Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00439/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00439/B Applicant : Mr Chris & Mrs Nicki Brownlow Proposal : Erection of a two storey extension to side elevation of dwelling Site Address : 9 Reayrt Ny Glionney Drive Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7LG
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 14.05.2015 Site Visit : 14.05.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 9 Reayrt-ny-Glionney Drive, Lonan, which is a recently completed two-storey. The dwelling forms one of many on a development site that is continuing to be developed.
1.2 The dwelling is of a well-proportioned and slightly intricate architectural style without being especially remarkable, and benefits from robust window sills and lintels and a bay window detail. It is finished in dark red brick and apparently flat, concrete rooftiles. The garage projects forward of the dwelling slightly and its projecting roof continues across the front of the dwelling to provide a covered but open-fronted porch. It is one of several standard house types on the estate, other examples of which are found elsewhere on the wider site, and some of which are rendered instead of being finished in brick.
1.3 Excepting the south, which is where the remainder of the estate sits, the site is surrounded by open fields. The topography is such that views into and out of the site to the west/northwest are fairly short-distance, with the horizon very nearby. The land to the northeast, though, has planning approval for the continuation of the building out of the estate, with an approved dwelling sitting at quite a significant angle to no.9 such that it would be 6m away at the nearest point and 14m away at the furthest.
1.4 It would appear that the original approval for the estate (PA 07/02153/B) remains extant albeit that the design of 25 of the 26 Plots approved under that application it were amended under a subsequent planning approval (PA 10/00354/B). Subsequent to that, PA 12/01595/B sought a further amendment to five of the dwellings approved under the 2010 application, and it was under the 2012 approval that no.9 Reayrt-ny-Glionney Drive was constructed. However, Plot 27, which is the dwelling approved northeast of the site, was not amended by either of those subsequent applications and so it is the design as set out under the 2007 application that could be built on the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension to the northern elevation. This would provide a new / extended ground floor sitting room along with
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00439/B
Page 2 of 5
a new study at the first floor; the latter new room would also result in the re-working of the existing dressing room into a hallway.
2.2 At 4.0m wide and 5.8m deep, the extension is much shorter than the depth of the existing dwelling at 10.4m; this is perhaps as a result of the boundary to the dwelling running at an angle across the dwelling. The extension would be gable-ended to match that of the existing dwelling at the rear, but this gable would have a significant amount of glazing in both the gable and also at the ground floor: five panels would be above four panels below, two of which would appear to be French doors but this is not annotated on the submitted drawing.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Aside from the details outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 above, the site has not been the subject of any applications considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application. This appears to be the first application for an extension to the dwellings on this part of estate.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 Although the application site falls within an area zoned for Proposed Predominantly Residential Use in the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005, and there is a design brief for that site, it is considered that General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is the most relevant in this case. It remains worth noting the design brief for the site, however:
Policy L/RES/PR/12 - Land adjacent to Ballacannel - Area 17 states: "Residential development may be permitted on this site where this complies with the following development brief:
"1. development must include a mixture of house types and densities with the density of development decreasing and space between dwellings increasing as one proceeds towards the north eastern end of the site to result in a density and style of housing adjacent to "Langdale" similar to these existing dwellings to the north of the development site. Development may include high density, starter homes. The houses to be built on the site must be designed so as to have variety and interest with a range of designs, materials and finishes and should avoid the use of light coloured dash, brick or render so as to minimise the impact of the development as viewed from further afield. "2. the detailed submission must include a landscaping scheme which makes provision for the breaking up of the buildings and the softening of the edge of the development on its western side. This must be complemented by a layout which does not present a regimented line of buildings along the western boundary. "3. detailed proposals must include full details of the connection of the new development to the main sewer. "4. the layout must include useful parcels of properly located open space which may be used for children's play. "5. at least 20m must be maintained between the fronts and/or rears of new dwellings proposed within this site and the rear of existing property where these are directly alongside each other taking into account future proposals for conservatories and garages. The layout and landscaping proposals must take account of the proximity of existing properties and as most of these will be lower than the proposed dwellings, car must be taken to avoid overlooking or diminution of the privacy or amenities of the existing adjacent dwellings. "6. no vehicular access may be provided to service the site directly onto Croit-e-Quill Road due to the narrow nature of this highway and the proximity of existing properties to both the road and the laneways leading to the development site."
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00439/B
Page 3 of 5
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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure's Highway Services team offered no objection to the application on 02.06.2015.
5.2 Lonan Parish Commissioners recommended the application be approved on 20.05.2015.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The proposal needs to be assessed in terms of the impact of the design of the proposed extension (i) relative to the existing dwelling and streetscene, and (ii) in respect of private amenity. The latter will need to reflect upon the proposal's impact on the living conditions of those living at the dwelling to the north.
The proposed design
6.2 As existing, the dwelling offers a varied appearance. It is one that is considered well- proportioned but one which, with the various setbacks, different gable sizes, bay window detail and rear outrigger, needs to be treated carefully when looking at extending it. The limited width of the site at the location of the proposed works is a clear constraint in achieving a harmonious design.
6.3 It is considered that the extension is, on balance, unobjectionable. As designed, it replicates one key design feature - in the window sills / lintels - but in form and mass would probably sit a little uncomfortably against the existing dwelling, although not harmfully so. The width of 4m relative to the existing 12m is such that the extension would be proportional to the frontage, and it would also sit behind and down from the principal frontage by some distance such that it would be viewed distinct from the main dwelling. However, the existing dwelling's diverse frontage is such that the addition of yet more diversity could be regarded as one step too far. This would suggest that there is an in-principle objection to any extension here, and this is not considered to be the case from a design point of view.
6.4 A gable feature to match that of the existing dwelling would probably look a little contrived, particularly since the extension is set back so far from the main frontage. Were the extension to continue the front building line, this might be a more appropriate but the main gable of the dwelling would still be off-centre and so the result would remain uncomfortable. It is very much a balance, but it is considered that the extension would not be so harmful to the dwelling's appearance as to warrant a fundamental objection to the proposal. Despite various options that were considered as to how to reduce or improve the visual impact of the extension, it is considered that none of these would have material improvement over that which is proposed. It is also not considered that seeking an extension of a single storey would improve the situation.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00439/B
Page 4 of 5
6.5 For the above reasons, it is considered that the proposed extension does not conflict so significantly with parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 as to warrant an objection to the proposal.
Living conditions of neighbouring dwellings
6.6 The proposal would as noted sit alongside a dwelling that already has planning approval and could be built at any time. The extension would overlook the garden and also a single lounge window from a fairly short distance. This would result in an uncomfortable relationship but probably not one that is so sufficient to warrant the application's refusal. The approved dwelling's garden is extensive and the dwelling itself would mask quite a lot of the view of it from the proposed extension. The large garden would surround the dwelling; were it to be smaller or the part of it most likely to be used near the proposed extension then it is possible that more concern would be raised on this point.
6.7 Similarly, the lounge of the approved dwelling has as its main outlook windows facing northwest (i.e. away from the proposed extension). This means that the lounge would not only look towards the application site, and so while there would be a perception of overlooking for anyone standing in that window, the lounge as a whole would probably feel un-overlooked to a satisfactory degree given its somewhat dual outlook. No other windows directly face the proposed extension.
6.8 It is therefore considered, but on balance, that the proposed alteration does not conflict so significantly with part (g) of General Policy 2 as to warrant an objection to the proposal.
6.9 The agent was contacted with respect to the design with some possible amendments and issues to consider outlined in an attempt to uplift the design and also to address the potential privacy issues. However, their client was apparently unprepared to entertain any re- design to the scheme.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The proposal has been found, on balance, to be acceptable when assessed against the key issues. It is unfortunate that no amendment to the design, which is unconventional and would probably not enhance the appearance of the dwelling, was forthcoming, but it has been concluded that any objection to the proposal would probably not be sustainable. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (in this instance, the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure); o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00439/B
Page 5 of 5
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.06.2015
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 development hereby approved relates to the following drawings, date-stamped as having been received 22nd April 2015: The Location Plan; The Site Plan; Sheet 1 of 2; Sheet 2 of 2.
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 : 10.06.2015
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :... Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Michael Gallagher
Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed :... Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal