Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00357/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00357/B Applicant : Ms Wendy Lewis Proposal : Erection of flat roof extension on first floor above existing kitchen Site Address : 2 Wesley Terrace Ballasalla Isle of Man IM9 2DB
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Thomas O'Connor Photo Taken : 17.04.2019 Site Visit : 17.04.2019 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.05.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development would be over dominant in terms of its physical and visual presence to both the rear of the site and other properties within the terrace. The development would also be incongruous in terms of scale, form and design to both the rear of the terrace and its wider setting visible from a public area, namely the school grounds, to the clear detriment of the character and appearance of the terrace. As such, in terms of its inappropriate scale, poor design and resultant unsatisfactory appearance, the proposal would be contrary to the General Policy 2b and c of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, having regard to the Residential Design Guidance March 2019.
R 2. The proposed upper storey extension would result in both an impediment to the outlook from, and a material loss of sunlight and daylight to, the window of the adjoining dwelling located to the north at 1 Wesley Terrace. The development would also adversely affect the outlook from and light to the rear of number 3, Wesley Terrace. The development would therefore be contrary to the General Policy 2g of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and having regard to the Residential Design Guidance of March 2019.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00357/B Page 2 of 4
1.1 The site consists of a two storey mid terraced 19th century dwelling within a located on the eastern side of Main Road close to the junction of Crossag Road with Bridge Road. Directly to the east is located a school. Local services such as Police Station and shops are nearby.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks to erect an upper storey flat roof extension above the existing single storey extension located within the rear yard. This would be to create additional ancillary living space (bedroom) accessed from the upper hallway of the main house. Dimensions of the proposal would be 4.2m in length by 3.95m in width. Mounted on the existing ground floor extension of the same width, the overall height of this flat roof proposal would be 5.32 metres above ground level. A single 1200 x 900mm skylight would be centrally positioned within the flat roof.
2.2 For information, it is proposed to create further living space within the existing attic space accessed from within the main house and served by two roof lights, one to the front and one to the rear. This is, however, not subject to this application and would not require planning approval.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 None recorded
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is located within a wider area of land this is designated as predominantly residential under the Area Plan for the South 2013. The site is also within a proposed Conservation Area as set out in the Area Plan. Within such areas there is a presumption for development to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area (Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/2). It is noted, however that the CA is not yet adopted nor is it understood that there is an imminent commitment by the Cabinet Office to progress this at the present time.
4.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 is more specific in land use zoning and 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:
(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 Residential Design Guidance March 2019 which aims to encourage creative, innovative and locally distinctive designs that respond to the changing needs of our communities. The document is not intended to stifle creativity or to promote planning by numbers and off the peg designs, but rather to create a supportive context for good quality designs, be they traditional or modern. This makes reference to the introduction of flat roofed extensions, stating:
3.2.2 ...Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design.
4.4 It also discusses the impact of extensions on the living conditions of those in adjacent property, stating:
4.3 TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00357/B Page 3 of 4
4.3.1 These types of extensions have the potential to produce the greatest impact upon the amenities of those in neighbouring dwellings (see Chapter 7). There may be concerns if a proposal is to extend a semi-detached or terraced property along or close to the joint boundary. Extensions, which could have an adverse effect on the ground-floor living rooms or kitchens of neighbouring properties, are unlikely to be supported. However, problems may not arise if the neighbouring property already has a single-storey extension or outhouse on the boundary. In these cases, the Department is more likely to support proposals for a two-storey extension (if it keeps to all other aspects of this document). Each proposal should pay particular attention to poor outlook for and overlooking of the neighbouring property.
4.3.2 A useful guide to determine the likely impact of a rear extension upon neighbouring properties is by using the 45 degree approach. A 45 degree line is drawn from the centre point of the closest relevant window on the ground floor of the neighbouring property. Proposals are unlikely to be supported where the length of the line would not exceed 12 metres before reaching any part of the proposed development. However, it should be highlighted that this is guidance only and passing the test does not mean automatic approval, nor the reverse. Furthermore, the 45-degree approach will not always be appropriate and in certain cases there will be other factors that will carry as much, and potentially more weight, such as orientation, and changes in levels.
4.3.3 Solutions to these issues may be the reduction in the depth of the extension, or to set it further away from the boundary. However, chopping off small sections to leave uncharacteristic angles will not normally be permitted, as it is unlikely to produce a form of extension that is in keeping with the original house.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services: 17/04/2019 - No highway interest
5.2 Malew Commissioners received 01/05/2019, - No objection
5.3 Neighbours: No observations received
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Single storey extensions to the rear yards are a common feature within Wesley Terrace with many properties on either side having this feature. Further scope for linear extensions to the rear are however somewhat limited by the narrowness of the rear yards and the topography which rises sharply by some 2m at the boundary of the school grounds.
6.2 In terms of its design, the proposal is functionally monolithic in its appearance filling up most of the usable space up to eaves height at the rear of the property. General Policy 2 (b) requires development to respect the site and its surroundings in terms of its siting, layout, scale, form and design; the landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. The proposed development would be over dominant in terms of its physical and visual presence to both the rear of the site and other properties within the terrace. This would be incongruous in terms of siting, layout, scale, form and design to the both the rear of the terrace and its wider setting visible from a public area, namely the school grounds, to the clear detriment of the character and appearance of the terrace. As such, in terms of its inappropriate scale; poor design and resultant unsatisfactory appearance, the proposal would be contrary to the criteria b & c of General Policy of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan taking on board the guidance provided in the Residential Design Guidance March 2019.
6.4 Though set back on either side from the boundaries of adjoining properties, the side elevation of the proposed extension would be some 2.5m from the central point of an upper main window to the property at 1 Wesley Terrace. A 45 degree angle measured from the central part of this north east facing window would intersect the central part of this upper storey extension and result in both an impedance of aspect and a material loss of sunlight and
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00357/B Page 4 of 4
daylight reaching this window. This would be exacerbated by the ground level of the Wesley Terrace dwellings being set in excess of 2 metres below the ground level of the adjacent school grounds. As such, the loss of aspect and sunlight and daylight to the upper rear window of 1 Wesley Terrace would be to the clear detriment of the residential amenity of the occupants of this dwelling contrary to the requirement c of Policy G2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
6.5 Residential Design Guidance March 2019 provides ways in which such impacts can be measured and what is proposed would fall within the area where there would be a detrimental impact on the outlook and light available to the properties next door, particularly 1, Wesley Terrace although the increase in height would also detrimentally affect the outlook and light to both floors of the rear of number 3, Wesley Terrace.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan by reason of: 7.2 Being of and inappropriate form of development that fails to respect its surroundings in terms of its siting, layout, scale, form and design; the landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and having an adverse impact on the outlook from and light to the two neighbouring properties
8.0 INTERESTED PERSONS 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 decision maker 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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused
Date: 23.05.2019
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Principal Planner
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