Appeal by Peter Russell Vaughan against refusal for alterations, erection of extension and installation of replacement windows (Amendments to PA12/ 01357/B) and creation of a balcony area above existing garage, 46 Sea Cliff Road, Onchan IM3 2JD.

Site Visit: Tuesday 18^{\text {th }} March 2014

Preamble

1. 46 Sea Cliff Road is a large, split level detached house, sitting below King Edward Road and facing over Douglas Bay. Its double garage stands behind the southwest side of the house, reached via a drive rising past its other side. No 45, a similarly large house, stands to the southwest.
2. PA 12/01357/B approved alterations, erection of extension and installation of replacement windows at No 46, upheld following third party appeals (AP13/0005).
3. PA 12/01513/B approved alterations and extension at No 45, similarly upheld following third party appeals (AP13/0006).
4. In each case the proposals were for substantial changes to the respective house, including amongst other measures the creation of an additional floor level. Works are currently in train at No 45. The current application sought amendments with respect to the approval at No 46. In essences those changes comprise:

• a terrace (also referred to as a balcony) over the garage in place of its existing pitched roof;
• an additional side window in the southwest elevation;
• detailed changes to the front elevation.

5. It was refused by notice issued on 23^{\text {rd }} December 2013 for the following reason:

The proposed balcony/roof terrace and screen would be likely to result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupier/s of No 45 Sea Cliff Road, through the perception of loss of privacy, potential nuisance and disturbance, and an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property.

Gist of the Cases

6. Appellant: the garden behind No 45 rises to about the same level as the proposed roof balcony and is screened. There is adequate separation to the boundary and then again to the house, so as not to cause increased overlooking. Even implied overlooking from the balcony would be negated by a 1.8 m obscure glazed screen along its front and nearside edge. As a gesture, the appellant would be willing to similarly screen across the rear. PA 12/01513/B authorises 3 more additional new windows in No 45's enlarged northwest elevation, overlooking the garden to No 46, which the appellant did not oppose. Account should be had for the effects of the works at No 45 on amenity at No 46. The Planning Officer was satisfied that there would be sufficient separation between the balcony and the house at No 45 to avoid any excessive overbearing impact or loss of amenity. The side window now proposed was omitted previously following objections from No 45, but has been restored, since it would face a blank wall on realisation of the neighbouring works. Even so, although of dubious necessity, the proposal is for fixed obscure glazing.
7. The Planning Authority: from the outset the agent was advised that the roof terrace was the most finely balanced component of the current proposals, which could be tested only by means of an application. In the event, although the Planning Officer, on an assessment stated to be finely balanced, advised favourably with regard to the terrace, the Committee after discussion concluded otherwise as set out in the refusal notice. As the minutes confirm, all other aspects of the Officer's favourable report were accepted. In particular, although there remains some uncertainty regarding the degree of overlooking that would result from

Appeal No AP14/0001 Application No 13/91207/B Inspector's Report

reinstating the side window, this would be fully addressed by fixed obscure glazing, in what would be a secondary window to the room in question.

8. Occupants of 45 Sea Cliff Road: the proposed reinstatement of the upper side window is unwelcome following its previous omission in response to their objections, especially as they were then not objectors when PA 12/01357/B was subject to third party appeals. If clear glazed it would impinge unreasonably on their privacy and, at the least, should be required by condition to remain fixed and obscure glazed in perpetuity. The fronts of these properties are open to view so privacy at the back is especially important, but would be eroded by the roof terrace. Even with a screen, activity would be apparent while the end of the terrace would provide direct close views into the upper part of their garden.

9. The Onchan District Commissioners: opposed the application because the reinstated window and the patio area over the garage would create an impression of overlooking to the neighbour, and could be considered detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring property.

Inspector's Assessment

10. General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2007 is normally favourable to proposals, as here, complying with the land-use zoning, while its paragraph 8.12.1 and Policy O/RES/P/21 of the Onchan Local Plan 2000 provide more specific support to residential extensions and alterations. In each case the outcome is subject to safeguarding requirements, including with respect to the effect on neighbouring residential amenity, which is the determining consideration in this appeal.

11. The detailed changes to the front elevation would be innocuous, are not subject to objection and there is no reason to withhold approval. As things stand, the reinstated upper side window, previously omitted, would cause undue overlooking were it clear glazed. However it is expressly described as fixed and obscure glazed, so that this secondary window in the room would transmit natural light but with no outlook. In the circumstances a planning condition requiring this would be reasonable and necessary. Any future reconsideration if it arose, perhaps following completion of works at No 45, would need to be determined on its merits.

12. I have considered with particular care the appellant's case, and Planning Officer's report, with respect to the balcony, more aptly described as a roof terrace. My assessment, however, is of the appeal proposals on their merits, not by comparison with the additional windows approved at No 45; the respective impacts would in any event be quite different in character. Having visited the site and visualised these proposals, I have concluded that the outcome would be unduly intrusive. The terrace would run alongside and close to the boundary, where its obscure glazed side screen would stand prominently above the boundary wall and fencing, which is of conventional and unexceptional height. Its appearance would be harmfully intrusive, while domestic activity at that height and proximity would be unsettling, unreasonably so, even without direct visual contact. Additional screening as now suggested, across the rear, although helpful would not overcome my conclusion. In contrast the existing pyramid form garage roof, rising away from the boundary, is entirely in character and expectations here. Even when not in active use, the presence of the terrace and realisation that it could be used at any time would be disconcerting.

13. I can readily understand the benefits to occupants of No 46, where the terrace would provide a sheltered, largely secluded outdoor area that would benefit from late afternoon/evening sun. However, that has to be considered having regard to the impacts on present and future residents next door, which in my assessment would be unacceptable and contrary to the important safeguarding requirements in the policies referred to above. The other elements applied for are neither functionally nor physically dependent on the roof terrace and may therefore be

Appendix 1

14. I recommend that the Minister allows the appeal in part and grants approval for: alterations, erection of extension and installation of replacement windows (Amendments to PA12/01357/B), but omitting the proposed balcony area above existing garage, at 46 Sea Cliff Road, Onchan IM3 2JD, subject to the following conditions.

15. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

16. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following drawings other than in omitting any works to create the proposed balcony over the existing garage: Drawing Numbers 12/0117/01 (site location plan), 12/0117 02, 12/0117 03 (existing), 12/0117/04B received by the Planning Authority on 14 October 2013 and 12/0117/05d received on 11 December 2013.

17. The top floor window on the south west elevation (shown as being a secondary widow to the lounge on the approved plans) shall at all times be fitted with obscure glazing as indicated on Drawing 12/0117/05d. The level of obscuration installed and thereafter retained shall be no less than Level 5 as detailed in the Pilkington textured glass range or equivalent. The window shall at all times be non opening.

18. The glass in the 1.8 metre screen at the side elevation of the top floor balcony shall be obscure glazed and retained as such, as indicated on the approved drawings. The level of obscuration must at all times be no less than Level 5 as detailed in the Pilkington textured glass range or equivalent.

19. In the event that the Minister disagrees and is minded to approve all the elements applied for, then I would recommend substituting the extended version of Condition 4 below, to require screening around the 3 outer sides above the garage in addition to the uncontested requirement in Condition 4 above with respect to a house balcony.

20. The glass in the 1.8 metre screen at the side elevation of the top floor balcony and south west, south east and north west sides of the roof terrace above the garage shall be obscure glazed and retained as such, as indicated on the approved drawings and proffered by the appellant with respect to the north west edge of the terrace. The level of obscuration must at all times be no less than Level 5 as detailed in the Pilkington textured glass range or equivalent.

Alan Langton

Inspector