Loading document...
Application No.: 22/01538/B Applicant: Mr David & Mrs Shan Fisher Proposal: Erection of first floor extension to the rear elevation, erection of porch to the front elevation and removal of concrete tiles and replaced with slate roofing Site Address: Kimmeragh Ballafesson Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6TX Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.05.2023 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The size of the proposal would not be in accordance with the design principles as noted in Section 4.7 (Flat Roof Extensions) of the Residential Design Guide 2021
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Kimmeragh which is one of three dwellings which sit somewhat on their own on the south eastern side of the Ballafesson Road. The two dwellings which lie to the south west are "Mizpah", closest to the application property, and "The Gables" further to the south west. The land to the rear is agricultural fields.
1.2 The existing dwelling began as a detached dormer bungalow circa 1970's that has seen various extensions added to the original built form and has an established flat roof dormer roof extension to the rear roofscape and a single storey rear extension off the existing rear elevation. As such much of the original character here in terms of the rear elevation has been altered & extended but the front elevation facing the street scene remains as is. - 1.3 Internally the property currently has two bedrooms at first floor level with an attached bedroom/ self-contained granny flat. "The attached granny flat is inhabited by one of the applicant's elderly parents".
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The majority of the proposed works are contained to the rear elevation and would see the erection of a first floor extension above an existing rear extension in lieu of the existing flat roof which currently measures a footprint of 7m x 6m with a part hipped roof and terrace within. - 2.2 The upward projection would have the appearance and finished to match the rear elevation of the dwelling house at first floor using the same vertically hung slates to match the existing rear dormer walls. Windows and fascia boards proposed to be dark grey in lieu of the existing white Upvc. - 2.3 This new area at first floor level would provide an additional en-suite bedroom with fenestration opening to the rear (east) overlooking the adjacent fields. The applicants/ agents note the additional habitable space is to create an additional bedroom to enable two younger members of the family to have their own bedrooms. - 2.4 The agent notes; "A Planning application was approved in 2015 for an extension to the rear elevation with a first floor patio area. The sides of the patio have a mock pitched roofing balustrade to lessen the impact of the flat roofed expanse. The extension was constructed in
2.5 As part of the application other alterations to the property include;
3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being predominantly residential use under the Area Plan for the South and within the settlement boundary of Ballafesson on Map 7 (Port Erin / Port St Mary). The site is not within a conservation area or within an area identified as being at flood risk. - 3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy
3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general." - 3.4 The Residential Design Guidance (2021) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. Specific information is given in Section 4.7.2 for the design of flat roof extension where the department seeks for improved designs incorporating architectural detailing and provides examples of good and bad design. Generally, design of the flat roof extensions should utilise parapet walls including architectural detailing. It is generally encouraged that applicants explain the reasons why a flat roof design was considered and chosen.
4.1 The application site benefits from the following approvals; 01/01369/B - Alterations and extensions to dwelling including conversion of garage to additional living accommodation and enlargement of existing vehicular access and driveway 12/00264/B - Erection of a dormer extension to dwelling
5.1 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners (20/02/23) do not object.
5.2 Highways Services commented (21/02/23) No objection. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
Principle
6.2 The application site is located in an area zoned for residential development and is situated within a defined settlement, where the general principle would be accepted and further supported though Paragraph 8.12.1 of the SP, where there is a general presumption in
favour of extensions, which; "would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general". As such the principle of development to this property would meet the criteria within Stp2 and Sp4.
Design
6.3 Every application is judged on its own merits as one size does not fit all. The starting point here is the level to which the current property has been previously extended at the rear and the method in how this has been achieved. The rear has previously seen a rear dormer across the roof scape and a single storey rear extension with roof terrace above (as per the planning history in para 4.0) in 2014 and 2015 which were previously considered by the then planning committee. - 6.4 This application proposes to utilise the existing flat roof terrace and build up from the existing ground floor walls and to use a flat roof method of extending to maximise useable floor area and to offer a uniform head height across the newly created space, essentially to match the exiting flat roof dormer extension on the rear roofscape. - 6.5 The residential design guide notes at para 4.7.8 notes; "Poorly designed/finished flat roofed extension are likely to be resisted. Replicating existing poor designed/finished extension either already being found at the property and/or neighbouring properties is not a reason to allow further inappropriate flat roofed extension." This helps ensure that the design is appropriate for the property and is visually acceptable. - 6.6 The size of the area here at first story level would echo that of the ground floor footprint (7m x 6m) but would sit at a lower overall height than existing ridge height of the main roof and at a similar height to "tie-in-to" the existing dormer extension. This would undoubtedly be seen to increase the overall massing at first floor level and would add a degree of bulk to the sides at first floor but, again the starting point is unique given the current semihipped roof and enclosed roof terrace. The additional massing above the existing height of the roof terrace would be 1.5m higher than the existing hipped roof and finished in vertical slate tiled cladding. - 6.7 The scale of the proposal in relation to existing dwelling and that of the neighbouring properties, of what would appear a two storey extension would not be considered over development of the site given the size of the curtilage. The layout of the proposal would not impact upon the current levels of external amenities for domestic enjoyment as the proposal would be built over the existing extension (footprint). When compared to the neighbouring dwellings and those opposite which have also seen a number of extensions since their initial construction, would not be considered at odds in terms of scale. - 6.8 Whilst some flat roofed extensions are generally not an acceptable form of development, there are a variety of styles and a contemporary approach with architectural detailing can be more appropriate. When putting this in context with this site, it can be seen that the flat roofed extension here has been designed to be a functional addition to the main dwelling and the existing flat roof extension was deemed to be seen to be acceptable when approved in 2015. - 6.9 In terms of level of finish, the proposal is to use vertical slate cladding, this twinned with the proposed re-roofing of the entire property with the same tile would give a more uniformed appearance across the remaining rear elevation and could be considered complementary in that instance as the roofscape would be read as one entity. It is noted the proposed fenestration frames are to be dark grey and can be conditioned as such, same as the fascia boards. The existing white fascia trim and white Upvc doors are abhorrent in this elevation and due to be replaced in a darker colour.
6.10 Turning to the re-roofing of the entire dwelling with natural slate and the erection of a front porch with a pitch tiled roof using stone cladding, would be an appropriate design for the property and would be complementary to the front elevation in terms of design and scale and broadly unobjectionable. - 6.11 Balancing the above narrative, the proposal by way of its overall size of a flat roof extension at first story level could be considered inappropriate when viewing the plans. When onsite it is less apparent (further narrative on visual impact below). However finely balancing the general presumption in favour of development in residential areas, the positive design attributes and the inference through the RDG on the use of flat roofs, in this instance would not be supportable to use a flat roof construction of this scale. Whether an alternative roof deign (pitched or mansard) would overcome this issue, but that in itself would present a limitation on useable floor area and could have structural issues to the ground floor to carry the weight above. Visual Impact (rear extension) - 6.12 When visiting the site and the surrounding area, the rear (east) and side (north) elevations are only really visible from one vantage point from the public highway (Ballafesson Road) albeit from a distance. The road side boundary/ curtilage of the property is tall evergreen hedging ameliorating any visual impact from this section of the pavement when passing and the rear extension is not be visible from the front elevation (streetscene) as the majority of the dwelling house screens the rear. The neighbouring dwellings to the south of the site Mizpah and The Gables restrict any views if the side (south) elevation and that of the rear (east). - 6.13 Its noted the land to the rear are open fields and the initial concern would be the additional massing at first floor level when viewed from the Ballachurry Road to the North and North East. The application site and its neighbouring properties are visible across the fields, approx. 300m when stood opposite 'Ballachurry Farm' and from here the proposals would be viewed against a collection of other dwelling houses and would not be as apparent and would be viewed in conjunction with the existing flat roof extension to the property. - 6.14 When approaching the property from the north on Ballafesson Road, this would be the only apparent views of the proposed rear (side) elevation, but again the views here would be mitigated and partially screened by the existing roof extension. The proposal and the current flat roof extension a first floor level sits lower than the existing ridge height and lower than the neighbouring two storey pitched roof property. - 6.15 It is noted from the site visit that the existing extension with its semi -pitched roof at first floor level is mitigated through the use of tile hung slates which at this distance appears to be the roof and does help to minimise any initial visual impact. The proposal would seek to echo this use of tile hung cladding. However if the level of finish at first floor level was painted white render, the level of this impact would be more apparent and detrimental. Any views of the proposed extension would be read in the residential context of the property and surrounding street scene and may not be as apparent. However para 4.3.11 of the SP does note that; "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development". Finely balancing this issue, the proposal would have a limited visual impact but not so much as to be detrimental to the surrounding streetscene given the limited and distance opportunities to view the proposal from a public highway. Neighbouring amenities - 6.16 The level and scale of development proposed here, is considered to be relatively modest and through its design is not judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house or considered to harm the neighbouring amenity, specifically those to the sides through any overlooking, loss of light, an over bearing impact, loss of privacy and general
visual amenity. This is further echoed given the lack of neighbour objections and the general level of support from the Commissioners. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
7.1 The planning application would be an acceptable form of development but the size of the flat roof could be viewed as excessive leading to a degree of visual harm and would not comply with the design principles as noted in Section 4.7 (Flat Roof Extensions) of the Residential Design Guide 2021. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : …Refused……….... Committee Meeting Date:…22.05.2023
Signed :…………………………………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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
View as Markdown