Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00309/B Applicant: Mr Mike Duchors Proposal: Alterations and erection of dormers to dwelling Site Address: 3 Birchleigh Close Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4EX Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 23.03.2015 Site Visit: 23.03.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 3 Birchleigh Close, Onchan which is a residential bungalow in a cul-de-sac of other dwellings of a similar style as well as some two-storey houses. In common with many of the other dwellings here, no.3 has flat-roofed dormer windows, all of which appear to be original to the dwellings, and some of which have been subsequently. - 1.2 The dwelling is set somewhat higher than the highway, and has a flat-roofed garage to the side. Although technically forming part of a terrace, the bungalows here are perhaps best described as being three pairs of semi-detached dwellings, the garages of which are also joined. The impression given, with the garages set well back from the frontage, is very much of semi-detached dwellings, however.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the extension of the front and rear dormer windows to almost the full width of the dwelling: they would increase from 4.0m to 6.8m in width. The existing dormer windows sit within the roof plane, and this would continue to the front elevation under the proposal, whereas the extension to the rear would sit further down the plane and almost abut the eaves below. The extension would provide for a new bedroom to the front and bathroom to the rear, which would replace an existing office and storage room respectively; these rooms currently have gable windows. - 2.2 Elevations of only the application site and not the adjacent dwelling have been provided, which is unfortunate, but does allow for a proper assessment of the application. - 2.3 The application form states that the extensions would be finished to match the existing, albeit this information is not carried forward into annotations on the submitted plans.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has not been the subject of any applications considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application. However, proposals to extend or install dormer windows have been approved in recent times elsewhere on the Close at nos. 16 (PA 01/00437/B), 17 (PAs 14/00748/B and 01/00228/B), 20 (PA 06/00060/B) and
21 (PA 01/00217/B). Numbers 16 & 17 and 20 & 21 are both pairs of semi-detached dwellings.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site is zoned as an "Area of Predominantly Residential Use" under the Onchan Local Plan 1998; it is not within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 Policy O/RES/P/21 of the written statement (Planning Circular 1/2000) that accompanies the Onchan Local Plan states: "Extensions and alterations to existing residential property will generally not be opposed where such proposals are appropriate in terms of scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property." - 4.3 Due to this zoning and the nature of the proposed development, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is relevant. It states (in part): "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:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Onchan Parish Commissioners recommended the application be approved on 01.04.2015.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The principal issues relate to the potential impact upon neighbouring amenities (overlooking, loss of light and/or overbearing impact), and the visual impacts upon the amenities of the dwelling and streetscene that would result from the proposed development. - 6.2 In respect of the latter issue, it cannot be ignored that the proposal would extend one semi-detached dwelling in a manner not proposed to be matched on its semi-detached neighbour. It is not always easy for such a proposal to be successfully accommodated, especially where the pair of dwellings - and the proposed alteration - can easily been seen as a whole. That said, the six dwellings would be generally seen from an angle and a set of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings: the application site would only rarely be seen on its own. It is to be remembered that the highway here is a cul-de-sac and consequently has limited passing traffic. There would be an undeniable impact on both the dwelling and streetscene, and the extent of that visual impact needs to be assessed. - 6.3 The streetscene offers two clear building styles: one of dormer bungalows, one of twostorey dwellings. All are of fairly undistinguished architectural treatment, but none could be said to be especially inappropriate. Dormer windows, especially those with flat roofs, are an acquired taste from an aesthetic point of view but those on display here are generally modest in scale and do not detract from the dwellings on which they sit. There does not appear to be any uncomfortable relationships between existing dwellings, and the visual impression that results from this and the general lack of boundary treatment is a streetscene that feels spacious and fairly well-ordered. The dwellings that have been altered are fairly obvious to note, even though it is not considered that the alterations have been especially harmful from a visual point of view.
6.4 On this basis, it seems that an objection to the proposal on grounds of its visual impact could not, on balance, be sustained. While the extended dormer window would yield a somewhat lop-sided outcome to the two dwellings, it is considered that this would not have an unduly harmful impact on the streetscene. The existing dormer windows on this side of the street are a somewhat prominent feature already, and this extension would primarily be seen in the context of continuing the streetscene of flat-roofed dormer extensions. Were no.2 also proposing an identical change, it is likely that there would be very limited concern compared to that raised above. However, it remains the consideration that, while undeniably unfortunate, the proposed extension would not be so damaging to the streetscene as a whole, or no.2 and 3 specifically, as to warrant the application's refusal. This is, however, a balanced judgement, and does acknowledge that the site, despite being prominent within its street, is not on a main thoroughfare with high levels traffic or numbers of passing pedestrians. - 6.5 The extension to the rear is even more awkward, with the proposed extension coming down almost to eaves level with the result that, at least in part, the bungalow will look like a flat-roofed, two-storey house. However, this is to the rear of the dwelling and will therefore not be visible from any public position. Had the front dormer been proposed to be of this design, the application would certainly have carried a recommendation to refuse - but, as it is, the rear is not publicly accessible and therefore its public amenity impact will be appreciably limited as a result. - 6.6 Turning to the proposal's effect on living conditions, the only dwellings likely to be affected in any meaningful way are the aforementioned 20 and 21 Birchleigh Close. As noted, these dwellings both have full-width dormers such that the proposal will enable greater interoverlooking between these dwellings. However, at a distance of 22m - even accounting for no.3's slightly elevated position - is considered sufficient to satisfactorily protect the amenity of all three dwellings' occupants. - 6.7 Birchleigh House, to the rear, is some 28m distant and set at an angle. Any loss of privacy to this as a result of the proposal will be well within acceptable levels as a result. The proposal is not considered to affect the amenity of the dwellings either side of the application site given the scale and nature of the proposal, albeit that it is noted outlook from rooms in the gable end of no.4 will be ever so slightly reduced from the additional mass of the proposed dormer extensions.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 On balance, the proposal is not considered to be in conflict with the relevant polices of the Strategic Plan or the Onchan Local Plan, and is therefore recommended for an approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON 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:
20.04.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
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.
The approval hereby issued relates to Drawing 01 and Drawing 02, both date-stamped as having been received 20th March 2015.
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.
Signed :………J CHANCE….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
