresented with regards the height of the chimneys and the fact that the coal shed adjoining another shed is well inside the existing building line of the applicants' property and not beyond as shown on the plans; o the proposed Bedroom 3's east elevation would be too close to the boundary, would overlook my property and would impact on any future extensions to the rear of that property; o the extent of demolitions is unclear on the plans.
5.5 The applicant, in noting these comments, wrote to the Department in response in a letter dated 15th June 2017. He noted that a letter had been written seeking views, and moreover that he visited the objector with a view to arranging a meeting to discuss the issues, which the case officer had offered to host or attend as the other two parties saw fit, but ultimately this was not viewed as acceptable by the objector who considered the matter 'subjudacy' [case officer note: this is understood to be reference to 'sub judice', which is a legal phrase that means 'under consideration']. While disappointed with this, especially given that he feels the majority of the concerns raised are on the basis of incorrect assumptions, the applicant did not see fit to push the matter further and therefore uses the letter to address the concerns raised. He notes:
o the submitted application differs from that initially discussed with the objector because a design change was driven via consultation with the planning and conservation officers; o similar comments were raised by the objector's daughters in earlier conversations; o any works that expose the gable end of 22 Lime Street will be adequately protected, and the revised detailing will afford an enhanced weathering and aesthetic detail to all abutments; o the part of the structure abutting 22 Lime Street is a rebuild of the existing with an unchanged footprint - it will be an independent structure formed of steel frame, designed by a chartered structural engineer, and will not impose any loads onto 22 Lime Street; o it is neither necessary nor intended to construct a cavity wall; o while it is appreciated that access for scaffolding may not be guaranteed, this would not prevent construction; o it is hoped that a level of consideration will be afforded in both directions and that a compromise can be achieved; o the comments regarding the context and appearance of the works are, with respect, subjective; o the design, which has evolved through conversations with the planning and conservation officers, now complements established features at the rear of Lime Street such as glazed gables, terraces and material palette; o 3D renderings have been provided in support; o it is anticipated that any loss of light will occur only on sunny days but limited to late afternoon when the sun is low and would likely occur with any scheme that adds accommodation; o the high-level window in the east elevation has been designed to allow light and ventilation without undue effect to privacy; o we have attempted to allay the objector's concern with regards the proposed roof terrace by submitting a photograph from the northeasternmost corner of the existing garage upon which the terrace would sit, and this shows that any new views would be limited to an internal window reveal and affords no view whatsoever into living accommodation [case officer note: this photograph will be available for the Planning Committee to view on the day of their meeting]; o some overlooking of gardens will occur but this is unavoidable in the tight setting; o roof terraces are an established feature of the neighbouring properties; o the heights of the chimneys are representative without requiring change;
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00489/B
Page 7 of 11
o it is accepted that part of a ground floor shed does not extend as far as shown but this does not materially affect the extent of the extension, which has been designed to sit proportionately in both massing and footprint terms; o we are unable to take into consideration any future extension of which we have no knowledge and for which no application has been made, and for which any previous intention or interest in doing so has not been communicated to us; o the demolitions can be ascertained from a comparison between the existing and proposed drawings submitted, but we can confirm that demolition will be limited to previous extensions - that of the 1950s infill and the 1980s extension that included the kitchen and living areas, and with the original Manx stone cottage remaining.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main elements with this application are the appropriateness of the alterations and extension with regards visual impact and neighbouring living conditions. There is no alteration in highway safety terms since the existing access would be retained and the existing single garage would be replicated.
Design quality 6.2 It is good conservation practice to ensure that new elements to a building are clearly designed as such to enable new and old features to be read against one another so the evolution of the building can be readily appreciated. In this sense, the contemporary nature of the extensions and alterations proposed are to be broadly welcomed, and particularly so to the front elevation. Though pastiche approaches can and do work in certain locations / circumstances, the infill section between nos.21 and 22 Lime Street is manifestly inappropriate since the buildings were erected and different times and the retention of the chimneys in their original position gives the dwelling a most unfortunate appearance in the streetscene. The use of contemporary cladding materials will provide an important intervention between the older dwellings and help the original terrace of three sit separately from its newer neighbour at no.22.
6.3 Moreover, the reinstatement of the plain render on the front wall and of the stone finish to the dwelling alongside the installation of timber sliding sash windows is of clear benefit to the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscene, and these alterations are to be entirely welcomed.
6.4 Of most concern is the possibility that the three-storey extension could be visible from Lime Street. This is a perennial concern with extensions that are taller than the existing dwelling. In this case, however, and somewhat on balance, it is not considered that this is fundamentally objectionable. It is noted that there are already certain elements that break the apices of the existing dwellings - a flue, chimney stacks, and also (when viewed from the north) the pitch of the Port St. Mary Lifeboat Station. As such, and while sight of the apex above the proposed three- storey extension will undeniably be slightly uncomfortable, it is not considered that this is reason enough to refuse the application.
