Office of the Minister and Chief Executive

Telephone (01624)685859 Fax (01624)685945 Email: [email protected] Contact: Margaret Clague Our Ref: ITT/MC Your ref: Date: 2nd February 2011.

Dear Sir/Madam,

ON APPEAL: PA10/1128/B – Mr. William Paul and Nicola Holland – Extensions to dwelling and creation of additional off-road parking, 71 Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey, IM82 PQ

I refer to the recent appeal in respect of the above planning application.

In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to consider this appeal.

The Minister has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, he has directed that the approval of the application under Article 6 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 should be confirmed.

Yours faithfully,

I. T. Thompson, Chief Executive.

Please see over for circulation list/......

Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF

Circulation List - PA10/1128/B

1. Mr. and Mrs. W. P. Holland, 71 Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey, IM8 1PQ;
2. Mr. G. M. Roberts, 12 Auldyn Walk, Ramsey, IM8 2TN;
3. Ramsey Town Commissioners, Town Hall, Ramsey, IM8 1RT;
4. Highways & Traffic Division, DOI, Sea Terminal Buildings;

Report into an appeal by Ramsey Town Commissioners made under the written representations procedure against the grant of approval to Mr and Mrs William Holland for extensions to dwelling and the creation of additional off-road parking at 71 Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey IM8 2PQ

The relevant facts and arguments are summarised as follows:

The Appeal Site and the Proposed Development

1. The application site is located in a residential area on the western outskirts of Ramsey. It represents the curtilage of a small semi-detached threebedroom dormer bungalow. The property has an existing driveway, which runs down the side of the house.
2. The proposed extensions include a dormer bungalow-style addition to the side and a single-storey sunroom extension to the rear. The proposed side extension would be constructed on part of the existing driveway and as the proposed garage would not be large enough to accommodate a car it is proposed to enlarge the hardstanding area to the front (south) of the dwelling to provide a replacement parking space in the existing front garden. An area of lawn would be retained.

Planning History

3. A previous planning application (PA10/00606/B) was recently refused for a similar scheme for the property. The gist of the reasoning is as follows (1) Unacceptable loss of light and overbearing impact upon the outlook of the kitchen window of 69 Greenlands Avenue. (2) Adverse visual impact due to potential to create a terracing effect. (3) Overbearing impact upon the outlook of 73 Greenlands Avenue. (4) The removal of the front garden area to create additional parking would harm the outlook of the dwelling and would detract from the visual amenity and character of the area.

The Case for the Commissioners

4. Subject to adequate clearance from the boundary the proposed sunroom would have an acceptable impact on no. 73 Greenlands Avenue.
5. The proposed side extension would have an unneighbourly impact due to its close proximity to 69 Greenlands Avenue but also because it removes an off street car parking facility. Due to its inadequate width the proposed garage would be unable to be used as a car parking facility. It would only serve to act as a support for an additional bedroom. Most of the front garden area would be lost in order to accommodate off-street car parking for two vehicles.

The Case for the Planning Committee

6. The site lies within an area designated as "predominantly residential use" in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a conservation area.
7. loM Strategic Plan General Policy 2 and the general presumption in favour of extensions to dwellings are relevant to the assessment of the application. Dol Highways Division does not oppose the application. (a) The proposed side extension:
8. The proposed side extension would be located approximately 2.5 metres from the ground floor kitchen window of number 69. At present, the kitchen windows of numbers 69 and 71 directly face each other. The proposed extension would have no windows on the side elevation and therefore overlooking would be reduced. With a set back of 650 mm from the existing façade there would be less overshadowing and loss of light to the adjoining property than in the case of PA10/00606/B. The external finishes of the extension would be light colour to match the existing and would reflect light into the kitchen window. Therefore on balance it is considered that the current proposed side elevation is acceptable in terms of its impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.
9. The proposal differs from PA10/00606/B in that the 650 mm setback from the façade would make the extension appear subordinate to the main house, would reduce a terracing effect and improve the impact of the extension on the street scene. There are other semi-detached dormer bungalows in Greenland Avenue, which have similar side extensions, which have been approved including number 42 (PA 06/01434/B), number 54 (PA 99/01281/ B) and number 66 (PA 92/00392/B). (b) The rear extension
10. The proposal differs from PA10/00606/B in that the length of the proposed rear extension is reduced from 5.1 metres to 3.9 m and set back 300 mm from the boundary with number 73. The extension would be to the north of the dwelling and any loss of light to the adjacent property would be in the late evening. No windows would face 73 Greenlands Ave, so there would be no overlooking. Overall, the current proposal reduces the impact on the adjacent property to an acceptable level. (c) The parking area
11. The current proposal differs from PA10/00606/B in retaining approximately 50 % of the existing lawn; this would be an improvement on the previous application and would be an acceptable level of hardstanding in front of the property.

The Case for the Applicants

12. The current proposal addresses the issues in the reasons for refusal for application PA10/00606/B. It is unclear why the Commissioners object to the application, apart from an allegation that the proposals are "unneighbourly". Their objection that the garage is too small to accommodate a motor vehicle is not a valid reason for refusal. Mr Holland has motorbikes that are currently stored in an old timber shed that he wishes to replace with a more substantial blockwork garage. None of the adjoining neighbours objected to either application.

Independent Inspector's Assessment and Recommendation

13. The site lies within an area recognised as being predominantly residential in the local plan for the area. The Strategic Plan presumes in favour of house extensions where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on adjacent property or the surrounding area (paragraph 8.12.1.) Criteria (b), (c), (g), (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 are also relevant.
14. Greenlands Avenue consists of a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings set on plots of modest size. The large number of vehicles parked in the road attests to the difficulties for off-road parking. Nos. 67 / 69,71 / 73 and 75 / 77 comprise a group of six semi-detached dormer style bungalows. Kitchen and stairwell windows are set in the opposing gables some 5 metres apart. The three bedroom / lounge / dining / kitchen accommodation is restricted by contemporary living standards. The scope for enlargement is constrained by the modest size of the plot and the potential for unneighbourly overbearing impact, overshadowing and overlooking. Taking into account these factors and the loss of the front garden to car parking a recent application for a somewhat similar scheme has been refused (PA10/00606/B). The current application seeks to address the concerns that led to this refusal. Following a significant reduction in the size of the sunroom and an adjustment of its position relative to the common boundary with no. 73 the proposed rear extension is no longer the subject of objection.
15. Turning to the proposed two-storey side extension the issues are more finely balanced. In my opinion the dominance and overshadowing effect of the gable wall on the kitchen window of no. 69 would be outweighed by the enhanced privacy resulting from the removal of the opposing gable kitchen window in no. 71. The 650 mm set back from the façade combined with the lowering of the ridgeline would reduce the potential for a terraced appearance. I agree with the planning authority that provided the walls are finished with a light coloured render to offset the overbearing and overshadowing effect of the gable the side extension is acceptable in terms of its impact on the amenity of no. 69.
16. As well as supporting the first floor bedroom accommodation, the garage is required for the storage of motorcycles. I understand the Commissioners' concern that the extension would have the effect of

displacing a car parking space from the side to the front of the property. I accept that this would reduce the public and private amenity provided by the front garden. However, this would be offset by the retention of a grassed area in front of the lounge window, which would reduce the impact of parked vehicles on the outlook of both nos. 71 and 73. 17. On balance I find that the proposal conforms, albeit marginally, with the requirements of General Policies 2 (b), (c), (g), (h) and (i) and that therefore the presumption in favour of house extensions should prevail in this case. Accordingly, I recommend that the Commissioners' appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of the planning authority to grant conditional planning approval should be upheld.

G FARRINGTON 17th January 2011 Independent Inspector