Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/01233/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/01233/B Applicant : Mr Daniel Priestnal Proposal : Alterations and erection of side extension to replace existing detached garage Site Address : 31 Eskdale Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2AH
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 15.01.2020 Site Visit : 15.01.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.03.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. It is considered that the proposal would be clearly visible from public view and from No. 30 Eskdale Road and have an unacceptable impact on the appearance of both the property and the streetscene due to its height (in particular in relation to the roof of the existing house), size (in particular the increase to the length of the South-West elevation) and design (in particular roof shape and join to the existing house) and as such be contrary to parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016) and paragraphs 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 of the Residential Design Guidance (2018). __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site is an existing detached bungalow within an established residential area, which contains a mix of properties, predominantly detached. The application property is pebble dashed with a pitched roof and white uPVC windows, including two bays to the South West elevation. Existing fencing is to the rear and one side elevation.
1.2 Eskdale Road rises from the junction with King Edward Park to the South East, bends around a corner before re-joining King Edward Park Road. To the rear of the property is the kitchen, bathroom and study (all with windows in the rear elevation), with a small porch flat-roof extension (3.3 metres in height meeting the main house under the gutters), accessed by steps. The property
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/01233/B Page 2 of 6
has garden on all sides, with the main areas being the front, the side (onto Eskdale Road) and the rear (including drive way and previously occupied by a garage, which has since been demolished).
1.3 The plans do not show the existing parking area, and it appears some work has already been carried out (see below), however the original proposal (since superseded - see below) shows parking for two cars in tandem.
1.4 The property faces North-West and occupies a corner-plot, meaning that to the North-East is a neighbouring property (No. 29) to the rear is a neighbouring property (No. 33) whilst the South West boundary of the property (a side boundary) is with Eskdale Road itself, and it is to this side where the existing driveway (including access) is located. Nos. 22, 24 and 26 Eskdale Road face the front of the application site, N. 28 has an angled view of the corner and Nos. 30 and 32 face the side. There is a small cul-de-sac of properties to the North West of King Edward Park, with No. 13 facing North East but having an irregular shaped garden with a point just touching the rear garden of the application site.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes the removal of the garage and its replacement with an extension, alterations to the parking area and replacement windows.
2.2 The replacement windows are shown on the plans but not referenced in the application form. They include the removal of the two bays to the South West elevation and replacement of the two bays with flat windows.
2.3 The extension would be to the rear elevation. It would be 3.6 metres high with a flat roof (with parapet), which would join the main house roof just above the level of the existing gutters. The walls would be pebble dashed to match the existing and the windows would be anthracite uPVC (to match the proposed replacements to the remainder of the house). The main foot print would occupy part of the footprint of the former garage, and would be an extension of the kitchen to provide a dining room (6.3 by 4.4 metres externally - 27.7 square metres) with a window to the South West elevation (facing the road) and doors to the North East (facing into the rear garden) giving stepped access. This part of the extension would involve the removal of the existing porch. The bathroom would also be extended (2.4 by 1.3 metres - 3.1 square metres) with a window facing South East (into the rear garden).
2.4 The application is supported by a short letter which seeks to justify the use of a flat roof. It states that the applicant wishes to apply in the future to raise his roof slightly to accommodate additional living space, and so does not want to install a roof on the extension which would be impacted on by any future works. The cheaper cost is also noted. It is suggested that the parapet (which would hide the fibreglass roof) would be, "an attractive addition and less noticeable from the road" (it is not clear whether this comment relates to the whole extension or just the parapet, or what it is being compared to). It is also noted that all the windows would be replaced with new, including the removal of "ugly bay windows".
2.5 The plans were amended following comments from highways and now show two parking spaces to the South West, each measuring 2.5 by 5.5 metres.
2.6 The application form indicates that there would be no alteration of any vehicle or pedestrian access to any public highway, and none is shown on the plans. Upon visiting the site it was noted that there does appear to have been some works to the access (to the edge of the wall and the crossing over the pavement) however it is not clear whether these would constitute development (may be just repair) or who carried out the works. The application has been assessed on there being no material change to the access and that no retrospective approval is sought for any changes which may have been made (if any).
2.7 It was also noted that the detached garage had already been demolished and the area cleared (and remains surfaced - presumably in part with the former foundations). The complete demolition of a detached building outside a Conservation Area is not development and therefore this
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/01233/B Page 3 of 6
is not a concern. However, the application is assessed on the basis of there being no existing garage (or detached building) on site.
2.8 No works to trees are proposed.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICIES, GUIDANCE AND LEGISLATION 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Douglas Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area or within an area identified as at risk of flooding. The following provisions of the Strategic Plan (2016) are therefore considered relevant
4.2 Paragraph 8.12.1 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".
4.3 General Policy 2 sets out general 'Development Control' considerations, including in , including requiring that 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; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; ..."
4.4 The Residential Design Guide (2019) is capable of being a material consideration. It states at 1.2.2 that, "This document provides general advice but cannot cover every eventuality. Wherever possible, it sets out generally acceptable approaches. If a proposal does not meet these, the planning application should explain why. All planning applications will be judged on their merits, taking account of the likely effect on neighbouring properties and the character of the building or street".
4.5 It states at 3.1.3 that, "The main design elements that should be considered include: o the relationship to the original part of the building - including materials, design and detailing (such as window materials and proportions);
4.6 The relevant elements of this are reflected in the assessment section.
4.7 The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 gives approval for certain forms of development, subject to general conditions that there is no material change to accesses for vehicular traffic (including widening). Part A of Schedule 1 makes provisions in relation to dwellinghouses (subject to no works to trees) including an extension, subject to limitations which include:
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/01233/B Page 4 of 6
4.8 The order also gives approval for garages subject various limitations, which include:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Onchan Commissioners support the application (11.12.19)
5.2 DOI Highway Services originally objected (10.12.19) due to the parking being too small, in response to this the applicant submitted amended plans with reconfigured parking. Further comments were provided (03.03.20) indicating that the parking area was still too small, and further widening may be required which may require an amendment to the access (including dropped kerb). They suggest two conditions, one requiring revised plans showing an enlarged parking area and amendments to access and one requiring the area to be bound prior to use.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There is a general presumption in favour of extensions to domestic properties in residential areas. Therefore, there are four main elements of the proposal to consider - the extension itself (in relation to impact on neighbours and visual appearance), the driveway, the replacement of the existing windows and the impact of the works on the quality of accommodation for current and future occupiers.
6.2 The extension - impact on neighbours 6.2.1 The RDG states at, "7.2.1 There are some common issues in relation to impact on neighbouring properties which may apply to both new dwellings and extensions to dwellings, and these are:
6.2.2 Given the layout of both the application site and wider estate (including presence of existing fencing), it is not considered that the extension would have any detrimental impact on the outlook, privacy or amenity of the neighbouring properties. The closest elevation of No. 29 Eskdale Road contains what appears to be a bathroom window facing the application site, the extension would be roughly in-line with no. 33 (with no new windows facing it) and the angle of the doors to the extension compared to No. 13 Edward Park mean overlooking/privacy concerns are unlikely. The extension would not be visible to most properties within the area, other than No. 30 Eskdale which would face onto it (and to a much lesser extent No 32). It is not considered that the size, scale or position would impact on the overall outlook from No. 30, however visual impact is considered below.
6.3. The extension - visual appearance/impact on streetscene 6.3.1 As noted above the extension would be visible to some properties. Furthermore, because of the layout it would be visible to those moving along Eskdale Road, appearing as a side extension (and fully visible) when viewed from the South West.
6.3.2 The RDG states at 3.2.1 that, "Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house". The extension is quite large when compared to the overall size of the house - a
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/01233/B Page 5 of 6
more than 50% increase in the length of the South West elevation from 7.1 (8.8 including porch) to 11.6, and it joins the roofline above the gutter.
6.3.3 The RDG states at, "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". It states at 4.4.2 that, "It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling". The main house has a pitched roof, the extension has a flat roof and would be publically visible and form a quite clumsy join to the existing house.
6.3.4 The RDG states at 3.3.1 that, "Extensions should generally be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street in which they are seen". Notwithstanding the points above about size and shape, the approach in terms of materials is noted.
6.3.5 The RDG states at 4.5 that, "The extension of dwellings which are positioned on corner plots needs careful consideration, as these are generally apparent from the adjacent public highway (footpath/road) and can result in a dominating feature in the street scene, particularly if they come forward of the general line of the fronts of neighbouring properties. Extensions in these locations should not be visually over- dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the street scene". It is noted that the extension would not break the existing building line.
6.4 The driveway 6.4.1 Given the modest size of the previous garage (5m x 2.9 metre footprint, with pitched roof with maximum height of 2.4 metres), that the existing parking did not appear to meet current standards and that this is an extension to an existing domestic property (and so has no net change in parking requirements) one way of approaching this would be to consider whether the development would have a net reduction in parking provision from the previous/existing situation rather than whether it would meet current standards. The removal of the garage has created more potential parking space if the current situation remained (i.e. with the garage demolished and no extension), however equally some of this area could be turned to lawn. Either way, a small part of the proposed extension encroaches into what would have been parking in front of the garage and so is considered to be a net reduction.
6.4.2 The comments from highways are noted. It is debatable as to whether it would be considered acceptable to approve the application subject to a condition requiring the redesign of the parking area and the introduction of changes to the access where none were proposed, however given the changes to the access are being suggested by DOI Highways it is considered that they would likely be acceptable.
6.4.3 The RDG states at 6.3.4 that, "Proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped 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". Although the drive way is to the side elevation, as this elevation faces onto a road, the garden here acts in effect as a front garden. The proposal would reduce the available area, but soft-landscaped areas would remain.
6.4.4 On balance, whilst the concerns with parking weigh against the proposal, they are not considered sufficient grounds for refusal.
6.5 The windows
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/01233/B Page 6 of 6
6.5.1 The updating of the windows is likely to improve the appearance of the property. As the property is not within a Conservation Area, some of these works would be approved under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (as long as there is no change to the opening sizes), and have therefore not been assessed further. It is not considered that the presence of bays is particularly harmful to the streetscene, and so whilst there removal is unobjectionable, it is not considered to weigh in favour of approving the other elements of the scheme.
6.6 Quality of Accommodation 6.6.1 Sometimes the enlargement of a dwelling can result in an unacceptable reduction of outside space. Leaving aside the comments in relation to parking, it is considered there is sufficient remaining outside space for occupiers.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is recommended that the application is refused due to its impact on the visual appearance of the property and wider street-scene. The fall-back position in relation to permitted development is noted, which could potentially allow for the construction of a garage or smaller extension, but either of these is considered likely to have less visual impact and impact on parking than the proposal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 05.03.2020
Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE
Jennifer Chance
Director of Planning and Building Control
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal