1 Queens Court Queens Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5EU
Officer's Report
The Site
The application site represents the residential curtilage of 1 Queens Court, Queens Road, Port St. Mary. The property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located on the north-eastern side of the road.
The dwelling has an unusual layout where the only external pedestrian door is located on the rear elevation. There is a vehicular door on the front elevation of the garage, but no other front access.
The Proposal
The application seeks approval for the erection of an extension to front elevation. The extension would be single storey in height with a lean-to hipped roof over. It would measure 6 metres wide by 2.8 metres deep with a maximum height of 3.6 metres.
Planning History
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Erection of a porch to front elevation of dwelling - 11/01174/B – APPROVED
Erection of a front porch - 04/01961/B – APPROVED
Erection of garage to side of dwelling - 03/00142/B- APPROVED
Approval in principle for creation of two dwellings - 99/00005/A –APPROVED
Development Plan Policies
The application site is located within an area designated as Predominantly Shopping Use on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not located within a Conservation Area.
On the Modified Draft Area Plan for the South 2011 (Map no. 7), the site is located within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use. The site is not located within the proposed Port St. Mary Conservation Area.
The relevant planning policy from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is General Policy 2 which 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:
Case Officer:
Mr Chris Balmer
Photo Taken:
03.09.2012
Site Visit:
03.09.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Officer Delegation
(a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
(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;
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
(e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
(f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
(i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
(j) can be provided with all necessary services;
(k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
(l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
(m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
(n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
REPRESENTATIONS
Port St. Mary Commissioners have no objections to the planning application.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not object to this application.
ASSESSMENT
The proposed porch would have an external floor plan of just over 16.8 square metres, so it is relatively small in size compared to the existing dwelling. Due to its size, design and location it is considered that there would be no significant adverse affects on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or being overbearing to warrant a refusal.
The adjacent semi-detached dwelling has a similar sized porch/extension to its front elevation (PA 04/01961/B), so there are no concerns that the proposed porch would upset the balance of the semi, in fact it could be argued to bring a balancing effect upon the two properties.
In terms of residential amenity for the residents of the dwelling itself, the proposed extension would improve access to the property. The site plan shows that a distance of over 5 metres would remain between the extension and the wall to the front of the site, so it is judged that vehicles would still be able to access the garage on the side of the dwelling in the same way as they do at present. The area in front of the dwelling is currently a hardstanding, but it is unlikely that the extension would take away any significant parking due to its modest size and front projection out from the front elevation of the main house. The Highway Division have no objection to the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
For the above reasons, this proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
Party Status
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Port St. Mary Commissioners.
The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 27.09.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: Notes attached to refusals
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the erection of an extension to front elevation as tourist accommodation as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings Dwg 01 P1, Dwg 02 P1 and Dwg 03 P1 all received on 21st August 2012.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : PermittedDate : 2/10/12
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed: A. H. B. M. Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed: Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
