Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00564/B Applicant: Mr Leslie Hanson Proposal: Demolition of existing out buildings and erection of a conservatory Site Address: 18 Stanley Road Peel Isle of Man IM5 1NX Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Site Visit: 16.06.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a mid-terraced dwelling situated to the north of Stanley Road in Peel's Conservation Area. The application site is within the Peel Conservation Area. Gib Lane runs to the north of the site, although views of the rear of the site are far more limited from here than from Marine Parade further to the north as there are high rear boundary walls that prevent views from nearby. Marine Parade is also within the Conservation Area. - 1.2 A plaque on the house identifies it as a dentist surgery but no planning history can be found on this, and nor was it possible to gain entry to the site to clarify this point. - 1.3 Extending from the rear of the property is a double storey outrigger, and attached to this is a single storey outrigger identified on the submitted plans as a 'store'. Given the rise in the garden height in a northeastern direction, the floor level is roughly 800mm higher in the store than the ground floor of the larger outrigger. The photographs submitted with the application show this single storey element being of brick finish and has previously been painted, complete with a monopitched roof, and appears to be in a very poor state of repair.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the demolition of the existing store and its replacement with a conservatory with a monopitched roof. It would more or less replicate the massing of the existing 'store' - it would be roughly 100mm longer and 200mm wider, but otherwise would be identical, to include a monopitched roof. The conservatory would have a dwarf wall around its perimeter with the exception of a set of French doors in the side elevation. This greater width would reflect that of the double storey outrigger to which it would be attached, and the dwarf wall would run on from the wall of that larger outrigger as opposed to its being set back slightly as is the case now. - 2.2 The windows and doors would be uPVC and the walls finished with render to match the existing dwelling.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 None of the previous applications on this site are considered to be of material relevance to the determination of the application. A new dormer window was approved under PA 15/01039/B, but this did not appear to have been implemented at the time of the site visit.
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Mixed Use" identified on the Peel Local Plan
4.2 General Policy 2 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:
4.3 Environment Policy 35 reads in full: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or 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 Highway Services of the DoI indicated the proposal had no highway implications on
5.2 Peel Town Commissioners have no objection to the proposal (received 25/6/16)
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Established Conservation Area policy requires that any proposed development should either preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the Area in which it would sit. - 6.2 In this case, the existing outrigger is of a fairly unobjectionable form. Though its state of repair is poor, this is not in itself an issue for consideration here. Built development of this kind is fairly traditional in older, terraced areas and the continual 'stepping down' of the house to twostorey outrigger to one-storey outrigger helps give the smaller elements a welcome subordination to the main dwelling. The replacement extension would be of fairly identical size and, although the slight step back is perhaps a little unfortunate inasmuch as the subordination would be lost somewhat, the overall massing proposed is appropriate for this location. - 6.3 The extension's finish and fenestration would be similarly acceptable. Although the loss of a brick finish is, again, perhaps a shame inasmuch as some differentiation between the elements of the building will be lost, this is not a reason to object to the application. Render is the predominant finish in the area and an additional element of this will be appropriate here. - 6.4 Even though the design is generally considered acceptable, it is to be remembered that the extension is almost invisible from public positions. - 6.5 It is possible that the extension proposed here might, were there no extension already, present concern in respect of the overbearing effect on the neighbouring dwelling owing to the long extent of built form that would run along with boundary and without equal at no.20 to the west. However, no additional windows are proposed to face west and the form and massing will remain more or less the same as the current situation. No objection is therefore raised in respect of the impact on neighbouring amenity.
7.1 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant parts of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan and therefore the application 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:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.06.2016 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 plan, date-stamped as having been received 17th May 2016: LH/1/16.
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: 28.06.2016 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown