Officer Report

Application No.: 18/01150/B Applicant: Mr David Smith & Mrs Roseleen Smith Proposal: Alterations and erection of a first floor extension to dwelling Site Address: Ard Aalin Pinfold Hill Laxey Isle of Man IM4 7HW Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken: 22.11.2018 Site Visit: 22.11.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.12.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The cumulative size, form and design of the proposed development is considered detrimental to the visual amenity of the site and character of the locality to an unacceptable degree, contrary to General Policy 2 (b,c&g). - R 2. The extension, primarily due to its height, length and proximity to the boundary with the dwelling to the immediate north, would adversely affect the outlook from that property and result in an overbearing effect. In this respect, the proposal is at odds with General Policy 2 (g). _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 'Ard Aalin', Pinfold Hill, Laxey. Pinfold Hill is characterised by detached single and two storey houses sited on a steep incline with views out over the coast. The style of properties in this area is architecturally varied. The houses along the side of Pinfold Hill, including the site, are accessible from the main road visa steps leading to the front of the building, and from the rear on Pinfold Lane. - 1.2 The site itself consists of a bungalow, halfway between Pinfold Hill and Pinfold Lane, with a garage above on Pinfold Lane - featuring similar render and slate roof finish as the main dwelling.

1.3 The bungalow of Ard Aalin has a hipped roof, with uPVC windows, and hedging/shrubbery surrounding. There are two existing flat roof extensions on both the north and south side elevations which have been constructed in recent years. There is also a glazed porch on the rear elevation.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed are a number of alterations and extension to the dwelling to provide a habitable first floor containing two bedrooms, a bathroom and a sitting room. The additional floor space would total 72m2. - 2.2 The extension would take the form of an increase in roof height by 1.3m, with a change from a hipped roof style to gabled pitched roof, incorporating a first floor window at either gable wall first floor. In addition, three flat roof dormer windows of varying sizes are proposed for the rear which would feature swish planking to match the colour of the existing roof. - 2.3 A total of four pitched dormers are proposed for the front elevation, two smaller single window dormers to the right (facing), a larger dormer with Juliet balcony to the left (facing) and a one aligned with the existing front elevation in the centre. The central part is proposed to feature a window/door installation running the length of the 2 floors. The two larger front dormers would sit close to the ridge of the roof in height. The existing north extension will be built up to the level of the rest of the dwelling. - 2.4 All additional walling will be finished in painted sand cement render to match the existing, and dark colour interlocking roof tiles. All proposed apertures would feature uPVC frames.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Planning Approval has been granted on this site in the past:

• o 10/00054/B - Alterations and erection of extensions to dwelling house. These extensions are featured on either end of the house as existing.
• o 06/01532/B - Erection of a replacement garage.

3.2 An enforcement case was opened due to the replacement garage (06/01532/B) being taller than approved. - 3.3 There are is no other planning history which is considered materially relevant to this application.

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The Laxey and Lonan Local Plan 2005 designates the site as within an area zoned for Residential use. - 4.2 Due to the land use designation, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 applies (in part). "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:

• (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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;"

4.3 It is also important to have regard to Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan: "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing

property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Garff Commissioners have no objection to the application (23.11.18). - 5.2 Highway Services indicate that there is no highways interest in this application (16.11.18).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In considering an extension such as this in a residential area, it important to have specific regard to potential impacts on neighbours and their amenity, and the appearance of both the site itself and the street scene or character of the area. - 6.2 Impact on Neighbours

• 6.2.1 The key considerations in terms of impact on neighbours are risks of overshadowing and/or overlooking and loss of privacy to dwellings within 20 metres.
• 6.2.2 When the 20m criteria is applied, the only properties likely to be directly impacted by these proposals are the properties directly adjacent to the north and south of the site. Given the topography of the area and separating distances, the houses to the front (east) and rear (west) are not likely to be impacted by any part of the proposals. Additionally, the existing garage on the site provides screening between the site dwelling and properties to the rear on Pinfold Lane.
• 6.2.3 The dwelling directly to the south of the site sits within 2 metres of the site boundary and would be closest in proximity to the proposed alterations. In terms of overlooking, there would be one addition window on the new first floor with outlook directly towards the gable wall of this property. Overlooking impact would be somewhat limited by the lack of habitable room windows on that elevation, although some overlooking may result into the neighbouring garden area.
• 6.2.4 Regarding the property to the north, there is approximately 7 metres between it and the site dwelling. This dwelling sits slightly lower than the site in ground level terms. Direct overlooking would potentially result from:

• a) The separation distance of well under 20 metres
• b) The lack of screening between boundaries - limited to a low hedge either side of a narrow public walkway

• 6.2.5 The dormers to the rear and front elevations would not adversely impact neighbours in terms of overlooking, again, due to the distances and topography of the area.
• 6.2.6 Due to the heights of the property and surrounding properties, and their north-south alignment, it is not considered that any overshadowing would occur as a result of the proposals.
• 6.2.7 The height of the roof, and the proximity of the first floor gable, would increase insomuch as to cause an overbearing effect on the adjacent dwelling to the north of the site and would therefore have an adverse impact on neighbour amenity.

6.3 Impact on Appearance of the Dwelling and the Street Scene

• 6.3.1 At present, the dwelling of Ard Aalin is a modest bungalow which features semi-modern styling and design. There are a number of aspects of the proposal which would significantly alter the appearance of the dwelling.

• 6.3.2 Whilst there is no general objection to an increase in the size of the dwelling, or its appearance, the use of several varying sizes of dormer window to both the front and rear elevations would result in an unsympathetic building at odds with its surroundings and adjacent building. The front dormer proposals would feature pitched roofs which would fit well with the site and area, however would be more acceptable if kept to a smaller size and at the same height in relation to the roof ridge.
• 6.3.3 The central rear dormer window would be out of keeping with the other two on the rear, and would not fit with the overall form of the dwelling due to both its size and face directly touching the eaves.
• 6.3.4 Overall, the proposals are out of keeping with the character and form of the site and surrounding area and would not comply with GP2 (b,c&g).

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the aforementioned policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for refusal on this basis. - 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 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 : Refused Date: 11.12.2018 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

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.