Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91158/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91158/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Kenneth James and Kirree Allitt and Norton Proposal : Create dormer at roof level, internal remodelling, replace windows throughout, replace garden shed with garden room and store (in association with 24/01159/CON) Site Address : 8 Lyndale Avenue Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1JY
Planning Officer: Russell Williams Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.03.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By virtue of its scale, siting, overall bulk and appearance, the proposed dormer window is considered to represent a large, incongruous addition that will visually dominate and interrupt the simple symmetry of the roof to the rear of the dwelling. The proposed dormer window is therefore considered to conflict with General Policy 2 (b) and (c). It also conflicts with Environment Policy 32 due to the addition failing to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a result of the harm to the original dwelling and simple architectural style and appearance of Lyndale Terrace. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because:
7 Lyndale Avenue Objection addressed by refusal decision
9 Lyndale Avenue Objection addressed by refusal decision
12 Albany Road Objection addressed by refusal decision
6 Lyndale Avenue Objection addressed by refusal decision
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91158/B Page 2 of 7
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DOI Highway Services No objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to 8 Lyndale Avenue, Peel, a mid-terraced dwelling situated on the south eastern side of the highway and on the edge of Peel Conservation Area.
1.2 Lyndale Avenue presents a single terrace to its highway; to the northwest lies an expanse of open space at St Germans Church. The entire terrace is red brick at ground floor level with white or cream render at the first floor, and each dwelling is has asbestos slate tiling and a prominent chimney. Another common feature to all dwellings are square bay windows and a front yard and rear garden.
1.3 Internally at ground floor level, the dwelling provides for a lounge, dining room, hallway and WC; a single storey extension provides open plan kitchen and family space. At first floor level are three bedrooms and bathroom. The roof space is accessible and appears to be used for storage.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a dormer window to the rear (southeast) roof elevation of the dwelling. The dormer window will extend the full width of the roof to no. 8 and have a shallow pitched roof extended up to and just below the ridge line.
2.2 The dormer window will be finished externally in grey standing seam sheeting to the roof, dark grey vertical cladding to the face and cheeks, and dark grey windows. Two new conservation style roof lights will be installed to the front (northwest) elevation.
2.3 The application also seeks approval to replace all existing fenestration with dark grey uPVC to the rear elevation.
2.4 The application also seeks approval for the erection of a detached garden room to the end of the rear garden. The building will measure 5.9m x 2.2m with a height to eaves and ridge of 1.7m and 2.32m with the ridge being higher again. The garden room will provide a small store and ancillary space, with a small worktop and sink show. The building will be finished in rendered walls coloured to match the dwelling, slate roof, a timber door and recycled bifold doors from the family room extension.
2.5 The internal remodelling of existing rooms as proposed does not require the grant of planning permission but the alterations and association to the proposed development are noted.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use on 1982 Development Plan South Map and 1989 Peel Local Plan. The site is within Peel Conservation Area but is not within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance or a Flood Risk Zone.
3.2 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is considered applicable, which states:
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91158/B Page 3 of 7
"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: (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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.3 Environment Policy 23 states "When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours."
3.4 Environment Policy 35 states that "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."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Residential Design Guide (RDG) is a material consideration, with particular regard to Section 4.10.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 13/91112/B - Erection of an extension to rear elevation of dwelling - Permitted
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted and their responses can be summarised as follows:
Peel Commissioners - No comments received.
DOI Highway Services - No Highways Interest.
6.2 Representations have been received from the residents of the neighbouring properties and their comments can be summarised as follows: o Loss of light and overshadowing to garden from outbuilding o Adverse impact upon the surroundings from the proposed outbuilding in terms of scale, layout, siting, form and design o Loss of privacy to gardens and neighbouring windows from outbuilding o The outbuilding could affect access to the rear service lane o Overbearing impact upon neighbouring amenity from both the dormer window and outbuildings o Loss of privacy to neighbouring extension from proposed dormer window, including habitable rooms o Harm to the character and appearance of the area from dormer window o Proposed materials for the dormer window are not appropriate o Dormer window fails to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area o Potential overshadowing of neighbouring roof and solar panels that might be added in the future
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application are the impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the dwellinghouse, immediate setting and Conservation Area, while having due regard to the impact on neighbouring residential amenity.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91158/B Page 4 of 7
CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA 7.2 The application site is located within a mid-point along the single terrace of dwellings that form Lyndale Avenue. The terrace is characterised by its largely unbroken roofscapes to the front and rear, save for the presence of two small dormer windows; these are believed to be located to the front of no.2 and rear of no.4.
7.3 The roofscape of Lyndale Avenue is characterised by the regular positioning of chimneys to each dwelling along the terrace and the largely unchanged, slate style roof finish. The rear roof of the application site is visible from the lane that provides access to the rear of those properties within Lyndale Avenue and Albany Road to the southeast. From here the location of the proposed dormer window is seen clearly in conjunction with the remainder of the terrace. Glimpses of Lyndale Avenue are also available between properties from Albany Road.
7.4 The application site and extent of Lyndale Avenue and gardens associated with the terrace of dwellinghouses is located within the Peel Conservation Area (CA). The relatively unspoilt nature of the original terrace, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. Development that has been permitted within the terrace is generally limited to small single storey extensions to the rear. Of the two dormer windows present at no's 2 and 4, only number 4 appears to benefit from planning permission, granted on 3/1/2012 pursuant to application 11/01650/B. That dormer window is a small, pitched roof feature that sits beside a chimney stack.
