Loading document...
The residential dwelling Sandygate House, Clenagh Road, Sandygate, is a two storey detached property which is located on the western side of the Clenagh Road.
The boundary treatment shared with Sandygate Cottage, which is located to the north of Sandygate House, consists of 1.5 meter high wall with additional fencing above, giving the total height of the boundary of 2 metres in height. There are also in part a number of hedges similar in height.
Along the southern boundary, which is shared with Gollane Cottage, comprises of a varying of different heights of hedging ranging from 1.5 metres to 3 metres in height.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'woodland', under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, or within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
The application proposes alterations and extension to dwelling to provide additional living accommodation. The application includes the demolition of the existing two and single storey rear outlets and replace with a two storey rear extension. The rear extension would a rear projection from the rear elevation of the dwelling of 7.9 metres, a width of 13.5 metres and a maximum height of 6 metres.
Jurby Parish Commissioners:- No objection
Highways Division:- Do not oppose
The owners/occupiers of Ashdene, Sandygate, object to the planning application which can be summarised as; the scheme would seem to change the principle entrance to Sandygate House to the rear, and therefore result in more traffic movements throughout the day creating an intolerable nuisance, and the proposal of such a large development would have a visual impact from our property.
The owners/occupiers of Sandygate Cottage, Sandygate object to the planning application which can be summarised as; huge intrusion on our view, sunlight and would result in overlooking of our garden and property due to the proposed side windows, and the scale of the extension is out of keeping with the area.
The owners/occupiers of Gollane Cottage, Sandygate, object to the planning application which can be summarised as; the larger extension will impact upon our privacy due to the side (total of seven) windows, and the proposal would be out of keeping with the area.
Material Planning matters to be considered with the application include:-
The impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties
There are two residential properties I consider to be possibly affected by the proposed extension, the first is Sandygate Cottage and the second is Gollane Cottage.
With regard to Sandygate Cottage, the extension at its closest would be located 7 metres away from the rear conservatory to the southwest. This therefore could give raise to creating an overbearing affect and/or loss of light. As stated previously the boundary treatment between the two properties is a 1.5 metre high wall with additional timber fencing, giving a height of 2 metres (approx) as well as
a number of bushes and shrubs. This treatment would lessen the possible overbearing impact of the extension, but whether it would be sufficient is the concern I have.
On balance, I consider the introduction of a two storey extension, by virtue of its proximity, position, height and length would adverse impact on the residential amenity of the adjoining dwelling Sandygate Cottage through loss of light and by having an overbearing impact, creating an unneighbourly and unacceptable development.
Regarding the impact upon Gollane Cottage, I am of the opinion that the proposed extension would not have sufficient adverse impacts to warrant a refusal in relation to Gollane Cottage. The Cottage is located to the south of the application site, and therefore the extension would not result in any loss of light. Additionally there is currently a large extension which is a similar size to what is proposed within this application. The extension would be located 12 metres from the northwest corner of Gollane Cottage and because of this, and due to the significant boundary treatment between the two properties; I consider the proposal would not create a sufficient overbearing impact to warrant a refusal.
Overlooking from the proposed side windows is a concern raised by the owners/occupiers of Ashdene and Gollane Cottage, the particularly windows in question, which I consider to be of concern, would be the first floor windows on the north and south elevations. These windows serve a bathroom, a void area and two bedrooms. The concern from overlooking from the bathroom and the void area windows could be easier overcome by condition for obscure glazing, however consideration needs to be taken with regard to obscure glazing the two bedrooms windows. The two windows in each bedroom would not be the only windows to serve the bedrooms due to windows located in the west elevation and I therefore consider adding a condition for obscure glazing to the north and south bedroom windows to be appropriate and would not significant impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of the dwelling and the users of the bedrooms. Additionally a condition of this type would prevent any overlooking of the two neighbouring properties.
Due to the boundary treatments (landscaping/fencing) which are shared with the two neighbouring properties, I do not consider any of the ground floor windows require a condition for obscure glazing or additional landscaping/fencing along the boundaries, as no overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy would occur.
Whilst the overall extension is quite substantial, the majority is replacing existing inappropriate extensions. Additionally the extension has been designed with a traditional appearance and in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91, and in my opinion will improve the appearance of the property, particularly when viewed from the rear. The increase of the height of the roof, again I do not consider to be a substantial alteration, and would not have an adverse impact upon the traditional appearance of the existing dwelling. Overall the rear extension I consider would be appropriate from a design and appearance point of view, and would not introduce extension which would be out of keeping with the existing property of that of the surrounding locality.
The concern from the owners/occupiers of Ashdene, Sandygate, that the increase in the size of Sandygate House would lead to additional traffic movements I do not agree with. The driveway and access is an existing residential access which has been in place for many years. The increase of the size of the dwelling will have little affect upon traffic movements particularly as the existing property is a four bedroom property, which would be the same if the extension where approved and carried out. The boundary treatment which is shared with Ashdene consists of a 1.5 metre high timber fence and in part a 3 metre high stone wall which runs for 7.5 metres along the boundary which forms part of a flat roof building. I therefore consider the impact upon the owners/occupiers of Ashdene, would be limited and not sufficient to warrant a refusal on these grounds.
Highways Division have no objection to the application and do not require any conditions to be attached.
The proposed extension, by virtue of its proximity, siting, height and length would adverse impact on the adjoining dwelling Sandygate Cottage and thereby would be un-neighbourly and unacceptable. For these reasons the proposal would be inappropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for a refusal.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Jurby Parish Commissioners Highways Division
Sandygate Cottage, Sandygate m & Ms knight Gollane Cottage, Sandygate miss k & B Quiggin Ashdene, Sandygate H Fx & J Yang.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 30.07.2007
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its proximity, siting, height and length would adverse impact on the adjoining dwelling Sandygate Cottage and thereby would be un-neighbourly and unacceptable.
Decision Made: ... Committee Meeting Date: ...
30 July 2007 07/00494/B Page 5 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown