82162 — 22/00834/B | Planning Portal IoM | Isle of Man Planning Portal

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/00834/B                                     Page  1  of  6

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/00834/B Applicant : Mr Ian & Mrs Florida Clements Proposal : Erection of a two storey extension to rear and installation of roof dormers to front and rear Site Address : Orrysdale Four Roads Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LH

Planning Officer: Mr Richard Boyt Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.01.2023 __

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.

C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposals are considered to be acceptable design and protect residential amenity and therefore accord General Policy 2 (b, c, g, h and i) and with the general principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to plans labelled DRG1 Location Plan and Existing Survey, DRG02A Proposed Floor Plans and DRG03A Proposed Elevations received 13th December 2022.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/00834/B                                     Page  2  of  6

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

Maye Bank Silvern Sandiford Alwyn (supporting) as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021).

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

The Isle of Man Victorian Society is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy __

Officer’s Report

THE SITE 1.1 Site The application site is a stone fronted terraced dwelling in Four Roads just north of Port St Mary. It is currently arranged as a three or four bedroom house with a bedroom in the roof. To the rear is an old two storey extension with a monopitched roof containing a kitchen on the ground floor and a bathroom on the first floor. There is a small front garden and small walled rear garden with a shared access track running along the back which is accessed via a gate.

The first floor windows in the existing house have a considerable gap before the eaves (which is rendered) indicating that there was always tall first floor ceilings or a purpose-designed room in the roof. There are small rooflights in the slate roof. As such the terraced house is effectively 2.5 storey height.

1.2 Surroundings Four Roads consists of linear residential development leading out of Port St Mary. There are older terraces of houses either side of Four Roads in this locality and the road narrows at this point. The character of the street is relatively urban and the houses are irregular with 2, 2.5 and 3 storey heights, different widths of dwelling and different facing materials.

The rear of the terrace is a shared access track followed by an open field. All of the rear gardens are relatively small yards, with some of the houses having single and two storey rear extensions.

There are no registered buildings or trees, or Conservation Areas close to the site. The application site is in an unzoned area of countryside, albeit the character of the area is built up.

THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/00834/B                                     Page  3  of  6

2.1 The proposal is to replace the current two storey extension to the rear of the house which contains the kitchen and bathroom with a wider two storey apex roof extension housing a bigger kitchen and master bedroom above. In the roof of the main house, a rear and forward dormer are proposed to accommodate improved living space in the roof for two bedrooms (as opposed to the current one).

The proposals have been amended following the advice of officers to remove rear facing Juliette balconies, reduce the amount of timber cladding on the rear extension and reduce the size of the rear facing dormer which previously spanned the entire width of the roof.

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 None relevant

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 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 Residential Design Guidance 2021, specifically 4.0 Householder Extensions, 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 Port St Mary Commissioners- no objections 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no objections

5.3 5no letters of representation have been received (3 object, 2 support): Isle of Man Victorian Society - support and congratulate the applicant on the dormer design Maye Bank, Four Roads (2 doors south) - object due to blocking rear access track Silvern, Four Roads (2 doors north) - object due to out of keeping design and potential rear access drive issues (objection maintained to the amended plans) Sandiford, Four Roads (directly south) - object due to size, overdevelopment, right to light, civil issues of maintenance of the party wall and rear access issues. Alwyn, Four Roads (directly north) - support and debunk many of the other objections, particularly access issues and light issues.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 Design and Visual Impact Although the proposals include a front dormer in the street-facing roof slope, the majority of these proposals relate to the wholesale replacement of the existing rear two storey extension, which is a narrow, lopsided affair with a side-facing monopitched roof. The applicant has explained how this extension is literally supported by a boundary wall and is both structurally and thermally ineffective.

It is accepted that the existing rear extension is both unattractive and impractical and there are no objections to its loss and replacement.

