Loading document...
| Application No.: | 12/00828/B |
| Applicant: | Mr Joey Driver |
| Proposal: | Erection of extension to replace existing lean-to extension |
| Site Address: | 7 Malew Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4EA |
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 7 Malew Road, Castletown which sits on the western side of Malew Road, to the south of Castletown Football Club grounds. The property is a modest, single storey, hipped roofed bungalow with dormer accommodation in the roof space served by a flat roofed dormer on the front pitch. The property has a single storey hipped roofed extension on the rear with an attached lean-to outhouse extension.
2.1 The site lies within an area designated as Residential on both the Castletown Local Plan of 1991 and the Modified Draft Southern Area Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
2.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
"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:
| Case Officer: | Mr Chris Balmer |
| Photo Taken: | 28.06.2012 |
| Site Visit: | 28.06.2012 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Officer Delegation |
3.1 The previous planning application is considered specifically material in the assessment of the current application:-
3.2 Alterations, enlargement of dormer window and installation of a larger window to replace existing to side elevation - 10/01592/B - APPROVED
4.1 The application seeks permission for erection of extension to replace existing lean-to extension. The proposed rear single storey extension would have a total rear projection of 4.3 metres, a width of 6.6 metres and a ridge height of 4.5 metres.
5.1 Castletown Commissioners and the Highway Division indicate that they do not oppose the application.
5.2 The Water and Sewerage Authority have expressed an interest in the application.
6.1 The proposal raises two issues which require consideration, the first is the potential impacts upon neighbouring residential amenities, namely 'Greeba' directly to the south of the site, and secondly the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene.
6.2 With regard to the amenities as indicated above, the occupants of 'Greeba' to the south of the site are most likely to be affected by the proposed development. Generally there are three issues which need to be addressed when considering the potential impacts of a development upon residential amenities. These are loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
6.3 The proposal would result in a greater amount of built development along the southern boundary of the site, albeit the section of the proposed extension which runs along the boundary would be of a flat roofed extension and therefore limited in height (2.5 metres). It should be noted that there is an existing 1.2 metre (approx) high brick wall which runs along this shared boundary and the existing rear lean-to extension also runs along this boundary with a similar height, albeit is less in depth. The works do not involve and foundations projecting into the neighbouring property (see sectional dwg 05). Within the neighbouring property there is a timber shed located adjacent to the boundary and an oil tank, both of which would run parallel with the proposed extension. The closest aspect (flat roof aspect) would be 5.5 metres from the closest rear window of the neighbouring property 'Greeba'. The highest point (i.e. ridge height) would be approximately 8 metres away. Any direct sunlight into the rear windows of the neighbouring property would be unaffected by the proposal, given the suns orientation is east to west, and the application site is to the north.
6.4 Overall, it is considered given the height, design, position, boundary treatment, orientation and distance from the neighbouring property, the proposed extension would not have a significant impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property to warrant a refusal.
6.5 In terms of the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene, the majority of the proposed works would not be overly apparent from public view, particularly from Malew Road given they are to the rear of the property. A view of the side flat roofed extension would be apparent, although this view would not differ to the current situation due
to the existing side flat roofed extension. It should also be noted that the neighbouring property 'Greeba' has erected a single storey flat roofed side extension. This extension is much more prominent in the street scene and would draw your eye away from the proposed extension which is much smaller and setback into the site.
6.6 The rear extension in terms of proportion, form and finish follows the lines of the existing hipped roof rear extension which has been undertaken in the past. This aspect can be seen in part from the side lane which runs along the northeast boundary of the site, albeit the detached garage and the 2 metre high hedgerow would limit the appearance of the rear extension. Notwithstanding this, the proposed extension is in keeping with the existing property, which also involves the removal of the existing rear lean to outhouse which is not a positive feature. Consequently, it is considered the proposal would be beneficial and an appropriate form of development.
7.1 It is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), and for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Castletown Commissioners
8.2 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.
8.3 It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should not be afforded interested party status:
Water and Sewerage Authority
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 17.07.2012
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1.
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This approval relates to the erection of extension to replace existing lean-to extension as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 01, 02, 03, 04 and 05 received on 5th June 2012 and 12th July 2012.
The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects.
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: 18/7/12
Signed: A. H. B. Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
