222740

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant; Proposal: 14/00079/B Mr Gary Proctor Construction of a raised sun deck and door access over rear yard store 13 Brunswick Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3LH Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Edmond Riley 19.02.2014 19.02.2014 Officer Delegation Officer's Report 1.0 THE SITE The application site is the curtiiage of 13 Brunswick Road, Douglas. The property is located on the southwestern side of the street near to its junction with Tennis Road. A low wall with railings above provides the boundary treatment to the front garden area, while to the rear an access lane with garages are present with outriders to the dwellings common. 1.1 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Planning approval is sought for the installation of a roof terrace above part of the existing rear outrider. The single storey part of the rear outrider, above which the works are proposed, is annotated on the submitted plans as being a yard store; its rear wall forms part of the rear wall to the property such that it is directly adjacent to the rear access lane, The outrider is monopitched at a shallow angle; the proposal would result in this roof being replaced with an area of decking measuring 3.4m wide by 2.5m deep from the rear of the dwelling. Timber balustrades of 1.2m in height would surround two sides of the roof terrace. The other enclosures would be provided by the rear wall of the two-storey element of the rear outride of number 13 and, adjacent, the slightly higher outrider present at number 11. 2.1 2.2 Access to the roof terrace would be solely via the bathroom at the first floor, to which a door would replace the existing window and masonry wall below. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY The application site has not been the subject of any applications that are considered materially relevant to the determination of the current application, although it is worth noting that number 11 Brunswick Road had a rear sun terrace installed under PA 03/01757. Number 11 was also the subject of an enforcement enquiry in 2004 in respect of this sun terrace with concern being raised over discrepancy between the approved plans and the development taking place. This case was closed in November 2008 with advice that the owner/occupier submit a new planning application to regularise those works. It does not appear that this application was submitted. 3.1 14/00079/B Page 1 of 5 13 April 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES The Douglas Local Plan 1998 shows the application site as being located within a Predominantly Residential area. The site is also within the Selborne Drive Conservation Area, Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the following policies are considered relevant: General Policy 2 states (in part); "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: 4,1 respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks, and does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the (b) (c) (f) (g) locality". Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." 4.2 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council does not object to this application. The owner/occupier of Slaidburn, 1 Tennis Road was contacted by the case officer in order to arrange access to that property to assess the impact of the proposal thereon. The owner/occupier of Slaidburn subsequently objected to the application. Their representation can be summarised as concern regarding: the completing of the application form; the accuracy of the submitted plans; loss of privacy, and the proposal is not in keeping with the properties in the area. 5.2 6.0 ASSESSMENT The key issues to be assessed in the determination of this application are whether the proposed works would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the extent of the impact the proposal would have on private residential amenity. Turning to the physical changes proposed in the first instance, it is not considered that the installation of a sun deck to the rear would alter the character of the Conservation Area to an unduly negative degree. The rear access lane is not hugely visible and is overlooked primarily by residents of Brunswick Road and Tennis Road; perhaps unusually for a residential terrace, there is no complementary residential development to the other side of the rear access lane. It is also true that there is a mixture of forms, materials and sizes of extensions and/or original outriders in the area, including one sun terrace immediately adjacent the application site, such that it would be fair to say the proposal would likely preserve the appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. The materials proposed with decking and timber balustrades are also not considered inappropriate for the area. While the sole access to the decking via the upstairs bathroom is rather unusual, it is not objectionable from a Planning point of view. It is therefore not considered that the proposal is, in itself, likely to unduly affect the Conservation Area to a degree significant enough to warrant refusing the application on this point. 6.1 6.2 Page 2 of 5 14/00079/B 13 April 2014

