**Document:** Planning Officer Report **Application:** 12/00075/B — Alterations, installation of dormer windows and erection of first floor extension with balcony to dwelling **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2012-03-15 **Parish:** Michael **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2212-kirk-michael-shenstone-extension-dwelling/documents/1264423 --- # Planning Officer Report ## Planning Officer Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ## Officer's Report ### 1.0 Site 1.1 The application site forms the residential curtilage of Shenstone, Shore Road, Kirk Michael, which is a bungalow with a single storey flat roof extension to the rear. The site is located on a corner plot with Shore Road to the south and Station Road to the west. ### 2.0 Proposal 2.1 The application seeks approval for the alterations, installation of dormer windows and erection of first floor extension with balcony to dwelling. 2.2 The proposed rear extension would have a rear projection of 3.4 metres, a width of 10.8 metres and a ridge height of 5.8 metres. The proposal will result in the demolition of the existing flat roofed rear extension. To the rear extension it is proposed to erect a first floor balcony which projects 2.6 metres from the proposed extension, with a width of 4.5 metres. 2.3 The submission also includes the erection of three pitched roofed dormers to the front elevation. ### 3.0 Department Policies 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "proposed residential use", under the Kirk Michael Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 3.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:- "General Policy 2: 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 spaces 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 unacceptable 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; - (l) 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." ### 4.0 Planning History 4.1 The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: Alterations, installation of dormer windows and erection of first floor extension with balcony to dwelling - 11/00505/B – REFUSED on the following ground:- 1. "The proposed rear extension would be an inappropriate addition to the existing dwelling by virtue of its roof design. This would be visible to the public and would detract from the amenities of the surrounding area contrary to General Policy 2." Alterations and extensions - 89/04073/B - APPROVED ### 5.0 Representations 5.1 Michael Commissioners and the Highways Division have no objections to the proposal. ### 6.0 Assessment 6.1 The main issues with the proposal is whether the scheme would have an acceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene and whether the proposal would adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring resident, namely Wenscot and Poleacre. 6.2 In terms of the visual appearance, the proposed dormers would have pitched roofs and would not appear out of place within the streetsce. It is judged that this aspect of the proposal is acceptable. 6.3 The previous refused scheme proposed a mansard or Dutch barn style of roof which was considered to be at odds with both the existing dwelling and the surrounding area in general. Consequently, it was considered given the rear extension would be visible from the adjacent lane it would be an inappropriate addition to the dwelling which would detract from the amenities of the surrounding area contrary to General Policy 2. 6.4 The new submission is in response to this refusal. The proposal again is a unique design in the area; however does propose pitched roofs to each of the side elevations. Consequently from the east and west of the site the proposal would appear as a pitched roofed extension. However the proposal does in fact have a flat roof, which is set below the existing ridgeline of the property. This aspect of the proposal would be most noticeable from the north of the site from Station Road. Whilst the design is not considered the most visually attractive design, it is considered this submission does adequately overcome the previous reason for refusal, which also replaces an existing flat roofed extension. Therefore it is considered the proposal complies with General Policy 2. 6.5 The balcony would create an open platform at first floor level, with timber posts, in filled with glazing. The balcony has been reduced in size from the last submission, where no objection was raised to its appearance or design. Therefore, again it is considered appropriate within the street scene. 6.6 Regarding impact upon residential amenities, the proposed balcony would potentially have the greatest impact, namely through overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. Views from the balcony to the northeast would be onto an area of public open space. To the north, views would be over the rear garden of the application site and towards the neighbouring property Poleacre. The neighbouring property would be 23 metres from the balcony and it should be noted the boundary treatment comprises of mature hedgerow/bushes. Both these factors would prevent any substantial overlooking from occurring from the proposed balcony. Views to the west towards Wenscot would be largely screened by the garage of Shenstone which runs along the shared boundary. It is judged that the balcony would not give rise to unacceptable overlooking. ### 7.0 Recommendation 7.1 It is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), and it is recommended that the application be approved. ### 8.0 Party Status 8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:- Michael Commissioners 8.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 13.03.2012 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : 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 approval relates to the alterations, installation of dormer windows and erection of first floor extension with balcony to dwelling as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings PII202 01 P2, PII202 02 P1 and PII202 03 P3 all received on 19th January 2012. C 3. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Permitted Date : 14/3/12 ### Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed : A. Nann Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager --- *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/2212-kirk-michael-shenstone-extension-dwelling/documents/1264423*