Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00209/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00209/B Applicant : Mrs Lesley Corlett Proposal : Alterations and extension to property, including widening of existing vehicular access Site Address : The Rowans Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1AU
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.08.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its height and location of proposed windows, and their proximity to the neighbouring dwelling would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of the adjacent property 'Four Winds' by causing loss of privacy, and appearing as an overbearing feature as viewed from 'Four Winds'. The proposal would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 2. Whilst the existing dwelling is not traditional in form it is situated within open fields on a section of the A27 which makes the dwelling easily identifiable without being particularly prominent. What is proposed would increase the built form in a way that is strikingly different in terms of form, mass, materials and appearance when compared to the existing dwelling and the surrounding buildings. As such, the proposed design, finish, mass and appearance of the dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Housing Policy 16 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00209/B Page 2 of 8
"Four Winds," Quines Hill, Port Soderick as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (January 2020) __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 'The Rowans,' Quines Hill, Braddan which is situated to north of Old Castletown Road just after the 30mph signs and sharp bend when travelling from the east. The dwelling is a modern two storey detached house with access onto the A27 (Old Castletown Road). The dwelling features a large roof, front porch, bay window to the right hand side of the front elevation and a single storey double detached garage. In terms of finish the property is mainly spar dash with painted render and uPVC casement windows.
1.2 The paved driveway into the site is 2.55m wide and spreads out into the hard standing which connects the garage to the main dwelling covering an area of 176sq.m. There is hedging surrounding the site, although the hedging on the north eastern elevation is lower than on other sections of the property.
1.3 The property is situated higher than its immediate neighbour of 'Four Winds,' Quines Hill, Douglas and is surrounded by open agricultural land. The area is characterised by a small cluster of dwellings of various designs and a few modern terraced dwellings.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for alterations, extensions and the raising of the roof to create a full head height second floor to the dwelling.
2.2 The alterations and extension to the first floor level is the erection of an attached double garage to the eastern elevation which will measure 8.5m by 5.7m. The erection of a front bay window to supply additional living accommodation to bedroom 2 and the alterations of adding and subtracting windows to the south and west elevations.
2.3 The alterations and extension to the second floor level include extensions to the dwelling so that the second floor has the same floor area as the first floor level. There is also proposed a balcony situated to the north west part of the rear elevation which measures 4.355m by 3.260m and is stepped back 0.3m from the main dwelling.
2.4 The works proposed will raise the overall roof height from 0.6m to 4m depending on which part of the property the roof is situated at and will include the introduction of nine new windows and two new doors to the second floor level.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There are several applications on the site of which the most recent is the most relevant. PA19/00550/B was for the "Alterations, extension and raising of roof to create a second floor to dwelling" and was Refused on the below reasoning.
3.2 Reason for Refusal 1, "Whilst the existing building is not traditional it is situated within open fields and at a conspicuous section of the A27 which makes the building easily identifiable without being particularly prominent. What is proposed would increase the built form in a way that is strikingly different in terms of form, mass, materials, and appearance when compared to the existing and the surrounding buildings and the inclusion of additional floor area at roof level makes the dwelling dominating from public views. As such, the proposed design, finish, mass and appearance of the dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the character and
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00209/B Page 3 of 8
appearance of the area, contrary to Housing Policy 16 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan 2016."
3.3 Reason for Refusal 2, "The proposed extension, by virtue of its height, location of proposed windows and balcony, and their proximity to the neighbouring dwelling would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of the adjacent property 'Four Winds' by causing loss of privacy, and appearing as an overbearing feature as viewed from 'Four Winds'. The proposal would therefore be an un-neighbourly development contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Open Space (Agricultural) on the Braddan Local Plan 1991, Map 3. Whilst the property is just outside the hamlet of Quines Hill the Braddan Local Plan 1991 has a policy which is relevant to Quines Hill and as such due to it's close proximity is relevant to this assessment, "Policy 5.7 If any Development is to be permitted in the above areas, then particular attention will be paid to the architectural merits if the proposal in addition to location and massing."
3.2 Whilst the development proposed is not in accordance with the open space zoning of the site a dwelling has been situated on the site long enough for the site to be zoned as Residential as such General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 is relevant is the assessment of this application. General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Stategic Plan 2016 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, providing that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where such a brief; 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;
3.3 Also relevant is Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which states "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services have considered the application and Do not Oppose but note the following "Given the fact that the access is existing and the application relates to a slight widening and improved access arrangement there are no objections from a highways aspect."
5.2 Whilst no comments were received from Braddan Commissioners at the time of writing this report (26/8/20) confirmation was received prior to the decision notice going out that the Authority had no objection 4/9/20 .
5.3 An agent has put in an objection on behalf of "Four Winds" who object against the proposal under the below grounds; o The extension is right up to the boundary of Four Winds and is very imposing. It will be considerably higher and quite dominating. o The windows to the side elevation of the house will completely overlook my parent's garden, most of their garden is at the front and they will lose any aspect of privacy.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00209/B Page 4 of 8
o The amount of shade this building would cause, would render half of their garden to be without sun for a large portion of the day.
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this Planning Application is whether the application has responded to the reasons for refusal of PA19/00550/B, the impact on the neighbouring property, whether the works comply with Housing Policy 16 and the character and appearance of the property as a whole and the character and appearance of the streetscene.
6.2 Refusal of PA19/00550/B
6.2.2 Prior to assessing the proposed application it is necessary to see if the new application has taken the reasons for refusal on board and altered the application to take the reasons for refusal into account.
6.2.3 The previous application was refused for two separate reasons. Firstly the previous application was refused for the following reason, "Whilst the existing building is not traditional it is situated within open fields and at a conspicuous section of the A27 which makes the building easily identifiable without being particularly prominent. What is proposed would increase the built form in a way that is strikingly different in terms of form, mass, materials, and appearance when compared to the existing and the surrounding buildings and the inclusion of additional floor area at roof level makes the dwelling dominating from public views. As such, the proposed design, finish, mass and appearance of the dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Housing Policy 16 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan 2016."
6.2.4 When looking at the proposed application against the previously refused application, it can be seen that there has been a removal of a third level and as such the proposed application is at a lower height, with the lowest extension of height being 0.6m high not the 1.8m of the previous application. Where the roof has been reduced in height the overall mass of the property has been increased on the proposed application with the existing garage being demolished and a double garage on ground floor and a bedroom with en-suite being added to the first floor level.
6.3.5 With regards to the overall appearance of the property the previous application makes reference to inappropriate forms and design for the area with regards to the surrounding buildings. When looking at the proposed application the windows and overall design is more symmetrical which lends the design to looking more streamlined.
6.3.6 Secondly the previous application was refused for "The proposed extension, by virtue of its height, location of proposed windows and balcony, and their proximity to the neighbouring dwelling would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of the adjacent property 'Four Winds' by causing loss of privacy, and appearing as an overbearing feature as viewed from 'Four Winds'. The proposal would therefore be an un-neighbourly development contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
6.2.5 When looking at the previous application it can be seen that the balconies to the front, the side Juliet balconies and the large rear balcony have been omitted from the current application, whilst still keeping additional windows and a balcony to the rear. Overlooking has been assessed in this application, further down in the report.
6.3 Impacts on Neighbours
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00209/B Page 5 of 8
6.3.1 When looking at the possible impact on neighbouring properties, "The Rowans" is the first property on the northern end when coming into Quines Hill as such the only neighbour which would be affected by the proposed works with regards to possible overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing impact would be "Four Winds," which is situated to the north west of the property.
6.3.2 "Four Winds" is defined as a bungalow, which is situated within a large plot of which the property is set back from the road by around 17 metres. This means that the majority of the properties garden is situated to the front with a small rear garden. Currently at the moment "Four Winds" uses the rear garden for growing a wide range of vegetables, of which a shed and greenhouse are situated near the boundary between "The Rowans" and "Four Winds."
6.3.3 With regards to the possible overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing impact that the proposed alterations to "The Rowans" could have on "Four Winds," it is relevant to assess the alterations in their most simplistic forms. The main alterations to "The Rowans" is the raising of the roof which in its most simplistic form will be adding an additional floor level that will introduce three additional windows into "The Rowans" to the second floor level where there was previously only one window facing "Four Winds."
6.3.4 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 has guidance on the possibility of overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing impact which is helpful when understanding if there is a possibility of them with specific regards to the alterations proposed in this application.
6.4 Overlooking
6.4.1 Overlooking looks different in different situations, when looking at the properties in question "The Rowan" and "Four Winds" are properties within a large plot which have large front gardens and small rear gardens. Both properties face agricultural fields to the rear and are a suitable distance away from each other as such overlooking between these properties should be minimal or non-existent.
6.4.2 When looking at the proposed property firstly to the front elevation there is the introduction of two windows to the south elevation on the first floor level which will add a degree of overlooking. The proposed windows are in two separate rooms which are connected by a doorway, firstly the kitchen then secondly the dining room, both windows are sized 1.2m high by 1.5m wide. Due to both rooms being a "primary habitable room," the likelihood that overlooking is possible is high, especially as these windows face directly onto the full front garden of "Four Winds."
6.4.3 With regards to the rear of the property when looking at the possibility of overlooking to the first floor level of the existing property a window to the rear does exist, whilst this could have added a degree of overlooking the window is situated 5.6m in from the north west elevation to the middle of the main property and it directly faces the rear fields not the rear garden of the "Four Winds."
6.4.4 The proposed alterations to the existing property will add an additional window to this elevation which does add a degree of overlooking due to the window being situated 3.5m closer to "Four Winds" and as such directly overlooks the rear garden of "Four Winds" with the potential to completely see a majority of the rear garden from this vantage point.
6.4.5 Another factor to look at is the "20 meter rule" whilst this isn't technically for the potential of overlooking into a garden, it is the potential of overlooking between properties and as such has some merit when looking at the possibility of overlooking. The distance between the middle of the proposed window closest to "Four Winds" is approximately 6.5m away from the boundary line between "The Rowans" and "Four Winds," which is less than half of the 20 metre rule, with 10m being within the rear garden of "four Winds."
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00209/B Page 6 of 8
6.4.6 This alteration is adding an unnecessary amount of overlooking which wasn't previously available. It should be noted that whilst "Four Winds" occupants currently use the rear garden as a vegetable garden this might not always be the case, with the potential that the rear garden could be used more with any subsequent occupants due to the rear facing open fields, as such the rear should be protected from the potential of unnecessary overlooking.
6.5 Overshadowing
6.5.1 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 states the following when looking at Loss of Light/ Overshadowing, "7.3.1 A development should not result in significant levels of day light or overshadowing especially to primary habitable rooms, or to private gardens...The impact of overshadowing will increase if the new property/extension is to the South of a neighbouring property (as the sun's orientation is East to West). When the windows affected serve habitable rooms then it will be necessary to assess the impact upon light reaching these rooms."
6.5.2 When looking at the alterations proposed to "The Rowans" the raising of the roof whilst slightly above the height of the already existing property in places and majority higher in other places. Adding in the addition of the garage and first floor level to the east of the property has the potential to create an impact of overshadowing on the north west of "Four Winds" due to the additional height of the property.
6.6 Overbearing
6.6.1 When looking at the possible overbearing impact that the alterations to the property will have the Residential Design Guidance 2019 states the following "7.4.1 Any development should ensure that the existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being impacted by an overbearing building/structure. The positioning, design and scale of an extension/new build dwellings should not be dominant or may have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that be present in a neighbouring property. It is normally possible to avoid overlooking with careful design and by following the guidance set out within this document. The impact on a private garden may include consideration of the overall size of the garden and whether only a small part is likely to be impacted on detrimentally."
6.6.2 As stated above an overbearing impact can be achieved in several different ways, when looking at the existing property the property from the rear is already imposing due to the high roof structure, adding the additional height by building a second storey on top of the already existing single storey to add approximately 4m more structure at the lowest point which would assist in an already imposing structure to be severely overbearing.
6.7 Character and Appearance and Housing Policy 16
6.7.1 The existing property "The Rowans" is of a poor architectural design which is clearly defined by the properties extra long roof. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states the following with regards to extensions on properties in the countryside, "As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the side and form of extensions to property in the countryside."
6.7.2 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 also has information on the potential visual impact of an extension upon the existing house and states the following, "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
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00209/B Page 7 of 8
preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of roof design. The extensions should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the designs, 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."
6.7.3 When looking at the information from both the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guidance 2019, the proposed property is completely different to what is currently situated on the site, not only does the roof pitch not match, there are the proposed eves level peaks to the front elevation, both of which do not fit within either the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 or the Residential Design Guidance 2016. The windows on the proposed property also do not match any which were on the existing property.
6.7.4 If you look at the existing property and the proposed property whilst the footprint for part of the structure is the same the property has completely changed from the ground up and increased the built form and mass of the dwelling. As such it is relevant to assess whether the property would have an effect on the streetscene.
6.7.5 As previously stated from "Four Winds" the proposed property is overbearing due to its proposed size and structure, this is also true for within the streetscene. HP16 states that the extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. Whilst the proposed property will only be slightly higher than the existing there will be a complete change in the property, the additional building of a second story and also the removal of the garage and adding this onto the side of the property. This amount of development will be noticed and would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
6.7.6 The property itself can be seen from the main road from both directions of the highway as such the addition of an extra storey where there is currently a long roof will add an imposing feature into the countryside, especially when seen next to "Four Winds" which is a traditional bungalow and therefore contrary to Housing Policy 16.
CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposed alterations and extensions to the property will create a completely new building in terms of design, mass, size and appearance and whilst the amenity of the existing dwelling is not compromised in the way of parking and provisions the neighbouring amenity of "Four Winds" will be compromised in terms of overlooking and overbearing impact as such the proposed works are contrary to General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g), Housing Policy 16 & the Residential Design Guide 2019.
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.
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00209/B Page 8 of 8
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.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 21.09.2020
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal