Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01056/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01056/B Applicant : Ms Monique Llatas Proposal : Demolition of existing conservatory, erection of rear and side extension and erection of replacement roof to intergrated garage Site Address : Brookfield Ballafesson Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6BH
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 04.11.2022 Site Visit : 04.11.2022 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.11.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By reason of the rear extension's size, scale, massing, height and large flat roof parapet design the proposal is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the existing dwelling and wider surroundings contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c and g) and contrary to the design principles of Section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
R 2. By reason of its size, scale, massing, height, design and siting along the boundary in close proximity to the rear terrace neighbours the proposal is considered to have an unreasonable and unacceptable impact on the outlook and amenities contrary to General Policy (g) and the principles set out in Section 7 of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01056/B Page 2 of 5
1.1 The application relates to existing dwelling known as 'Brookfield', Ballafesson Road, Port Erin a two storey detached dwelling sitting on a corner plot where the road joins with Marashen Crescent.
1.2 The existing dwelling has an attached mono-pitch garage on the south side gable which is accessed from the main Ballafesson Road.
1.3 On the side elevation facing Mar ashen Crescent is a small hipped roof porch.
1.4 At the rear is a hipped roof conservatory facing towards the rear boundary and the rear of a terrace forming part of the Marashen Crescent estate.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application comprises two key parts, the installation of a pitched roof over the existing garage, and the replacement of the rear conservatory and its replacement with a large flat roof extension in-filling the rear garden area to the rear of the house and garage.
Garage Works 2.2 The garage is proposed to have an eaves measuring approx. 3m and a central ridge approx. 5.2m high and to be finished in grey slate roof materials matching the main house and with a roof light on the front and rear roof slope.
Rear Extension 2.3 The proposed rear extension is to measure 5.5m x 8.6m and 3m to the top of the parapet. The extension will sit between the rear of the dwelling and abutting up to the rear boundary wall infilling the area behind the garage and wrapping over the majority of the rear elevation.
2.4 A high level window is proposed on the rear elevation and large bi-folding doors on the side elevation opening into the side garden. Two roof lanterns are proposed in the roof.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 In 2012 approval was granted for a small extension to the rear of the garage and their re-roofing over with a new hipped roof. On the same application approval was granted for a rear extension measuring 2.5m x 6m and finished with a parapet measuring approx. 3.5m tall and with a roof lantern behind.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Area Plan for the South 2013 as Residential. Consideration shall be given to a number of policies within the Strategic Plan including Strategic Policies 1 and 5 which seek to make best use of existing developed sites and ensuring new development is of good design, Spatial Policies 2 and 5 in ensuring development remains within settlement boundaries in line with the spatial hierarchy, paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 in ensuring development meets with the general standards towards acceptable development and not having an adverse impact on its surroundings or on the neighbours. Section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 also offers further guidance on extensions to existing residential dwellings and Section 7 addresses good neighbourliness, both are relevant in this case.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Port Erin Commissioners - in support (17/10/2022).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No highways interest (15/09/2022)
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01056/B Page 3 of 5
ASSESSMENT 6.1 There is a general principle in favour of extensions to existing dwellings in areas designated for residential use as outlined in paragraph 8.12.1, so long as these extensions do not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or on the surrounding area in general. The key issue to consider in this case is whether the works would have an acceptable impact on the amenities and living conditions of the neighbours, and whether it would have an acceptable visual impact on the existing dwelling and surrounding streetscene.
Garage Roof Works 6.2 Roofing works to the garage would result in an increased height but this is not considered to result in any overbearing or adverse impacts on adjacent neighbour No. 10 Ballafesson nor considered to be so adverse to their side gable windows as to result in any significant adverse impacts on their overall living conditions.
6.3 From a visual perspective the pitched roof finished would be generally in-keeping with the overall appearance of the existing dwelling and would not detract from the wider streetscene and would be acceptable in this regard.
6.4 The roofing works to the garage would be considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact and would meet the tests of General Policy 2 (b, c, and g) and the principles set out in the RDG 2021.
Rear Extension 6.5 General Policy 2 requires development to respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and to positively contribute to the character of the locality. Residential Design Guidance 2021 sections 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.2.9 indicate that where inappropriately designed or failing to respect the site can result in extensions or alterations that become a local eyesore. In some instances, it may not be possible to design an acceptable extension due to the sensitivity of the site, limited space, or the relationship with neighbouring dwellings, but if a different or deliberate design approach is considered including any modern or contemporary schemes that the thinking behind this is explained as part of a design statement together with clarification on why this approach should be acceptable. The Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context, and well-judged modern designs can serve to both improve the sustainability and appearance of buildings in the streetscene.
6.6 Section 4.2 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 states that extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house and should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Roof finishes should be well designed, especially if publically viewable and pitch roofs matching the roof of the existing dwelling are preferred, compared to flat roofs, which generally introduce a new form of roof type to a property. The Department has however seen a rise in flat roofed typed extensions in recent years, some being more successful than others. Applications should explain the reasoning for why a flat roofed design was considered and why the design approach has been chosen.
6.7 Every application is judged on its own merits (as one size does not fit all) and what may be accepted to one property, may not be acceptable to another. Poorly designed or finished flat roofed extensions are likely to be resisted, and replicating existing poor extensions is not a reason to allow further inappropriate flat roofed extension.
Amenity Impact 6.8 The proposal is to in-fill an area to the rear of the dwelling and garage with a large flat roof extension finished with a parapet wall measuring 3.05m to the top. An existing outbuilding
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01056/B Page 4 of 5
at the rear of No. 10 Ballafesson which sits along the boundary with the proposed extension limits amenity impact of the proposal on their property. In respect of the amenity impacts of the neighbours to the rear, the proposed extension is to run 8.6m along the rear edge and in fairly close proximity to the rear elevation of the terraced properties behind. While it is accepted that there is an existing footpath which runs between where views can be achieved into both buildings, it is the overall cumulative size, scale, massing and particularly its height for an 8.6m distance which results in a somewhat oppressive and overbearing impact on the path and one which negatively impact the outlook from the terrace property opposite particularly from ground floor. This impact is considered to have an unreasonable and unneighbourly impact on their general amenity and living conditions contrary to the principles of 7.0 of the RDG 2021 and contrary to General Policy 2(g).
Visual Impact 6.9 The size, scale and height of the proposal and its design having a large flat roof and tall parapet wall is considered to result in an overall structure which is inappropriately large and having an adverse and overbearing negative visual impact on the existing dwelling and on the wider streetscene as viewed from the public highways and neighbouring properties. The size, scale and height of the extension appears a large incongruous feature to the dwelling and to the surrounding area contrary to the principles of 4.0 of the RDG 2021 and contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, and g).
CONCLUSION 7.1 While the roofing works to the garage are considered to be acceptable, the application is to be refused due to the unacceptable visual and amenity impacts of the proposed extension.
7.2 By reason of the rear extension's size, scale, massing, height and large flat roof parapet design the proposal is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the existing dwelling and wider surroundings contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c and g) and contrary to the design principles of Section 4 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021, and by reason of its size, scale, massing, height, design and siting along the boundary in close proximity to the rear terrace neighbours the proposal is considered to have an unreasonable and unacceptable impact on the outlook and amenities contrary to General Policy (g) and the principles set out in Section 7 of the Residential Design Guide 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. __
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01056/B Page 5 of 5
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: 11.11.2022
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