84213

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/01263/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/01263/B Applicant : Mr Paul & Mrs Karen Winstanley Proposal : Proposed dormer to north east elevation and installation of four roof lights Site Address : 2 Scarlett Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1NT

Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.02.2023 __

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.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application is considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact on the existing dwelling, streetscene and neighbours, and to accord with GP2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and to meet with the general principles of the RDG 2021.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to Location Plan, Site Plan, Supporting Photographs and Statement all date received 11/10/2022 and drawing number PL03 rev 1 dated 10/02/2023.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/01263/B                                     Page  2  of  4

THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of No.2 Scarlett Road an existing detached single story dwelling with additional living space in the roof.

1.2 The dwelling sits at the end of the cul-de sac and with its end gable facing the road. A public footpath runs along one side.

1.3 The houses in the surrounding area are similar to No. 2, there are a number of dwellings along Scarlett Road that also have existing dormer windows across the front and rear roof slopes.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the installation of a flat roof dormer on the side roof slope facing towards the footpath and the rear of those single storey dwellings fronting Kissack Road.

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been three previous applications two relating to the existing conservatory and one for a kitchen extension although none are considered relevant in this case.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" on the Area Plan for the South 2013. In assessing the current proposal consideration shall be given to a number of policies within the IOM Strategic Plan which seek to make best use of existing developed sites and ensuring new development is of good design (Strategic Policies 1 and 5), ensuring development remains within settlement boundaries in line with the spatial hierarchy (Spatial Policies 2 and 5), and that it meets with the general standards towards acceptable development and not having an adverse visual or amenity impacts on its neighbours or surroundings (paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2). In addition to the Strategic Plan policies, consideration shall also be given to the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which addresses local distinctiveness and offers further guidance on dormer extensions at 4.0 and good neighbourliness at 7.0.

4.2 Section 4.10 of the Residential Design Guide 2021: "4.10 Dormer Extensions 4.10.1 Dormer extensions are often problematic as they can adversely affect the character and appearance of both the individual property and the wider streetscene. Unless they are for non- habitable rooms such as bathrooms with obscured glazing, they can also create overlooking. They are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or streetscene.

4.10.2 There are various types, and applicants should consider which is most appropriate for their house.

4.10.3 Traditional properties should avoid having flat roof dormers, as pitched roofed dormers may be more appropriate.

4.10.4 Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge. Therefore they are only generally appropriate on more modern properties (1960/70's bungalows) and/or properties where the area is characterised by houses with flat roofed dormers. Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact.

4.10.5 The position within the roof plane, size, and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/01263/B                                     Page  3  of  4

4.10.6 Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house, and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house, will not normally be supported."

REPRESENTATIONS This report contains summaries only. Full representation can be found online:

5.1 Castletown Commissioners - no objection (01/12/2022).

5.2 The Department of Infrastructure- no highway interest (27/10/2022).

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues to consider are the visual and amenity impacts on the existing dwelling and neighbouring amenity.

6.2 Dormers are not uncommon in this area and so in principle a dormer would not be out of keeping, however neighbouring dormers are all stepped below the ridge lines and stepped back from the eaves line having a smaller massing and reduce height. The proposed dormer would be considerably bulkier and taller having an external wall meeting with the eaves of the house.

6.3 The bigger the dormer the more visually apparent it becomes. In this case there is a footpath running alongside the house and the dormer is to face toward two single storey properties and their rear garden where there is a potential for an increased perceived level of overlooking from the dormer. While the dormer is to serve a bathroom and the window likely obscured there still remains a feeling of being overlooking from the size of the dormer and its window.

6.4 These issues were relayed to the agent and amended drawings were received showing an alternative internal layout for the bathroom which would allow a lower height and smaller design of the dormer and pulling it further away from the eaves line.

6.5 The proposal now is considered to have a reduce massing and a design which is within the bounds of acceptability and not to look so out of place as to cause any significant adverse visual harm on the overall appearance of the street scene or wider residential estate. While there may still be a degree of perceived overlooking on the neighbours, the overall reduced massing of the dormer coupled with a condition to ensure the window is installed with obscure glazing helps to mitigate this to a level which would not significant adversely affect the neighbours living conditions as to warrant a refusal in this case.

CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons the proposal is considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact on the existing dwelling, streetscene and neighbours. The application is considered to accord with GP2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and to meet with the general principles of the RDG 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;

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/01263/B                                     Page  4  of  4

(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: 22.02.2023

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.