DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/01526/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Ian Bailey Proposal: Alterations and erection of an extension to rear elevations Site Address: 11 Ballasteen Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4HG Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.02.2021 _________________________________________________________________

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 16th December 2020: o Drawing No. 18/1/20 _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 11 Ballasteen Road, Andreas which is a bungalow with integral garage situated to the upper east of the Ballasteen Road cul-de-sac.

1.2 The property is situated partly in front of a turning point and the area itself can be characterised by bungalows with a mixture of front garden treatments from walling to hedges to open plan. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for a few different items firstly to the rear elevation there is proposed a flat roofed dining room extension measuring approximately 4.1m by

• 5.1m with an approximate height of 2.7m.

2.2 Secondly is the installation of a storm canopy measuring 1.5m by 2m with an approximate height of 2.5m which includes the creation of new doorway. - 2.3 Thirdly is the replacement of the doorway to the northern end of the property with a window and the internal alterations which will decrease the existing garage to a store room. - 2.4 Lastly there is the extension of the front driveway to the north of the site which will increase the overall size of the parking to approximately 5.8m by 9.6m. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are no previous planning applications identified on this site. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map as such General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is relevant.

4.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which 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:

• (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;

• (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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

4.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which 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." - 4.4 The Residential Design Guidance 2016 is also relevant in this application of which the parts which are relevant are below in the assessment of this application.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services have considered the application and "Do not oppose" stating, "The application indicates that two-three vehicles are to be parked within the plot on completion of the alterations and extension by extending the area of hardstanding. Surface water should be contained within the site. The existing vehicle access should be widened to match the hardstanding at the frontage to prevent overrunning of the footpath and better protect any underground services. This is achievable and would not compromise highway safety or network efficiency whilst protecting the highway assets. This would require the dropping of the kerbs and crossing of the footway and alteration to the highway drainage under a s109(A) Highway Agreement post planning consent. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no opposition subject to a

condition to extend the vehicular dropped crossing of the footway to match the hardstanding with an advisory to apply too for a s019(A) Highway Agreement" (11.02.21)

5.2 No comments have been received from Andreas Parish Commissioners at the time of writing this report. - 5.3 DOI Flood Risk Management have considered the proposal and have "No Flood Risk Management Interest." (11.02.21) ASSESSMENT

6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application is the potential impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and the wider streetscene and whether the removal of the car parking space within the garage could impact on highway safety. EXTENSION

6.2 When looking at single storey extensions to the rear of a property the Residential Design Guidance 2019 has some guidance, "3.2.1 The first aspect which the Department considers when determining the suitability of an extension to a house is whether the design of the extension fits with the existing property. Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house.

3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach."

6.3 With the above in mind the main aspects are whether the extension would be suitable in terms of its design, form, size and finishes. The property itself is relatively plain from an architectural point of view and whilst the proposed extension is of the flat roof verity which isn't necessarily a type of roof which the Department accepts on Planning Applications, a flat roof is the most logical roof type due to the bungalow style of the property. It is considered that the overall level of the development contained within this proposal is relatively modest an in keeping with the character of the property in question. DRIVEWAY - 6.4 When looking at the alteration to the front of the property which in turn alters the internal configuration of the property to change a garage to a store room it is mindful to recognise Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which states what the recommending parking for a domestic dwelling would be, "2 spaces per unit." The existing property has two existing car parking spaces, one within the existing garage and one on the driveway as such the removal of the car parking space within the car will mean that an additional car parking space is required. - 6.5 With the above in mind the proposal is to increase the parking to the front of the property. The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance 2019, which addresses the visual amenity of the additional car parking space stating "6.3.4 Proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscape garden will not normally be supported, to ensure the character of the street scape is retained and avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area, detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and to the outlook of residents". - 6.6 The key point when looking at this proposal is that there is a reasonable level of front garden to the south of the property which will be retained, which is a main feature of the houses along

• the street scene. Maintaining this open frontages of the dwellings means that there should be no new visibility issues to the application site or to the driveway of the adjacent neighbour. Highway safety in this case will be unaffected by the development.
• 6.7 It is also noted that the drop down kerb is not a matter that can be dealt with via this application and requires a separate Section 109 agreement with DOI Highways. In relation to highway safety, the creation of additional parking space within the curtilage would reduce the reliance on on-street parking on the corner of Lakeside View/Lakeside Road thereby contributing to a safer highway. The widening of access would, if anything, further increase highway safety in accordance with GP2 (h &i).

CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department
• of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 24.02.2021 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.