Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00281/B
Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00281/B Applicant : Mr Jonathan & Mrs Lisa Rodick Proposal : Erection of an extension to dwelling Site Address : 30 Laurys Avenue Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 2HE
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 31.03.2015 Site Visit : 31.03.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 30 Laury's Avenue, Ramsey, which is a bungalow sat almost on the corner of a highway and in an otherwise residential area. The rear of the site is visible from the highway to the southwest, while the frontage is set down appreciably from the highway to the east. From this latter viewpoint, an existing flat roof extension is visible.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an extension to provide what appears to be an enlarged kitchen. The extension would have a flat roof complete with roof lantern, and would measure 3.0m in depth and 6.5m in width. Both side elevations would have a single window, while the rear elevation is shown with a single pair of French doors sat between one single glass panel either side. The plans indicate that the extension would be finished to match the existing (which, in the case of the roof, presumably means a grey fibreglass to match the existing flat-roofed extension).
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Planning approval was granted in 1990 for the conversion of a store into living accommodation, while a further approval was granted in 2007 for "Alterations, demolish existing conservatory and shower room and erection of extensions" under PA 07/01057/B.
3.2 The dwellings in the area have been similarly extended in the past, although not in recent years.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 As the site falls within an area designated as "Predominantly Residential" in the Ramsey Local Plan, it is appropriate to assess the proposal against General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services offered no objection to the proposal on 02.04.2015.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00281/B
Page 2 of 3
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 As the rear of the dwelling can be discerned from the highway, it is important to consider the impact of the proposal on both private and public amenity.
6.2 Flat-roofed extensions are generally to be avoided since they present maintenance problems and rarely add value to a dwelling in terms of its visual appearance. Roof lanterns do improve such extensions with a feature of interest, however, and it is considered that the form and appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the existing dwelling (including its extension) and that an objection on this ground could not be sustained.
6.3 The dwellings either side have been extended in the past and this proposal would bring the rear building line to a position similar to that of no.31 to the north. The site is noticeably higher than no.31, and lower than no.29 to the south; therefore, people in no.32 would look down on the proposed extension while people in no.31 would not be able to look up to it since the building line to that dwelling is already roughly the same as that now proposed for the application site, and in any case has no windows facing it. This offsets some concern that there might be about the relationship between these two dwellings and the application site.
6.4 The site is also well-screened from both these dwellings by existing vegetation and any additional loss of privacy resulting from the proposal would be fairly low-level as a result. Were the vegetation to be removed at some point, this relationship would be a little more uncomfortable, not least since the extension would run almost the full width of the application site, but the fairly low density of development in this area is such that there would not be a harmful reduction in outlook or privacy of either dwelling to the north or south from the proposal. Were the dwellings more tightly spaced, or were the gardens smaller, or were the extension longer than just the 3m proposed, it is possible that more concern might have been raised. However, for the reasons given, while the extension would likely have a slightly negative effect on the living conditions of the dwellings either side, particularly in the enjoyment of their garden, the effect is not considered serious enough to object to the application.
6.5 The proposed extension is also sufficiently far from the neighbours to the rear to negate any concern on this relationship.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 For the reasons given, it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
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 14.04.2015
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00281/B
Page 3 of 3
Recommendation:
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.
--
This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 12th March 2015: JR 2015 01, JR 2015 02, JR 2015 02 [alternate], JR 2015 03, JR 2015 04 and JR 2015 05.
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 : 27.04.2015 Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :... Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :... Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : Jennifer Chance Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal