Loading document...
Application No.: 21/01083/B Applicant: Miss Annabel Kneale Proposal: Erection of an extension to rear elevation Site Address: Wayside Saint Marys Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6JL Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 18.11.2021 Site Visit: 18.11.2021 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.11.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. By reason of its large flat roof finish the proposed extension is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the existing dwelling and from public view contrary to General Policy 2 (b and c) and contrary to the design principles of Section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021. - R 2. By reason of the size, siting and material finish of the first floor glazed balcony the proposal is considered to have an unacceptable level of perceived overlooking so as to harm the enjoyment of adjacent neighbouring dwelling Droghadfayle House particularly its private garden space contrary to General Policy (g) and the principles set out in Section 7 of the Residential Design Guide 2021. _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application relates to an existing end of terrace dwelling sitting on the northern side of the St Mary's Road, Port Erin. Running directly along the western boundary is an existing public footpath which connects St Marys Road down to the Droghadfayle Road/Erin Way and the residential estates here.
1.2 The dwelling known as 'Wayside' has a front elevation facing the main St Marys Road and was approved under PA 03/00258/B for a first floor extension above the existing garage on the side elevation. - 1.3 On the rear elevation is a single storey lean-to extension measuring 4.5m wide and projecting approx. 3.8m into the rear garden and running along the boundary with the adjoining neighbour. Above this is a smaller lean-to extension projecting around 1.2m from the rear elevation and serving a first floor bathroom. PROPOSED
2.1 Proposed is an upwards extension of the existing ground floor lean-to to provide a first floor bedroom. The proposed extension is to be finished with a flat roof with an eaves height matching the 5.5m eaves of the main house. - 2.2 A window is proposed on the rear elevation and patio doors are proposed on the side elevation opening onto a proposed first floor balcony between the extension and the house on the western side.
3.1 The site has been subject to one previous application under 03/00258/B for a first floor extension above the garage, although this is not considered to be materially relevant in this case. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Area Plan for the South 2013 as Residential. Consideration shall be given to a number of policies within the Strategic Plan including Strategic Policies 1 and 5 which seek to make best use of existing developed sites and ensuring new development is of good design, Spatial Policies 2 and 5 in ensuring development remains within settlement boundaries in line with the spatial hierarchy, paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 in ensuring development meets with the general standards towards acceptable development and not having an adverse impact on the surroundings or neighbours. Section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 also offers further guidance on extensions to existing residential dwellings and Section 7 addresses good neighbourliness both of which are relevant in this case. ASSESSMENT
6.1 The proposal is for extension works to an existing dwelling within a residential area and as such the general principle for extensions to such dwellings is accepted in line with paragraph 8.12.1. Therefore the key matters to consider in the case of this application are whether or not the proposed extension works would have any impacts on the appearance of dwelling in itself and from public view and whether there would be any impacts on neighbouring amenity. Visual Impact - 6.2 General Policy 2 requires development to respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and to positively contribute to the character of the locality. Residential Design Guidance 2021 sections 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.2.9 indicate that where inappropriately designed or failing to respect the site can result in extensions or alterations that become a local eyesore. 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, but if a different or deliberate design approach is considered including any modern or contemporary schemes that the thinking behind this is explained as part of a design statement together with clarification on why this approach should be acceptable. The Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context, and well-judged modern designs can serve to both improve the sustainability and appearance of buildings in the streetscene.
6.3 Section 4.2 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 states that extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house and 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. Roof finishes should be well designed, especially if publically viewable and pitch roofs matching the roof of the existing dwelling are preferred, compared to flat roofs, which generally introduce a new form of roof type to a property. The Department has however seen a rise in flat roofed typed extensions in recent years, some being more successful than others. Applications should explain the reasoning for why a flat roofed design was considered and why the design approach has been chosen. - 6.4 Every application is judged on its own merits (as one size does not fit all) and what may be accepted to one property, may not be acceptable to another. Poorly designed or finished flat roofed extensions are likely to be resisted and replicating existing poor extensions is not a reason to allow further inappropriate flat roofed extension. - 6.5 In this case, the proposed extension is to sit at the rear of the dwelling and while there will be no views of it from St Marys Road there will be notable public views from the public footpath. There have already been some alterations and extensions across the rear of this terrace including the adjoining neighbour who has two storey pitched roof rear extension approved under 04/01476/B. The principle in extending upwards would not be unacceptable here, however by reason of the proposed extension having an inappropriately large and unacceptable flat roof finish the proposal is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and from public view, and one which clashes with the pitched roof arrangement of the main dwelling and neighbouring dwelling resulting in a negative and incongruous feature at the rear of the terrace. - 6.6 The proposal also seeks approval for the introduction of a glazed first floor balcony, the visual prominence of which is likely to exacerbate and further draw the eye and public views towards the inappropriate flat roof extension. Neighbouring Amenity - 6.7 The proposed extension is to run alongside the adjoining neighbours pitched roof extension and is therefore not expected to result in any harm to the living conditions or amenity. However, the proposed first floor balcony is to have immediate overlooking and potential privacy impacts on the dwelling sitting on the adjacent side of the lane who's private garden runs closest to the proposed balcony. Unlike the existing windows and glazing across the rear, it's the proposed size and siting of the proposed first floor balcony coupled with its visual prominence which is likely to result in an increased level of perceived overlooking and one which is felt to be unneighbourly and harming the enjoyment of the dwelling Droghadfayle House (No 42), Droghadfayle Park to an unacceptable degree contrary to Environment Policy 23 and General Policy 2(g) CONCLUSION
7.1 By reason of its large flat roof finish the proposal is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the existing dwelling and from public view contrary to General Policy 2 (b and c) and contrary to the design principles of Section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021, and by reason of the inclusion of a first floor glazed balcony the proposal is considered to have an unacceptable level of perceived overlooking so as to harm the enjoyment of adjacent neighbouring dwelling Droghadfayle House particularly its private garden space contrary to General Policy (g) and the principles set out in Section 7 of the Residential Design Guide 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:
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 : 24.11.2021 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
View as Markdown