Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00907/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00907/B Applicant : Mr Steve Marsland Proposal : Alterations and erection of extension to rear and side elevations of dwelling Site Address : 4 Thornton Avenue Douglas Isle of Man IM1 4NU
Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken : 20.08.2015 Site Visit : 20.08.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND NUMBER OF THOSE RECOMMENDED FOR INTERESTED PERSON STATUS.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of No. 4 Thornton Avenue, a two storey semi- detached dwelling located on the southern side of Belmont Hill, Douglas.
1.2 Neighbouring the application site to the south east elevation is No. 3 Thornton Avenue. To the rear of the application site is a large garden that slopes downwards towards the rear lane. The rear garden is bounded by hedging on all sides with fencing to the western side.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear and western side elevation of the dwelling.
2.2 The application originally proposed an extension that would have been erected directly on the boundary shared with No. 3 Thornton Avenue. The extension proposed also had a lean to roof. The owners and/or occupants of No. 3 Thornton Avenue objected to the application on the grounds of, inter alia, loss of light, over development, and undue massing. The scheme was amended to take into account those objections.
2.3 What is now proposed is an extension that would project 2.4 metres from the rear elevation and just less than 1.7 metres from the side elevation. The extension would have a hipped roof with a maximum height of 3.3 metres at the side and 4.6 metres at the rear as a result of the difference in land level.
2.4 The extension would be finished in a spar dash render to match the main dwelling with the roof finished in small format tiles, Rosemary or similar to the main house.
2.5 The final element of the proposal is the erection of a raised decking area to the rear of the extension. The decking area would be erected 0.8 metres above ground level and would have rail and guarding at a height of just less than 1.1 metres.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00907/B
Page 2 of 6
3.1 Most recently, planning approval was granted in 2015 under PA 15/00754/B for the installation of a dormer to rear the elevation.
3.2 No. 10 Thornton Avenue sought planning approval in 1995 under PA 95/00647/B for the erection of a conservatory over proposed new French doors. This previous planning application was refused at appeal by virtue of the drop in levels between No. 10 and 9 Thornton Avenue; the conservatory would be unneighbourly and would result in overlooking and possible outlook and loss of light.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area zoned as Residential under the Douglas Local Plan 1998.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
General Policy 2 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, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is 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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the current planning application (30/11/2015).
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application (19/11/2015).
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00907/B
Page 3 of 6
5.3 A representation has been received from the owners and/or occupiers of No. 2 Thornton Avenue objecting to the planning application on the grounds of loss of light, the development may set a precedent and the extension is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and surrounding dwellings (24/08/2015).
5.4 On receipt of amended plans, a further representation has been received from the owners and/or occupiers of No. 2 Thornton Avenue stating that none of the amendments will in any way reduce the impact of the extension on No. 2 Thornton Avenue and the previous objections remain valid.
5.5 A representation has been received from the owners and/or occupiers of No. 3 Thornton Avenue who object to the planning application for the following reasons:
The proposed privacy screen appears to be an awkward design which will affect the outlook, be overshadowing and be too dominant for the garden of No. 3 Thornton Avenue (01/09/2015).
5.6 On receipt of amended plans, a further representation has been received from the owners and/or occupiers of No. 3 Thornton Avenue further objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
The proposed extension will impose on the lifestyle, restrict natural light and aesthetically impose and alter the garden functionality of No. 3 Thornton Avenue (03/12/2015).
5.7 A representation has been received from the owner and/or occupier of No. 5 Thornton Avenue objecting to the planning application as the proposal is too close and would result in a loss of privacy (21/09/2015).
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 There are three issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application:
The impact upon the residential amenity of Nos. 2, 3 and 5 Thornton Avenue; 2) The impact upon the enjoyment of the application dwelling and site; and 3) The impact upon the street scene of Thornton Avenue and Belmont Hill.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00907/B
Page 4 of 6
6.2 NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
6.2.1 The owner and/or occupiers of No. 2 Thornton Avenue have objected to the planning application on the grounds that the proposed extension and privacy screens would result in a loss of light, the development may set a precedent and the extension is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and surrounding dwellings.
6.2.2 With regards to No. 2 Thornton Avenue, the extension would be almost 11 metres from the rear elevation of No. 2 Thornton Avenue. At present, the rear of No. 2 Thornton Avenue directly faces the existing boundary between No. 3 Thornton Avenue and their side elevation. Whilst partial views of the extension would be attainable, given the distance between the two properties, and the fact that no.3 Thornton Avenue sits in the middle of them, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any undue harm to the residents of no.2 Thornton Avenue.
