Officer Report and Recommendation

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:327777}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED.

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling located within a corner plot on Majestic Drive in Onchan.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the erection of first floor and two storey extensions onto the dwelling contained within the application site. The proposed development consists of the addition of a two storey turret feature on the corner of the building and an adjoining first floor extension to create an additional bedroom with associated dressing room and en suite.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, three of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

1. Planning application 93/01687/B sought planning approval for the erection of dwelling with integral garage. The refusal of this previous planning application was confirmed at appeal on the 5th December 1994.

1. Planning application 94/01760/B sought planning approval for the erection of dwelling with garage. The approval of this previous planning application was confirmed at appeal on the 20th November 1995.

1. Planning application 11/00344/B sought planning approval for an extension to the dwelling. This previous planning application was approved on the 7th June 2011.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Onchan Local Plan. Policy O/RES/P/21 of the written statement (Planning Circular 1/2000) that accompanies the Onchan Local Plan states:

"Extensions and alterations to existing residential property will generally not be opposed where such proposals are appropriate in terms of scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property."

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states:

"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

1. Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 states "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."

Representations

1. Onchan District Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal does not respect the site and surroundings in terms of the scale and design, and that it also adversely affects the amenity of local residents.

1. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.

1. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority express an interest in the planning application.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 1 Majestic Drive, which is located approximately 30 metres north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal results in a dwelling that is significantly larger than the one originally approved, that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, that the proposal compromises visibility on the bend and therefore harms highway safety, and that the proposal results in an unacceptable level of loss of light with resultant overshadowing.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 2 Majestic Drive, which is located approximately 40 metres north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal results in a dwelling that is significantly larger than the one originally approved, that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, that the design is out of keeping with the surrounding area, and that the proposal compromises visibility on the bend and therefore harms highway safety.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 3 Majestic Drive, which is located directly adjacent to the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal results in a dwelling that is significantly larger than

the one originally approved, that the proposal would be overbearing to them, that the proposal would result in undue loss of sunlight and associated overshadowing, that the proposal is overdevelopment of the site, that the proposal does not respect existing building lines, and that the design is out of keeping with the surrounding area.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 4 Majestic Drive, which is located approximately 30 metres north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the increase in bedrooms would result in on-street parking, that the appearance of the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, and that the proposal would lead to a loss of light to the adjacent property.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 14 Majestic Drive, which is located approximately 20 metres south of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, that the proposal does not respect existing building lines, that the proposal will lead to an undue loss of light, that the proposal would harm private privacy, and that the proposal would result in additional on-street car parking.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 16 Majestic Drive, which is located approximately 10 metres south of the application site, objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, that the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, and that the increase in bedrooms would result in on-street parking.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 56 King Edward Road, which is located approximately 60 metres north of the application site, objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, that the proposal is overbearing and harmful to surrounding property, and that the proposal would lead to a further loss of view.

Assessment

1. As the dwelling is located within a residential area the general principle of extension is not in question. The primary purpose of the planning application is therefore to consider the site specific impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development needs to be considered on its individual merits and in terms of those the two main considerations are the effects on public amenity and private amenity.

1. The effect of the proposed development on public amenity is primarily concerned with the visual appearance of proposal and its impact on the street scene. In this regard it can be seen that the scale of the proposed extension is appropriate to the size of dwelling and size of the overall plot, it does not appear out of scale within the street scene. It is reasonable to say that whilst the first floor extension is a relatively standard form of extension the proposed turret feature is somewhat more unusual. However, something being unusual does not automatically mean it is inappropriate. There is no overriding style of dwelling within the surrounding area and the proposed turret feature is located on a corner point on Majestic Drive where it position could be said to be appropriately pivotal in terms of street scene appearance. Overall, it is considered that the impact of the proposed development on public amenity, and therefore street scene, is acceptable.

1. As for the effect on private amenity it is considered that the proposed extensions are sufficiently distanced from the surrounding properties so as not to cause undue loss of light or overshadowing. Given the position of the proposed extensions and arrangements of windows the proposal does not result in undue overlooking. Overall, it is concluded that the impact on private amenity is acceptable.

1. The proposal creates an additional bedroom for the property. Whilst that could potentially generate additional vehicles the property has a large garage and a driveway that can accommodate four cars. As such, it is concluded that the property is served by an acceptable level of on-site car parking. The concern that the proposed extension would compromise visibility on the bend is not sustainable as an objection given the position of the extension, relative speed of the highway and general highway alignment.

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

Recommendation

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

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

• Onchan District Commissioners;
• The owners and/or occupants of 3 Majestic Drive;
• The owners and/or occupants of 14 Majestic Drive; and
• The owners and/or occupants of 16 Majestic Drive.

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:

• The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division;
• The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority;
• The owners and/or occupants of 1 Majestic Drive;
• The owners and/or occupants of 2 Majestic Drive;
• The owners and/or occupants of 4 Majestic Drive; and
• The owners and/or occupants of 56 King Edward Road.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 12.04.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

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

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval relates to drawing no.s 12/0100/01, 12/0100/02, 12/0100/03, 12/0100/04 and 12/0100/05 date stamped the 28th February 2012.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made: A Committee Meeting Date: 30-4-12

Signed: S. D. O. W. H. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ YES / ☐ NO