149739

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 17/00372/B
                                 Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 17/00372/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Stephen Jagger Proposal : Alterations, erection of extension and widening of driveway and vehicular access Site Address : 1 Laurel Avenue Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3JD

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 20.04.2017 Site Visit : 20.04.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached bungalow situated on a corner plot to the north of Laurel Avenue and the east of Birch Hill Crescent in Onchan. Although the dwelling's address situates it on Laurel Avenue, highway access is afforded from Birch Hill Crescent: at present, there is parking available for two cars on the driveway and a further two within the attached, flat-roofed double garage. This is to the rear (north) of the main dwelling.

1.2 The area is characterised by a clear but not especially inspiring architectural language: bungalows with prominent gables, picture windows, roughcast render, and the occasional dormer window are present. Some dwellings exhibit some timber detailing in terms of both filling gables (such as the application site) but also in an almost mock-Tudor style. Many have been altered or extended since their original construction, with flat-roofed dormer windows and garages / extensions evident.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the demolition of the existing double garage and its replacement with a larger extension comprising a Family Room and also a single garage, the latter measuring (internally) 6.0m in length by 3.6m in width. Access to the new garage would be provided via the widening of the existing access / driveway, which would afford a third parking space on the driveway. Also proposed are new, tall, narrow glazed panels within the existing dining room in replacement of an existing window.

2.2 The new extension would be entirely flat-roofed with a parapet wall of different heights. At its highest it would be 400mm below the ridgeline of the existing pitched roofs of the dwelling; there are two 'steps' down on both sides of the highest element - in the direction of the dwelling and the single garage. The highest part would be clad in vertically laid cedar cladding and punctured with three more of the aforementioned tall, narrow glazed panels. The remainder of the walls would, according to the drawing annotations, be rendered to match - however, it is not clear if this is meant as a means to have all the walls of the extension matching one another or for those walls to match the main dwelling. The underlying design ethos appears intended to be that of a contemporary intervention.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has not been the subject of previous planning applications considered to be of material relevance to the assessment of the current proposal.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 17/00372/B
                                 Page  2  of  4

3.2 Other dwellings nearby and adjacent have been the subject of applications seeking approval for various kinds of alterations and extensions, and some of these have been refused because of the impact on streetscene in terms of massing and design and other refused on grounds of impact on neighbouring living conditions. None is considered of specific material relevance here, however.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned on the Onchan Local Plan of 2000 as Predominantly Residential. As such, the following policy is considered relevant to the consideration of the application:

O/RES/P/21

"4.66 EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WILL GENERALLY NOT BE OPPOSED WHERE SUCH PROPOSALS ARE APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF SCALE, MASSING, DESIGN, APPEARANCE AND IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY."

4.2 This echoes the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, which states in part:

"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 space 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 and (i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI offered no objection to the application in comments made 20.04.2017, noting that the proposed car parking arrangement "meets current standards".

5.2 Onchan Parish Commissioners recommended the application be approved for Planning purposes only in correspondence date-stamped as having been received 20th April 2017.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues here are the impact the extension would have on the dwelling and streetscene, on highway safety, and also on neighbouring living conditions.

6.2 In respect of the latter issue, the support of Highway Services is noted; the overall parking provision is in excess of the two expected in the Strategic Plan (and even the three expected in the Onchan Local Plan, albeit that this is now superseded by the Strategic Plan). Therefore the proposal complies with parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2.

6.3 There are several areas to consider in terms of the design impact of the proposal. Firstly, while the loss of garden land is slightly unfortunate in terms of the impact on the streetscene, many of the gardens in the area have no boundary treatment such that the loss of some green space will be less noticeable than if significant walling or hedging were present. That the gardens are also proportionally large adds further support in this respect.

6.4 What remains for consideration, then, is the impact the design of the extension would have on the dwelling and streetscene in which it is prominently sited.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 17/00372/B
                                 Page  3  of  4

6.5 As a general principle, contemporary interventions are to be welcomed. They tend to work best when set against older or traditional buildings of particular value, which cannot be an argument made in what is a 1980s housing estate - albeit an orderly and well-kept one with a clear (if uninspiring) architectural language. The key with such interventions is to ensure that they allow the main body and form of the existing building to be retained. Again, this is more comfortably achieved where the existing building has a large enough mass to allow a new extension to sit alongside.

6.6 However, in this case, it is to be noted that the extension proposed is in replacement of a double garage of fairly poor form and moreover the new built fabric would not be significantly larger than that already in place. Accordingly, the main difference arises from the timber cladding, narrow glazed panels and parapet wall proposed, and these are likely to bring an interesting and welcome addition to the dwelling's and the estate's architectural language. The perpetuation of the flat- roofed form is unfortunate but the interesting finishes to the extension, along with the parapet wall, will help reduce the visual impact of this.

6.7 Finally, the extension will result in built fabric being brought closer to nos.2 and 4 Rosedene Close to the rear. However, there will be a reduction in the amount of glazing facing these dwellings, with the built fabric facing the Rosedene Close dwellings being entirely masonry. A large number of patio doors will face east, but primarily these will face onto the side elevation of the garage of no.3 Laurel Avenue. No objections have been received, and the application notice was prominently displayed during the site visit. Accordingly, no objection is raised with respect to the proposal's impact on neighbouring living conditions.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 In view of the generally favourable conclusions in respect of the three main issues, it is judged that the application complies with the relevant parts of General Policy 2 and, accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

7.2 The lack of clarity with regards the style of render for the proposed extension is not considered sufficient to require further details by condition. Whether the extension is finished in the same or different render as the existing dwelling is not considered to matter in terms of the overall conclusion that the extension is well-judged.

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 Highways 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: 06.06.2017

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 17/00372/B
                                 Page  4  of  4

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 the Location Plan and Drawings 1396.1 and 1396.2, all date-stamped as having been received 30th March 2017.

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: 08.06.2017

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.