Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00047/B Applicant: Mr Jonathan & Mrs Tatia Rae Proposal: Erection of an extension to rear elevation of dwelling Site Address: 11 Knock Rushen Scarlett Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1TQ Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken: 17.02.2015 Site Visit: 17.02.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 11 Knock Rushen, a two storey with roof accommodation end terraced dwelling located within Knock Rushen, Castletown. - 1.2 The application dwelling is sited on the north western side of the highway. The dwelling has a detached garage situated at the rear and there is also a car park further to the rear of the application site that provides parking for part of Knock Rushen. Immediately to the south west of the application site is No. 12 Knock Rushen which is bounded to the application site by a rendered wall with fencing above.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a single storey flat roofed extension to the rear of the dwelling which would be sited on the boundary shared with No. 12 Knock Rushen and alongside an existing rear outrigger of the application dwelling. - 2.2 It is proposed to remove a section of the existing timber boundary fence with the south western elevation of the extension forming a new boundary. The proposed extension would project just less than 4.7 metres from the rear elevation of the dwelling and would have a width of just less than 6.1 metres. As already mentioned, the extension would be single storey which would have a height of 3 metres; 3.4 metres including the roof lantern. - 2.3 The proposed extension would be finished in materials to match the main dwelling house. The northwest elevation of the extension would include aluminium bi-folding doors. The blockwork on the south western elevation would be extended up past the flat roof line to create a parapet wall.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications but has formed part of wider planning applications for the residential development of Knock Rushen.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is in an area zoned as Residential under the Area Plan for the South 2013. - 4.2 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 application:

General 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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local 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."

Paragraph 8.12.1 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 Castletown Town Commissioners have no objection to the current planning application (03/02/2015). ASSESSMENT

6.1 Given the level and nature of development proposed, there are three fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application. Firstly, it is essential to consider the impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of No. 12 Knock Rushen. Secondly, it is imperative that the extension respects the main dwellinghouse with regards to design and finish. Thirdly, it is appropriate to consider the impact of the

• proposed extension would have on the street scene of Knock Rushen and public amenity in general.
• 6.2 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

• 6.2.1 The existing boundary between the application site and No. 12 Knock Rushen is a timber fence laid out in a lolly pop style with very narrow spaces between the slats. The proposed extension would be erected on the boundary with No. 12 Knock Rushen which would result in the removal of a section of the fencing with the south western elevation of the proposed extension creating a boundary wall. The existing remaining section of timber fence would be retained.
• 6.2.2 As paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 states, in built up areas that are 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.
• 6.2.3 Given the property designs and topography of the landscape, No. 12 Knock Rushen is set between approximately 3.5 metres below the application site; exact measurement is not known. The fence boundary has a height of approximately 2 metres and as such roughly 0.8 metres of the extension would protrude above the remaining boundary fence.
• 6.2.4 The key issues to consider when assessing the impact of the extension upon the living conditions of No. 12 Knock Rushen is the impact upon outlook, loss of light and whether the extension would appear as an overbearing feature.
• 6.2.5 With regards to the impact upon the outlook of No. 12 Knock Rushen, the existing ground floor windows and doors look towards the existing stone wall and timber fence boundary of the property, there are no windows that would directly face the proposed extension. It is considered that the extension, albeit higher than the timber fence boundary and built directly on the boundary, is considered to have a minimal impact upon the outlook of No. 12 Knock Rushen. Further to this, the extension would be erected nearest to the rear door of the neighbouring garage and not a window to a principal room of the dwellinghouse.
• 6.2.6 Turning to the impact upon loss of light, the rear elevations and rear gardens of the application site and No. 12 Knock Rushen are north facing and as such would not receive high levels of natural light regardless. Where there may be an occurrence of loss of light impact would be when the sun rises. However, the levels of loss of natural daylight in this instance would be minimal and not of a scale that would warrant a reason for refusal.
• 6.2.7 Of major concern is the visual impact of the extension in terms of appearing as an overbearing feature. As previously mentioned, the existing boundary between the two dwellings is a timber fence that has a height of no more than 2 metres which sits above a rendered wall. The fence is not a solid feature as there are narrow spaces between the slats. The erection of the extension proposed would present a section of solid boundary that would have a length of just less than 4.7 metres and height of 3 metres; 3.4 metres including the roof lantern.
• 6.2.8 The extension would appear bold and prominent, given the solid wall of the south west elevation in replace of a timber fence. Should the extension be built behind the timber fence, it is unlikely that the same concerns would be present.
• 6.2.9 During a site visit to No. 12 Knock Rushen the owner and/or occupier of No. 12 Knock Rushen was approached and shown the plans of the proposal, since that meeting there has been no written objection made.

• 6.2.10 It was noted during the site visit that the extension would be erected alongside a small corner part of the rear garden that was immediately to the rear of the garage of No. 12 Knock Rushen. The rear garden opened up from this corner rear and as a result, the larger garden area and raised decking of the neighbouring dwelling would be situated 7 to 8 metres from the extension.
• 6.2.11 In terms of the visual impact from windows, the living room of No. 12 Knock Rushen was located to the front of the dwelling and as such would not be impacted upon as a result of the extension. The kitchen and patio doors are located at the rear of the dwelling. However, these rooms are not considered main principal rooms and as previously mentioned they currently face the existing rendered wall and timber fence boundary.
• 6.2.12 On assessment, it is judged that the extension would not be a level or scale of development that would unduly harm the residential amenity and the existing living conditions of No. 12 Knock Rushen. It is acknowledged that it is finely balanced, and it is recognised that whilst there would be some level of impact, the level of this would not be so severe to harm the amenity of No. 12 Knock Rushen.

- 6.3 IMPACT UPON THE MAIN DWELLING

• 6.3.1 The extension would be finished in materials and detailing to match the main dwellinghouse and as such would respect the main dwelling with regards to design. Further to this, the extension would not result in the loss of a huge amount of garden space and as such the existing enjoyment of the dwelling would not be compromised as a result of the extension. Overall, the extension proposed is judged to respect the main house in terms of its siting, layout, scale, form and design.

6.4 IMPACT UPON THE STREET SCENE

• 6.4.1 Possible views of the extension may be attainable from the car park to the rear. However these views would be very slight, if any at all. The extension would not be visible from the front of the application site. It is therefore considered that the extension would have a minimal impact, if any, impact upon the street scene of the locality of public amenity in general.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 For the reasons set out above, it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions of General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and is recommended for approval.

8.0 PARTY STATUS - 8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of 06.03.2015

Recommendation:

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: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This approval relates to Drawing Number: 01, 02, 03 and 04 all date stamped as received on 14th January 2015.

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 : 10.03.2015 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 Signed :………J CHANCE…….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management