157825

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      17/00890/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 17/00890/B Applicant : John Cecil Lace And Barbara Lace Proposal : Erection of extension to rear of property, replacing flat roof with pitched roof, conversion of garage to living accommodation and alterations to driveway Site Address : 60 Beech Grove Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 2DX

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 07.09.2017 Site Visit : 07.09.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.09.2017 __

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.

C 2. The widened driveway as shown on approved Drawing 1412.2 (date-stamped as having been received 21st August 2017) shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling as approved to be altered, and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

N 1. Under Section 109 of the Highways Act, the applicant must contact Highway Services in relation to any alterations to the public highway as a result of widening the parking area. Contact details - [email protected].

Plans/Drawings/Information;

The development hereby approved relates to the Location Plan and to Drawings 1412.1 Rev 1 and 1412.2, all date-stamped as having been received 21st August 2017. __

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      17/00890/B                                     Page  2  of  4

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None. __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 60 Beech Grove, Ballasalla, which is a detached bungalow situated within a residential area of the village.

1.2 The dwelling has an attached single garage with a flat roof, albeit that a previous effort to hide this behind a pitched parapet at the frontage has been somewhat successful. The garage has, however, had some form of internal partition inserted at some point in the past and, moreover, appears to also have given over more than half of its length to the dwelling's second bedroom. As such, it cannot accommodate a motor vehicle. There is, however, a driveway that appears to measure roughly 3m in width and 5m in length. The submitted drawings seem to indicate that the driveway is in fact 6m in width, but this actually forms a part of the development proposed in the current application (see below).

1.3 There is also a rearward projecting extension, forming a dining area, which has a pitched roof with a hip. The dwelling's main roof pitch is very shallow.

1.4 The area is characterised by bungalows of a similar era, albeit that no.60 is one of the smaller (if not the smallest) in the area. Some other dwellings have also had flat-roof garage extensions attached, but without the frontage parapet.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the addition of a pitched roof above the garage / bedroom side extension and also for the installation of a second rearward extension to accompany internal alterations resulting in the conversion of the garage. Alongside this garage conversion proposal is the widening of the existing driveway across some of the dwelling's frontage, to provide a width of 6m and depth of 5m as already described above.

2.2 The proposed additional rearward extension would closely match the appearance and finish of the existing projection, but does not extend quite so far as that already present. The agent has explained that the site is extremely constrained given the dwelling's close relationship to the immediate neighbour (no.62). This, he explains, has resulted in the proposed pitch above the flat-roofed garage and rearward extension proposed thereto being higher than the main pitch of the dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Planning approval was granted (and implemented) for the replacement of a conservatory at the rear elevation with the existing, aforementioned rearward extension (14/00416/B).

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the South (Map 4). Accordingly, the application falls to be assessed against parts (b), (c), (g), (h) and (i) of General Policy 2, Transport Policy 7, and also paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI commented on the application on 15th September 2017 as follows:

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      17/00890/B                                     Page  3  of  4

"In order to maintain adequate parking for two vehicles, the drive will be widened and alterations made to the existing kerb to create a wider vehicular crossing / drop kerb.

"The proposals are considered acceptable.

"There are no suggested conditions."

5.2 Malew Parish Commissioners offered no objection on 6th September 2017.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are three key issues with this application: the effect of the physical works on both (a) the appearance of the dwelling and streetscene and (b) neighbouring living conditions, and also (c) the impact of the garage conversion on highway safety and parking provision.

6.2 In respect of the first issue, it cannot be ignored that the additional height of the roof pitch would be uncomfortable in appearance. Differences in roof pitch heights are not uncommon but, generally, they work best when the higher element is atop the majority of the property and the lower element is subordinate. That would not be the case here, and the resulting additional height will be awkward.

6.3 However, equally, there is a balance that needs to be struck between what is proposed and what is currently in place. The flat-roofed garage is not ideal from a visual point of view but nor, as is stated by the agent, is it ideal from a maintenance point of view. The flat roof is, however, slightly obscured by the pitched roof parapet at its frontage and, in this, is judged to be less obtrusive than those in the area that have a flat roof - albeit marginally, since the parapet could be judged to in some ways to call attention to the existence of the flat roof here, whereas those that have no such parapet are perhaps more 'honest' in their appearance.

6.4 In this case, it is considered that the slight awkwardness that would result from the additional roof pitch height is outweighed by the addition of that pitch in place of the existing flat-roofed form, which would be more appropriate to the dwelling and the area. This is a balanced conclusion, since the additional mass of the pitched roof will be more apparent from the streetscene and therefore more prominent. However, in this case, the additional mass is judged to have a different, and marginally materially improved, visual impact on the streetscene by providing the dwelling with a more (though clearly not fully) uniform appearance and massing. It is also to be noted that the dwelling is not on a prominent or well- used highway. This part of the development proposals are therefore judged to be in compliance with part (b) of General Policy 2.

6.5 In respect of the rearward extension, this is judged to be an improvement over the existing flat-roofed rearward projection, even if it, too, would suffer from the same awkwardness as the frontage.

6.6 With regards the loss of part of the front garden, this would be lamented to some degree. However, the streetscene is characterised by areas of hardstanding and lawn with the former providing parking spaces, and this proposal would fit with that character in what is a residential area not meriting any particular level of special protection.

6.7 In terms of highway safety, it is noted that Highway Services do not objection to the application. There is no reason to take a different view, given that the overall parking provision resulting from the proposed work will be identical to the existing situation. Highway Services also do not suggest conditions, although it seems that a condition requiring the driveway widening to be complete prior to the occupation of the dwelling as proposed to be extended would be appropriate.

7.0 CONCLUSION

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      17/00890/B                                     Page  4  of  4

7.1 It is concluded, albeit somewhat on balance, that the application is not in such clear discord with the relevant Development Plan policies as to warrant the application's refusal. Strong material weight has been given to the appearance and location of the existing dwelling and streetscene in which it sits in reaching this conclusion. Conditions are recommended.

8.0 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:

(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 decision-maker 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 the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 26.09.2017 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

Head of Development Management

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.