Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01067/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/01067/B Applicant : Mrs Valerie Towers Proposal : Replacement of existing conservatory with a larger single storey side extension (amendment to PA 19/01215/B) Site Address : 42 Close Famman Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6BJ
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.01.2022 __
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 proposal is considered to accord with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the principles set out in the Residential Design Guidance.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to Drawing Nos. VT/04, VT/104, VT/105, and VT/106, received 31 August 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated at the western end of Close Famman and on the northern side of the road. Close Famman is a cul de sac terminating at the boundary with the Cherry Orchard Aparthotel and starting from Ballafesson Road.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01067/B Page 2 of 5
1.2 The dwelling is a detached single storey property with a relatively shallow pitched roof with a modest extension on each side - a flat roofed garage to the west and a lean to conservatory to the right. The conservatory projects out 2.2m from the side of the property and is 4.7m long and approximately 1m from the boundary with 40, Close Famman, which sits further forward with the rear of that property in line with the front of the application property. The conservatory is 2m to eaves level and 2.3m to apex, tucking in just under the main eaves level of the house.
1.3 The boundary between the application property and 40, Close Famman is a timber fence up to around 1.8m with dense shrubs on the neighbours' side taking the vegetation up to around eaves level of the application dwelling. That property generally has a lot of vegetation on all sides.
1.4 The street scene is characterised by similar styled properties with a significant number of the properties, particularly those with similar orientation as the application dwelling (with front facing gables), having flat roofed extensions on both sides of the dwelling. Numbers 36, 34, 32, 26, 22, 17, and 15 all have flat roofed extensions on both sides, although the sizes vary. A similar approach to erection flat roofed extensions on both sides of the dwellings is also evident on Close Cam, which has similar styled properties to those on Close Famman.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for replacement of existing conservatory with a larger single storey side extension (amendment to PA 19/01215/B). This scheme would see the replacement of the previously approved pitched roofed extension with a flat roofed extension. The extension will be narrower that the existing conservatory at 2m (the existing is 2.2m wide), but will be longer (8.6m, that is 3.9m longer than the existing conservatory, and 800mm longer than the previously approved), and 2.8m high where the roof meets the main building roof (2.3m to the eaves).
2.2 This extension which would be set back 300mm than the front elevation of the main dwelling, would have its roof set 1.6m lower than the previously approved pitch roof over the extension. The extension will have external wall finish similar to the main house. The extension will have a window facing the rear garden of number 40, a door facing its rear garden and a window facing the street.
2.3 The key distinction between the current proposal and the previously approved under PA 19/01215/B is the change in roof from pitched to flat, and the increase in the length by 800mm. The door previously proposed for the side facing the rear garden of No.40 would also be removed. The width, external wall finish, window and door type would remain the same.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is within a wider area of residential use on the Area Plan for the South (Map 7), and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not at risk from flooding nor are there any Registered trees on the site. The site is also not within a Registered Tree Area. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
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; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01067/B Page 3 of 5
(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 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 would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general.
3.4 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7.
3.4.1 Appendix 7: Typical Residential - 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.
3.5 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction, 4.7 on Flat Roof Extensions, and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has not been the subject of two previous planning application which are considered to be materially relevant to the current application. They are:
5.1.1 PA 19/01215/B for Replacement of existing conservatory with a larger single storey side extension - Approved. This application proposed an extension of a similar scale to the currently proposed, although it was to have a pitch roof over.
5.1.2 PA 21/00881/MCH for Minor Changes application to PA 19/01215/B involving alteration of extension roof from pitched to flat. This sought to alter the previously approved pitch roofed extension by was refused for the following reason: "The increased footprint and changes to the roof style would result in changes that go beyond minor and which would require full assessment as part of a new application".
5.2 Although not directly related to the application site, PA 20/00155/B for Alterations and extensions to property including raising roof of existing garage is considered to be particularly relevant. This application which was approved on 17 April 2020, and within the streetscene of the application property proposed a scheme identical to the current scheme in terms of scale, roof finish and appearance, although it includes a roof light over the flat roof of the extension which is not evident in the current scheme.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01067/B Page 4 of 5
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is 'No Highway Interest' (14 September 2021).
6.2 Port Erin Commissioners have stated that they support the application in a letter dated 14 September 2021.
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The issues in this case are whether the works would have any adverse impact on the existing dwelling, the character and appearance of the area, and whether there would be any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent properties.
7.2 Impacts on Existing dwelling 7.2.1 In terms of impacts on the appearance of the existing dwelling, it is noted that the existing dwelling already has established flat roofed elements in the form of the flat roofed garage and conservatory, which are both situated to the sides. Whilst the scale of the new flat roofed extension is considerably increased over the existing, this would not alter considerably the appearance of this dwelling which has basic appearance. What is more, the new extension would offer an improved appearance over the existing conservatory, and present a somewhat balanced appearance to the dwelling. It should, however, be noted that existing landscaping on the boundary with 40 Close Famman would considerably screen large sections of the new extension.
7.2.2 Given the above, it is considered that the scheme would have and acceptable impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and comply with the requirements of GP 2 (b) and the principles advocated by section 4.7 of the RDG.
7.3 Character and appearance of the area 7.3.1 In terms of impacts on the locality, it is noted that the changes to the building will involve the removal of existing conservatory and replace with a longer flat roofed extension, which will have a negligible impact on the appearance of the property and the streetscene, given the dominance of similar extensions within the streetscene and locality.
7.3.2 Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the recently approved pitch roofed extension (under PA 20/00155/B) to be implemented, considering the additional massing will unfortunately add more flat roofed areas which is generally presumed against in the RDG, in this case, the properties almost all have flat roofed garages which are a characteristic of the streetscene and the conservatory which is to be replaced is almost flat roofed. As well, similar flat roofed side extensions are now an established addition to views within the streetscene. Given the above, it is considered that the new areas of flat roofing are considered to have a negligible impact on the streetscene.
7.4 Impact on neighbours 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on neighbouring dwellings, the property most likely to be impacted would be number 40 which is situated directly east of the extension. However, this adjacent property is set in front of the application property (with the furthest extent of the extension on the front elevation still set back from the rear elevation of this dwelling), so the proposed extension will be alongside the rear garden rather than alongside the dwelling itself. Besides, the mature landscaping on this boundary would screen the extension and further serve to ameliorate any impacts.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01067/B Page 5 of 5
7.4.2 Granting the flat roofed design of this extension would not proffer the best design option for this extension in terms of appearance, it would ensure that the impacts on outlook, as viewed from number 40 would be minimised, which would be a significant improvement over the previously approved pitch roofed extension which was considered to increase the impact of the existing property through the raising of the ridge and elevation facing towards this neighbour. The design would also ensure that overlooking and loss of light does not occur.
7.4.3 It is, therefore, not considered that any impacts on neighbouring amenity would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application for this reason.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The planning application would be an acceptable form of development that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and would comply with General Policy 2 and the principles of the Residential Design Guide.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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.
9.2 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. __
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: 28.01.2022
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