Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00350/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00350/B Applicant : Mr Bryn & Mrs Carly Snellgrove Proposal : Alterations, erection of extension, installation of a dormer and raised patio area and amendment to an existing dormer Site Address : Leithgate Highfield Drive Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6EE
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.04.2021 __
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 proposed alterations and extension to the property would be an appropriate form of development that does not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and would comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the residential design guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawings referenced; 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 date stamped received on 12 March 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Department 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):
Department of Infrastructure, Flood Risk Management. __
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00350/B Page 2 of 4
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Leithgate, Highfield Drive, Baldrine. The property is a detached dwelling to the east of the highway. The property is a detached bungalow of typical form for the surrounding area with a flat roof garage, set back from the building line but attached by a hallway link to the north elevation, with white painted render.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed are the alterations to the external elevations which include; the replacement of a conservatory roof over an existing rear extension to the rear ground floor elevation, the extending of the existing extension and the creation of a raised patio area; installation of a dormer to the rear elevation within the hipped roof and amendment to an existing dormer on the front elevation.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being predominately residential use under the Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area or is identified as being within a flood risk area.
3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
3.3 General Policy 2 (GP2) (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;
3.4 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "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."
3.5 Other Material Considerations The Department has published house holder advice within 'The Residential Design Guide' (March 2019) which provides advice on extensions to existing properties as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Garff Parish Commissioners commented 11th May 2021 with no objections. 5.2 Highways Services do not object (02/04/21) 5.3 DoI Flood Risk Management commented (15/04/21) with No Flood Risk Management interest
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00350/B Page 3 of 4
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) visual impact of the proposed development; (GP2(b) & (c)) (ii) the impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties. (GP2(g))
(i) Visual impact 6.2 From the streetscene at the front the proposed extension to the rear would not be visible from the highways as there are no public views of the rear ground floor elevation. The proposed extension to the side to match in with the form of the existing extension would be acceptable and would square up the rear elevation and when re-roofed would form a uniform appearance to the rear elevation. The installation of bi-fold doors would be complementary to the rear elevation and when finished to match the rear elevation it will ensure the built form is in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwellinghouse. The creation of a raised patio area would only be marginally higher than the existing patio level by approx. 800mm and enclosed with glazed sections would be an appropriate addition to the dwellinghouse and would extend approx. 3.0m for the width of the property into the garden area. A large proportion of the rear garden area would remain as lawn for private amenity use.
6.3 The proposed rear dormer being at the rear of the building, twinned with the positioning of the property in relation to the road, places it in a position where it would not be clearly visible from the public highway. The design of this dormer window would be located within the roof space where they are of a scale and size which would be subordinate to the overall roofscape and proportionally spaced in the centre and lower than the main roofs ridge height. This being twinned with the rear extension would be appropriate form of alterations to the external appearance with minimal visual impact.
6.4 The dormer to the front, and arguably the most visible from the streetscene would be replacing an existing flat roof dormer but in a centrally located position on the front roofscape and would be more prominent due to the size, which could be seen contrary to the advice given in the Residential Design Guide. However, the front elevation is unique in its appearance which has no real architectural merit of design, or regular fenestration, especially with the protruding flat roofed garage centrally placed on the front elevation, rounded windows at first floor; offset roof dormer and front door. Considering the current appearance, the principle of accommodation in the roofscape is already evident by the existing dormer. The proposal to centrally mount a replacement dormer and reduce the size of the central window to the first floor would not detract from the current appearance of the property. Any distant or passing views would be read within the context of the residential property and would be considered in keeping with the style of the property. To minimise the appearance consideration could be given to the finish of the vertical elements of the face and cheeks of the dormer to be finished in tile hung to match the roof or painted a darker colour to blend into the roofscape. However, given the current finish of the dwellinghouse in painted render, the proposal would match this finish and would avoid introducing another element into the overall appearance. An alternative material or finish could have the effect of making it more visible or drawing more attention to it and given the existing dormer is quite plain and finished to match the dwellinghouse, the proposal is acceptable as is. On balance, the above aspects of development are deemed to be an acceptable form of development that complies with those sections of General Policy 2(b) & (c).
6.5 (ii) Neighbouring amenities The level and scale of rear extension, especially being single storey are considered to be relatively modest and not judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of the occupants of the main dwellinghouse or considered to harm the neighbouring amenity, specifically the neighbouring properties to the north (Glenlea) and south (Lingmell). There are no windows proposed in the side elevations that would offer any overlooking or loss of privacy nor would the dormer windows allow for any overlooking or loss of privacy over and above the existing situation.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00350/B Page 4 of 4
6.6 When considering whether there would be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the extension, given the single story nature it would not be considered to have an overbearing effect or lead to a loss of privacy. It is further noted we have not received any objections or comments from the adjoining neighbours. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the alterations would be an appropriate form of development that does not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and would comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for approval.
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: (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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 24.05.2021
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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