Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91131/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91131/B Applicant : Mrs Ita McArdle Proposal : Single storey extension, feature window to rear, 3 no. new dormers, re-cladding of existing dormer, replacement of roof tiles, windows and garage door, internal alterations. Site Address : 16 Second Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AW
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 13.11.2024 Site Visit : 13.11.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.01.2025 __
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.
C 2. Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with Drawing No. 1822 04 P 01 Rev B: Plans, Elevations and Section as Proposed, Received 19 December 2024. No access shall be created from the rear dormer to the flat roof of the rear extension.
Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
N 1. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025.
To this end, if you proposal includes such, installation of an alternative such as air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91131/B Page 2 of 8
approval, you may need to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative permitted heating system proposed.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the existing dwelling or locality within which it is located, with the proposal considered to conform to the basis of General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3 (b), and Environment Policy 42. No significant adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the impacts on neighbouring amenity, and no public amenity or highway safety impacts have been noted. The scheme is also not expected to result in adverse parking/highway safety (Transport Policies 4 and 7) or biodiversity impacts. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal also complies the aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the flowing documents and plans:
o Design Statement; o Drawing No. EX-01 - Plans, Elevations and section as existing & Location Plan; Received 1 October 2024;
o Agents Response to comments received 27 November 2024; and
o Drawing No. 1822 04 P 01 Rev B: Plans, Elevations and Section as Proposed Received 19 December 2024. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highways Division - no objections o Douglas Borough Council - no objections
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal o Manx Wildlife Trust - Objection does not identify land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: o 17 Third Avenue, Douglas; and o 18 Second Avenue, Douglas __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of No.16 Second Avenue which is a detached dormer bungalow situated to the eastern side of Second Avenue. The existing property which has an integral garage positioned on the left side of its front elevation has a flat roofed dormer positioned on its front roof plane.
1.2 The dwelling which has a medium sized front garden, has a large rear garden which is largely enclosed in mature landscaping, some rising to about 8m tall, although the hedges to the side of the rear garden is set considerably lower than the landscaping on the north-eastern boundary which directly abuts No. 17 Third Avenue.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91131/B Page 3 of 8
1.3 The immediate street scene along Second Avenue has a mix of property types and designs, most of which are two storey with a range of architectural appearances. There are dormer bungalows in the immediate vicinity, although these have smaller dormers on their front roof plane.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for a single storey extension, feature window to rear, 3 no. new dormers, re-cladding of existing dormer, replacement of roof tiles, windows and garage door, internal alterations.
2.2 The proposed works would include: 1. Creating two new flat roofed dormers either side of the existing flat roofed dormer on the front roof plane. These dormers would each measure 2.7m wide, be about 2.1m tall, and sit about 300mm below the main roof ridge. They would be clad in new zinc or lead panels.
Creating a new flat roofed dormer at the rear of the dwelling that would measure about 5.7m wide and about 2.8m tall. This dormer would also be clad in new zinc or lead panels. Three new full height top opening casement windows would be installed on the face of the dormer. There would be no access to the flat roof of the rear extension on the ground floor.
Extending the dwelling towards the rear and over the existing breakfast room. This rear extension will be about 9.6m wide, and project 3.4m from the rear of the existing dining room (1.4m from the rear of the existing utility room). This extension would have a flat roof over.
Existing ground floor rear paved terrace to be raised by about 350mm, with existing retaining wall around terrace also altered. The steps from the southeast elevation of the rear terrace are to be removed. New step to be created on the northeast end of the terrace.
Installing new replacement windows and doors to dwelling, replacing existing windows with new patio doors, and creating or expanding existing window openings. All new windows and glazed doors are to be powder coated Aluminium/UPVC double glazed units in anthracite colour.
Installing a full height window in place of the existing window at the rear facing gable of the dwelling to serve the third bedroom.
2.3 Other works proposed would include: 1. Cladding sections of the buildings elevation in timber effect cladding. 2. Replacing the existing roof tiles with new grey/black bold-rolled concrete tiles. 3. Installation of a rooflight over the rear dormer.
2.4 There would be no change to the site levels. Also, no trees would be removed to facilitate the development. Surface and rain water are to be discharged into existing systems on site.
2.5 The application is supported by a Planning Statement which sets out the rationale for the new development.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Proposed Residential" on the Area Plan for the East, Map 6 - Onchan. The site is not within a Conservation Area, there are no registered trees on site, and the site is not within a Registered tree area, although the existing trees form a congruent unit with the adjacent registered tree area. The site is largely not prone to flood risks, although the rear garden has low likelihood of flood risks.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91131/B Page 4 of 8
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 1. General Policy 2 - 'Development Control' considerations. 2. Paragraph 8.12.1 - General presumption in favour of extensions to existing properties (excluding Conservation Areas or Registered Buildings). 3. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources 4. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages 5. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages. 6. Strategic Policy 4 - Seeks to protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance. 7. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. 8. Environment Policy 3 - protects woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi- natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value. 9. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). 10. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats 11. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. 12. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions 13. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 14. Community Policy 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances 15. Community Policy 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire
4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of a single planning for Provision of front porch under PA 85/00149/B. This was approved by the Planning on 08.03.1985.
5.2 Whilst not directly related to the site, there has been recent approval in the immediate vicinity for the creation of dormers under PA 21/01193/B for Alterations, installation of roof dormer windows - Approved. The planning Officer in recommending approval noted that the "dormers are subordinate to the main roof."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways Division have no interest (11 Oct 2024).
6.2 Douglas Borough Council have no objections (1 November 2024/11 November 2024).
6.3 Manx Wildlife Trust have made the following comments on the application (25 October 2024):
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91131/B Page 5 of 8
1. They note that the proposal includes the creation of a glass balustrade adjacent to semi-natural wildlife habitat (woodland), however no details have been included about bird strike mitigation. 2. They state that glass balustrades are known to result in a significant number of bird strikes, including specially protected species typical of gardens including House Sparrow Passer domesticus, whilst noting that House Sparrow specifically are a species of conservation concern and are therefore listed as a Schedule 1 specially protected bird, which is a material planning consideration under Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. 3. They request that the application should demonstrate what bird strike mitigation measures are included, noting that alternatives to glazing, or all-opaque glazing provides the best form of bird strike mitigation. 4. They state that the risk of bird strike is already recognised within the Manx planning system, for example the following condition is quoted from a recently approved application (21/01102/B), and would be suitable in this case: 'Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Department which set out details of the type of glass or barrier to be used. Reason: to ensure that the details are appropriate to reduce the risk of bird strike.'
6.4 The Owners/occupiers of 17 Third Avenue, Douglas object to the application due to concerns with overlooking, and potential impacts on biodiversity (7 November 2024).
6.5 The owners/occupiers of 18 Second Avenue, Douglas object to the application due to the potential privacy concerns resulting from the development (8 November 2024).
6.6 In response to the comments on the application, the applicant's agent has provided the following responses (26 November 2024): 1. Comment from the resident of 18 Second Avenue - Loss of privacy Our response - A 1.6 metre high (above eye-line) obscure glazed screen / guarding has been shown to the north-west side of the roof terrace to ensure privacy between the two properties is maintained.
Comment from the resident of 17 Third Avenue - Loss of privacy to garden and house / leylandii hedging Our response - The distance between the two properties back to back varies between 33 metres and 35 metres with the distance to the rear boundary from the rear wall of the house (no.16 second Avenue) being 15 metres. We do not consider this to be an unreasonable distance as new properties are permitted with a back to back distance of 22 metres. There is no change on plan to the leylandii hedging, noting that the leylandii are the property of 16 Second Avenue and there is no obligation on the owner to maintain the specific trees in situ notwithstanding the property's own privacy requirements.
Comment from Manx Wildlife Trust - Design of glass balustrading to avoid unwanted bird strikes Our response - We are happy for a condition to be attached to the approval requesting that the design of the glass balustrade be submitted for approval to Manx Wildlife Trust prior to commencement of construction on site.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: 1. Impact on the character of the site and immediate street scene; 2. Impact on neighbours; 3. Impacts on parking and highway safety; and 4. Potential impacts on Biodiversity
7.2 Character and Appearance (GP2, EP 42, & STP 3)
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91131/B Page 6 of 8
7.2.1 In assessing the proposed extensions/alterations to the dwelling, it is noted that the works will largely be at the rear of the dwelling, with only the dormers, new door and window installations, and cladding of the external wall elements that would be noticeable from the immediate street scene, and these are not judged to result in adverse impacts on the appearance of the dwelling, given that they would largely modernise the appearance of the dwelling.
7.2.2 In terms of the impacts of the proposed roof dormers, it is considered that whilst these would be new features within the immediate street scene given that none of the properties have three dormers on the front roof plane, it is considered that their positioning within the roof plane and choice of materials for the finishing, would be fitting for the modern appearance of the dwelling, and in keeping with the varied context of the immediate street scene. The dormers would also appear subordinate within the roof plane. It is also relevant to consider that the street scene comprises a mix of building designs, styles and property sizes, which makes the proposed change fit with the existing street scene which is diverse in its current state; without a dominant architectural style. Overall, any impact on the character and appearance of the area and the site itself would be minimal and in accordance with General Policy 2.
7.2.3 The extensions/alterations to the rear would also utilize materials that are presently on the existing dwelling, whilst integrating new materials to modernise the appearance, such that the works would easily be integrated into the existing built fabric on site. The nature of the site topography and the presence of mature shrubs and tree clusters around most of its boundary would also ensure that the changes are not particularly dominant, with views only achievable when directly in front of the dwelling.
