119781

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/00264/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/00264/B Applicant : Mr Alexander & Mrs Meggan Rockwell Proposal : Erection of a rear extension Site Address : 27 Ashberry Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1PY

Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 26.03.2020 Site Visit : 26.03.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.07.2020 __

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. This application is considered to comply with GP2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings nos 01A, 02A date-stamped as having been received on 13th July 2020.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 27 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas, a two- storey semi-detached dwelling located on the south closing to the west end of Ashberry Avenue. It has a pitched roof and is finished in peddle dash rendering.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/00264/B                                     Page  2  of  4

2.1 The proposed work is the erection of a single-storey extension on the rear elevation of the property. The work will be carried out with access to the neighbouring property.

2.2 The proposed extension is going to have the following features: o approx. 2.5m wide and projecting approx. 4.65m from the rear elevation; o A pitched roof with four rooflights; o The elevations will be finished in render to match the existing; o Panorama bi-fold doors on the east elevation; o A pentagon windows on the south elevation; o a flue at the northeast corner of the extension with a height approx. 1.6m over the roof.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use in the Douglas Local Plan 1998.

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

4.3 General Policy 2: "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 (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the space around them".

4.4 "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 an existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."

4.5 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.

4.6 RDG 3.2 Potential Visual Impact of an Extension upon the Existing House states a pitched roof is preferred to a flat roof, especially when it's publicly visible. However, an exception can possibly be made when the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design.

4.7 RDG 4.2 Single Storey Rear Extension sets out some key considerations. These include the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties such as loss of light and/or overbearing. These impacts can be regulated by designing with the right depth (projection) and location. The section also specifically mentioned that terraced/semi-detached dwellings have the potential for the greatest concern due to the potential of "tunnel effect".

4.8 RDG 4.3.2 sets out a guide for determining the impact of a rear extension to the neighbouring property using the "45-degree approach". The paragraph then stresses that passing the test does not mean automatic approval or the reverse. Also, it points out that the approach could be unusable with certain orientations and changes in levels.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/00264/B                                     Page  3  of  4

4.9 RDG 5 sets out key considerations regarding architectural details. These include window details and external finishing. The general idea is that the extension should have a similar style with the main dwelling for a coherent appearance unless the clash between modern and traditional design can be handled with elegance.

4.10 RDG 7 sets out key considerations regarding the impact on neighbouring properties. These include the potential loss of light/overshadowing, overbearing impact upon outlook and overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection on this application (24/03/2020).

5.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (01/04/2020).

5.3 During a site visit (14/07/2020), the residents of neighbouring property (29 Ashberry Road) expressed that they are aware of the potential access need to their property during construction and they do not object to the proposal.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main concerns for this application are its impact on the character and appearance of the area, on the amenities of the neighbours (both the extension and the flue).

6.2 The extension is at the rear of the property, there are no public vantage points that have a clear view of the extension. The extension is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling. It should not stand out around the neighbours. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on the character or landscape of the area.

6.3 There was some initial concern of the overshadowing of the extension to the neighbouring property. However, site visit shows proposed extension is not tall enough to create such an impact. Accordingly, there is little concern regarding the loss of light and overbearing impact upon the outlook of neighbouring properties.

6.4 There is no window on the west elevation, which next to the neighbouring property, so there is no loss of privacy for the neighbouring dwelling.

6.5 The flue is domestic and its size is unlikely to stand out from the surroundings. It is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the character of the surrounding.

6.6 There has been a recent application that was approved initially but refused on appeal following an adverse recommendation from the inspector. This application, 18/01125/B at Close Cowley was refused for reasons relating to the appearance of the flue and the effect of its use in terms of smell and smoke nuisance, to the immediate neighbour. The inspector accepted that that flue would only be seen by those living around the site but still considered that an adverse visual impact experienced by them would breach GP2 and the RDG. He was also concerned about the emissions from the flue, regardless of the fact that it appeared to have been installed by a registered installer and that Environmental Health had visited the site and had not experienced any smoke or smell. This flue was installed almost on the boundary of both properties and approximately 1m from the rear elevation, extending around 1m higher than the eaves of the main part of the two-storey house.

6.7 What is proposed here is much higher in height, as it is built on the roof of the extension and is taller than the eave of the main dwelling.

6.5 Discussions with the Head of Building Control and Standards within the Department indicate that in his view, the issue at Close Cowley was not with the location and installation of the flue, which would appear to accord with the guidelines in the Building Regulations, but was with the operation and possibly the use of unsuitable fuel. There are procedures for this, which would

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/00264/B                                     Page  4  of  4

normally involve the installer returning to check the installation. Whilst in the Close Cowley case, the EHI visited the site. It is clear that on their visit there was no smoke or smell nuisance. It would appear from the discussions with Building Control that there are both standards for flues and measures which can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection which can address issues should they arise.

6.6 As such, in the absence of any evidence that this currently proposed flue will result in harm to the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, the flue is considered acceptable.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.

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: (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 which 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 the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 16.07.2020

Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

Head of Development Management

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.