Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00957/B Applicant: Mr Darren Murphy \& Miss Carolyn Brown Proposal: Alterations and erection of extensions to dwelling house Site Address: 31 Faaie-Ny-Cabbal Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HT ### Considerations Case Officer : Miss Laura Davy Photo Taken: 23.07.2010 Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee : Michael Commissioners Notes : Consultee : Drainage Division Notes: No objection
The property subject of the application relates to 31 Faaie ny Cabbyle. The property is a two storey semi-detached located within a cul-de-sac.
The applicant proposes a first floor side extension over the existing garage and a single storey rear extension to form a dining room and sun room. The applicant proposes to change part of the rear of the garage to a utility room and extend the front of the garage, to be in line with the existing front building line of the property, so it will provide enough space for a car. The first floor extension will have the same width and length of the garage/utility room and will have a pitched roof with the same height as the existing property. The rear extensions will have a maximum projection of 4.7 metres from the rear wall of the property. The rear extensions will be the full width of the property. Also proposed is the re location of the chimney from the existing dwelling to the extension.
The following previous application is considered relevant in the assessment of the current application:
The above application was approved.
The application site is located in an area as 'Predominantly Residential' in the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains a policy which is considered specifically material to the determination of the application - General Policy 2.
General Policy 2 states the following: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of the 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 affect 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 adversely affect 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 local highways; j) can be provided with all the necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; I) 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."
Paragraph 8.12.1 states the following: "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 property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property of the surrounding area in general."
Highways Division do not oppose as it has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications. Michael Commissioners have not commented Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have no objection subject to the following conditions: "There must be No discharge of surface water (including that from roofs and paved areas) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority, Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999. The application states that the surface water from the proposed development is to be discharged to the "existing drainage". If this "existing drainage" discharges (directly or indirectly) to the foul sewerage system then it should be noted that an alternative means of surface water disposal must be provided."
The application site is located within a 'Predominantly Residential Area' in the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994. Given the nature of the proposed development it is therefore appropriate to assess the proposed development against the policy identified earlier within the report (i.e. General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007).
It is considered that the proposed rear extensions fit comfortably within the rear elevation in terms of its siting, design and scale. It is considered that the proposed rear extensions will not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring dwellings. The proposed rear extensions will have no windows in the gable elevations and there is a 2 metre high fence on both boundary lines. There are no properties to the rear of the proposed dwelling.
The proposed development would be stepped back approximately 0.2 m from the building line, but the side extension would have the same ridge height as the existing dwelling. It is considered that this would reduce the potential impact of creating a terracing effect; on balance it is therefore considered that the plans are acceptable. Furthermore, a dwelling opposite the subject property, No. 37 Faaie-Ny-Cabbal, received planning permission (04/01774/B) for height. The officer made comment in their report: "After correspondence with the applicant's agent regarding the potential for a terracing effect and measures to reduce this, an amended drawing was submitted. Whilst this amended drawing steps the extension back from the front elevation it does not reduce the ridge height of the extension. However, I do not consider that a refusal of the proposed development would be sustainable as the impact on the surrounding properties is generally limited."
Although every application is considered on its own merits there has to be fair and consistent making in decisions. On the basis that the applicant has stepped the two storey extension back from the front building line, and the fact that the neighbouring dwelling's main building line is also stepped back with the subject property's main building line, it is recommended that the application should be approved subject to conditions.
The re location of the existing chimney to the proposed extension would enhance the appearance of the property, as it would appear more balanced within semi-detached pair.
For these reasons the proposal is considered acceptable and it is recommended that the planning application be permitted.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic 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.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.08.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alterations and erection of extensions to dwelling shown in drawings 2009/DM/01 and 2009/DM/02/B received 25th June 2010.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : Signed : Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown