Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00715/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00715/B Applicant : Mr Sam Holliday Proposal : Two storey extension to side of property Site Address : 10 All Saints Park Lonan Laxey Isle of Man IM4 7LA
Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 22.08.2017 Site Visit : 22.08.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.09.2017 __
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.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to drawing number APL17-03-01 Rev A date stamped and received 31/08/2017.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owners of 43 All Saints Park and the owners of 45 All Saints Park are not considered to be substantially and adversely affected by the development to be granted Interested Person Status. __
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00715/B Page 2 of 6
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site represents part of the residential curtilage of a semi-detached dwelling situated within the existing residential estate of All Saints' Park, Lonan. Number 10 is situated on the eastern side of the main residential estate road it and its neighbour both have a red brick finish and a projecting front porch on the front elevation.
1.2 The residential area is characterised by a mixture of 2 storey terraced, detached and semi-detached properties each located close to each other side by side but with modest garden space to the front and rears.
1.3 Number 10 differs slightly as it bounds an area of green open space on the southern side rather than another residential property.
1.4 Between the main dwelling and the southern boundary timber fence is an existing driveway that stretches the width of the property and wraps around the front elevation providing parking for up to 3 vehicles off the road.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application proposes a 3.4m x 8.9m extension on the side elevation to provide a garage, utility and W.C at ground floor level and additional bedroom accommodation above.
2.2 The proposed extension is to run in line with the front and rear elevations of the main house and to have matching eaves level of 5m and central ridge height of 8.2m. The proposed extension is to be finished in red brick to match the existing dwelling with roof tiles also to match those on the main dwelling house.
2.3 On the front elevation there is a garage door proposed at ground floor and a window above to match the existing windows. At the rear the application proposes a single window and utility door providing access into the rear garden with a Juliet balcony proposed at first floor. A single window is proposed on the side elevation to service the WC at ground floor.
2.4 Original drawings were missing detailing from the Juliet balcony proposed on the rear elevation, a revised drawing was submitted on 31/07/2017 including the glass balustrade for this.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been no previous applications made for the site that are considered material in the assessment of the current application, however there have been 3 similar applications along All Saints Park that have been granted full approval for the erection of two storey side extensions:
PA 08/00782/B - Alterations, erection of extension, proposed wall and garden terrace PA 08/01279/B - Alterations and extension to dwelling PA 07/00023/B - Construction of a two storey extension to side elevation to provide additional living accommodation
3.2 Each of the above has been completed and is visible from the main highway running through All Saints Park.
PLANNING STATUS
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00715/B Page 3 of 6
4.1 The site lies within an area designated as Proposed Residential on the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan of 2005. Given the nature of the application and its zoning the following polices of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant in the assessment:
4.2 General Policy 2:
"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;
4.3 Paragraph 8.12.1:
"Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use - 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."
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have indicated that they do not oppose the application stating that although the garage is insufficient to accommodate a car that two off road car parking spaces remain at the front of the dwelling 20/07/2017.
5.2 Garff Commissioners have no objection to the application 12/09/2017.
5.3 The owners of 45 All Saints Park, a terraced property located opposite the application site have written in objecting to the application stating that the extension will restrict views from their property and could de-value the house price due to the prevention of view 04/08/2017.
5.4 The owners of 43 All Saints Park, also located opposite the application site have written in objecting to the proposal stating that the proposed garage would be out of keeping with the rest of the properties on the main road and might encourage further applications as the newer houses on the estate have garages that aren't used or are too small for modern vehicles. They also state that the proposed extension would block their views of the bay and potentially de- value their property and neighbouring property, the proposal would contribute to the feeling of being boxed in and that the construction noise relative to the development would impact the quiet enjoyment of their property 08/08/2017.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 To begin with it is important to address the concerns of the neighbours located directly opposite the application site who have raised a number of concerns to the proposal. Two common objecting factors from both neighbours are the impact of the proposed extension on their private views and valuation of property. There is no material planning consideration given to the value of properties and therefore the comments referencing the de-valuation of the objector's properties cannot be included within the assessment of the proposed extension.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00715/B Page 4 of 6
Similarly, there is no right for existing residents to retain their private views; however there is a right to expect that the general outlook is not detrimentally affected by such a proposal. In the case of this application the locality of the properties with an existing residential estate with a general outlook that is predominantly characterised by the built environment, the proposed side extension development at Number 10 would not result in an unreasonable and unacceptable overbearing situation on the adjacent neighbours.
6.2 Noise created from the construction of a development is not a material planning consideration and would have to be subject to its own assessment and furthered by the individuals as a separate matter outside of the planning process.
PRINCIPLE & CHARACTER 6.3 Comments from Number 43 raise concern of the introduction of a garage where originally there was none and that it would be out of keeping with the rest of the properties along this part of the estate. While the out of character status can be considered a material planning consideration, the proposal here to include a new garage within an new extension is not significantly out of keeping to cause a concern and that there are other integral garages visible within the nearby residential estates. The development of a detached garage within a residential curtilage is not uncommon and can be done under the Town and Country (Permitted Development) Order 2012 Class 17 without the need for a planning application (subject to conditions).
6.4 While the application here could not be carried out under the Permitted Development Order there is a level of acceptability of having a garage within an existing residential curtilage. It is also indicated on the covering letter included within the submission of the revised Juliet balcony drawing on 31/07/2017 that the proposed garage is not for vehicle purposes but as an area of general household storage, storage for gardening equipment and safe storage of work man tools.
DESIGN 6.5 Relative to the design of the proposal, this is a fairly common form of extension of properties such as this, generally these extensions are set back or stepped down from the main dwelling house to mitigate against a terracing effect. The proposal here does not include a stepped down design of the extension and as such the proposal runs flush with the main dwelling. While a stepped approach would have be been most desired, Number 10 benefits from an end location where it bounds with an area of open space, the siting of which allows for a massing and design of the extension that matches exactly that of the existing property without imitating the appearance of a terrace.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal in terms of its form, mass and design provides a suitable extension to an existing residential property for which there is a general principle in favour of as indicated in paragraph 8.12.1 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The extension is considered to be modest in size and does not generate an overbearing impact on the adjacent neighbours to warrant a concern or refusal; while a stepped approach would have been preferred the end location of the property comfortably accommodates the proposed extension and does not detrimentally affect the visual appearance of the existing semi-detached property or the character of the wider residential estate. The proposal retains two off road parking spaces and as such there are no expected impacts on highway safety and the proposal to finish the extension to match the existing dwelling will create a uniform appearance throughout.
7.2 The application is considered acceptable.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00715/B Page 5 of 6
(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The Planning Committee must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
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: 21.09.2017
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00715/B Page 6 of 6
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal