Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01302/B Applicant: Mr John Hills Proposal: Replacement of existing glazed conservatory with a flat roof and installation of a flue Site Address: 1 Slieau Curn Park Kirk Michael Isle of Man IM6 1EH Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 04.01.2017 Site Visit: 04.01.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site includes the residential curtilage of 1 Slieau Curn Park, Kirk Michael, which is a semi-detached, two-storey house located on the junction of that estate and the Main Road in the village. The site also includes land beyond the fenceline, which is grassed and has a tree, road sign and services marker post, and is in fact within the ownership of the applicant. - 1.2 As the dwelling fronts onto the cul-de-sac to the southeast, it backs onto Main Road. As such, it is prominent and visible from three separate stretches of highway. - 1.3 To the rear of the dwelling, and backing onto Main Road, is a conservatory extension that projects out from a single-storey, mono-pitched-roof element of the dwelling. This conservatory has its own mono-pitched roof, but this appears to be formed of uPVC panelling common to many such conservatory roofs.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for what essentially comprises the conversion of the conservatory to a sun lounge. This would result in the removal of some of the glazing of the conservatory to its northeastern elevation and its replacement with masonry walls: still remaining would be two windows either side of a single door. Also proposed is the replacement of the roofing with a glass fibre material, and which would be at a shallower pitch than the existing. - 2.2 Within that roof would be a flue that would project just under 0.4m above the roof, and would be located roughly 0.3m from the side and rear elevations. The flue would be finished in matt black.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has been the subject of a pair of applications for rearward (i.e. Main Road-facing) extensions. That which is in place was approved under PA 99/00818/B, while PA 93/00017/B was refused.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site is within an area zoned on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 as Residential. There are no policies within this Plan directly relevant to the application. - 4.2 The proposal should be assessed against General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22 and to an extent - paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan.
16/01302/B Page 1 of 4
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services stated the proposal had no highway implications on 07.12.2016. - 5.2 Michael Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 16th December 2016. - 5.3 Separately, on 7th February 2017 the Commissioners confirmed that the land beyond the fenceline is within the ownership of the applicant. A copy of this correspondence is included on the file for reference.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The proposed works are minor in scale, but will have a cumulative impact that should be assessed. - 6.2 The prominence of the extension here is such that minimising its visual impact is to be welcomed. In some ways, this impact is lessened at present via the existence of lightweight glazing and window frames such that the more solid masonry might make the extension more apparent. Having regard to this balance, since the masonry walling would replicate those of the existing dwelling it is considered that this element of the proposal is considered acceptable. - 6.3 The proposed roof alteration is considered to be of limited concern for similar reasons, albeit that flat-roofs are generally preferably avoided for both aesthetic and maintenance purposes. In this case, however, the existing conservatory roof is almost flat such that the change proposed is considered fairly minor. - 6.4 Flues can sometimes also be dominant features, especially where they protrude above a dwelling for some distance or where their diameter is large. Other concern relates to the use of somewhat industrial galvanised steel. None of those concerns exist in this application, which sees a fairly modest flue of matt black (to match the rainwater goods) proposed. It is also considered to be sufficiently far from neighbouring properties, and in an open location, as to not be objectionable from the point of view of noise, odour or fume dispersal. - 6.5 Noting the Commissioners' comments with regards the ownership of the land beyond the fenceline, whether or not land is curtilage is of course distinct from whosoever owns it. The main concern in such cases is the 'creeping domestication' of land in a manner harmful to the appearance of the area (which is usually greatest attention is paid in more rural areas than is the case here) via the placing of structures (e.g. sheds, greenhouses, fuel tanks) under permitted development rights. In this case, however, the land in question is nearer to a highway than is the existing dwelling and therefore none of the abovementioned and related such structures could be installed on this land owing to the conditions attached to such development under Classes 13, 15 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 The application is considered to comply with GP2 and EP22 and is accordingly 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:
16/01302/B Page 2 of 4
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 07.02.2017 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 Drawing JMH/1/16, date-stamped as having been received 21st November 2016.
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: 10.02.2017 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
16/01302/B Page 3 of 4
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown