Alterations, erection of extension and installation of replacement windows to dwelling
Site Address:
46 Sea Cliff Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2JD
Case Officer:
Mr A Holmes
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
16.10.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THIRD PARTIES.
The Application Site
The application site comprises the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling located on Sea Cliff Road in Onchan. The existing dwelling is a two storey building that was built in the 1980's.
The Proposal
The planning application seeks planning approval for alterations, erection of extensions and installation of replacement windows. The proposal comprises of the addition of a third storey onto the building to provide additional habitable accommodation, the addition of, and changes to existing, balconies on the front elevation of the building, and the infill of a ground floor veranda. The proposal was amended during the course of the planning application to address concerns from 45 Sea Cliff Road, with windows removed and a balcony screen added.
Planning History
Whilst the application site has been the subject of previous planning applications it is considered that none of these are specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
The adjacent dwelling (no. 45) is the subject of a current planning application (12/01513/B) for similar development to that proposed for this property.
Planning Policy
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Onchan Local Plan. Policy O/RES/P/21 of the written statement (Planning Circular 1/2000) that accompanies the Onchan Local Plan states: "Extensions and alterations to existing residential property will generally not be opposed where such proposals are appropriate in terms of scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property."
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states:
"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:
(a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
(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;
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
(e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
(f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
(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;
(j) can be provided with all necessary services;
(k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
(l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
(m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
(n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 states "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."
Representations
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be refused on the basis they consider that the proposals do not respect the site and surroundings in terms of the scale, form and design and would be adversely affect the character of the surrounding streetscape.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.
The owners and/or occupants of 45 Sea Cliff Road, which directly adjoins the application site, express concern over potential overlooking from the proposed development but stated that those concerns would be addressed if the relevant windows were removed and a screen was introduced at the end of the balcony.
The owners and/or occupants of 12 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 30 metres west of the application site across King Edward Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal is out of keeping with the character of the area. They suggest that there is land within the
application site to allow extension sideways and highlight the refusal of similar proposals on neighbouring properties.
The owners and/or occupants of 14 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 20 metres west of the application site across King Edward Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal would adversely affect their outlook and result in an overdevelopment of the site. They highlight the refusal of similar proposals on neighbouring properties.
The owners and/or occupants of 16 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 20 metres west of the application site across King Edward Park, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal would adversely affect their outlook and result in an overdevelopment of the site. They highlight the refusal of similar proposals on neighbouring properties.
The owners and/or occupants of 18 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 20 metres west of the application site across King Edward Park, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal would adversely affect their outlook and result in an overdevelopment of the site. They highlight the refusal of similar proposals on neighbouring properties.
The owners and/or occupants of 20 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 20 metres north of the application site across King Edward Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that they would refused planning approval to add an additional floor onto their property on the grounds for unacceptable overbearing impact and harm to residential amenity. It is assumed that they consider this proposal is to be similar and to therefore raise similar concerns.
The owners and/or occupants of 22 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 25 metres north of the application site across King Edward Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal would adversely affect their residential amenity resulting in a loss of view and negative effect on the value of their property. They suggest the proposal is an overdevelopment of the property and highlight the refusal of similar proposals on neighbouring properties.
The owners and/or occupants of 24 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 40 metres north of the application site across King Edward Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal will result in a loss of view and that it will be out of keeping with the character of the area. They highlight the refusal of similar proposals on neighbouring properties.
The owners and/or occupants of 26 King Edward Park, which is located approximately 50 metres north of the application site across King Edward Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal will result in a loss of view and that it will be out of keeping with the character of the area. They highlight the refusal of similar proposals on neighbouring properties.
Assessment
The planning application proposes the alteration and extension of an existing dwelling located within an existing residential area. As such, the basic principle of alteration and extension is established and supported by planning policy. The main purpose of this planning application is to consider the site specific impacts of what is proposed. In terms of this the three main considerations are i) impact on public amenity; ii) impact on private amenity; and iii) impact on highway safety.
The main impact of the proposal on public amenity is the addition of a third storey onto the dwelling. An increase in height of a dwelling within a street has the potential to look out of keeping or character with the street scene. However, in this instance as the backdrop of King Edward Road still remains above the overall building, the scale and appearance of the dwelling should not automatically look out of keeping. The design of the existing dwelling is similar to the adjacent dwelling (no. 45) but significantly different to the design of other dwellings and apartment blocks along Sea Cliff Road. The degree of uniformity within the design of existing buildings along Sea Cliff Road is not sufficiently strong so as rule out a significant change to the design of any one of those buildings. This includes the addition of a third floor onto the existing dwelling, as proposed by this planning application. Overall, it is concluded that the impact of the proposed third storey extension on street scene is acceptable. The other alterations to the dwelling are comparatively minor and do not harm the character and appearance of the street scene. It is noted that a number of representations have referred to similar planning applications for the addition of floors onto dwellings within the area have been previously refused. Based on the submissions it is understood that these planning applications related to proposal for dwellings within King Edward Park, not Sea Cliff Road. Whilst within reasonably close proximity of each other there are clear differences in form, design and setting between these two locations and respective street scenes.
It is considered that the proposed alterations and extensions should not harm the private amenity of existing surrounding properties due to the extent of what is proposed, the position of what is proposed and the general distances involved. Whilst the proposal includes the alteration of existing and construction of new balconies these are located on the front elevation of the dwelling, primarily designed to take advantage of the seaward views, it is considered that the position of these should not unduly harm the private amenity of existing surrounding property. As highlighted earlier in this report the proposed development was amended to address concerns raised by 45 Sea Cliff Road. The proposal is too distant from properties within King Edward Park to adversely affect their private amenity. A loss of view and the effect on property value is not a material planning consideration.
In terms of impact on highway safety the proposal does not alter existing on-site car parking and vehicular access arrangements. As such, there is no discernible impact on these considerations arising from the proposed development. The proposal is not considered to affect any other obvious material planning considerations.
Recommendation
Overall, it is concluded that the proposal accords with the provisions of the policy O/RES/P/21 of Planning Circular 1/2000 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. It is recommended that the planning application be approved.
Party Status
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
Onchan District Commissioners (local authority); and
The owners and/or occupants of 45 Sea Cliff Road (adjoining land).
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division (same Department as Planning Authority);
The owners and/or occupants of 12 King Edward Park (too distant from application site);
The owners and/or occupants of 14 King Edward Park (too distant from application site); The owners and/or occupants of 16 King Edward Park (too distant from application site); The owners and/or occupants of 18 King Edward Park (too distant from application site); The owners and/or occupants of 20 King Edward Park (too distant from application site); The owners and/or occupants of 22 King Edward Park (too distant from application site); The owners and/or occupants of 24 King Edward Park (too distant from application site); and The owners and/or occupants of 26 King Edward Park (too distant from application site).
Supplementary Report
The Planning Committee approved the application at its meeting of 31st December, 2012 subject to the residents of numbers 16, 18 and 20, King Edward Park being considered as being directly affected by the proposal and being afforded party status.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 10.12.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: 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 approval relates to drawing no.s 12/0117/01, 12/0117/02, 12/0117/03 and 12/0117/04 date stamped the 8th October 2012 and drawing no. 12/0117/05 rev. A date stamped the 9th November 2012.
C 3. The glass in 1.8m screen at the end of the third floor balcony must be glazed and maintained thereafter using frosted glass. The level of obscuration used must be no less than level 5 as detailed on the Pilkington’s textured glass range or equivalent.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Signed: S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.
Pursenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate.
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
