Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00391/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00391/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Alan and Irene Kneale Proposal : Erection of an extension to rear elevation Site Address : 9 Birch Drive Ballawattleworth Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1WR
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.06.2021 __
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. It is concluded that proposal complies with General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan and the RDG 2019 as the works are not considered to have an overall detrimental impact.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to Drawing Nos. 01 and 02 received on 12 April 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 6(4):
11 Birch Drive, Ballawattleworth, Peel, as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00391/B Page 2 of 5
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions, there comments are that there is no flood risk management interest:
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 end of terrace dwelling at 9 Birch Drive situated within the Ballawattleworth estate at the eastern edge of Peel. The property fronts onto the estate road of Birch Drive and backs onto the boundary with the terraces on Willow Close.
1.2 The dwelling is a two storey dwelling which is similar to its neighbour but set back and down therefrom. The property has a small canopy over the front door, brick detailing on the plinth and above the ground floor window. This property has a long narrow rear garden which measures about 18.9m at its furthest point which abuts the rear lane serving the properties on Birch Dive and Willow Close.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the erection of an extension to rear elevation (north elevation). This extension which will provide a sun lounge for the dwelling will project 3.6m from the rear elevation, be 4.3m wide running across most of the rear elevation, and be 3.3m high (2.2m to the eaves).
2.2 Two of the external walls would be made of 670mm high dwarf walls with double glazed units over, while the third wall abutting the boundary with 11 Birch Avenue would be a full masonry wall to match the main dwelling. The roof of this pitch roofed extension would be finished in prefabricated insulated lightweight conservatory roofing with tile effect to match existing roof on main dwelling. The extension would be about 150mm from the existing timber fence on the boundary with No.11 Birch Drive to the east.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Residential. The site is not within a Conservation Area and the site is not prone to flood risks as shown on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps for River and Tidal Flood risk. The development should, therefore be considered in light of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan as follows:
3.2 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; (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. (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
3.4 The following sections of the Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) are also considered relevant:
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00391/B Page 3 of 5
3.4.1 RDG 2019 - Section 4.2: SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION "4.2.1 In relation to single storey extensions to the rear of the dwelling, generally the main issues relate to potential loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the outlook of neighbouring properties. Extensions to terraced or semi-detached properties can have the potential for the greatest concern. With either type of property the depth (i.e. rear projection) of an extension and the position (near the shared boundary) are key in ensuring any such extension does not impinge on the amenities of neighbouring properties."
"4.2.2 A "tunnelling effect" can be caused where windows are set back behind extensions projecting out either side. Ensuring an extension does not project too far from the rear of the house and/or setting an extension in from the boundary can help reduce problems of loss of daylight."
"4.2.3 The acceptability of the length/depth of a single storey extension will depend on the positioning and size of neighbouring properties. For terraced houses and narrower semi- detached properties, single storey extensions are unlikely to be supported where they project more than 3 metres from the back of the house."
3.4.2 RDG 2019 - Section 7.4: OVERBEARING IMPACT UPON OUTLOOK "7.4.1 Any development should ensure that existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being impacted by an overbearing building/structure. The positioning, design and scale of an extension/new build dwellings should not be dominant or have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that may be present in a neighbouring property. It is normally possible to avoid overlooking with careful design and by following the guidance set out within this document. The impact on a private garden may include consideration of the overall size of the garden and whether only a small part of it is likely to be impacted on detrimentally."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 A two storey extension to side elevation to provide garage and additional living accommodation was approved under 06/00381/B but not implemented. The house was approved under 01/00268/B.
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 have indicated that there is 'No Highways Interest' in a letter dated 18 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 20 May 2021.
5.3 Peel Town Commissioners have not made any representations regarding the application, although they were consulted on 4 May 2021.
5.4 The Owners/Occupants of 11 Birch Drive, the nearest neighbour on the eastern boundary which the proposed extension would abut have written in to indicate that they have no objection to the scheme in a letter dated 8 June 2021.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 With the current application, the issue is whether the proposed extension has an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and whether there would be any unacceptable impact on the living conditions of those in neighbouring properties.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00391/B Page 4 of 5
6.2 The extension, whilst not following the same roof pitch as the existing, as advised in the RDG paragraph 3.2.2, is of modest form and will not be prominent. The roof and external wall would also be finished to match the main dwelling, whilst the double glazed PVC units which would be in keeping with the existing window units on the main dwelling would further serve to ensure that the extension is energy efficient. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide in this regard.
6.3 With regard to impacts on neighbouring dwellings, the property most likely to be impacted would be No.11 which forms part of the terrace to which the application site belongs. This is hinged on the fact that the external wall of the extension will only be 150mm away from the boundary with this abutting dwelling and will project about 3.6m along this boundary with the potential to impact on sunlight penetrating the rear of this dwelling.
6.4 Whilst it is noted that the length and position of the extension would be at variance with paragraph 4.2.3 of the RDG in that it would be more than 3m from the back of the existing dwelling and on the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling, the orientation of the building and existing bulk of this terrace already casts shadows over about 4m of the rear garden (from the rear elevation) and as such it is not considered that the single storey extension would exacerbate the existing situation to a level that would warrant refusal of the scheme; given that the 3.6m projection would be within the 4m shadow cast by the existing building in the evenings. Besides, the owner of this abutting dwelling which has the potential to be impacted has written in to indicate support for the proposal.
6.5 As well, there will be no windows on the affected elevation to introduce any form of overlooking. More so, the proposed eave height of 2.2m will not result in overbearing impacts on the neighbouring dwelling as it would only be about 400mm higher than the boundary fence, in addition to the fact that the pitch roof would lean away from this boundary.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to satisfy General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance and is therefore supported.
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 in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00391/B Page 5 of 5
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: 24.06.2021
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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