Loading document...
Application No.: 17/01134/B Applicant: Mrs Helen Mylchreest Proposal: Erection of an extension Site Address: 30 Croit Ny Glionney Colby Isle of Man IM9 4PP Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________
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 Drawings 1711/01 and 1711/02, both datestamped as having been received 24th October 2017. _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None. _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 30 Croit ny Glionney, which is a relatively new development on the former Colby FC grounds on the eastern side of Colby Glen Road. The dwelling is the southwestern of a pair of semi-detached houses, the rear boundary being formed of lollipop fencing.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a rear extension. This would be mono-pitched, but with a noticeably steep angle. The extension would run almost along the common boundary with the semi-detached neighbour, for a length of 3.5m: however, the roof would extend beyond the rearward elevation for a further 1.2m, supported at both ends by oak posts. The roof would be formed of dark grey steel, and located centrally (but near the dwelling's rear elevation) would be a flue, which would project straight upwards for a length of
2.2 The elevation along the common boundary would be formed entirely of unbroken masonry with the exception of the 1.2m section between the rear elevation and the oak pole, which would have a thin, high-level opening between the standing seam roof and the masonry below. The corresponding elevation, meanwhile, would be formed of a dwarf wall with glazing above; the rear elevation would have dwarf wall nibs but would be essentially formed of bifolding doors.
3.1 The site has not been the subject of previous planning applications considered material to the assessment of that proposed here. - 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential on the Area Plan for the South.
4.2 Accordingly, the application falls to be assessed against the relevant parts of General Policy 2 and also against Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services raise no objection (21.11.17). 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key issues here are the design effect the alterations proposed will have on the dwelling and the surrounding streetscape, and also in respect of neighbouring living conditions.
6.2 Good quality, contemporary architecture is to be welcomed. It is considered that this proposal represents such architecture, even if in some ways such an approach is more appropriate as an 'intervention' on older or more traditional buildings than this. There is no denying that the extension is quite large, proportionally, but would complement the single storey element of the dwelling that already exists. The garden is large enough to accommodate such an extension without the result being 'overdevelopment'. It could not be seen from public positions, which, given the good quality nature of the design, might even be said to be unfortunate. - 6.3 The relative openness of the back gardens and the relatively large gardens (relative, respectively, to the lack of nearby development to the rear and to the size of the dwellings) is such that the extension is not considered to have a materially harmful overbearing effect. The use of the mono-pitched roof is helpful in achieving this, while the addition of the small, highlevel opening in the side wall will also be welcome without - given its height - affecting privacy. - 6.4 The significant amount of glazing is slightly more concerning. There is, however, sufficient boundary treatment and space between the dwellings to ensure the effect will not be unduly harmful. It is to be strongly noted that the adjacent dwelling - no.31 - is set back from the application site and has, itself, a rearward projection with side-facing glazing. The extension proposed at no.30 will in some ways help 'balance' the relationship between the dwellings without causing undue harm to either given the points set out above. There is something of a balance to be struck in reaching such a conclusion as this, but close attention has been paid to the estate layout as well as the lack of objection received to date.
7.1 It is concluded that the development proposed is acceptable as assessed against the relevant policies. - 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 Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 29.11.2017 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
