Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00917/B Applicant: Miss Jannette France Proposal: Erection of a front porch to replace existing canopy Site Address: 10 Ballanawin Strang Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4NR Head of Development Management: Miss Jennifer Chance Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.12.2018 _________________________________________________________________
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.
The drawing relevant to this decision are: the location plan and 411/1/3 and 411/1/4. All date stamped as received 28th August 2018. NB. plan 411/1/3 incorrectly refers to a conservatory.
Additional Persons The occupier of 11 Ballanawin, Strang Road. _____________________________________________________________________________
18/00917/B Page 1 of 5
1.0 SITE - 1.1 Ballanawin is a street built in the late 1980s and made up of semi-detached and terraced properties set back at differing distances from the road. No.10 is a mid terrace that sits higher than its neighbour at no.11. The front doors in the street have a canopy over them.
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 It is proposed to remove the canopy and replace it with a porch. The porch would measure 1.8m by 1.1m
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General Policy 2 (GP2) seeks inter-alia that development respects the site and surrounds in terms of scale form and design and does not adversely affect the amenity of local residents.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY None of relevance. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services (28.9.18): No highways impact. - 5.2 Braddan Parish Council (14.9.18): No objection. - 5.3 11 Ballanawin (27.09.18): The occupiers of the neighbouring property object to the application on the grounds that the porch with its side wall of 1.1m and being 2.7m high and being located to the south of their front door would impact on their right to light and result in a loss of direct sunlight reaching the front wall and windows of their home. They are also concerned that the greater area of pitched roof would increase the volume of water overflowing onto their external areas at the front of their premises and could create a flood threat to the interior of their home. They believe that access to read the meter would be hindered and that this could create future issues for the sale of either property as a deed of easement would be required. They indicate that the plan 411/1/13 indicates a proposed conservatory but none is shown and this raises concerns that they may not be able to view the plans for a conservatory and this could impact on the value of their home. They also feel that the proposal would have a negative impact on the uniformity of the houses in the street.
6.1 The main considerations in the determination of this proposal are the effect on the character and appearance of the street scene and its impact on the neighbouring property. - 6.2 Although none of the other properties in the street have replaced their canopy with a porch, it is considered that the proposal would not appear discordant in the street scene. The houses do not sit in a uniform position, some are closer to the road than others, and all are at different heights. The properties opposite have garages that protrude slightly forward of the main elevations and as such there is variety and rhythm in street. Furthermore there is landscaping within the front gardens which interrupts the view of the front of the houses. Consequently the introduction of the porch would not be readily apparent - 6.3 It is concluded that there would be no undue impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
18/00917/B Page 2 of 5
6.4 In terms of its impact on the neighbouring property, it does sit SSE of its neighbour at no11 and at a higher level. The concerns of the neighbour are noted; however it is not considered that there would be any undue loss of light. The porch is small both in depth and height and consequently any loss of direct sunlight would be for a very short period of time during the day. The proposal would not noticeably impact on daylight. It is also noted that the front door of the property is of solid construction so the impact would be on the glazing to the side of it. - 6.5 In terms of increased run-off, the existing canopy is 1.8 wide and 850mm deep. The proposed roof would be 2.1m wide and 1.3m deep. Consequently it is considered that there is unlikely to be any discernible increase in water run off. - 6.6 The objectors concerns in relation to the location of the meter and the incorrect annotation referring to a conservatory are noted. The first is not a planning matter and the second is an error, no proposed conservatory is shown on the drawings and therefore this application does not seek to determine such.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposal is considered acceptable in accordance with the designation within the Local Area Plan and the appropriate policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
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:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
The neighbour at no11, clearly occupies land within 20m of the application site and has made representations in respect of their living conditions and flood risk and consequently should be awarded interested person status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation. Decision Made : Permitted Date : 17.12.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
18/00917/B Page 3 of 5
18/00917/B Page 4 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