6.5 The extensions proposed to the rear are large in scale. However, there are already large projecting gable features on the rear of no.20, and these appear to be the tallest such extensions, which illustrates a fundamental truth that there must always be one dwelling within a varied streetscene that is taller than the others. The very instance of its being taller does not make it unacceptable: it is the extent to which that additional mass can be accommodated on the existing building without affecting its appearance.
6.6 In this case, and while it is accepted that the finishes will not be to everyone's tastes, the overall form the larger of the two elements would take reflects strongly upon the rhythm of the rear of the Lime Street dwellings. Peaks on gable walls of the existing dwellings are particularly evident, and the massing proposed here will reflect on this in a contemporary fashion, allowing the new to sit comfortably alongside the old. It is accordingly judged to be a well-considered architectural approach.
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00489/B
Page 8 of 11
6.7 The smaller of the two elements proposed is a little less comfortable in design terms. Flat roofs are rarely an ideal form, particularly when sat against traditional or historic forms. However, it is accepted that this - despite also being glazed - will be far less prominent than the larger, three- storey extension, which is judged acceptable. Accordingly, the flat-roofed element will be subordinate in the overall scheme and acceptably so.
6.8 In addition to the above, it is also to be noted that the removal of the rearward extensions, which fail to positively respond to the immediate historic context, is to be welcomed. This is therefore a further point in favour of the application to be balanced against concern raised in design terms regarding the extensions proposed.
6.9 It is accordingly concluded that the proposed design of the extensions and alterations are strongly welcomed in principle, broadly welcomed in detail, and therefore accord with parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 and also Environment Policy 35. There would be a clear improvement to the appearance of the rear of this terrace, in accordance with the Draft Character Appraisal accompanying the proposed Conservation Area.
Impact on neighbouring living conditions 6.10 Loss of light and loss of privacy are often subjective and sensitive matters, and accordingly can be difficult to objectively assess. There are concerns with respect to both these issues on both adjoining properties - even though it appears the owner of one is very keen on the proposal whereas the other is very concerned by it.
6.11 In many ways, the greater impact might be considered to be that in respect of the property whose owner is in favour of the scheme (no.20 (and 19)). There is already a roof terrace here and that proposed will sit near that. The new terrace would also be adjacent the boundary of this dwelling. This will allow intervisibility at first floor level in a manner not currently possible. It will also allow views back towards windows in the rear elevation of no.20, which the new terrace will sit directly alongside. However, the support from the owner of that property is noted and, while planning officers need to be mindful of the effect of proposals on future as well as current occupiers of dwellings, they should also be respectful of comments made in favour of applications. It is likely, given the points above, that there would be more significant concern raised in terms of the impact on no.20 were there no letter of support in respect of the application.
6.12 Equally, concern raised must also be properly and respectfully considered. In the first place, the objections made by the owner of no.22 in respect of impact on foundations, structural stability and the submission of plans different to those he had seen are not material planning considerations. While the accuracy of drawings regarding areas not subject to development proposals can certainly be such a consideration, in this case any inaccuracies that do exist are judged to be too minor to warrant the submission of amended plans.
6.13 Turning to the effect of the proposed works on neighbouring living conditions, however, this is both a material consideration and a matter for concern. The photograph submitted by the applicant is helpful. This, in noting that the terrace as proposed would be more or less in the same position as the existing garage, does seem to demonstrate quite clearly that the views into the dwelling would be kept well within satisfactory levels.
6.14 However, the impact on the garden is distinctly different and of more concern. The argument of the applicant that any development resulting in increased accommodation would inevitably result in an increase in overlooking rather misses the point that any level of overlooking that would harmfully affect neighbouring living conditions is presumed against by part (g) of General Policy 2. The test here must be whether or not the loss of privacy that may result would be unacceptable, and this requires careful consideration.
6.15 There is already some mutual overlooking between the gardens of these two dwellings given that the wall separating them is lower than eye-level. It is undeniable that an increase in height
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00489/B
Page 9 of 11
from which people will be able to overlook the garden of no.22 will have a harmful impact on the enjoyment of that garden. The feeling of being overlooked from a height will not be comfortable. However, as noted, there is already the possibility of being overlooked, even from the ground level, and while this probably does not (or would not) happen a great deal with the present arrangement, that possibility nevertheless exists. Moreover, it is to be strongly borne in mind that the terrace is not to be sited alongside the common boundary of nos.21 and 22: the glazed panels surrounding it, which though see-through would add a further level of protection in respect of privacy loss, are shown as being a minimum of 14m away from that boundary. The two gardens are relatively long and that distance increases noticeably - for example, the distance to the nearest edge of the garden from the terrace is 27m. The fact that the two dwellings are angled away from one another also means that the directness of the overlooking between the sites is reduced.
6.16 Having visited the site, the openness at the rear has a dual impact in reaching a judgement on this matter. On the one hand, no.22 cannot be readily overlooked by more than a handful of dwellings, with the primary (i.e. most interesting) views for all people likely to be over the bay to the rear. On the other hand, this also means than alterations to an existing relationship between two dwellings may have a greater impact than if there were already significant levels of mutual overlooking. The openness also has the result of making what are generous-sized gardens feel smaller. It is also to be noted that there is land beyond the application site, between it and the bay, which is readily accessible (albeit not apparently publicly accessible), and from where views of the back of each dwelling can be made.
6.17 It should also be noted that the newest dwelling in the area - that sited at 18 Lime Street and discussed at paragraph 3.5 of this report - also has a roof terrace, while there is a nearer one at no.20. That at no.20 provides, to some degree, views over the garden of no.22 already.
6.18 In terms of loss of light, it is noted that the sweep of the sun and the orientation of the dwellings is such that limited direct sunlight will be enjoyed at the rear of properties at present. In some ways this makes the protection of that existing situation all the more important. It does not seem that the proposed extensions would result in any more significant loss of light than occurs at present because of the mass of the existing dwellings. The morning light that reaches no.22 will be unaffected by the proposed extensions (which are to its west), while the evening light will likely already be interrupted by the massing of the existing terrace here.
6.19 Being mindful of the foregoing, it is not considered that the impact of the roof terrace would be so harmful as to warrant the application's refusal. There will, undeniably, be an impact on neighbouring living conditions, but this will be limited to within acceptable levels given the points outlined above. Strong weight has been given to the openness of the bay beyond the terrace, to the existence of another roof terrace nearby that provides some mutual overlooking, and also to the fact that there is already intervisibility between the gardens of the dwellings. While the views of no.22's garden from the proposed terrace would be higher than is currently achievable, this does 'work both ways' inasmuch as anyone in the garden of no.22 will have views of people sitting on the terrace at no.21. Less protection is required for impacts on privacy in gardens than within dwellings because people spend far more time in their homes than outside of them. It is overall concluded that an objection to the terrace, though the comments made in objection are understandable, would be difficult to sustain at appeal.
6.20 In reaching this judgement, consideration was given to requiring the glazed panels be obscured. This would help reduce the intervisibility significantly, and of course would also have the effect of removing views from the balcony. Loss of view is, of course, not a material planning consideration - but if part of the purpose of a proposed development is to provide a view, then to remove it via condition could be considered ultra vires. It is accordingly concluded that a condition to this effect would be unnecessary, but the Planning Committee may feel otherwise. In such a case, it may be worth giving consideration as to how much of the glazing should be obscured - and also to what degree.
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/00489/B Page 10 of 11
6.21 It is not considered that the window in the upper floor will be harmful in privacy terms. It is too small and too high on the proposed extension to afford meaningful views of neighbouring property.
Other matters 6.22 Concern has also been raised with respect to how the development proposed may affect future development proposals adjacent the site. This is certainly an important point, and the hypothetical future development of neighbouring dwellings must be considered as per part (k) of General Policy 2. However, with the vast majority of the side of the extensions being formed of unbroken walling, it is not considered that this would prevent the rearward extension of either the neighbouring dwellings. The single window in the elevation facing no.22 will provide some additional light, but the room has a fully glazed gable wall facing across the bay such that any extension alongside it would be unlikely to result in unduly harmful loss of light or privacy - or, at the very least, there is no reason that an extension could not be designed to have such an appropriately limited effect.
6.23 There has been no concern raised with regards flood risk from Manx Utilities, and it is to be noted that the footprint of the extensions is not altogether dissimilar to that of the dwelling at present. Accordingly, the applicant's view that a flood risk assessment is unnecessary is accepted, but an advisory note suggesting they contacting MU in advance of undertaking any work is nevertheless recommended for their benefit.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7.1 The design of the proposals has been judged acceptable, and in respect of several of the alterations proposed - including the prominent front elevation - is actively welcomed. The impact on neighbouring living conditions is less clear-cut, and a significant level of balance has had to be struck. It could therefore be said that the conclusions on the two key issues pull in opposite directions. However, in carefully considering the varied impacts in design / visual impact and private amenity terms, it has been concluded that both are acceptable, albeit the latter on balance. However, a design being judged acceptable (even positive) should not outweigh concerns regarding impact on neighbouring living conditions and, while the concern raised has been done so in a measured and understandable manner, it is not considered that those concerns amount to a substantive reason to refuse the application.
7.2 It is accordingly concluded that the application is acceptable and therefore carries a recommendation to approve.
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 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2.1 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.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/00489/B Page 11 of 11
o The owner and occupier of 22 Lime Street, Port St. Mary, which adjoins the application site, and o The owner and occupier of 20 Lime Street, Port St. Mary, who is also the owner of 19 Lime Street, Port St. Mary, the former dwelling of which adjoins the application site.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.06.2017
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.
N 1. The applicant is advised to contact the Manx Utilities flood risk team to discuss any potential flooding impacts to the property and how these may be best mitigated against.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1702_SHEET 01 P1, 1702_SHEET 02 P1, 1702_SHEET 03 P1, 1702_SHEET 04 P1, 1702_SHEET 05 P1 and 1702_SHEET 06 P1, all date- stamped as having been received 2nd May 2017.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 03.07.2017
Signed: E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required
YES/NO
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