Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00044/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00044/B Applicant : Paul Shimmin & Sinead King Proposal : Erection of single storey extension to rear elevation Site Address : Carraghan Lower Dukes Road Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4BH
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 27.01.2015 Site Visit : 27.01.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the dwelling known as Carraghan (also spelled "Carraghyn"), Lower Dukes Road, Douglas which is a two-storey, semi-detached 1930s-style property that adjoins Conister View to the northeast. There are two sets of semi-detached dwellings alongside one another here, both being situated to the north western side of the highway. To the southwest of the application site is 11 Lower Dukes Road, which is a two- storey, detached dwelling at a much lower level than the application site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a flat-roofed extension to the rear of the property, to include a roof lantern. This would provide for a kitchen/dining room, while the existing kitchen would be converted into a bathroom.
2.2 The site is not quite square such that the wall along the boundary with Conister View would be at a slight inward angle. The extension would project approximately 4.5m from the rear of the dwelling and be the full width of the rear of the dwelling (6.4m at its widest). The eaves would sit 2.5m above ground level, with the apex of the lantern a further 1.0m higher than this but below the window cills above by 0.4m and 0.6m respectively. Neither side elevation would have windows, while the rear elevation would have sliding French doors and a triple width of window pane.
2.3 The extension's rear elevation would be faced in brick, while the two side elevations would be finished in pea-dashed render to match the remainder of the dwelling.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site has a relevant planning history. In 2014, an application for "Erection of a single and two storey extension to rear elevation of dwelling" was refused for the following reason:
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00044/B
Page 2 of 5
"By reason of its scale and proximity to the boundary, the proposed two storey extension would have an adverse impact upon the outlook from 11 Lower Dukes Road which would be contrary to General Policy 2 g) and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
It is noted that the owner/occupiers of the adjoining Conister View objected to that application on grounds summarised by the case officer in her report as follows:
"They feel that the two storey extension will significantly reduce the amount of light, they feel that it will dominate and overshadow their property. They also raise concerns regarding the proximity of the single storey extension to the boundary wall between the two properties. They have some concerns regarding subsidence."
The refusal issued was not appealed against.
3.2 Prior to that, in 2009, PA 09/01046/B sought and gained approval for "Alterations and erection of an extension to dwelling". That extension measured 3.0m by 6.4m with a maximum height of 3.7 metres, but on that occasion had a pitched roof.
No objections were made to this earlier application
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the Douglas Local Plan 1998. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
4.2 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
(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."
4.4 Paragraph 8.12.1 is also helpful to reflect on: "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 or the surrounding area in general."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 There are no representations on the file at the time of writing.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of an extension to the rear elevation. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties and the impact upon the character and appearance of the dwelling. In this, an assessment as to whether or not the scheme adequately addresses the recent refusal on this site is important, but this assessment should also reflect on whether or not any new issues arise as a result of the amended design. In short, the application should be treated on its own merits.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00044/B
Page 3 of 5
6.2 Any impact felt by the occupants of no.11 would be that of overbearing or loss of light. It is considered the case that the reduction in height of the extension from two storey (albeit in part) to a single storey is such as to mean that the proposal would not have an unduly harmful effect on the living conditions of that dwelling. While no.11 remains topographically lower than the application site, it is set forward from it. The concern raised previously therefore no longer applies to the same degree. Number 11 is also set forward of its neighbour at no.9, and benefits from a proportionally large rear garden. Both of these facts result in a more open outlook and feeling of spaciousness than might normally be felt in a row of houses sat as close to one another as these are. It is therefore concludes that, while there would be impacts in respect of overbearing and some loss of morning light into the garden, the fact that the proposed extension is of a single storey in height means that those impacts would be within acceptable limits.
6.3 Turning to the effect on the other neighbour, it is noted that the extension now proposed is slightly (4.5m relative to 4.1m) longer than that previously proposed. This will inevitably have a different impact on the living conditions - again in respect of loss of light and overbearing - than would have been the case with respect to both the 2014 proposal and also the 2009 proposal (which was only 3.0m deep). However, the fact that Conister View also has a rear extension of 2.5m deep means that the proposed extension will project only 2.0m further than the rear elevation of Conister View. The proposed extension would be flat-roofed and could therefore be said to have a greater impact than a pitched roof on a similar-sized footprint. That being said, it is noted that the refused application had its apex rather higher than the now-proposed flat-roofed extension such that it is arguable as to whether or not there would be a significant difference between the two. It is noted that the officer in considering the refused application concluded that the impact on the living conditions of Conister View in respect of either loss of light or overbearing would be acceptable in view of the orientation of the dwellings and also the distance of the extension from the shared boundary. It would be possible for a wall to be built only 0.5m lower than the proposed gable wall, and closer to the boundary, without planning approval under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012.
6.4 Returning to the key principle that every application must be treated on its own merits, it is not considered that the mass of the proposed extension would be unduly harmful in either of the two assessment criteria. There is an existing and fairly robust boundary wall and pair of garages to the rear that together already provide an element of enclosure, and the increase in enclosure that would result from the implementation of the proposal would not significantly worsen this existing situation. While the effect would, on balance, likely be adverse rather than neutral, it is not considered that the situation would be so severe as to warrant the application's refusal. It is certainly considered that the 2009 approach is the best of the three schemes submitted for consideration on this site in respect of neighbouring living conditions, but this has in any case expired.
6.5 The proposal will not have any effect on land to the rear as this is occupied by a building currently leased to (or owned by) a snooker club.
6.6 Limited views of the site would be afforded from the highway and it is not considered that the proposal would have any meaningful impact on public amenity.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 On the basis of the (on balance) favourable findings in respect of the proposal as outlined above, it is recommended that planning approval be granted.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00044/B
Page 4 of 5
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.02.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
--
The approval hereby issued relates to the following plans, all date-stamped as having been received 16th January 2015: WL/14/1328/1, WL/14/1328/2, 14-1328-3 and 14-1328-4.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 16.02.2015
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Sarah Corlett
Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :... Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed :... Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00044/B
Page 5 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal