Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00607/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00607/B Applicant : Mr Rob & Mrs Vivian Mercer Proposal : Erection of front porch, rear extension, pitch dormer roof, rear terrace and roof, window and door alterations Site Address : Mannin Veg Gansey Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LA
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 30.07.2024 Site Visit : 30.07.2024 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.08.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By reason of the design of the dormers particularly their scale, design, height and mass coupled with the misaligned front window design and their solid bulky top heavy appearance both dormers are considered to have a significant adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, streetscene and surrounding coastal area and having a negative contribution to the area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The proposals would also undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 in failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area and the Port St Mary Character Appraisal.
R 2. Although having a subordinate height, by reason of the 2.3m projection and overall footprint of the front porch is considered to have an unacceptable and adverse visual impact on the overall character and appearance of the existing dwelling and having a negative impact and negative contribution on the overall streetscene and surrounding area minded that such large front porches are not typical features found throughout the older dwellings within the PSM proposed conservation area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The proposals would also undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 in failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area and the Port St Mary Character Appraisal. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00607/B Page 2 of 7
__
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The site relates to Mannin Veg, Gansey Road, Port St Mary. A traditional two storey semi-detached dwelling with an existing flat roof dormer on the front elevation facing over the bay. The property is set back slightly from the highway and has a small walled front yard. At the rear there is an existing outrigger finished with a cat slide roof. There is terraced garden space at the rear access only by a side gate part way up the slope of the rear boundary. Sitting at the top of the hill behind the house is field 414756.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed are a number of extension and alteration works to provide additional living space these include: o Removal of the existing dormer and installation of new peaked dormer with apex glazing to front elevation o Installation of matching height peaked dormer to rear with central patio doors o Infilling of existing rear yard and uplift of catslide to create additional ground and first floor accommodation and creation of flat roof terrace access from proposed rear dormer. o Erection of new flat roof front porch and new front door o Installation of replacement windows
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to two previous approvals: o 98/01953/B - infilling of rear yard with new extension finished with catslide to match and new small peaked dormer at first floor - APPROVED o 98/01330/B - installation of new windows - APPROVED
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is designated as 'Predominantly Residential' in the Area Plan for the South (2013). The site is within a proposed Conservation Area. The site is not recognised as being at any flood risk. Directly adjoining the site is an area of Public Open Space (POS) and which is recognised as being of some ecological importance on the APS2013 proposals map.
4.2 The following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are particularly relevant to this proposal:- o Strategic Policy 5 - new development to make positive contribution; o General Policy 2 (GP2) - Development within land-use zones; o paragraph 8.12.1 - resumption in favour of residential development in residential areas; o Environment Policy 35 - preserve or enhance conservation areas o Environment Policy 42 - new development must be designed to take into account character and identity of locality
4.3 Section 4 of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) covers extensions and 4.10 dormer extensions.
4.4 Port St Mary Character Appraisal (PSMCA) contains reference to dormers on pages 9, 16 and 19 which recognises dormers in the area on Victorian properties and including 'McArd' style triangular dormers and inappropriate oversized and enlarged window openings.
4.5 The PSMCA also acknowledges Gansey Bay as forming key views into the Conservation Area, and forming part of the largest area of POS. From page 8 of the PSMCA it recognises the variety of houses within PSM reflecting the different phases of its development. The strong continuous terrace at the top of the bay built in a curve reflecting the curve of the bay, most infill development along here has been designed sympathetically in form and mass, but
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00607/B Page 3 of 7
detailed design like window styles and opening method being out of character. The St Mary's Bay apartments also being out of scale with its neighbours, and Dolphin Apartments both inappropriate in scale and character. Chapel Bay House (former boat house) is the only property along here recognised for being distinct and totally individual, not only for PSM but probably within the IOM.
4.6 The following Policies from the Area Plan for the South 2013 are relevant: o Sections 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 - recognising the distinctiveness of Port St Mary and its traditional older buildings. o Landscape Area E9 - Bay ny Carrickey
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Port St. Mary Commissioners - No Objection (dated 04/07/2024)
5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division - defer (11/06/2024) - there is an adopted highway to the front of the property and the details submitted for the application in respect of the porch and garden area appear to conflict with the adopted highway and should be reviewed and amended or addition information provided taking this issue into account.
5.3 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer - no objection subject to condition (20/06/2024) - the proposal includes clear glass balustrades to the rear and this increases bird strike potential. They seek a conditions requiring details of mitigation to reduce bird strike through etching, UV coating or decals.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The IOMSP indicates at 8.12.1 that there is a general presumption in favour of residential development in residential zoned areas and so alterations and extensions are accepted in principle. The test of their success falls to whether those works would have adverse impact on either the adjacent property or on the surrounding area in general. GP2 contains the general standards towards acceptable development, in addition consideration shall also be given to SP5, EP's 35 and 42, as well as consideration to PSMCA and the RDG in assessing that impact. Regard shall be given to the overall visual impact on the existing dwelling and surrounding streetscene area, amenity impact on the neighbouring living conditions and whether there would be any adverse impact on highways or ecology.
6.2 Front and Rear Dormers
Existing dormer and dwelling 6.2.1 The existing dwelling has a non-traditional flat roof box dormer covering most of the front roof, the slope of which looks already to have been adapted to created increased roof space and which is tile hung to best mimic a traditional roof. The adjoining neighbour has a similar box dormer and roof slope modifications both have been adapted as a pair. Whilst these flat roof dormers are perhaps not typical for these older dwellings there are a number of them throughout PSM and this is acknowledged in the PSMCA. The existing dormers are both stepped in from each edge and are vertically aligned with the main windows and doors on the front elevations, this coupled with the tile hung frontage helps to mimic a traditional roof form and the works being no taller than the main ridge and chimney stacks helps to retain the overall mass, form and proportion of the original host traditional dwelling.
Proposed Dormer - Front 6.2.2 The proposed dormers now introduce a peaked arrangement and although trying to re- introduce a more traditional pitched roof style with slate roof materials and including PV
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00607/B Page 4 of 7
panels, the dormers are now notably wider and considerably taller that the original ridge and chimney stacks and resulting in an overbearing impact and eroding the original traditional form of the traditional dwelling.
6.2.3 Although installed with mostly glazing at the front, the increased size and scale of the dormer and its material finish appears top heavy and bulky, and its design now results in a misalignment of the vertical glazing elements detracting from the overall appearance of the dwelling and the appearance of the dwelling in the overall streetscene.
6.2.4 The front dormer is not considered to result in any adverse amenity impacts on the neighbours.
Proposed Dormer - Rear 6.2.5 The dormer at the rear is mostly finished in cladding with only a small set of patio doors, whilst it cannot be seen in its entirety due to the position and surrounding landscape topography, its overall size, scale and height, its somewhat lopsided design and solid bulk overwhelm and detract from the current traditional form and proportions as well as resulting in a considerable covering over of the traditional slate roof.
6.2.6 The size and scale of the proposed rear dormer and close proximity to the boundary will also result in some negative impact on the neighbour through potential loss of light to their roof lights and with some outlook impact from those rooflights, but given the rooflights serve a non-habitable hallway and bathroom, and taking into consideration the orientation of the dwellings and the sun path here, that the impact from the rear dormer would not be so harmful in this case as to warrant a refusal on neighbouring amenity grounds.
Proposed Dormers - Side Elevation Gable View 6.2.7 The most notable views of the dormer works are from the front and side elevations, and the latter where the sheer extent and bulk of the works would be most prominent particularly their height going considerably beyond the main ridge level and beyond the height of the chimney stacks and cumulatively having a significant and unacceptably adverse overbearing impact on the host dwelling. This unacceptable impact also having a negative impact on how the dwelling is viewed within the wider character and appearance of the immediate streetscene which is predominantly traditional, forms part of the coastal character of this side of the bay and which is included as part of the proposed conservation area.
6.2.8 Although deemed to have acceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, be reason of their height, width, size, scale and design, both front and rear dormers are considered to have an unacceptable overbearing and adverse visual impact on the traditional qualities of the host dwelling and on the wider streetscene and character of the area.
6.3 Infill and rear upwards extension and creation of rear roof terrace
Rear Infill - Ground Floor 6.3.1 The infilling at ground floor between the existing outriggers would be unobjectionable.
Rear Infill and First Floor Upwards Extension 6.3.2 The infilling and increase of height at first floor would technically result in the removal of a traditional cat slide roof and its replacement with a new non-traditional flat roof extension which would be at odds with the traditional qualities of the main house, however given that the proposal does not project any further that the end of the existing cat slide, and the use of a contrasting dark modern material and that the original edge profile of the cat slide is being maintained along the side elevation is being maintained that the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact from that side elevation view and in isolation the side elevation view of the first floor works being in a darker material it is not considered to overwhelm the existing dwelling.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00607/B Page 5 of 7
Rear Terrace 6.3.3 The increase in first floor height and terrace goes beyond the existing roof level of the adjoining neighbour, and this would have some negative impact on their rear rooflights, however these non-habitable hallway and a bathrooms, so although having some negative impact, particularly more so during the morning (given the orientation and siting), the terrace works are not considered to be of such scale, height or projection as to result in any significant overbearing or overshadowing impacts and are considered within reason in this case. There is concern however in respect of the drawing details shown on the floor plans and elevations, while acknowledged to be on an angle, part of the rear extension and terrace nearest the neighbour potentially results in some development breaching the shared boundary and which may not be in full control of the applicant.
6.3.4 The creation of a new first floor terrace has the potential to overlook the neighbour's rear roof lights considerably more so than from the existing rear garden terraces. Although serving non-habitable rooms, the scheme in this case has included a 1.8m high obscure glazed screen nearest the boundary and this would help to limit those direct views and should be considered by condition should this terrace come forward. However such screening can also add additional height to the terrace potentially impacting overbearing or loss of daylight impacts, and no matter what the screen glazing finish (which could be conditioned) there might still be a perceived level of overlooking from the terrace.
Glazing and Ecosystems 6.3.5 There are no details provided as to the level of obscure glazing to be installed and this would need to be provided or conditioned if the application was to be recommended for approval. The agent should carefully consider a suitable finish so as to avoid a dense solid bulk but whilst ensuring suitable privacy levels. A further condition in respect of the terrace glazing and mitigating bird strike would also be considered necessary to help overcome comments received from Ecosystems.
6.4 Front Porch 6.4.1 There are two matters to consider in this respect, the visual impact of the porch on the existing dwelling and whether there are any potential highway impacts.
Porch - Visual Impact 6.4.2 In terms of the former, the introduction of a storm porch is not uncommon across many residential properties in urban and suburban estates and can often go a long way in helping to improve their overall thermal efficiency. The style and design of the porch proposed here is clearly a more contemporary approach and is designed to be in keeping with the finishes on those other extension and alteration works. Its overall flat roof design helps to maintain a subordinate height, however it is the overall 2.3m projection that has a negative impact on the overall appearance of the dwelling. This considerable projection setting it negatively apart from its neighbour and also minded that such large projecting porches are not typical features found throughout the older dwellings within the PSM proposed conservation area. The proposed porch in this instance is considered to have an unacceptable visual impact.
Porch - Highway Impact 6.4.3 The DOI Highway officer has questioned the impact of the porch on the adopted highway. The OS maps and only maps are often prepared to such a scale that there can be anomalies and the thickness and depths of lines making it difficult to see full details. It is always recommended that agents undertake proper site surveys and ensure that works remain on land in control of the applicant only and not to impact local highways.
6.4.4 In this instance it was not considered necessary to delay the application to allow the agent/applicant to provide additional information to overcome the DOI Highways matters
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00607/B Page 6 of 7
because of the already concluded negative findings for the porch in its own right as well as other negative elements of the proposal.
6.5 Replacement Windows 6.5.1 The existing window styles across the frontage vary with some 70/30 top opening arrangements and some 50/50 and although there is little information provided on the drawings to properly determine opening methods or material finish, on visiting the site it was clear that the windows were top opening casements, and appeared in the most part to be UPVC finish.
6.5.2 The proposed drawings do show a more consolidated and uniform appearance throughout the existing front elevation having all 50/50 glazing styles, however there still remains a lack of clarity in the opening methods and window material finish, however given the proposed framing pattern is to present a more cohesive appearance throughout this would benefit the dwelling over the existing mixed framing across the ground and first floor. Minded of the negative assessment of other parts of the proposal it was not considered necessary to delay the application any further to seek the window opening methods or material finish clarification from the applicant/agent.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the rear infill, first floor upwards extension, rear roof terrace and replacement window works are considered to be an acceptable level of development subject to conditions in this case, given the unacceptable and negative findings in respect of both the front and rear dormers and the front porch the application is recommended for refusal.
7.2 By reason of the design of the dormers particularly their scale, design, height and mass coupled with the misaligned front window design and their solid bulky top heavy appearance both dormers are considered to have a significant adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, streetscene and surrounding coastal area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The proposals would also undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 in failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area and the PSM Character Appraisal.
7.3 Although having a subordinate height, by reason of the 2.3m projection and overall footprint of the front porch is considered to have an unacceptable and adverse visual impact on the overall character and appearance of the existing dwelling and having a negative impact on the overall streetscene and surrounding area minded that such large front porches are not typical features found throughout the older dwellings within the PSM proposed conservation area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The proposals would also undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 in failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area and the PSM Character Appraisal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00607/B Page 7 of 7
(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
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 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 : 02.08.2024
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