**Document:** Officer Planning Report Recommendation **Application:** 09/02043/B — Erection of an extension to dwelling house **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2010-02-10 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/64376-rushen-hill-view-promenade-extension-dwelling/documents/1182941 --- # Officer Planning Report Recommendation ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report #### The Site The site represents the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated within a close-knit group of four detached dwellings, at the north eastern end of Ocean Castle Drive. The property has to the north, number 13A, Fairway Close and Hillside - the former, as may be gleaned from its address, gains its access from Fairways Close and was previously a garage associated with 13, Fairways Close. The application property is a bungalow with attached garage which was permitted in the mid 1990s along with PA 95/0646 which proposed Hillview and Hilltop. The property faces west - south west and to the immediate south east of the property there is a lane which provides rear access to 1-4 Rowany Villas which front onto Rowany Villas - the cul de sac between the Port Erin Royal Hotel and the Ocean Castle Hotel. The application drawings show Hillside incorrectly marked where 13A, Fairways Close is situated, and Hilltop shown where Hillside is actually situated. ## PLANNING STATUS The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990 and the draft Southern Area Plan published on 23rd October, 2009 as Residential. ## Planning History Other than for the erection of the dwelling, there have been no planning applications submitted in respect of this site. ### The Proposal Proposed here is an extension to the property. The extension will bring the property further forward towards the cul de sac roadway by 4.8 m , leaving 3.9 m of grassed front garden in front of the new extension. The extension will provide a lounge for the property and will have large window openings on the front and side elevations, facing towards Hilltop which is approximately 15 m away. ### Representations Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division and Port Erin Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application Representatives of the owners of Hillside object to the application on the basis that the plans are inaccurate and the proposed development will be out of keeping with the area. ### Assessment The proposal should be considered in respect of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan which states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j)can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." In this case, the relationship of the application property, as well as Hilltop and Hillside, with their respective boundaries is such that there is little space around the properties and some of the elevations are very close to front, rear and side boundaries. The application property has more rear private amenity space than either of the other two properties in the cul de sac and the other buildings in the streetscene - the new Imperial Apartments and the existing Ocean Castle Hotel and the garaging associated with the properties in Rowany Villas is all immediately adjacent to the road, making the streetscene very urban and built up in character and appearance. The re-development of the Ocean Castle is underway and the approved scheme proposes a new building which has a large building positioned at the front, promenade end of the site, with a large expanse of rear amenity space with a relatively low wall (low compared with the existing buildings) alongside Ocean Castle Drive. The objection relates to the impact on the privacy of Hillside as the proposal will introduce a new window and the opportunity to look into the front window of Hillside. The two windows are not directly parallel with each other and that in Hillside is higher than the proposed new window in Hillview. There will therefore be an element of inter-visibility between the two windows. However, due to the orientation and position of the properties, it is possible to look into the front window of Hillside both from the front garden area of Hillview and from the access road, regardless of this proposed extension. As such, the impact on Hillside is not considered to be such as to warrant refusal of this application. ## **PARTY STATUS** The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. Dickinson Cruickshank – Co represent a party who is directly alongside the application site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. **Recommendation** **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 04.02.2010 **Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal** - C : Conditions for approval - N : Notes attached to conditions - R : Reasons for refusal - O : Notes attached to refusals ## **C 1.** The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. ## **C 2.** This permission relates to the extension of the dwelling as shown in drawings AT 1024.1, AT 1024.2 and the location plan all received on 14th December, 2009. I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 09/09 Delegation of functions, 10/09 Delegation of Functions (Development Procedure), GC No 11/09 (Advertisements) and GC No 12/09 (Registered Buildings) all to the Senior Planning Officer 4 February 2010 09/02043/B Decision Made : Permitted Date : 4/2110 Signed : ______________________________ Senior Planning Officer 4 February 2010 09/02043/B Page 4 of 4 --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/64376-rushen-hill-view-promenade-extension-dwelling/documents/1182941*