Planning Officer Report

Officer's Report

Application No.:	12/00600/B
Applicant:	Mr Trevor McCullough
Proposal:	Alterations and erection of extensions to dwelling
Site Address:	Far End 88 King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2AU
Case Officer:	Mr A Holmes
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises the residential curtilage of, and land adjoining, a detached dwelling located at the western end of the built area of King Edward Road in Onchan. The land, which currently contains a vacant dwelling, generally slopes downwards from north to south towards the sea.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the alteration and extension of the dwelling contained within the application site. The main element of the proposed development comprises the erection of a three storey extension onto the western end of the dwelling. The proposal also includes more minor works to the existing dwelling that are aimed at bringing it back into residential use. The submitted plans show the existing access being revised to provide solely pedestrian access. Vehicular access to the dwelling is via a connection to a new access road that was approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B.

Planning History

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

1. Planning application 01/00058/B sought planning approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and creation of four apartment buildings housing 42 apartments on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 25th September 2001.

1. Planning application 01/01273/B sought planning approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and creation of four two storey blocks, housing 30 apartments on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 29th October 2001. The refusal was confirmed at review, with the review refusal decision notice issued on the 31st January 2002. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 9th July 2002.

1. Planning application 02/01755/B sought planning approval for the erection of four apartment blocks each containing three apartments with parking provisions and landscaping on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 23rd January 2003. The refusal was confirmed at review, with the review refusal decision notice issued on the 27th March 2003. A

subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 30th July 2002.

1. Planning application 06/00212/B sought planning approval for the creation of a layout for six residential dwellings and garages, roadway and drainage on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was refused on the 27th July 2006. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 8th January 2007.

1. Planning application 07/02101/B sought planning approval for residential development to provide plots for four detached dwellings with associated roads and drainage and creation of a new access on the land that comprises the application site and adjoining land for the current planning application. This previous planning application was approved on the 11th March 2008 and following an extension of time is currently due to expire on the 11th March 2013.

1. Planning application 08/02129/B sought planning approval for the erection of a dwelling on plot 4 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. This previous planning application was refused by the Planning Committee on the 17th April 2009. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal approval decision issued on the 22nd July 2009.

1. Planning application 08/02129/B sought planning approval for the erection of a dwelling on plot 4 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. This previous planning application was refused by the Planning Committee on the 17th April 2009. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal approval decision issued on the 22nd July 2009.

1. Planning application 09/02073/B sought planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on plot 2 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. This previous planning application was approved by the Planning Committee, with the approval decision notice issued on the 13th April 2010.

1. Planning application 09/02069/B sought planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling on plot 1 of the four plots approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. This previous planning application was approved by the Planning Committee on the 25th May 2012. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 12th October 2010.

1. Planning application 11/00942/B sought planning approval for the erection of a dwelling on plot 1. This previous planning application was approved by the Planning Committee on the 16th September 2011. A subsequent appeal against the approval was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 23rd January 2012.

1. Planning application 12/00274/B sought planning approval for alterations and erection of extension to the dwelling. This previous planning application was approved on the 4th April 2012. The decision to approve this previous planning application is currently the subject of an appeal.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy the application site falls within two different land use designations under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000. Specifically, whilst the majority of the application site is designated predominantly residential a smaller section of the western end of the application site is designated as proposed residential. The section of the application site designated as proposed residential basically contains the new vehicular access

onto King Edward Road, it is pertinent to note that this element of the planning application already has extant planning approval under previous planning application 07/02101/B.

1. Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application. Policy O/RES/P/21 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 recommend that the planning application be approved.
2. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.
3. The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage, which is located in Maughold, express an interest in the planning application. They welcome the renovation of the existing dwelling over the previous proposal for redevelopment.

Assessment

1. The proposal is basically a revision of the development proposed by previous planning application 12/00274/B and is understood to have been submitted to address the concerns from objectors to that previous planning application. On that basis it is considered appropriate to consider the planning application before a decision is made on the appeal against the approval of previous planning application 12/00274/B. The differences between the development proposed by previous planning application 12/00274/B and that now proposed

comprise the provision of a hipped roof over a previous sun terrace on the western side elevation, the provision of a hipped roof to the eastern side elevation and the replacement of an existing boundary wall.

1. As can be seen the application site and adjoining land has been the subject of a significant number of previous planning applications. Planning approval exists for a new access road and for three new dwellings on the adjoining land. The vehicular access arrangements proposed within this planning application are already approved under previous planning application 07/02101/B. The current proposal does not change that access, it simply utilises it to provide new access to the application site. Given this it is considered that the main issues to assess as part of the planning application are the impacts of the proposed alteration and extension on public amenity and private amenity.

1. In terms of the impact of the proposed development on public amenity the main consideration is the appearance of the proposed development on the street scene along King Edward Road. In this respect it can be seen that as the existing dwelling is set down from the road and the proposed development does not increase the overall height of the dwelling the street scene is not unduly altered by the proposal. The additional mass of the proposed extension, which although three storey in height overall is two storey on the elevation fronting King Edward Road, sits comfortably within the street scene. The suggestion within one representation that the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area is not accepted, as the surrounding area contains a wide variety of different styles of dwellings and planning approval exists for much more unusual contemporarily designed dwellings on the adjacent land. The proposed alteration and extension of the dwelling proposed by the planning application would not be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and is not harmful to public amenity in that respect.

1. As for the impact of the proposed development on private amenity the main issue to consider is whether the proposed alterations and extensions would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking. Whilst previous planning applications (09/02069/B & 11/00942/B) were, in part, refused due to unacceptable overlooking from balconies the new dwellings proposed by those previous planning applications were entirely different from what is now proposed. Where balconies are now either enlarged or entirely new it is considered that their impact on the private amenity of adjacent properties is acceptable due to the overall distances involved and respective levels. The overall impact of the proposed development on the private amenity of the surrounding properties is concluded to be acceptable.

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;

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; and

The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

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

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 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08 date stamped the 20th April 2012 and drawing no. 03 date stamped the 27th April 2012.

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 : 11 June 2012

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : ... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager