**Document:** DEC Officer Report
**Application:** 19/01415/B — Alterations and creation of balcony to rear elevation
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2020-02-19
**Parish:** Andreas
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/12497-andreas-ballakaneen-chapel-balcony/documents/991921

---

# DEC Officer Report

## PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

**Application No.:** 19/01415/B
**Applicant:** Miss Michelle Garrod
**Proposal:** Alterations and creation of balcony to rear elevation
**Site Address:** Ballakaneen Chapel Andreas Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4EN Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer
**Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee
**Recommended Decision:** Permitted
**Date of Recommendation:** 10.02.2020 _________________________________________________________________

## 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s):

Overall it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as such the planning application is recommended for approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 433/1/1, 433/2/2, 433/1/3, 433/2/4 and 433/2/P all date stamped as received on 19th December 2019.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

## Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Ballakaneen Chapel, Andreas Road, Andreas which is a converted chapel situated to the eastern side of Andreas Road within the village of Andreas.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of glazed porch on front of building to replace timber portico. The proposal would have a front projection of 3m, a width of 3m and a ridge height of 3.6m. The extension would include a dwarf wall with uPVC framing with glazing (windows/door) above with a solid roof. - 2.2 It should be noted that there does not appear to be any permission for the existing timber portico which is proposed to be replaced by this application.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is within an area of 'residential use', under Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is neither within a Conservation Area nor within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 3.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:- - 3.3 General Policy 2 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 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."

3.4 Environment Policy 34 states: "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred." - 3.5 Residential Design Guide July 2019 states: "HOUSEHOLDER EXTENSIONS

## - 3.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

- 3.0.1 House extensions are one of the most common forms of development. Individually and cumulatively extensions can have a significant impact on the quality of the built environment. When altering or extending buildings in order to modernise, adapt, enlarge or extend them the overall character and form of the buildings and spaces around them are affected. Guidance is therefore required to provide advice as to what is acceptable in planning terms.
- 3.0.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IOMSP) indicates that generally house extensions and new houses within areas designated for development will be permitted, providing that they reflect and enhance the appearance of the existing property, adjoining properties, and their setting in terms of scale, design and materials. However, there are a substantial number of detailed issues that need to be taken into account in designing domestic extensions. This section provides general guidance on issues that are likely to apply to all forms of extensions, and then more detailed additional advice in relation to different potential types of extensions.
- 3.0.3 The main design elements that should be considered include:

- the relationship to the original part of the building - including materials, design and detailing (such as window materials and proportions);

- o the relationship with adjoining properties, including the building line, roof line,
- orientation, and the slope of the site; and o the pitch, shape and materials of the original roof, including the presence of original dormers and chimneys.

- 3.0.4 All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/main building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, welljudged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed, as the Department does not wish to restrict creative designs where they can be integrated successfully into their context. Such approaches, where well designed, can serve to both improve the sustainability of buildings and significantly improve the appearance of buildings to the general benefit of the streetscene.
- 3.0.5 However, where inappropriately designed, located and finished, such approaches can be harmful to the character of a building and its surrounds, and become a local eyesore. Therefore, in some cases, modern design approaches will not be the most appropriate solution and the character and form of the building and its context may require a more traditional and reserved design approach.
- 3.0.6 It should also be accepted that in some instances it may not be possible to design an acceptable extension due to the sensitivity of the site, limited space, or the relationship with neighbouring dwellings."

"ROOF TERRACES, BALCONIES, DECKING AND PATIOS These can add a welcome amenity to a dwelling as long as the scale, design and materials complement the character of the property, whether it is traditional or modern.

In most instances, roof terraces on terraced or semi-detached properties are unlikely to be acceptable. For detached properties they can be acceptable where they are carefully designed to avoid unreasonable overlooking of neighbouring properties (including gardens). Large separation distances to neighbouring boundaries and habitable room windows will help to avoid such issues. Strategically placed solid screens/obscure glazed screens/slatted shutter screens may sometimes help where it is not otherwise possible to avoid overlooking. However, the use of such screens needs to be combined with careful design as such screening may result in a loss of light and/or be an overbearing and dominating feature to the outlook of the neighbouring properties/street scene. Balconies should not result in views into the rear windows of neighbouring properties at a distance of less than 20 metres.

Additional consideration should also be given to the potential visual impact upon the street scene and the individual dwelling. A projecting balcony can result in an alien and top heavy feature, particularly at first floor level or above. Thought should be given to minimising the visual impact of such an addition with regard to the size, projection and materials. Balconies should be designed to complement the proportions and character of the property and should be in line with windows on the original house.

Raised decking, terraces or patios that are higher than 0.3 metres require a specific planning approval. It is a requirement to ensure that neighbours' privacy is maintained by installing screening (fence, hedge etc.) that reaches the height of 1.8m above ground level. Screening will only be appropriate if it does not cause loss of light and/or be overbearing to an adjoining property. These areas should be designed sensibly in order to avoid dominance at the front boundary of a property. Large areas of decking are unlikely to be supported at the side or front of a property."

## - 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There have been a number of previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: - 4.2 Erection of glazed porch on front of building to replace timber portico - 19/01316/B was refused on the following grounds: "R 1. The proposed extension in terms of its form, siting, design and finish would adversely affect the character and quality of the converted chapel building and therefore be contrary to General Policy 2 & Environment Policy 34 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide July 2019." - 4.3 Replacement of existing windows, additional new windows and canopy over new front door (Amendments to previously approved 01/02027/B) - 02/00809/B - Split decision with the proposed canopy being refused on the following ground: "The proposed canopy would appear as a discordant feature and would be out of keeping with the building." - 4.4 Amendments to approved chapel conversion 01/02027B (b) raising of eaves height 03/00620/B - APPROVED - 4.5 Conversion of former chapel to dwelling - 01/02027/B - APPROVED - 4.6 Conversion of former chapel to dwelling including conservatory and car port 00/01967/B - REFUSED on the following ground: "R1. The alterations to the building as proposed, and in particular the proposed dormers, windows, balcony and patio doors, porch and conservatory, would result in a dwelling of nontraditional appearance which would be out of keeping in a prominent location on the edge of the village.

NOTE: This refusal is without prejudice to an application which proposes conversion works that are sympathetic to the appearance of the existing building."

## - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services have no objection to the application (received on 07.01.2020). - 5.2 Andreas Parish Commissioners do not object (03.02.2020).

## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues to considerer in the assessment of this planning application are firstly the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene; and secondary the potential impact upon neighbouring residents. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE - 6.2 The proposed works would not be prominent features in the wider street scene, with perhaps only fleeting public views from the Andreas Road to the north or south given the works are located to the rear elevation and the siting of neighbouring properties to the north and sought. Accordingly, the development in terms of potential impact upon the street scene it is considered the proposal would be acceptable. - 6.3 In relation to the potential impact upon the character and quality of the existing property, it is acceptable that the removal of the lean-to roof of the rear outrigger is unfortunate. However, while the works proposed could be argued not be fully in keeping with the property, their modest size and location to the rear of the property and being an alteration to the rear outrigger rather than the main building, it is considered overall on balance to be acceptable and would still ensure the character and quality of the original Chapel building is retained and the liner form of the building would also be retained. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTS - 6.4 The proposals will have the most impact upon the neighbouring properties immediately to the north (Ballacottier House) and south (Balameesh). The main issue is whether the creation of a raised balcony, would have an adverse impact, namely by having resulting in a loss of privacy by overlooking. The amount of physical works proposed and their design raise no issues in terms of having an overbearing impact and/or loss of light. - 6.5 In terms to the impact upon Ballacottier House there are no directly facing windows within the southern elevation of this property. Furthermore, there is a private lane which runs between the two properties in question. Overall, while the proposal would potential increase the level of overlooking towards the driveway of this property and to a lesser extent the front garden of this property, it is not considered the potential impact would be so sufficient to warrant a refusal. - 6.6 The impact to Balameesh arguable has the potential to have a greater impact. Again there are no windows within the northern gable end of this property (which faces towards site). Accordingly, give this and the position of the balcony in relation to Balameesh, there would not be any significant overlooking into the property itself. There is the potential for additional overlooking of the front garden of this property, albeit this already occurs from the main southern windows with the main Chapel building which have direct views over the front garden. There are also clear views over the front garden from the adjacent public highway. Accordingly, given the size of the balcony, obscure glazing proposed (when a person is sat down their views outside the balcony would likely be screen) and given the existing front garden of Balameesh does not have a high level of privacy to begin with, it is considered in this instance the proposal would be acceptable.

## - 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as such the planning application is recommended for approval. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

- (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
- (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;

- (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
- (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
- (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…17.02.2020

Signed :…………C BALMER………….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

---

*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/12497-andreas-ballakaneen-chapel-balcony/documents/991921*