199010

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      24/00522/B                                     Page  1  of  6

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 24/00522/B Applicant : Ms Patricia Ingram Proposal : Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of rear two- storey extension Site Address : 15 Hatfield Grove Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3HE

Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 11.06.2024 Site Visit : 11.06.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.08.2024 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The proposed two-storey rear extension worsens the existing overshadowing and overbearing impact on 17 Hatfield Grove. It is considered failing to comply with General Policy 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.

Note: The applicant is hereby cautioned that an application is required for any window or door replacement on 15 Hatfield Grove.

Although not part of the application, drawings have mentioned proposed work for replacement doors and windows.

The site is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area.

There is no permitted development for window and door replacement within conservation areas, meaning an application is always required for such work. __

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 4(2):

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      24/00522/B                                     Page  2  of  6

13 Hatfield Grove, Douglas 17 Hatfield Grove, Douglas

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 4(2):

19 Hatfield Grove, Douglas

as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is 15 Hatfield Grove, Douglas, a mid-terrace house located on the south of Hatfield Grove. There is a mono-pitched-roof extension on the rear elevation.

1.2 Almost every house south of Hatfield Gove has a single-storey rear extension, except No. 19, which has a two-storey rear extension.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposed is the erection of a pitched-roof two-storey rear extension in replacement of the existing single-storey rear extension.

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

3.2 There is a digital planning record of the two-storey extension of No.19, meaning either approval was given before 1982 or the extension did not receive planning approval (the owners/occupiers of the property confirm this in section 6).

4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.

4.2 The site is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area.

Strategic Policy 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Strategic Policy 4 (a) o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) o Environment Policy 34 o Environment Policy 35

PPS and NPD PPS and NPD

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      24/00522/B                                     Page  3  of  6

4.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man is the only adopted PPS at the moment. It provides supplementary policy on developments within any conservation area.

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation 5.1 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act". This sets out the approach to be taken in determining planning applications, which includes giving great weight to the asset's conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the asset. Given that the site is within a Conservation Area, the above requirements apply and appropriate consideration will be given in section 7.

Strategy and Guidance 5.2 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 4.6 Rear Extensions o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the application (28.05.2024).

6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (17.05.2024). The comment states there is no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality and/or parking.

6.3 Four neighbouring properties were notified, and three public comments have been received (30.05.2024-11.06.2024) from the owners/occupiers of the following property: o 17 Hatfield Grove, Douglas o 13 Hatfield Grove, Douglas o 19 Hatfield Grove, Douglas

6.4 The material planning considerations raised by the comments are: o overbearing o overshadowing o overlooking o character of the conservation area

6.5 The non-material planning considerations raised by the comments are: o loss of light/right to light o ownership o decision of earlier planning applications (no being appeal decision) Overshadowing is different from the right to light. The former is a material consideration while the latter is a civil rights concept, which is considered a civil matter.

Ownership in general, and the disposal of the party wall in this application, is a civil matter and is not regulated by planning.

Planning applications are determined on their own merits. Simply having, or not having similar proposals approved, or refused, near, or not near, an application site does not affect the assessment of an application.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      24/00522/B                                     Page  4  of  6

6.6 Owners/Occupiers of 19 Harfield Road confirm that the two-storey rear extension did not receive planning approval.

6.7 The agent wrote in response to the neighbouring comments (20.07.2024). The comment states the extension is subordinate to the main dwelling and is a common style for a Victorian house. The comment acknowledges that it is a tight terrace but believes the height increase would not lead to unacceptable overshadowing due to the terrace's south-facing rear elevation. The comment also considers there is no impact on No.13 or No.19 given the distance and their existing rear extension. The comment then considers there is no overlooking created by the proposal.

6.8 Owners/Occupiers of 17 and 13 Hatfield Grove wrote in (06.08.2024 and 07.08.2024) remaining in objection to the application.

7.0 ASSESSMENT Conservation Areas Statutory Test 7.1 Before assessing elements of the proposal, as it is within a Conservation Area, a test should be applied to this proposal as mentioned in 5.1. This is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

7.2 The rear extension has a ridge lower than the ridge of the main house. Its appearance is typical for a rear extension to a Victoria terrace so it is considered that the proposal preserves the charterer of the Area and passes the test.

Elements of Assessment 7.3 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and streetscene of the area, the amenities of the neighbours and on parking.

Design of the House Itself 7.4 The proposed extension is two-storey, but its roof ridge is lower than that of the main roof and its width is only about two-thirds that of the main house. Therefore, the proposed two-storey extension is still considered to be subordinate to the main house.

Character and Streetscene 7.5 The proposal is not readily visible to the public, so it is considered to have no impact on the streetscene of the area.

7.6 As mentioned in 7.2, the proposal is considered to have no negative impact on the character of the Area

Neighbouring Amenities 7.7 The terrace has narrow plots. Each house and its existing rear boundary wall as well as its respective single-storey extension has an overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, only the additional impact from the first storey of the proposal will be assessed.

7.8 No.17 abuts the proposed extension. The owners/occupiers have stated the opening on the rear elevation serves a kitchen/dining area, which makes the opening a primary window for a primary room according to 7.2.3 of the RDG. Regardless of whether this room has a window on the front elevation or not, the increased height would fail the 45-degree rule and the overall height of approx. 5.8m right next to this opening is considered to increase the overbearing impact on No.17.

7.9 No.13 abut the site but not immediately to the proposed extension. The proposed extension only clashes with the 45-degree line from the rear elevation of No.13 by a small corner. Therefore, it is considered that there is no overbearing impact on No.13.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      24/00522/B                                     Page  5  of  6

7.10 The proposal passes the 45-degree rule with No.19 so it is considered to have no overbearing impact on No.19.

7.11 The proposed extension cast additional shadows to both property west and east of it. Although the rear elevation of the terrace is south-facing, the existing shadowing caused by boundary walls is already less than desirable and the situation should not be made worse. Therefore, it is considered that the additional overshadowing impact is not acceptable.

7.12 There is no window on the first floor so there is no additional overlooking impact.

Other 7.13 There are mentions of several previous applications near the site in both the neighbouring comments and the agent's response. These applications were decided before the Residential Design Guide was in force so they are no longer comparable with the current application.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed two-storey rear extension worsens the existing overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to comply with General Policy 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan and Section 7.3-7.4 of the Residential Design Guide and is recommended for a refusal.

9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 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.

9.2 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 : Refused Date: 20.08.2024

Determining officer Signed : C BALMER

Chris Balmer

Principal Planner

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      24/00522/B                                     Page  6  of  6

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.