DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 20/01164/B Applicant: Gary Dudley & Pam Cain Proposal: Installation of front and rear dormers and widening of vehicle access Site Address: Grianane 21 Ballamillaghyn Estate Mount Rule Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4HX Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 18.11.2020 Site Visit: 18.11.2020 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.12.2020 _________________________________________________________________

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The layout of the access and visibility splays shall be in accordance with drawing nos. 02/A and 02A/A (Amended) received 7 December 2020 and shall remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

N 1. In order to provide the proposed accesses the developer will need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement with the Highway Authority.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to accord with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2019.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the Design Statement, and Drawing Nos. 01, 03, 04, 05, and 06 date stamped and received 7 October 2020; and 02/A and 02A/A received 7 December 2020.

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site represents the residential curtilage of 21 Ballamillaghyn, Braddan, an existing detached single storey dwelling situated within a small cluster of 30 similar sized and styled houses forming the small Ballamillagyhn Estate just north of Strang. The dwelling sits on a corner plot, on the west elevation is an existing driveway and attached garage. - 1.2 The western boundary and sections of the southern boundary are screened by 1.8m hedging, enclosed by an 800mm high boundary wall which runs along the entire western and southern boundary, only opening up at the vehicular access and pedestrian gate. The site has its front elevation facing south.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal seeks planning approval for Installation of front and rear dormers and widening of vehicle access. - 2.2 The works would involve:

• 2.2.1 The installation of two dormers windows on the front elevation of the dwelling. These flat roof dormers would be built off the existing roof structure, will be set back from the roof gable by 2.7m and would be 120mm below the existing roof ridge. The dormers which would be 3m wide would run 1.5m from below the ridge cap and extend towards the eaves. These works will provide better lighting to the bedroom and landing on the roof space. The dormers would feature white UPVC windows to match the existing windows on the dwelling and the dormer walls will be finished externally in painted smooth render to match existing dwelling. Two rooflights on the front elevation of the dwelling would be removed to enable the erection of the dormers.
• 2.2.2 The installation of a flat roof dormer on the rear elevation to serve as ensuite to the bedroom on the first floor. The proposed fibreglass dormer would be built off the existing roof structure, will be set back from the roof gable by 2.7m and would be 120mm below the existing roof ridge. The dormer would be 1.6m wide would run 1.5m from below the ridge cap and extend towards the eaves. It would feature white UPVC windows to match the existing windows on the dwelling and the dormer walls will be finished externally in painted smooth render to match existing dwelling.
• 2.2.3 Extension of the access to the existing driveway to make it more usable for the two onsite parking spaces within the curtilage. This element of the scheme would increase the width of the access by 4m as sections of the low boundary wall on this section of the site boundary would be removed. The dropped kerb would be extended to enable easy exit and entry of vehicles to/from the site. The removed brickwork would be used to create a new pier with concrete coping to match the existing (to be 1m high to line with existing height of wall).
• 2.2.4 Creating a hardstanding area on the southeast end of the site to create a third parking area within the curtilage. This will take up sections of the front garden of the property and would have a footprint of about 24.67sqm. In addition, a 4.2m section of the existing low boundary wall on this boundary of the site would be removed. The removed brickwork would be used to create a new pier with concrete coping to match the existing (to be 850mm high to line with existing height of wall).

2.3 Additional works will include the removal of the existing chimney stack on the rear roof pane.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site is within an area designated on the Braddan Local Plan 1991 as 'Predominantly Residential', given the nature of the proposals the following policies from the IOM Strategic Plan are considered relevant in the assessment of the application: - 3.2 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:

• 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;

• n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan (IOMSP) is also useful when it comes to assessing this application: "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." - 3.4 The Residential Design Guide 2019 also provides guides to facilitate the assessment of extensions to dwellings.

• 3.4.1 Paragraph 3.2.2

• 3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach - as set out on the next page.

• 3.4.2 Section 4.6: Dormer Extensions
• 4.6.1 Dormer extensions are often problematic as they can adversely affect the character and appearance of both the individual property and the wider street scene. Unless they are for nonhabitable rooms such as bathrooms with obscured glazing, they can also create overlooking. They are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or street scene.

• 4.6.2 There are various types, and applicants should consider which is most appropriate for their house. Traditional properties should avoid having flat roof dormers, as pitched roofed dormers may be more appropriate. Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge. Therefore they are only generally appropriate on more modern properties (1960/70's bungalows) and/or properties where the area is characterised by houses with flat roofed dormers. Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact.

• 4.6.3 The position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications and as such there are no previous applications that are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following Comments regarding the application in a letter dated 2 November 2020:

The widening of the existing access is acceptable on extending the dropped crossing of the footway; although the visibility splay are drawn incorrectly for a paired side by side driveway, the proposal is unlikely to give rise to safety hazards given that it does not worsen the current situation and the low flows and speeds on vegetation being cut back or removed to a height no exceeding 1.05m. 2 x 17m splays would be acceptable in each direction.

The proposed creation of a new access dropped crossing of the footway would be acceptable on moving the access towards the existing path to gain greater off set and lines of sight from the neighbours. As drawn, the proposed exit visibility splays are substandard with 2m x 17m necessary in each direction at a height no exceeding 1.05m. That to the east would cross the neighbours land and is obstructed by vegetation. Alternatively, for the Applicant to secure a third party agreement with the neighbours to ensure that visibility can be achieved and retained. That to the right should be maximised to the bend and is achievable on lowering / removing vegetation. The hardstanding is of acceptable size given the other existing entry points. Its surface water should drain into the site.

The modification to the existing access and the creation of a new one would require a separate s109(A) Highway Agreement post planning consent.

Accordingly, there are reservations on safety grounds over the creation of the new access; although there is adequate space to achieve it, the visibility splays on exit require amendment to reduce obstruction from vegetation and avoid third party involvement. The extension of the existing access is acceptable. Recommendation: O - Revisions

• 5.1.1 Having reviewed the revised plans submitted by the applicants, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following revised comments in a letter dated 10 December 2020:

The proposed revisions are acceptable from the highway viewpoint, to provide:

• o Adequate exit visibility splays for driver to driver and driver to pedestrian at a 2m setback at the centre of the accesses and driveways.
• o A 2m offset for the additional driveway from the neighbouring boundary. All the following are of an acceptable size:
• o the extension to, and creation of, the dropped crossing of the footways
• o hardstanding of the driveways are. Surface water should be drained into the site.

The works in the highway to widened the existing and proposed new accesses and dropped crossings of the footway require a separate s109(A) Highway Agreement post planning consent.

As drawn now, the proposal is satisfactory and does not raise significant highway safety or network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services withdraws its opposition to this proposal and raises no objection subject to conditions to cover the layout of the accesses in accordance with the revised Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No's: 02A. An advisory to apply for the S109(A) Highway Agreement. Recommendation: DNOC

5.2 Braddan Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the planning application in a letter dated 30 October 2020. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the application are whether the proposals would result in any visual harm to the character and appearance of the property and streetscene, whether there would be any impacts on the amenities of the neighbours and whether the proposed scheme would impact on highway safety.

6.2 Visual impact

• 6.2.1 Firstly, the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene is to be considered. Although this proposal must of course be assessed on its own merits, flat roof dormer windows already exist within the street scene on Ballamillaghyn Estate. It is considered that the front dormer windows proposed would not be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene since the dormers are set back significantly from the roof eave, in addition to being set about 100mm below the roof ridge and as such are not dominating. Bearing in mind the relatively modern, non-traditional nature of the area, it is considered that any negative impact on the character and appearance of the street scene would be minimal as the front dormers would seamlessly be integrated into the setting on Ballamillaghyn Estate.

• 6.2.2 With regard to the rear dormer, the position on the rear roof pane (almost centrally located) and the scale of the dormer would ensure it remains subordinate to the overall roof and would sits comfortably within the roof scape. The dormer being at the rear of the building, twinned with the positioning of the property in relation to the road, places it in a position where it would not be prominent from the public highway. Besides, this dormer would be read within the context of the residential property (which has a considerably large flat roofed section) and the context of the surrounding street scene. Therefore, this aspect of the proposal is deemed to be an acceptable form of development that is proportionate to the dwellinghouse and complies with General Policy 2(b) & (c).

6.3 Neighbouring amenities

• 6.3.1 With regard to overlooking from the dormers, specifically towards the adjoining neighbour at the rear, views would be out and over the 2.2m hedging at the boundary with the neighbouring dwellinghouse at the rear, with limited views to the rear garden as a result of the boundary treatment. As well, the rear dormer will serve an ensuite which will not result in unacceptable overlooking of property which is sensitive to any intrusion into its privacy. Besides, the property at the rear has a first floor window that has views to the rear of the application site. In this case, and because of the separating distance is approximately 19.3m between the rear of both residential properties, the proposal would not exacerbate the current situation with regard to overlooking towards the neighbours at the rear. In this case the rear dormer extension would be considered compliant with General Policy 2(g).

• 6.3.2 With regard to the impact of the front formers on neighbouring amenity, it is not considered that there would be any impact on the neighbours given that the proposed dormers on the front elevation would be more than 22m from the front elevation of these neighbouring dwellings.

6.4 Impact on Highway Safety

• 6.4.1 With regard to the access alterations, the issues in this case are whether the proposed hard surfacing will adversely affect the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area and also whether there would be any adverse impact on highway safety from the proposal.

• 6.4.2 It can sometimes be the case that an excessive amount of hardstanding for vehicular parking can undermine the attractiveness of an area, particularly where properties are in limited sized plots and/or where there is already a preponderance of vehicular parking and hard standing areas. In this case, however, the frontage and side of the property is fairly large with generous amount of grass and some planting. To increase this area of paving will increase the amount of hard standing area although the altered garden space is smaller when compared to the green area. This expansion of the parking area would constitute less than 50% of the existing front garden and will not impact negatively on the character of the frontage or the surrounding area. As such, the proposed change complies with section 6.3.4 of the RDG 2019.

• 6.4.3 Similarly, the changes to the driveway and on-site parking area, as well as the addition of the single parking area on the south would comply with Section 11.6 of the 'Manual for Manx Roads' design standards, and would not impact on the pedestrian access to the dwelling. The low boundary wall and the slope angle of the driveway, as well as the achievable visibility will not create safety challenges for vehicles entering or leaving the site; thus ameliorating any challenges to highway safety resulting from the alterations. In conclusion, the provision of additional vehicle parking on site will decrease the number of vehicles parked on the highway, thereby improving highway safety.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan, and as such it is recommended that the application be approved. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 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 above 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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 15.12.2020 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer 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.