Officer Report

Application No.: 15/01027/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Robin Perrie Proposal: Alterations, erection of two storey extensions and single storey garage link extension to dwelling Site Address: 156 Fairways Crescent Mount Murray Douglas Isle of Man IM4 2JJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 17.09.2015 Site Visit: 17.09.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 156 Fairways Crescent, a detached two-storey dwelling in the Mount Murray estate. Typically for the area, it exhibits some mock-Tudor design features and is more or less surrounded by trees. Although there are neighbouring properties fairly nearby, the dwellings in this part of Fairways Crescent and Fairways Approach do sit apart from one another, a feeling in many ways enhanced by the amount and maturity of the trees in the area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for a number of alterations and extensions to the property. The agent to the application was contacted to discuss these with a view to seeking amendments to the design, which, although not judged to be unacceptable, did represent a significant missed opportunity to exploit the site to its best potential. - 2.2 Some small changes to the design have arisen following this discussion and the amended plan received has been circulated to the interested parties for their consideration.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Planning approval was granted in 2007 for the installation of a door with canopy above under PA 07/00381/B, although this is not considered to be especially material to the determination of the current proposal. The dwelling itself was approved in 2004 under PA 04/01493/B.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as Tourist Accommodation in Parkland under the Braddan Local Plan 1991. - 4.2 That being said, the application site is within an area of established residential use and therefore General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is considered the most relevant. It states, in part, as follow: "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:

• (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;

• (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."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure's Highway Services team and Braddan Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 29.09.2015 and 19.10.2015 respectively.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Given the nature of the proposed development, the main issues to assess are the impact of the proposed extensions on the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscene, along with the impact of those extensions and alterations on the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is not considered to impact on highway safety to a material degree as no spaces are being removed. - 6.2 The dwelling can be viewed from the road - which is not adopted highway - but only to any significant degree where the driveway meets the road. The dwelling is set down somewhat from the surrounding area, while views of the western elevations are limited to private views from dwellings to the west and north. The proposed extensions are various in nature but reflect and build upon the existing mass of the application site that the impact on the streetscene would not be significant. The extensions are not of an inappropriate scale as to be incompatible with the streetscene, which here is characterised by a variety of forms and mass, with the key unifying feature being the mock-Tudor detailing. - 6.3 Similarly, the impact from the extensions on neighbouring living conditions would be minimal. Two dwellings - nos. 157 and 158 - are the only houses that could be said to be materially affected by the proposed alterations. The angle at which the application site sits from both of these dwellings is such, however, that there would be no significant change to the relationship between the three dwellings compared to the existing situation. - 6.4 The southwestern elevation would actually have fewer windows facing no.158, while the distance of over 16m would be sufficient to mean there would be no harmful overbearing impacts or loss of light. To the northeast, facing (again, obliquely) no.157, the extension along the boundary would be at single storey level and thus not be especially visible. Although the extension would come very close to no. 157 at this point, the boundary between these dwellings is presently wellestablished in terms of the existing vegetation and fencing, and the primary garden land to no.157 is to the opposite side of its plot from this proposed extension. - 6.5 It is acknowledged that the permanent retention of those trees cannot be relied upon, but the circumstances are such that even without the trees / hedging, it is considered that the impact of the proposal on neighbouring living conditions would not be so harmful as to warrant the application's refusal. - 6.6 In terms of the impact of the proposals on the dwelling itself, the amended plans are considered to be more appropriate and reflective of the dwelling's form and appearance than the original submission. It remains the case that the scheme overall is considered to represent a missed opportunity inasmuch as the works proposed appear somewhat piecemeal and intended to meet a number of specific requirements without having an holistic view as to how the entirety of the

• dwelling might be altered in addition to these requirements, which might have enabled a more coherent design outcome. However, it equally remains the case that the dwelling does not, beside its mock-Tudor finish, benefit from a particularly well-articulated architectural treatment and there is an argument that the proposed alterations would fit in with this characterisation.
• 6.7 In view of the above, and also the generally inaccessible nature of the site such that the public amenity impacts would be suitably limited, it is considered that, on balance, an objection on the grounds of the design could not be sustained.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the application complies with the relevant parts of General Policy 2 and is accordingly recommended for approval.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 It is therefore considered that the proposal is more acceptable than the extant approval on the site and, overall, it is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, 2, 3, 7 and 10 and Energy Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and as such is recommended for approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested
• o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.12.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions 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 development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 11th September 2015: 2013/29 01, 2013/29 02 Rev B, and 2013/29 04 Rev A, and drawing 2013/29 03 Rev C date-stamped as having been received 25th November 2015.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 15.12.2015 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

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.