Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90530/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90530/B Applicant : Mr Shaun Nesbitt Proposal : Single-storey extension to north-east elevation Site Address : 32 Ashberry Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1PX
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2025 __
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. No openings shall be introduced to the walls or roof adjacent to the boundary with no.30.
Reason: For clarity and to protect residential amenity in respect of overlooking and light disturbance in accordance with Environment Policy 22 (iii).
C 3. Upon completion of the roof and prior to the extension being first brought into use the guttering around the extension shall be installed and working to direct surface water from the roof into the existing surface water management drainage of the site. The guttering shall be maintained and retained for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: For clarity and to ensure surface water is managed within the site in accordance with Environment Policy 22 (i).
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Due to the scale, position, design and proposed materials the proposal would not cause undue harm to the character of property or locality or neighbouring residential amenity. The proposal accords with the aims and objectives of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and with the Design Guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90530/B
Page 2 of 7
This decision relates to the following details received on the 23rd of May 2025 unless otherwise stated.
o Location Plan, Drawing no.01 o Proposed Plan and Elevations, Drawing no.04 Rev.A (31.07.2025) __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Douglas City Council - No objection.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following property should be given the Right to Appeal: o no.30 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas IM2 1PX (adjoining property: objection) __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1. The application site relates to the curtilage of a detached two storey dwellinghouse on the east side of the road, no. 32 Ashberry Avenue in Douglas.
1.2. The neighbours are no.30 to the east and no.34 to the west. The rear elevation of no.30 is slightly set back from the application site, by approximately 1.6m, in contrast to no.34 which is forward of the sites rear elevation by approximately 5.7m. The elevations contain windows at ground and first floor level and are separated by a low timber fence.
1.3. Properties in the street are similar in materials, design, scale and separation with variations between semi-detached and detached.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1. Planning approval is sought for a single-storey extension to north-east elevation. The application is supported with plans the details of which can be summarised as follows.
2.2. Set in from the boundary 1m, extend from the rear elevation 5m for a width of 3.9m.
2.3. A dual pitch roof with a ridge height of 3.8m, eaves around 2.7m. Roof lights in the north roof slope; amended design.
2.4. Openings are proposed north-east and north-west elevations and north-west roof slope.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1. Site Specific 3.1.1. On the Area Plan for the East the site is within an area identified as being 'predominantly residential'.
3.1.2. The site is not impacted by the constraints of the following; Public Rights of Way (PROW); recorded flood zone or surface water flooding; protected tree; Registered Building or Conservation Area.
3.2. Strategic Plan 3.2.1. Taking account of the above, within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90530/B
Page 3 of 7
3.2.2. Environment Policy 22 states that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
3.3. General Policy 2: 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 criteria of the Policy; (a) to (n). In this case the most notable for consideration are considered to be (b) and (g); (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1. Residential Design Guide section 4 relating to householder extensions. Rear extensions issues of potential loss of light, overbearing and overlooking; (4.6) Rear Extensions.
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1. There is no previous planning history within the red line.
REPRESENTATIONS 6.1. Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.2. Local Authority: 6.2.1. Douglas City Council - no objection provided the development does not prohibit the storage of waste bins within the curtilage of the property. (05.06.2025).
6.3. Statutory Bodies 6.3.1. Highway Services - no comment received.
6.4. Neighbour objection: if approved the proposal would have a significant impact on the amenity of no.30. The objection is summarised as follows: 6.4.1. Scale, design, visual impact: The style is out of character with existing properties and other variations in line of sight to the original Kirkby Estate plans. The staggered position of properties results in the length being excessive, extending 6.5m from the rear of our house. The material proposed is inconsistent with the existing pebble dash finish and will create a jarring and incongruous appearance detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. Due to the scale of the proposal screening is impossible without risking roots of vegetation harming the structure.
6.4.2. Residential amenity: loss of light and overshadowing between early morning and around 11.30am depending on the time of year. Shadow will be cast over a substantial area of the garden. Light pollution from the proposed velux windows will add light to bedroom windows and disturb sleep. The scale and proximity will be overbearing and visually intrusive. Together with an existing outbuilding 4x5m will leave a small gap between the structures that will add to the visual dominance and feeling of enclosure.
6.4.3. Drainage: Unclear how the rainwater and surface water drainage will be managed. No.30 is on a lower level and experiences surface water runoff from higher properties. Concerned regarding the impact of the internal layout on existing services.
6.4.4. Inconsistency with local character and precedent: design not in keeping with more sympathetically designed extensions such as at no.34.
6.4.5. Restrictive covenants listed
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90530/B
Page 4 of 7
6.4.6. Suggested alternative: Build extension similar to that at no.34.
ASSESSMENT 7.1.1. The site is within an area assigned to be 'Predominantly Residential' use therefore the proposal accords with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Area Plan. Householder extensions are generally acceptable as in paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan.
7.1.2. The proposed extension is on a rear elevation and not in views of the street on Ashberry Avenue. The garden of the site backs onto the side and rear garden, and side and rear corner elevation of no.5 The Meadows. As such no harm is observed in respect of the streetscene and character of the locality.
7.1.3. In respect of neighbours, the separation distance between the rear elevation of the site and the rear elevation of the nearest rear elevation, no.5 The Meadows, whose garden backs onto the site is approximately 15m therefore consideration is given to the impact upon that neighbour. Due to the position and orientation of the property no.34 with the proposed extension no harm is observed between these two properties. The main neighbour who would be impacted by the proposal is that of no.30 to the east. Therefore the key considerations in assessing this application are considered as follows: (7.2) Design (7.3) Impact upon neighbour amenity
7.2. Design 7.2.1. It is fact that the rear ground floor area of the site is sandwiched between the position of the two storey side elevation at no.34 and the single storey extension on the rear of no.30, albeit a conservatory at the time this report was written. The rear elevations are all north-east facing therefore will benefit from some sunrise light. However all are likely to lose that sunlight benefit beyond late morning from such time the gardens will have varying degrees of shadow as the sun moves to set.
7.2.2. In respect of the scale and proportion, the design is subservient and proportionate to the scale of the host property and the associated curtilage.
7.2.3. In respect of position and orientation, the extension is proposed positioned off the existing kitchen, removing the existing patio doors and repositioning a window. The result is retention of a patio area that after the extension is completed would result in a secluded outdoor space. The extension has windows out to the applicants' garden and to the secluded outdoor space.
7.2.4. As a result of the proposed extension the level of natural light to the kitchen window would be reduced. However this is considered to be off-set by the roof lights in the extension and the light that would come through the extension windows. In addition to this element one is mindful that this is a north-north-east facing elevation.
7.2.5. Consideration has been given to the objectors' comments suggesting that the extension is redesigned to extend the full width of the site with a mono pitch roof, similar to the extension at no.34; option (1). In addition, consideration has been given to positioning the extension on the north side of the rear elevation rather than the east side; option (2).
7.2.6. Option (1) would afford the occupants more natural light to their kitchen window than the in part because the extension at no.30 is a conservatory. However if the occupants of no.30 turned the conservatory into an extension, as occurred at no.34, the natural light would be reduced and the position of this extension would have little baring. In addition the secluded outdoor space would be lost.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90530/B
Page 5 of 7
7.2.7. Option (2) whether this would work for the occupants is not a material matter for discussion as part of this assessment. Such an extension would protrude beyond the current extension at no.30 and would not result in a private secluded outdoor space.
7.2.8. Option (2) was proposed to the applicant's by the agent however the applicants wanted the design as submitted. The chosen design retains the patio area outside the kitchen but results in a private outdoor area.
7.2.9. Concluding on position and orientation, neither the proposed or suggested option would be harmful to the character of the dwellinghouse. Due to the depth of the extension, it will protrude approximately 2.6m beyond the rear of the conservatory at no.30; the conservatory extends approximately 3.8m from the rear elevation of no.30. Protruding 5m from the rear elevation of no.32, the extension will be visible and highly noticeable to the occupants of no.30 from inside their conservatory and in the garden. However it would not result in an overbearing impact because it is single storey.
7.2.10. No windows are proposed within the east elevation of the extension and an amended drawing includes roof lights on the north roof slope instead of the east as originally proposed. Impacts on neighbours are discussed at section 7.3 and a condition is proposed attached.
7.2.11. In respect of materials, the proposal is to use materials to match the existing external materials on the property except for on the north-west elevation that is proposed in painted render. The north-west elevation is visible only from the applicant's property and as such is acceptable.
7.2.12. In respect of drainage, the amended drawing no.04 revision A shows that the surface water will be managed to the existing system; a condition is proposed attached.
7.2.13. The proposal would not remove from the ability to store waste bins within the curtilage of the property.
7.2.14. Overall the simplistic design takes account of the site and accords with the aims and objectives of Policies EP22 and G2. and the Design Guide.
7.3. Impact upon residential amenity 7.3.1. The immediate neighbours for whom the proposal could cause harm to residential amenity are that of the adjacent neighbour, no.30 Ashberry Avenue and no.5 The Meadows that is beyond the rear boundary of the application site.
7.3.2. In respect of no.5 The Meadows, irrespective of the mature vegetation on the boundary, because of the orientation of the two properties there would be no window to window relationships. Due to the single storey element the proposal would not introduce any overlooking or overbearing concerns.
7.3.3. In respect of no.30 Ashberry Avenue, the nearest neighbour to the proposed extension, consideration is given to overlooking, overbearing, impacts of loss of light, overshadowing and light pollution all of which have been raised as concerns by the occupants of no.30. However consideration is not given to section 5 of the objection because this is not a planning matter but is a private legal matter.
7.3.4. Turning to light pollution, the proposal has been amended in response to the concerns regarding the roof lights. These have been removed and placed on the roof slope facing into the site. It is fact that these roof lights would omit light during dark hours however it is unlikely that the level of light would cause harm to the bedrooms of no.30. Certainly the level of light omitted from the glass conservatory would be much higher than the two modest roof lights.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90530/B
Page 6 of 7
And so in the context of the setting, within a housing estate, it is considered that this element of the proposal would not cause harm to a level that would warrant refusal.
7.3.5. Overlooking already exists from the conservatory of no.30 towards the rear elevation windows and garden of the site. The proposed extension does not include windows in the side elevation facing the neighbour, therefore no harm in respect of overlooking is observed.
7.3.6. Turning to loss of light and overshadowing; The properties are north-east facing therefore there is a limit to the length of sunlight benefit. The proposed extension will protrude around 2.5m from the rear of the conservatory at no.30. Due to the separation distance, the 45' degree guidance would not be breached for the rear elevation of the conservatory. The dual pitch roof will allow more light across to no.30 than a mono pitch roof. However it is acknowledged that there would be some reduction in light when compared to the existing situation in which there is no boundary treatment above the 1m fence. The low level boundary treatment would also result in the side elevation being prominently visible for the occupants of no.30 when sat in the conservatory or close to the conservatory, and in the garden. Therefore the feeling of being overbearing would occur upon construction. However it is considered that due to the single storey dual pitch roof this would not cause adverse harm to the level that would warrant refusal.
7.3.7. In respect of overbearing, position and scale, this has been considered under the 'design' heading and concluded at paragraph 7.2.9. It is acknowledged that at first the extension could appear bulky and give a feeling of being 'closed in'.
7.3.8. In conclusion, the proposal would not introduce overlooking; Although it is acknowledged there could be a feeling of loss of light, because of the orientation, north-east facing, and design, there would be negligible loss of light; It is acknowledged that on account of the fact that the extension introduces a wall where presently there is nothing the feeling of being 'enclosed' could occur, however it is considered that this feeling could dissipate over time and is not of a level to warrant refusal.
7.3.9. It is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact neighbour amenity (loss of light, overshadowing, overbearing impact) to warrant a refusal. Overall the proposal takes account of its' setting and meets the aims and objectives of Policies EP22 and G2. and the Design Guide.
CONCLUSION 8.1. The proposed rear extension in terms of its design, proportion, siting and finishes are acceptable without causing undue harm to neighbour amenity. Overall it is considered that the proposal accords with the aims and objectives of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and with the Design Guide.
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 (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.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90530/B
Page 7 of 7
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.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal. __
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: 05.08.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
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