Loading document...
Application No.: 21/00353/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Theo & Rose Fleurbaay Proposal: Alterations and erection of single storey extensions and widening of existing driveway Site Address: Felsted Alexander Drive Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3QX Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 30.07.2021 Site Visit: 30.07.2021 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2021 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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 approval relates to covering letter and drawing numbers JTM2059-P-00, JTM2059-P-01, JTM2059-P-02, JTM2059-P-03 and JTM2059-P-04 received 31/03/2021 and drawing number JTM2059-P-05 Rev A date received 14/05/2021.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site is an existing single storey detached dwelling with additional accommodation in the roof space situated on the south side of Alexander Drive in the west of Douglas. - 1.2 The application dwelling is one of several lining this side of the main road, there is a mix of styles and designs some being single storey while others are two storey or dormer bungalows. There is a varying array of projections across both the front and rears but collectively there is an established building line which provides garden and off road parking to the front and fairly long, open south facing gardens to the rear which bound with the rear gardens of those houses on Devonshire Crescent. Due to the topography of the area the properties naturally step as the land slopes down to the west.
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is for a number of extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling to provide additional living accommodation. Also included is the widening of the existing access from 3.5m wide to 6.5m wide. Drawings also detail an extension to the existing rear patio area. - 2.2 Proposed at the front is a 3m extension to existing front facing gable, there will be no change to the existing ridge height and the road facing elevation is to be installed with two windows and the front door and side windows are to be replaced with new. - 2.3 At the rear the application proposes the removal of the existing conservatory on the western side and its replacement with a larger pitched roof extension providing additional floor space at both ground and first floor. The central ridge will match that of the main house and will extend backwards 9.5m, full width apex height feature glazing will be installed on the 4.5m wide end gable facing into the rear garden. Two roof lights are proposed either side of the roofslope. - 2.4 Covering the remaining rear elevation is proposed a stepped flat roof single storey extension, the section nearest the pitched extension is to be installed with two roof lanterns above and project 3.2m from the rear elevation of the main house. The flat roof extension sitting nearest the eastern boundary will project 5m from the rear of the garage providing a utility room. - 2.5 There are no new windows proposed on either the western or eastern side elevations.
3.1 The site has been subject to one previous application for the approval of the conservatory in 2003 under PA 03/01426/B. Also considered relevant are two applications for alterations and rear extensions to each neighbouring property approved under PA 16/00825/B and 18/01323/B. - 4.1 PLANNING POLICY The site is designated as residential on the Area Plan for the East 2020. Therefore it is appropriate to consider paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016
along with the general advice set out in the Residential Design Guide particularly sections 3.0 and 4.0 which cover residential extensions and 7.0 in respect of good neighbourliness. The site is not recognised on flood maps as being at any risk of flooding.
4.2 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
4.3 Paragraph 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. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division - original comments requested that updated visibility splay drawings be provided showing 2.4m back from the edge of the highway and to the adjacent carriageway rather than the central road line. A drawing showing the revised splays was submitted as requested on 14/05/2021 and circulated for comment. Updated comments were received 11/06/2021 indicating that the applicant had failed to correctly detail the visibility splays but If drawn correctly, the visibility achievable from the proposed access would be approximately 37m to the west and 24m to the east, which is below the Manual for Manx Roads standard requiring 43m. However, as there is no intensification of use of the access, the improvement in visibility achieved from the proposed driveway will be acceptable, despite not meeting the appropriate standard. Thus the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no objection subject to the condition for all access arrangements to accord to drawing No. JTM2059-P-05. An advisory for a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement to apply too.
5.3 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management - no interest (27/04/2021) - 5.4 The owners of Arkadia - Objection (30/04/2021 and 11/06/2021) - They express concerns for both the front and rear extension closest to their boundary. The rear extension projects between the rear line of their house and sits on a ground level 0.8m higher than their property. The extension will sit directly alongside their amenity terrace. The extensions height, combined with the level changes will have a great impact on their property and the shadow plans demonstrate the proposal will result in a loss of light to their rear bedroom window and amenity space. The rear extension is not subordinate, its design and scale will have an overbearing impact on the enjoyment of their property and will create unreasonable overlooking to the rear of the garden from the mezzanine level. In terms of the front
extension the proposal will create an overbearing impact on their property decreasing outlook and direct light from one of their bedrooms and increasing the tunnelling effect with overlooking impacts from the proposed rooflights.
6.1 The matters to consider in the assessment of the application are the impacts of the extensions and alterations on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and streetscene, whether there would be any impacts on the amenities of the neighbours and whether there would be any highway safety impacts as a result of the proposed access works.
6.2 The extensions and alterations are spread across the front and rear of the dwelling, and the size, scale, design and finish or each would be in keeping and remain subordinate to the main dwelling, their position and size would not cause harm the established building line along the road also minded that there is a mix of single and two storey dwellings along here and the proposals would not appear out of character. While flat roof extensions are generally to be avoided, the existing house is not of any traditional or exceptional character to warrant its protection and given the position of the flat roof elements to the rear it is not considered that there development will result in any harm visually or on amenity to 'Cintra' to warrant a refusal. In this respect the proposal is not considered to unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the surrounding area and is to have an acceptable impact on 'Cintra' so as to comply with General Policy 2 and the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2019.
6.3 Comments have been received from the owners of Arkadia in respect of both the front and rear pitched roof extensions closest to their boundary. These comments have been acknowledged and it is accepted and empathised that the proposal will undoubtedly present a noticeable change to the existing arrangement between the two properties, but on reviewing the nature of the proposals, the relationship between the two minded that dwellings all along here all sit fairly close side by side but with wide open aspects views to both the front and rear elevations that the proposals would not result in such a significant adverse impact on the general outlook, daylight or general amenities of the occupants of Arkadia so as to cause unacceptable harm to their overall living conditions to warrant a refusal. It is also noted that given the arrangement of the dwellings along here with established levels of overlooking between the upper floors of adjacent neighbouring windows over rear gardens and vice versa that while there is accepted there will be a potential increase as a result of the proposed rear extension that this is not considered to be so significantly harmful beyond existing arrangements as to refuse on privacy or overlooking matters. For this reason the proposal is considered to be acceptable in respect of General Policy 2 (b, c and g). - 6.4 The driveway works will result in an increased width to an already operational access point into the site. The changes are not expected to make worse any existing arrangements or visibility from the access and thus no new highway safety issues are expected. Updated drawings were provided for the access at request of DOI, these demonstrating approx. 25m visibility east and 35m visibility west. Although no new comments were received from DOI it is considered that in this instance the level of development proposed is acceptable and to comply with General Policy 2 (h and i).
7.1 The proposal is considered acceptable in to comply with General Policy 2 and the general principles set out in the Residential Design Guide 2019 and not to result in any significant adverse harm on the amenities of the neighbours to warrant a refusal. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, 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 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 : 05.08.2021 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown