212447

==== PAGE 1 ====

Planning Application 15 Hatfield Grove/Objection/Comment - PA No: 24/91338GB & 24/01337GB 24/00522/B, 24/91039/B, 24/01072/CON

Comment from 17 Hatfield Grove 20 December 2024 As interested persons status Dear Planning Committee Please see below our further comments regarding the new applications as all detailed above, we have left all remaining comments below as they all form part of the application. For the record, our letter dated 28/11/24 - did not provide the timeframe required to complete our further comments. After reviewing the new applications, we now provide our further comments for consideration. The new application 24/91338GB in connection with 24/01337GB, request for a single storey erection of a new building and demolishing of the old building in a conservation area. We (

have serious concerns over the demolishing of this building, linked with Asbestos and the implications for our property and how they intend to not only demolish this, concerning the material aspect and the rebuilding of this, without access to our land, which we will never provide or agree to. We will not give any access to rear of our property, this is our private land and as the owners we are within our rights to refuse access, after such a stressful few months, from the aggression of the proprietor and the builder working at 15 Hatfield Grove. As you are aware a Noise complaint has been raised with Environmental Health Team and a complaint with the Police, which we very much would have preferred this was not the case, however after the attendance of the planning officers following the appeal process with the cabinet Office, we were left with no choice. Our first comment in reference to their application, under the planning policy, Strategic Policy 4, particular reference to (b) & (c) - respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them - we believe no consideration has been given with this particular point in respect of the impact to our property 17 Hatfield Grove. Respect is not a word in their vocabulary, the impact from the demolition and the rebuilding will impact us and our surroundings, which we remain objective to this. With regard to the overshadowing and the overbearing, aspect, the application does not explain the impact on the amenities to our property other than they state this is minimal. Once again, we remain that the application does not provide clear height for the apex of the roof, and this could have an impact regarding overbearing and overshadowing on our property. Our decision remains standing regarding the se further comments as detailed below, should you need to include these regarding the conservation of this particular area in Douglas. I note there has been amendments to the application regarding the guttering/facia which we have not been notified. Sorry I have spent far too much time involved with this case, please arrange for letters to be sent to us in the post as interested persons, as I intend to spend the xmas with family and not thinking about this horrible situation. Thank you

Redacted Redact Redacted

==== PAGE 2 ====

Further to the notification displayed in the property of 15 Hatfield Grove, dated 17 May 2024 and that of a letter placed into our mailbox, 17 Hatfield Grove Douglas, IM1 3HE, dated 10 May 2024, we would like to express our deepest concerns at the planning request to demolish a single-storey extension and the erection of a rear two-storey extension, to the above said property, 15 Hatfield Grove, Douglas. Our comments for objection;

1. Loss of light - if the 2 storey building is accepted, this would restrict the light into our property severely in our kitchen and dining/lounge area, and we both along with our extended family living in the property, feel that this would be detrimental to our health. We as the property owners of 17 Hatfield Grove, believe that the loss of light through our windows on our property, would have significant impact to our health, this includes our wellbeing and most importantly mental health.
2. As a Conservation area, we also feel very strongly to the erection of a 2 storey building right next door, this would invade our space with the removal of the wall facing inside our property 17 Hatfield Grove, as we currently have decking placed and secured to the wall, to allow the family to sit outside in the daylight. Currently we have a maximum 15 hours, daylight including sunlight between 8am - 3.30pm, daily, to have the erection of the two- storey extension will block our daylight via the windows within the kitchen and dining/lounge area and will also restrict the daylight/sunlight in the outside area we currently sit out in daily weather permitting, for health reasons.
3. The planning application will also cause overshadowing and we would be overlooked which would have an overbearing impact to all the family residing at this property. This would further implicate our privacy and ability to feel secure on our own property.
4. Previous planning application has been rejected in 2011. No. 23 Hatfield Grove, siting design, projection and height would result in demonstrable harm to the residential environment of No.21 Hatfield Grove in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, being overbearing and being visually intrusive. We therefore as a family strongly comment to the request for the above planning application to be rejected, as detailed in points 1, 2, 3 & 4. Please feel free to contact us as a family should you require further understanding of our comments raised.

Email received from the Cabinet Office dated 23 /09/24 - inviting further comments and offer to have a face to face hearing at a cost if desired. Appeal from proprietor states they do not believe the addition of the extension is likely to exacerbate the level of overshadowing for the reasons;

1. They believe our property is already shaded until mid-day to late afternoon, and unlikely to have any effect on this.
2. They believe the proposed extension benefits from facing close to south meaning that the proposed extension will be outside the path of the sun by 11am, demonstrated by a diagram that reflects different position for the light available.
3. The proprietor believes the proposed outlook from the ground floor would differ given an already extension in place and from the first floor we feel the proposed extension would not create an overbearing impact given that the neighbouring windows are set away from the boundary wall and the lookout is towards the back of an existing two storey terrace.

==== PAGE 3 ====

4. The proprietor believe 17 Hatfield has a flat roof construction in the rear yard and decking which has been fixed to the party wall is likely to true cause for objection.

• Basically the proprietor believes that our entitlement to the sun which differs between the seasons, is not valuable from daylight and would not impact us. This sunlight has significant impact to our health not only in the outside yard, on occasions due to my mental health, my bedroom faces the rear yard and currently the natural light & sunshine is in my bedroom until around 2pm sometimes longer dependant on the weather. When I am not well, I am able to sit next to the window and benefit from the direct sunlight for several hours. This 2 storey building will impact this significantly therefore we further comment to this appeal to reject their appeal to the planning application, already rejected as set out in the report kindly provided as we have interested person status.

will address each point of their comments to appeal the rejected planning application of 15 Hatfield Grove, with our further comments to reject this appeal.

1. The outside yard is not shaded until mid-day late afternoon, to the contrary I will attach some photos for your reference. Taking into account the different seasons. We strongly object to this.
2. The diagram displayed in the appeal from the proprietor, we strongly disagree to this, in addition they are confirming that the light will be blocked that is already in our yard from approximately 5am dependant on the season, until at least 11 am/midday, sometimes early afternoon. This is the most important part of the day, where the daylight is good for your health. I will of course attach further photos to reflect the light in our outside yard that would be restricted should the 2 storey planning application be allowed. This would be detrimental to our health as we approach 60 years. We believe the light at times, dependant on the season and sunshine, can be much longer.
3. We strongly disagree that the proposed outlook from the ground floor would not differ as there is already an extension in place, and would not create an overbearing impact. The current position of the already in place one storey extension, has a pitched roof which allows the natural light and sunlight to be present from the early hours until mid- afternoon, the proposed extension, taking their comments surrounding the lookout towards the back, would have significant overbearing impact as this would block the natural/sunlight in the outside yard and that of the dining area and kitchen in our one storey extension, in line with the conservation area. This would significantly reduce the light within this area and be overshadowing.
4. With regards to their comments regarding a flat roof construction, this is a 6 x 4 metal shed, with a board on top to prevent the high winds removing the top of the shed and the objects contained within this, blowing away. Freestanding and no roof construction. The decking is fixed to the bottom of the wall under the decking, and with the agreement of the previous proprietor. We can remove the fixings to the wall and apply our own fixings/small pillars to secure our decking, if there remains objection to this. To conclude, this whole process has been totally distressing, the worry and added anxiety as we live in a conservation area, and the planning application to apply a 2 storey extension, we remain with our initial decision and the outcome to reject this as set out in the report, provided to both

as interested person status, as also set out in our additional comments to 2 further proposed applications 24/91039/B & 24/01072/CON

Redacte Redacte Redact

==== PAGE 4 ====

Yours sincerely (17 Hatfield grove) Please provide written confirmation via email and post for our records upon receipt of these comments, which will be emailed to, [email protected] Redacted