Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00572/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Graham Dale Proposal: Erection of a rear extension to dwelling Site Address: 8 Glen Maye Park Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3AX Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 15.06.2016 Site Visit: 15.06.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 8 Glen Maye Park, a two-storey dwelling roughly 10 years of age and situated at the end of a cul-de-sac of dwellings all sharing a similar architectural language. - 1.2 There is a single-storey side element topped with a monopitched roof that angles down from the side gable of the main dwelling, and the rear elevation of this matches that of the main dwelling. To the rear, the property has a curiously 'blank' appearance owing to its undifferentiated finish and fenestration, provided to some degree by the fairly lengthy building line here. - 1.3 The dwelling is sited between two neighbouring dwellings of similar form and mass, but both of which are angled away: each faces onto the turning circle forming the end of the cul-de-sac. To the rear the land falls steeply away - including within the gardens - and although there are some mature and semi-mature trees here there remain long-distance views over the countryside to the west.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for a single storey extension to the rear of the property. This would be of an almost pan-handle shape and run the full width of the dwelling to the rear. The projecting element would have a pitched roof above a gable, which would be almost fully glazed; the remainder would have a monopitched roof angled down from the rear of the dwelling, albeit a short section (0.7m) would extend outwards from the rear elevation and would be flat. This section of the extension would also have what appear to be either bi-folding or sliding doors formed of five floor-to-ceiling glass panels. Further, owing to the understandable desire to avoid the roof conflicting with a first floor window, the ridge of the projecting gable sits slightly lower than the point at which the existing single storey element joins the side elevation of the dwelling. Also shown is a new flue. This would extend up from the extension flush with the rear elevation of the dwelling, and would measure roughly 15cm in width: it would be 'kinked' at its upper end to negotiate the eaves of the dwelling, above which it would extend for roughly 35cm. Discussion with Building Control has concluded that this is acceptable from their point of view. - 2.2 In terms of size, the projecting gable element would be 4.6m deep from the rear building line, while the remainder would be 3.3m deep. The former element would be 5.4m in width, the latter 6.5m. The roofs of the extension would, overall, be fitted with some nine rooflights, while the

• finishes would be smooth render and Marley modern tiling to match the existing; the windows and doors would be white effect uPVC.
• 2.3 An additional drawing showing a projecting terrace, approved under a separate application (see below), was provided. There was a lack of clarity as to how the two applications would or could be implemented alongside one another, and this drawing is helpful in reaching a conclusion on this. The drawing was only for office information and so was not circulated - it does, however, supersede the originally submitted proposed plan and elevation drawing; it is also noted that the applicant spoke with his neighbours before submitting both applications, and no objections have been received to date.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Planning approval was granted for the erection of a porch on front and installation of patio doors to replace existing window on rear elevation under PA 05/00003/B; both have been undertaken. - 3.2 Full planning approval was recently granted for engineering works in the rear garden to provide a levelled patio area complete with retaining walls under PA 16/00533/B. The drawing referred to in paragraph 2.3 above shows this as being timber-clabd.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 As the site falls within an area zoned as Proposed Residential on the 1982 Development Plan (with the land to the west identified as an Area of High Landscape Value), it is considered appropriate to assess the proposal against General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan does not have any policies directly relating to engineering or landscaping works with respect to residential dwellings.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI identified the proposal as having no highway implications on 13.06.2016, while Patrick Commissioners commented that they had no comments to make in comments received 21.06.2016.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Due to the extension not being readily visible from public positions, the main issue from the proposal is considered to be the effect the use of the newly flattened area would have on the appearance of the dwelling and also on neighbouring living conditions. - 6.2 On the first point, it has been noted that the rear of the dwelling is perhaps surprisingly featureless in form, and in this sense the extension will result in an improvement in this respect. A variety of roof pitches and alternative fenestration to break up the somewhat blank nature of the existing rear elevation is to be welcomed. - 6.3 This judgement is reached having had regard to the occasional element of awkwardness in the proposals, which include (1) the flat-roofed element, (2) the almost 'leftover' nature of the halfgable in the existing single storey extension, and (3) the fact that the proposed window panels do not reflect the width of the windows in the first floor. While these elements are, as noted, somewhat awkward, they are also partially born of necessity (matters 1 and 2) or would not be readily apparent (matters 2 and 3) when built. In any case, these are considered fairly minor points against what is otherwise concluded an improvement to the character and appearance of the dwelling's rear elevation.

6.4 The neighbouring dwellings are well-screened from the site by the existing boundary treatment and there are no windows that face directly towards the extension. It is unlikely that the proposed patio could even be seen from inside these dwellings and, although there might be an element of overbearing resulting onto neighbouring gardens, it is considered that this would be suitably limited given the somewhat openness, and also the size, of the rear gardens here. No concern has been raised by either neighbour, whom it is understood were also informally consulted on the proposal by the applicant.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable from the points of view of both visual amenity and residential amenity and, accordingly, is recommended for approval.

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:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o 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;
• o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, which in this case includes Highways Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.08.2016 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 Drawing 1, date-stamped as having been received 18th May 2016, and also to Drawing 2 Rev A, date-stamped as having been received 12th August 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: 16.08.2016 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

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.