Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01392/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01392/B Applicant : Mr John & Mrs Lynda Bellis Proposal : Alterations, erection of extension, creation of new driveway and relocation of vehicular access Site Address : Jandakot Old Castletown Road Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BB
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 an existing dwelling situated on the south western side of an unadopted lane leading north westwards from the A25 Old Castletown Road, passing the application property and its neighbour, Thie Aine.
1.2 The dwelling is a modern bungalow, like its neighbour, and which is generally hidden from public view by existing roadside vegetation and other dwellings fronting the A25. The property sits comfortably in a site which has a frontage to the lane of 43m and a depth of 33m.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing garage which is situated at the rear of the house and attached to it, and its replacement with a rear extension which is slightly larger. Also proposed is a new garage with a link to the house, situated to the south east of the house and the creation of a new access to the south east of the existing, blocking off the existing access.
2.2 The existing garage has a floor area of 3.4m by 6m with a patio behind. The new extension replacing it will be wider and longer, 4.5m by 10m and tied in with the existing house alongside. This will accommodate a bedroom and dressing room.
2.3 The garage will have a floor area of 6.5m by 9.3m and will have a pitched hipped roof tiled to match the existing house. The garage is set slightly lower than the house, following the natural topography of the site. It will have three single garage doors and the link will incorporate steps inside back up to the level of the house.
2.4 The front elevation will be changed by having a relocated front door and an enlargement of the window to the left with a building up of the ground in front to provide a consistent ground level in front of the house rather than the current step down.
2.5 The rear extension will incorporate a pitched roofed feature to match that on the rear.
2.6 The existing access will be blocked off by planting and a bank to match the rest of the frontage. The new access will involve the removal of an existing tree which will be relocated to where the existing drive is to be closed up. A new driveway and turning area will be created to just wider than the proposed garage.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01392/B
Page 2 of 4
2.7 The applicant has demonstrated what may be achieved if the provisions of the Permitted Development Order were implemented. This results in a similar footprint to what is now proposed. The applicants explain that they have designed the scheme so as to have least effect on their neighbours.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area which is not designated for development on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991. As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3 although one exception is the alteration and extension of existing dwellings and this advice is set out in Housing Policies 15 and 16. HP15 applies to traditional dwellings, the latter more modern ones.
Housing Policy 16 states: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public".
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There is no planning history for this site.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services note that the existing access is adjacent to the vehicular and pedestrian access for the neighbouring property and both properties benefit from visibility onto the narrow lane over each others' driveways. Blocking up the existing access and the proposed tree planting may impede accessibility for the neighbouring property (12.01.16).
5.2 The applicant has indicated that he wishes to make his property secure but has no desire to obstruct his neighbour's access and would have no issue with a condition which makes it clear that the planting shown need not be planted.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed works accord with Housing Policy 16 - ie do they increase the impact of the property when viewed by the public.
6.2 The existing property is not particularly visible from public vantage points and as the extensions are generally lower than the existing dwelling, they will not render the property any more visible than it currently is. Even if the property were visible, the extensions are modest, well designed and in keeping with the existing dwelling and as such would be considered acceptable. The point made by the applicant regarding the extent of work which could be undertaken under the Permitted Development Order is also relevant.
6.3 The scheme is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
6.4 The issue raised by Highway Services is more one for the neighbours to discuss between themselves as the applicant could erect a wall or fence along the boundary which could impair accessibility for the neighbour trying to get a vehicle in or out of their parking space. It is therefore appropriate to address this in the decision by indicating that the blocking off of the existing access need not involve the works shown in the plans where this would impede access or visibility for users of the neighbouring driveway. The lane is lightly trafficked and as such, if the existing access were left as is, this would not be unacceptable.
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;
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01392/B
Page 3 of 4
(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.
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: 16.01.2017
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. Notwithstanding the proposed planting shown to block up the existing driveway and access, this need not be introduced if this would impede access or visibility relating to the neighbour's access.
Reason: in the interest of highway safety and convenience.
This approval relates to drawings 10354/1000, 10354/1002, 10354/1003, 10354/1004, 10354/1005 and 10354/1006 all received on 19th 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: 20.01.2017
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Customer note
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01392/B
Page 4 of 4
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