DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00677/B Applicant: JM Project Management Ltd Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage (amendment to approved dwelling under 16/01314/REM) Site Address: Plot 22 Ballaglonney Housing Estate Main Road Crosby Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.07.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The extension, by virtue of its flat roofed design, lack of windows in some of its elevations and unsympathetic incorporation of a flue is considered to have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the property and the wider estate and as such the application is considered to fail to accord with General Policy 2b, c and g and is not supported. This is particularly unacceptable as the house is not yet commenced and efforts could have been made to build a larger property with the flue and additional floor area designed to be part of and complementary to the main dwelling.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is an approved plot within a developing estate to the south of the A1 as it runs through Crosby and to the north west of the bowling green, children's play area and Marown Millennium Hall, all of which is accessed from Old Church Road. - 1.2 All of the plots have been approved and several have been completed: planning approval is also extant for a commercial unit in the eastern part of the site although work has not yet commenced on that : the applicant is currently seeking an amended version of this through 17/00852/B and one of the dwellings which it is proposed to amend concerns this application plot. That appeal was heard on 25th July, 2019 and the decision is not likely to be published

• until September at the earliest. The change to the approved layout in the case of this particular plot is relatively minor, the dwelling being moved 400mm to the south.
• 1.3 The plot which is the subject of the current application lies towards the south western end of the site and in the central group of dwellings.
• 1.4 The approved layout for this part of the site shows the southern boundary of the dwellings being finished in planted hedging: on the application drawing this boundary is shown as a wall. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The application proposes to extend the house which has permission by the addition of a flat roofed annex offset to the left of the rear of the house and with bi-fold doors in the elevation facing towards the estate road, and in the other two elevations only a glazed corner element in both expanses of masonry. The extension will have a lantern light which will project only slightly above the parapet level and a stainless steel flue will project 60mm from the top of the parapet towards the rear of the annex. - 2.2 The extension will have a footprint of 3.5m by 6.5m and will be 3.1m to the top of the perimeter walls. - 2.3 The proposal also seeks to change the material finish to the property, with it now having a Manx stone style finish on the two storey front gable, a horizontal sectioned garage door and a movement joint now appears on the northern and southern gables. No cedar cladding is shown on the first floor front elevation. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Predominantly Residential and the estate has approved use for residential purposes through its planning history. - 3.2 The works should be considered in the light of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan as follows:

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:

• (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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

3.3 In assessing the above, regard should be had to the Department's recently published Residential Design Guidance, March 2019 which provides advice on the design and impact of residential extensions and the installation of flues, as follows:

"3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach - as set out above."

"5.1.3 In recent years the Department has seen a number of planning application for flues serving wood burning stoves, and is broadly supportive of these. Consideration should be given to their placement, height, size and finish, as the main issue is likely to be the visual appearance of them and whether they would fit with the existing property and the street scene as a whole. Tall and/or prominent flues which have a detrimental impact to a property and/or street scene are unlikely to be supported. Where a flue may have an unacceptable detrimental impact, it may be possible to mitigate the impact by:

• o colouring the flue to blend in with the existing colour of the wall the flue may adjoin (or a dark colour when the flue sits within a roof);
• o encasing the flue so that it appears as a chimney; or
• o incorporating the flue within the existing or new chimney stacks." PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning approval was granted for the estate under 15/00775/A, 16/01131/REM, 16/01314/REM and 17/00852/B (which is currently on appeal). REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners seek a deferral of this application until the previous application, 17/00852/B has been determined, not because that application concerned the application site but that there are matters concerning conditions and more general issues which should be resolved prior to a decision being taken on the current application and they also express concern over the name of the estate (which is not a planning matter) (18.07.19).

5.2 They submit further comments on 24.07.19 noting whilst they have no objection to the application per se, that "the planning officer stated that "personalisation" of the properties would improve the appearance of the unimaginative design of the houses and the design does nothing to assist in this regard". They reiterate their comments of 18.07.19. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Whilst the dwelling itself has no extant approval as now proposed, in respect of its position or finish materials, the difference in position is considered to be negligible compared with the approved layout and even if 17/00852/B were refused, it is considered acceptable to consider the amended appearance and position as proposed here, separate from that application which included changes to other plots and the retail unit which were more significant changes to the approved scheme that those proposed in this current application.

6.2 The changes to the finish of the dwelling are not considered objectionable, the use of more stone is welcome and the omission of the cladding not to have an overall adverse impact. The garage door could be changed without approval if and once the dwelling were constructed so that change is not considered objectionable. The change in estate name which is a concern raised by the local authority is not a material planning consideration. Whilst the means of drainage of the whole site were an issue for 17/00852/B, there is a viable means of draining the site of its surface and foul water which could be implemented if 17/00852/B is not approved. The principle of the inclusion of a flue will widen the range of fuel types which could be used and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and is also supported.

6.3 The main issue in this case is whether the proposed extension and flue would have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. As the extension would not have any windows looking towards any other properties, and it is a single storey structure, it is not likely that there would be any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings from the proposed extension although the comments on the appearance of the

• extension, particularly in view of the almost blank wall facing number 17 are relevant as set out in the later paragraphs.
• 6.4 It is perhaps disappointing that the property is being proposed for extension even before it is completed and occupied and more so as the extension has clearly been designed as an addon rather than as an integral part of the new dwelling and that the wood burning stove has not been facilitated in the design of the main house. For example, if the flat roof is a means of avoiding interfering with the window in the bedroom above, the house could surely be redesigned as it is not built yet, to avoid this by repositioning the window on the gable or elsewhere within the rear elevation. As the house is not yet complete and any application for extension of the approved unit has to apply to the complete house and not just the extension, the opportunity could have been taken to amend the design of the house to enable a pitched roofed extension which compliments the character and appearance of the main house, and perhaps enables the flue to be encased in a chimney in accordance with the Residential Design Guidance.
• 6.5 The RDG clearly presumes against the addition of flat roofed extensions, particularly where they would be publicly visible and in this case it would be, given its height, certainly until the approved boundary hedge had grown to screen it. In any case, the extension will be visible from adjacent properties and what is proposed, due to its shape and design and lack of windows in the rear and far side elevations, is considered to be of poor form and where it would detract unacceptably from the character of the estate. It is also relevant that this is the first application for extension of the approved dwellings so it is important that the form and design of extensions is established at the outset.
• 6.6 There is provision within the Permitted Development Order which allows extensions to be built without planning approval, subject to compliance with certain criteria as follows:

Class 14: The enlargement of a dwellinghouse (including the erection of an extension or conservatory).

Conditions:

• (a) the general conditions applicable to Section A;
• (b) the floorspace (measured externally ) of the extension must not exceed 15 square metres beyond that of the original dwellinghouse;
• (c) the extension must not exceed 4 metres in height above ground level;
• (d) no part of the extension may be nearer to any highway which bounds the curtilage of the dwellinghouse than —

• (i) that part of the dwellinghouse nearest to that highway, or
• (ii) 20 metres, whichever is the nearer.

• (e) no part of the extension may be nearer than 1 metre to the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse;
• (f) the external finish of any walling must match that on the major part of the dwellinghouse; and
• (g) operations within this class are allowed only if, on completion of the operations, at least 2 car parking spaces remain within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. For the purpose of paragraph (g) the minimum size permitted for a car parking space is 6 metres by 3.25 metres

6.6 In this case, the driveway is short of the required width, the proposed extension includes a flue which is not included within this class of operation and the proposed extension is larger than the permitted area. The dimensions of the driveway would restrict the erection of any extension under this Class. CONCLUSION

7.1 The extension is considered to have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the property and the wider estate and as such the application is considered to fail to accord with General Policy 2b, c and g and is not supported. 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:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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 : Refused Date : 01.08.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.