127081

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/01133/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/01133/B Applicant : Mr Richard Dick Proposal : Erection of extensions and creation of decking Site Address : 67 Ballaquark Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2ER

Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 28.10.2020 Site Visit : 28.10.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.12.2020 __

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 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing no. AT 1032.1 Rev 2, AT 1032.2 Rev 1 date-stamped as having been received on 30th September 2020. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 67 Ballaquark, Douglas, a single-storey semi-detached bungalow located on the west of the second branch road on the north of Ballaquark. The house has a cross pitched roof. There are fences around the rear boundary of the property. The rear garden is elevated for approx. 2m close to the rear boundary.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/01133/B                                     Page  2  of  4

2.1 The proposed work is the erection of a single-storey extension on the south elevation of the property and the creation of a decking area. The proposed extension is consists of two parts, the east and the west part.

2.2 The east part of the extension can be summarised as the following: o set back approx. 4.5m from the front elevation of the main dwelling; o approx. 2.5m wide and projecting approx. 2.55m from the south elevation; o approx. 3.5m high, slightly lower than the main dwelling; o flat roofs with fake gables around; o a top-hung casement on the west elevation; o cladding to match the existing.

2.3 The west part of the extension can be summarised as the following: o on the west side of the east part of the extension; o the west part of the extension is approx. 8.3m wide, extend beyond the rear elevation of the main dwelling; o the west part of the extension is projecting approx. 4.6m from the south elevation; o approx. 3.5m high, slightly lower than the main dwelling; o flat roofs with fake gables around; o a top-hung casement on the west elevation; o a French door and a casement window on both side of the door; o cladding to match the existing.

2.4 The work also includes alteration to the existing rear extension: o partial demolition of the existing rear extension projecting further for approx. 0.7m and connecting with the proposal; o extension of the pitched roof to match existing; o installation of a French door on the extended west elevation; o installation of a fixed panel window on the north elevation.

2.5 The work also includes the creation of a timber decking area approx. 12 m2 at the southwest corner of the site. There will be timber stairs on the existing slop connecting two parts of the garden.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Alterations and extension to dwelling, creation of garden decking and rendering of adjacent property walls was REFUSED under PA 10/00432/B. The proposal is similar to this application but it included the widening of the existing rear extension. The reason for refusal is overbearing on 68 Ballaquark and some design issues.

3.2 Alterations and extension to dwelling and creation of garden decking was APPROVED under PA 11/00590/B. The difference between 10/00432/B and 11/00590/B is mainly changing the widening of an existing rear extension to extend its projection. It also changed the original cross pitched roof design to the fake gable design. The officer found the changes is enough that the proposal no longer overbears on 68 Ballaquark.

3.3 The current application added the east part extension and the decking on the raised part of the rear garden.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.

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:

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/01133/B                                     Page  3  of  4

"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".

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 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".

4.7 RDG 4.4 Extension to Side Elevations sets out key considerations for side elevation extension. These include the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties. These impacts can be regulated by designing with the right location, size, and architecture style. The section also specifically mentioned that detached/semi-detached dwellings should avoid a terraced appearance due to two extensions being placed too close to each other.

4.8 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.

4.9 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 REPRESENTATION 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection on this application (26/10/2020).

5.2 DoI Highway Services do not oppose this application (13/10/2020).

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main concerns for this application are three folds: its impact on the appearance of the property itself, on the character and landscape of the area and on the amenities of the neighbours.

6.2 The extension is on the south of the property, slightly set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling. It is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling. The extension has a similar roof style, brickwork, and finishing as the main dwelling. The windows are of the same style casement as the existing dwelling and are considered acceptable.

6.3 All adjacent dwellings are semi-detached houses. There are 2m high fences with the nearest neighbouring property and the extension is single-storey so there is little concern for overlooking.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/01133/B                                     Page  4  of  4

6.4 The proposed plan is similar to the plan submitted for PA 11/00590/B and 66 and 68 Ballaquark are all on the same level. Even though the proposed extension is very close to the boundary of 66 Ballaquark, the sites are fan-shaped rather than tightly connecting rectangles so it is considered that there is no overbearing on the neighbouring property.

6.5 The proposed decking could comply with the Permitted Development Order 2012. Since the decking is on an existing raised site within the rear garden. It is considered that no new vantage point is created and therefore there is no concern for overlooking.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide Section 4, 5 and 7. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.

8.0 INTEREST 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 a Principal Planner 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: 17.12.2020

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.