Loading document...
The site represents the domestic curtilage of number 11, Ballacriy Park, a detached bungalow located on the left as one enters Ballacriy Park, on the left of the estate.
Previously permission was refused for extensions which would have extended the elevation facing towards number 10, with the resident of number 10 objecting successfully at appeal. The reason for refusal related to the size and proximity of the extension to this boundary and the loss of amenity and privacy and also the over-intensive impact of the development.
Proposed now is a similar extension on the same side of the house. However this extension extends no further forward than does the existing house but what was previously to have been a conservatory on the rear is now a solid-waled extension with no windows, which extends further into the rear garden by a further metre. There is only one window in the side elevation facing number 10, that being a bathroom window which will be fitted with obscured glass for the benefit of both those looking at and from the window. Whilst this still brings the building closer to number 10, it is slightly further away - previously the distance between the extended property and the boundary was between 1.6m and 1.9m, now it is between 2m and 2.5m.
This removes previous concerns regarding privacy and outlook as the part of the extension which was coming into the line of view from the front of the neighbouring house is now being removed. There is no submission from the neighbour. Please defer to ensure that she is aware of the application.
The neighbour who previously objected has died although her daughter is still interested in the application and has appointed Dickinson Cruickshank who object on her behalf. They state in their letter of 9th September, 2005 that the proposal "does not significantly reduce the un-neighbourliness of the proposed development due to its size and close proximity to the boundary with our clients property and, therefore we can see no difference in this present application as compared with the previous application." They also express concern regarding the lack of space in the rear garden as a result of the extensions.
The latter is not a valid reason for refusal - see PA 04/01906 where the Inspector stated "The Isle of Man Planning Scheme requires regard to be had to the provision of minimum standards of privacy. However there are no adopted minimum standards in relation to private amenity space. All the requirements of policy are matters of judgement, and in my view that requires assessment of a proposal in the round. My view is that the private space available to this dwelling is at present of very little utility, being tucked between the garage and a hedge. Furthermore, the cramped design of the dwelling has led, as happens in many instances to the garage itself performing some of that function. In my view the overall utility of the dwelling would be significantly improved by the proposed extension. There would be nothing intrusive in visual terms, and such public views are there are of the dwelling would be given added interest. If residents felt the need for private space, the side garden provides a degree of privacy". Whilst this application was on a more restricted size and form the amount of land remining is not dissimilar to the other approved on appeal.
I do not agree with the objector and feel that the amendments do overcome the previous concerns. Neither Mrs. Longman nor Dickinson Cruickshank have party status.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 12.09.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1.
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alterations and extensions shown in drawing reference 724.1 Rev 1 received on 14th July, 2005.
C 3. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown