Officer Report

Application No.: 17/01071/B Applicant: Mr Karl Barrow Proposal: Erection of rear extension at first floor level Site Address: 32 St Germans Place Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1BZ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 15.11.2017 Site Visit: 15.11.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The flat-roofed nature of the first-floor extension proposed would not respect the form or design of the dwelling or terrace on which it sits, contrary to part (b) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 32 St. German's Place, which contains a three-storey, mid-terraced dwelling in Peel. The terrace, though sharing a common roof apex height, comprises dwellings of both two and three storeys in height. - 1.2 The dwelling has a flat-roofed projection at the rear, which appears to be formed of two separate single storey flat-roofed extensions joined together. - 1.3 Sitting perpendicular to Glenfaba Road, the rear of the terrace is prominent over the car park area that separates the dwellings on each road. - 1.4 There are a number of rear extensions to this terrace, which are varying in style, form and age. Some have a contemporary design, others are more traditional with the use of pitched roofs and slate / render finishes, while still others - like the application site - have flatroofed projections.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of flat-roofed extension atop part of the existing flat-roofed rearward projection, which would provide a new bathroom at first floor / second storey level. The extension would be 2.4m in width, 3.3m in length and 2.4m in height. It would be set on top of the boundary wall separating the application site from the attached no.30. There is a single window proposed in the rear elevation, with the remainder of the structure finished in render to the walls and fibreglass sheathing for the roof.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has not been the subject of applications considered to be materially relevant to the assessment of the current application. However, the applicant's agent notes that there is a similar extension at no.20, which in fact is single storey (PA 10/00242/B). - 3.2 Given the characterisation of the site and neighbouring dwellings it is perhaps unsurprising that there have been a number of applications seeking (and gaining) approval for the erection of extensions to the rear of the properties. The most recent of these was at no.18 (PA 14/01391/B). - 3.3 Other applications have been submitted at the adjoining no.34 to the southeast (PAs 11/01142/B and 10/01596/B were approved; 09/01305/B was refused on grounds of an unacceptably overbearing impact it would have on no.32).

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Peel Local Plan. Although nearby dwellings on Glenfaba Road fall within the Peel Conservation Area, the land to the east of these dwellings' frontages fall outwith the Conservation Area. - 4.2 In view of the above, the application falls to be assessed against parts (b), (c) and (g) 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 stated that the application had no highway implications no 24th October 2017.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The frontages of the dwellings here are well-kept and of traditional form and appearance. The rears of the dwellings, meanwhile, have been altered over time with the result that there are a number of rear extensions of varying forms, masses and design quality. The appearance of the rear of 32 St. German's Place is not considered to be in a particularly attractive at present. - 6.2 Successful examples of rear outriggers are noticeable on the western edge of the terrace, nearest to Glenfaba Road, which benefit from pitches and a natural slate finish. There are other, less successful examples, with the cited flat roof at no.20 being judged an inappropriate form. - 6.3 That which is proposed here would be visible from public positions, but not significantly so. The test, however, is whether or not the development proposed is acceptable in terms of the key policy tests outlined in paragraph 4.2 of this report. The extent to which a proposed extension can be seen from a public position is a material consideration in terms of its impact on public amenity. There is still the requirement to assess the acceptability of an application in terms of its site-specific impact - in this case, both the design and impact on neighbouring living conditions being the key elements. - 6.4 In terms of the latter, the only dwelling that could be said to be likely to be impacted would be no.30, to the west. Any such impact would be largely in terms of loss of light or

• overbearing, though it is noted that the proposed extension would bring a new window at first floor level some 3.3m closer to the rear yards of the dwellings, enabling a closer view of these than is presently possible. However, this is not considered a significant concern given the number of windows already in the rear elevations of the terrace such that replacing an existing window in the position as shown would not be unduly harmful relative to the existing context.
• 6.5 In terms of loss of light / overbearing impacts, this would be limited to a single window in the rear of no.30. The submitted drawings are inaccurate, as demonstrated by the submitted photographs: the affected window is clearly higher than is shown on the submitted drawings. This is an important point, because it means that the affected window actually sits higher than would the roof of the proposed extension. This, along with the otherwise fairly open nature of the rear of the terrace and also the number of windows no.30 has in its rear elevation, is sufficient to conclude that the impact of the proposed extension on neighbouring living conditions would be satisfactorily limited. This is, however, a balanced view, and one reached after careful consideration.
• 6.6 The form and design of the proposed extension, however, is much more difficult to support. That there is an existing projection of this style in the area serves primarily to demonstrate how inappropriate two-storey flat-roofed extensions are when attached to a traditional terrace such as this. Were the extension proposed of more clearly contemporary design, bespoke to the site, and allowing the 'new' to be read against the 'old', then it is possible that a more positive view could be taken. However, what is proposed here will, it is considered, reinforce the existing poor form of the rear of the dwelling in a manner that could not be said to sit comfortably here or on the wider terrace. The extension proposed would be far more visible than the existing flat-roofed projections, and harmfully so.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 While it is on balance concluded that the impact on neighbouring living conditions would be acceptable, it has also been concluded that the design proposed fails to respect the form or design of the dwelling or terrace on which it sits, contrary to part (b) of General Policy - 2 of the Strategic Plan. The favourable conclusion reached in respect of the impact on neighbouring living conditions cannot outweigh the unfavourable conclusions reached in terms of the design of the extension proposed.

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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 23.11.2017 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copyand has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.