Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 15.04.2013 Site Visit: 15.04.2013 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.1 The application forms the residential curtilage of 25 Perwick Road (Known As 25 Perwick Bay), Port St. Mary which is a single storey detached bungalow located on the north-western side of Perwick Road.
2.1 The application seeks approval for alterations and extension to dwelling. There are three extension proposed, the first is a side extension (replacing existing garage) forming a garage and hallway which has a width of 5.9 metres, a depth of 7.1 metres and a height of 4.3 metres. The second extension is the proposed rear extension, attached to the proposed garage extension, which would have a rear projection from the main dwellinghouse of 5.8 metres, a width of 6.5 metres and a ridge height of height of 4.2 metres (eaves 2.5 metres). The third is to the side elevation replacing an existing flat roofed sun roof with an extension which has a width of 2.7 metres, a depth of 6.1 metres and a ridge height of 4.4 metres.
3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as "residential use" under the Area Plan for the South. The site is not proposed to be within a Conservation Area.
3.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
"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:
| Application No.: | 13/00288/B |
| Applicant: | Mr & Mrs Christopher Harris |
| Proposal: | Alterations and extensions to dwelling |
| Site Address: | 25 Perwick Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5PA |
4.1 The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
4.2 Erection of front porch and external alterations - 97/00691/B - APPROVED
5.1 Port St Mary Commissioners and the Highway Division have no objection to the proposal. 5.2 The owners/occupiers of 26 Perwick Road, Port St Mary have objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; the proposed garage and rear extension close to the shared boundary would be out of keeping with the area; the rear bedroom extension will restrict light and views from our rear conservatory; loss of light during evening periods; reposting extension away from boundary would resolve this concern; the bedroom extension will overshadow our purpose built bbq area located along the boundary; the proposed garage would result in the removal of a substantial part of the current boundary bank which raise concerns of potential damaging our fence which runs along the boundary; proposed bathroom window would look into our rear conservatory nor do we want to look onto a unsightly frosted glass; two garage side windows could also raise concern of overlooking if garage is converted in the future; and the proposed pitch roof to the proposed garage will restrict light and overshadow a bedroom.
6.1 The main issues to consider are whether the proposed scheme would have a significant visual impact upon the street scene and would the proposal have an adverse impact upon residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, namely Nr 24 and Nr 26 Perwick Road. 6.2 It should be noted that the side garage extension and the front extension which was approved recently under application 12/00503/B are the same in terms of design, size and finish. The only difference between this current application and the last approved application relates to the rear extension. Previously, this was a flat roof more contemporary designed extension which had a greater footprint than the current proposal but was sited more centrally to the rear elevation of the property. The current proposal is sited closer to the north eastern boundary shared with neighbouring property Nr 26 Perwick Road. 6.3 In terms of the side extensions, these extensions would be the aspects of the proposals which would be most apparent from public view. The proposed design, finish and proportions match the existing dwelling house and therefore an appropriate form of developments when viewed within the street scene. The rear extension with a hipped roof
design again would follow the lines of the existing property. Due to the height of the existing dwelling house and the proposed side extension, the proposed rear extension would not be apparent from public view. 6.4 The next issue to considered is whether the proposals would impact upon the neighbouring amenities (loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking), namely Nr 24 and Nr 26 Perwick Road. 6.5 In relation to Nr 24 the main issue is whether the proposed corner window within the south-western elevation (side), which looks towards Nr 24, would introduce an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the occupants through overlooking. Visiting the site it was evident that there is already a number of windows which serve the sun room which look directly towards Nr 24. The proposal would significant reduce the amount of glazing facing Nr 24 , with only a corner window proposed. Overall, it is considered the proposal would be beneficial to both the occupants of Nr 25 and 24. 6.6 Regarding to the potential impact upon the residential amenities of Nr 26 , the aspects of the development which will causes the greatest potential impacts are the side and rear extensions which run adjacent to the shared boundary with Nr 26. 6.7 Visiting both sites ( ) and from studying the plans it was evident that the ground level of Nr 25 (where extension would be sited) is approximately one metre below the ground level of Nr 26. Furthermore, a boundary fence (approx 1.8 metres in height) runs along the shared boundary. Due to the level difference and the 1.8 metre high timber fence the roof of the existing flat roofed garage ( 2.4 metres in height) is approximately at the same height as the top of the boundary fence. It should be noted that the existing garage is approximately two metres from the shared boundary. 6.8 The proposed garage extension to the side elevation would be between 1.4 and 1.6 metres from the shared boundary with Nr 26. The siting, design and size of the garage is the same as approve recently under planning application 12/00503/B. Furthermore, whilst the eaves of the proposed garage would be very similar to the existing eaves/flat roof level, the proposal includes a hipped roof above which increases the height of the garage to 4.3 metres. It should be noted that the highest point of the roof ridge would be approximately 4.8 metres from the shared boundary and approximately 7 to metres from the side gable end wall and 8.2 metres from the gable end first floor window (bedroom) of Nr 26. The occupants of Nr 26 have raised concern that this aspect of the works would restrict light and overshadow this first floor gable end bedroom window. The roof ridge of the garage extension would be setback, 8.2 metres away from this window which is set approximately 3.5 metres above ground level. The bedroom also benefits from three velux roof lights to the front elevation for light. Overall, whilst the side extension will increase the level of built development along the boundary, it is considered given the design and height of the hipped roof, the extensions roof ridge distance and being setback from the first floor gable window the proposal would not have significant impacts upon the amenities of Nr 26. 6.9 The proposed bedroom extension to the rear elevation would be between 1.6 and 1.8 metres from the shared boundary. Again, whilst the eaves of the proposed bedroom extension would be very similar to the existing eaves/flat roof level, the proposal includes a hipped roof above which increases the height of the bedroom extension to 4.1 metres. It should be noted that the highest point of the roof ridge would be approximately 5 metres from the shared boundary and approximately 7.8 to metres from the side windows of the conservatory. Whilst the proposal would increase the amount of built development apparent from the side conservatory windows and to a lesser extend the rear patio area, it is considered given the roof design (hipped roof) and the distance the roof ridge would be away from Nr 26, the position of the extension from Nr 26, the boundary treatment and the ground level difference between the two sites the proposal would not result in a significant amount of
loss of light or have an overbearing impact upon the outlook to warrant a refusal from this aspect. 6.10 In relation to the three proposed side windows which would face towards the boundary with Nr 26 . Two windows are high level windows serving the garage. Whilst the garage could be converted in the future under Permitted Development Rights, given they are high level windows (set 1.8 metres above floor level) and given the ground level of Nr 26 is set above the application site and as there is a 1.8 metre high fence above this ground level, there would be no overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy from these two high level windows. The third window is a bathroom window. Again given the ground level differences and the 1.8 metre high boundary fence above, there would not be any overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy as the fence would block views completely towards the rear conservatory.
7.1 Overall, the proposal would comply with relevant policy as stated within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan for the reasons given and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Port St Mary Commissioners The owners/occupiers of 26 Perwick Road, Port St Mary 8.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 17.04.2013
Recommendation:
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
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 the alterations and extensions to dwelling as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings P 01 REV A, P 02 and P 03 REV H all received on 8th March 2013.
C 3. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown