Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00350/B Applicant: Mr Marek Hudec & Mrs Katarina Kothajova Proposal: Alterations and erection of two storey extension to side elevation Site Address: 34 Ballanoa Meadow Santon Isle of Man IM4 1HQ Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 31.05.2019 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The application relates to Site Location Plan, drawing numbers 02 and 03 and Supporting Information all date stamped and received 26/03/2019 _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons none _____________________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling which sits within the Ballanoa Meadow a relatively new housing estate in Newtown, Santon. The small estate is made up of 43 dwellings within two small cul-de-sacs, the estate comprises a mix of detached, semidetached and terraced dwellings. - 1.2 No. 34 is a two storey semi-detached dwelling located towards the end of the second cul-de-sac and on the southern side of the turning circle. The dwelling is finished in painted render with a small course of facing brick around the base and encasing the front porch. - 1.3 To the front of the dwelling there is a small area of lawned garden adjacent to which is an area of off road parking around 5m wide and 10m long leading to an additional stretch of hardstanding running along the west gable around 2.7m wide. - 1.4 The dwellings within the cul-de-sac have a stepped design following the slope of the land as it rises to the head of the turning circle. The dwellings around the circle have front elevations sitting relatively close to each other which spread further apart towards the rear elevations. In the case of this application the drawings indicate that the distance between the front of No. 34 and neighbouring detached dwelling No. 33 (to the west) is 4m apart and at the rear they're 10m apart. - 1.5 The topography of the land is as such that it rises from the entrance of the estate Those dwellings running either side of road THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a two storey extension on the end gable of the dwelling,
2.2 The proposed extension is to run flush with the main house, with the front and rear elevations and the eaves and central ridge matching those on the main house. A window is proposed at both ground and first floor level on both the front and rear elevations. No windows are proposed on the end gable. - 2.3 The drawings for the application also includes the installation of three rooflights across the entire roofslope and the replacement of the window on the existing front elevation with those for the extension proposed to match. - 2.4 The drawings also included the widening of the front parking area by 1.8m to provide additional hardstanding to the front of the house around 6.8m wide in total and leaving a 1m strip of lawned garden.
3.1 The estate was approved under PA 99/00590/B on appeal. There have been no further applications made specific to this site. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Residential. As such, the current proposal should be considered in respect of the following parts of the IOM Strategic Plan:
4.2 General Policy 2:
"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:
4.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 - Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use 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 Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 DOI Highway Services - had made no comments as of 31/05/2019.
5.2 Santon Commissioners - no objections (31/05/2019). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The issues here are whether there would be any visual impacts on the streetscene, whether the proposal will introduce any adverse impacts on the living conditions and amenities of those in neighbouring dwellings and whether there would be any adverse impacts on car parking to the detriment of highway safety.
6.2 Generally it is sought that extensions remain subordinate to the main house by introducing a stepped back and stepped down arrangement from the front elevation and ridge of the main house. In the case of this application the dwellings in the street have a stepped arrangement as they follow the slope of the hill, with each dwelling having its ridge on one level and the neighbour on another. The stepped ridges defining each single dwelling.
6.3 Adjoining property No 35 has a lower ridge height than the application dwelling and detached dwelling No 33 sits higher than the site, while a subordinate extension would not have been inappropriate there is acceptability in having the proposed extension running flush with the main house and in maintaining the individual identity of each dwelling having its own ridge height and following the general character of the streetscene. - 6.4 The application drawings include the alteration of the existing windows and the installation of roof-lights, both of which could be carried out on this site in line with the levels of development that can be carried out without prior approval in line with Class 24 and 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012. NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
6.4 The extension will sit closer to No. 33 leaving 2m between the nearest front elevations at and 8m at the rear. No windows are proposed in the side elevation which will protect the privacy of both parties. Given that No. 33 occupies one of the largest corner plots on the estate with a relatively large open arrangement and garden to the rear it is not expected that the
proposed extension will result in any unacceptable levels of overshadowing or result in any changes to their outlook or living conditions.
6.5 The proposed extension will result in the loss of vehicle hard-standing along the side of the house, although the existing front driveway is sufficient enough to park at least 2 cars which meet with the standards required within the Strategic Plan. The length of the driveway between the road and house also likely to accommodate further vehicles albeit parked in tandem. - 6.6 The current application includes the widening of the driveway at the front to 6.8m, result in a fairly large proportion of the front lawned garden being removed, the negative visual impact of which was considered to be unacceptable. On discussing these concerns with the agent it was understood that the loss of the garden at the front was not something the applicants wanted and that bearing in mind the existing driveway is sufficient enough to accommodate a minimum of 2 vehicles and not to result in any adverse impacts on the highway that the application could progress without the need for the widening of the driveway and a condition to this effect being added to any approval.
7.1 In light of the acceptable visual, amenity and highway safety impacts of the proposed extension the application is recommended for approval. A condition revoking the widening of the driveway should be added to such approval, although this would not prevent the owners of the property apply for the widening of the driveway under a separate application in the future. - 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:
8.2 The Planning Committee must determine:
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 : Permitted Date : 31.05.2019 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the filecopy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
