Officer Report

Application No.: 17/01103/B Applicant: Mr Thomas Murawka & Mrs Karolina Latowska Proposal: Alterations and erection of extensions Site Address: 42 Slieau Whallian Park St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3JJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 15.11.2017 Site Visit: 15.11.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________

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.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 399/1/1, 399/1/2, 399/1/3A, 399/1/4 and 399/1/P, all date-stamped as having been received 19th October 2017.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE LACK OF CLARITY REGARDING THE PARKING SITUATION, DESPITE WHICH THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

- 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 42 Slieau Whallin View, which is a semi-detached dwelling sited on a housing estate of similarly styled dwellings in St John's. The dwelling is a bungalow but has accommodation in the roofspace. There is a brick store building in the rear garden, which has open views to the rear (south). The dwelling is sited near, but angled away from, an adjacent dwelling to the east. A characteristic of this and many other dwellings on the estate is a small pitched roof projection at the side elevation that provides for what would appear to amount to a (proportionally) long and thin utility room.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a pair of extensions. - 2.2 One would be to the side elevation and would replace the aforementioned utility room. This would have a pitched roof to match that of the main dwelling and would essentially result in the elongation - southeasternwards - of the dwelling's frontage. Within the new roof plane would be sited a flat-roofed dormer window, facing rearwards, which would provide a window for the bedroom proposed for the loft that is presently used as storage space. Also shown here is a rooflight, but this benefits from permitted development rights - 2.3 The other extension would be to the rear and mono-pitched, running 3.5m almost along the common boundary of the semi-detached neighbour. This would provide for another bedroom and a bathroom - the latter being moved to accommodate additional stairs to provide improved access to the first floor. The wall facing the garden of the neighbouring dwelling would be wholly masonry, with a set of French doors facing southwards in the rear elevation and a single window shown to the new bathroom. - 2.4 Both extensions would be finished in masonry and spar-dashed render to match the existing dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has not been the subject of previous applications considered material to the assessment of this proposal.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential on the St. John's Local Plan 1999. 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 of the DoI sought that the application be deferred in comments made 8th November 2017: "The proposals represent a significant increase in living accommodation and therefore would expect at least 2 parking spaces. "Please request a plan showing the parking provision prior to final comments." - 5.2 At the time of writing (22nd November 2017), German Parish Commissioners have not commented on the application.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The two extensions proposed are distinct from one another and assessed as such. 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 Significant sideward extensions proposed to semi-detached dwellings are not always acceptable. The unbalancing nature of such extensions can be difficult to accommodate on the dwelling, while in other circumstances the result may be a 'terracing' effect, resulting in the incremental loss of pairs of semi-detached dwellings to a terraced streetscene. Slieau Whallian

• View, however, offers a varied architectural language (albeit with strong commonalities), and the dwellings in this particular area are sited in something of an irregular courtyard arrangement around a parking area. Therefore, the loss of the defined semi-detached form is not, in this case, considered to be a valid or sustainable reason to refuse the application.
• 6.3 The lack of a complete elevation drawing of the building makes it more difficult to assess the likely impact of the extension proposed. The lack of a set-back or set-down of the extension is also unfortunate, while the loss of the characteristic thin utility room provides further concern. The lack of a window or other feature of differentiation in the front elevation is also to be lamented.
• 6.4 However, the dwellings on the wider estate have been subject to not dissimilar alterations without evident disruption or damage to the quality of the local area. And, given the lack of a clear rhythm in the built environment on this slightly separate part of the estate it is concluded that the side extension proposed would - on balance - sufficiently respect the form, character and appearance of the existing dwelling, its semi-detached neighbour and also the surrounding streetscape.
• 6.5 The rear extension proposed also causes some elements of concern. Firstly, flat-roofed extensions are rarely ideal from an aesthetic or maintenance point of view. Secondly, the extension runs for 3.5m almost along the common boundary of the neighbouring dwelling, and this has implications for privacy and outlook.
• 6.6 Staying with design issues, the flat-roofed extension is undeniably unfortunate. It does not relate well to the existing dwelling's form, and the lack of any contemporary finishing treatment could not be said to help differentiate it from the existing dwelling's form. It is also true that rear extensions to bungalows are difficult to successfully design - while this does not suggest a reason to recommend approval to the application, it is nevertheless material to this assessment. Also material is the fact that the extension could not be seen from public positions.
• 6.7 While Slieau Whallian View has a particular architectural language, it could not be said to be one worthy of particular protection. The rearward extension would in some ways reflect previous alterations elsewhere on the estate and, while would not always be judged as architecturally successful, they would nevertheless also be judged to form a part of its character and not in an overwhelmingly pejorative sense. In this case, being mindful that the rear of the dwelling cannot be seen from public positions, it is concluded - again, very much on balance - that a refusal on this ground would be difficult to sustain in an appeal situation.
• 6.8 Another balanced judgment is needed with regards the impact on neighbouring living conditions. There would be no materially harmful loss of privacy from the extension proposed since the only additional glazing facing towards the neighbouring dwelling is in replacement of existing rearward-facing glazing. The installation of a masonry wall would, however, have some impact on outlook and possibly on light levels as well. In this case, though, it is noted that the outlook to the south would remain open. While the overbearing impact of the extension would be harmful, strong material weight is given to the otherwise open and long views achievable to the south / southwest.
• 6.9 The dwelling has no associated, off-street parking at present. There is some parking provision available on adopted highway nearby. The creation of additional off-street parking at this part of the estate would require in the loss of on-street parking (possibly two spaces) because the access to the site would have to be created through the existing on-street parking that is sited on the edge of the hammerhead and between the road and the dwelling. It is therefore not understood why Highway Services have sought a plan seeking details of parking provision when this is clear, and moreover where the creation of additional spaces associated

with the dwelling would actually very likely reduce the overall number of parking spaces while also certainly reducing on-street parking provision.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 It is concluded that the development proposed is not fundamentally in conflict with the relevant parts of General Policy 2 or Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan. While there is clearly a significant element of balance that has been struck in reaching this conclusion, it is nevertheless judged to be a conclusion reached having regard to the relevant policies and also the context of this residential estate.

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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 11.12.2017

Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph tothe officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.