Loading document...
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Meadowfield House, a recently constructed two storey detached dwelling located on the eastern side of the B33, Croit E Caley in Colby.
1.2 The Isle of Man Steam Railway runs directly to the south of the application site, and Railway Cottage, a single storey detached cottage, is located directly on the southern side of the railway line. To the west and north of the application site are groups of residential properties.
1.3 The immediate surrounding area is characterised by single storey and 1.5 storey dwellings with a handful of two storey dwellings further south of the application site. The application site dwelling is larger than its neighbours. The property has a large garage which projects forward from the frontage of the dwelling, towards the road.
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the erection of a first floor extension above the existing garage and erection of an extension to the existing utility room to create a garden store.
2.2 The proposed first floor extension would add an additional 2.7 metres to the existing height of the garage. Therefore the garage with gym above would have an overall ridge height of 7.6 metres.
2.4 The proposed garden store would project just less than 2.6 metres from the southern elevation and would have a length of just less than 3.3 metres. The proposed new garden room would have a height of 5.8 metres and would extend part of the existing utility room in height.
2.3 The proposed new extension would be finished in a painted render and would have a pitched roof finished with slate tiles to match the finish of the main dwellinghouse.
2.4 There would also be six new windows installed to the first floor gym extension; three on the north elevation and three on the south elevation. Also proposed is the installation of a large triangular gable end window measuring 3.7 metres wide and 3.3 metres high on the western elevation of the proposed first floor extension.
2.5 The final element of the proposal is the installation of four rooflights; two on the northern roof pitch of the proposed extension and two to the southern roof pitch.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of quite an extensive planning history which has been summarised below in date order from the most recent planning application:
3.1.1 Planning permission was granted in 2010 for the partial conversion of the existing garage to provide additional living accommodation under PA 09/01691/B.
3.1.2 Planning permission was granted for the amendments to site access in 2009 under PA 09/00339/B.
3.1.3 PA 07/01350/B sought approval for revisions to a previously approved house type, PA 02/01097/B, which was granted planning approval at appeal in 2008 subject to the two standard conditions regarding the time of commencement and approved drawing numbers. The Inspector noted that the dwelling is entirely out of keeping with the nearby dwellings in the settlement but the dwelling that has been erected is lawful and the increase of ridge height of 225mm is insignificant and unlikely to be noticeable.
3.1.4 Approval was sought under PA 06/00906/B for alterations and erection of a first floor extension. This was refused at appeal on the grounds that the proposed extensions when viewed from the B33, railway line and halt would have an adverse visual impact on the locality, and would be contrary to the provisions of Development Brief 19 of the adopted Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan, and Planning Circular 3/91, in terms of the size, design, position of entrance and loss of uniformity in relation to fenestration.
3.1.5 PA 02/01091/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling which was granted planning approval at appeal in 2003 subject to ten conditions most notably removing permitted development rights.
3.1.6 Planning permission was granted in 2000 for the erection of dwelling and separate garage under PA 99/01533/B. Prior to this, PA 96/00544/B proposed the erection of a detached dwelling and garage which was refused. Prior to this PA 93/00867/A sought approval in principle for erection of one dwelling, this was granted planning approval at appeal.
4.1 The application site lies within an area designated as Residential under the Area Plan for the South 2013.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically relevant 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:
Paragraph 8.12.1 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."
5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners have stated that they do not have an accurate comparison between the two properties to make a formal recommendation. Rushen Parish Commissioners have spoken with the owner of Oldbrook and Railway Cottage and are aware of their respective objections which have been summarised below. 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division does not oppose the current planning application. 5.3 The owner and occupier of Railway Cottage, located 19 metres south of the application site, objects to the planning application on the grounds of loss of privacy, loss of light, and loss of property value.
NB: The loss of value to a property is not considered a material planning consideration and therefore holds no weight in the determination of this planning application.
5.4 The owner and/or occupier of Oldbrook, located 25.5 metres west of the application site objects to the planning application on the grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy, the proposal will be out of keeping and would have a negative impact on the surrounding area and will overpower and dominate Railway Cottage.
6.1 Given the siting of the application site, nature and level of development proposed and the proximity of the application site dwelling to Railway Cottage and Oldbrook, there are two
key issues that must be considered in the assessment of this current planning application. Firstly it is essential to consider the impacts of the proposed development on the residential amenity of Railway Cottage and Oldbrook. Secondly, it is imperative to consider the impacts of the proposal on the visual amenity of the locality and wider surrounding area.
6.2.1 Railway Cottage is a single storey dwelling which is located just less than 6 metres from the boundary of the application site and would be approximately 14 metres from the proposed extension.
6.2.2 At present, the northern elevation of Railway Cottage faces the southern boundary of the application site which is made up of fencing and hedging which has a height of 1.8 metres with the hedging protruding above. It is estimated that approximately half a metre of the garage is only visible from Railway Cottage and a site to the area identified that the roof ridge and small portion of the roof pitch of the existing garage was visible as viewed from Railway Cottage.
6.2.3 Therefore the proposed first extension would be visible in its entirety from Railway Cottage and the proposed windows to the southern elevation of the proposed extension would directly face the adjacent property. It is considered that this arrangement is unacceptable and would adversely affect the amenity of Railway Cottage by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy.
6.2.4 In addition, the increase in massing of the proposed garage extension along with the main dwellinghouse in its entirety would appear overbearing and visually intrusive when viewed from the northern elevation windows of Railway Cottage.
6.2.5 With regards to loss of light, due to the orientation of the properties and Railway Cottage located to the south of the proposed extension, it is not thought that the proposed extension would impact on light received to Railway Cottage as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Railway Cottage would still receive the amount of sunlight as present.
6.2.6 The western elevation of the proposed extension would be erected 25.5 metres east of Oldbrook; 15.5 metres from the adjacent boundary.
6.2.7 Oldbrook is a single storey dwelling with a dormer extension which directly faces the application site. Given the boundary treatment of Oldbrook, which comprises a tall stone wall and vegetation, only the roof and dormer are visible from the B33.
6.2.8 However, from the height of the proposed western elevation in the proposed extension, views into Oldbrook would be entirely attainable. Although there is a tall tree along the boundary of the application site, directly adjacent the western elevation of the garage, when a site visit was carried out in the Winter season this tree was completely bare and therefore during Autumn and Winter and parts of early Spring the garage extension would be wholly visible from Oldbrook and views into Oldbrook and views from the large western elevation window of the proposed gym extension would not be blocked which would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking.
6.2.9 For the reasons set out above it is judged that by reason of the massing and location of proposed windows, the proposed first floor extension above the existing garage would adversely affect the amenity of Railway Cottage and Oldbrook contrary to General Policy 2(g).
6.3.1 The application site dwelling is very prominent within the street scene and is the only dwelling of its form, design and layout within the locality. This has already been identified by a previous Planning Inspector for PA 07/01350/B who noted that the dwelling is entirely out of keeping with the nearby dwellings. However, the house is lawful and therefore it is essential to consider the merits of the proposed extension above the existing garage.
6.3.2 As previously mentioned in Paragraph 1.3, the existing garage is forward of the front elevation of the main dwellinghouse. The western elevation of the garage is 7 metres from the boundary of the site which comprises a stone wall. The entirety of the garage is wholly visible as one travels south along the B33 and is partially visible as one travels north along the B33. The dwelling is also visible as one travels south west along the Ballagawne Road.
6.3.3 It is therefore essential to consider whether the proposed extension is sympathetic to the main dwelling and respects the site and surrounding. Regrettably this is not considered to be the case. What is proposed under this scheme would increase the overall massing of Meadowfield House and would result in an extension which would appear obtrusive and more prominent in the street scene which is predominantly characterised by single storey, 1.5 storey and traditional two dwellings.
6.3.4 Whilst the Planning Division seek to support development to residential properties, the proposal contained within this planning application is deemed to represent an intrusive feature to the detriment of the existing dwelling and character and appearance of the locality and wider area.
7.1 For the reasons set out in section 6 of this report, it is concluded that the proposal fails to accord to the provisions set out in General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
7.2 It is recommended that the current planning application be refused.
8.1 The local authority, Rushen Parish Commissioners, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4)(e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
8.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4)(d).
8.3 It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
The owner and occupier of Railway Cottage, immediately adjacent the application site and directly affected.
The owner and/or occupier of Oldbrook, immediately adjacent the application site and directly affected.
Recommended Decision: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. Due to the height and massing of the proposed first floor extension above the existing garage, the development would result in an obtrusive feature which would appear visually intrusive and have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the locality contrary to General Policy 2(c and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. The proposed extension, by virtue of its height, location of proposed windows, and their proximity to neighbouring dwellings would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of adjacent properties Railway Cottage and Oldbrook by causing loss of privacy, and appearing as an overbearing feature as viewed from Railway Cottage. The proposal therefore would be an un-neighbourly development contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Reward Committed Meeting Date : 17/03/14
Signed : M. McKee Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ YES
The current planning application was recommended for refusal and was brought before Planning Committee on 18th March 2014 for consideration.
The planning application was presented and the Planning Committee members discussed the application and concurred with the recommendation and it was unanimously granted planning refusal.
The reasons for refusal were discussed and it was suggested that additional worded should be added to R1 to reflect the proposed extension in context of the existing dwelling. Therefore R1 reads:
R 1.
Due to the height and massing of the proposed first floor extension above the existing garage, the development would result in an obtrusive feature enlarging a dwelling, the size of which is already out of context with its surroundings and which would appear visually intrusive and have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the locality contrary to General Policy 2(c and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
It was also pointed out that Paragraph 8.1, regarding Local Authority Party Status, states Douglas Borough Council instead of Rushen Parish Commissioners and Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (5)(e) should read Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4)(e). This has been amended within the report.
18|3|14 ra mctonic
{{table:64068}} {{table:64069}}
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Meadowfield House, a recently constructed two storey detached dwelling located on the eastern side of the B33, Croit E Caley in Colby.
1.2 The Isle of Man Steam Railway runs directly to the south of the application site, and Railway Cottage, a single storey detached cottage, is located directly on the southern side of the railway line. To the west and north of the application site are groups of residential properties.
1.3 The immediate surrounding area is characterised by single storey and 1.5 storey dwellings with a handful of two storey dwellings further south of the application site. The application site dwelling is larger than its neighbours. The property has a large garage which projects forward from the frontage of the dwelling, towards the road.
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the erection of a first floor extension above the existing garage and erection of an extension to the existing utility room to create a garden store.
2.2 The proposed first floor extension would add an additional 2.7 metres to the existing height of the garage. Therefore the garage with gym above would have an overall ridge height of 7.6 metres.
2.4 The proposed garden store would project just less than 2.6 metres from the southern elevation and would have a length of just less than 3.3 metres. The proposed new garden room would have a height of 5.8 metres and would extend part of the existing utility room in height.
2.3 The proposed new extension would be finished in a painted render and would have a pitched roof finished with slate tiles to match the finish of the main dwellinghouse.
2.4 There would also be six new windows installed to the first floor gym extension; three on the north elevation and three on the south elevation. Also proposed is the installation of a large triangular gable end window measuring 3.7 metres wide and 3.3 metres high on the western elevation of the proposed first floor extension.
2.5 The final element of the proposal is the installation of four rooflights; two on the northern roof pitch of the proposed extension and two to the southern roof pitch.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of quite an extensive planning history which has been summarised below in date order from the most recent planning application:
3.1.1 Planning permission was granted in 2010 for the partial conversion of the existing garage to provide additional living accommodation under PA 09/01691/B.
3.1.2 Planning permission was granted for the amendments to site access in 2009 under PA 09/00339/B.
3.1.3 PA 07/01350/B sought approval for revisions to a previously approved house type, PA 02/01097/B, which was granted planning approval at appeal in 2008 subject to the two standard conditions regarding the time of commencement and approved drawing numbers. The Inspector noted that the dwelling is entirely out of keeping with the nearby dwellings in the settlement but the dwelling that has been erected is lawful and the increase of ridge height of 225mm is insignificant and unlikely to be noticeable.
3.1.4 Approval was sought under PA 06/00906/B for alterations and erection of a first floor extension. This was refused at appeal on the grounds that the proposed extensions when viewed from the B33, railway line and halt would have an adverse visual impact on the locality, and would be contrary to the provisions of Development Brief 19 of the adopted Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan, and Planning Circular 3/91, in terms of the size, design, position of entrance and loss of uniformity in relation to fenestration.
3.1.5 PA 02/01091/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling which was granted planning approval at appeal in 2003 subject to ten conditions most notably removing permitted development rights.
3.1.6 Planning permission was granted in 2000 for the erection of dwelling and separate garage under PA 99/01533/B. Prior to this, PA 96/00544/B proposed the erection of a detached dwelling and garage which was refused. Prior to this PA 93/00867/A sought approval in principle for erection of one dwelling, this was granted planning approval at appeal.
4.1 The application site lies within an area designated as Residential under the Area Plan for the South 2013.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically relevant 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:
Paragraph 8.12.1 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."
5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners have stated that they do not have an accurate comparison between the two properties to make a formal recommendation. Rushen Parish Commissioners have spoken with the owner of Oldbrook and Railway Cottage and are aware of their respective objections which have been summarised below. 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division does not oppose the current planning application. 5.3 The owner and occupier of Railway Cottage, located 19 metres south of the application site, objects to the planning application on the grounds of loss of privacy, loss of light, and loss of property value.
NB: The loss of value to a property is not considered a material planning consideration and therefore holds no weight in the determination of this planning application.
5.4 The owner and/or occupier of Oldbrook, located 25.5 metres west of the application site objects to the planning application on the grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy, the proposal will be out of keeping and would have a negative impact on the surrounding area and will overpower and dominate Railway Cottage.
6.1 Given the siting of the application site, nature and level of development proposed and the proximity of the application site dwelling to Railway Cottage and Oldbrook, there are two
key issues that must be considered in the assessment of this current planning application. Firstly it is essential to consider the impacts of the proposed development on the residential amenity of Railway Cottage and Oldbrook. Secondly, it is imperative to consider the impacts of the proposal on the visual amenity of the locality and wider surrounding area.
6.2.1 Railway Cottage is a single storey dwelling which is located just less than 6 metres from the boundary of the application site and would be approximately 14 metres from the proposed extension.
6.2.2 At present, the northern elevation of Railway Cottage faces the southern boundary of the application site which is made up of fencing and hedging which has a height of 1.8 metres with the hedging protruding above. It is estimated that approximately half a metre of the garage is only visible from Railway Cottage and a site to the area identified that the roof ridge and small portion of the roof pitch of the existing garage was visible as viewed from Railway Cottage.
6.2.3 Therefore the proposed first extension would be visible in its entirety from Railway Cottage and the proposed windows to the southern elevation of the proposed extension would directly face the adjacent property. It is considered that this arrangement is unacceptable and would adversely affect the amenity of Railway Cottage by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy.
6.2.4 In addition, the increase in massing of the proposed garage extension along with the main dwellinghouse in its entirety would appear overbearing and visually intrusive when viewed from the northern elevation windows of Railway Cottage.
6.2.5 With regards to loss of light, due to the orientation of the properties and Railway Cottage located to the south of the proposed extension, it is not thought that the proposed extension would impact on light received to Railway Cottage as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Railway Cottage would still receive the amount of sunlight as present.
6.2.6 The western elevation of the proposed extension would be erected 25.5 metres east of Oldbrook; 15.5 metres from the adjacent boundary.
6.2.7 Oldbrook is a single storey dwelling with a dormer extension which directly faces the application site. Given the boundary treatment of Oldbrook, which comprises a tall stone wall and vegetation, only the roof and dormer are visible from the B33.
6.2.8 However, from the height of the proposed western elevation in the proposed extension, views into Oldbrook would be entirely attainable. Although there is a tall tree along the boundary of the application site, directly adjacent the western elevation of the garage, when a site visit was carried out in the Winter season this tree was completely bare and therefore during Autumn and Winter and parts of early Spring the garage extension would be wholly visible from Oldbrook and views into Oldbrook and views from the large western elevation window of the proposed gym extension would not be blocked which would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking.
6.2.9 For the reasons set out above it is judged that by reason of the massing and location of proposed windows, the proposed first floor extension above the existing garage would adversely affect the amenity of Railway Cottage and Oldbrook contrary to General Policy 2(g).
6.3.1 The application site dwelling is very prominent within the street scene and is the only dwelling of its form, design and layout within the locality. This has already been identified by a previous Planning Inspector for PA 07/01350/B who noted that the dwelling is entirely out of keeping with the nearby dwellings. However, the house is lawful and therefore it is essential to consider the merits of the proposed extension above the existing garage.
6.3.2 As previously mentioned in Paragraph 1.3, the existing garage is forward of the front elevation of the main dwellinghouse. The western elevation of the garage is 7 metres from the boundary of the site which comprises a stone wall. The entirety of the garage is wholly visible as one travels south along the B33 and is partially visible as one travels north along the B33. The dwelling is also visible as one travels south west along the Ballagawne Road.
6.3.3 It is therefore essential to consider whether the proposed extension is sympathetic to the main dwelling and respects the site and surrounding. Regrettably this is not considered to be the case. What is proposed under this scheme would increase the overall massing of Meadowfield House and would result in an extension which would appear obtrusive and more prominent in the street scene which is predominantly characterised by single storey, 1.5 storey and traditional two dwellings.
6.3.4 Whilst the Planning Division seek to support development to residential properties, the proposal contained within this planning application is deemed to represent an intrusive feature to the detriment of the existing dwelling and character and appearance of the locality and wider area.
7.1 For the reasons set out in section 6 of this report, it is concluded that the proposal fails to accord to the provisions set out in General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
7.2 It is recommended that the current planning application be refused.
Rushen Parish Commissioners
8.1 The local authority, Douglas Borough Council, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (b)(e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
8.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4)(d).
8.3 It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
The owner and occupier of Railway Cottage, immediately adjacent the application site and directly affected.
The owner and/or occupier of Oldbrook, immediately adjacent the application site and directly affected.
Recommended Decision: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. Due to the height and massing of the proposed first floor extension above the existing garage, the development would result in an obtrusive feature which would appear visually intrusive and have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the locality contrary to General Policy 2(c and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. The proposed extension, by virtue of its height, location of proposed windows, and their proximity to neighbouring dwellings would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of adjacent properties Railway Cottage and Oldbrook by causing loss of privacy, and appearing as an overbearing feature as viewed from Railway Cottage. The proposal therefore would be an un-neighbourly development contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
