Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00621/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00621/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Danial and Jody Wilson Proposal : Conversion of attic to bedroom with installation of a rear dormer and the removal of rear chimney stack with associated works Site Address : 14 Inner Circle Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5BE
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : 18.08.2022 Site Visit : 18.08.2022 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.09.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The design, scale, massing and siting of the proposed dormer is considered to be incongruous with the appearance of the existing dwelling. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and the principles of the Residential Design Guide.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is within the curtilage 14 Inner Circle, Douglas which is a semi detached two storey dwelling situated to the West of the Inner Circle cul-de-sac.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the erection of a rear dormer which comes down from the ridge line and measures 5.37m.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00621/B Page 2 of 4
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The previous application PA22/00005/B, which was for, "Conversion of attic space to bedroom with front and rear dormers and associated works" and was Refused for the following reasoning, "The design does not fit in with the house itself nor with the other houses on the same street. It is considered to have a negative impact on the character and streetscene of the area and so be contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide."
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East - Map 4 - Douglas. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 Given the nature of the residential property and the land designation paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are most relevant to its assessment which set out the general standards towards acceptable development.
4.3 The recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 is also a material consideration particularly those parts in respect of dormers, good neighbourliness and overlooking.
4.4 Furthermore consideration shall also be given to Community Policies 7 and 11 in respect of reducing outbreak of fire and preventing criminal activity and Infrastructure Policy 5 in respect of water conservation.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state they have no Highways Interest. (1.06.22)
5.3 Douglas Corporation have considered the proposal and state they have no objection. (08.06.22)
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.2 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE
6.2.1 In the first instance with regards to the installation of the velux rooflight to the front elevation, it is not considered to detract from the over character of the streetscene, with rooflights becoming more common in residential properties and there currently being Permitted Development (relevant conditions apply), available.
6.2.2 Secondly with regards to the removal of the chimney stack; it is noted that chimneys can play an important role in the overall design and character of the street scene and to lose chimneys in some areas can result in a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene and upset the appearance of the locality. In this case, whilst it is noted that the chimney on this property is noticeable within the street scene, the design and age of the property is such that its appearance would not be significantly altered by the removal of the chimney. As such, its loss is not considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00621/B Page 3 of 4
property. The site is also not within a Conservation Area where such contribute to the character of the area, and some of the properties here have had their chimneys removed. Accordingly, this aspect of the proposal is considered acceptable.
6.2.3 Turning towards the proposed dormer to the rear, it is noted from the streetscene that the properties are not traditional and are relatively modern properties, albeit, dormers are not a common feature with their only being one previously within the cul-de-sac, which is to the rear of No.7 Inner Circle. Whilst this dormer is large and not in keeping with the dwelling the application was approved in 2009 which was prior to the existing Isle of Man Strategic Plan and in turn The Residential Design Guidance 2021.
6.2.4 The flat roofed dormer proposed here, in itself is considerably large, occupying a large proportion of the main roof, with it only being away from the ridge level due to the slight lean of the roof and the roof only being 0.3m and 1.2m away from the eaves, this makes the proposed dormer a particularly prominent feature upon the roof plane of the existing dwelling..
6.2.5 Due to the location of the property within the overall streetscene, the surrounding properties and the surrounding boundary treatments, there is limited visibility of the proposed works. Whilst this is the case, dormers are not a feature within the general streetscene, as such the proposed dormer would be uncharacteristic of the overall streetscene and would be noticeable for this reasoning and will overall adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, and in turn the character and appearance of the area contrary to General Policy 2 (b & c).
6.2.6 Merely arguing that a new development cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development, as developments are supposed to take into account the existing site context and the impact on the amenities of the area in which they are sited. Thus, it is judged that the flat roofed dormer extension does not accord with the advice in the RDG about dormer extensions and would in turn conflict with the requirements of General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 3, in terms of fitting into the character of the site and immediate streetscene.
6.3 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
6.3.1 In terms of neighbouring amenity, due to the proposal within this application being a copy of PA22/0005/B with the removal of front dormer, the neighbouring amenity has already been assessed. Of which the officer stated, "7.4 The front dormer is looking on the road and is therefore not considered to create any concern for overlooking.
7.5 The rear dormer shares a similar view of the windows on the first floor. Although this does not create new overlooking, it is considered to intensify the existing overlooking as the increase in elevation increase the sense of being monitored. However, this alone is not enough reason to recommend refusal."
6.4 OTHER MATTERS
6.4.1 It is relevant to note that there is a discrepancy upon the drawing given, with the site plan showing the previously refused dormers and not the proposed single dormer and rooflight proposed within this application.
CONCLUSION
7.1 In summary, the proposed rear dormer is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene, as such the proposed dormer does not comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in relation to its likely adverse impact on
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00621/B Page 4 of 4
the character and appearance of the area and for this reason the proposal is recommended for refusal.
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: 09.09.2022
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