Loading document...
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER
1.1 The application site forms the residential curtilage of 2 Glen Bank, Glen Maye which forms part of a row of three two storey terraced properties (mid terrace) located on the eastern side of the A27 road and is directly opposite the Waterfall pub car park to the west
2.1 The application seeks approval for alterations and erection of extensions to a dwelling. The main aspect of the works would be to the rear of the dwelling, with the removal of the existing single storey extension, replaced with a storey and half rear extension, with a single storey extension beyond that. The storey and half extension would have a total rear projection of 8.2 metres, a maximum width of 4 metres (exclusion conservatory) and a ridge height of 5.2 metres (measured from east elevation). The proposed rear single storey aspect would project a further 2 metres from the rear elevation of the storey and half extension. Above the flat roof, half would be a roof terrace, with the remaining half fenced off and screened with planting.
2.2 To the south elevation of the proposed extension, a conservatory is also proposed.
2.3 It should be noted that initially the application proposed a full two storey rear extension which had a total rear projection of 9.8 metres and a height of 5.7 metres. This raised concern due to the potential impact upon the occupants/owner of 1 Glen Bank. Subsequent discussions with the applicants have resulted in the amended scheme now under consideration now and described in paragraph 2.1.
3.1 The application site is covered by the 1982 Development Order. The exact zoning of the site is difficult to ascertain due to the scale of the map, however it is clear that the terrace is established as being residential in terms of its use. The proposal does appear to be within an area designated as residential under the 1982 development plan.
3.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policy is relevant for consideration:-
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:
4.1 The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
4.2 Erection of conservatory - 99/02362/B – APPROVED
5.1 Patrick Commissioners initially commented that; "The extensions proposed come close to representing an over-development of the site. It is difficult from the drawings to determine what the effect will be on the adjoining properties, and the Commissioners would recommend great care when considering this." Following the amended plans the commissioners indicated that they had "no comment on the application".
the proposal has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
5.3 The IOM Water and Sewerage Authority make no comments to the merits of the application.
5.4 The owner/occupier of 1 Glen Bank Cottage, Glen Maye has objected to the application which can be summarised as; whilst the amended scheme is an improvement, concerns remian that the proposal would still result in a loss of light to the rear garden/decking area due to the size, height and position of the extension within close proximity; light is already lost due to three trees within the garden of No 2, blocking light between 10 am and 1 pm; The proposal projects along 50% of their rear garden and would have a significant impact on their living environment, loss of light and overshadowing, making a difficult situation even worse; finally it was stated that they would tolerate the application if the rear single storey extension was removed.
6.1 It is considered there a number of issues which need assessing when determining this application. These are:-
a) Visual impact upon character of the village and the street scene; and b) Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities;
Visual impact upon character of the village and the street scene
6.2 In terms of planning policy General Policy 2 paragraphs b and c are the most relevant to consider. Paragraph b indicates that development will only be permitted if the proposal respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. Paragraph c states that any development should not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape.
6.3 Given the height increase of the proposal over the existing flat roofed/lean to roof single storey extension, the extension will increase the visual appearance of built development on this site. However, given the extension is to the rear of the existing property and given the other properties in the area and landscaping between the site and the A27 road, it is not considered that the extension would have sufficient impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene to warrant a refusal.
6.4 In terms of the proportion, form and design, the extension would be a vast improvement over the existing rear extension which is not in keeping with the existing traditional property, given its unique design with a flat/lean-to roof, inappropriate window fenestration and external finish (white uPVC cladding). A first floor flat roof dormer has also been installed which again is not in keeping with the traditional nature of the existing property. Therefore, given then proposed design is more appropriate it is considered that it would be an improvement in terms of visual amenity.
Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities
6.5 In terms of planning policy General Policy 2 paragraph g is the most relevant to consider. Paragraph g indicates that development will only be permitted if the proposal does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. There are potentially two neighbouring properties which could be affected by the development the first being 1 Glen Bank, which forms part of the terrace to which the application site is attached. This property is to the north of the application site. Visiting the application site and studying the submitted plans it was evident that Number 1 has erected a rear flat roofed extension (approximately 4.6 metres in depth) which is set approximately 0.5 metres behind the current rear extension of the application site. Within the rear elevation of the first floor of Number 1 is a single bedroom window. This property also has a rear yard/raised decking area, which provides an area of external amenity space for the occupant. The proposed works are likely to affect all aspects of 1 Gelm Bank as identified; the question is whether the impacts is so adverse as to warrant a refusal.
6.6 It was noted that Number 1 also benefits from a front garden area, which is raised above the road level, and which also provides external amenity space to the occupant. This front garden area due to the raised aspect above the highway and landscaping along the front boundary, does in fact provide a fairly private space, compared to front gardens of most properties.
6.7 Consideration should also be taken that Number 1 has also benefitted from a recent approval (PA 12/01302/B) for a two storey rear extension which would replace the existing rear single storey flat roofed extension. This approval proposes a similar footprint to the existing rear flat roofed extension. However, at the time of writing this report, the development had not commenced. Due to this, consideration of the proposal will be against the current situation i.e. position of rooms/extension etc.
6.8 When considering household extensions there are generally three aspects for assessment, these are: loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
6.9 Firstly dealing with the proposed storey and half rear extension, this would have a roof ridge height of 5.2 metres with an eaves height of 4 metres. The extension would leave a minimum 0.25 metre gap with the boundary shared with Number 1. This proposal is essentially on a similar footprint to the existing single storey rear/lean-to roof extension. It should be noted that the ground level of the application site is approximately 0.7 metres below the ground level of Number 1. Furthermore, the raised decking within the curtilage of Number 1 is approximately 1.2 metres above the ground level of the application site. Due to the level difference and the design of the proposed extension, the eaves height would be approximately 0.5 metres above that of the existing single storey rear flat roofed extension of Number 1. The roof plain from the eves level gradually increases up to the roof ridge which is positioned approximately 2.3 metres from the boundary with Number 1.
6.10 A useful guideline to measure the likely impact of an extension to a neighbour is the "45 degree" approach. The purpose of this is to make sure that a development does not have an undue massing effect. It is based upon the notion that it is reasonable to expect a certain level of light and unobstructed view from a habitable room window (i.e. in this case the kitchen window). To comply with this approach, no part of a single storey extension should cross the line drawn at a 45 degree angle from the furthest point away from the closest ground floor habitable room window of neighbouring properties. In relation two storey extensions, no part of the development should cross the line drawn at a 45 degree angle from the centre of the closest ground floor habitable room window of neighbouring properties. It should be noted that in both cases where the length of the line would exceed 12 metres before reaching any part of the proposed development, the 45 degree approach need not apply as the potential impact of the extension is likely to be limited.
6.11 In this case the one and half storey extension would not project into the line drawn at a 45 degree angle from the centre of the kitchen window.
6.12 It should also be noted that due to the depth of the neighbouring extension and that the proposed extension would almost run parallel with it, with a similar depth. The ground level differences would result that the appearance of the proposed side elevations of the extension would limit its appearance from the rear yard/terrace area.
6.13 When stood on the rear decking area (Number 1), viewing the rear elevations of both dwellings, the proposed extension will likely block current views of the roofs of Numbers 2 & 3, and to a smaller extent the current views of the distance tree line which can be seen above the roof ridges of the existing terrace. However, the main views looking in a southerly direction, down the Glen, would be unaffected by the proposed one and half storey extension.
6.14 Whilst the proposal will increase the massing and height of built development, it is not considered in terms of overbearing impact or loss of light the proposed storey and half rear extension would have significant impact upon the residential amenity, internally or externally, to warrant a refusal for the reasons indicated.
6.15 In relation to the rear single storey extension, it appears this aspect raises the greatest concern to the occupant of Number 1. The proposal would project 2 metres past the rear of the one and half storey extension. The single storey extension would have a height of 2.5 metres. In relation to the neighbouring property, the extension would run to approximately to the midpoint of the oil tank of Number 1 and would project approximately 3 metres past its existing flat roofed rear extension. Due to the ground level differences the extension would be approximately 1.8 metres above the ground level of the yard area and 1.3 metres above the ground level of the raised decked area of Number 1. It should also be
noted that currently there is a 1.2 metre high timber fence and hedgerow which run along the side boundary between the two properties. Consequently, the majority of the single storey extension would be screened from view when stood in the yard or raised decking area.
6.16 In relation to potential impact upon the light and outlook from the kitchen window. Again using the 45 degree guideline, the proposed single storey rear extension would not project into the line drawn at a 45 degree angle from the furthest or even midpoint of the kitchen window. Overall, whilst the development will have an impact, it is not considered the level of impact would be so great to warrant a refusal of the application.
6.17 A further issue which requires consideration is the balcony above the single storey rear extension, which is created by using approximately half the roof area. Balustrades are proposed (1.1 m in height) to be used to create the usable area. The other section of roof area would partially accommodate a raised border for plants to grow and provide a natural screen. The main issue with this aspect of the proposal is the potential overlooking of Numbers 1 and 3. It should be noted that in terms of impact by the overall development, this is the aspect considered to have most potential for a loss of amenity to Number 3.
6.18 Regarding the potential impact of overlooking to Number 1, this relates to overlooking the rear yard/decking area, no overlooking the neighbouring property would occur. The applicants have proposed a potted plant screen. This would rely on the plants being alive and at a certain height to provide a acceptable level of screening. It is considered an obscure glazed screen (1.8 m high) would be more appropriate. The applicants have no objection to this. With such screen being located in the midpoint of the roof (i.e. where the proposed raised bed is positioned, which would be removed) this would screen direct views towards the yard/terraced areas. An obscure glazed screen would also continue to let light to pass through and would be a more lightweight structure compared to a solid fence. With this in place a person would not gain direct views of the neighbouring property, but only very oblique views. It is more likely that any person using this small balcony area (4 sqm) would look in a southerly direction towards the Glen or immediately to the east towards the applicant's rear garden.
6.19 In relation to the potential impact upon the amenities of Number 3, as indicated above, the potential for overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy would be the main impact of this development. Again the main issue would relate to overlooking the side garden to Number 3, rather than overlooking within the property itself. Considering this issue, it is judged that the distance of the balcony and side dormer bedroom window are such that whilst angled views of the garden would be achievable, the level of overlooking would not warrant a refusal of the application for this reason.
6.20 The very nature of the terraced properties are such that there is already a degree of mutual overlooking of each other's properties (especially garden/yard areas), which is generally the case within residential areas. Whilst it could be argued that the proposed development would increase the chances of overlooking, it is not considered the level would be so great as to warrant a refusal.
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:
Patrick Commissioners
The owner/occupier of 1 Glen Bank Cottage, Glen Maye
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:
The IOM Water and Sewerage Authority.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 30.07.2013
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.
C 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans 01, 1100-A-01 and 11-A-02 received on 26th October 2012 and 20th June 2013.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of any works hereby approved a detailed scaled plan is required to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority which shows a 1.8 metre high obscure glazed screen posited at the midpoint of the upper floor bedroom door and projecting to the rear boundary of the flat roofed extension. This approved scheme is required to be erected prior to the occupation of the extension and maintained and retained thereafter.
C 4. Obscure glazing (Pilkington level 5 or equivalent) shall be installed in northern most window of the upper floor bedroom window and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
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: APPROVED Committee Meeting Date: 12/08/13
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
