Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00937/B Applicant: Ms Jennifer Cryer Proposal: Alterations and erection of a two storey extension Site Address: 25 Ballatessan Meadow Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1DU Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 20.09.2017 Site Visit: 20.09.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 04.12.2017 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. Whilst the existing sheds in the rear garden of 27, Ballatessan Meadow will partly screen the proposed works, the upper part will certainly still be seen and its height and proximity to the boundary will result in something which significantly changes the outlook from the rear garden of number 27 as what is presently a relatively open aspect would become reduced and dominated by a two storey annex much closer and projecting further back than the existing gable. This is considered to conflict with General Policy 2b and 2g.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owners of 27, Ballatessan Meadow as they are immediately adjacent to the application site. _____________________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing semi-detached house which sits on the northern side of Ballatesson Meadow, a relatively modern estate of mainly two storey dwellings, detached and semi-detached, all built at more or less the same time. The application dwelling is attached to number 23 which sits to the west, and like its neighbour and the pairs of semis on each side, has not been extended to the side and the sides of all of the properties
2.1 Proposed is an extension to the side of the property to provide a living room, toilet and utility room at ground floor and a fourth bedroom with en-suite bathroom and a family bathroom on the first floor. - 2.2 The extension will project out 3m from the side of the house, stepping out to 3.5m part way back. The extension will project 3m from the rear of the existing dwelling. The extension will remain at least 1m from the side boundary with number 27. - 2.3 Two parking spaces (a length of 11.5m) remain in front of the side extension on the driveway.
2.3 The extension will accommodate no windows in the first floor side elevation and a pedestrian door and a toilet window in the ground floor side elevation. - 2.4 The extension is visually two parts - the front being a relatively traditional lean-to roofed extension with the first floor partly enclosed within the roofspace. Behind that, the extension steps out and the section facing the road will be flat roofed but finished with the area above the eaves of the front section, finished in tile hanging to give the impression of a roof. Behind that, the roof will slope down towards the rear garden and it will incorporate a flat roofed dormer window which is 1.55m wide and 1.5m high with a single light looking out onto the rear garden. The sides of the dormer will also be finished in tiles, the remainder of the walling will be rendered to match the existing. - 2.5 Finally, a flue was to be installed on the inward side of the new rear extension. This will project 1m above the eaves level at the bottom of the main rear pitch. After discussion with the neighbour, this element has now been removed from the scheme. - 2.6 The applicant explains that the design of the extension has been constrained by the position and alignment of the side boundary with number 27. Also, they explain that the extension has been set back by 3000mm to retain two full sized parking spaces. They have designed the extension so as not to overlook or compromise the neighbours' outlook or privacy. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1990 as Predominantly Residential use. As such, the following policy and guidance from the Strategic Plan is considered relevant:
"8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general.
General Policy 2: 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:
4.1 The dwelling was approved over a series of applications for the whole estate in the early to late 2000s. Since then, the property has not been the subject of any subsequent applications. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services raise no objection (27.09.17).
5.2 Peel Town Commissioners object to the application, considering that the development would be out of keeping with the other buildings in the area and will result in the building being close to the property boundary with a requirement to locate a parking space adjacent to the gable end of the neighbouring building (12.10.17). - 5.3 The occupants of 27, Ballatessan Meadow which lies alongside to the east, object to the application, suggesting that the development would be out of keeping with the three pairs of dwellings which are small and affordable and would also change the outlook from their rear garden from a spacious and fairly unobstructed area to having a feeling of being hemmed in and enclosed. They are also concerned about the woodburner and asked that it not be installed during the time of their occupation of the adjacent property. They understand that this is no longer being pursued by the applicant. - 5.4 The applicant submitted additional information and comments on 16.11.17, following the objections received. They suggest that the extension will, in their view, sit comfortably in the streetscene as the estate comprises a variety of sizes, forms and massing. In terms of impact on the neighbouring dwelling, whilst that property is set back from the application property, it is angled away from it and the majority of the proposed works are set against the existing gable and the profile of the extension is broken into a number of different forms. From their garden, the only impact would be when looking back towards the neighbouring property. Their existing pergola and sheds would screen much of the new extension. From inside the neighbouring property the extension would be unlikely to be seen. They express surprise at the objection, as they had met with the neighbours prior to submitting the application and they had indicated at the time that they liked the design and indeed were thinking about doing the same thing. - 5.5 The neighbours have responded to these comments on 23.11.17, reiterating that whilst the materials match existing buildings, the proposal will still change the property from an affordable one and would be out of keeping with the row. They also agree that their property is set forward and down from the neighbouring one but are concerned that as a two storey extension, what is proposed will block out their light and reduce the number of sunlight hours in the rear garden. The way the garden is arranged, the only way to look from the arbour at the bottom of the garden is indeed looking back at and across the neighbour's property. They do not accept that the pergola would screen anything as it has no walls and whilst the sheds would, to an extent screen the lower storey, they will not screen a two storey structure. They are concerned that the drawing is not to scale and that the gap between the properties will not
be as wide as is shown. In addition, the sheds are not as shown in the drawing. They are not concerned about the impact from within their property. They clarify that when they first saw the plans they were not aware that the extension would be two storey and thought that the proposal was for a single storey extension which would wrap around the side and rear of the existing house. Whilst they may like the design, they are not in a position to afford to extend their property in a similar way and they wonder about the viability of the proposed works which are unlikely to increase the value of the property to cover the costs of construction. They do not agree that they are "overly concerned": they bought their house for their lifetime and the impact of the proposal will be for the rest of their time there. They are also disappointed that the extension does not appear to be for the benefit of the current owner as the property was put on the market for sale as soon as the application was submitted. The additional comments do not overcome their objections.
6.1 The issues here are whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the existing property and the area, and whether there would be any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in any adjacent property. Visual impact on the appearance of the area
6.2 The proposed extension will change the appearance of the property as would any extension. The extension of semi-detached properties in any way will change the simplicity and rhythm of the existing row but this is often the case with estates once residents move in and adapt their properties according to their needs and aspirations. In this respect the estate has changed very little since its construction. Whilst the proposal will change the appearance of the house and the row, the rhythm and appearance of the existing row is not considered so similar and so important to warrant refusing the application for this reason. The row is not identical, in terms of the position, orientation and materials of the buildings, the colour of the roof tiles and shape of the porch roofs: some have eaves peaks and others not. The proposed changes are not considered to adversely affect the streetscene in terms of General Policy 2b, c or g in this respect. Impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings - 6.3 The works will affect the living conditions of those in 27 more than any other property in the area, due to the proximity of the properties. The impact of any extension is worsened by the fact that the application property is set further back than its neighbour and this results in any rearward projection affecting more greatly the outlook from and light to the rear garden of number 27. Whilst their sheds will partly screen the proposed works, the upper part will certainly still be seen and its height and proximity to the boundary will result in something which significantly changes the outlook from the rear garden of number 27 as what is presently a relatively open aspect would become reduced and dominated by a two storey annex much closer and projecting further back than the existing gable. This is considered to conflict with General Policy 2b and 2g. Highway impact - 6.4 The proposal will still retain sufficient car parking on site and as such it is not considered that there are any adverse highway impacts.
7.1 The proposed extension is considered to adversely affect the living conditions of those in 27, Ballatessan Meadow to such an extent that the application is not supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 06.12.2017 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown