Officer Planning Report

Officer's Report

Application No.:	12/00238/B
Applicant:	Patricia Linnane
Proposal:	Extension to side and rear of dwelling to replace existing garage
Site Address:	4 Grenea Cottages Shore Road Kentraugh Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5NB
Case Officer:	Miss Melissa McKnight
Photo Taken:	22.03.2012
Site Visit:	22.03.2012
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

The Application Site

1. The application site is the residential curtilage of 4 Grenea Cottages, a two storey semi detached dwelling sited on the northern side of the A5 New Castletown Road that links Douglas to Port Erin, between Strandhall Farm and Kentraugh. The dwelling is in a row of four other dwellings, two of which are detached properties 'Thie Grenea' and No. 2 Grenea Cottages. No. 4 Grenea Cottages adjoins No.3 Grenea Cottages on the western elevation. The dwellings are south facing an all benefit from open areas on the southern side of the A5 directly adjacent to the dwellings.

1. The row of properties are considered have similarities in their appearance but are not consistent within the row. The application site and No. 3 Grenea Cottages are uniform in design and mirror the layout of one another. The two adjoining dwellings both comprise porch outriggers to the front of the dwelling with an area of hardstand. 'Thie Grenea' and No. 2 Grenea Cottages are two very differentiating properties with the only similarities being 'Thie Grenea' No.s 3 and 4 having eaves level dormer roofs and pitched roofed porches on the front elevation. No. 2 Grenea Cottages has a large projecting two storey bay across the front elevation which very much dominates the front elevation, with a predominantly glass upper level and a flat roofed porch in the centre of the ground floor.

1. The application site, No. 4 Grenea Cottage, is finished in a dark slightly faded shade of cream render with side opening PVC windows throughout. The existing dwelling comprises a slate pitched roof and shares a chimney stack with No. 3 Grenea Cottages. The roof has a slight pitch to the rear with the remaining rear roof comprising a sloping slightly downwards flat roof to the rear annexe. The front elevation is bounded by a low rise wall rendered to match that of the main dwelling. The dwelling is bounded by a wooden fence to the adjacent field east of main dwelling. To the rear of the dwelling is a detached garage which runs the length of the house with a metal sheet roof. The north, rear, elevation of the garage has little inlets/windows. The front elevation of the garage opens up onto the existing driveway on the west elevation.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a two

storey side and rear extension with a glass and chrome balcony leading from the proposed new bedroom at the rear elevation and another self supporting clear glass balcony leading from the proposed new bedroom extension to the front elevation that is to be erected on the side elevation of the existing dwelling.

1. The proposed extension is to accommodate a new garage with utility to the rear with an en-suite bedroom (1) above to the first floor on the side elevation. The rear extension is to accommodate a first floor extension to provide an en-suite to the existing Bedroom 2 and an additional bathroom. The existing Bedroom 2 becomes Bedroom 3 and will from the first floor extension. The ground floor rear extension is to comprise an extension to the existing kitchen area to provide a kitchen and dining area.

1. The side elevation extension is to measure 8.1 x 3.8 metres with a height of 6.1 metres at its highest roof point. The proposed extension to rear is to measure 4.2 x 4.21 metres, 2 metres on the west elevation is also the wall to the proposed utility room. The height of the rear extension is to reach 5 metres at its highest point. The existing flat roof design will be incorporated and is to be finished to match the existing. Both extensions are to be finished in a render to match the existing which is to be removed and smooth render applied to all walls.

1. The balcony to the front elevation is to be finished in supporting clear glass and have a projection of 1 metre, a height of 1 metre and a width of 2.1 metres. The balcony to the rear elevation is to have a glass & chrome balcony railing system. The rear proposed balcony leads from Bedroom 1 and 2 and has a projection of 2.5 metres. The width of the rear balcony is 3.3 metres and has a height of 1 metre.

1. There are a number of external window and door alterations and changes to the existing dwelling proposed. The kitchen is to have double doors installed on the west elevation opening outwards onto the patio area at the rear of the dwelling. On the rear, north facing, elevation of the kitchen is to be a double side and top opening window either side of a fixed pane. Bedroom 3 which is to be above the kitchen extension is to have a double side and top opening window either side of a fixed pane on the north elevation with double outward opening doors to the decking area of the proposed balcony. The proposed new garage is to have a small side and top opening window adjoin a fixed pane to the west elevation with a replica window to the north elevation of the proposed utility room. Bedroom 1 which is to be above the proposed garage and utility are is a bifold to the balcony at the front elevation, a side and top opening window adjoining a fixed pane to the west elevation and double doors opening inwards leading to the decking area of the balcony. The en-suite is to also have a side and top opening window as does the proposed hallway of the first floor.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of two previous planning application that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

PA 06/01192/B: Alterations and erection of single storey extension to side and rear elevations. This proposal comprised a single storey extension to the rear and a single storey garage extension to the side, both with roof ridges extending to a height slightly above the eaves level of the original house and slightly below the level of the flat roofed rear extension to the house. This previous planning application was permitted.

PA 99/00922/B: Extension to dwelling and erection of garage. This previous planning application was refused on appeal.

1. No. 2 Grenea Cottages has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, two of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application:

PA 10/00899/B: External alterations, formation of rear roof terrace and replacement of existing roof profile. This previous planning application was permitted.

PA 09/01570/B: External alterations, rear roof terrace and replacement of existing roof profile to dwelling house. This previous planning application was permitted and further refused at appeal.

Planning Policy

1. The application site is within open space and not designated for any site specific purpose but is recognised within an area of land that is classified as being of high landscape and scenic significance under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan.

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

Environment Policy 2 states:

"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) the location for the development is essential."

Housing Policy 16 states:

"The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."

Representations

1. The Highways Division have no objections to the planning application.

Assessment

1. There are a number of key issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application. One key issue to look at is the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the local residents of Grenea Cottages. It is also imperative to assess the impacts of the proposed extension of the existing dwelling. Finally, it is essential to consider the repercussions of the planning application of the surrounding area.

1. It is judged that the side elevation extension would have a detrimental impact on the public amenities of those within the locality of 4 Grenea Cottage and using Shore Road. It is considered that the side extension would appear as a dominant feature on the existing dwelling from the highway and an overall over massing on site thus resulting in the negative impact on public and private amenity and thus would be contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 16.

1. The proposed windows on the side elevation along with the double opening doors from bedroom 3 would be overlooking the country side and adjacent field and it is deemed that this element of the proposal has no undue impacts on the amenities of the residents of Grenea Cottages.

1. The proposed extension to the rear of the existing dwelling is considered to be unsympathetic to the adjoining property No. 3 Grenea Cottages. The two storey extension is not judged to honour the private amenities of the residents of the neighbouring property given the projection and height of the proposed extension. Again the extension is considered to be overbearing and fails to compliment the surrounding area.

1. Both the side and rear extensions are considered not to complement the existing dwelling in terms of landscaping and external finishes and some components of the design. The extensions are to be finished in the same render and colour as the main dwelling and the proposed side and rear extensions are to follow suit of the existing sloping roof line. However it is regarded that the design, layout and scale of the proposal does not respect the application site. The existing floor area of the dwelling is 135m2 with the proposed floor area of the extension to measure 172m2, 86m2 to both the ground and first floors. This significant increase in massing on site is considered to be insensitive to the residential curtilage of No. 3 Grenea Cottages.

1. The proposed extensions to the existing dwelling are considered to be detrimental in regards to their impact on the surrounding environment. Given the scale and level of development proposed, it is judged that both the side and rear extensions would be harmful to the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The row of cottages are on a main highway link and is considered a very scenic route, the side extension is visible leading into Port St Mary from 150+ metres and is considered to have an adverse visual impact on the character of the area. In terms of assessing the proposal against Housing Policy 16, the extension is regarded to significantly increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.

1. Although there is no real uniform design amongst the properties apart from Nos. 3 and 4 Grenea Cottages it is judged that given the style of No. 4 Grenea Cottages and the fact it is semi detached and the other remaining properties are detached it would still be considered not to be in keeping with the surrounding area and would unsympathetic to the area and adjoining property.

1. No. 1 and 2 Grenea Cottages are of very different form and style to that of the application site and adjoin property No. 3 Grenea Cottages. From this, planning application 10/00899/B was permitted given that the design restored the visual importance of the existing roof and the fact that No. 2 Grenea Cottages is out of harmony to the adjoining neighbours. It was considered that the proposal visually improved the appearance of the property and would not result in a property which is any more intrusive or out of keeping than is the existing and in many ways the proposed scheme results in a property which is more sympathetic to its neighbours

1. In regards to Environment 2, the proposed development is not judged harm the quality of the landscape but is considered to have a detrimental impact in terms of the appearance of the character of the landscape. Overall its is concluded that the planning application does not accord to the provisions of Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

1. The proposal is not considered to affect any other obvious material planning consideration.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be refused.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Rushen Parish Commissioners, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is also part. As such, the Highways Division should not be afforded separate party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted REFUSED GJL

Date of Recommendation: 23.03.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1. The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development that would have a harmful impact on the character of the landscape contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2.

R 2. The proposed development would be contrary to Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Policy 2007 in that the proposed extension would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 26/3/12

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed: [Handwritten signature] Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed: [Blank] Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager