Loading document...
Appeal No. AP14/0009 Application No. 13/91487/B REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY MR JASON & MRS LYNDSEY GAINES AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND LIFTING OF EXISTING GARAGE ROOF TO CREATE ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMODATION AT 27 ASHBERRY AVENUE, DOUGLAS, ISLE OF MAN
The main points are: 5. The statements made in the assessment in the Planning Officer's report are subjective. Uniformity has played no part in the extensions/alterations previously permitted for example at 46 and 50 Meadow Crescent, and there are other similar cases around Farmhill and Governors Hill. The extension approved and built at 46 Meadow Crescent is almost identical and looks fine (Inspector's note: it was accepted for the appellant at the inquiry that the extension at 46 Meadow Crescent is not identical to the appeal proposal as the angle of the rear roof slope is 15^{\circ} rather than 12.5^{\circ} ). The appellants would be happy to have the same dashed render finish to the wall plate above the garage door as has been used at that property if that is preferred from a planning perspective. A similar application has been submitted to extend another property in Ashberry Avenue but has not yet been determined.
The main points are: 9. The Area is identified as being predominantly residential by the Douglas Local Plan 1998. General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan are relevant. 10. The proposal would not affect existing parking and access arrangements. It would harm the amenity of neighbouring residents. There would be no additional harmful overlooking of neighbouring residents, and there would not be an unacceptable loss of light or impact on the outlook of those residents. 11. The alterations would result in the roof over the garage appearing hunched and unattractive. The wall plate between the garage door and the eaves would appear overly large. The junction at the eaves at the front and the rear would appear awkward and discordant. The proposal would appear even more strident and unsympathetic because the dwellings on Ashberry Avenue have a uniformity of design. 12. The Planning Authority is aware that a restrictive covenant prevents the erection of a more orthodox 2storey side extension. That is unfortunate but does not justify the unacceptable design solution proposed. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and of the area. For that reason the appeal should be dismissed.
of the front roof slope, the rear roof plane would fall at a much reduced angle of about 12.5°. The consequent irregular, eccentric arrangement of roof planes would create a feature which would be alien to the general uniformity of roof forms both on this dwelling and in the immediate street scene.
I have taken account of the examples of other alterations/extensions cited by the appellants. The extension approved at 50 Meadow Crescent was not directly comparable in that it did not incorporate the same change to the angle of the rear roof slope, but instead involved a rear facing dormer. The appellant's representative at the inquiry conceded that the scheme at 46 Meadow Crescent was not entirely the same as the appeal scheme, as the angle of the rear roof slope approved in that case was at 15°. More significantly I noted at my visit that there is a limited gap between that dwelling and its neighbouring property, which restricts the extent to which the eccentric roof form is visible within the street scene. As the front roof slope of the extension on that site rises at a comparable angle to the other roof planes nearby, it is not unduly evident that the extension incorporates a non-typical roof form at the rear. By contrast the alterations/extension proposed in the appeal would be prominent as visibility would be opened up by the relatively wide gap that exists between the appeal property and the adjacent dwelling at No. 25. A vehicular access passes through that gap, and then curves around the rear of the appeal property to give access to a car parking area. The proposed alterations/extension would be prominently visible to users of that access. Comparable opportunities to view the alterations/extension at 46 Meadow Crescent at a similar close proximity do not exist. I have concluded that the existence of an approved and constructed extension of a similar but not identical design at 46 Meadow Crescent does not set a precedent which must be followed in this appeal case. Every planning proposal is to be treated on its own merits, and for the reasons I have given the merits of the appeal scheme are different.
I concur with the Planning Authority's assessment that there are no grounds to refuse planning approval on grounds relating to access and car parking or impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. However, I have concluded that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the area. It would conflict in those respects with the expectations of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan that development should respect the site and surroundings, including in form and design, and should not have adverse effects on the character of the surrounding townscape and the character of the locality. Consequently, it is my further conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. However, if a decision is made to allow the appeal, it would be necessary and reasonable to attach the 2 conditions given in the covering letter of 21 February 2014 to the Planning Authority's statement. These comprise the usual requirements that development should be commenced within 4 years and carried out in accordance with the submitted drawings.
RECOMMENDATION
Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector
Appeal No. AP14/0009
Page 3
.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