7.5 Environment Policy 35 states that development proposals must preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, including those features that contribute towards its character and quality. General Policy 2 states that proposals should "(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;"
7.6 As noted at paragraph 4.10.5 of the RDG, "the position within the roof plane, size, and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned."
7.7 Paragraph 4.10.6 of the RDG goes on to advise that "dormers that would be as wide as the house, and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house, will not normally be supported."
7.8 The proposed dormer window is considered to represent an overly large and bulky addition to the rear roof of the application site, which would interrupt the generally unbroken roofscape of the terrace. It would, if built, interrupt the simple symmetry of the roofline. The scale of the dormer window is such that it would completed dominate the rear roof, filling the roof plane from the ridge line to eaves and across its full width. The dormer window would not be secondary to the roof, but represents a completely new feature and change to the roof from the tradition pitch to a flat roof face that extends vertically from a position directly above the rear wall.
7.9 Although the dormer window would be finished in dark grey cladding and roof sheeting, the overall scale, massing and appearance of the dormer window is overly dominant and harmful to both the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the immediate setting of those dwellings within the terrace at Lyndale Avenue. The level of harm is exacerbated by the visibility of the site within the terrace as a whole and from public vantage points to the south and east.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91158/B Page 5 of 7
7.10 The proposed dormer window is considered to represent a poorly designed and incongruous addition to the dwelling that will detract from the simple character and appearance of the building, terrace and associated contribution that the terrace and application site make towards the Conservation Area.
7.11 The proposed dormer window is therefore considered to conflict with General Policy 2. It also conflicts with Environment Policy 35 due to the addition failing to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a result of the harm to the original dwelling and simple architectural style and appearance of Lyndale Terrace.
7.12 Having regard to the proposed garden building, which will replace a small timber garden shed, it is noted that the building would be located at the end of the garden and is limited in height, though it would extend across the full width of the garden. Although objectors have noted the absence of outbuildings within the rear gardens of Lyndale Avenue, it is evident that the rear of the terrace contains a number of permanent and non-permanent buildings, including garages and garden sheds. There are also outbuildings within the rear gardens of those properties along Albany Road to the immediate southeast.
7.13 Although the proposed garden building would be larger than the existing shed, its visual impact upon the appearance of the rear gardens and immediate setting is considered to be limited when regard is had to the building being viewed in conjunction with existing outbuildings within the rear gardens of properties in the area. The visual impact of the proposed garden building is therefore considered to be acceptable.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY 7.14 The application has received objections from neighbouring residents who consider that the proposed development will cause a loss of privacy and light/outlook; objections have included the submission of photographs and 3D imagery depicting the impact of the dormer window and outbuilding upon the immediate setting. The applicant and their agent have provided responses to the objections and all points raised have been duly considered.
7.15 The proposed dormer windows will include two windows to the rear face, one serving a bedroom and one an en-suite, the latter of which could be conditioned to be obscured glazed. The dormer window would be positioned in close proximity to the rear extension to no. 7, which adjoins the application site to the southwest. Like the application site, the rear of no.7 has been extended single storey, with a flat roof design incorporating a large glazed lantern. The occupants of no.7 consider that the new bedroom window to the dormer will allow the applicants a view down and into their rear living space, through the glazed roof lantern.
7.16 Whilst Officers have not entered either property to assess the impact, from the submitted drawings it would appear that any view would be at an obscure angle and require any occupant of the new bedroom to actively look out and down towards the roof lantern, which is considered to be unlikely and even if occurring, the impact will be infrequent and so the associated harm in regard to loss of privacy very limited.
7.17 Objection has been raised in regard to potential overshadowing of part of the neighbouring garden to the north is noted. The garden appears to be in the shade at times during the day as a result of existing planting and garden fencing. Whilst the outbuilding would be positioned in close proximity to the boundary, the limited height of the eaves and ridge, together with the orientation of the building within the garden, will mean that any overshadowing to the bottom of no.9's garden will be very limited. The remainder of the garden would be unaffected by the proposed outbuilding. The level of harm is therefore considered to be limited and not sufficiently harmful to form a reason for refusal.
OTHER MATTERS
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91158/B Page 6 of 7
7.18 The impact of the dormer window upon solar panels that have not yet been installed or granted planning permission to the roofs of adjoining properties cannot be given any material weight in the determination of this application.
7.19 Officers are satisfied that the proposed garden building would not impact upon access along the rear service lane.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Whilst the impact of the proposed outbuilding and change to windows/doors at the rear are considered to be acceptable in regard to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and residential amenity, objection to the proposed dormer window is raised.
8.2 Virtue of its scale, siting, overall bulk and appearance, the proposed dormer window is considered to represent a large, incongruous addition that will visually dominate and interrupt the simple symmetry of the roof to the rear. The proposed dormer window is therefore considered to conflict with General Policy 2 (b) and (c). It also conflicts with Environment Policy 35 due to the addition failing to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a result of the harm to the original dwelling and simple architectural style and appearance of Lyndale Terrace.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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).
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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; 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.
9.5 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 the Right to Appeal. __
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 : Refused Date: 12.03.2025
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91158/B Page 7 of 7
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