Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91372/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91372/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Robert & Catreena Quirk Proposal : Alteration and extension to dwelling including single storey side extension, raised decking and alteration to wall finish. Site Address : Kionslieu Howe Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5AU
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken : Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.04.2025 __
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.
C 2. The tiles used on the roof of the reconstructed south-east corner bay window must match the existing roof tiles in colour and texture.
Reason: To preserve the character of the dwellinghouse.
N 1. Irrespective of the details contained within the planning application submission or the planning officers report the applicant should be aware of, and make any person undertaking work on their behalf aware of, their duty as stated in the Act to have regard to the environment as detailed in s36 of the Isle of Man Wildlife Act 1990 and those protected species listed in Schedule 5 and Schedule 7 of the Act.
It is an offence subject to penalties to, intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a protected species, intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which protected species use for shelter or protection, intentionally or recklessly disturb any protected species while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The design, scale and materials proposed for the alterations and extensions accord with the aims and objectives of the Design Guide, and Strategic Policy 3, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 34 and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91372/B Page 2 of 7
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following Plans, drawings and detail received on the 4th of December 2024. Location Plan drawing no.2012-01 Site Plan drawing no.2012-02 Proposed Plan drawing no.2012-04
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to development within the curtilage of a detached dwellinghouse called Kionslieu on Howe Road in Port St Mary. The boundaries of the property are between Howe Road and Truggan Road.
1.2 The dwellinghouse fronts onto Howe Road, A31, and is located just outside Port St Mary. The site is bounded by stone walls to the North by Truggan Road to the South by Howe Hill to the East by "Thie Vane and to the West by "Cliff View".
1.3 The land rises steeply to the west and falls away to the south and east.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes 'alteration and extension to dwelling including single storey side extension, raised decking and alteration to wall finish.' In essence the proposal seeks to remove two dilapidated extensions, one at the front one at the rear and construct a new extension and raised decking area with glass balustrade at the rear. In addition the existing bay window will be demolished and a new one constructed.
2.2 The application is supported by the following documents. o Location and site plans o Existing plan, drawing no.2012-03 o Proposed plan, drawing no.2012-04 o Photographs identifying areas of development. o Design statement
2.3 Aside from internal wall alterations and new double glazed uPVC and aluminium windows throughout, the following comprises a breakdown of the key development details.
o Front, Howe Road, South facing elevation: proposed removal of a disused extension, installation of patio doors onto decking, the room being repurposed from 'bed 1' on the existing plan to a 'living room' on the proposed plan.
o Rear, north facing elevation: proposed removal of the existing pantry, utility and coal store to construct new extension creating a dining area with roof lantern in new flat roof; patio doors onto the patio proposed extended into the area left vacant by the coal store. Existing lounge windows replaced with patio doors and new larger windows in the lounge gable.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91372/B Page 3 of 7
o Side, east elevation: additional roof light, the north-east corner bay will be removed and a new bay constructed to mimic the original except for the north-east elevation window that will be one large window with apex window above instead of two windows.
o Side elevation, west: new windows installed.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
Site Specific 3.1.1 On the Proposals map, Area Plan for the South, Map 7, Port Erin, Port St.Mary and Ballafesson the site is located within an area allocated as 'predominantly residential'.
3.1.2 The site is not a Registered Building, nor with the setting of one, nor is it within a Conservation Area or within views of a Conservation Area.
3.1.3 The site is not within a flood zone.
Strategic Plan 3.2 Taking account of the above, within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
3.2.1 Strategic Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42 focus on the visual design of development and its impact upon the character and identity of its immediate locality.
3.2.2 General Policy 2 states that where development is in accordance with the proposals map, the development should meet relevant criteria of the Policy. In respect of this application criteria (b) and (c) and (g) are considered relevant.
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the design. (c) does not affect adversely the character of the landscape or townscape. (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
3.2.3 Environment Policy 34 states that in the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre- 1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Planning circular 1/98 The Alteration and Replacement of Windows, Category C, Buildings erected before 1921 and not falling within categories (a) or (b) which have largely retained their original character; 7 (ii) windows on the principle elevation that are readily visible on buildings in a rural setting, if original they should be repaired, when this is not possible they should be replaced with windows having the same or similar pattern, section of glazing bars and method of opening as the original windows.
4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021): General design principles; Section 2 Sustainable Construction; Section 4, Householder extensions; Section 5, Architectural Details, Section 7, Impact on neighbouring properties.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There is planning history but none considered relevant to the determination of this application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Local Authority
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91372/B Page 4 of 7
o Port St Mary Commissioners: No objections (30.01.2025)
6.3 Statutory Bodies
o Highways: Proposal is not impacting upon the existing parking therefore would not impact the highway or network function (30.12.2024).
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The site relates to a dwellinghouse and is within an area where residential development is acceptable, therefore the proposal accords in principle with the Strategic Plan. Taking account of these observations the following are considered the key elements of assessment.
o Design impact upon dwellinghouse o Impact upon the character the locality o Impact upon residential amenity
7.2 Design impact upon dwellinghouse
7.2.1 The dwellinghouse has a low pitched multidimensional red tiled roof. The roof, including the dual pitched dormer that protrudes from the north-east corner of the building, is the dominant feature of the site within the streetscene and landscape. The east elevation, considered to be the principal elevation comprises windows of Georgian styled fenestration detail throughout; these appear to be original.