==== PAGE 3 ====

In terms of private amenity, the main impact is likely to be felt by the owner/occupier of 1 Tennis Road (known as Slaidburn) and 15 Brunswick Road to the north of the application site, It is true that number 11 Brunswick Road is nearer to the application site than 1 Tennis Road and therefore might be expected to be more significantly affected than is the case. However, by virtue of its being higher than the application site, there is unlikely to be any overbearing impact or any serious loss of privacy between numbers 11 and 13 as the two sun terraces would overlook one another rather than provide visual sightlines into the respective dwellings. It is also true that the sun terrace to number 11 is far larger than its proposed counterpart at number 13 and wraps around the rear outrider such that it is not the only view from this sun terrace that will be affected by the proposal. 6.3 The angles between 15 Brunswick Road and the site of the proposed works are considered insufficient to adequately protect the private residential amenity of the occupiers of that dwelling. Number 15 is a corner dwelling that also has an outrider and, although this would largely screen the proposed works, the number of windows in the elevation across its three storeys is such that there would be some oblique views from the proposed sun terrace into the rooms served by these windows. The distance between the proposed sun terrace and the elevation of number 15 is roughly 11m with, as noted, oblique views between the two. It is not known what rooms to number 15 are served by the windows in question. 6.4 The distance between the proposed terrace and the rear elevation of Slaidburn is 8m and the view direct. Access to Slaidburn was gained, and it was noted that the rooms overlooking the sun terrace would be the kitchen at ground floor level, the main bedroom and bathroom at first floor level, and a further bedroom (and landing) at second floor level. None of these rooms have more than one aspect or window. The height of the rear outrider relative to the application site is such that the sun terrace would sit at roughly the same height as the first floor level of Slaidburn, which, as noted, has its main bedroom and a bathroom on this floor. The direct and close nature of the views between the site of the proposed works and the main bedroom (in particular) of Slaidburn would unduly affect the private residential amenity in this dwelling, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan, It is considered that this is a substantive reason for refusing the planning application. 6,5 In the kitchen to Slaidburn, the curved rear wall to 13 Brunswick Street, at 4m distant, is readily visible. It is considered that the addition of a sun terrace above this height, with the possibility for additional overlooking (and/or the perception of overlooking) would, by virtue of this short distance, be of a degree that would unduly adversely affect the private amenity of the occupiers of Slaidburn, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan. It is considered that this is a substantive reason for refusing the planning application. 6.6 Concern has been raised by the occupants of Slaidburn in respect of the potential loss of vegetation from within the application site. It is true that the applicant has ticked both "yes" and "no" to the question "Have you indicated which trees, if any, are to be 'lopped' or 'felled' as a result of the works?", which makes assessing the application on this point somewhat difficult. The presence of trees here is unusual and hence possibly valuable. It could also provide some natural screening between the proposed sun terrace and 15 Brunswick Road. The felling of these trees would not be classed as development and as such cannot be controlled through the Planning System, but it is considered that the loss of these trees would make the proposal even more unacceptable from the perspective of private amenity. It is therefore considered that the proposal is also contrary to General Policy 2(f) of the Strategic Plan. 6.7 Further concern has been raised by the occupants of Slaidburn in respect of the accuracy of the plans. It was evident from the site visit that the roof apex to the main outrider on the application site does not join the main dwelling at 0.25m below the eaves as is shown on the drawing. The absence of a window from the side elevation is also identified, 6.8 13 April 2014 14/00079/B Page 3 of 5 \

==== PAGE 4 ====

and this too was observed from the site visit as being incorrect. It is therefore evident that the plans are inaccurate, but it has been possible to properly assess the Impacts of the proposal nevertheless. 7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis that the proposal would result in an unacceptably harmful loss of private residential amenity by virtue of the loss of privacy and the increased level of overlooking (or perception of overlooking) that would be felt by the occupiers of 15 Brunswick Road and 1 Tennis Road, the proposal is considered to be in conflict with General Policy 2 (f) and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. 7.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be refused. 7.2 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS The owners / occupiers of Slaidburn, 1 Tennis Road are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, Article 6(3), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.1 The local authority, Douglas Borough Council, is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, Article 6(4)(e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 8.2 14/00079/B Page 4 of 5 13 April 2014

==== PAGE 5 ====

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.04.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals Rl. Ttie proposed sun terrace would result in an unacceptably harmful loss of private residential amenity by virtue of the loss of privacy and the increased level of overlooking (or perception of overlooking) that would be felt by the occupiers of 15 Brunswick Road and 1 Tennis Road. As such, the proposal is considered to be in conflict with General Policy 2 (f) and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date: Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Jennifer Chance Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management .. J. 13 April 2014 14/00079/B Page 5 of 5