Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00172/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00172/B Applicant : Ms Monique Llatas Proposal : Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension and re-roof garage Site Address : Brookfield Ballafesson Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6BH
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : 04.05.2023 Site Visit : 04.05.2023 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.05.2023 __
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 proposed extension to the building has been designed in accordance with General Policy 2 of the IoM Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings received on 20th February 2023, referenced; JTM2207A-P-01 - Location and Existing JTM2207A-P-02 - Proposed and additional cross section plan received on 19/05/23
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00172/B Page 2 of 5
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of an existing detached two storey dwelling with a pitch tiled roof and bookended with prominent chimney stacks. To the South elevation is a mono pitch roofed attached garage in line with the front elevation. The property fronts onto 'Ballafasson Road' and sits on the junction with 'Corranvagher Aittin' in Port Erin.
1.2 Attached to the rear elevation of the property is a centrally position hipped roof conservatory measuring a footprint of 3.2m x 2.2m x 3m high to the ridge and an external store structure with a pent roof measuring 1.5m x 1.3m x 3.2 to the highest part.
1.3 To the rear of the site are a block of terraced properties whose rears face onto the site with rear back doors and kitchen windows. Between the two is a public footpath with the rear of the site featuring a 1.2m approx. high Manx stone boundary wall with horizontal timber boarding atop.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the removal of the existing rear conservatory and a purpose built rear extension measuring 8.6m long across the rear elevation and projecting out from the rear elevation 3.2m wide and 3.0m to the top of the parapet wall. The proposed extension would wrap around the side (south) elevation to connect onto the rear of the garage. The proposal would be finished to match the existing dwelling with painted rendered walls and slate roof with Upvc windows and aluminium doors.
2.2 Also proposed is a new pitched roof over the existing garage with Velux window centrally positioned in each pitch.
2.3 The agent notes this "planning application is a revised submission of the refused Planning Application 22/01056/B. The new application reduces the scale and impact upon the neighbouring property by reducing the depth of the extension from the rear boundary".
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 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 defined as being within Port Erin Settlement boundary 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;
3.3 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part) (b), (c), (g) (h) (i) relating to character of area, building, satisfactory amenity standards, road safety and all necessary services.
3.4 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."
3.5 Residential Design Guidance 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 properties.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00172/B Page 3 of 5
4.1 22/01056/B - Demolition of existing conservatory, erection of rear and side extension and erection of replacement roof to integrated garage. REFUSED. This proposal was for a rear extension measuring 5.5m x 8.6m x 3m high and would occupy the entirety of the rear garden to the fence line. Also proposed was a pitched roof over the garage measuring 3m to the eaves 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.
R1. 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.
R2. 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.
4.2 12/00753/B - Erection of a single storey extension to replace existing store and conservatory. Approved. This was essentially 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.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners (27/02/23) & (15/03/23) No Objection. 5.2 Highways Services commented (16/03/23) No objection.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) Principle of development (ii) Design & Visual impact (GP2(b) & (c) (iii) Neighbouring amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties. (GP2(g))
(i) Principle 6.1 This proposal seeks to address the previous reasons for refusal. In doing so the applicants have reduced the overall floor area from 42sqm to 28sqm by reducing the width of the extension projecting out from the rear elevation, from 5.4m to 3.2m, Theoretically this proposal has decreased the built foot pint area by 14sqm or 33%. This would leave a distance of 2.2m of garden to the rear (East) of the extension to boundary. All other matters remain identical to the previous proposal in terms of height, finish and fenestration positioning.
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.
(ii) Design & Visual Impact 6.2 In terms of the garage roof proposal, the introduction of a pitched roof would match that of the dwelling house and would be a visual improvement on the street scene and to the host property. As such this would be considered to have an acceptable visual impact and would comply with General Policy 2 (b, c, and g) and the principles set out in the RDG 2021.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00172/B Page 4 of 5
6.3 Turning to the rear extension, the principle of demolishing an existing conservatory and in its place the erection of a modern built extension in its place and to the side at single storey level is an acceptable form of development for increasing the floor area.
6.4 The proposed extension would be introducing a greater built form in this area where at present there is currently a light weight glazed conservatory. In terms of the revised scale, (when compared to the previous refused application) the length of the extension across the rear elevation would remain the same at 8.6m, however this would be set back from the edge of the boundary by 2.2m and feature a smaller footprint.
6.5 Having visited the site and that of the neighbours to the rear and the side, in terms of height this is partially due to the inclusion of a parapet roof (as sought in the RDG) which helps screen the appearance of the flat roof, in this case part of the roofscape would include a lantern roof light which would also be partially screened. Here it would only be the upper proportions of the single storey extension above the top of the fence would be visible. However this is set back within the site and not at the edge of the boundary which helps with any over-bearing visual impact.
6.6 In terms of visual impact, the rear extension would be most visible from the north east part of the highway when traveling out of the site in a westerly direction. However the existing conservatory is not far of the same height so would not be introducing an incongruous element of development. However, this would be read against the backdrop of the larger dwelling house and would be proportionate in this instance remaining subservient and designed to serve that specific purpose for additional living accommodation.
6.7 Whilst the rear extension would be visible from the streetscene, as is the existing, when finished to match the level of finish of the dwelling house would be seen to be complementary and helps to ensure the built form is in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling house. These aspects of development are deemed to be an acceptable form of development that complies with those sections of General Policy 2(b) & (c) and the RDG 2021.
(iii) Neighbouring amenities 6.9 In terms of any adverse impact upon the neighbouring amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity). It is important to consider those neighbouring properties closest being to the rear No's 59 Marashan Crescent and to the side (south) No.10 / Shiloh.
6.10 The proposed new pitched roof over the garage would increase the overall height but would not be considered to result in any overbearing or adverse impacts on adjacent neighbour No. 10 (Shiloh) nor would it be considered to be detrimental to their side gable windows that would lead to any detrimental adverse impacts on their overall living conditions.
6.11 Turning to the proposed rear extension, 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 and rear 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).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The planning application would be an acceptable form of development that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and would comply with General Policy 2 and the principles of the Residential Design Guide.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00172/B Page 5 of 5
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 : Permitted
Date: 26.05.2023
Determining officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
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