Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00415/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00415/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Jimmy And Janine Cubbon Proposal : Ground floor extension and alterations and Conversion of existing roof into habitable space by raising the roof, erection of 2 dormers and installation of roof lights Site Address : 1 Bradda View Ballakillowey Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BE
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.07.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R. By virtue of the increased height and overall volume of extensions this proposal would result in a dominating feature within the streetscene and disrupt the sense of openness. The design would have an overbearing impact upon existing and future residential amenity for the neighbouring dwellinghouses, but in particular numbers 3 and 2 Bradda View and number 11 The Chase.
For the reasons given in this report the proposal is considered contrary to the Design Guide, Strategic Policy 3 and General Policies 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions and they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):
Objects
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00415/B Page 2 of 7
__
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1. The application site, no.1 Bradda View, is within the curtilage of a 3 bed detached single storey bungalow. The dwellinghouse occupies a corner plot at the junction of Bradda View and Ballakillowey Road. The site comprises of gardens, integrated garage and off-road parking.
1.2. The site is within a cul-de-sac housing estate of similarly styled bungalows from the late 1980s. East of the site is no.3, south and across the road is no.2, north is no.11 The Chase which also abuts Ballakillowey Road. To the west are agricultural fields and views over to Port Erin and Bradda Head.
1.3. The character of the cul-de-sac is one of single storey bungalows of similar design around the entrance. The land than slopes downwards away from the junction to land on a much lower level than Ballakillowey Road, and the dwellings in this area of the cul-de-sac are similarly designed two storey houses. The majority of the bungalows and houses have had some form or alteration or extension.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1. Planning approval is sought for a ground floor extension and addition of new first floor level living accommodation. The works are as follows.
2.2. The proposed ground floor extension on the north-west elevation and alterations incorporate those approved under planning application no. 20/01340/B.
2.3. Increase the ridge heights between 1m and 1.3m; the existing East Elevation is around 5.6m to the ridge, the proposed is around 6.7m to the ridge. The raising of the roof incorporates 2 dormer window extensions and a new gable end, and roof lights.
2.4. Raising the roof creates space for 2 bedroom and associated spaces.
2.5. The external materials are proposed to match the existing.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1. There is more planning history on the site however the following is considered the only application materially relevant in the assessment of this application.
3.2. 20/01340/B - Alterations and erection of extension. Permitted.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1. Policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Design Guide are used to assess the proposal.
4.2. The site is not a Registered Building or within a Conservation Area nor is it within the setting of either. The site is not within a flood zone. There are no protected trees within the site.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00415/B Page 3 of 7
4.3. The site lies within an area of Residential use on the Area Plan for the South therefore paragraph 8.12.1 from the Strategic Plan is considered relevant, "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. Strategic Policy 3: Requires development proposals to ensure that the individual character of towns and villages is protected or enhanced by, "(b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."
4.5. General Policy 2 states that development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development meets relevant criteria. Of the criteria (b), (c), (g), : o (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; o (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and o (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality."
Other Material Considerations
5.1. The Residential Design Guide (RDG) provides guidance on all aspects of design including architectural guidance to ensure retention of the existing character of a building that includes attention to detail of scale, position, symmetry, glazing and materials, texture, and consideration of the impacts of development upon residential amenity and landscape.
5.2. Paragraph 3.2.2 of the RDG states that "Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. "
5.2.1. Section 4.9 highlights the importance of careful consideration in respect of corner plots. Paragraph 4.9.2 states, "Extensions in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the streetscene."
REPRESENTATIONS
6.1. Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.2. Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners- (17.05.2024) Design of the building seems good but note the objections and request that the objections are carefully considered to ensure that the application complied with relevant legislation, regulation and policy.
6.3. Highways Services - no interest. (03.05.2024)
6.4. Resident's comments of which the following material points are list, the full response can be viewed online.
6.4.1. Objection; o Scale of development will stand out. o All the existing dwellings have the same heights. The proposed roof line will stand out. o Raised back wall incorporating a first floor window will make the property highly visible. o Loss of light to multiple rooms of no.3 due to the proposed height.
6.4.2 - a resident has sent in support to the proposal
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00415/B Page 4 of 7
7. ASSESSMENT
7.1. Principle
7.1.1. There is a general presumption in favour of extensions or alterations to existing properties as per Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, where such works would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area in general. Therefore the main considerations in the assessment of this planning application are considered to relate to the design and character and whether there would be any harmful impact upon neighbour amenity.
7.1.2. The proposed ground floor extension and alterations incorporate those approved under planning application no. 20/01340/B and therefore these are not assessed or discussed.
7.2. As the principle of the proposal is acceptable the main considerations are whether the proposal accords with the Policies and Guidance relating to design and whether the proposal would cause harm to residential amenity.
7.3. Design and Character
7.3.1. As stated above the ground floor extension has already been approved and therefore is not examined here. The extensions being examined are in the roof, raising the ridge height and construction of two dormers to create additional living space.
