Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00174/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00174/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Alex Scott Proposal : Attic conversion with the erection of a rear dormer and front rooflights and erection of a rear extension. Site Address : 10 Imman Stronnag Reayrt Ny Cronk Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1GP
Planning Officer: Mr Hamish Laird Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.04.2023 __
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. Overall, the proposed development, as revised, is considered to accord with parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 of the IoM Strategic Plan 2016
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the documents and plan date stamped and received 13 February 2023.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00174/B Page 2 of 7
1.1 The application site relates to 10 Imman Stronnag, (10 Guillemot Drive) an existing two storey detached dwelling situated within the wider residential estate of Reayrt ny Cronk, Peel. The existing dwelling sits on one of the primary roads running through the estate and is surrounded by detached dwellings of similar size, scale and design having integrated or attached garages, projecting front gables, a mix of stone and render finishes, integrated stacks and off road parking and garden areas to the frontages.
1.2 Further down the road are some smaller dwellings with a peaked dormer above the attached garage. There are no other dwellings in the area with dormers on the main front facing roof slope. There are some single story properties which have been originally built with rear sloping dormers but these are low level dormer bungalows (referred to in 3.1).
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes an "Attic conversion with the erection of a rear dormer and front rooflights and erection of a rear extension." It follows on from the refusal of a previous application ref: 22/00541/B. In a covering letter, the applicant writes to advise:
"The new application maintains the existing false chimney stacks, removed the dormers to the front elevation and reduced the scale of both the rear dormer and the proposed rear extension in accordance with the Residential Design Guide regarding subordination of the size of the proposed elements."
2.2 The previous ref: 22/00541/B planning application sought approval for a number of works which can be summarised as follows:
o Installation of two peaked dormers on the front elevation roof slope, both measuring 2m long x 2.4m to peak. Each dormer will include a window; o Removal of both gable integrated chimney stacks; o Installation of dormer on rear elevation roof slope, measuring 10m long x 2.8m high to peaks. This dormer is designed to mimic three peaks but will have flat roof installed between the peaks. This dormer will include three rear windows; o Erection of rear extension measuring 7.5m long and projecting 3.5m from the rear elevation. The extension is to be finished with a flat roof and small parapet approx. 3m tall. A window is proposed on the rear elevation and patio doors on the side elevation facing into the garden. There is no window on the side elevation facing No. 12.
2.3 The revised current planning application proposes:
o 3 no. rooflights 780mm x 1140mm to be inserted in the front roofslope; o Ground floor flat roofed rear extension to provide enlarged kitchen/dining area, with outdoor patio area around to it - extension would measure approx. 7.3m wide x 3.0m deep x 3.0m to top of flat roof; o Dormer to rear roof-slope approx. 9.78m wide; rear elevation height to eaves would be 2.15m; and, height of roof where it joins the ridge of the dwellings main roof would be 1.06m. This would provide a second floor attic conversion for a master bedroom, dressing room; en- suite shower room stairs down and storage area within the roof space above the first floor en- suite shower room of the existing front 2-storey projection - which is part of the original dwelling. o Roof tiles and render colour and type would match that of the existing dwelling
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Apart from the ref: 22/00541/B planning application referred to above, there have been no other specific applications for the site since its original approval. There have been a number of previous applications for rear extensions and sun rooms in the surrounding area, but there appears have been no applications for dormers in the immediate surrounding area. Looking at
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00174/B Page 3 of 7
the planning history the size of the rear extensions varies between 5m x 4.5m (PA 21/00503/B) and 4.2m x 4.4m (PA 20/00692/B - this is a dormer bungalow).
3.2 The ref: 22/00541/B planning application was refused for the following reasons:
Front dormers - By reason of their siting on the frontage, the front elevation dormers are considered to result in a negative and adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the surrounding area and also resulting in a potential increased perceived overlooking on the neighbours on the opposite side of the road contrary to parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Rear Dormer - By reason of their size, scale, mass and design the proposed rear dormers result in an unacceptable adverse visual impact and unsympathetic feature on the rear elevation and one which would have an adverse overlooking and privacy impact on the rear neighbours contrary to parts b, c, g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and contrary to the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
Chimney stacks - There is a lack of justification provided as to outweigh the negative visual impacts on the character and appearance of the streetscene as a result of the loss of the chimney stacks. Their loss would be unwarranted and as such would be contrary to parts b, c, and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Rear extension - By reason of its size, scale and design the proposed extension is considered to have a visually overbearing massing on the overall appearance of the rear elevation of the dwelling and would fail the test of part b of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
3.3 The Decision Notice was dated 21 July, 2022. No appeal was received.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Peel Local Plan and is not within a Conservation Area. The application falls to be assessed against the general standards towards development set out in General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan 2016 where it indicates that there is a general presumption in favour of residential development so long as it complies with the general standards set out in General Policy 2. In this case those parts b, c, g relating to visual and neighbouring amenity are most relevant.
4.2 The recently released Residential Design Guide 2021 sets out ways in which visual and neighbouring amenity impacts can be assessed and this document would be relevant here particularly section 4.10 covering dormer extensions and 7.0 relating to good neighbourliness including overlooking and privacy impacts.
4.3 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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00174/B Page 4 of 7
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.
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 Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners - no comments received as of 27/3/2023.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no highways interest (22/03/2023).
5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 Following the re-submission of the current application, the key matters for consideration are the visual and amenity impacts of the proposed front rooflights and rear dormer, and the visual and amenity impacts of the proposed rear extension. The previous considerations of the impacts of the front dormer and of the loss of the chimney stacks, do not now apply.
Front Rooflights - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.2 There are some dwellings within the nearby streetscene that have some small peaked dormers above the existing attached single storey garages. There are no other dwellings in the street that have dormers in the main dwelling roof slope. Looking to the surrounding streetscene, the dwellings are quite clearly two storey and while there are some front peaked gables including on the application dwelling which give some additional height to the frontages, the eaves and roof slopes and lack of interventions across the roof ensure this two storey character is retained.
6.3 The previously proposed dormers would have been the first of their kind in the estate, and would have set the dwelling visually apart from its neighbours and drawing attention to the additional third floor accommodation being created. The deletion of the dormers and the insertion of the proposed 3 No. roof-lights, would result in no material change to the shape of the existing front roof-slope of the dwelling, and the resulting appearance would be little changed except for the insertion of the roof-lights. The insertion of the 3 No. roof-lights is considered to be acceptable on visual grounds with little attention being drawn to them as a feature of the dwellings front roof-slope. Furthermore, they would enable light to be drawn into the second floor roof-space of the dwelling to serve the bedroom/dressing room in the converted attic roof-space, with little by way of observation of neighbouring dwellings located on the opposite side of the road. It would also mean that the rhythm of the existing development is maintained with the application dwelling maintaining its scale, appearance and relationship with its immediate neighbours No's 8 and 12; and, its siting on the slope of the road as it rises towards the north-east would remain largely unaltered.
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00174/B Page 5 of 7
6.4 It is considered that the deletion of the front dormers and their substitution with 3 No. Rooflights accords with the advice in the Residential Design Guidance 2021, and that their installation on the front elevation would not alter the visual appearance and character of the dwelling to an unacceptable degree. This aspect of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and accords with the provisions of parts b, c and g of policy GP2. The previously identified negative visual impact of the front dormers in drawing attention to the third floor does not now occur. With the introduction of the 3 No. rooflights, which would have a minimum internal cill height of 1.7m above second floor internal floor level, would their now be such a perceived level of overlooking as there could have been via views from the proposed dormers of residential properties on the opposite side of the road, which would have been contrary to the provisions of part g of policy GP2.
Rear Dormers - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.5 The proposed rear dormer which now has dimensions of approx. 9.78m wide; rear elevation height to eaves would be 2.15m; and, height of roof where it joins the ridge of the dwellings main roof would be 1.06m, now considered to be of a size, scale, mass and design which would be seen as a subservient, albeit large, addition to the rear roofslope of the existing house and presents a more sympathetic and less dominant feature on the rear than that previously proposed. It is considered that this now results in an acceptable visual impact from both neighbouring dwellings and from available public views between gaps in the dwellings at the rear. The inclusion of three windows in the dormer was objected to in the previous application. It is noted in this resubmission that three windows are again proposed, one serving the master bedroom; one serving the Dressing Room; and, the centrally located window in the dormer serving the en-suite shower room. This latter window would be glazed with obscured glass for privacy reasons. No objections to the rear dormer window arrangement has been received from occupants of the neighbouring dwellings located to the rear of the site fronting onto Poortown Road at Nos. 7 & 8 Lhoan Pibbin Vane.
6.6 No objections were received from the neighbours to the rear dormer, which are in the same configuration in respect of the accommodation they would serve in respect of the 22/00541/B planning application, and none have been received from any neighbours in the context of the current application. On reflection, it is considered that the two windows serving the Dressing Room and Master Bedroom would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to occupants of the neighbouring dwellings to the rear of the site. It is also noted that a degree of harm already exists window to window due to the first floor windows of the corresponding rear to rear views from the dwellings facing each other; and, that there is a good degree of separation back-to-back between the dwellings in the region of 25-28 metres. The revised rear dormer is, therefore, considered to accord with the principles set out in 4.10 of the Residential Design Guidance 2021; and, the provisions of part g of policy GP2.
Retention of Chimney Stacks - Visual Impact 6.7 The chimney stacks are now proposed to be retained as part of this application. This is considered to be acceptable and overcomes the previous Reason 3 of the 22/00541/B refusal of planning permission on the grounds of the negative visual impacts on the character and appearance of the streetscene that their loss would entail. The retention of the chimney stacks accords with the provisions of b, c, and g of Policy GP2.
Rear Extension - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.7 There is a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing residential properties and it is clear that there are other extensions in the surrounding area. The principle of extending here is accepted.
6.8 The previously proposed (22/00541/B) flat-roofed ground floor, rear extension was annotated on plan as follows - depth 3.450m x width 6.785m x height 2.987m. The current proposals for a flat-roofed ground floor, rear extension are annotated on plan as: depth
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00174/B Page 6 of 7
2.995m x width 7.295m x height 2.987m. The height would the same, whilst the depth would be 0.445m less although the width would be 0.555m wider. The changes are small, however, the reduced depth would result in the extension appearing as a less dominant feature, whilst the increased width would be read against the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. Overall, given the proposed changes in dimensions, the lack of third party/neighbour objections, and when coupled with the reduced size, scale of the rear dormer, the overall design of this ground floor rear extension in conjunction with the extensions proposed to the dwelling overall, which would be aided by the use of a mix of stone and render materials, are considered to be acceptable and accord with the provisions of b, c, and g of Policy GP2; and, the advice contained in the Residential Design Guide 2021.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The application is considered to be acceptable in that overall it overcomes the previous reason for refusal and would result in a visually acceptable form of development of the existing dwelling whilst maintaining its character and appearance and that of the surrounding streetscene. It is further considered that the development would not have an acceptably adverse impact on the residential amenities enjoyed by occupants of the adjacent neighbouring dwellings and those occupying dwellings to the rear of the site. The proposed development, as revised, is considered to accord with parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 in the Strategic Plan and contrary to the 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. __
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: 09.05.2023
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00174/B Page 7 of 7
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