Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00952/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00952/B Applicant : Lisa & James Sinclair Proposal : Alterations and erection of single storey rear extension to property Site Address : 11 Y Vaarney Yiarg Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1HZ
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 27.11.2018 Site Visit : 14.03.2019 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.04.2019 __
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.
Plans/Drawings/Information:
This approval relates to drawing numbers 1361.2 Rev 2 and 1361.3 Rev 2 date stamped and received 14.03.2019, and 1361.1 and site location plan both date stamped and received 07.09.2018. __
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):
The owners of Number 10 Y Vaarney Yiarg as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
The owners of Number 12 Y Vaarney Yiarg as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00952/B Page 2 of 7
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 11 Y Vaarney Yiarg, Castletown an existing two storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a larger residential estate sandwiched between the A5 and Arbory Road and just west of the Buchan School.
1.2 The small cul-de-sac of Y Vaarney Yiarg sits on the slope of a hill with the application site and its adjoining neighbours along this northern side of the road stepping upwards as the land rises to the east.
1.3 The existing dwelling has a front elevation facing south and over the cul-de-sac and a rear elevation facing north over the rear garden and towards a small area of open space to the rear of properties in the adjacent cul-de-sac of Maynrys.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a rear single storey extension covering 5.4m width across the rear elevation and projecting 3.8m into the garden. A chamfered corner is proposed nearest the side elevation with Number 10 following the line of the boundary.
2.2 The proposed extension is to be 3m high nearest the main house and sloping down to a 2.7m eaves nearest the garden. The extension is to be installed with a 0.5m tall roof lantern above the roof. The side elevations of the extension are to be finished in brick matching the main house with the rear elevation being clad in timber and installed with rear bi-folding doors.
2.3 The application also includes the installation of a new window in the side elevation gable of the main existing house.
2.4 The current proposal follows from a previous scheme for a larger rear extension projecting 4.3m from the rear elevation and including an additional 1m supporting wall overhang nearest the boundary with No. 12, and a window on the chamfered corner facing No. 10.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been no specific planning applications made at the site since its original approval as part of the wider development of the residential estate.
4.0 PLANNING POLICIES 4.1 The application site is in an area zoned as "Residential" as identified on the Castletown Map 5 of The Area Plan for the South. It is appropriate to consider General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the assessment of the application, also minded of the nature of the proposal, consideration should also be given to what level of development could be carried out under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (PDO - 2012) without the need for prior planning approval, and most recently the March 2019 release of the IoM Residential Design Guide which sets out general rules of thumb towards assessing impact in terms of loss of light and overshadowing and the 25 degree rule;
4.2 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 3 ====
18/00952/B Page 3 of 7
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."
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."
4.4 PDO 2012 - CLASS 14 - Extension of dwellinghouse
"The enlargement of a dwellinghouse (including the erection of an extension or conservatory). Conditions: a) the general conditions applicable to Section A; b) the floorspace (measured externally ) of the extension must not exceed 15 square metres beyond that of the original dwellinghouse; c) the extension must not exceed 4 metres in height above ground level; d) no part of the extension may be nearer to any highway which bounds the curtilage of the dwellinghouse than - (i) that part of the dwellinghouse nearest to that highway, or (ii) 20 metres, whichever is the nearer. e) no part of the extension may be nearer than 1 metre to the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse; f) the external finish of any walling must match that on the major part of the dwellinghouse; and g) operations within this class are allowed only if, on completion of the operations, at least 2 car parking spaces remain within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. For the purpose of paragraph (g) the minimum size permitted for a car parking space is 6 metres by 3.25 metres."
4.5 Residential Design Guide - 7.3 LOSS OF LIGHT/OVERSHADOWING
7.3.1 A development should not result in significant levels of loss of day light or overshadowing, especially to primary habitable rooms, or to private gardens. Applicants are advised to look carefully at the path of the sun throughout the day, and consider where shadows fall, using this information to help in considering the design, position and height of the extension. The impact of overshadowing will increase if the new property/extension is to the South of a neighbouring property (as the sun's orientation is East to West). When the windows affected serve habitable rooms then it will be necessary to assess the impact upon light reaching these rooms.
