180713

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/01289/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/01289/B Applicant : Mr Gavin Hunt Proposal : Erection of extension to rear of property Site Address : 15 Wallberry Mews Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2NE

Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.07.2019 __

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.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to drawing numbers 207-01 date stamped and received 28/05/2019. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of 15 Wallberry Mews, an existing mid- terrace dwelling located within a small cul-de-sac in a much wider residential area on the outskirts of Douglas just east of the IOM Business Park and part way between Vicarage Road and Stevenson Way.

1.2 The existing dwelling is one of 11 terraced properties along this side of the street. Each is a two storey dwelling that a front elevation facing towards the cul-de-sac and a rear facing a

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/01289/B                                     Page  2  of  4

garden. Running along the rear of these properties is a pedestrian footpath connecting Vicarage Road with Stevenson Way. Part way along the terrace and between No's 17 and 18 is also a small pedestrian link joining the cul-de-sac with the footpath.

1.3 The dwellings along this site of the cul-de-sac also step with the shallow sloping gradient of the land, No. 15 sits at the same ground floor level as No.14 but sits 650mm higher than No.16

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application proposes the erection of a rear single storey extension covering 4.3m width of the rear elevation and projecting 3m into the rear fairly long and narrow garden. The rear flat roof extension is proposed to be 2.5m high and fitted with bi-folding doors on the rear elevation. No windows are proposed on either side elevation and the entire development is to be finished in painted render to match the main house.

2.2 The current proposal follows from a previous scheme which sought approval for a larger lean-to extension projecting 3.3m from the rear elevation with a tiled roof height of 3.4m high nearest the main house and an eaves level nearest the garden of 2.5m high.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no previous planning applications for the site; however there have been a number of applications on nearby terraced properties for the construction of conservatories on the rear elevations:

o 02/00678/B - Erection of conservatory to rear elevation @ 24 Wallberry Mews o 01/01019/B - Erection of rear conservatory @ 7 Wallberry Mews o 00/02265/B - Erection of conservatory @ 32 Rosehill Mews o 99/00483/B - Erection of conservatory to rear of dwelling @ 21 Rosehill Mews

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site falls outside of the settlement boundary of Douglas and into the area of the Braddan Local Plan designated as being "Master Plan to be prepared which will include areas of Industrial Use, Science Based Industries, High Density Residential Use, Landscaping and Secondary School of approximately 16 acres", minded of the established residential use of the site and its immediate surroundings the most relevant policies in the assessment of the application are:

4.2 General Policy 2 states (in part):

"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; 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."

4.3 Paragraph 8.12.1

"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

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/01289/B                                     Page  3  of  4

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

5.0 REPRESENATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Braddan Parish Commissioners - No comments received at the time of writing the report (dated 19/07/2019)

5.2 DOI Highway Services - No comments received at the time of writing the report (dated 19/07/2019)

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issue which needs consideration in the assessment of this application are the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene and the impact upon the amenities and living conditions of the immediate neighbours.

6.2 The proposal will not be apparent from the main cul-de-sac of Wallberry Mews, however it will be visible when walking along the public footpath to the rear. This type of structure is not uncommon in wider residential areas such as this and minded that it is to be finished to match the main house and in keeping with the general residential character, it is not expected that the extension will have any unacceptable adverse visual impacts on public view.

6.3 Each of the dwellings along here has a rear elevation facing north east and over a fairly narrow rear garden around 11m long x 4.5m wide. The risk in developing rear extensions along close knit terraces like Wallberry Mews is that it could result in a 'tunnelling affect' resulting in the potential for loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the outlook of neighbouring properties. In helping to reduce such problems proposal may seek to reduce the length of the projection or set the extension in from neighbouring boundaries.

6.4 In the case of this application the extension is to run tight to the boundary with each neighbour, is to project 3m from the rear elevation and is to have an overall roof height of 2.5m. Given that No.14 is situated on the end of the terrace and adjoining a fairly large car parking area, that the open aspect from their rear elevation is not likely to be significantly affected through the development of the extension and that their general living condition are to remain largely unaffected, although it is unquestionable that the extension will be visible from their rear windows it is not considered to result in any negative impacts on their overall outlook.

6.5 Compared with No.14 the impact on No.16 requires further assessment due to the existing difference in site levels between the two properties coupled with the close knit arrangement of the terrace. The original application proposed a larger extension which had a greater projection into the rear garden (3.3m) and a notably taller lean-to roof structure (3.4m at its tallest), during a site visit and in taking photographs from No.16 it was considered that this overall massing would likely have a negative and unacceptable impact on the neighbour's amenity in terms of overbearingness and in dominating their general outlook.

6.6 On discussing the issues with the applicant and agent a revised drawing was submitted and circulated detailing a smaller extension with a reduced projection and a lower flat roof design. The use of flat roof systems are not uncommon although in some case can be considered to have a negative visual impact on the existing dwelling or the wider streetscene, the visual impact in this instance has already been accepted but that in implementing the use of a flat roof the mass of the proposal has been reduced and consequentially the impact on the neighbours has been reduced, while expected to remain within their general outlook from the rear ground floor windows, the cumulative reduction to the length and the height of the

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/01289/B                                     Page  4  of  4

extension is now considered to be within the bounds of acceptability in term of impact on the general living conditions and amenities of the neighbours.

6.7 The site here is unique, while others have extended at the rear these have been conservatory structures either fully or mostly glazed and either abutting right-up to or sitting 500mm form the boundary. This application is the first of its kind here for a full masonry structure. Minded of the fairly long gardens each of the dwellings have along this side, it is considered that the flat roof design and 3m projection in this instance is on balance considered to have an acceptable impact.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For these reasons the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant polices of the Strategic Plan and therefore recommended for an approval.

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 Planning Committee 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 Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 22.07.2019

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.