DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00935/B Applicant: Mr Simon Strong & Ms Tamzin Lawrence Proposal: Alterations, erection of a two storey extension to rear and replacement of existing cement roof slates with natural slate Site Address: 22 Queen Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1PA Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 04.09.2019 Site Visit: 04.09.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.09.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Conditions of Approval C: Conditions O : Notes attached 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.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO EP 35 BUT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling which is situated at the eastern end of the row of terraced houses on the northern side of Queen Street. The property sides on to the car park on the western side of Farrant's Way and to the rear of the property is a lane

• which leads to parking spaces, rear access to properties in Queen Street and Scarlett Road and some garages.
• 1.2 The side of the property has a blank gable stone wall facing the car park and to the rear of the this, set back slightly, is a stone wall of similar height running along the side of the rear yard. The wall turns through 90 degrees to run part way along the rear boundary before dropping down to half the height for the majority of the rear boundary.
• 1.3 The rear outrigger which sits on the car park side of the rear yard has a part hipped roof facing the car park and rear lane but is otherwise flat roofed. There is a lower, single storey flat roofed element alongside. The flat roofed part is not discernible from the car park but is visible from the southern side of the house, from the lane.
• 1.4 The boundary with number 24, which is a much smaller and slightly lower property, is formed by fencing and a wall closest to the rear of both properties - which comes part way up the rear single storey outrigger on number 24, with the rear of both properties easily visible from the rear lane. There is a tree which sits close to the rear of both properties, within the application site, which is to be removed as part of the application. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is a two storey extension across the remainder of the rear yard to provide living and dining space at ground floor and a dressing room and en-suite bathroom at upper floor level contained within the roofspace. The roof will have a mansard shape whose apex will sit slightly higher - 250mm - than the existing hipped roof to the north, which will be extended lengthways by one metre. The flat roofed part of the new roof will project out 4.7m from the rear elevation, 3.5m from the rear of number 24, with a sloping roof covering the remaining

• 1.2m.
• 2.2 The existing rear roof pitch is currently finished in fibre cement tiles which will be replaced with natural slate which will also be used in the slope of the new extension roof facing the rear lane. The walling on the rear of the extension will be finished in render and there will be a large expanse of glazing framed in aluminium. PLANNING POLICY
• 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as Residential and also within the town Conservation Area. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:

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:

• (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 and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality".

"8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use 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."

3.2 Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and

will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

3.3 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 Planning approval was granted for the erection of a satellite dish (98/00513/B). REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they have no highway interest in the application (02.09.19). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed works would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and secondly, whether they would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of those in 24, Queen Street.

6.2 The works would neither preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area as viewed from the rear lane as there would be a material change in the appearance of the rear of the property, nor enhance it due to the inclusion in the scheme of a mansard type roof which is not traditional and not generally found within the town. Whilst there is a large, flat roofed dormer easily visible from the rear lane, further south, this should not be taken as a precedent for the replication of such an inappropriate form of development within a Conservation Area. - 6.3 The applicants' agent responds to concerns raised about the appearance of the rear extension by suggesting that his clients find the property "unsuitable for modern living in its current form", citing small rooms, lack of storage space and no central open plan living space with natural light. He suggests that these things would make it unlikely that the cottage would be attractive to many people, adding that the property was on the market for three years before being purchased by his clients. All of these things are typical of an old property and the dwelling is significantly larger than number 24 which is owned and rented out (currently occupied). He suggests that the works proposed will "rationalise the circulation within the building and create central open plan living space with lots of natural light" and that "the addition of a dressing room and en-suite bathroom to the master bedroom will be a great improvement, creating the storage and access to sanitary accommodation demanded by modern buyers, while the remaining bedrooms will be freed up for use as guest accommodation and a study or home office". - 6.4 He describes the extension as "predominately a pitched roof in appearance and the flat roof is visually subordinate to the large slated area". However, whilst from directly behind the property this may be the case, from the south the flat roofed element will be clearly visible and not overly attractive. However, what is currently visible from this position is the existing flat roof and as the proposal will replace the fibre cement tiles with slates, it is considered that what is proposed, whilst neither preserving or enhancing the appearance and character of the property, it will not make either materially worse. It is also relevant that the rear lane is not particularly attractive, comprising the rear elevations of all of the surrounding properties, and a series of modern garages. The context of the works is therefore not therefore the historic fabric which defines the Conservation Area. - 6.5 In terms of the impact on the rear of number 24, the applicant has provided correspondence which confirms that the owner of this adjacent property has no objection to the works and indeed, considers that it will enhance the area. Number 24 is smaller than the

• application property and has a narrower rear garden area which already has a high wall to the south from the rear annex of number 26. Any extension of the rear of number 22 beyond that of 24 cannot fail to have an impact on the outlook and light to the rear of that property, failing the guidance provided in the RDS if one applies the 45 degree rule to the rear door/window. Whilst the applicants' agent suggests that this is already breached by the existing stone wall, the proposed extension is considerably taller and although to the north, would have a greater impact and sense of enclosure from number 24. Whilst the applicant has offered to attach a trellis to this wall to attract climbing plants to soften the impact, this would be difficult to maintain from within the site and the neighbour has not indicated any desire to have this. The applicants' agent also points out that there is a trellis and vegetation to the north of the rear garden of number 24 which blocks light and outlook.
• 6.6 It is likely that the works will have an impact on the outlook and light from the rear of number 24 whose amenities are already compromised by the existing vegetation, trellis and the extension of number 26. The lightest part of that rear garden is the part closest to the rear lane which will not be so affected by the extension. It is significant that the neighbour is aware of the plans and has no objection, someone who understands how the rear of the property is used and enjoyed. As such, it is not considered that the impact on the living conditions of those in number 24 should be a reason for refusal in this case.

CONCLUSION

7.1 Whilst the proposal does not accord with EP 35 or GP 2 through the application of the RDG, it is considered that given the location and context of the site, the areas from where the extension will be viewed and the fact that the works will not have an impact on the public view or the Conservation Area itself, the application is recommended for approval. 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 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Refused……….... Committee Meeting Date:…07.10.2019

Signed :……S CORLETT……….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

Planning Committee Decision 07.10.2019

Application No. : 19/00935/B Applicant : Mr Simon Strong & Ms Tamzin Lawrence Proposal : Alterations, erection of a two storey extension to rear and

replacement of existing cement roof slates with natural slate Site Address : 22 Queen Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1PA Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee did not accept the Officer's recommendation at its meeting of 7th October, 2019 and the application was refused for the reason that whilst at the rear, the property still lies within Castletown's Conservation Area and the size and appearance of the extension would be unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the property contrary to Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/2.

Reason for Refusal

R .1 Whilst at the rear, the property still lies within Castletown's Conservation Area and the size and appearance of the extension would be unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the property contrary to Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/2.