Loading document...
Application No.: 19/01195/B Applicant: Mr Martin & Mrs Michelle Blyth Proposal: Alterations, erection of two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and installation of replacement windows Site Address: Stoneleigh St Georges Crescent Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6HR Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 02.12.2019 Site Visit: 02.12.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.12.2019 _________________________________________________________________
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.
This decision relates to drawings 010, 020 1, 030, 050 and 060, all received on 29th October, 2019. _______________________________________________________________
None _____________________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing, detached, two storey dwelling situated on the western side of St. George's Crescent looking towards Breagle Glen.
1.2 The dwelling is finished in dashed render with a red tiled roof and a series of projecting bay windows at first and ground floor levels. Vehicular access is to the northern side of the house in the form of a driveway leading from two stone pillars and parking for a number of vehicles by the side of the house. The dwelling sits 5m from the southern boundary with Dunkerron and 7m from the northern boundary with Whitebridge. The elevation of Whitebridge facing the application site has first and ground floor windows and a door and a rear conservatory on this side of its rear elevation. - 1.3 A lane runs behind the property, serving the dwellings on St. George's Crescent and Ballafurt Road. The properties in Ballafurt Road are 26m away in terms of the main two storey parts of the buildings and with outriggers which are around 21m away. - 1.4 The boundary between the property and Whitebridge is formed by a stone wall on the boundary which is generally 1m or lower with a higher timber fence on the neighbours' side. The fenceline partly screens the upper part of the ground floor window on the neighbour's side elevation. Above this is another window positioned towards the rear of this elevation. At the rear there is a tall dense hedge which screens almost all of the rear properties from ground level in the rear garden. The top of the rear roof slopes are visible from the rear garden nearest the back door. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the extension of the property by adding extensions to the north and to the rear and alterations to the dwelling. - 2.2 The side extension will provide garaging at ground floor level and living accommodation in the form of an en-suite bedroom, above. The extension will project 5.8m from the side of the house and will be 6m long. The single storey element has a larger floor area than the accommodation above, the extension stepping in 1.2m to the external wall at first floor level and with an eaves level marginally higher than that of Whitebridge and at a distance of 7m across the neighbour's flat roofed garage. There are to be no windows or doors in this elevation. - 2.3 The rear extension will project 4.5m from the rear elevation and be 4.4m wide with an asymmetrical pitched roof and walling in render and glass and a small section of cladding. - 2.4 The side extension continues back slightly further (0.6m) than the rear elevation in a pitched roofed form with full length glass doors and a Juliet-style balcony. - 2.5 Also proposed is the replacement of all of the existing windows with similar opening styles but without the diamond lead pattern. - 2.6 The applicants believe that the scheme accords with the Residential Design Guidance, following the design cues from the main house in the design and finish of the extensions. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site is designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Residential. The site also lies within Port Erin's proposed Conservation Area. - 3.2 Development should accord with the general standards of development set out in General Policy 2:
"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:
3.3 The Department has recently introduced advice in the form of the Residential Design Guidance, July 2019 which provides information on good design and how to assess the impact of new development on the living conditions of those in neighbouring dwellings. The most relevant parts of that are as follows:
4.2 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 4.2.1 In relation to single storey extensions to the rear of the dwelling, generally the main issues relate to potential loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the outlook of neighbouring properties.
Extensions to terraced or semi-detached properties can have the potential for the greatest concern. With either type of property the depth (i.e. rear projection) of an extension and the position (near the shared boundary) are key in ensuring any such extension does not impinge on the amenities of neighbouring properties
4.2.3 The acceptability of the length/depth of a single storey extension will depend on the positioning and size of neighbouring properties. For terraced houses and narrower semidetached properties, single storey extensions are unlikely to be supported where they project more than 3 metres from the back of the house.
Extension to side elevation
3.4 Whilst the property lies within a proposed Conservation Area, the draft Conservation Area Appraisal contains the following advice:
St George's Crescent; this road consists of attractive villas dating from 1908 to 1950. However, the buildings are not of significant historical interest.
4.1 The most relevant previous application was one for extensions which was refused 99/02366/B, for the reason that:
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services have no objection to the application (18.11.19). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposal would adversely affect the appearance of the property or the living conditions of those in Whitebridge.
6.2 The extension would add a hipped roofed feature to the property which has a gable ended main roof and this can sometimes appear awkward. However, the property also has a projecting pitched roofed gable on the front elevation which brings more angles to the front facade as well as bay windows which have roofs which slope up to the main walls of the front of the property. This, together with the replacement of the diamond leading to the windows will result in something which will be more modern but given the overall appearance of the property, which is not overly traditional, it is not considered that these changes are objectionable, particularly given the comments in the draft Conservation Area Appraisal. - 6.3 The extension will bring the property closer to existing first floor windows in Whitebridge, however, using the 25 degree measurement, it is not likely that this extension will result in an adverse impact on the outlook and light of this property. There is also another window which appears to serve the room of the first floor side window in this property.
7.1 The proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the environment, having regard to General Policy 2, the Residential Design Guidance and the draft Conservation Area Appraisal and the application is supported. 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:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 12.12.2019 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown