Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:124769}} {{table:124770}} {{table:124771}} {{table:124772}} ### Considerations {{table:124773}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:124774}}

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is a two storey semi-detached cottage.
• The property has been extended to the rear
• The site is located in an area of high landscape value and scenic significance
• To the north of the site is Knocksharry Farm.
• To the south of the site is No.1 Knocksharry Cottages
• To the east of the site is the A4 (Ramsey Road) which links Peel to Kirk Michael
• To the west of the site are fields belonging to Knocksharry Farm.

Proposal

• The proposal is to erect a first floor extension.
• The extension will project 4.8m to the rear of the property and will be 3.7m in width.
• The extension will link up with the existing two storey rear extension.
• Facing and roofing materials to match the existing

Relevant Planning History

• 97/01211/B - Replacement of flat roof with pitched roof and installation of uPVC windows to replace existing – permitted 26.11.1997

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982
• Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) 2004; GP3, HP15

Statutory Consultation Responses

• German Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application
• Highways Division of DoT – No comments received

Public Responses

• Press notice were posted on 2.2.06
• Representations have been received from SMPCE and the IoM Fire and Rescue Service.
• SPMC have made the following comments:
• There is a considerable planning history to these cottages. Have they not, perhaps, been extended to their reasonable limit?
• The Society's view is that un-equal pitch roofs are a desperate and unattractive design feature which should not be necessary, and if this is this the only solution, then it should be refused.
• IoM Fire and Rescue recommend that smoke detectors should be installed.

Issues

• In respect of the impact on No.1 Knocksharry Cottages, the application site is set to the north of the neighbouring property. The nearest habitable window on No.1 is 5m off the boundary and at ground floor level. The proposed extension will be set 1m off the boundary and will project approximately 2m beyond the building line of the rear extension at No.1. Due to the orientation and the existing extensions will significantly reduce any impact from overshadowing and loss of light to the occupiers of the neighbouring property.
• However, the occupiers of No.1 have submitted an application for a first floor extension at the same time as the applicants of this proposal. Therefore I consider it is appropriate to assess the impact of the proposal on their proposed extension. The nearest habitable window in the extension will be 3.7m off the boundary. The extension at No.2 will still project 2m beyond the proposed rear extension at No.1. I therefore consider any impact from overshadowing and loss of light to be significantly reduced.
• The proposed extension is set behind the rear building line of the extension at No.1. There is a window on the side elevation of the single storey extension which faces towards the application site. This window serves a non-habitable room. The first floor extension will cause some harm in terms of overshadowing. Since it is a non-habitable room I do not consider any significant harm from overshadowing will occur from this proposal.
• In terms of the impact on the visual amenities of the locality, the extensions are set to the rear of property. The extension is set behind an existing two storey extension. The proposal will not be visible from the A4. I therefore consider any impact from on the visual amenities to be significantly reduced.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to conditions attached in the schedule below.

Party Status

I consider that the following should be granted party status due to them being a Statutory Consultee:

• German Parish Commissioners

I consider that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:

• SPMCE
• The Fire Safety Officer of the IOM Fire and Rescue Service

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.03.2006 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 permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the erection of a first floor rear extension as shown in drawing number L2-001; S2-101 and S2-102 date stamped 25th January 2006.

C 3. No facing and roofing materials shall be used other than materials similar to those used on the existing building

The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of means to be introduced demos in Smoke detection

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 22/3/06 Signed: [Handwritten signature]

M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control

M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control

20 March 2006

20 March 2006