158887

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 16/01357/B
                                 Page  1  of  3

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 16/01357/B Applicant : Joanna Finch Proposal : Single storey extension to rear of property Site Address : 119 Ballamaddrell Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6AX

Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 04.01.2017 Site Visit : 04.01.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 119, Ballamaddrell which is a mid-terraced bungalow situated in a row of six within an estate which lies between the steam railway line to the south and Station Road to the north.

1.2 The property is a true bungalow with a shallow pitched roof and has a conservatory at the rear which extends out 2.6m from the rear elevation and is 3.9m wide, coming within 300mm of the side boundary with number 117. The conservatory is 2.1m to the eaves and 2.5m to the apex.

1.3 The rear garden of the property, like those of most of its neighbours is around 8.8m long from the rear of the house and 9.6m wide.

1.4 Most of the properties in Ballamaddrell have either no rear extension or relatively modest glazed conservatories and this row of properties is no exception: the properties at the eastern end of the terrace have no rear extensions but a couple have small garden sheds in the rear garden: the application property and the properties to the west have extensions. The rear of the properties may be seen from the estate road to the east and from the rear lane to the south.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the conservatory with a solid-walled sun room which has a flat roof. This will project out into the rear garden by 5.3m and will be 4.6m wide and 2.5m high with a flat roof. The extension will accommodate a new family roof, utility room and toilet which are accessed from within the dining room. The extension will be set at the same distance from the boundary with number 117 as the existing conservatory.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South 2013 as Residential. As such, the provisions of the Strategic Plan are applicable as follows:

Paragraph 8.12.1 states "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".

General Policy 2 states: "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:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 16/01357/B
                                 Page  2  of  3

b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality."

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 A chimney breast and flue were added to the property under PA 86/01119/B.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they have no highway interest in the application (20.12.16).

5.2 Port Erin Commissioners seek a deferral on 12.12.16. They later advise that they do not object to the application (11.01.17).

5.3 Manx Utilities request a deferral of the application pending consideration of the available infrastructure (10.01.17).

ASSESSMENT 6.1 Whilst the functional appearance of the extension with its relatively flat roof and solid, rendered walling are not particularly attractive, the provision of an extension with a more attractive pitched roof is likely to have a more significant impact on the outlook from the adjacent properties and the existing conservatory has a similar profile, albeit smaller. The potential issue here is the impact of the proposed extension on the outlook and living conditions of those in number 117 who have been contacted for their views. The owner of that property did not wish to discuss the proposed extension when she was visited and it was not clear whether she was aware of it or not.

6.2 The extension will not affect access or car parking.

6.3 A characteristic of the Ballamaddrell properties is that they are modest in size and scale and they have limited private amenity space. In this case the row has rear south facing gardens which are 8.4m long and 9.6m wider. What is proposed will extend 5m into that space, over half of the length of the mutual boundary with number 117 - twice as long as the existing glazed conservatory, 300mm taller than the eaves level of the existing conservatory and over 1m taller than the existing boundary fence. This is considered to have an adverse impact on the outlook not only from the rear windows of number 117 but also on the enjoyment of the rear garden which will feel more enclosed. The change from a glazed to a solid walled structure will not help this effect.

6.4 The extension of modest properties, particularly where they are semi-detached or terraced as in this case, needs to be carefully designed so as not to adversely affect the living conditions of those in neighbouring property. Whilst the Permitted Development Order allows for sizeable extensions (up to 15 sq m), one of the requirements is that such extensions are at least 1m from any boundary of the site (Class 14) to ensure that the living conditions of those in neighbouring properties are not adversely affected.

6.5 In this case, it is not clear why a toilet and utility room are proposed in the new extension off what is shown as a dining/family room.

6.6 It is fully accepted that the existing property is modest and entirely understandable why the applicants would wish to have more living accommodation. However the dwelling is clearly of limited size with only modest space around it and any aspirations for additional space should not be at the expense of a detrimental impact on the living conditions of those in neighbouring property, particularly where the properties and their amenity space are of such limited size. As such, the application is recommended for refusal.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 16/01357/B
                                 Page  3  of  3

6.7 Whilst Manx Utilities have requested a deferral, it is likely that any services which are in the vicinity of the extension could be protected or diverted as part of the proposed works and the application should not be refused for this reason.

PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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, in this case, Manx Utilities; (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.

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:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.08.2017

Reasons for Refusal:

R 1. The proposed extension by virtue of its length, height and finish would have a detrimental impact on the outlook from within number 117 and on the enjoyment of their rear garden by virtue of an increased sense of enclosure. The proposal therefore fails to accord with General Policy 3g of the Strategic Plan.

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 : Refused Date: 17.08.2017

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.