Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01233/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01233/B Applicant : Mr David Walsh Proposal : Alterations and erection of a two storey extension to rear elevation Site Address : Glen Chass The Level Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4AG
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.11.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. 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. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Glen Chass, The Level, Colby which is a semi- detached two storey dwelling situated to the North West side of The Level.
1.2 The topography of the land means that the rear gardens are almost a storey higher in the rear than the ground floor level of the main dwelling.
THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01233/B Page 2 of 4
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the erection of a two storey flat roofed extension situated to the Western side of the property measuring approximately 5.240m by 4.622m with an overall height of 5.85m high.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The previous applications are not relevant in the assessment of this application.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the South. 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. This policy is followed by Environment Policy 42 which seeks that new development takes into account the existing character and identity of the area.
4.3 The recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 is also a material consideration particularly those parts in respect of design, good neighbourliness.
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 have no Highways Interest. (13.10.22)
5.3 No comments have been received by Arbory and Rushen Commissioners at the time of writing this report.
ASSESSMENT
6.1 PREAMBLE
6.1.2 In the first instance it is relevant to note that the neighbouring property to the North East of the property did get a similar extension built under PA10/01228/B, since the time in which this application was approved both the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and The Residential Design Guidance 2021 have become part of the assessment process.
6.2 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.3CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE
6.3.1 There is a general presumption in favour of extensions or alterations to existing properties as per Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, where such works would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area in general.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01233/B Page 3 of 4
6.3.2 General Policy 2 and in turn Environment Policy 42 requires that development must respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of the spaces around them, so that they positively contribute to the character of the locality. The 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 which become a local eyesore.
6.3.3 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.
6.3.4 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.
6.3.5 It should be noted that every application is judged on its own merits (as one size does not fit all), and what may be acceptable for one property, may not be acceptable for 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 extensions.
6.3.6 In this case, whilst the neighbouring property has a two storey flat roofed rear extension, the proposal within this application has more of an impact upon the main dwelling and the overall streetscene, not only due to its inappropriate design but also with regards to the proposal stepping out from the rear by approximately 1.7m, which due to the location of the property within the overall streetscene will be at a noticeable public vantage point.
6.3.7 Whilst the overall principle of a two storey extension here would not be unacceptable, by reason of the proposed extension having an inappropriately large and unacceptable flat roof finish the proposal is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and from public view, and one which clashes with the pitched roof arrangement of the main dwelling and neighbouring dwelling resulting in a negative and incongruous feature at the rear and side of the dwellings in the overall streetscene.
6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
6.4.1 With regards to neighbouring amenity, the proposed extension is not increasing any impact upon the neighbours due to the proposal not adding any additional windows to the first floor level, as to add to any perceived or actual overlooking nor should there be an impact from the proposal with regards to overbearing impact or loss of light, as such there is a minimal impact upon neighbouring amenity and the application is deemed acceptable from this point.
6.5 OTHER MATTERS
6.5.1 The proposed works are an extension to an already existing dwelling, as such the proposal is not expected to create any changes or new issues in respect of criminal actively or
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01233/B Page 4 of 4
spread of fire. The proposal whilst increasing the surface area of the dwelling, any water run- off will be dealt with as per the existing arrangement of the main dwelling. The proposed extension will not increase water usage of the dwelling and therefore there are no new issues in this respect.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Whilst it is noted that the neighbouring property has a similar extension which was approved prior to recent introduction of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and in turn The Residential Design Guidance, the proposed extension here by reason of its large flat roof finish, which creates more of an impact than the neighbouring property due to it's stepped out nature, the proposal 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
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: 24.11.2022
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