Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00129/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00129/B Applicant : Miss Tina Rawlinson Proposal : Erection of a two storey extension, door / window alterations and installation of a flue Site Address : 14 Aspen Drive Ballawattleworth Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1WT
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.05.2021 __
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 works are considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to Drawing Nos. 1, 3, and 4 date stamped and received 3 February 2021; Email from agent received 24 march 2021; Supporting Information received 6 April 2021; and Site Satellite Image and Drawing Nos. 2D received 20 April 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
8 Aspen Drive, Peel 16 Oak Road, Ballawattleworth, Peel
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00129/B Page 2 of 9
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling at 14 Aspen Drive, Ballawattleworth, Peel, situated on the western side of a cul de sac within a relatively new estate on the eastern side of Peel. The house looks east over the surrounding fields that abut the estate.
1.2 The existing dwelling is a detached, two storey dwelling of the same basic type as the others in the cul de sac but with a variety of different finishes and some are handed in plan form. The application dwelling is finished in brick on the front facing gable with rendered walling on the other front facing walls with an integral garage on the left hand side of the frontage and corresponding double width driveway between it and the estate road.
1.3 Although there are dominant house designs within the street scene, there has been alterations in the form of first floor extensions over garages which has changed the outlook of some of the dwellings.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for erection of a two storey extension, door / window alterations and installation of a flue.
2.2 The two storey extension would be erected on the northern elevation of the dwelling and will project 3.9m from this elevation as viewed from the front elevation (2.9 at the rear elevation) be set back 300mm from the front elevation and will be 7.8m wide. The extension will accommodate an extension of the lounge and dining on the ground floor, and an ensuite bedroom with wardrobe on the first floor.
2.2 The extension will have a hipped roof that would form a congruous unit with the existing roof pane, would have its hipped roof set 800mm lower than the main roof ridge, and would result in the roof ridge being set back 1.1m from the current gable position. This roof would be covered in concrete interlocking roof tiles to match the existing, while the windows and doors would match the existing windows and doors on the dwelling. Also, the walls would be painted and rendered to match existing.
2.3 The works would also include the installation of a twin wall stainless steel flue serving new flue in lounge. This flue will project from the roof pane by 800mm and will be at a position 480mm from the eaves.
2.4 Other works proposed include: i. The removal of the utility door on the ground floor of the south elevation (side) and replacement with a window. ii. Removal of the window at the rear of the existing dining and blocking up the space, with the area made good.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00129/B Page 3 of 9
2.5 The applicant has provided a revised plan with modified roof design (changing gable end to a hipped end) supported by additional information as rationale for the roof design which states the following:
"In terms of the position of, and orientation of the application site. The existing dwelling stands at the end of a line of detached properties (nos 16-20), with a line of semi-detached properties (nos 2-12) orientated through 90degrees to the north of the application site. This arrangement avoids any risk of the properties appearing terraced as described in 4.4.4 of the 'IOM Residential Design Guide July 2019' which states;
Importantly the front building lines are stepped in relation to other and also each individual frontage is stepped. This inherent design layout aids in achieving the setback frontage to any extension as described in 4.4.5 of the 'IOM Residential Design Guide July 2019'.
In terms of the width of the proposed extension, the existing dwelling measures 8540mm. The extension measures 3900mm at the front, narrowing to 2990mm at the rear. This equates to 35% & 45% respectively, therefore meeting the design guidance set out in 4.4.3 of the 'IOM Residential Design Guide July 2019'.
With regard the overall ridge height of the proposed extension the most northern gable over the bedroom extension has been stepped down from the higher main ridge by over 1m. The remainder of the extension is set at the same height as the existing dwelling. This design rationale is fully compliant with the guidance described in 4.4.2 of the 'IOM Residential Design Guide July 2019".
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Residential and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not within a flood risk zone as indicated on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps for River and Tidal Flood Risk. As such, the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 are applicable as follows:
3.2 "8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use 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."
3.3 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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
3.4 Environment Policy 22 (in part) is also important to consider given the nature of development: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: ii) emissions of airborne pollutants."
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00129/B Page 4 of 9
3.5 It is also important to consider sections of the RDG 2019 which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This provides the following advice about extensions:
3.5.1 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 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..."
3.5.2 Section 4.4: Extension to Side Elevation 4.4.1 This type of extension is a common extension throughout the Island as many properties are built with an attached garage which can physically accommodate being built above. Generally, the main issues relate to the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring property (see Chapter 7).
4.4.2 It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.
4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single- storey and two-storey elements.
3.5.3 Section 3.3: Potential Visual Impact upon the Street Scene/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.
3.5.4 The Residential Design Guidance on the installation of flues states thus:
5.1.3 In recent years the Department has seen a number of planning application for flues serving wood burning stoves, and is broadly supportive of these. Consideration should be given to their placement, height, size and finish, as the main issue is likely to be the visual
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00129/B Page 5 of 9
appearance of them and whether they would fit with the existing property and the street scene as a whole. Tall and/or prominent flues which have a detrimental impact to a property and/or street scene are unlikely to be supported. Where a flue may have an unacceptable detrimental impact, it may be possible to mitigate the impact by:
o colouring the flue to blend in with the existing colour of the wall the flue may adjoin (or a dark colour when the flue sits within a roof); o encasing the flue so that it appears as a chimney; or o incorporating the flue within the existing or new chimney stacks.
5.1.4 Before making any planning application, it is often helpful to discuss the required positioning and size of the flue required with the relevant Building Control Authority as Flues also require Building Control Consent (separate from planning approval). Details of flue sizing and positioning of the flue and installation of CO2 and heat alarms within the dwelling are all identified within the Building Regulations (Approved Document J - See 'Useful Contacts' at end of this report for details).
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of a previous planning application for Change of house types from bungalows to detached houses, plots 136-141 under PA 02/01404/B which allowed for alteration of the initial dwelling design for the site and surrounding sites. This was approved by the planning committee in December 2002.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is 'No Highway Interest' in the letter dated 23 February 2021/10 May 2021.
5.2 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division confirms that that there is 'No Flood Risk Management interest' in the letter dated 22 March 2021.
5.3 Peel Town Commissioners have not made any comments reading the application although they were consulted on 10 February 2021.
5.4 The Owners/Occupants of 8 Aspen Drive, Peel, object to the application on the following grounds (24 February 2021):
i. The proposed extension has not been discussed with myself and the yellow sign only went up less than a week ago leaving me not much time to put an objection in.
ii. The extension will impact greatly on the sunlight entering my garden by casting a shadow over the majority of my garden leading to a loss of light and overshadowing.
iii. The new extension will be less than 1 metre from my fence and therefore will impact my garden and the outlook from my ground floor primary windows by being an overbearing structure.
iv. Drainage in this area is already a cause for concern and by building this extension this could cause issues with drainage in my garden.
v. To my knowledge, no other properties in the vicinity have had extensions of this nature.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00129/B Page 6 of 9
5.4.1 On review of the revised plans, they have made additional comments dated 22 May 2021: i. The new roof design would still impact on dwelling as it would increase shading of garden. ii. The two storey extension will increase flooding. iii. Extension which is 1m from boundary will be overbearing on the outlook from my kitchen.
5.5 The Owners/Occupants of 16 Oak Road, Ballawattleworth, Peel, object to the application on the following grounds (25 March 2021): i. Flue from the property will affect my bedroom. ii. Drainage and water run off: extension will increase flooding of my garden.
5.5.1 Representation sent 29 April 2021: Having reviewed the amended plans, the same reasons for objection are raised with the amendments, save for comments related to a tree within the rear garden of 6 Aspen Drive, which has been accepted to shade the rear garden of 8 Aspen Drive (although allowing dappled light).
Another representation was sent the same day related to the erection of a fence on the application site.
5.6 In response to the comments made by the owners/occupants of 8 Aspen Drive the agent for the applicants have made the following comments (24 March 2021):
i. The proposed extension has been designed to meet all the criteria set out in the Residential Design Guide (July 2019), with specific regard to Sections 3.0 & 4.0 (Householder Extensions). ii. The separation distance between 8 Aspen Drive & 14 Aspen Drive is in excess of 12m. This is comparable with the separation distance and orientation relationship i.e. side to rear, between 18 Oak Road & 2 Aspen Drive and also between 20-24 Oak Road & 1 Aspen Drive. iii. 14 Aspen Drive is located due south of the objector's site. The sun path will be at its highest/south at midday, therefore any shadows cast by the proposed extension will be less impacting upon 8 Aspen Drive. There already exists a mature tree in the garden of 6 Aspen drive which has a more impacting effect by shading. iv. No window is installed on the elevation facing 8 Aspen Drive so there will be no invasion of or perceived invasion of privacy. v. The extension is set back from the front building line and the roof is lower than the main dwelling making it appear subordinate. Materials and roof pitch match the existing, all in accord with the Residential Design Guide. vi. The 900mm distance between the proposed extension and the boundary is at the narrowest pinch points. The distance increases along the gable to nearly 2.5m at the front, north-east corner. If necessary the 900mm distance can be increased to 1m. vii. All rainwater collected by the proposed extension will discharge direct to the storm water sewer. As a direct consequence of the extension proposed being built, the water collected and permeating into the remaining undeveloped ground will be reduced. viii. With regard the displaying of the yellow laminated site notice I confirm that it was erected on site on the 15th February it having been received by the applicant on the 12th February. Time stamped photographic evidence is available if required.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are: a) the impact of the works on the appearance and character of the dwelling to which it would be attached, as well as the streetscene, and b) whether there would be any effect on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00129/B Page 7 of 9
6.2 Visual Impact: 6.2.1 The proposed extension would follow the design and character of the dwelling to which it would be attached given that it would bear similar attributes such as window type and finishing, wall finishing, rainwater goods, roof finish and design, fenestration proportions and symmetry, as well as the staggered layout of the elevations. Moreover, the extension would be set back 450mm from the position of the front elevation, with the roof also set 800mm lower than the main roof ridge, making it appear as a subordinate extension to the main dwelling. These features would ensure it complies with sections 4.4 of the Residential Design Guidance and General Policy 2 (b).
6.2.2 When considering the impact of the proposed development on the character of the streetscene, it is noted that the extension would be in keeping with the streetscene as it would not introduce features that are at variance with the prevailing design pattern within this part of the estate. Besides, its massing and design would be no different from previously approved side extensions in the area such as 1 Aspen Drive (PA 08/00787/B), 3 Aspen Drive (PA 03/01553), 2 Aspen Drive (PA 06/00814/B), and 6 Aspen Drive (PA 12/00284/B); which are not well set back from the neighbouring dwellings or from the front elevations as the proposed scheme. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed extension would be in keeping with the character of the streetscene and locality and accord with GP2 (b, c & g).
6.2.3 The proposed flue is also not considered to have detrimental visual impacts given that it would be positioned within the roof pane, only rising 800mm above the roof and positioned well below the roof ridge. Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the flue to be finished in dark colour given that it would be positioned on the roof (as required by the RDG 2019), the design of the flue will tie in with this modern property and its 800mm projection would not be particularly prominent within the roof pane given its position on the lowest part of the roof projection. It is, therefore, considered that any visual impacts resulting from the installation of the flue would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
6.3 Impacts on neighbouring amenity 6.3.1 In assessing the potential impact on neighbours, the properties most likely to be impacted would be 8 Aspen Drive to the immediate north, with the distance between the extension and the rear garden only about 1m; although the extension is situated about 12m from the rear elevation of this property. With domestic extensions, generally three areas of amenity are assessed; the impact on privacy (overlooking), light (shadowing) and outlook (overbearing).
6.3.2 In considering the impact on this neighbour, the key concern lies in the potential for loss of light and overbearing impacts, given that there would be no impacts on privacy resulting from the scheme as no window fenestrations would be created on the north elevation of the new extension. The projection of the side extension to only about 1m from the rear garden of 8 Aspen Drive would impact on the level of light getting into this rear garden, albeit, the proposed development will not result in significant loss of light enough to warrant refusal of the scheme. Whilst the roof pane would be brought closer resulting in some loss of light on part of this rear garden (given that the extension is south of the neighbour), the hipped roof which leans away from this garden and set back further than the existing gable by 1.1m, would diminish the impact of shadowing on this abutting garden. When the simple check for loss of light/overbearing impacts described in sections 7.3 of the RDG 2019 was applied to the neighbouring property, it was observed that the extension would cover an additional span of about 2m of the neighbouring rear garden (above the existing shadow cast by the current extension) and as such is considered to have a reduced impact when compared to the previously proposed extension. It is, however, worth noting that a key cause of loss of light for this rear garden is an existing tree within the rear garden of 6 Aspen Drive which is positioned directly west of this garden and cast a dominant shadow over large parts of the garden, particular in the afternoons when the sun's path is west of this garden.
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00129/B Page 8 of 9
6.3.3 In terms of overbearing impacts on this neighbouring dwelling, it is noted that when the 25 degree test (for height of new extensions) was applied to both properties, the new extension did not break the path of the 25 degree line ensuring that an 'unobstructed zone' can be created between both dwellings; implying that the extension would not have detrimental impacts on outlook from this neighbouring dwelling. Besides, there would be no changes in site levels on any of the properties which would alter this assessment, and as such it is not considered that overbearing impacts can result from the development which is 12m away from this neighbour.
6.3.4 With regard to drainage impacts (flooding issues) highlighted by the occupants of 8 Aspen Drive and of 16 Oak Road which only shares a 4m boundary with the application site (due to its staggered position along the boundary of the application site), it is noted that there would be no changes to site levels which would result in changes to the flow of surface drainage to these properties. Moreover, any reference to the extension causing drainage issues is not based on available flood data as the site is clearly not within a flood risk zone as suggested by the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps for River and Tidal Flood Risk. Besides, the (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division have indicated in their representation that there is no interest which suggests that flooding is not a concern for the site. It is also vital to note that a patio area erected on the position of the proposed extension (which would pass for permitted development) would have more drainage impacts than the proposed extension as this would not have a discharge collection system like the new extension which would directly discharge collected rainwater into the storm water sewer.
6.3.5 In terms of any perceived impact resulting from the installation of the flue on the roof pane, it is noted that the nearest neighbour to the flue position (6 Aspen Drive) would be situated more than 10m from the proposed flue which would be at a position 6.5m above the ground level; where dispersal of any emissions would be unhindered. Whilst comments made by the occupants of 16 Oak Road are noted, this neighbouring property would be more than 40m from the position of the new flu; a distance that would ensure that any emission would be dispersed before they can travel to this dwelling. Besides, the prevailing wind in Peel blows from the North-west direction (World Weather Online, 2021) which would mean that the property most likely to be impacted would be Field 311118 situated south-east of the application site. It is also noted that the average wind speeds here is between 15 and 60km/h (World Weather Online, 2021), which would ensure that emissions are adequately dispersed at that distance; such that there would be no detrimental impacts resulting from the flue installation. It is also vital to note that there are both standards for flues and measures which can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection to address issues with flue emissions should they arise. For these reasons, the flue is considered to be in accordance with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 22 and the relevant sections of the RDG 2019.
6.4 Other Matters 6.4.1 Any reference made to the erection of fence in the representations would not be assessed within this proposal as the proposed scheme does not include the erection of a fence.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the topography of the area, the design of the extension (particularly the roof design and position of fenestrations), and distance between the proposed extension on the application site in relation to neighbouring dwellings would ensure that any impacts would be minimal and not sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00129/B Page 9 of 9
(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 in Article 4(2) 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: 27.05.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
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