Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00599/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00599/B Applicant : Mr Mark Willetts Proposal : Alterations and erection of a replacement rear extension Site Address : 3 Albert Terrace Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1LP
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 an almost rectangular parcel of land that comprises the residential curtilage of 3 Albert Terrace, one of four dwellings in this short terrace situated on The Crofts highway in Castletown's Conservation Area. The dwelling has, in keeping with its neighbours, rear outriggers, single storey in height - however the application site is unique amongst the four in that its rear outriggers do not go across the full width of the dwelling. There appear to be four separate elements comprising the rear outrigger at no.3, one of which provides for a kitchen, two further being attached to the kitchen providing outdoor storage, with the fourth independent of these and providing a WC accessible solely from outside. Each has mono-pitched roofs slanting downwards and away from the dwelling in a southeastern direction.
1.2 The terrace comprises four dwellings that were likely identical on their original construction owing to the striking similarities in massing: each has three storeys of accommodation arranged over two full floors and the top storey being located within the roofspace and natural light provided by a pitched roof dormer window within the eaves. All but no.4 retain their hood mould details, though no.1 has a bay window feature installed at the ground floor that has removed these.
1.3 The rear of the terrace backs onto the rear gardens of the dwellings sited on Malew Street, perpendicular to Albert Terrace. The rear of each of these dwellings is to some degree visible from the nearby bowling green, albeit obscured significantly by the rear yard walls.
1.4 The land slopes slightly downwards from southwest to northeast.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the demolition of the existing rear outriggers and the erection in their place of a flat-roofed rear outrigger than would provide for a larger kitchen and utility WC. The rear building line of the outrigger would, in common with those on the dwellings either side, stretch across the full width of the rear yard, and moreover would share a common rear building line of those neighbouring outriggers.
2.2 The flat roof would be obscured from view by the proposed parapet wall. The existing outriggers join the dwelling, at the highest point, 3.1m above ground level (this does change slightly with the slope of the land, but not significantly): that proposed in its place would join the rear elevation slightly lower than this, albeit that the parapet wall would, too, be 3.1m above ground level at the highest point. There would be a roof lantern within the extension, the apex of which would be a further 0.24m above the parapet wall. A brochure illustration of the lantern
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00599/B
Page 2 of 4
manufacturer has been submitted with the application, along with an accompanying email that states no decorative finial is proposed: this matches the drawing submitted.
2.3 The extension would have a single pair of French doors and a top-opening casement window in its sole elevation. It would be finished with painted render to match the existing dwelling's walling.
2.4 The agent confirmed via email that the roof would be finished in "'Polyroof 185' or similar approved", which is a somewhat glossy material
2.5 Technically, since the application proposes demolition within a Conservation Area, an accompanying application seeking Registered Building Consent should be submitted. However, in view of the nature of the proposal and the nature of the assessment it engenders, it is not considered that it would be in the public interest to seek such an application on this occasion.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Neither the site nor the neighbouring dwellings have been the subject of applications considered materially relevant to the determination of this current proposal.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on Map 5 of the Area Plan for the South. The nearby bowling green is noted as being Public Open Space.
4.2 The application therefore falls to be considered against General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35, and also paragraph 8.12.1, of the Strategic Plan.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services of the DOI stated on 30.06.2017 that the application had no highway implications.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The existing outriggers are no doubt characterful and add to the quality of the building. However, the reality is that these can only be readily seen from within privately accessible land - primarily the application site itself - and moreover are not a principal feature of the existing dwelling or the terrace in which it sits. Their loss is therefore not considered to have a materially negative impact on the appearance of the building or terrace.
6.2 The proposed replacement extension would be notably contemporary in design and form and therefore would provide a stark contrast relative to the existing outriggers and to the existing dwelling. This reflects conservation best practice, and moreover the size and scale of the extension is such as to ensure it would remain subordinate to the main dwelling. It is concluded that, such as it could be seen, the extension would respect the form and proportion of the existing dwelling and terrace in which it sits, while also preserving the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area.
6.3 The details submitted with regards the roofing material and roof lantern are considered acceptable and sufficient. The roof lantern is likely to be the most prominent part of the extension and in view of the clean, contemporary design for the extension a lack of detail is appropriate. For similar reasons, the Polyroof 185 material is judged appropriate.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00599/B
Page 3 of 4
7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved. The appearance of the roof lantern and the material of the flat roof should be controlled by condition.
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: 10.07.2017
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.
C 2. The flat roof to the extension hereby approved shall be formed of Polyroof 185 unless otherwise approved in advance with the Department.
Reason: In the interest of ensuring the most appropriate design finish for the character and appearance of the extension hereby approved.
C 3. For the avoidance of doubt, the roof lantern shall not have a decorative finial (or 'cresting') installed, as per the email received from the agent, received 1st June 2017.
Reason: in the interest of ensuring the most appropriate design finished for the character and appearance of the extension hereby approved.
This approval relates to drawings numbered PL/1000 and PL1001 both received on the 1st June 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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00599/B
Page 4 of 4
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 10.07.2017
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal