Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00497/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00497/B Applicant : Mr Tony & Sarah Elder Proposal : Alterations and erection of an extension Site Address : The Elms Main Road Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4AZ
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 13.08.2021 Site Visit : 13.08.2021 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.09.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By reason of the size, flat roof design and inappropriate front elevation window the proposed extension is considered to have an unacceptable visual impact on the existing dwelling contrary to General Policy 2 (b and c) and contrary to those principles set out in section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
R 2. By reason of its height and proximity to neighbouring property Ballacosney, the proposed extension is considered to result in an unacceptable overbearing impact on outlook and an unneighbourly impact on their living conditions contrary to General Policy (g) and the principles set out in section 7 of the Residential Design Guide 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing detached dwelling situated along the north-eastern side of the main road running through Glen Vine. The existing dwelling is set back slightly from the edge of the road and at a level higher than the main road.
1.2 The frontage appears fairly modern with a full two storey projecting gable fitted with full height apex glazing, there is a smaller modern dormer to the left of this gable also fitted with large glazing.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00497/B Page 2 of 5
1.3 At the rear there is a one and half storey pitched roof extension projecting into the rear garden, tucked away on the western side elevation is a single storey lean-to extension, east of the dwelling is a detached garage.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the removal of the existing lean-to and its replacement with a larger flat roof single storey extension measuring 4.9m wide x 6m long and sitting 1.1m from the boundary. The extension is to have a parapet wall measuring 3.6m tall behind which is to sit a roof lantern.
2.2 There is to be a mid-level window on the front facing elevation and bi-folding doors at the rear. There is no glazing proposed on the side elevation.
2.3 The extension is to be finished in smooth painted render.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The existing dwelling has been subject to a number of previous applications for alterations and extensions to the existing house and detached garage; 06/01016/B - Alterations and extensions to form additional living accommodation 09/01669/B - Alterations, erection of extensions to dwelling house and detached garage 10/01029/B - Erection of a detached garage with office / storage above (amendment to approved garage 09/01669/B)
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Area Plan for the East as Residential. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
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 and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality".
4.3 "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."
4.4 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (July 2021) 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. Section 7 of the RDG that covers good neighbourliness is relevant in assessing overbearing and outlook impacts as well as the following sections relevant to individual design:
Residential Design Guidance 2021 "4.1.6 All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/main building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, welljudged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed, as the Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context. Such approaches, where well designed, can serve to both improve the sustainability of buildings and significantly improve the appearance of buildings to the general benefit of the streetscene.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00497/B Page 3 of 5
4.1.7 However, where inappropriately designed, located, and finished, such approaches can be harmful to the character of a building and its surrounds, and become a local eyesore. Therefore, in some cases, modern design approaches will not be the most appropriate solution, and the character and form of the building and its context may require a more traditional and reserved design approach.
4.1.8 It should also be accepted that, in some instances, it may not be possible to design an acceptable extension due to the sensitivity of the site, limited space, or the relationship with neighbouring dwellings. It is important that, where a different approach is made, that the thinking behind this is explained as or as a part of a design statement submitted with the application together with clarification on why it is considered by the applicant that this approach is acceptable in this case.
4.2.2 Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house. Choice of Roof Design
4.2.3 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.
4.2.4 Generally, pitch roofs matching the roof of the existing dwelling are the preferred roof type, compared to flat roofs, which are generally introducing a new form of roof type to a property.
4.2.5 There can be properties which have flat roofs/low pitched roofs where a pitched roof maybe inappropriate. However, generally on the Isle of Man the majority of properties have a pitched roof (gable/hipped etc.).
4.2.6 Further, it is also important that the form/type of roof pitch of the new extension is well designed, especially if publically viewable. The proportions at the front of the house have been well considered in relation to the original house. The overall balance of the property is better maintained. The roof form and window positions do not align with the dominant lines of the original property, therefore, making it feel unbalanced with the semi-detached house.
4.2.7 General Policy 2 requires that any extension should respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.
4.2.8 Accordingly, the fact an extension cannot be publically visible is not a reason to allow poorly designed extensions - see Section 5.2 for more information.
4.2.9 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, and in this case, a supporting statement should accompany the planning application to explain the evolution of the scheme, and why it should be considered acceptable."
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Marown Commissioners - no objection (18/06/2021).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no interest (04/06/2021)
5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00497/B Page 4 of 5
ASSESSMENT 6.1 In considering an extension such as this, it is important to have specific regard to potential impacts on the appearance of both the dwelling itself and street scene as well as the potential impacts on neighbouring amenity.
Visual Impact 6.2 The dwelling comprises a mix of styles throughout but has a clear modern design approach across the front elevation. There are no existing flat roof extensions and so the proposal will now introduce yet another alternative design style. While the works are contained towards the western side and perhaps where there is currently limited public view due to the position of the dwelling, existing vegetation and level changes between the site and road, however in its own right, the proposal would result in a rather large and out of keeping feature which would detract from the overall appearance of the frontage of the dwelling and it has not been explained why an exception should be made or why this deliberate design approach has been progressed contrary to those design principles set out in the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
6.3 By reasons of its large flat roof design and out of keeping window style across the frontage and lack of justification for it, the proposal is considered to result in an unacceptable and inappropriate form of extension and one which would detract from the existing features of the main dwelling.
Neighbouring Amenity 6.4 The proposed extension will sit closer to the adjacent neighbour than the existing lean-to, measuring 1.1m from the shared boundary and 2.5m from their side elevation windows. What is not clear from the submitted information and which became apparent from the site visit is the height difference between ground levels of both properties, the application dwelling sits higher than the neighbour. From the neighbours property the boundary fence measures between 1.8m - 2m tall. One of the large side elevation windows was the main kitchen window.
6.5 The proposal will result in a much taller and closer extension to the neighbour's boundary and side windows, although no privacy impacts through glazing, the height and proximity of the extension coupled with the height difference between the two dwellings results in an extension which would be very prominent and which would have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the general outlook from the neighbours adjacent windows, add harming their overall living conditions to an unacceptable degree.
Trees and oil tank 6.5 A tree is also marked for removal. There is no information to justify the reasons why this tree should be lost, nor any new planting proposed to mitigate its loss. The removal of the tree may also increase potential views from the road which in turn would increase views from a public perspective to what is considered to be an unjustified and inappropriate extension design.
6.6 The application also provides limited information in respect of the relocated oil tank and so an assessment as to its impact has not been possible in this case. In the immediate time the site is limited from public view due to the dense hedging at the front of the dwelling but this is not permanent and any subsequent siting of structures in the front could have visual impact from public view.
CONCLUSION 7.1 By reason of its size, height, large flat roof design and inconsistent window to the front elevation, the proposal is considered to have an unacceptable adverse visual impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and thus presents an inappropriate form of development contrary to General Policy 2 (b and c) and contrary to the design principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021. The proposed extension by reason of its height and proximity to the boundary and adjacent neighbouring windows is also considered to result in an overbearing impact on outlook and an unneighbourly impact on the living conditions and amenity of the neighbours contrary to General Policy (g) and the principles set out in the Residential Design Guide 2021. The
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00497/B Page 5 of 5
application fails to include justification for the loss of the tree and does not propose any mitigation planting and there is too little information to determine the impact of the relocated oil tank at this stage.
7.2 By reason of the proposed extensions height, design and proximity to the neighbours, and the lack of information provided for the loss of the tree and oil tank the application is considered to fail General Policy 2 (b, c and g) and to fail the test of Residential Design Guidance 2021.
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 the Head of Development Management 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 : Refused Date : 22.09.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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