213892

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      24/91340/B                                     Page  1  of  5

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 24/91340/B Applicant : Caroline Craige Proposal : Erection of single storey extension Site Address : Kitterland 97 Silverburn Crescent Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 2ED

Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 15.01.2025 Site Visit : 15.01.2025 Expected Decision Level :

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2025 __

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.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5, and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021, in that no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the documents and plans received 26 November 2024. __

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

o DoI - Highways Services - No objection o Malew Parish Commissioners - No objection __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      24/91340/B                                     Page  2  of  5

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Kitterland, 97 Silverburn Crescent, Ballasalla, which is a detached single storey bungalow situated to the eastern side of the highway which ends in a cul de sac. There is a garden area to the front and rear, and a driveway parking area to the front of the adjoining garage. The original bungalow has had a sun room extension to the rear which is finished with a flat roof and spar dash to match the main bungalow.

1.2 The rear garden adjoins the rear gardens of Norville, No. 95 to the north, No. 89 to the northeast, and No. 87 to the southeast. No. 99 sits on the southern boundary of the site. There mature shrubbery along the boundary of the rear garden with its neighbours, which varies in height between 1.4m to 2m at various sections.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the Erection of single storey extension to the existing dwelling. The extension which would sit on the rear elevation of the dwelling and within an indent at the rear of existing bedroom 2 and bathroom, will project about 3.1m from the rear indent, and be 6.6m wide. This extension would provide for an extension to the existing bedroom here, as well as an ensuite for the bedroom. A new gable would be created on the rear elevation of the dwelling to support the pitch roof of this extension. A new window, as well as new patio doors to provide access to the rear garden would be installed on this extension. The extension would be 4.5m tall from the ground level to the top of the roof (2.8m to the eaves). This roof would sit about 100mm below the main roof ridge.

2.2 Also proposed is an extension to the rear of the existing store behind the garage that would project 950mm from the rear of the store, and be 2.9m wide.

2.3 The extensions would be finished in spar dash render similar to the existing wall finish on the dwelling, while the new window and door are to be UPVC units. The roof finish is to be similar to the existing roof finish.

2.4 No trees would be removed to facilitate the development, and there would be no change to site levels. Surface water and foul water would drain into existing systems on site.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The property is designated under the Area Plan for the South 2013 as "Predominantly Residential" use, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not within a registered tree area, and there are no registered trees on site, although the site is prone to surface water flood risks.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works, the following sections of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are relevant: 1. General Policy 2 - 'Development Control' considerations. 2. Paragraph 8.12.1 - General presumption in favour of extensions to existing properties (excluding Conservation Areas or Registered Buildings). 3. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources 4. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages 5. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages. 6. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. 7. Environment Policies 10 and 13 - Flood concerns. 8. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. 9. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions 10. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 11. Community Policy 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances 12. Community Policy 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      24/91340/B                                     Page  3  of  5

4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 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.

4.2 Flood Risk Management Act (2013) 4.2.1 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of a single planning for Alterations and erection of an extension to dwelling under PA 13/91449/B. This was approved on 03.02.2014. This extension was erected off the side elevation of the sun room, and to the full length of the bungalow.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highways Division have no interest (30 Dec 2024/ 07 Jan 2025).

6.2 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection (10 Jan 2025).

6.3 No comment have been received from neighbouring properties.

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment this application are: 1. Visual impact of the proposed development (GP2 (b) & (c); 2. Impact upon neighbouring amenities (overlooking, loss of light, overbearing impact) GP2 (g) and RDG; and 3. Flood Risk Concerns (EP 10, 13 & GP 2).

7.2 VISUAL IMPACT (GP 2, EP 42, STP 3 & 5) 7.2.2 In terms of the impact of the proposed works on the existing dwelling, it is considered that the proposed extension to the rear of the bedroom and toilet, by incorporating a pitch roof with rear facing gable, matching features and finishes, would ensure that the extension would blend with the existing. The pitch roof and proposed finish also ties in with the existing form of the dwelling which has a dominant pitch roof. It is also considered that the roof structure which would have its tallest point set about 100mm lower than the position of the current flat roof over the dwelling would ensure that the key features of the main dwelling are not obscured by the addition of the extension, when viewed from the street scene.

7.2.2 With regard to the proposed extension at the rear of the garage/store, it is considered that the proposed roof structure which would be a continuation of the roof structure over the garage/store, would ensure that it is not noticeable within the immediate street scene. Besides, its flat roof reflects the design theme of this part of the existing dwelling.

7.2.3 Additionally, both extensions would appear as subordinate additions to the dwelling, given their proposed heights which would be set lower than the main roof ridge, and their position set at the rear of the dwelling would further diminish any concerns that should result.

7.2.4 There would be no adverse impacts of the works on the character of the immediate street scene given the position of the extensions, their scale, form, and finish which are not at variance with the existing dwelling, or the general character of the area.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      24/91340/B                                     Page  4  of  5

7.3 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS (GP 2 and the RDG) 7.3.1 The key considerations in terms of impact on neighbours are risks of overlooking, loss of light, and overbearing impacts. Whilst the proposed extension would be to the east elevation of the dwelling, and bring the dwelling closer to the neighbouring dwellings Nos. 87 and 89, where the potentials for overbearing impacts or loss of light increases, the works would be at single storey level, and would not project further than the existing sun room extension which project into this rear garden. Further to the above, the separating distance of about 12.3m from the rear elevation of No. 89, and about 12.5m from the rear elevation on No. 87, as well as the existing boundary treatment, would serve to ensure that any impacts in terms of overbearing impacts or loss of light would be overcome.

7.3.2 It is also not considered that overlooking would result as the new door and window fenestrations are at ground floor level, such that any views would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal, with the presence of mature hedging on the boundary serving to further diminish any concerns with respect to potential overlooking.

7.4 FLOOD RISK CONCERNS 7.4.1 In terms of potential flood risk concerns, it is noted that the proposal is situated within a Flood Risk Zone with the works involving the introduction of new door fenestrations at the rear, and at a part of the property that is considered to have a high potential for surface water flood risks, with General Policy 2(i) and Environment Policy 13 asserting that development which is prone to unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding (either on or off-site), will not be permitted.

7.4.2 Notwithstanding the potential flood concerns at the rear of the property, there would be no changes to the site levels or the floor levels within the property such that there would be easy ingress of water. Likewise, the new door opening at the rear would be set at about 400mm above the ground level, which is more elevated than the existing rear access door into the rear garden which is set at about 200mm above the ground level, such that there would be no easy ingress of flood water over the existing situation on site. Therefore, it is not considered that there would be unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 For the reasons set out above, the proposed development is deemed acceptable and it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in General Policy 2, Paragraph 8.12.1, Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5, and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and as such is recommended for approval.

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):

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      24/91340/B                                     Page  5  of  5

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.

__

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 and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 28.01.2025

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 office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.