7.3 Impact on Neighbouring Amenity (GP2, EP 22 & RDG 2021) 7.3.1 In assessing impacts on neighbours, it is considered that the property most likely to be impacted would be No. 18 Second Avenue, given that its rear garden would sit just about 1.9m away from the boundary to the rear garden of the application site, and as views could be achievable over the existing boundary treatment (which comprise hedges which could be trimmed and reduced in height without the need for planning permission), from one of the new windows installed to the rear of the new flat roofed dormer on the rear roof plane of the dwelling. Notwithstanding this potential for overlooking, the windows on the rear of this dormer would be at a recessed position, such that any views would be restricted by the parapets on the flat roofed rear extension which projects about 3.4m from the edge of the closest window. Therefore, it is not considered that the potential for overlooking of this neighbouring rear garden would be so significant as to warrant refusal of the current application. It is also considered that No 18 already has first floor windows at significantly elevated positions which have angled views of the application site garden, a condition that will not be achieved by the new windows of the rear dormer which are set considerably lower, with views obscured by the parapets on the flat roofed extension at the rear, and this diminishes any concerns with potential overlooking.
7.3.2 With regard to potential overlooking of the rear garden of No.14, it is considered that the projecting rear gable of the application property which would sit in the way of views from the new windows, the centralised position of the new full height window on the rear gable which does not increase in width, and the orientation of the building which restricts views to the rear garden of No. 14, would ensure that any impacts in this case would be considerably diminished, and not sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal.
7.3.3 In terms of the possible overlooking concerns for No. 17 Third Avenue which directly adjoins the rear garden of the application site, it is considered that the new dormer windows and altered window on the rear facing gable would sit about 14m from the boundary of this neighbouring rear garden and 49.3m from the windows on the rear elevation of No. 17, with the height of the first floor of this building which is only about 2.7m from the garden level, and
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91131/B Page 7 of 8
the separating distance ensuring that there would be no overlooking views of the neighbouring garden. It is further noted that the mature landscaping which sits on this boundary and completely screens views would diminish any immediate concerns. Whilst it is noted though that these landscaping could be removed at any given time, these sit within the application site and it would be in the interest of the applicants to retain these trees to protect their privacy due to the elevated position of the windows on the rear of No. 17. As such, it is not considered that there is significant concern with overlooking of No. 17 given the current site conditions. Overall, it is considered that there will be no direct overlooking of the rear windows on this neighbouring property given the separating distance of over 20m between windows that would be achieved should the development be approved, the site level differences which would not allow overlooking from the windows on the rear of the application property, as well as the presence of mature landscaping on the boundary of both properties.
7.3.4 Any extension to a dwelling should not result in significant levels of loss of daylight or overshadowing, especially to habitable rooms or private gardens. In this case, it is considered that the design of the neighbouring property at N. 18 which has no windows to the abutting elevation to the new extension, and the distance of the flat roofed dormer from the elevations of No. 14, as well as the intervening projecting rear gable between the proposed flat roofed dormer to the rear, will allow overbearing impacts or overshadowing to result from the current proposal. The position of the front facing dormers and their height are also not considered to result in adverse impacts on any of the adjoining neighbouring properties.
7.4 Impacts on Parking and highway safety (GP2 & TP7) 7.4.1 The proposal would not result in changes to the vehicular access to the site and parking within the site. In addition, Highway Services have assessed the proposal and have no interest, which indicates that they have no concerns with the parking and highway elements of the proposal. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme satisfies the parking requirement of Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan, and General Policy 2 (h & i).
7.5 Impacts on Biodiversity (GP 2, EP4, and EP5) 7.5.1 In terms of potential impacts of the development on biodiversity, it is considered that although the proposed rear extension will bring the building closer to the existing mature landscaping and trees to the rear, which forms a congruent unit with the trees and vegetation within the adjoining registered tree area, the development would still be sufficiently away from these fauna, and will not in any way result in directly changes to these natural features of the site. Therefore, it is not considered that the scheme would result in adverse impacts on biodiversity sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
7.5.2 Whilst comments have been made regarding the potential for impacts on flying birds from the proposed glazed balustrade to the rear roof terrace, these has been removed from the proposal via amendment to the scheme. As such, it is considered that the provisions of EP 4 and EP 5 would be met in this regard.
7.5.3 The fact that some of the mature hedging along the site boundary with Nos. 17 and 18 Second Avenue has been removed is noted. Notwithstanding, hedges and landscaping features can be trimmed without recourse to planning as they are controlled by other legislation. Given that these constitute matters that fall outside the remit of planning, these would be not assesse as part of the current application.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 In summary, the proposals meet the requirements of the aforementioned policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and are considered acceptable.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/91131/B Page 8 of 8
(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).
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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 the Head of Development Management 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 : 09.01.2025
Determining Officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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