**Document:** Planning Officer Report **Application:** 12/00753/B — Erection of a single storey extension to replace existing store and conservatory **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2012-06-25 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2885-rushen-brookfield-replacement-extension/documents/1273155 --- # Planning Officer Report Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 31.05.2012 Site Visit: 31.05.2012 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation ## Officer's Report ### 1.0 The Application Site 1.1 The application forms the residential curtilage of Brookfield, Ballafesson Road, Port Erin which is a two storey detached dwelling, located on a corner plot with Ballafesson Road to the west and Marashen Crescent to the north. 1.2 The northern and eastern boundaries of the site comprises of a 1 metre high stone wall with a timber fence above (approx 1.8m total height). The southern boundary again comprises of a 1 metre high stone wall, but also the neighbouring flat roof garage (approx 2.5 metres in height) runs along part of the shared boundary. ### 2.0 Proposal 2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a single storey extension to replace existing store and conservatory. 2.2 The proposal utility room would be attached to the rear existing garage and would have a depth of 4 metres, a width of 2.7 metres and a maximum height of 4.8 metres (eaves height 2.8m). The proposal would incorporate the existing 1 metre high stone wall. The proposal also involves the erection of a lean-to roof above store which also continues above the existing garage, which currently has a monopitch roof set behind a front parapet wall. 2.3 The proposed rear extension which replaces the existing rear conservatory and store would be a cavity wall construction with a rear projection of 2.5 metres, a width of 6 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres (excluding roof lantern). The proposal would have three windows directly facing the rear boundary, which the proposal would retain a distance of 2.5 metres form. ### 3.0 Department Policies 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "existing residential", under the ort Erin Local Plan of 1990 and the Modified Draft Area Plan for the South. 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 being within a predominantly residential area and due to the proposed usage the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:- [Table omitted in markdown export] "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 application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 4.2 Installation of two rooflights and creation of hobbies room - 97/01528/B - APPROVED ### 5.0 Representations 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners and the Highway Division have no objection. 5.2 The Planning Authority has received no privately written representations objecting to the proposal. ### 6.0 Assessment 6.1 The main issue to consider is the visual impacts upon the street screen by the proposed developments and whether the proposals have a significant impact upon the neighbouring residential amenities, namely 'Shiloh' to the south and Nr 59 Marashen Crescent. 6.2 In terms of the visual amenities the aspect most apparent would be the installation of the lean-to roof above the existing garage to the south elevation. This would be apparent from Ballafesson Road. It is considered the lean-to roof design would be an improvement of the existing and beneficial to the visual amenities of the property and that of the street scene. 6.3 The other aspect of the proposal which would be apparent from public view would be the proposed rear extension (dining room). This would be apparent from Marashen Crescent, although due to the existing boundary treatment and semi-mature trees along the boundary, only the upper sections of the proposal would be partially apparent. It is considered the proposed rear extension with parapet wall with a roof lantern above would be a visual improvement over the existing rear conservatory and store. The proposal in terms of proportion, scale, finish and design would be in keeping with the existing property and an appropriate form of development. 6.4 The next issues to consider is whether the proposed works would significantly affect the residential amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. Generally there are three aspects to consider, potential overlooking, loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the outlook of neighbouring properties. In terms of the potential impacts upon 'Shiloh' to the south, the aspects of the development which would likely have the most potential impact would be the proposed lean-to roof above the existing garage and proposed utility extension. The proposed eaves level of the proposed roof would be approximately 2.8 metres from the northern gable end wall of the property 'Shiloh'. The highest point of the lean-to roof would be 5.5 metres away. Within this gable end wall there are a total of three windows (landing window, a small first floor window and a small attic window). The entrance for the property is also within this gable end wall. Overall, it is considered given the lean-to roof design (which gradually increase the further away from the gable end wall) and given the neighbouring gable ends windows are set at first floor level and above, the proposal would not have a significant impact upon residential amenities to warrant a refusal. 6.5 In terms of the potential impacts upon Nr 59 Marashen Crescent, it is considered the main aspect of the development would be the erection of the rear extension. The proposal would be positioned 2.5 metres from the rear boundary wall (1.8m high) and a further 8 metres to the rear elevation of Nr 59. Overall, it is considered given the height, design, distance from the rear elevation of Nr 59, the existing boundary treatment and given the proposal replaces an existing conservatory with also has directly facing windows within, it is considered the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the residential amenities of Nr 59 Marashen Crescent. ### 7.0 Recommendation 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 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 Erin 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: 22.06.2012 ### 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 erection of a single storey extension to replace existing store and conservatory as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 1569-01 and 1569-02 all received on 21st May 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 : 22/6/12 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed : [Handwritten signature] Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer Signed : [Blank] Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : [Blank] Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control 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/2885-rushen-brookfield-replacement-extension/documents/1273155*