Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00779/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00779/B Applicant : Mr Phil & Mrs Emma Jones Proposal : Erection of ground and first floor extension to dwelling Site Address : 7 Ballatessan Meadow Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1DU
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.11.2022 __
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 application is considered to have an acceptable visual, amenity and highway safety impact and to comply with General Policy 2 and the principles of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to drawing numbers 21 1571 01 Rev A, 21 1571 02 Rev A and covering letter all date received 27/09/2022, and site photographs date received 29/06/2022. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a two storey semi-detached property located in Ballatessan Meadow in Peel. The application dwelling one of several surrounding a
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00779/B Page 2 of 5
large central grassed island around which the cul-de-sac road runs. Number 7 sits on the northern side nearest the entrance and has a driveway running along the west side gable providing off road parking for at least two cars. Above the front door is an existing peaked canopy covered porch.
1.2 The west side gable of the dwelling bounds with the rear gardens of three houses fronting Close Cronk.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a two storey side extension. The proposed extension is to be 2.9m wide and running along the west side gable. The existing is to have a stepped down and stepped back design from the main house. At ground floor there is to be additional lean to extensions at the front and rear providing a front porch and rear kitchen space.
2.2 The extension is to be finished in render, roofing materials and windows matching the main house. The front elevation is to comprise a garage door and front door at ground floor and a window above. A side access path 520mm wide is to run along the extension. At the rear bi-folding doors and window are proposed at ground floor and a window above. There are no windows proposed on the side elevation. Two roof lights are proposed either side of the extension roof and two in the rear lean-to.
2.3 The driveway is to have an overall length approx. 13m, its width remains unchanged from the existing.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been no previous applications at the site since its original development. However, there have been two previous applications for a neighbouring dwelling for a similar two storey side extension. The most recent and most relevant being 20/01139/B which also had a stepped down and stepped back design.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site lies within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Peel Local Plan, as such General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant in the assessment along with the recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 specifically 4.0 Householder Extensions and Section 4.8 Extension to Side Elevation, Section 3.1 in respect of local distinctiveness. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 also cover design features and potential impacts on the streetscene. Section 7.0 covers Good Neighbourliness and Community Policy 7 and 11 from the Strategic Plan seek all new development to reduce spread of fire and reduce criminal activity and Infrastructure Policy 5 seeks water conservation.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners - OBJECTION (03/11/2022) - not enough gap between neighbouring property and access to the side and rear of this property will be significantly reduced through building the extension very close to the property boundary. A development of this nature will result in requiring access from the adjoining property to maintain the extension and the need to store bins at a more visible location on the front of the property.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - do not oppose (15/07/2022 and 30/09/2022)
5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00779/B Page 3 of 5
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application site is within an area recognised and established for residential use and 8.12.1 indicates a presumption in favour of extensions to existing properties here and therefore the general principle for an extension is acceptable. The second test is whether or not such an extension would have an adverse impact on either the adjacent property or the surrounding area. In assessing this impact consideration shall to be given to the development standards set out in General Policy 2 and advice for residential development contained within the Residential Design Guide 2021 specifically in regards to the visual impact of the proposed extension on the existing dwelling, the amenity impact on neighbouring living conditions and on highway safety as a result of the reduced driveway length.
Proposed Extension - Visual Impact 6.2 The Residential Design Guide 2021 indicates at section 4.8 that side extensions such as this are fairly common, with the usual situation being an upwards extension of an attached garage. The guidance indicates the main issues for such side extensions relates to visual impacts and any amenity impacts on the neighbours and that extensions should respect the existing house, and be proportionate to its size and width to ensure it remains subordinate. While roof finishes can run flush to the main house it is preferable to have the roof of the proposed extension stepping lower than the main house.
6.3 Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 also indicate that extensions should normal incorporate design features of the existing dwelling with windows and doors replicating what's already there, unless a deliberate design approach has been adopted. It is important that extensions do not negatively affect the wider streetscene which may have prominent shared features and an overall distinguishable character.
6.4 In this case the proposal now includes a stepped back and stepped down roof arrangement and front elevation which helps to provide a more appropriate subordinate appearance to the extension compared to the original scheme that ran flush with the main house. The introduction of the lean-to porch will differ to the peaked porch of the neighbour, but there are other lean-to front porch arrangements in the surrounding estate and so it is not expected to appear so out of keeping as to harm the overall visual appearance of the area or streetscene.
Proposed Extension - Amenity Impact 6.5 The existing house sits at the end of the row where it's somewhat open due to the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties. Given the existing arrangement, relationships between the existing houses and the distances between them the proposal is not expected to result in any overbearing impacts on the neighbours nor to result in any new or increased overlooking or privacy compared with the existing window arrangement. The proposal is not expected to result in any significant or adverse harm to neighbouring amenity.
6.6 The Commissioners have raised concern that the access to the side and rear of the property will be significantly reduced and will result in requiring maintenance access from the adjoining property to maintain the extension. They also raise concern for the subsequent visual impact of having the wheelie bins now needing to be stored in a more visible location at the front of the house. While the comments from the Commissioners are noted, maintenance and land ownership matters would not be a material planning consideration in this case and would be a civil matter between the land owners. In terms of the bins, yes the siting at the front of the house would likely be more visible but they could be kept in this location now and given the setback distance shown on plan views of the bins are not likely to be prominent, and any parked cars on the drive would also limit views. It is not considered that the siting of bins as shown on plan would result in any significant concern or harm to the visual quality of the areas as to refuse the application in this respect.
Proposed Access - Highway Safety
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00779/B Page 4 of 5
6.7 The dwellings are all stepped back from the road edge, the proposal will result in a reduction to the driveway length but this will still accommodate at least two cars off the road and so meeting with the minimum standards of the Strategic Plan and not resulting in any adverse or increased highway safety issues.
Other policy considerations 6.8 The works result in an extension to an existing and established residential property and are not expected to result in any increased risk of fire, any increased criminal activity or result in any changes to water conservation beyond the existing dwelling and thus accord with Community Policies 7 and 11, and Infrastructure Policy 5.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is judged that the proposed development has an acceptable visual impact on the existing dwelling, streetscene and surrounding area, and is not considered to have any adverse or unacceptable impacts on the amenity or living conditions of the neighbours. The proposal is also considered to have an acceptable highway impact. For these reasons the proposal is considered to accord with General Policy 2 (b, c, g, h and i) and with the general 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 : Permitted
Date: 09.11.2022
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00779/B Page 5 of 5
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