223825

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal : Site Address: 14/00165/B Mr Paul & Mrs Suzanne Barlow Erection of a two storey extension to side and rear elevations 12 Close Cowley Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2HX Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Chris Balmer 25.02.2014 25.02.2014 Officer Delegation Officer's Report THE APPUCATION SITE The application site is 12 Close Cowley, Douglas which is a modern two storey semi­ detached property located on the north-eastern side of Close Cowley and north of the Spring Valley roundabout. 1.0 1.1 Currently, parking is provided by a driveway which runs from the entrance to the property along the side gable end wall of the property. This driveway provides at least two off road parking spaces (parallel parking). 1.2 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a two storey extension to side and rear elevations, The overall extension would have a maximum width of 3.1 metres (width of side extension 2.2 metres), have a total depth of 8.1 metres (rear projection 3.1 metres from rear wall) and a maximum height of 6.4 metres. The proposal also includes the creation of a new parking area by utilising some of the existing front lawn which fronts the existing dwelling. No alterations are to be made to the existing access. TTie scheme includes the planting of Griselinia hedging along the southern boundary with Nr 10 and along the front boundary which fronts onto the highway. 2.2 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning application is considered relevant to the determination of this proposal: 3.2 Erection of retaining wall, infilling garden, and erection of fence - 02/00611/B - REFUSED 4.0 PLANNING POLICY The site is designated within an "Area of Predominancy Residential Use" under the 4.1 Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three polies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: 17 April 2014 14/00165/B Page 1 of 5

==== PAGE 2 ====

General Policy 2 state: "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: 4.3 (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; 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; does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; does not affect adversely public views of the sea; incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (0 highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Corporation has no objection. 5.2 DOI Highway Services initially objected to the proposal as the initial plan proposed the removal of two useable off road parking spaces and provided only one. However, after discussions with the Planning Authority and the applicant and the submitted of a new driveway layout they now do not oppose the application, The owner/occupant of 61 Anagh Coar Road, Douglas has objected to the application which can be summarised as; overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy by the proposed first floor rear window, neighbouring extension (Nr 14 Close Cowley) there is no rear facing window to first floor; and suitability of the ground to support the additional works due to previous works ti the garden area. 5.3 The owner/occupant of 63 Anagh Coar Road, Douglas has objected to the application which can be summarised as; loss of light, current top end of garden already gets minimum sunshine due to current buildings; and loss of privacy to rear garden and bedroom window. 5.4 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are three issues which required consideration; firstly the potential impact upon neighbouring amenities (loss of light, overbearing impact and/or loss of privacy) by the development. Second the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene. Thirdly whether the proposed parking provision within the site is appropriate. In relation to the first matter, potential impact upon neighbouring amenities, it is considered the only property that has the potential to be affected would be the occupant/s of Nr 61 Anagh Coar Road which is directly to the east of the application site. This properties ground level is significant below that of the application site given the topography of the area. 6.2 17 April 2014 14/00165/B Page 2 of 5

==== PAGE 3 ====

and consequently from the ground floor windows of the application site views over the roof ridge of Nr 61 can be achieved. Concern centres of the potential overlooking resulting from the proposed first floor bedroom window to the rear windows, namely a first floor bedroom window of Nr 61. Concerns have been raised on this issue by the occupants of this property. There is already a degree of overlooking from the first floor windows of the application site down towards Nr 61, given the existing bedroom window (bedroom 2). This window is currently 21.5 metres from the rear elevation of Nr 61. It is noted the first floor bathroom window is obscure glazed and therefore no overlooking can occur from this window. The proposal would essentially result in a new bedroom window being 3 metres (18.5 metres gap retained) closer to the rear windows of Nr 61. 6.3 The Planning Authority has a general guide (not planning policy) that a gap of 20 metres should be retained between directly facing windows. This proposal would fail that general guide. However, the proposed window would still retain a distance of 18.5 metres and given the two sites are not on level ground, there would not be any significant overlooking into the room, but rather the floor of the bedroom adjacent to the window. It should also be noted that the window serves a bedroom rather than a primary habitable room (e.g. living room/kitchen) and the usage of this room is such that a person is unlikely to stand for prolong periods at a time. Overall, whilst the proposal will increase the potential for overlooking, it is not considered the degree of overlooking would not be more than might be reasonably be expected between these neighbouring houses and not materially harmful in planning terms. 6.4 6,5 The occupants of Nr 61 have commented that the extension to the neighbouring property Nr 14 (similar in terms of size and design) has not installed any first floor windows within the rear elevation. This is correct; however, permission was granted (98/0240/B) to install a side window (north elevation) at first floor level. An argument could be made this actually has more of an potential impact of overlooking over the rear garden of Nr 16, being only 3,8 metres from the boundary shared between the two properties (Nr 14 and Nr 16). It is unlikely a similar arrangement to this proposal would be consider appropriate. In relation to the potential impacts upon the occupants of Nr 63, namely overlooking, again it is considered the points raised in relation to Nr 61 are also relevant. It should also be noted that Nr 63 is further away (approximately 20 metres window to window) and the windows within the extension are not directly facing, but angled. Regarding potential loss of light, it is considered the distance the proposal would be from Nr 63, but also given the roof ridge would be lower than the main roof of the dwelling house; it is not considered the proposal would result in a significant amount of light lost to Nr 63. The next issue relates to the visual appearance of the proposal within the street scene. The scale, siting and design is similar to the extension undertaken to Nr 14 Close Cowley. It is considered, given its size, setback position, finish and design the proposal would appear subordinate to the main dwelling house and be an appropriate form of development within the street scene and to the individual property. 6.6 6.6 The third issue relates to the proposed parking provision for two vehicles within the site. Initially, concerned was raised that the prospered extension would result in the loss of a parking space, and therefore not providing two off road parking spaces within the site, which is a requirement of the parking standards of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Further to this concern the applicant's provided an additional drawing which shows the creation of a new parking area by utilising some of the existing front lawn which fronts the existing dwelling. There can be occasions where such a proposal can cause concern as paving the majority or all of a front garden can adversely impact the visual amenities of the street scene, from being made up of large amount of hardstanding, adversely impacting upon the visual amenities of 6.7 17 April 2014 14/00165/B Page 3 of 5

==== PAGE 4 ====

the street scene. In this case whilst a large part of the front lawned garden would be lost, the proposal to plan additional hedging and retained some lawned areas/planting beds would be appropriate and the resulting proposal would not significant impact the visual amenities of the street scene. A condition should be attached requiring the parking layout and planting scheme as shown on the proposed site plan be undertaken and retained thereafter. This would ensure some landscaping features are retained/provided, whilst providing the additional parking space. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For these reasons the proposals is considered to comply with the relevant polices of the Strategic Plan and therefore recommended for an approval. 8.0 PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (Nr2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4),and should be afforded interested party status: 8.1 Douglas Corporation DOI Highways Services The owner/occupant of 61 Anagh Coar Road, Douglas The owner/occupant of 63 Anagh Coar Road, Douglas Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.04.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals Cl. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: Procedure) {No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development C2. All planting as shown on the approved drawing 783/002 REV A shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation of the extension, Any trees or shrub which dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 17 April 2014 14/00165/B Page 4 of 5

==== PAGE 5 ====

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking area as shown in the approved drawing Nr 783/002 REV A has been provided. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety. This approval relates to Drawings reference numbers 783/001 and 783/002 REV A received on 11th February 2014 and 27th March 2014. 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 ; Permitted Date : Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Signed :... Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management 17 April 2014 14/00165/B Page 5 of 5