7.3.2 A simple check can be undertaken in relation to this issue. o A side view is drawn which includes the proposal site and the main face of the neighbouring property. o A point is identified which is 2 metres above ground level on the closest wall with a relevant window of the neighbouring building. o A line is drawn from this point at a 25 degree angle towards the application site. If no part of the proposal is above this line, there will still be the potential for good daylight to the interior.
7.3.3 Where a change in level separates two adjoining dwellings, a proposal for a dwelling on a higher site or an extension to the higher dwelling, will normally have a far greater effect on its lower neighbour than in the reverse."
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00952/B Page 4 of 7
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 There had been no comments made by Castletown Commissioners at the time of writing the report (31/01/2018)
5.2 Departments of Infrastructure Highway Services - NHI - No Highways interest (12/10/2018).
5.3 The owners of 10 Y Vaarney Yiarg provided comments on the original application on 07/10/2018 stating the following points which have been categorised into material and non- material planning considerations in this case:
Material o the yellow site notice not being correctly displayed; o the extension would result in the loss of privacy due to its elevated position; o the extension would be visually overbearing and positioned beyond their patio doors; o the side elevation windows would overlook their garden; o the extension would result in a loss of light and overshadowing on their patio;
Non-material o Impact of any construction noise and disturbance on their property and the future occupancy of the extension having an impact on their property, similar to existing 'shed' attached to the property; o Extension having an impact on the value of their property.
5.4 The owners of 12 Y Vaarney Yiarg provided comments on the original application on 10/12/2018 stating the following points which have been categorised into material and non- material planning considerations in this case:
Material o the yellow site notice not being correctly displayed; o the extension would result in the loss of light into their kitchen;
Non-material o the proposed extension having an impact on the value of their property.
5.5 Following the submission of revising the size of the extension further comments were received from each of the neighbours No. 10 and No.12 Y Vaarney Yiarg on 30/12/2018 and 04/01/2018 these comments reiterating their earlier reasons for objection and that the proposed amendments to the scheme did not result in any improvements and that they are still concerned with the extension resulting in the loss of light, loss of privacy and having overbearing impacts on their properties.
5.6 The agent provided amended plans in seeking to details the positioning of the neighbours beyond that detail of the original site plan, No.10 and No. 12 provided further comments in response to these drawings. These comments have been summarised as follows:
Material Considerations
Non-Material Considerations
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00952/B Page 5 of 7
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of an extension to the rear elevation. There is a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing dwellings in areas designated for residential use such as this therefore the principle of development is considered to be acceptable. Given the location of the extension to the rear where views from public perspective are limited it's likely that its development would have a negligible impact on public amenity and on the general residential appearance of the area and surrounding estate. The fundamental factors to therefore consider in the assessment of this application are the impacts of the proposal on the living conditions and amenities of the neighbours particularly Number 10 and Number 12 Y Vaarney Yiarg.
IMPACT ON NO. 10 Y VAARNEY YIARG 6.2 No. 10 and No.11 have a stepped arrangement following the bend in the estate road with No.10 sitting a little further back than the application dwelling, both properties also having slightly different orientations with No.10 tilted towards the application site although both properties general remain facing north-east. The topography of the estate also rises towards the east which means that between each of the properties there is a stepped level change with No.10 sitting around 1m lower level than the application site and No. 12 sitting around 0.7m higher than the application site.
6.3 Following concerns from No. 10 with regards to the loss of privacy and the extension being sited beyond their patio doors it was sought that the agent provide additional drawing detail to evidence the accuracy of the position of the extension in relation to the neighbour (minded that OS maps from which the site plan was created are generated at such a scale that there can sometimes be discrepancies). During a site visit measurements were recorded by the agent in seeking to demonstrate the position of the proposed extension. This as details on drawing number 1361.2 rev 2 state that the extension will projected 0.95m beyond the closest rear elevation corner of No. 10 and that the distance between the proposed extension and rear corner of No.10 will be 3.85m.
6.4 The PDO suggests a level of acceptability of extensions to existing residential properties in terms of distances from the boundaries (1m away), floor area (15 sq m externally), roof heights (up 4m high) and external finishes (matching dwelling). In the case of this application the proposal sits around 0.9m from the boundary with No. 10 and around 3.9m from their rear elevation. The level changes between the two properties means that the 2.7m eaves of the extension is to sit 3.7m from the ground level of No. 10. This means that 1.7m of the extension will be visible above the existing 2m boundary.
6.5 Often changes in site levels between properties can exacerbate the massing and overbearing impacts of structures on neighbouring dwellings. In the case of this application the rear elevations of No.10 sits further towards the rear than the application, resulting in the proposed extension projecting only 0.95m beyond the rear elevation and patio doors of No.10. This relationship between the properties coupled with the distances between them (3.95m) and the existing boundary treatment (2m) helps to limit any adverse overbearing impacts on the living conditions of No. 10. While the erection of the extension will not go unnoticed and there is expected to be an increased level of overshadowing this is not to be to such a degree as to significantly or adversely impact on the general living conditions of the neighbour.
6.6 The application proposes the installation of bi-folding doors on the rear of the extension and a new single window on the side elevation of the main house. The bi-folding doors face north-east and over the rear garden their installation is not expected to result in any impacts on overlook or privacy over or above the existing arrangement to cause any adverse impacts on the living conditions of the neighbour. The latter gable window is positioned as such that it faces towards the blank gable of No.10 opposite, no privacy impacts are expected but there
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00952/B Page 6 of 7
will likely be an increase level of overlooking from internal spaces on the small driveway yard on the side elevation but no worse than that achievable from the external garden area of the dwelling.
IMPACT ON NO.12 Y VAARNEY YIARG 6.7 The application site and No. 12 form a pair of semi's detached dwellings and aforementioned there is a site level difference between the two with the application site sitting 0.7m lower than No.12. The original scheme for the application proposed an extension which projected 4.3m from the rear elevation and with an additional 1m supporting wall totalling the overall length at 5.3m. This significant length of the extension at the height of 2.7m generated an overall mass which created a tunnelling effect and which was considered to have a significant overbearing and adverse impact on living conditions of No.12.
6.8 These concerns were discussed with the applicant and agent and revised drawings were received omitting the supporting wall and reducing the length of the extension. The proposal now detailing an extension projecting 3.8m from the rear elevation.
6.9 No. 12 bounds to the eastern side with a public footpath, the footpath sits higher than the ground level of No. 12 the boundary make up between the two comprises a mix walling and timber fencing that is around 2.4m high from within the rear garden of No. 12. There is perhaps an expected reduced level of daylighting here as a result of the orientation of the dwelling with their rear elevations facing north-east and with the existing height of the two storey dwellings also resulting in a level of overshadowing to the rear.
6.10 In looking at the current proposal the extension would have a roof height nearest the dwelling of 3m and 2.7m nearest the garden, for a length of 3.8m along the boundary the nearest part of the extension would sit between 1m - 0.7m above the existing boundary fence.
6.11 No.12 could under the PDO erect a 2m high fence from ground level of their property. Under the PDO the applicants could also erect an extension 1m away from each boundary with an external floor area up to 15sq m and being built up to 4m high.
6.12 The assessment of this application is made difficult as the immediate area to the rear elevation is already overshadowed by the existing dwellings and height of the existing boundary treatment. Under the PDO the applicants could build 1m away from the boundary and up to a maximum of 4m high. Its accepted that the proposed extension would be noticeable from the rear of No.12, but given the end terraced nature of No.12, although bound by the footpath, is generally open that the erection of the extension at No.11 would not make so significantly worse the existing context and shaded environment of No.12 to warrant a refusal particularly minded that the PDO could result in a scheme far more impacting in terms of its overall height and mass (even being sited 1m from the boundary). The lower level of the application site and the flat roof design of the extension cumulatively result in the proposal sitting on and below the accepted 25 degree rule of thumb line when measured from a 2m centre point of the rear elevation window of No. 12.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The current application has been difficult to assess due to the unique context of the site, the objections received from the neighbours and in understanding what levels of development can be carried out without prior planning approval under Class 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 and their impact in terms of the 25 degree rule for assessing loss of light and overshadowing. For the above reasons (as set out on 6.0 of this report) it is concluded on balance that the proposed extension will not result in such an adverse overbearing or over dominating impact on the general living conditions or amenities of the neighbours, and that no new privacy or overlooking impacts are expected above or beyond what can already be achieved from the rear gardens and rear elevations of the existing dwellings.
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00952/B Page 7 of 7
7.2 The application is 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. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date : 18.04.2019
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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