Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01350/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01350/B Applicant : Mr Steve Colley Proposal : Erection of a two storey side extension to dwelling Site Address : 4 Church View Braddan Douglas Isle of Man IM4 4TF
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 04.01.2017 Site Visit : 04.01.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 4 Church View, which is a large detached dwelling situated in a residential cul-de-sac just off the A23 Braddan Road just south of its junction with the Ballafletcher Road. Although the cul-de-sac is laid out fairly conventionally, with dwellings on either side of the road, no.4 sits discreetly just off the main road via a private access lane. It is visible from within Church View itself and also from the A23, but could not be said to be prominent from either. The land slopes downwards from the east, which further adds to its discreet visual impact.
1.2 A neatly proportioned, two-storey dwelling with prominent gable features (both front and rear) and an attached garage, no.4 shares an architectural language with the other dwellings on the cul-de-sac, but each is individually designed. The dwelling is finished in a cream-coloured render and brown concrete ridge tiles. The estate originates from the late 1990s.
1.3 The dwelling is surrounded on all sides by other dwellings of similar size and with similarly and proportionately large grounds. Some of these dwellings - nos.1, 2 and 6 Church View - are on the same cul-de-sac, to the north, northeast and northwest respectively. Other dwellings are found on the River Walk cul-de-sac, which sweeps around the remaining compass points: nos.11, 13, 15 and 17 River Walk all share a boundary with the application site, with no.11 being situated to the southeast and no.17 due west: nos.13 and 15 lie to the south and southwest respectively. The nearest of any of the dwellings to the application site is 6 Church View, which is 14m to the northwest. The dwellings' curtilages are bounded by a mixture of robust evergreen hedging, trees, walling and fencing.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension to the side of the dwelling. This would provide for a hall, en-suite bathroom on the ground floor, along with a staircase up to a staff room on the first floor. The extension would have independent, ramped access at the front. The letter submitted with the application explains that the proposal is for the applicant's young and disabled son, whose condition is life-limiting.
2.2 In terms of the design, the extension would be stepped down from the main dwelling ridgeline by 1.3m, with a width of 4.8m and depth of 7.9m, some 3.0m of which would extend further beyond the rear elevation.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01350/B
Page 2 of 6
2.3 To the rear would be an almost fully glazed gable wall, and an existing area of decking would be extended slightly to attach to the extension, with French door access provided between the two.
2.4 In addition to the door on the front elevation would be a window in each storey, each being Georgian in style with eight-over-eight lights shown. These too would match those of the existing dwelling.
2.5 The extension itself would have a pitched roof, at an angle to match that of the main dwelling roof pitch but, with the rearward projection, extending much further down on the rear than the front.
2.6 There would be no windows in the proposed extension's side elevation, resulting in the loss of two existing windows situated in the main dwelling's northwestern elevation (one on each storey).
2.7 The proposal would not affect the parking available on the site, which is extensive.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Neither the site nor the surrounding dwellings have been the subject of applications considered to be of material relevance to the determination of the current proposal.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. As such, the proposal falls to be considered against the relevant extracts of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, and also paragraph 8.12.1 of that Plan; the former reads as follows:
"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; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality
4.2 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan reads as follows: "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."
4.3 Section 10(4)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 allows the Department to take into account "all other material considerations", which includes personal circumstances, in dealing with planning applications. In this case, the personal circumstances of the applicant's family are such that they can be material to the assessment of this application. The weight to be given to those circumstances depends on each case, and they will necessarily form a part of the overall planning balance in reaching a conclusion on this application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure commented on the application on 20.12.2016 as follows:
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01350/B
Page 3 of 6
"The proposal is for a 2 storey extension to residential accommodation. The existing car parking and access arrangements will not be adversely impacted.
"Highway Services does not oppose this application."
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application, also on 20.12.2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in this case are (a) the impact the proposed extension would have on the existing dwelling in visual impact terms, (b) the impact the proposed extension would have on neighbouring living conditions, and (c) the weight to be given to the applicant's family's personal circumstances.
The visual impact
6.2 The existing house and grounds in which it sits are large and can accommodate sensitive and appropriately subordinate extension. That which is proposed here readily complies with this. Though two storeys in height, the extension would remain well below the existing dwelling's roof apex. In this, and noting the existing single storey garage, would help provide some welcome balance to the massing / appearance of the dwelling's principal elevation. The roof pitch would be the same as the main dwelling, while the use of gable features reflects those found throughout the dwelling.
6.3 The extended roof at the rear is perhaps a trifle awkward and the large amount of undifferentiated roof tiling might not sit especially comfortably against the main dwelling. The same concern might also exist in respect of the side elevation of the extension proposed. However, the rear glazed gable feature will help offset the concern with regards the roof massing, while the side elevation will almost never - if ever, given its location adjacent a well-treed boundary - be seen in its full extent.
6.4 It is concluded that the design of the proposed extension is well-considered and appropriately subordinate to the main dwelling. It complies with the relevant extracts of General Policy 2 and also paragraph 8.12.1.
Impact on neighbouring living conditions
6.5 The dwellings of Church View are large and set in commensurately sizeable curtilages, and as such it is somewhat surprising to note that the shortest distance between existing dwellings is only 14m. A general 'rule of thumb' for such distances would be 20m, and might be expected to be greater in cases such as Church View where the estate has a fairly low density. With this in mind, it is right to have some concern about how the proposed extension might affect the existing relationship between nos.4 and 6 Church View.
6.6 The extension would bring the two dwellings to within 10m of one another, which, again, is lower than would normally be expected for a residential cul-de-sac of this density. However, that being said, it is to be noted that the extension will actually result in fewer windows facing towards no.6 - there are four currently facing to the northwest, and the extension would reduce this to two. Therefore, the scheme would result in an improvement in privacy terms.
6.7 The extension might, however, be said to have some impact on the outlook of no.6. The two dwellings are set at angles to one another, with no.4 set further back than no.6 - as such, any additional built fabric that brought either dwelling nearer to the other would be more apparent than if the two houses were sat in a consistent building line.
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01350/B
Page 4 of 6
6.8 However, in this case, it is again to be noted that each of the dwellings has large gardens, and each of these slopes down in a western direction. Accordingly, there is quite an open outlook, with views over hills to the west, and while it is likely that the extension will have a slightly uncomfortable impact on the outlook from the rear of 6 Church View, this could not be concluded to be harmful in any meaningful sense given the existing, almost vista-like view afforded to the rear of no.6 and also the existing screening between the dwellings, some of which is within the control of no.6 itself. The majority of the outlook would remain unimpeded, and it is accordingly concluded that the proposed extension would not harmfully impact upon the outlook of the only nearby dwelling it could be said to affect.
6.9 The other dwellings nearby are considered too far from, or too well-screened from, or situated far lower than, the application site to be materially affected by the extension proposed.
6.10 There is therefore no harmful effect arising from the proposed extension in terms of its impact on neighbouring living conditions.
Personal circumstances
6.11 As outlined in the Act, account can be taken of 'other material considerations' in assessing planning applications. The personal circumstances of the applicant are considered to fall within this phrasing. In the overall planning balance of the assessment of an application, such circumstances are generally given very close consideration where the acceptability of a proposal is found to be somewhat 'in balance'. In those situations the health or other circumstances surrounding the applicants' need underpinning the proposal can be balanced against the policy considerations, and sometimes the decision can turn purely on those personal circumstances, sufficient to outweigh the concerns in policy terms.
6.12 In this case, however, the application has been judged acceptable against the key assessment criteria. Accordingly, while the personal circumstances of the applicant's family are of course a matter for utmost sympathy, they are considered to represent another point in favour of the application and therefore do not change the conclusions reached in respect of its otherwise acceptable nature.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The application is recommended for approval.
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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.01.2017
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/01350/B
Page 5 of 6
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 proposed relates to Drawings C/807/1(A), C/807/2(A), C/807/5 and C/807/6, all date-stamped as having been received 5th December 2016.
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: 05.01.2017
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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/01350/B
Page 6 of 6
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal