Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00560/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00560/B Applicant : Mr Stephen & Mrs Sarah Crook Proposal : Erection of rear extension Site Address : 24 St Runius Way Glen Vine Isle of Man IM4 4FG
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 21.06.2017 Site Visit : 21.06.2017 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 house sited on the southeastern side of the junction of St Runius Way and Elm Bank in Glen Vine.
1.2 Number 24 is fully rendered and of contemporary construction and appearance. The dwelling is bounded at the rear by lollipop fencing, and borders nos.26 and 22 to the north and south respectively, and shares its rear (eastern) boundary with parts of the rear boundaries of nos.5 and 3 Elm Bank, again to the north and south respectively. No. 26 sits at a distinct angle to the application site, with the latter being notably further forward (westward) in its plot than the former; it sits more or less in line with no.22 with no.22 being sat slightly further forward than the application site dwelling.
1.3 Although the mapping system appears to show an existing rear outrigger on the dwelling, this is not correct as no such outrigger exists and nor was one approved as part of the original application under which the dwelling was built.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a single storey extension at the rear of the dwelling. This would be flat-roofed with a prominent roof lantern. A single window is shown in the rear (eastern) elevation, while a pair of French doors is shown in the side (southern) elevation, which would be flanked by a pair of fixed floor-to-ceiling window frames. The wall to face no. 26 to the north highway is formed entirely of masonry. The extension would be finished to match the existing dwelling in terms of render and window / door frames, with the roof to be finished in fibreglass.
2.2 It would be located to the northern edge of the dwelling, but set back slightly from the side elevation line, and would be 5m in length and 4.9m in width. Its eaves would sit 2.4m above ground level, with the hipped roof lantern adding a further 0.8m in height: its peak would sit higher than, but between, the cills of two of the three the first floor windows.
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. PA 16/00169/B was granted for the erection of a not dissimilar extension in terms of size and position relative to the dwelling at no.26, with the position of the approved flue altered under a subsequent application (PA 16/01116/B). Work on this extension was, at the time of the site visit, apparently complete.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00560/B
Page 2 of 4
4.1 The application site is located within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Isle of Man 1982 Development Plan.
4.2 The Strategic Plan 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:
(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 12.06.2017.
5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners commented that they had no comment on the application in comments received 23.06.2017.
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 without being inappropriate in terms of scale, form or finish to this contemporary dwelling. Flat roofs are never particularly ideal from a design or maintenance point of view, but in this case the extension will not be particularly visible from public positions and is, crucially, not of a scale that would dominate the existing dwelling's mass. It is, however, quite large in itself and so this is something of a balanced judgement; weight has been given to the near (if not actually) complete extension at no.26, which will obscure that proposed on the application site to some degree.
6.3 There would be additional mass and overlooking with respect to no.22 to the south, the neighbouring property on St Runius Way, but this would be at a distance of 6.5m to the boundary and 9.5m 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 in large part due to the angles the dwellings sit at one another, which would result in mainly oblique views from the proposed extension towards the existing dwelling. It is also not ignored that the windows / doors within that extension would face towards the rear garden of no.22, but given the distance involved this would not be sufficiently harmful to warrant the application's refusal. It is noted that no objections have been received on this ground.
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 20m between the properties, as well as the boundary treatment, would be such that the relationship between these would not be harmfully altered.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00560/B
Page 3 of 4
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: 27.06.2017
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.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08 and 09, all date-stamped as having been received 19th May 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: 29.06.2017
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00560/B
Page 4 of 4
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