6.2.3 The owner and/or occupier of No. 5 Thornton Avenue objected to the current planning application on the grounds that the development is too close to them and would impact on their privacy. The extension would be 0.9 metres from the boundary. The boundary between the two properties is made up of part fencing and part hedging that has a height of approximately 2.5 metres. The extension that would sit adjacent to the side elevation of No. 5 Thornton Avenue and would have a height of 3.3 metres and as a result 0.8 metres of the extension would protrude above.
6.2.4 The extension would be visible from the first floor windows of the neighbouring dwelling; the existing ground floor windows directly face the existing boundary and would not be affected by the extension. The proposed door within the side elevation of the extension would also face the boundary as would the decking and as such there would be no additional overlooking that may harm the amenity of the neighbouring dwelling and therefore it is not considered that the development proposed would result in an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of No. 5 Thornton Avenue.
6.2.5 With respect to No. 3 Thornton Avenue, the scheme has been amended to attempt to overcome the objections made by the occupants of this property.
6.2.6 The extension would be erected a minimum of 1 metre from the boundary shared with No. 3 Thornton Avenue and would be 2.4m in depth. The existing boundary is made up of hedging that has a height of approximately 2.5 metres also. Roughly 1.9 metres of the proposed extension would protrude above the boundary hedge. The proposed decking area would be, at most, 0.5 metres below the hedge boundary.
6.2.7 The key considerations in assessing the impact of the extension upon the amenity of the neighbouring dwelling is the impact upon outlook and light; two material considerations that No. 3 Thornton Avenue have objected on the grounds upon and the impact of the decking upon the privacy of the neighbouring dwelling.
6.2.8 Regarding both outlook and light, it should be noted that whilst the proposal is single storey, the internal floor level is higher than the outside ground level and consequently the extension, at 3.5m to the eaves, would be higher than many single storey extensions. However, the extension would only be 2.4m deep and is set away from the boundary. This would both reduce the impact the extension would have on the neighbouring property such that it would not be unduly overbearing, or result in an undue loss of light.
6.2.9 Turning to the impact upon the decking area, as previously mentioned the decking area would be lower than the height of the existing hedge boundary. The average person has a height of 1.7 metres. Taking this into consideration, if a person of average height was stood at the nearest part of the decking, the person's sightline would be directly at the hedge boundary and overlooking
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00907/B
Page 5 of 6
would not be readily achievable. In this instance, and on balance, this element of the proposal is deemed acceptable.
6.3 EXISTING DWELLING
6.3.1 Rear extensions are a relatively common way of extending a property to create additional room. It is imperative that the extension does not result in the loss of a significant amenity space and most importantly the extension must respect the character and appearance of the dwelling.
6.3.2 The existing dwelling enjoys a relatively sizeable garden in which the proposed extension is judged to respect in terms of layout, scale and landscape of the space around. The proposed development is not deemed to compromise the garden area.
6.3.3 With regard to the impact upon the character and appearance main house, the proposal is judged to be sympathetic to the appearance and form of the existing dwelling. The proposed extension would be finished in materials to match the main house and the fact that the extension would be single storey; it would remain subservient to the main house and not take away from the character of the main dwelling.
6.4 STREET SCENE
6.4.1 The rear and side extension would partially be visible from the rear lane with the side extension visible from Belmont Hill. As previously mentioned the extension would be single storey and with regards to the side extension, would be set back from the highway by just less than 14 metres.
6.4.2 For the same reasons above, the extension would be finished in materials to match the main house and due to the fact it would be single storey and set back from the main house it would not overpower the existing dwelling and harm the existing appearance and character of the main dwelling.
6.4.3 On assessment, it is considered that the proposed rear extension would have a minimal impact upon the street scene and public amenity in general.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 For the reasons mention above, the proposed development is deemed acceptable and as such the planning application is recommended for approval.
8.0 PARTY STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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 considered material; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00907/B
Page 6 of 6
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
The owners and/or occupiers of No. 2 Thornton Avenue; The owners and/or occupiers of No. 3 Thornton Avenue; and The owner and/or occupier No. 5 Thornton Avenue
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.12.2015
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to DWG No.: PTA - 179 - 02 Rev.: B date stamped 9th November 2015 and PTA - 179 - 01 - Rev.: A date stamped 13th November 2015
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Approved
Committee Meeting Date: 04.01.2016
Signed : A Morgan Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
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