Loading document...
Application No.: 23/00931/B Applicant: Mr Jay Reid Proposal: A single-storey rear extension with external spiral stairs leading to roof terraces, plus a cantilevered balcony to the rear Site Address: 5 Victoria Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1EP Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 14.09.2023 Site Visit: 14.09.2023 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.08.2024
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: The application was amended to remove the lower spiral staircase in response to comments raised by the neighbour. Not all of the plans were properly updated by the agent eg. Proposed Roof Plan NTS. So notwithstanding some of the details still shown on some plans and for the avoidance of doubt this condition is added, and any future installation of a spiral staircase here would have to form part of a separate and new planning application and assessed accordingly.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
The proposed works in this specific case are considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact and minded of the already varied rear elevations of the terrace and the mixed frontages that the works will not harm the overall character and appearance of the conservation area which is to be preserved in line with Section 18 of The Act. The application is considered to comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and with the general principles set out in the Residential Design Guidance 2021. Subject to a condition in respect of bird decals the proposal is also considered to have acceptable impact on bird habitats in line with Environment Policy 4 and no highway or flood risk concerns have been raised.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following documents and information:
Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Officer’s Report SITE
1.1 The application relates to 5 Victoria Road Castletown, a mid-terrace dwelling with a primary frontage facing towards the main road and a rear elevation facing over the river leading down towards Castletown harbour. PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the alteration and extension of the main dwelling to include:
2.2 The extension and blocking up works are to be finished in painted render to match the main house and the flat roofs to be GRP finished in grey. Glass balustrades are to be installed with stickers to try and prevent bird strike. - 2.3 The most recent scheme has omitted a spiral staircase from ground floor to first floor which the neighbours have objected to on privacy grounds.
HISTORY
3.1 There have been a number of previous applications for windows and satellite dish although none are considered to be relevant in this case. There is a concurrent PA 23/00957/CON for demolition elements relating to this application. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated as predominantly residential on the Area Plan for the South 2013. The site is recognised as being at flood risk and is in the designated Conservation Area.
4.2 In addition to the statutory test 18(4) of The Act the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are also considered materially relevant to the assessment:
4.3 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance also considered materially relevant:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no highways interest (01/09/2023 and 14/12/2023).
5.2 DEFA Fisheries - no objection (22/08/2023).
5.3 DOI Flood Risk Management - do not oppose given the datum levels given (16/02/2024) - 5.4 DEFA Ecosystems - do not oppose subject to condition (15/12/2023) the decal details provided in email dated 27/09/2023 be conditioned and decals installed in accordance with Birdlife International Guidance. - 5.5 The owners of 3 Victoria Road - Objection (15/09/2023 and 18/12/2023) - their comments are also provided with images and drawings. Their concerns are summarised as follows:
6.1 There is a general presumption in favour of residential development to existing residential properties particularly on land designated for such residential use as long as there are no visual or amenity impacts on the neighbours as a result. Consideration in this case shall also be given to any potential bird strike, flood risk and highway safety impacts.
Visual Impact
6.2 It's clear that there have already been a number of changes to the rear of properties along this terrace with extensions and alterations including the clear use of cantilevered
balconies over the river. There would be no objections to there being another ground floor cantilevered balcony over the river here with the proposal considered to have an acceptable visual impact.
6.3 The proposal now will result in flat roof extensions at ground floor and alterations to the existing outrigger resulting in a flat roof, and both works creating raised terraces. Whilst flat roof finishes are not typical to such older properties as this, given the already varied rear elevations across the terrace, their overall subordinate appearance compared to the host dwelling and the projection being no further than the existing rear outrigger and following the overall line of the terrace that the proposed ground floor extension and changes to the outrigger would not be so visually out of keeping as to harm the already mixed arrangement of the rear of the terrace.
6.4 The proposal includes the blocking up of basement windows, those at the rear would not be visible and not considered to be of any concern. The windows at the front form part of the primary front elevation and which is considered to contribute most to the streetscene and character and appearance of the Conservation Area. On visiting the site it was recognised that there is an intermediate boundary wall along the highway which limits views to the lower basement opening and which does not form key feature in the streetscene. The loss of the window would likely go unnoticed to most and the overall character and appearance of the overall conservation area unaffected and preserved in this specific case. Amenity Impact - 6.5 There was initial concern raised due to the creation of the new second floor roof terrace, however on visiting the site and speaking with the neighbour it was understood that the nearest upper floor window served a non-habitable staircase and the other dormer window serves a bedroom but that the existing roof, distance and oblique angles help to minimise overlooking and direct views to it. In this respect it is not considered that the second floor roof terrace would result in any significant or unacceptable levels of overlooking. - 6.6 A number of concerns have been raised by No. 3 as to the potential privacy and amenity impact on their property as a result of the ground floor extension and the lower level spiral staircase leading to the first floor roof terrace. The lower level spiral staircase has since been removed and so the key matter to consider in this case is whether there are any potential impacts on the neighbours as a result of the extension. - 6.7 The arrangement of the properties is as such that there is an overlap of the rear yard beyond the rear elevation of No. 3. The proposed kitchen extension will infill part of this yard and drawings indicate an overall height of approx. 3m and projection of 3.5m. The Residential Design Guidance 2021 contains some general standards when it comes to rear extension and how impact of such might be assessed including in terraced situations. Section 4.6 indicates that even single storey extensions are "unlikely to be supported where they project more than 3 metres from the back of the house" but 4.6.8 indicates that other factors may be taken into consideration such as the 45-degree rule or other factors such as orientation and changes in levels which can carry as much or potentially more weight in the assessment. - 6.8 In this case the rear extension follows the same building line as existing development and although beyond 3m this is only by around 500mm. A major factor to take into consideration in this case of this application and this site is the orientation of the existing buildings. Yes the proposal will result in more of the rear yard being infilled and this will be noticeable to both the neighbour and the applicant, however the orientation of the two properties is important in this case. The neighbour sits on the southern side with the existing height of their house and rear extensions already creating overshadowing and daylight impacts on the rear yard area and west facing windows. The proposal to infill the yard will undoubtedly make the open area smaller and narrowing between the properties which will have some negative impact on both properties, however given the existing close knit situation, the
orientation of the properties and the existing outlook and daylight arrangements of the inlet area, and factoring in the height and length of the proposed extension and the higher level position of the windows in this area that the proposal in this specific case is not considered to result in any significant adverse or unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing issues in this case.
Bird Strike, Flood Risk and Highway Safety
6.9 Following the submission of further information DEFA Ecosystems have confirmed no objection subject to condition for the bird decals which will be added accordingly, and given the datum levels provided in the amended drawings the DOI FRM confirmed no objections. The proposal does not alter or change the existing parking situation and so no new or adverse highway safety impacts.
7.1 The proposed works in this specific case are considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact and minded of the already varied rear elevations of the terrace and the mixed frontages that the works will not harm the overall character and appearance of the conservation area which is to be preserved in line with Section 18 of The Act. The application is considered to comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and with the general principles set out in the Residential Design Guidance 2021. Subject to a condition in respect of bird decals the proposal is also considered to have acceptable impact on bird habitats in line with Environment Policy 4 and no highway or flood risk concerns have been raised. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 09.08.2024
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
