**Document:** Planning Officer Report **Application:** 12/00503/B — Alterations and extension to dwelling **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2012-05-16 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2636-rushen-known-as-25-extension-dwelling/documents/1270002 --- # Planning Officer Report ### Officer's Report [Table omitted in markdown export] #### 1.0 The Application Site 1.1 The application forms the residential curtilage of 25 Perwick Road (Known As 25 Perwick Bay), Port St. Mary which is a single storey detached bungalow located on the north-western side of Perwick Road. #### 2.0 Proposal 2.1 The application seeks approval for alterations and extension to dwelling. There are three extension proposed, the first is a side extension (replacing existing garage) forming a garage and hallway which has a width of 5.9 metres, a depth of 7.1 metres and a height of 4.3 metres. The second extension is the proposed rear extension which would have a rear projection from the main dwellinghouse of 6.3 metres, a width of 10.2 metres and a maximum height of 3.6 metres. The third is to the side elevation replacing an existing flat roofed sun roof with an extension which has a width of 2.7 metres, a depth of 6.1 metres and a ridge height of 4.4 metres. #### 3.0 Department Policies 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "residential use", under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 3.2 Under the Modified Draft Area Plan for the South the application site is within an area recognised as being "residential use". The site is not proposed to be within a Conservation Area. 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 following previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 4.2 Erection of front porch and external alterations - 97/00691/B - APPROVED ### 5.0 Representations 5.1 Port St Mary Commissioners and the highway division have no objection to the proposal. ### 6.0 Assessment 6.1 The main issues to consider are whether the proposed scheme would have a significant visual impact upon the street scene and would the proposal have an adverse impact upon residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, namely Nr 24 and Nr 26 Perwick Road. 6.2 In terms of the side extensions, these extensions would be the aspects of the proposals which would be most apparent from public view. The proposed design, finish and proportions match the existing dwelling house and therefore an appropriate form of developments when viewed within the street scene. The rear extension does not follow the lines of the existing property, but more contemporary in design. The proposal is a flat roofed box with a large expanse of glazing, and with a roof lantern above. Due to the height of the existing dwelling house and the proposed side extension, the proposed rear extension would not be apparent from public view. Therefore, whilst the proposal is not in keeping with the existing property, it is considered this contemporary design would be acceptable in this location. 6.3 The next issue to considered is whether the proposal would impact upon the neighbouring amenities (loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking), namely Nr 24 and Nr 26 Perwick Road. 6.4 In terms of loss of light and overbearing impacts it is considered given the size, height and distance from the neighbouring properties, the proposals would not have an impact from these aspects. 6.5 The main issue is whether the proposed corner window within the north-western elevation (side), which looks towards Nr 24, would introduce an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the occupants through overlooking. However, there is an existing hedgerow which would help limit overlooking. A further consideration is the impact of the proposed side garage extension upon Nr 26. The submission would involve a greater amount of built development along the shared boundary. The boundary treatment consists of an approximate 2 metre high timber fence. The neighbouring properties floor level appears to above the floor level of the application site. It is also important to note there is only one gable end window (first floor attic window) within the southwest of the neighbouring property (Nr26) which faces towards the proposed extension. It is considered given the height, design and footprint of the extension, the existing boundary treatment and given the existing built development (garage), the proposal would not have significant impacts upon the residential amenities of Nr 26 to warrant a refusal. ### 7.0 Recommendation 7.1 Overall, the proposal would comply with relevant policy as stated within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan for the reasons given and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved. ### 8.0 Party Status 8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status: Port St Mary 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: 14.05.2012 ### 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 and extension to dwelling as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 1740 01, 1740 01 P01, 1740 01 P02 and 1740 01 P03 E all received on 30th March 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 : 14/5/12 ### Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed : [Handwritten signature] Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer Signed : [Blank] Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : [Blank] Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : [Blank] 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/2636-rushen-known-as-25-extension-dwelling/documents/1270002*