DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/00116/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Samara & Nick Bass Proposal: Alterations to existing dwelling including installation of front and rear dormer, and (retrospective) installation of a flue Site Address: Corneilagh 38 Ballachrink Drive Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4NQ Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.05.2022

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.

• C 2. The first floor bathroom dormer window hereby approved shall be installed with obscure glazing to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of neighbouring privacy and overlooking.
• C 3. Notwithstanding the 'stone cladding' annotation on the drawings, the cladding hereby approved shall be installed in a dark grey colour smooth board and retained thereafter, unless alternative cladding details are first provided to the Department and approved in writing. The approved cladding details will then be installed and retained thereafter.

Reason: To clarify the cladding type in respect of an email from the agent dated 17.05.2022 and in the interest of visual amenity.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

Subject to two conditions relating to obscure glazing and cladding, the application accords with General Policy 2 (b, c and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and meets with the general principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to drawing numbers 01 Rev A, 02 Rev A, 03, 04 Rev A, 05 Rev A and a covering letter all date received 29/03/2022, and an email from the agent date received 17/05/2022.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 38 Ballachrink Drive, Onchan, a detached 70's style bungalow with an attached flat roof garage located within a much wider residential estate in the north-east of Onchan. The property sits on a corner plot where Ballachrink Drive meets with Snaefell Crescent. In the immediate surrounding area are a mix of dwellings and styles some single storey and dormer bungalows and some more modern two storey dwellings. - 1.2 The dwelling is finished in pebble dash throughout and with double roman concrete roof tiles. Google shows a chimney stack once existed but that this has at some stage been removed. There is a small bay on the front elevation finished with a brick base and window above.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval is sought for a number of works including the installation of a flue, the installation of dark grey artificial stone cladding in place of the existing bay window brickwork, the installation of two windows (one on the end gable at first floor and one at the rear of the garage at ground floor), and the installation of two flat roof dormers across the front and rear roof slopes. Retrospective approval is also sought for the removal of the original chimney stack. - 2.2 The dormer on the front elevation is to be 7.5m long and 1.6m tall. Two windows are proposed on the front elevation measuring 2.5m wide each. - 2.3 The dormer on the rear elevation is proposed to be 3.6m long and 1.6m tall. One window is proposed here 800mm wide and serving a bathroom. - 2.4 Drawing annotation indicates that the cladding for the dormers is also to be 'dark grey artificial stone cladding'. On emailing the agent for clarification it was confirmed that this was in error and the cladding for both the dormer and the bay was to be dark grey 'ship lap' style cladding and not stone.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has been subject to two previous applications one for installation of a rear patio door and one for the installation of a heat pump although neither considered materially relevant in this case.

3.2 It is noted that there have been a number of applications approved for dormers in the immediate area under PA's 19/00784/B, 06/01557/B, 02/01948/B and 94/01803/B. There has also been one refusal for a dormer under PA 11/00368/B, this application proposed two dormers across the front and rear. The dormer on the front was proposed to be 2.5m wide x

• 2.5m tall and fitted with one window on the front. The application was refused at appeal due to the front dormer, and the reason for refusal stating "the proposed flat roof dormer on the front elevation would be contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) by reason of its scale, design, external appearance and unacceptable impact on the visual amenities of the building and local residents, which would result in the introduction of an unduly prominent feature within the street scene".

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Area Plan for the East 2020, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The application falls to be assessed against the general standards towards development set out in General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan 2016, and consideration shall also be given to the recently released Residential Design Guide 2021 particularly section 4.10 covering dormer extensions. - 4.2 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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;"

4.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 states: "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 Section 4.10 of the Residential Design Guide 2021: "4.10 Dormer Extensions

• 4.10.1 Dormer extensions are often problematic as they can adversely affect the character and appearance of both the individual property and the wider streetscene. Unless they are for nonhabitable rooms such as bathrooms with obscured glazing, they can also create overlooking. They are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or streetscene.
• 4.10.2 There are various types, and applicants should consider which is most appropriate for their house.
• 4.10.3 Traditional properties should avoid having flat roof dormers, as pitched roofed dormers may be more appropriate.
• 4.10.4 Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge. Therefore they are only generally appropriate on more modern properties (1960/70's bungalows) and/or properties where the area is characterised by houses with flat roofed dormers. Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact.

