Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/90992/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/90992/B Applicant : Mr Max Turner Proposal : Existing single-storey ground floor garage, utility and kitchen/dining to be replaced with new single-storey structure with first floor existing dormer replaced with extended pitched roof stairwell and bathroom. Replacement to side and rear of property. Site Address : 24 Scarlett Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1NU
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : 24.09.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.10.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time: Class 14 - Extension of dwellinghouse Class 15 - Garden sheds and summer-houses Class 17 - Private garages and car ports Class 26 - Garage doors
Reason: To control future development on the site.
C 3. The garage hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor vehicles(s) and shall be retained available for such use.
Reason: To provide adequate parking provision to the dwellinghouse.
C 4. The proposed bathroom window to the first floor rear elevation; shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and permanently retained as such.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/90992/B Page 2 of 7
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.
C 5. Within 12 months of occupation or substantial completion of the extension hereby approved, the "pressed metal eaves cladding with concealed gutter trim" and "horizontal cladding boards", unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department, shall be installed as per the drawing referenced; C-050- and C-061 received on 29th August 2024.
REASON : To ensure the architectural detailing is installed as per the proposals
C 6. Within 6 months of occupation or substantial completion of the extension hereby approved, the "pressed metal eaves cladding with concealed gutter trim" and "horizontal cladding boards", unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department, shall be installed as per the drawing referenced; C-050- and C-061 received on 29th August 2024.
REASON : To ensure compliance with the approved plans and the installation of the architectural detailing.
Note. The applicant is advised to consult with the Manx Electricity Authority to determine the clearance required from the underground cable which crosses part of the site.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The planning application would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and has been designed to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawing and supporting information received on 29 August 2024, referenced; 3073/C/010/ - Location and site plans 3073/C/020/ - Existing Drawings 3073/C/050/ - Proposed Plans 3073/C/060/ - Proposed Elevations __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DoI - Highways Services - No objection DoI - Highways Drainage - No objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of No. 24 Scarlett Road, Castletown. The property sits to the north of the highway and is characterised as chalet style detached dwelling with pitched tiled roof and a flat roofed dormer to the western side of the roofscape. The property features an attached flat roofed garage on the west elevation and biased towards the rear with parking in front and adjacent to the dwelling house. To each side of the dwelling are gated pathways that lead to the rear curtilage.
1.2 To the rear of the dwelling has to its existing built form a large flat roofed (slight fall from the centre line) extension that measurers approx. 6.7m wide x 7.0m deep and
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/90992/B Page 3 of 7
incorporates an internal layout of a kitchen / dining, utility, store and part of the garage. The remainder of the rear curtilage is laid to grass.
1.3 The character of the residential area is predominately detached buildings of various forms and sizes, some with gables facing the highway and some being side on. The neighbouring properties are mainly characterised by 1970/80/'s dormer bungalows, notably a steeply pitched tiled roof and an attached flat roof garages. The detached properties generally are separated by pathways down each side of the dwellings that corresponds with their neighbours. Many have dormers in the front elevation biases to one side. The surrounding dwellings have evolved and extended over the years, slightly altering the appearance and colour but generally these properties are single storey, pitched tiled roofs, and attached garages, gardens to the front and tandem parking to one side opposite the flat roofed garages.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing garage and rear flat roofed extension, and over lapping the existing footprint, the erection of a new single storey extension. Also proposed is the replacement of the rear dormer with an extended pitched roof to form an internal stairwell and bathroom. To the front of the garage would see the addition of a car port.
2.2 The propose works are solely contained to the side (west) and rear (north) elevation of the dwellinghouse.
2.3 The agent has noted the following theoretical calculations for the replacement extension; "increasing floor area of the ground floor first-floor extension is; 44 m2 & 15 m2 respectively = 59 m2. Original dwelling is 165.5 m2 (ground floor hundred 123.5 m2 & first floor 42 m2). The gross floor area for the extension therefore represents 36% of the original".
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being predominately residential use under the Area Plan for the South Map 5 Castletown.
3.2 The site is not within a conservation area, nor is in an area at risk of flooding. There are no registered trees within the site that are of concern.
3.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 2 Castletown is defined as a Service Centre
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
3.4 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "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
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/90992/B Page 4 of 7
property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
3.5 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document 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 properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has not been subject to any pervious planning applications, however within the streetscene that are similar example's which involve significantly large flat roofed extensions at the rears and sides; changes which altered the footprint of the application properties considerably. As well, some involved large flat roofed dormers to the front and rear elevations such as that proposed here.