7.2.2 The character of the dwellinghouse has been adversely impacted by a low profile flat roof extension addition on the south side elevation facing the street, therefore its' removal is welcomed. A new opening will be created and patio doors inserted that will introduce a modern element to the dwellinghouse and not necessarily out of character with a side elevation.
7.2.3 Loss of the Georgian design fenestration within the east elevation, including those in the bay window, is disappointing, and this will harm the character of the building. Nevertheless the openings remain in the same position and therefore in keeping with the character of the east elevation.
7.2.4 In general the replacement of the existing windows, which are mixed, for new uPVC and aluminium double glazed windows will not harm the overall character of the dwellinghouse. The existing window are mixed, the east elevation being most notable, character wise. The new windows introduce a modern element to the character of the dwelling, however they are unlikely to be so harmful to the character as to warrant refusal.
7.2.5 Overall the proposal meets the aims and objectives of policies S3, E34, 42, and G2.
7.3 Impact upon the character the locality
7.3.1 Due to the topography around the site, and other nearby buildings, the north and south elevations are less visible in public views and so have negligible impact on the landscape. Where seen, they would be viewed amongst other elevations and roofs.
7.3.2 The most characteristic feature of the site in its setting is the roof, on account of the red tiles. The tiles result in the building standing out against the skyline. The insertion of an another roof light in the east roof slope and reconstruction of the north-east corner bay window will not harm the character within landscape or streetscene views. None of the alterations or extensions involve increasing any roof height.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91372/B Page 5 of 7
7.3.3 In respect of the elements to be removed on the north elevations, this elevation is not readily visible in any public views. The proposed new glazing will make the elevation likely visible in distant views due to light reflection however this would be seen amongst other similar window reflections.
7.3.4 The most prominent features within the streetscene and landscape are the red tiled roof and the features of the south and east elevations. Namely the north-east hipped bay window and the Georgian styled windows on the east elevation, and the two extensions on the south elevation. The land level is similar to that of the road, separated by a traditional stone wall approximately 1.2m high.
7.3.5 On the south elevation, the existing subservient tiled roof extension adds to the character of the main roof whilst the existing flat low profile roof, although not prominent until upon the site, when in view, it detracts from the character of the streetscene. Therefore removing the negative aspect will benefit the streetscene. The proposed double glazed patio doors will not enhance the streetscene but nor will they be harmful.
7.3.6 The windows in the east elevation, including within the north-east bay window, appear original timber windows and Planning Circular 1/98 states that in this case, where possible, the windows should be repaired. If repair is not possible, where the windows are readily visible and on a principal elevation they should be replaced with windows matching the aperture and character of the original.
7.3.7 The east elevation is side on to the street and in some views screened by vegetation and other built form and topography. The principal elevation is generally the elevation facing the road however in this instance the east elevation is the principal elevation due to the internal layout. Therefore they should replicate that which exists and the proposal is contrary to Planning Circular 1/98. Loss of the windows and the Georgian features will cause harm to the character of the streetscene where the windows are visible. As a result the proposed replacement windows will cause some harm to the character of the streetscene. However the proposal overall would not harm the landscape.
7.3.8 On the north-east corner of the dwellinghouse, the existing hipped roof bay window is prominent as part of the main roof and as such prominent. The replacement bay will incorporate rooflights, a window in the apex and a larger window in its north-east elevation. Loss of the timber window original features is disappointing, however, as the most prominent feature shall be retained, overall the new bay window will not have an adverse impact on the streetscene.
7.3.9 The proposed alterations, whilst not in accordance with Planning Circular 1/98, would not harm the streetscene landscape to a level justifying refusal. Overall the proposal meets the aims and objectives of policies S3, E34, 42, and G2.
7.4 Impact upon residential amenity
7.4.1 For the purpose of the proposed development in this application the neighbours are considered to be, Prenton Beg on Howe Road and, Thie Vane and Cliff View on Truggan Road.
7.4.2 In respect of Prenton Beg, situated west of the site, on higher land and separated by vegetation, no harmful impacts are observed.
7.4.3 In respect of Cliff View and Thie Vane, both of which are on land lower than the site, both of which are two storey properties, the only consideration for potential amenity harm is as a result of the increased window sizes and extended patio area. Because of the topography some overlooking is possible however due to the separation distances of around 20-25m,
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91372/B Page 6 of 7
topography, vegetation and rear garden arrangements of both dwellings, it is considered that the impact would be negligible.
7.4.4 Overall it is considered that the proposal would not result in any harmful impacts upon neighbouring amenity and so accords with policy G2.
7.5 Planning Balance
7.5.1 As stated above it is considered that the loss of the fenestration features on the north and north-east corner of the dwellinghouse would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/98 because the proposed pattern, section of glazing bars and apertures are different to the existing windows.
7.5.2 Overall the proposal accords with other policies therefore consideration is given to the level of harm and whether the planning balance is weighted sufficiently to refuse the application.
7.5.3 The east elevation is only visible when travelling west on Howe Road and it is not visible in its entirety because of the topography, other built forms, and vegetation. The adjacent detached two storey dwellinghouse incorporates windows similar to those proposed.
7.5.4 On balance, the level harm is insufficient to warrant refusal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 by virtue of the assessment within the report, the proposal is considered contrary to Planning circular 1/98 Category C but the planning balance is insufficiently weighted to warrant refusal. 8.2 The design, scale and materials proposed for the alterations and extensions accord with the aims and objectives of the Design Guide, and Strategic Policy 3, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 34 and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
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.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91372/B Page 7 of 7
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 : Permitted
Date: 30.04.2025
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