224898

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/00043/B Mr Mark Owen & Mrs Beverley Ann Jones Raising of existing roof height to create additional living accommodation over garage 36 Ashberry Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 IPX Site Address: Miss Melissa McKnight 06.02.2014 06.02.2014 Officer Delegation Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer's Report 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE The application site is the residential curtilage of No. 36 Ashberry Avenue, a two storey semi-detached dwelling located on the north eastern side of Ashberry Avenue in Douglas. 1.1 The existing dwelling is finished in part brick and part render with a pitched roof finished with concrete interlocking tiles. To the south east elevation is a single storey integrated garage. The dwelling has a private garden to the rear with an open garden to the front which adjoins an existing driveway, 1.2 The surrounding area is characterised by semi-detached and detached properties of similar form and appearance of the application site property. 1.3 2.0 THE PROPOSAL This current planning application seeks approval for the raising of the existing garage roof to create a bedroom and shower room above the existing garage. It is proposed to raise the roof 0.7 metres at the front and 2 metres at the rear. The existing roof tiles would be re­ used and any new tiles that are required would match the existing. 2.1 The extended rear and side elevation wall would be finished in a painted render to match the main dwelling. There would be an additional window installed on the rear elevation of the proposed extension which would serve a bedroom and would replicate the existing windows installed on the dwelling. There would also be a window installed on the south east side elevation which would have frosted glazing and would serve a shower room. 2.2 The final element of the proposal is to install a new rooflight on the front roof slope of the extension which would measure 0.7 x 0.5 metres, This element of the proposal complies with the conditions set out under Schedule 1, Section B, Class 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 and would not require planning permission. 2.3 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of five previous planning applications, two of which are considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning 22 April 2014 14/00043/B Page 1 of 6

==== PAGE 2 ====

application given the ievel and nature of deveiopment proposed: PA 05/00753/B: Conversion of attic space above garage, and roof extension over rear breakfast room to form additionai living accommodation. This previous pianning appiication was refused on the grounds that the proposed extension wouid by reason of its design, height and extent of projection wouid cause demonstrabie harm to the occupiers of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue, PA 01/00286/8: Extension to dweliing over garage. This previous planning was refused on the grounds that an extension of the form proposed would have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the immediate area around the site; this impact would be exacerbated if similar development were to take place on other plots nearby. No. 27 Ashberry Avenue proposed a similar form of development under PA 13/91487/B which was recommended for refusal on the grounds that the hunched, shallow and unsympathetic roof profile at the rear, the excessive size of the wall plate between the top of the garage door and the eaves at the front, together with the awkward junction of the eaves at the front and particularly the rear, would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the existing house and the surrounding area. The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of criteria (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and is unacceptable. This planning appiication is currently the subject of an appeal and has not yet been determined. 3.2 3,3 No. 46 Meadow Crescent, located nearby to the south west of the application site, had planning permission granted in 2013 for an identical scheme under PA 13/00482/B. 4.0 PLANNING POLICY In terms of local plan policy, the application site is in an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 Map No. 2 (South). 4.1 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning appiication: 4.2 Genera! Policy 2 states: "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: 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 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (9) (h) manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (i) highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; 22 April 2014 14/00043/B Page 2 of 6

==== PAGE 3 ====

(k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; 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." (1) Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 states: "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general" 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the current planning application. A representation has been received from the owner and/or occupier of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue objecting to the planning application on the grounds of loss of privacy as the front garden of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue would be directly overlooked from the front proposed rooflight, the side window would directly look at the neighbouring property and would overlook the side of the fence and the rear window which would invade the privacy at the rear of the garden. Objections were also made regarding the height of the proposal causing overshadowing. 5.2 A further representation was received from the owner and/or occupier of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue querying whether PA 01/00286/B and 05/00753/B would be referenced within this planning application and whether the objector would be granted party status. Amended plans were submitted as there were discrepancies with the measurements on the drawings submitted. The owner and/or occupier of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue submitted two further representations confirming their objections which have been summarised below: The extension will cause overshadowing; The extension will invade privacy; and The proposal will be out of keeping within the area; The owner of No. 38 Ashberry Avenue supports the planning application. 5.3 6.0 ASSESSMENT The aim of this planning application is to address the two previous reasons for refusal of PA 01/00286/B and PA 05/00753/B which both proposed an extension above the existing garage to create additional living accommodation. PA 01/00286/B proposed a full storey extension which the Planning Inspector found gave an enclosed terrace style appearance and would change the appearance of Ashberry Avenue to its detriment. PA 05/00753/B incorporated a flat roof extension which the Planning Inspector found to be visually incongruous and out of keeping which would be overbearing and unneighbourly when viewed from No. 34 Ashberry Avenue. 6.1 Therefore, there are two key issues to address in the assessment of this current planning application. Firstly, it is essential to consider the impacts of the proposed roof extension on the residential amenity of No. 34 and No. 38 Ashberry Avenue and No. 5 The Meadows. Secondly, it is imperative to consider the impacts of the proposal on the street scene of Ashberry Avenue. 6.2 22 April 2014 14/00043/B Page 3 of 6

==== PAGE 4 ====

TTie proposed extension would be erected just less than 1 metre from the boundary of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue and just less than 2 metres from the neighbouring dwelling. The occupants of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue have objected to the planning application on a number of grounds which will be addressed in the following sections of this assessment. 6.3 The proposed development would be wholly visible from the rear garden of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue. The incorporation of the rear roof pitch is more in keeping with the existing form and appearance of the main dwelling house and would result in an extension which would be 0.5 metres lower than the previously proposed scheme under PA 05/00753/B. What is proposed under this scheme is judged to be an improvement over the previously two proposed schemes and is not considered to be of a scale to appear unneighbourly to the residents of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue. 6.4 A further objection was raised with regards to the height of the proposed extension causing overshadowing to the rear of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue, The rear gardens of the application site and No. 34 Ashberry Avenue are north east facing and as a result the rear garden of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue would receive interrupted sunlight as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The proposed development would not impact upon the amount of sunlight received to No. 34 Ashberry Avenue at present, In addition, the proposed extension would protrude no further than the rear elevation of the application site property and would also be lower than the existing roof pitch and is therefore not judged to cause a high level of overshadowing. Two site visits were carried out both at mid-morning. It was evident that the existing level of overshadowing that occurs in the rear garden of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue is a result of the existing dwelling. 6.5 6.6 There were also objections regarding overlooking and loss of privacy from the three new windows that are proposed. These will each be assessed separately. The residents of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue raised concerns regarding loss of privacy and overlooking the front garden of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue as a result of the proposed Velux roofllght. The existing front garden of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue is open to Ashberry Avenue with a tow level shrub boundary that is not thought to be any higher than 1 metre. The other front gardens within the locality are all open. Anyone that passes No. 34 Ashberry Avenue has views into the front garden, and the other front gardens of Ashberry Avenue, on a daily basis. 6.7 The main purpose of rooflights is for ventilation and light. Given the angle that they are installed makes it almost impossible to view directly beneath them with only distant and upward views attainable. It Is therefore judged that the roof light is acceptable. It should also be noted that the installation of a roof light measuring that of the one proposed could be installed under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012. 6.8 The proposed window on the south east elevation would have frosted glazing and therefore overlooking into the side and rear garden would not be achieved. Although the proposed window would have a top light, when opened direct views to the northwest elevation of the No. 34 Ashberry Avenue would oniy be attainable given the height of the window and distance between the two properties would limit viewing angles. Views may be gained into the front and rear garden of the neighbouring property but at significant less angled views than what can already be achieved from one using the side garden path and the front and rear gardens. For the reasons mentioned above, it is considered that the installation of the window on the south east elevation is acceptable and would not cause any undue harm to the residential amenity of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue. 6,9 6.10 TTie new rear window is not judged to cause any additional overlooking to the neighbouring dwellings, Nos. 34 and 38 Ashberry Avenue or No. 5 The Meadows, than what can already be achieved from one simply using the rear garden and existing first floor rear elevation windows. In addition, the proposed new rear elevation window would serve a 22 April 2014 Page 4 of 6 14/00043/B

==== PAGE 5 ====

bedroom which is not considered a main principal room where one may spend the majority of their time. It is therefore considered that this element of the proposal is not deemed to adversely affect the living environment of the neighbouring dwellings with regards to overlooking and loss of privacy. The rear timber fence boundary of the application site is shared with No. 5 The 6.11 Meadows and is located just less than 9 metres from the rear elevation of the application site property; 35 metres from the dwelling. No. 5 The Meadows is set above the application site property. Given the distance of the proposal to the adjacent dwelling, the proposed extension is not judged to have a harmful impact upon the living environment of the adjacent property. 6.12 The proposed development to the south east elevation of the existing dwelling would be 8 metres from the boundary shared with No. 38 Ashberry Avenue. It is considered that what is proposed under this scheme would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of No. 38 Ashberry Avenue; who support the application, Whilst, the proposed roof extension would be visible from the rear garden of No. 38 Ashberry Avenue, it is not of a scale considered to harm the enjoyment of No. 38 Ashberry Avenue. 6,13 The proposed roof extension to the existing garage is considered to be a relatively modest form of development and is not judged to impact upon public or private amenity or the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse and surrounding area. The front roof pitch extension would be minimal and would not interrupt the existing form and appearance of the main dwelling or appear incongruous within the street scene. Overall it is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with General 6.14 Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be permitted. 8.0 PARTY STATUS 8.1 The local authority, Douglas Borough Council, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4)(e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country 8.2 Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4)(d). 8.3 It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status: The owner and/or occupier of No. 34 Ashberry Avenue, immediate neighbour of the application site. The owner of No. 38 Ashberry Avenue, immediate neighbour of the application site. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted 14/00043/B 15 May 2014 Page 5 of 6

==== PAGE 6 ====

Date of Recommendation: 22.04.2014 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 C 1. 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 C 2. The proposed window in the south-west elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and permanently retained as such. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy. This approval relates to Plans 1/2 and 2/2 date stamped as having been received 19th 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. ZOIH- Decision Made: Permitted Date : Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed :...' Jennifer Chance 1 14/00043/B Page 6 of 6 15 May 2014