7.3.2. The existing roof line is of hipped design and has multiple ridges , the highest ridge is measured around 5.5m in height, dropping down around 0.4m and 1m lower than the main ridge. There is a dual pitch roofed porch with a ridge around 1.3m lower than the highest ridge.
7.3.3. The increases in ridge heights are proposed to be around 1m, then around 1.3m and 2m respectively. In addition two gables are introduced, one with a small first floor window in the north-east elevation, the other with a balcony in the north-west elevation above the already approved ground floor extension.
7.4. Paragraph 4.9.3 of the RDG states that extensions on a corner plot should not project further than the building line of those properties on adjacent roads, whilst still respecting the existing dwelling. Taking account of the already approved extension, this proposal does not include elements that are forward of the existing building.
7.5. However by virtue of the height and multiple roof elements it would introduce a dominating feature in the street scene of Bradda View, contrary to paragraph 4.9.1 of the RDG.
7.6. Looking onto the site from Ballakillowey Road in either direction on approach to the application site there are single storey bungalows. Travelling north on the A36 the first two storey building is around 190metres away. Travelling south on the A36 the first two storey building is around 87metres away.
7.6.1. The Ballakillowey Road comprising a mix of building design on its east side and agricultural fields on its west side. The road rises steeply from its junction with Ballafesson Road, the A7 and the A29, and as it nears the bend in the road before Bradda View the gradient lessens. Between the junction and Bradda View the roof line steadily rises with the gradient of the road. Where the road levels off the bungalows start and continue for another 200 or so metres.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00415/B Page 5 of 7
7.7. Paragraph 4.10.1 states that dormer extensions are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or streetscene. There are no dormers on the roof slopes of the existing dwellinghouse or on several of the dwellings close by the application site.
7.8. The character of this hipped roof bungalow would be obliterated and in its place a somewhat uncharacteristic mix of gables, hips, and dormers.
7.9. The Design Guide offers initial guidance on extensions in which notably the landscape character is protected by scale position and materials. Development within corner plots is identified as a delicate site requiring careful consideration and this is highlighted in paragraph 4.9.2; "Extensions in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the streetscene.
7.10. General Policy 2 expects development to respect the site and wider surroundings so as not to adversely impact either.
7.11. NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
7.12. The introduction of two dormer extensions on the south-west elevation do not introduce window to window relationships with the opposite dwellinghouse, no.2 simple because the dwellinghouse is single storey. However, although separated by cul-de-sac road, due to the distance and orientation, it is considered that they do introduce overlooking to no.2. Furthermore the increased height and scale of the dormers introduces a dominance that does not exist.
7.13. The first floor window in the north-east elevation will introduce overlooking to the amenity of no.11 The Chase. It is noted that this is the front garden of the dwellinghouse and the window would not introduce any window to window relationships. However as the view over the fields is the prevalent view it is likely to be a well-used amenity area, thus overlooking is a consideration.
7.14. Due to the orientation of the dwellings and direction of the sun, raising the roof will cast a shadow over the windows and rear amenity areas of no.3, and possibly the front of no.11 The Chase.
7.15. Raising the roof is considered to result in an overbearing impact upon no.3.
7.16. Protection of residential amenity applies to the existing and future occupants of the application site and other neighbours. It is amenity protected for future generations. The proposal is considered to harm the residential amenity of the existing and future occupants of adjacent residents to varying degrees.
CONCLUSION
8.1. The proposal results in a dwellinghouse that has no resemblance to the original dwellinghouse. It is not so much that the design is not good, more that due to its position and existing vernacular, the design is of an inappropriate scale and vernacular in this location, on this property.
8.2. Paragraph 3.2.2 of the Residential Design Guide states that "Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch and shape as the existing dwelling and the height should be lower than that of the main building". Section 4.9 highlights the importance of careful consideration in respect of corner plots. Paragraph 4.9.2 states, "Extensions in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the streetscene."
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00415/B Page 6 of 7
8.3. There is a continuous thread through the Strategic Local Plan that development must protect or enhance the landscape and protect residential amenity.
8.4. By virtue of the increased height and overall volume of extensions this proposal would result in a dominating feature within the streetscene and disrupt the sense of openness. The design would have an overbearing impact upon existing and future residential amenity for the neighbouring dwellinghouses, but in particular numbers 3 and 2 Bradda View.
8.5. In weighing up the planning balance, there are large two storey dwellinghouses at the end of Bradda View cul-de-sac, however these are on ground significantly lower than the application site. There are two storey dwellinghouses at either end of Ballakillowey, however these do not occupy corner plots and they are at different gradient locations along Ballakillowy. Therefore those dwellinghouses with or without extensions are of an entirely different scenario.
8.6. For the reasons given in this report the proposal is considered contrary to the Design Guide, Strategic Policy 3 and General Policies 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
8.7. Therefore the application is recommend for refusal.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - check using the correct one against the TEMPLATE ABI GAVE YOU 9.1. By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
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 above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 19.07.2024
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00415/B Page 7 of 7
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Acting 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