• 4.10.5 The position within the roof plane, size, and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned.
• 4.10.6 Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house, and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house, will not normally be supported."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Onchan Commissioners - in support (22/04/2021) - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division - no highways interest (31/03/2022).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key matters for consideration are the visual and amenity impacts of the dormers, the amenity impacts of the new windows and the visual and amenity impacts of the loss of the existing flue and the proposed replacement flue, and recladding of the bay. Visual and Amenity Impact of Dormers - 6.2 There are a number of dwellings within the nearby streetscenes which already have dormers across the front elevations, these vary in length but most tend to be fairly low level in height, subordinate to the roof slopes and containing large windows which give a more lightweight and transparent feeling to their appearance. Just down the road there is a property undergoing some renovations including replacement windows. Google streetview shows this dormer originally as having white profile and frames, the new windows are now anthracite grey matching the darker colours of the roof slates and the dormer appears less visually prominent. - 6.3 The RDG indicates that there can be a level of acceptability for flat roof dormers on 60/70's bungalows as is the case here given the style of the dwelling. The dormer on the front elevation is on the longer side but is still set in from the edge of the gables and its low height help to provide a secondary appearance compared to the overall roof slope. The inclusion of two large windows gives a more lightweight feel and the dark grey cladding and windows will help to reduce its visual prominence and keep it married with the dark roof coverings of the main house. While it's undoubtable that both dormers will be visible from a public perspective, given the variety of styles of dwellings in the area, and an already apparent number of dormers across the front elevations of some of these properties, that the proposal here would not look so out of place as to cause any significant adverse visual harm on the overall appearance of the street scene or wider residential estate and would be acceptable in respect of GP2 b, c and g. - 6.4 The proposal will introduce two first floor windows in the front dormer and one window at the rear. The siting, distance and relationship of the property to its nearest neighbours means that those windows at the front will not result in any harm to neighbouring amenity. While the dormer window at the rear may increase the potential overlooking towards the dwelling at the rear 36 Ballachrink Drive, given that this window is to serve a bathroom and also minded of the arrangement of the nearest neighbours roof slope and elevation containing no windows to primary rooms to be affected that the proposal is not expected to harm general living conditions or amenity of the neighbour. A condition ensuring the window be installed in obscure glazing is necessary here. The proposal is this respect is considered to comply with GP 2 (g). New Windows

6.5 The distance, angles and relationship between the proposed windows and the nearest neighbours; 36 Ballachrink Drive and 32 Snaefell Road, is as such that neither will result in any significant adverse harm on their living conditions as to warrant a concern or a refusal in this instance, and considered to comply with GP2 g. Existing and Proposed Flue - 6.6 The original flue was masonry built and pebble dashed to match the existing house. The flue was not of any architectural significance and so its loss in this instance is not considered to harm the overall appearance of the dwelling nor the wider streetscene. The proposed flue is to be installed on the end gable nearest Snaefell Road and is typical of current trends for multifuel stoves. The flue is dark coloured and is likely to have a cohesive appearance with the refurbishment works on the main house. Fumes are to be expected but given the position being not so far removed from the original chimney these are not expected to be any worse in terms of amenity impact on the neighbours. In this respect the proposed is considered to comply with GP2 b, c and g. Cladding - 6.7 The agent confirmed by email that the cladding was to be more so like a 'ship lap' style cladding and not stone faced. The cladding remains in a dark grey colour and is fairly typical of the types of cladding and colours which are trending across a number of properties revamps and upgrades. The introduction of such cladding here would not be unacceptable given the mix of properties and styles in the wider estate and it would likely present a uniform appearance with the dormer proposals. The cladding would comply with GP2 b, c, g.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall it is concluded that the planning application accords General Policy 2 (b, c and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and meets with the general principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021. A condition shall be added in respect of the opaque glazing for the first floor bathroom window and notwithstanding the drawing annotation a condition will be added in respect of the dark grey colour of the proposed cladding. - 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 above 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: 20.05.2022 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.