Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/90989/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/90989/B Applicant : Mr Shaun O'Boyle Proposal : Rear single storey extension and erection of detached single garage Site Address : 18 Hampton Grove Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2NQ
Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Photo Taken : 17.09.2024 Site Visit : 17.09.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.09.2024 __
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.
N 1. The Applicant should be aware of the following comments from the DoI Highways Drainage Team which are:
Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
Recommendation: The applicant should be aware of and comply with the clause above.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is concluded that the planning application for the sunroom extension, new porch canopy and rooflights in the rear roofslope as well as the new garage, are acceptable in planning terms in that they would not unduly detract from the character of the site and surroundings, and would not unduly impact on the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or, adversely impact on highway safety; and would comply with the principles of General Policy 2, of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, the advice contained in the Residential Design Guide 2021. The planning application is recommended for approval.
Plans/Drawings/Information; The development should be carried out in accordance with the following:
Drawing No. 116-S-01 - Site Location Plan showing site edged red @ scale 1:1,250;
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/90989/B Page 2 of 5
Drawing No. 116-P-01 - Proposed Floor Plans, Elevations, Section and Site Plan,
as stamped received on 27 August, 2024. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
Department of Infrastructure Highways - No objection. Department of Infrastructure Highways Drainage - No objection (comments only). Local Authority - No Objection/no comments received __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is one of a row of single-storey, semi-detached, residential dwellings at 18 Hampton Grove, Douglas, which is brick/render construction under a tiled roof with a driveway to the south-west side. It has no garage. The unattached, neighbouring dwelling at No. 17 Hampton Grove, has a single detached garage located in its rear garden area. This part of Hampton Grove, is a small cul-de-sac containing 8 similar such dwellings located on the northern side of Douglas. The surroundings comprise residential development with 2-storey dwellings sited to the rear at Nos. 1 and 2 Rose Bank which look out over the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The covering letter accompanying the application describes the proposed development as follows:
"The proposal is for a rear single storey extension which is intended to be a new sunroom, a detached garage, and the addition of Velux windows to the existing roof above the bedroom and bathroom. Following preplanning advice, we have adhered to the residential design guidelines, ensuring that the proposed extension has been positioned further from the boundary and a reduced depth.
The sunroom extension is designed to extend 3.2 meters from the rear of the property, maintaining ample garden space. The extension is set back approximately 600mm from the boundary to increase the distance from the neighbouring fence, allowing for the 45-degree rule to be applied. To minimize any potential impact on neighbouring properties, no windows are planned for the north/east elevation, preventing any overlooking concerns.
The proposed detached garage, primarily intended for storage, is to be situated approximately 1 meter from the boundary. The design of the extension and garage will be consistent with the existing property in terms of wall materials, roof, windows and doors, ensuring it aligns with the character of the area. This is in keeping with other bungalow properties on Hampton Grove, many of which have similar detached garages and extensions."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are a number of previous applications affecting the site. PA Refs: 87/00931/A and 90/01734/B relate to the approval in principle of the estates development and part of the layout. PA Ref: 90/00341/B relates to the erection of 5 pairs of semi-detached dwellings on plots 10-19, Part Field 2015, Farmhill, Douglas. This is the original planning approval resulting in the development of these semi-detached dwellings.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/90989/B Page 3 of 5
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider paragraph 8.12.1 and the general design standards set out in General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 along with the general advice set out in 6.3 of the Residential Design Guide in respect of driveways and car parking and not removing over 50% of the garden area.
4.3 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:-
4.3 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 accords with the following relevant elements: (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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council - No comments had been received by the Report Drafting Stage (26/9/24).
5.2 DoI Highway Services (29/8/24) comments: "Highway Services HDC has no interest (NHI) in PA 24/90989/B ".
5.3 DoI Highway Drainage (11/9/24) comments: " Highways Drainage Comments: Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. Recommendation: Applicant should be aware off and comply with the clause above."
5.4 No third party representation have been received.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues are considered to be the impact on visual amenity in respect of the site and surroundings arising from the proposed development; whether there would be any adverse impacts on neighbours' residential amenities; and, whether there would be any impacts in respect of highway safety and on-site parking provision.
6.2 In this case, the proposal is for a number of works to the existing dwelling involving the erection of a rear single storey extension which is intended to be a new sunroom, a detached garage, and the addition of Velux windows to the existing roof above the bedroom and bathroom.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/90989/B Page 4 of 5
6.3 The new sunroom would be attached to the rear wall of the dwelling and would be set in from the boundary with the attached neighbouring dwelling by approx. 600mm. It would measure approx. 3.2m deep x 6.6m wide, with a very gently sloping (approx. 100mm difference front to rear) flat roof with an eaves height of approx. 2.875m. It would be constructed from blockwork with render applied and painted to match the existing pair of dwellings. It would have new uPVC windows, doors, soffits, fascias and downpipes to be brown to match those existing. It would have a blank side wall facing No. 19 (attached) and an entrance door facing he unattached dwelling at No. 17. New triple bi-fold doors and a 2- casement, with opening side hung window unit would be placed in the rear elevation. In addition, the existing canopy over the front door in the side elevation of the dwelling would be removed, and replaced with new flat canopy providing shelter to those entering and leaving the dwelling. 2 No. roof lights are proposed to be added to the rear elevation roofslope to enable light to be drawn into the roofspace.
6.4 It is considered that the addition of the proposed sunroom extension to the rear of the dwelling; and the change to the porch canopy and insertion of rooflights would be acceptable on visual grounds and would accord with the provisions of GP2 b) c) and g) in the IoMSP 2016. It is also considered that these changes would not adversely impact on the residential amenities enjoyed by neighbouring occupants to either side of the application dwelling or in respect of those located to the rear at Nos. 1 and 2 Rose Bank. The impacts on the occupants' amenities particularly in respect of the impact on the rear of the attached dwelling at No. 17, are particularly considered. The eaves height of approx. eaves height of approx. 2.875m, which would equate to the height of the side wall of the extension would be 0.872m above the 2.0m maximum height of any boundary fence, or wall that could be erected on the boundary between the two properties as Permitted Development. It is considered that any impact in terms of any additional light loss to the rear of No.17 would be within acceptable limits. This aspect of the proposals accords with the provisions of GP2 (g) in the IoMSP 2016.
6.5 The new detached garage which would be located in the rear garden area would adjoin the existing, similar single garage serving No. 17 would measure approx. 4.0m wide x 7.5m deep x 2.4m to the eaves and 3.4m to the ridge. It would be rendered to match the existing dwelling and would have brown roof tiles to its pitched roof with new uPVC windows, doors, soffits, fascias and downpipes to be brown to match those existing. This is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and the new garage would be well- related to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and adjoining garage serving No. 17 by being constructed in these materials.
6.6 The new garage would not give rise to any neighbour amenity issues in respect of any adjoining neighbours or those located to the rear at Nos. 1 and 2 Rose Bank, because it would be set back in the rear garden area serving the property and would be, in part, screened by the garage serving No, 17. The erection of the new single garage is considered to be acceptable and this element of the proposed development accords with the provisions of Policies GP 2 b) and c) in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
6.7 In terms of highway safety and highways drainage, the lack of objection received from DoI Highways Services is noted, as is the concerns highlighted by DoI Highways Drainage. The latter point can be covered by an informative note attached to any planning approval that may be granted. There would be no requirement for any additional on-site parking because the garage in itself would provide an additional parking space. These aspects of the proposed development are considered to be acceptable and accord with the provisions of Policies T4 and T7 in the IoMSP 2016.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application for the sunroom extension, new porch canopy and rooflights in the rear roofslope as well as the new garage, are acceptable in planning terms in that they would not unduly detract from the character of
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/90989/B Page 5 of 5
the site and surroundings, and would not unduly impact on the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or, adversely impact on highway safety; and would comply with the principles of General Policy 2, of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, the advice contained in the Residential Design Guide 2021. The planning application is recommended for approval.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
__
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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 01.10.2024
Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal