Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00099/B Applicant: Mr Kevin Skinner Proposal: Alterations and erection of second floor stairwell extension to dwelling Site Address: 10 - 12 Patrick Street Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1BR Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Site Visit: 17.02.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of No. 10-12 Patrick Street, a two storey end terraced dwelling located on the western side of Patrick Street in Peel. To the north west of the site is Station Road. The application site also lies within Peel Conservation Area. - 1.2 Immediately adjoining the application building on the southern elevation is No. 14 Patrick Street and immediately adjacent to the application site to the northwest is Braeside. No. 14 Patrick Street is three storeys due to second floor living accommodation and Braeside is set much lower than the application site given the topography of the land.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This current planning application seeks approval for the erection of an extension to an existing outrigger on the rear elevation, the installation of two dormers on the rear roof slope and the installation of three roof lights on the front roof slope. - 2.2 It is proposed to remove the existing catslide roof and replace with a duopitch roof to accommodate an additional staircase to provide access to the loft, which is proposed to be converted to two bedrooms, 1 of which being en-suite. The extension would add a further 3 metres onto the overall height of the outrigger and would be finished in all materials to match the main building. - 2.3 The proposed dormers would project approximately just less than 1.5 metres from the rear roof slope, have a height of 1.8 metres and overall width of 1.3 metres. The two dormers would each serve bedrooms. - 2.4 The final element of the proposal is the installation of three Velux conservation roof lights to the front roof slope each measuring 66 x 118mm. - 2.5 The conversion of the loft does not require planning permission, but would Building Regulation approval.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, none of which are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area zoned as Mixed Use under the Peel Local Plan 1989. Planning Circular 6/89, the written statement that accompanies the local plan, contains two policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

• Paragraph 9.15 states: "The character of the Conservation Area should be encouraged by positive schemes of action which will apply to areas and individual buildings and include the historic pattern of streets and spaces."
• Paragraph 9.16 states: "Particular attention will be paid to the alteration or extension of a building within the Conservation Area which must be carried out in a manner sympathetic to the existing building and its setting."

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

"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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Peel Town Commissioners recommend the application be approved (23/02/2015).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Given the level and nature of development proposed, there are two key issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application. Firstly, the impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of No. 14 Patrick Street and Braeside and secondly, the impact upon the appearance of the dwelling as viewed within the street scene and Peel Conservation Area. - 6.2 With regards to No. 14 Patrick Street, the proposed extension would be erected alongside the boundary wall shared with No. 14 Patrick Street. The wall at present has a height of approximately 4.2 metres and as such the extension in its entirety would protrude above the wall. - 6.3 The extension would be erected 1.5 metres from the boundary shared with No. 14 Patrick Street and would protrude 2 metres beyond the rear building line. It is therefore considered to assess the impacts of the extension in terms of loss of light and whether or not it is considered that the extension would appear overbearing and have a harmful impact upon the residential amenity of No. 14 Patrick Street. - 6.4 If development limits the amount of light coming in through a window and the level of light inside falls below an accepted level, then this constitutes an obstruction. There is an assessment that is commonly used as a means of assessing the impact of development on the loss of light; the 45 degree rule. - 6.5 The 45 degree rule usually involves drawing a line from the furthest point of the sill of a window which is potentially affected by a neighbour's extension, at an angle of 45 degree towards the extension. If the proposed extension crosses that line it is unlikely to be acceptable. - 6.6 In this instance the proposed extension would be beyond the 45 degree point and as such following this rule, the rear extension would be deemed acceptable. In addition to this, given the orientation of the properties it is unlikely that the extension would significantly impact upon the current levels of light received. - 6.7 In terms of the outlook from the nearest rear window of No. 14 Patrick Street on the second floor, whilst the extension would visible as one looks right, clear views are attainable from the central sill point and looking left from the furthest sill point. On assessment, the development is not considered to unduly impact upon the existing amenity currently enjoyed by No. 14 Patrick Street. - 6.8 It is not considered that the proposed dormers would impact upon outlook or loss of light on No. 14 Patrick Street given their positioning on the roof slope. No. 14 Patrick Street is approximately 2 metres taller than the application dwelling and has an existing single storey outrigger with a lean to roof that extends from the boundary wall. It is judged that due to the height of No. 14 Patrick Street, the siting of the proposed dormers and existing rear outrigger of No. 14 Patrick Street that no undue levels of overlooking from the dormers would occur to a degree that would warrant a reason for refusal. - 6.9 With regards to Braeside, the existing outrigger extension, at closest, measures 1 metre from the stone wall boundary and 5 metres from the rear elevation of the adjacent dwelling. The existing first floor windows of the application dwelling currently look towards

• the rear elevation and rear roof slope of Braeside. There is currently one window on the rear elevation of Braeside and one roof light to an existing single storey rear outrigger of the adjacent dwelling.
• 6.10 The new additional window to the first floor would serve a stairwell, which is not considered a main habitable area of a dwellinghouse. It is considered that given the existing glazing to the first floor of the dwellinghouse, and the fact that the new window would serve a stairwell; this additional window would not unduly harm the existing living conditions of Braeside.
• 6.11 Turning to the impact of the dormers, the dormers would provide glazing to a second floor level of the dwellinghouse. There is concern of increased levels of overlooking as result of the dormers which is not helped by the fact the properties are in such close proximity to one another.
• 6.12 The application dwelling and Braeside have an existing poor relationship with the existing first floor windows of the application dwelling already achieving some levels of overlooking towards Braeside. Nonetheless, just because there are existing instances of overlooking does not automatically justify the allowance of additional glazing that may exaggerate the existing situation.
• 6.13 However, given that the application dwelling is set well above Braeside, the dormer windows would have direct views over the roof of Braeside. In addition to this, given the positioning of the dwellings, the dormer windows would not directly face the rear elevation of Braeside.
• 6.14 This is a very finely balanced element of the proposal, nevertheless it is not considered that the dormer windows would give rise to direct overlooking and the fact that the windows would serve bedrooms, not considered a main principle room, it is judged that on assessment, the dormer windows would not unduly harm the residential amenity of Braeside to a degree to warrant refusal.
• 6.15 Turning to the impact of the development upon the appearance of the dwelling as viewed within the street scene and character and quality of the Conservation Area, partial views of the upper section of the extension and the dormers would be visible from different points along Station Road. Dormer accommodation should be subordinate to the roof they sit within. In this instance, the two proposed dormers are judged to be subordinate to the roof of No. 10-12 Patrick Street by reason of their size, form and design.
• 6.16 There are a number of buildings within close proximity to the application site that have pitched dormers, such as Nos. 7 and No. 11 Station Road and The Wharfside Apartments, as such the dormers proposed under this current scheme would not appear incongruous within the locality.
• 6.17 Overall, the level and scale of development that would be visible from a public thoroughfare is not considered to be that as such to result in an adverse impact upon the appearance of the dwelling or cause harm the character and quality of Peel Conservation Area.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 Overall, it is concluded that the planning application accords with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Paragraph 9.15 and 9.16 of Planning Circular 6/89 and is therefore recommended for approval.

8.0 PARTY STATUS - 8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:

03.03.2015

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

• N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
• O : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This approval relates to Drawing No 1700 - 01 and 1700 - 02 both date stamped as received on 26th January 2014.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 13.03.2015

Signed :………M GALLAGHER.. Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control