Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00598/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00598/B Applicant : Miss Annabel Kneale Proposal : Extension to rear of the property Site Address : Wayside Saint Marys Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6JL
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.07.2022 __
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 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan, and the principles set out in the Residential Design Guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to Drawing No. 443-02 received 13 May 2022. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 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
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00598/B Page 2 of 5
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 St Marys Road. 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.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for extension to rear of the property. The proposal would see the erection of a first floor extension over the existing lean-to roofed kitchen extension at the rear of the property to provide a first floor bedroom. This extension would project 3.4m from the rear of the existing bathroom on the first floor, be 3.8m wide and would increase the height of this part of the dwelling to 5.1m to the eaves matching the eaves of the main house (6.5m to the top of the hipped roof). The slate covered hipped roof over the extension would be set about 200mm below the main roof ridge of the dwelling.
2.2 Two new windows similar to the windows on the existing dwelling are proposed for the new extension, one on the rear and the other on the side elevation.
2.3 Additional works would involve the installation of a new rooflight on the roof of the existing bathroom on the first floor to serve as replacement for the window that has been closed up at the rear. There would be internal alterations to enable the creation of additional bedrooms including the removal of the stairway serving the living room on the first floor.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Area Plan for the South 2013 (Map 7) as Residential, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not at risk from flooding, there are no Registered trees on the site, and the site is also not within a Registered Tree Area. As such, the following Strategic Plan policies are considered 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; (g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (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; (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 Environment Policy 42 (In part): New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality.
3.5 Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00598/B Page 3 of 5
(b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
3.6 Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
3.7 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, 4.1 on General Considerations, and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been subject of two previous planning applications, although the most recent application for erection of an extension to rear elevation under PA 21/01083/B is considered to be materially relevant in this case. The application proposed a scheme similar to the current application, although it proposed a flat roof over the extension and a first floor balcony on the side of the new extension which have now been removed from the current scheme. The application was refused for the following reasons:
R1: "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".
R2: "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".
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 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 they 'Do not oppose' in a letter dated 27 May 2022.
6.2 Port Erin Commissioners have stated that they support the application in a letter dated 22 June 2022.
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key issues in this case are; i. The visual impact of the proposed extension, and
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00598/B Page 4 of 5
ii. Whether it would have any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent properties or any other occupants of other properties in the area.
7.2 It is not considered that there would be any impacts on parking as the scheme does not involve alterations to the parking provisions for the dwellings. As such, the requirements of Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2 (h) are considered to me met in this regard.
7.3 Visual Impacts (GP 2, SP 3, and EP 42) 7.3.1 In terms of visual impacts on the existing dwelling, it is noted that the previous application proposed a flat roof over the extension which was considered to have an adverse visual impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling from public view, and one which was in conflict 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. The flat roof was also considered to be inappropriately large and unacceptable. The current scheme seeks to deal with this reason for refusal by proposing a hip roof over the extension which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and terrace which has pitch and hipped roofed elements.
7.3.2 Given the above, it is considered that the proposed first floor extension would follow the existing architecture of the building, with the hipped roof design, roof finish with slate tiles, UPVC casement windows, and painted render finish matching those on the existing property. The choice of material finish on the extension would allow seamless integration into the existing dwelling fabric, with the height of the new hipped roof set about 200mm lower than the existing roof ridge, making it appear as a subordinate extension.
7.3.3 In assessing the impacts of the proposed works on the streetscene and locality, it is noted that the extension would sit at the rear of the dwelling where there will be no views of it from St Marys Road, although it is acknowledged that there will be notable public views from the abutting public footpath. Whilst it is noted that views to the extension would be attainable from the footpath, the scheme as proposed would tie in with the existing dwelling, and would be read within the residential character and context of the existing dwelling and terrace which have already seen some alterations and extensions at the rear the rear. It is, therefore, considered that proposal would have an acceptable visual impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and terrace from public view, as well as being compliant with the requirements of General Policy 2(b & c), Environment Policy 42, and Strategic Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.
7.4 Impacts on neighbouring amenity (GP 2 & RDG) 7.4.1 In assessing impacts on neighbouring properties, it is noted that the first floor terrace which was part of the previous scheme and considered to have detrimental impacts on the residential amenity of Droghadfayle House (No 42), Droghadfayle Park, is no longer included as part of the current scheme and as such this conflict is now removed. Whilst it is accepted that the new extension would have new fenestration which would offer views to the neighbour at Droghadfayle House, the window with the potential to cause concerns (window on northwest elevation) would be positioned about 21.9m from the nearest elevation of this dwelling, with the trees along the boundary of Droghadfayle House serving to further ameliorate any privacy concerns.
7.4.2 As there were no other concerns in terms of overbearing impacts and loss of light with the previous scheme, this is also not a concern with the current scheme as the main changes are the alteration of the roof type and removal of the balcony. It is not considered that the proposed changes would unduly raise the height of the building to an extent that would result in loss of light or overbearing impacts for any of the neighbours.
7.4.3 Given the above, it is considered that any impacts on neighbouring amenity resulting from the scheme would be minimal and not sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00598/B Page 5 of 5
Therefore, it is considered that the application would be broadly compliant with the requirements of General Policy 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan, and the aforementioned sections of the Residential Design Guide.
7.5 Other Matters 7.5.1 No new confined spaces with easy access to those outside the site would be created, which would serve as easy hideouts for criminal activity or antisocial behaviour. As such, it is considered that these elements of the scheme aligns with the requirements of Community Policy 7.
7.5.2 No other concerns have been noted.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed development is considered to comply with paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and meets with the tests of the advice set out in the Residential Design Guide. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
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 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 : Permitted Date : 14.07.2022
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