158039

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      17/01044/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 17/01044/B Applicant : Mr Christopher Shimmin Proposal : Alterations and extensions including enlargement of existing rear extension, installation of triangular dormer to front and flat roofed dormer to rear Site Address : Clerehithe Ballafurt Road Port Erin Isle of Man IM9 6HP

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 15.11.2017 Site Visit : 15.11.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.11.2017 __

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. For the avoidance of doubt, the tiles hung from the dormer windows hereby approved to both the front and rear elevations shall match those of the existing dwellinghouse and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling, the terrace and the proposed Conservation Area in which the site sits.

Plans/Drawings/Information:

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1786-01 (date-stamped as having been received 3rd October 2017) and 1786-02 Rev A (date-stamped as having been received 6th November 2017).

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      17/01044/B                                     Page  2  of  4

__

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 'Clerehithe', which is a two-storey dwelling sited at the southern end of a terrace of three similarly designed properties on the eastern side of Ballafurt Road in Port Erin.

1.2 The dwelling has rosemary roof tiles and a roughcast-render finish to its walls. The rosemary tiles are also found on the square bay window features on the ground floor of each of the dwellings. Clerehithe is unique of the three in not having a triangular dormer window in its front elevation, a feature not uncommon throughout Port Erin.

1.3 To the rear, the dwelling has a flat-roofed extension, greenhouse and garage, accessed of the rear lane that does not appear to have a name but does appear to be adopted.

1.4 The surrounding development is fairly mixed in form and also to a lesser degree age, but with the occasional exception the dwellings here are all considered to be attractive and traditional.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 Retrospective planning approval was granted in 2012 for the aforementioned rear extension, as well as for a dormer window to match the immediately adjoining neighbouring dwelling, under PA 12/00382/B. That window has not been installed, however.

2.2 Planning applications were also submitted for extensions in 2004: the earlier (PA 04/01563/B) sought approval for a two-storey rear extension, which was refused, while the later (PA 04/02317/B) sought and gained approval for a two-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT APPLICATION 3.1 Full planning approval is sought for three separate elements.

3.2 Firstly, the front dormer as noted in paragraph 2.1 above is proposed to be replicated here.

3.3 Secondly, the existing flat-roofed rear extension is proposed to be removed and replaced (or extended: the drawings are not clear) with a slightly wider extension, thereby enclosing the existing back door. Also proposed here is the rationalisation of the fenestration in the south elevation from three windows to two.

3.4 Finally, a dormer window extension is proposed at the rear elevation's roof plane. This would take the form of two pitched / gabled dormer windows along with a flat-roofed connecting element. This would have a corresponding vertical plane between the two pitched elements (i.e. sitting perpendicular to the flat roof), which would be hung 'clay tiles' (which in one annotation are stated as matching the existing, and in another are not specified further) and would be set back behind those pitched elements to give the impression of there being two separate dormer windows.

3.5 As originally submitted the application proposed a fully flat-roofed dormer across almost the full width of the roof; the amended plans as described above were circulated with a view to seeking additional / amended comments by 23rd November 2017 - the date on which this report is being prepared.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      17/01044/B                                     Page  3  of  4

4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on Map 7 of the Area Plan for the South: it also falls within Port Erin's proposed Conservation Area.

4.2 In view of the scale and nature of the proposal and the site's zoning, the application falls to be assessed against General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan, while due consideration of Environment Policy 35 is also required.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI stated the application had no highway safety implications on 19th October 2017.

5.2 Port Erin Commissioners initially emailed to advise comments would be forthcoming (6th October 2017), and then wrote to confirm the Commissioners resolved to support the application (11th October 2017).

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The proposed triangular dormer is judged a welcome addition to the dwelling. It being a feature found throughout Port Erin, including on the terrace in which the dwelling sits, such a feature is a wholly appropriate one to be found here. Indeed, the lack of such a feature given that the other two dwellings both have one is considered reason enough to support this element of the proposal. The intention to reflect the northernmost dwelling's design in this respect is welcome in helping provide a balance to the terrace, and therefore is judged an improvement over the design approved in 2012.

6.2 The works proposed at the rear are of more concern.

6.3 In terms of the enlarged flat-roofed element at the ground floor, it is not considered that this would be unduly harmful - being strongly mindful of the existing situation. The additional flat-roofed element is not significantly - in proportional terms - different from the current structure here and, while the apparent lack of desire to improve the appearance of this is lamentable it is nevertheless not judged a point on which the application could be refused.

6.4 Most significant concern was raised with respect to the dormer window extension. The initial submission was wholly inappropriate to this dwelling and the terrace in which it sits, and by virtue of its scale, finish and form would have had an actively harmful visual impact.

6.5 The amended proposal is less harmful. This is not a reason to support the application, as each development proposal needs to be considered on its own merits. There is an argument (touched on in paragraph 6.1, above) that this short terrace has become unbalanced because of the roofscape works to the dwelling at the other end of the terrace from the application site. This lack of balance is particularly pronounced at the rear, with the installed pair of flat-roofed dormers being a focal point. It is also noted that there is a two-storey, flat- roofed extension at the rear of the neighbouring dwelling to the south, which attests to the importance of avoiding prominent flat-roofed structures.

6.6 Against this context, two individual dormer windows would likely be supported. These would help balance the rear of the dwellings and moreover would be an improvement over the flat-roofed dormer insertions elsewhere. What is proposed is some way from this approach, but nevertheless is considered an appropriate 'middle ground'. The slight set back of the vertical element, along with its being tile hung, would aid the subordination of the dormer extension in a manner that would help create the impression that it comprised two individual dormer windows.

6.7 Since the eaves of this element would - when viewed from ground level - sit higher than the ridgeline of the main dwellinghouse the overall effect / appearance would not be as successful as may be hoped. However, that said, it is still considered that the dormer window

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      17/01044/B                                     Page  4  of  4

style as proposed here would not adversely affect the appearance of the dwelling, terrace or wider area to an extent that would warrant the application's refusal on this ground. The more dominant element of this extension would be in the form of the more traditionally styled dormer windows, and this would draw the eye from the flat-roofed element. In what is a balanced conclusion, no objection is raised on this ground.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is concluded that the development proposed is not at such conflict with the relevant Development Plan policies as to warrant the application's refusal. The dormer window proposed to the front elevation is particularly welcomed, though it is noted that a similar such window could be installed at any time under a still-extant 2012 planning approval.

7.2 A condition should be attached clarifying that the tiles to be hung from the dormer windows (both the vertical elevation and cheeks to the rear, and he roof pitch to the front) will match those of the existing dwelling.

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 a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted

Date: 28.11.2017

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.