Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01348/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01348/B Applicant : Dr Peter Slinger Proposal : Replacement of existing roof tiles and alterations to existing conservatory including installation of new flat roof and roof lantern above and the installation of replacement windows Site Address : 49 Sea Cliff Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2JD
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 22.03.2021 Site Visit : 22.03.2021 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.03.2021 __
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application accords with General Policy 2 and the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2019,.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawing numbers 01, 02, 03, 04 and 05 all received 09/11/2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of an existing detached bungalow in Onchan situated on the corner junction of Kind Edward Road and Sea Cliff Road opposite the MER tramline junction of Harbour Road.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01348/B Page 2 of 4
1.2 The main dwelling is finished in a mostly hipped roof arrangement throughout and double roman concrete tiles. Attached to the side and rear elevation are two masonry based conservatories, one finished with a hipped roof and the other with a flat roof.
PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed are the replacement of the main dwelling roof tiles with new mimic slate concrete roof tiles, and the replacement of the existing side elevation conservatory with a new solid flat roof sunroom and roof lantern above. The conservatory windows and doors are also to be replaced with new.
2.2 The application was re-advertised with an amended description only, the works proposed remained unchanged.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The dwelling was originally approved in the early 90's with two further conservatory applications approved in 1998. Later in 2006 approval was granted for the replacement of the side elevation conservatory with the hipped roof design that is currently in place. Since 2006 there have been a number of applications relating to garden walling, landscaping and garden sheds although not considered relevant in the case of this application. Running contemporaneously is PA 21/00149/B for alterations and the erection of a single storey extension to the front elevation and the creation of decking and rendering works throughout.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is situated within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East as 'residential' where there is general presumption in favour of extensions to existing dwellings as set out in paragraph 8.12.1 so long as there are no adverse impacts on visual and neighbouring amenity. In terms of policy and assessment regard shall be given to General Policy 2 as well as the recently released Residential Design Guidance 2019 particularly sections 3.2 and 3.3 which refer to the potential impacts on the visual quality of the existing dwelling and the surrounding streetscene. The site is not within a Conservation Area, but is recognised on Flood Risk Maps as having potential for surface water flood risk.
4.2 General Policy 2: "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; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.3 Section 3.2 POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT OF AN EXTENSION UPON THE EXISTING HOUSE "3.2.1 The first aspect which the Department considers when determining the suitability of an extension to a house is whether the design of the extension fits with the existing property. Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house.
3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01348/B Page 3 of 4
features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach - as set out on the next page."
4.4 Section 3.3 POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT UPON THE STREETSCENE/LANDSCAPE "3.3.1 Extensions should generally be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street in which they are seen. Taking note of the spaces between existing dwellings and adhering to the front building line are important aspects when considering the appropriateness of an extension in the street scene. In the case of dwellings which form part of a group of properties and which have a prominent appearance within the street scene, it will be especially important to ensure any extension does not adversely affect either the overall group of dwellings or the individual dwelling."
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Onchan Commissioners - deferral requested (23/02/2021), previous comments stated no objections (15/01/2021 and 02/02/2021).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No Highways Interest (08/01/2021).
5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 There is a presumption in favour of development here as set out in GP2 and paragraph 8.12.1 subject to the works not having any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of those in surrounding dwellings. As such, these are the issues in this case. Given the nature of the works being modifications to existing structures there is no new impacts or issues expected in respect of surface water.
6.2 The dwelling sits on a prominent corner plot on the junction where it is very prominent from public view. The immediate streetscene comprises a mix of dwellings and a varied approach to design, while some dwellings maintain their original form since the original construction, others have been modified and updated which brings about a more contemporary and modern appearance. The application dwelling is not in a Conservation Area and is not a Registered Building, and given the varied streetscene and the mix of property finishes in the surrounding area including those along neighbouring King Edward Bay Road the development works as proposed would not look out of keeping so as to adversely impact public views or to detract from the general character of the area.
6.3 Roofing works to the conservatory will see the existing glazed hipped conservatory roof replaced with a flat roof, the Residential Design Guidance 2019 tries to steer development away from the use of flat roofs unless part of a deliberate design decision. On speaking with the applicant during a site visit they advised that a flat roof design was selected because either a solid hipped or solid pitched roof would have created peculiar roof arrangement especially when tied in with the existing dwelling. This view is concurred, while a pitched or hipped roof could be constructed the result could look contrived and forced, while the infilling of the area with a solid flat roof would likely sit less obtrusively in comparison and perhaps in this case draw less attention from the public eye. It could be argued that the installation of the roof lantern also helps to break the overall mass of the flat roof.
6.4 Given the specific circumstances of this application having initially received 'no objections' from the Commissioners and being a general homeowner application not meeting any of the criteria to be determined by Planning Committee it was considered unreasonable to
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01348/B Page 4 of 4
delay the decision making process until such a time that the Commissioners re-convened their meetings post COVID restrictions easing, also minded that the Commissioners would have automatic IPS and could submit an appeal request should they wish.
CONCLUSION 7.1 While contrary to the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2019 in respect of flat roof installation, the proposed conservatory roof is considered to be a deliberate design solution and acceptable in this case, and given the varied context and appearance of properties in the surrounding area the development and roofing works here are considered to have an acceptable visual impact.
7.2 The application accords with General Policy 2 and the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2019,.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 18.03.2021
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal