Loading document...
The application site represents the residential curtilage of Suffield, St Judes Road, Sulby, which is a large single storey detached modern bungalow. The property is located on the eastern side of the St Judes Road and north of the Sulby Bridge.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "white land" under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Relevant policies include:
Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policy is relevant for consideration:-
Housing
Policy 16: "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."
The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Alterations and extensions to dwelling - 10/00277/B - APPROVED
The application seeks approval of the alterations and extensions to dwelling. The main difference between this new scheme and the recently approved scheme is a number of cosmetic alterations (removal of a chimney, window alterations, material finishes) and the increase in width of the garage extension by 1.1 metre.
This increase in width is perhaps the greatest change, albeit a modest increase. This is due to the applicant realising that they would not be able to park their vehicle easily within the garaging due to width of the garage door and size of vehicle.
Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected for the following reasons:- "The Commissioners feel that the previously approved application PA10.00277.B should suffice. The property is not in keeping with the properties either side."
Highways Division:- "Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications." The Planning Authority has received no privately written representations objecting to the proposal.
The first issue is the relevant Housing Policy to consider for this application. From studying the plans and from visiting the site it is clear that the property is a modern bungalow ( 's) and therefore considered to be a dwelling of a non-traditional design.
Therefore this application should be considered with Housing Policy 16 as the dwelling is considered to be of a non-traditional.
This policy states that 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.
The proposal would increase the size and footprint of the dwelling; however, it is important to consider that the proposal would result in the replacement of a large flat roofed extension to the northern elevation, and therefore improve the appearance of the existing dwelling.
It is also important to note that planning approval has recently been granted for extensions very similar to what has been proposed under this application.
From public view given the dwelling is sited adjacent to the St Judes Road, the property is apparent, albeit it is screened in parts by the existing landscaping which is along the western boundary of the site (grass banking, bushes and trees).
In terms of footprint, the proposed side extension has a smaller footprint that the existing flat roofed extension. The only aspect which results in a larger foot print would be due to the proposed attached three bay garage extension.
The side extension would increase the appearance and massing of the existing property given the proposed pitched roof, which would have the same height as the existing ridgeline of the property. Within this new roof space it is proposed to accommodate additionally living accommodation.
Overall, whilst the foot print increases and the appearance of the property would be greater, given the introduction of a pitched roof extension replacing a flat roof extension; it is considered the proposal would improve the visual appearance of the dwelling and therefore beneficial to the visual amenities from public views.
Regarding the objections by the Local Authority that "The Commissioners feel that the previously approved application PA10.00277.B should suffice", that is not a material planning reason to refusal an application. The proposal as indicate previous would result in a slight increase in width, but for the reasons indicated above, this increase would not be contrary to planning policy.
In terms of the Local Authority concerns that; "the property is not in keeping with the properties either side", this is correct, as the properties either side are traditional properties. However, the application dwelling has been in place for many years (1960/70s) and the proposed extension as indicated previous are of benefit to the visual appearance of the existing property, particularly the removal of a large flat roofed extension, replaced with a pitched roof, which will be more in keeping with the neighbouring properties.
Overall, for these reasons the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore the application is recommended for approval.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status: Lezayre Parish Commissioners The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2011 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
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 the Alterations and extensions to dwelling (comprising amendments to PA 10/00277B) as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 113, 207 A and 209 all received on 14th December 2010.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : Signed : Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
