Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00244/B Applicant: Miss Claire Stubbs Proposal: Alterations and extensions to dwelling and enlargement of existing on-site parking area and vehicular access Site Address: 3 Pairk Beg Port Erin Isle of Man IM9 6NH Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 06.04.2016 Site Visit: 06.04.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached bungalow situated to the southeastern side of the Pairk Beg cul-de-sac in Port Erin. The dwelling is no.3, and has a narrow, flat-roofed dormer window to the rear and a single flat-roofed garage to the northeastern side elevation. Its front elevation is flat with a pair of windows above brick detailing sitting either side of a central front door. - 1.2 The area is characterised by dwellings following a similar architectural form, with the majority having a dormer window (even if most of these are generally hidden from public view). Some dwellings, such as the southwestern neighbour, are turned 90 degrees to the highway.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for five specific alterations. Firstly, the existing rear dormer window is proposed to be replaced with a much wider unit, which would run almost the full width, and almost up to the ridgeline, of the existing roof. It would be clad in a vertically or horizontally brown uPVC material (apparently designed to replicate timber). There would be two windows: one would be central and in roughly the same position and of roughly a similar size as the existing window on the much narrower dormer, while there is also something of a picture window shown installed at the right-hand side when looking at the extension from the rear garden. - 2.2 Secondly, the existing flat-roofed garage would be extended to the rear, as would the dwelling in part, to provide a new utility room and family room. This would also all have a flat roof. The family room would open out over a new raised deck, which would sit roughly 0.5m above ground level, and which could also be accessed from the existing lounge, which is not proposed to be altered. The deck would be surrounded with timber guard rails. The wall to the extension would be finished in render. - 2.3 Thirdly, a new porch is proposed to the front elevation. This would have a pitched roof with a gable fronting onto the highway, and would be finished in render. - 2.4 The fourth alteration proposed is for the entirety of the existing dashed render to be replaced with a smooth render. - 2.5 Fifthly, a section of garden wall is proposed to be removed and the existing concrete drive extended into the garden along with the widening of the existing drop kerb: this is to provide a widened parking area, though it is to be noted that the garage is proposed for retention.
2.6 As originally submitted, the extensions included a mixture of contemporary and traditional materials - notably natural stone and timber cladding - but the applicants subsequently advised that these would be beyond their budget and pared back the application to the form described above. An amended plan was submitted demonstrating the above description and the application was readvertised accordingly.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Although the dwelling and those surrounding have been the subject of other applications, with those on adjacent land being really quite recent, none of these is considered to be directly material to the assessment of the current proposal.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The application site is in an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" on the Area Plan for the South 2013. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan, as well as paragraph 8.12.1 thereof.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal, requiring that the applicant enter into a Section 109 Agreement with respect to the proposed access widening. They requested this form a Planning condition on 03.03.2016, which is not possible as Section 109 Agreements are made under non-Planning-related legislation. - 5.2 Port Erin Commissioners resolved to support the application on 09.03.2016 and 03.08.2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The proposal raises a number of issues, most of which relate to public amenity and design considerations. - 6.2 In the first instance it must be borne in mind that the residential dwellings in the estate, of which 3 Pairk Beg is no exception, would be difficult to define as being of particularly attractive architecture. While the majority of alterations that have been made in the area in the past are fairly small in scale, they have tended towards the flat-roofed dormer or flat-roofed porch extension, none of which have really improved the appearance of the estate. Moreover, these alterations have tended to reflect the finish of the existing dwellings, through the use of uPVC cladding or dashed render, with the result being that the estate does not have a great deal of contemporary alterations evident even if there are a number of changes that have been (and continue to be) made in very recent times. - 6.3 All that being said, the estate is very much 'of its time', and the dwellings are all in good condition and sit neatly and proportionately on their plots. It is also true that the principle of extensions and / or alterations in this location is acceptable in the context of 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."
6.4 The test, then, is the extent to which the impact from the alterations proposed would be 'adverse', and, perhaps more importantly, the extent to which they would be unduly adverse. - 6.5 The original form of the application represented an interesting potential way forward. The use of contemporary styling and materials was welcome, and potentially offered a new way forward for alterations in this estate. However, the same simply cannot be said of that now proposed, which
6.6 The question then is the extent to which the dormer window's form and scale is appropriate in the context of the streetscene, and how adverse would the impact be. Dormer windows can be a divisive form of development, but the almost ubiquity of these in an area characterised by bungalows is such that it would be difficult to argue the proposal would be inappropriate for the streetscene or character of the area. It is noted that, despite the application being with the Department for some months, the only comments received demonstrate the support of the Commissioners. - 6.7 The streetscene, while certainly not characterised by dormer windows of this scale, does offer a number of smaller such units and also, nearby, some that are as large as that proposed here, and to the front of the dwelling as well. That which is proposed sits to the rear and would be visible primarily from distance (albeit that the cheeks would be very apparent from nearby), while the continuation of the existing side extension is, again, not likely to be especially visible. In this case, then, and very much on balance, it is considered that to object to the massing of the side extension and dormer window might be difficult to sustain at appeal. - 6.8 For the same reason, it is considered that the extensions are acceptable in terms of its impact on the dwelling itself. - 6.9 The porch proposed would bring some welcome differentiation to the front elevation of the property; it is of an appropriately subordinate size and scale and the gable frontage is a particularly positive feature in this respect.
6.9 In respect of the impacts on neighbouring living conditions, it is considered that the existing garage on the application site that runs alongside the boundary with no4 Pairk Beg already provides a degree of separation and will have an overbearing impact; the extension proposed to the rear is not going to materially add to this in a manner that would make the application unacceptable in this regard: the extra 2.2m of masonry that would run along this boundary would not make a great deal of difference to this existing, less-than-ideal situation. Moreover, this walling would have no windows and so there would be no loss of privacy resulting from the scheme. No objection is therefore raised on this point. - 7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Despite the concern discussed, it is equally considered that the impact of the proposals would not be unduly adverse in respect of their impact on the streetscene or dwelling as a whole. With this in mind, it is concluded that the key parts of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42, as well as that outlined in paragraph 8.12.1, of the Strategic Plan are met to a degree sufficient enough to not warrant an objection to the scheme. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.08.2016 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.
The development hereby approved relates to the following Drawings 1 and 2, both date-stamped as having been received 29th February 2016, and also to Drawing 3 Rev A, date-stamped as having been received 28th June 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 10.08.2016 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