The proposed replacement is as wide as the garden plot, but no taller overall and in the case of the northern boundary, there is a reduction in eaves height. The two storey extension proposal is wood and render clad which is considered a reasonable material mix on the rear of this terrace providing slate is used on the apex roof. In terms of the extension design, it is considered in keeping in terms of its form and windows and subservient in height to the main house.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/00834/B                                     Page  4  of  6

The proposed extension takes up slightly more garden than the current extension, but this loss of garden space is considered immaterial as it only amounts to a few square metres being lost. There is little doubt that the new extension will dramatically improve the thermal efficiency of the dwelling as a whole and improve the general appearance of this row of houses compared to the existing.

A series of minor amendments to the design were recommended by officers such as taking out Juliette balconies and reducing the size of dormers, to reduce the overbearing nature of the original design. The proposed front dormer mimics an original front dormer nearby which gets the support of the Victorian Society and the rear dormer has been greatly reduced in width.

Notwithstanding all of these comments, the rear extensions as they stand appear to be the absolute maximum amount of extension possible without the plot and the house appearing crammed, cramped and over-complicated. Nonetheless, the extensions measure far less than the 50% limit set out for rural dwellings in Policy HP15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

As a whole, the proposed extensions and alterations improve the general appearance of the rear and front of Orrysdale and accord with Policies GP2, HP15 and HP16 and the Residential Design Guidance 2021.

6.2 Residential Amenity

Careful consideration must be given to the impact that the two storey extension in particular has on the neighbours either side, especially garden spaces and rear windows.

This consideration must be put in the context that there is already a two storey rear extension on the house as a fall back position. There are no side-facing windows proposed and the rear- facing windows do not overlook the neighbours in any harmful way. In terms of privacy and overlooking, the proposal are acceptable.

The boundary wall to the northern neighbour is being reduced in height and will therefore improve overshadowing and enclosure to their garden and windows. This neighbour has written in support of the application.

To the south, the extension is drawn closer to the neighbour and onto their boundary by about 1.5 metres. The neighbour on this side has objected on loss of light grounds, amongst other things. This neighbour has a single storey extension directly adjacent to the proposal, so there is little impact on their garden or ground floor rear windows. On the upper floors they have a landing/stairway window closest to Orrysdale and that would not be considered a primary habitable room window whose outlook should be protected. The Residential Design Guidance in 4.6 applies the '45 degree approach' to neighbouring ground floor windows being enclosed, but in this case there are none affected contrary to that approach.

In terms of loss of light, the proposals are not greatly different in scale to the current extension and they are to the north side of the objecting neighbour, therefore unlikely to adversely reduce light for these reasons.

The front dormer is no more overlooking over the street than current windows, as are the rear facing dormers which primarily look out into the distance across fields.

As a whole, notwithstanding the objections being made, no unduly adverse harm has been found to occur by replacing this two storey rear extension and introducing dormers. For these reasons the proposals do not harm local residential amenity in terms of light, privacy or enclosure and accord with development plan policy.

6.3 Other material considerations

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      22/00834/B                                     Page  5  of  6

Issues of access using the private rear lane have been raised by all objectors and one objector also has concerns about maintenance access to the boundary.

Both of these matters are not material planning considerations and must be addressed between the two parties concerned. There is no reason that the development cannot be facilitated via the rear access track providing neighbourly arrangements are made between the occupiers, for example warning neighbours when material deliveries are happening. In terms of party wall maintenance issues, this again must be arranged between parties and for obvious reasons cannot be controlled by the planning system. It is notable that these neighbours already share such party walls between their houses and that will not change.

CONCLUSION 7.1

It is considered that the proposed replacement extension and new dormers will improve the general appearance of the dwelling overall and are likely to provide meaningful energy improvements to the house. Whilst the extensions are large and possibly at the limit of what might be acceptable, enough garden remains and following amendments to the design, the proposals are in keeping with the character of the area. Neighbours' objections regarding loss of light have been considered and it is concluded that this does not amount to an unacceptable harm contrary to policy. 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

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): Maye Bank Silvern Sandiford Alwyn (supporting) as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020).

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      22/00834/B                                     Page  6  of  6

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: 25.01.2023

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.