Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/01235/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/01235/B Applicant : Mr David Gibson Proposal : Erection of a car port over existing driveway Site Address : Chibbyr Dybber 7 Spaldrick Avenue Port Erin Isle of Man IM9 6PE
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 22.12.2018 Site Visit : 22.12.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.05.2019 __
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 materials used shall be as set out on the application form.
Reason: In the interests of maintaining and enhancing the character and appearance of the site.
Plans/Drawings/Information:
This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information: Site Location Plan Scale 1: 1250; Plan Scale 1:50; Side View Scale 1:50 and two photographs submitted in support of the application dated stamped and received on 26th November 2018.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/01235/B Page 2 of 5
o Rowany Rise, Spaldrick Avenue, Port Erin IM9 6PE as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of "Chibbyr Dybber", a detached property at the eastern end of Spaldrick Avenue, Port Erin. The property is set back slightly from the main road with an existing driveway and integral garage on the front elevation.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 This application proposes the installation of a covered parking bay over the existing driveway area approx. 5.2m wide x 4m long. This will be positioned forward of the garage and be within the curtilage of the dwelling set back some 30cm from the roadway edge. The proposed structure is to be on six timber supports (three each side) and timber roof framework upon which will rest a Perspex roof.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Planning permission was sought and granted for the erection of the dwelling under PA 84/01348/B and a glass walled extension was added under PA 87/04480/B and further extensions and alterations approved under PA 93/01051/B. Most recently PA 09/01781/R was approved for the alteration of a door to a window.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zones as 'residential' in the Area Plan for the South 2013. General Policy 2 is most relevant in the assessment of the current proposal.
4.2 General Policy 2 states (in part), "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; ... (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space".
4.3 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".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Port Erin Commissioners - Defer (03/11/2018) and Objection (dated 13/12/2018) - The Board of Port Erin Commissioners discussed the above application at its meeting on 11 December 2018 and has resolved to raise objections to the application. The Board feels that the proposed car port structure to the front of the property is not in keeping with the area, the
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/01235/B Page 3 of 5
construction method is unsuitable for the area and the structure also extends significantly past the existing building line.
5.2 Highway Services have made no comment at the time of writing.
5.3 The owners of Rowany Rise have objected (06/12/2018) the issues raised are:
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of the development is established by the zoning and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore the main issues to consider in detail are as set out in General Policy 2 -
6.2 Impact on the site and surroundings and character of the area 6.2.1 The Residential Design Guide (March 2019) states at paragraph 4.1.1, "An extension to the front of a property can have the greatest impact upon the individual dwelling and/or the street scene. There may be limited circumstances when a front extension is appropriate, for example where the street has an irregular building line or pattern. Any extension should normally appear as if it were designed with the original building and not look out of place in the street. A porch extension is perhaps the most common form of extension to the front elevation of a dwelling. Whilst porches are relatively small in size, careful consideration still needs to be given".
6.2.2 It is considered that the proposal would disrupt the building line, would not appear as if it were designed with the original building and could be considered to be out of place in the street. However, whilst the design guidance is a material consideration, it is not part of the Development Plan or a Planning Policy Statement and so non-compliance with it is not in itself reason for refusal. It notes at 1.14, "where proposals adopt the approaches set out within this document, they are more likely to be considered to comply with the detailed Development Plan policies that relate to design" and at 1.2.2, "This document provides general advice but cannot cover every eventuality. Wherever possible, it sets out generally acceptable approaches. If a proposal does not meet these, the planning application should explain why. All planning applications will be judged on their merits, taking account of the likely effect on neighbouring properties and the character of the building or street".
6.2.3 Forward of the main building line, the car port would nonetheless be of a design and scale consistent with a residential setting of detached dwellings with substantial front and rear curtilages. It is noted that although there is a building line for the 6 dwellings at the end of Spaldrick Avenue (two pairs of semis and two detached houses), given that these are at the hammerhead of road, the width of the road at the point and the position of other houses, the proposed development is unlikely to be widely visible from the surrounding area and as such the disruption of the building line and impact on the character of the surrounding area is limited. Furthermore, the dwelling within the application site is of a different style to the adjoining properties.
6.2.4 Overall it is judged that the proposal will have a minor negative impact on the character of the property and the area. However, noting the nature and location of the site and also the nature of the proposal - which could be almost regarded as semi-permanent, it is not
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/01235/B Page 4 of 5
considered that this impact is sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of residential extensions set out at paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan.
6.3 Impact on Neighbouring Properties and Amenity Space 6.3.1 The Residential Design Guide states at 7.2.3, "Within this document the phrase 'habitable room' means both Primary and Secondary unless otherwise indicated. However, in assessing impacts in relation to light/overshadowing and overbearing impact on outlook (but not overlooking) the Department draws a distinction between: o Primary Window - The main window serving a Primary Habitable Room. Where there is only one window, this is the Primary Window. Where there is more than one window, the Primary Window is normally the largest and the one which provides the most pleasant outlook; and o Secondary Window - Any window serving a room that is not the Primary Window".
6.3.1 The concerns raised by the occupants of Rowany Rise proposal would be some 12m distant across the well screened common boundary from the neighbouring dwelling at Rowany Rise. Although the structure would be clearly visible, it is not considered that it would impact on the outlook from primary windows of neighbouring properties or would reduce the amenity space available to the application site.
6.4 Other Issues 6.4.1 In relation to the plans, it is noted that they have been hand drawn, however they include measurements and the materials to be used are set out on the application form. Therefore, and noting the nature of the site and proposal, it is considered that the application is sufficient to be determined. However, if approved, a condition indicating that the structure should be built in accordance with the materials set out on the application form may be appropriate.
6.4.2 The points made in relation to the construction method are noted. Such issues are not normally considered as part of a planning application. It may be that the structure could become damaged, but the maintenance/repair of this would be a matter for the applicant and the potential need for such maintenance/repair is not considered a reason for refusal.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Though the proposal is utilitarian in its design it would remain functional as a car port and consistent in terms of its setting within as a curtilage dwelling adjacent to a garage within a residential street. On balance, the proposal would be of a design, scale and setting that satisfies General Policy 2. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
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 Planning Committee 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. __
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/01235/B Page 5 of 5
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date : 28.06.2019
Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE
Jennifer Chance
Director of Planning and Building Control
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal