Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00432/B Applicant: Mr Richard Dick Proposal: Alterations and extension to dwelling, creation of garden decking and rendering of adjacent property walls Site Address: 67 & 68 Ballaquark Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2ER ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken: - Site Visit: - Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee: Drainage Services Manager Notes: no objection in principle subject to. Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Consultee: Douglas Corporation Notes:**
The application site represents No.67 and 68 Ballaquark, which is located on the western side of Ballaquark. The application site is not located within a Conservation Area and nor is it a Registered Building.
The application seeks planning permission a rear extension to No.67 Ballaquark, construction of a wall below the front bay window of No.67 Ballaquark, decked area to the rear of 67 Ballaquark and the rendering of No.67 and 68 Ballaquark.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42, paragraph 8.12.1.
Environment Policy 42 states that "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take into account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features."
23 June 2010 10/00432/B Page 1 of 4
of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
PLANNING HISTORY There are no previous applications which are considered relevant in the determination of this application.
Douglas Corporation and the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure have not commented on the application
The key issues with this application are the impact on the neighbouring properties and the impact on the street scene.
In respect of the impact on the residential environment of No. 68 Ballaquark from the proposed extension at No. 67 Ballaquark, the proposed extension would be set to the south of No. 68 Ballaquark and would be set 1.9 m from the boundary of No. 68 . The extension will project 4.4 m to the rear. The near habitable window is 2.9 m away from the proposed extension. The proposed extension will project 650 mm closer to the boundary of No. 68 than the existing rear outrigger. The nearest part of the extension closest to the boundary will project 1 m further than the existing outrigger. Due to the orientation of the site, the siting and the projection of the extension, it is considered the proposed extension would cause demonstrable harm to the residential environment of No. 68 in terms of increased visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of light and a tunnelling effect.
In respect of the impact on the residential environment of No. 66 Ballaquark from the proposed extension and decking at No. 67 Ballaquark, the application site is set to the north of the neighbouring property. The proposed extension would project beyond the rear elevation of No. 66 Ballaquark; however, no. 67 is off set at an angle to No.66. Therefore the proposed extension would project away from the neighbour's property. It is considered the proposed extension would not cause any significant harm to the residential environment of No. 66 Ballaquark.
Now turning to the decking, the application is proposing to excavate an area of raised garden to accept the proposed decking. The height of the decking would not exceed the levels of the banking. The occupiers of No. 67 could at this moment use their raised garden for their enjoyment and potentially overlook the garden of No. 66 Ballaquark. This proposal would create a more formal situation and may allow the occupiers of the property to sit out more on the decked area, thus increasing the opportunity to overlook the neighbour's garden. If the application were to be refused, the occupiers of No. 67 could still use their raised garden and could not be prevented from doing so. In light of the fallback position, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on increased overlooking.
In respect of the visual amenities of the streetscene, the proposed would be setback from the public highway of Ballaquark by approximately 16 m and will be visible from the public highway. It is proposed that the extension will have a hipped design however, the main roof of the property has a gable end. The roof design of the extension is at complete odds with the main dwellinghouse. The proposal would look out of character and would impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene.
In respect of the proposed rendering of both properties, the plans indicated the properties will be rendered using a smooth brown dash. The immediate vicinity is characterised by properties with the same stone cladding as the existing elevations of No. 67 and 68. The properties were built at the same time in the same materials. The proposal to render 67 and 68 in a brown dash render would be out of keeping with the immediate vicinity and would adversely affect the visual amenities of the streetscene.
It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
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.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 23.06.2010
The proposed extension would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its siting, design and projection which would result:
a) in the introduction of an unsympathetic and incongruous feature within the street scene that would be out of keeping the general established character of the area;
b) in demonstrable harm to the amenities of No.68 Ballaquark from increased visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of light and from a tunnelling effect.
The proposed rendering of No's 67 and 68 Ballaquark would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 in that it would introduce an unsympathetic and incongruous feature within the street scene that would be out of character within the area and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date: 23 June 2010 Signed: ...............................
23 June 2010
10/00432/B
Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
