Loading document...
Application No.: 18/01005/B Applicant: Mr Stephen Jackson Proposal: Erection of a rear extension Site Address: Sound Of The Falls 5 Hamilton Terrace Lower Foxdale Isle Of Man IM4 3BB Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken: 21.11.2018 Site Visit: 21.11.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.11.2018 _________________________________________________________________
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.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the plans and drawings date stamped as having been received 21.09.18 _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 SITE - 1.1 The property is at the end of a terrace of three houses, with an access lane adjacent. It is stone built (painted to the rear). To the rear is a full width half height dormer which provided additional headroom to the 1st floor. The rear garden contains outbuildings and is fenced. There is a low wall with a fence on top of it on the boundary between this and the adjoining property. The property at the other end of the terrace has what appears to be an extension. The ground slopes up to the rear of the houses.
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a full width (4.9m) single storey flat roof dormer (including sky light) with sliding doors to the rear which would provide wheelchair access. There would be no windows in the wide elevations. It would be cement rendered and painted white. The extension would be 2.8m high and 3.3m long. It would be a less than 50% increase in the overall existing floor area (ground and 1st) of the property. The proposal appears to all of the boundary wall and therefore may technically be on the neighbouring site, however this is a civil matter between the property owners.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area which is not designated for development but is recognised as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 which is the relevant land use classification document approved for this area. - 3.2 As such there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and
3.3 In this case the property has some traditional characteristics and as such it would be most appropriate to consider the proposed extension under the provisions of HP 15.
3.4 General Policy 2 sets out broad 'Development Control' considerations, including impact on neighbouring properties. - 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY The previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Patrick Commissioners confirm no objection (09.10.18). - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The relevant considerations in this case are whether the proposed extension is acceptable in terms of it visual impact and effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and secondly, whether there is any impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring property.
6.2 The proposed extension would be mainly visible from the rear, where it would be read against the backdrop of the existing houses. The presence of other extensions and outbuildings mean that in broad terms it would not look out of place. Nor would it be likely to have a significant negative impact on the wider countryside or landscape. - 6.3 Where an extension is close to (i.e. around 1 metre from) a boundary, a single storey extension should generally not project more than 3 metres from the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. Further than this, the extension greatly increases the likelihood of adversely affecting the light to and outlook from the neighbouring property. A "tunnelling effect" can also be caused where windows are set back behind extensions projecting out either side. Setting an extension in from the boundary can help reduce problems of loss of daylight.
6.4 In this case, to one side an access land separates the application site from their neighbour and as such there are no concerns. However, it is noted that to the other side the next door but one property already has an extension, increasing the potential for a tunnelling effect on the middle property. Although the extension is slightly over 3m (3.3) and is on the boundary, the constrained nature of the site and existing size of the property suggest setting the extension to one side may not be practicable. Furthermore, given the presence of an existing wall/fence it is considered unlikely that the outlook of the neighbouring property would be significantly adversely affected by the proposal sufficient to warrant a refusal. It is noted that a 2m high fence could be built under Permitted Development, and so the extension is only 0.8m higher than this. - 6.5 The proposal will not increase the number of bed spaces or reduce the amount of parking provision available on site.
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:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 22.11.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