4.2 PA 05/00511/B for alterations and extensions to provide dining room and kitchen and erection of conservatory to rear of dwelling (28 Scarlett Road) - approved. 4.3 PA 07/01806/B for alterations and erection of an extension (32 Scarlett Road) - approved. 4.4 PA 09/01611/B for erection of extension and installation of dormer (15 Scarlett Road) - approved. 4.5 PA 10/01718/B for extension to existing garage (17 Scarlett Road) - approved. 4.6 PA 14/00006/B for erection of extension to rear elevation and extension of rear dormer (22 Scarlett Road) - approved. 4.7 PA 16/00814/B for erection of an extension to replace existing sun lounge (9 Scarlett Road) - approved. 4.8 PA 21/01039/B for erection of side and rear extension to dwelling (34 Scarlett Road) - approved.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Castletown Commissioners has not commented at the time of writing despite being notified of the application on 30/08/24. 5.2 Highways Services commented (09/09/24) with no objection. 5.3 Highways Drainage commented (11/09/24) advising on preventing surface water run off onto the highway
Neighbour Comments 5.4 The following neighbouring properties (No's 22; 26; 29) were alerted to the application through the neighbour notification process.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:
PRINCIPLE 6.2 The site falls within the existing settlement boundary of Castletown and an area zoned for residential development, and principally would be in accordance with SP2 and STP2. In terms of large rear extensions that incorporate flat roof designs that benefit from approvals are noted earlier on in this report and there is a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing properties (para 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan) and provided such development would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area, as assessed below.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/90992/B Page 5 of 7
DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT 6.3 The proposals, seeing the demolition of the existing ad-hoc extension at the rear, the design of the proposed replacement would be more aesthetically pleasing albeit larger in footprint in a staggered design. From the original rear elevation the proposal would project into the rear garden by approx. 11m at its extents and approx. 3m to the top of the cladding at its highest, on the flat roof element. The agent has provided calculus which concludes this proposal only results in 36% increase over the original.
6.4 The single storey flat roof extension, including the garage and car port aspect would only be marginally larger than the existing extension and would have a more contemporary design and appearance in the use of the two tier flat roof design, and the eaves cladding which creates a parapet upstand. The elevation facing towards No.22 would be timber cladded to give the visual impression of a fence and leaves enough space down the side for maintenance. The unique design in terms of floor plan balances functional living space with the only glazing element facing into the garden by using corner glazing to create a dining room.
6.5 Whilst some flat roofed extensions are generally not considered an acceptable form of development as noted in the RDG, there are a variety of styles and a contemporary approaches with architectural detailing that can be more appropriate. In this case, when putting this in context within the site, it can be seen that the flat roofed extension above the lounge and dining area has been stepped in level and designed to keep the overall profile low with the leading edges of the flat roof being "pressed metal eaves cladding with concealed gutter" and features a parapet walling would add an element of architectural interest to the rear extension, helping the overall appearance appear aesthetical in terms of design and would be acceptable in this instance. A poorly designed / finished flat roof would be a reason for refusal in this instance given its size and scale.
6.6 The overall height would be broadly similar to the eaves level of the house (bungalow) but would be slightly higher due to the parapet design. The drawings indicate this height would measure 3.0m and would not be considered to be a negative issue in this instance as the existing extension measurers approx. 2.8m and is of a poor form in terms of design. The proposal would be utilising the existing ground levels to ensure a level threshold from the existing house is retained.
6.7 The two storey aspect in lieu of the rear dormer would also be more appropriate design addition and would be proportionate to the rear roof scape and finished to match the existing. The additional space would see the addition of an en-suite bathroom with dressing area and repositioned stairwell allowing an improved internal floor area. The proposed introduction of a window at first floor level facing into the rear garden would not be considered to be detrimental to the neighbouring amenities. (discussed further below) given the respective distances between the dwellings.
6.8 When viewing the proposed extension, it would not be readily visible from a public vantage point of the highway at the front. The only discernible difference would be a new garage door albeit widened by approx. 870mm using the footpath space to the side and the inclusion of a car port. The footpath space to the opposite side of the dwelling would remain to give access to the rear curtilage from the front. If any views of the rear and its extensions (its noted the existing flat roof extensions are not visible from the highway) views were achievable it would mainly be of the upper proportions of the building and roof. However any views off the rear elevation from those properties to the rear, or from the adjacent highway would be read in the residential context of the property and surrounding streetscene.
6.9 Having visited the site and observed its relationship to that of the neighbours to the rear and the side, in terms of height this is partially due to the inclusion of a parapet roof (as sought in the RDG) which helps screen the appearance of the flat roof, in this case part of the roofscape would include a lantern roof light which would also be partially screened. Here it
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/90992/B Page 6 of 7
would only be the upper proportions of the single storey extension above the top of the fence would be visible.
6.10 This aspect is deemed to be an acceptable form of development without harming the visual character and quality of the streetscene or to the property itself in accordance with STP3,5, GP2(b,c) and Ep42.
NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.11 To the rear of the site the nearest dwellings are No's 29 & 31 Kissack road, both of which are approx. 30m from the edge of the proposed extension and separate by a service lane between the rear boundaries. The windows in the new gable to the rear at first story, one would serve a bathroom and would be frosted glazing and the other larger widow is to a stairwell and would offer limited views out given the changes in levels (steps) and the internal distance from the window and the change in direction of the staircase.
6.12 The neighbouring properties to the side No's 22 & 26 and when considering whether there would be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the extension, given the single story nature, for its majority and it's siting at the rear of the dwelling, it would not be considered to have an overbearing effect. Neither would these two immediate neighbours adjoining the site, be disadvantaged from any loss of light over and above the existing levels given the properties orientation and the distances involved. It is further noted the bulk of the increase in floor are over the existing extension is more centrally placed and to date we have not received any objections or comments from the adjoining neighbours having been previously notified of the application.
6.13 The level and scale of development proposed here, especially being single storey are considered to be relatively modest and not considered to harm the neighbouring amenity, specifically those to the rear and sides. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is acceptable in terms of its form, mass and design by having provided suitable additions to an existing residential property and as such comply with Spatial Policy 2; Strategic Policy 2,3,5; General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/90992/B Page 7 of 7
o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
__
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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 15.10.2024
Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal