Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00541/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00541/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Alex & Leanne Scott Proposal : Removal of existing artificial chimney stack and make roof good and single storey rear extension and attic conversion with front and rear dormers. Site Address : 10 Imman Stronnag Reayrt Ny Cronk Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1GP
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 14.07.2022 Site Visit : 14.07.2022 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.07.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By reason of their siting on the frontage, the front elevation dormers are considered to result in a negative and adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the surrounding area and also resulting in a potential increased perceived overlooking on the neighbours on the opposite side of the road contrary to parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. By reason of their size, scale, mass and design the proposed rear dormers result in an unacceptable adverse visual impact and unsympathetic feature on the rear elevation and one which would have an adverse overlooking and privacy impact on the rear neighbours contrary to parts b, c, g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and contrary to the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
R 3. There is a lack of justification provided as to outweigh the negative visual impacts on the character and appearance of the streetscene as a result of the loss of the chimney stacks. Their loss would be unwarranted and as such would be contrary to parts b, c, and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. By reason of its size, scale and design the proposed extension is considered to have a visually overbearing massing on the overall appearance of the rear elevation of the dwelling and would fail the test of part b of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00541/B Page 2 of 5
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site relates to 10 Imman Stronnag, an existing two storey detached dwelling situated within the wider residential estate of Reayrt ny Cronk, Peel. The existing dwelling sits on one of the primary roads running through the estate and is surrounding by detached dwellings of similar size, scale and design having integrated or attached garages, projecting front gables, a mix of stone and render finishes, integrated stacks and off road parking and garden areas to the frontages.
1.2 Further down the road are some smaller dwellings with a peaked dormer above the attached garage. There are no other dwellings in the area with dormers on the main front facing roof slope. There are some single story properties which have been originally built with rear sloping dormers but these are low level dormer bungalows (referred to in 3.1).
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for a number of works which can be summarised as follows: o Installation of two peaked dormers on the front elevation roof slope, both measuring 2m long x 2.4m to peak. Each dormer will include a window; o Removal of both gable integrated chimney stacks; o Installation of dormer on rear elevation roof slope, measuring 10m long x 2.8m high to peaks. This dormer is designed to mimic three peaks but will have flat roof installed between the peaks. This dormer will include three rear windows; o Erection of rear extension measuring 7.5m long and projecting 3.5m from the rear elevation. The extension is to be finished with a flat roof and small parapet approx. 3m tall. A window is proposed on the rear elevation and patio doors on the side elevation facing into the garden. There is no window on the side elevation facing No. 12.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been no specific applications for the site since its original approval. There have been a number of previous applications for rear extensions and sun rooms in the surrounding area, but there appears have been no applications for dormers in the immediate surrounding area. Looking at planning history the size of the rear extensions varies between 5m x 4.5m (PA 21/00503/B) and 4.2m x 4.4m (PA 20/00692/B - this is a dormer bungalow).
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Peel Local Plan and 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 where it indicates that there is a general presumption in favour of residential development so long as it complies with the general standards set out in General Policy 2. In this case those parts b, c, g relating to visual and neighbouring amenity are most relevant.
4.2 The recently released Residential Design Guide 2021 sets out ways in which visual and neighbouring amenity impacts can be assessed and this document would be relevant here
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00541/B Page 3 of 5
particularly section 4.10 covering dormer extensions and 7.0 relating to good neighbourliness including overlooking and privacy impacts.
4.3 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 non- habitable 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."
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners - no comments received as of 20/07/2022.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no highways interest (12/05/2022).
5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key matters for consideration are the visual and amenity impacts of the proposed front and rear dormers, the visual impacts of the loss of the chimney stacks, and the visual and amenity impacts of the proposed rear extension.
Front Dormers - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.2 There are some dwellings within the nearby streetscene that have some small peaked dormers above the existing attached single storey garages. There are no other dwellings in the street that have dormers in the main dwelling roof slope. Looking to the surrounding streetscene, the dwellings are quite clearly two storey and while there are some front peaked gables including on the application dwelling which give some additional height to the frontages, the eaves and roof slopes and lack of interventions across the roof ensure this two storey character is retained.
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00541/B Page 4 of 5
6.3 It is clear that the proposed dormers would be the first of their kind in the estate, their installation is likely to set the dwelling visually apart from its neighbours and drawing attention to the additional third floor accommodation being created. This attention being intensified by the existing dwellings size being bigger than its immediate neighbours No's 8 and 12 and sitting on the slope of the road as it rises towards the north-east.
6.4 While the design of the front dormers being peaked and finished in materials to best match the existing dwelling heeds to some of the advice in the Residential Design Guidance 2021, it is felt that their installation on the front elevation would visual alter the two storey character of the surrounding estate and result in a negative appearance on the streetscene contrary to b, c and g of GP2. There is also concern that the negative visual impact in drawing attention to the third floor accommodation could increase the perceived level of overlooking from the proposed dormers on those properties on the opposite side of the road contrary to part g of GP2.
Rear Dormers - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.5 The proposed rear dormer is of a size, scale, mass and design which is overbearing on the existing house and presents an unsympathetic and dominant feature on the rear which results in an adverse visual impact from both neighbouring dwellings and from public views achievable between gaps in the dwellings at the rear. The further inclusion of three windows in the dormer results in a significant overlooking and privacy impact on those dwellings at the rear. The rear dormer would fail parts b, c, g of GP2 and would be wholly contrary to the principles set out in 4.10 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
Loss of Chimney Stacks - Visual Impact 6.6 Whilst this is not a conservation area, the existing dwellings by reason of their material finish, form and inclusion of stacks have some tie with the traditional form of a Manx dwelling, and it is clear from looking at the surrounding streetscene that the inclusion of integrated stacks forms part of the character of the area and this part of the estate. It is always first sought that stacks are repaired or replaced unless exceptional circumstances outweigh the loss. In this case there is no justification provided to support the removal and it is felt that there loss would be unwarranted having an adverse impact on the dwelling and on the surrounding character and appearance of the estate contrary to parts b, c, g of GP2.
Rear Extension - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.7 There is a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing residential properties and it is clear that there are other extensions in the surrounding area. The principle of extending here is accepted.
6.8 The proposed extension is notably large and has a design which appears fairly heavy given the lack of window openings on the rear elevation. In terms of size and footprint the extension is subordinate to the main house and its low level parapet design helps to minimise any overbearing impacts on the rear elevation and on the adjacent neighbours. But due to the length, the large blank walling and the overall visual massing of the extension particularly when coupled with the proposed rear dormers is somewhat overbearing on the rear of the existing dwelling. While a mix in stone and render materials has been added in an attempt to minimise the solid massing of the extension, it is not felt that this has been successful enough as to overcome the wider massing concerns. The proposal is considered to have an unacceptable visual impact on the existing dwelling contrary to part b of GP2.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The application comprises a number of works each which have considered to be unacceptable for the reasons as stated above and would visually harm the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene, and would have an unacceptable and adverse impact on the amenity of the adjacent neighbours contrary to parts
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00541/B Page 5 of 5
b, c, g of General Policy 2 and contrary to the principles of the 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 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 : Refused Date: 20.07.2022
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