Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00673/B Applicant: Mr Richard Greer & Ms Samantha Platt Proposal: Alterations, installation of a pitched roof to existing extension, and driveway and vehicular access alterations Site Address: 29 Furman Close Onchan Isle of Man IM3 1BT Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 17.07.2017 Site Visit: 17.07.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2017 _________________________________________________________________
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 JTM1710-P-00, JTM1710-P-01, JTM1710-P-02, JTM1710-P-03 and JTM1710-P-05, all date-stamped as having been received 22nd June 2017, and also to Drawing JTM1710-P-04 Rev A, date-stamped as having been received 10th August 2017.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None. _____________________________________________________________________________
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 29 Furman Close, which is a detached bungalow situated in a residential area of Onchan. The dwelling has an attached garage at the eastern side, with a pair of driveways at its frontage, almost bifurcated by the front garden. The garage, along with a rear kitchen / store, appears to be subsequent additions to the property: all have flat roofs.
2.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED - 2.1 The application proposes a number of alterations: some significant, others less so. - 2.2 The flat-roofed kitchen extension at the rear would have a roof lantern installed. The garage roof would be raised by 0.5m. - 2.3 Also proposed are alterations to the driveways / front garden: the new arrangement proposed is a single, wider driveway across roughly half the width of the frontage, with the remaining frontage laid to grass. There appears to be proposed some form of fencing or walling to the front garden, but the elevations and proposed site plan are not clear on either the formation of this or the actual positioning (a break is shown in the eastern elevation that does not appear to be shown on the proposed site plan). However, this would be of a height to comply with Class 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012. - 2.4 Also proposed are window and door alterations at the eastern and northern elevations in the main dwelling's elevation and also the rearward kitchen extension, and these - in addition to the pitched roof above the rear kitchen extension - reflect internal alterations that are shown across the dwelling. Finally, the drawings seem to suggest that the existing chimney would be replaced by an identical one. - 2.5 In addition to the aforementioned point, the originally submitted drawings had further inaccuracies. There is a masonry dog kennel in the rear garden that is shown as having different heights on the existing and proposed drawings (lower on the latter), and also carries markedly different annotations ("existing shed" / "existing dog kennel"). However, none of these errors is considered significant enough to warrant the seeking of corrected / amended plans. The rear garden shed / kennel could be considered to fall within the provisions of Class 14 of the aforementioned Order, though the noise created by dog barking may be such as to mean that the use of this building is sufficiently different from a shed as to warrant the seeking of a planning application. Having visited the site, it was clear that the structure is in use solely for private use. - 2.6 Some of these inaccuracies were addressed with the submission of an amended plan, which was actually submitted to propose the insertion of the roof lantern (originally a pitched roof was proposed) but none of these is considered to be significant enough to warrant the application's refusal on grounds of insufficient or inaccurate information.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Neither the application site nor the neighbouring dwellings have been the subject of materially relevant applications.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Onchan Local Plan and, accordingly, the development proposed falls to be assessed against parts (b), (c), (g), (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 and also to Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI describe the nature of the proposal, but offer no objection in their comments made on 24th July 2017.
5.2 Onchan District Commissioners recommended the application be approved in comments received 12th July 2017.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 With respect to the altered access and parking area as proposed, it is considered that the resulting appearance of the site will be an improvement over the current situation. While the loss of frontage can sometimes be difficult to accommodate successfully within certain streetscenes, in this case there is no particular need to retain a significant or robust boundary treatment based on the immediate area's context. Indeed, the current arrangement, which has two separate driveways, feels somewhat haphazard and the proposed arrangement would provide a better defined frontage, despite the wider-than-normal access. - 6.2 With regards highway safety, it is noted that the cul-de-sac encourages very low vehicle speeds and moreover that Highway Services have no objection. There would still be two parking spaces provided within the site. - 6.3 Turning to the alterations proposed to the dwelling, these are limited in scope and accordingly judged appropriate. The insertion of a pitched roof in place of a flat roof would clearly have been welcomed as this would have ensured the rearward extension retained a greater complementarity with the main dwelling than is currently the case. However, the roof lantern is nevertheless a welcome gesture in this respect. The additional mass of the pitched roof would not have affect neighbouring living conditions, while there would be no materially additional overlooking arising from the insertion of the roof lantern. - 6.4 The other alterations proposed in terms of fenestration, garage height and the chimney (if indeed proposed to change at all) are considered minor and not to materially affect the appearance or impact of the dwelling.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In view of the above, it is concluded that the alterations proposed comply with the relevant policies and the application is recommended for approval. Consideration was given to a condition restricting the use of the driveway to the parking of a pair of private motor vehicles but no such condition exists now and in view of the size of the highway and the lack of significant pressure for on-street parking, such a condition was not considered necessary in this instance.
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:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
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: 21.09.2017 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
