249631 — 23/01225/B | Planning Portal IoM | Isle of Man Planning Portal

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  1  of  12

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 23/01225/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Theo & Rose Fleurbaay Proposal : Proposed demolition of existing conservatory and replacement with a rear extension. Proposed Side & Front Extension. Proposed alteration to rear windows to create doors. Site Address : Felsted Alexander Drive Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3QX

Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level :

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.05.2024 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plan ref: JTM2059A-P- 03, and shall thereafter be retained free from obstruction and for access purposes only.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed extensions and driveway expansion would not detract from the character of the area. The proposed extension does not have an increased impact on neighbouring properties compared to the previous approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the documents and drawing no. JTM2059A-P-00, JTM2059A-P- 01,JTM2059A-P-02, JTM2059A-P-03 which have been received on 24th October 2023.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  2  of  12

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is Felstead, Alexander Drive, Douglas, a detached dwelling located on the south of Alexander Drive, between its junction with Quarterbridge Road and Albany Road. The section of the road consists of mostly detached and semi-detach houses in a variety of characters.

1.2 Felstead is set back from the road with a boundary wall and a front garden. It is a single storey bungalow consists of a pitched roof main house, a pitched-roof front extension, a pitched roof garage, a flat-roof front porch and a rear conservatory.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposed is the extension of the existing front extension, erection of a flat-roof side extension behind the garage and the erection of a pitched roof rear extension replacing the conservatory.

2.2 The proposal also include widening the existing access by partially demolish the front boundary wall, remove parts of the front garden to extend the existing driveway to provide additional off-road parking space.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Alterations and erection of single storey extensions and widening of existing driveway was APPROVED under PA 21/00353/B. The current application is a revision of this approval. The current application has a shorter rear extension with lower ridge, no flat-roof rear extension and a smaller side extension. The size of the extension to the front extension is unchanged.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.

Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) (h) (i) o Environment Policy 42 o Section 8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use

4.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan has no assumption in favour of new development. In decision-making, this means where a planning application conflicts with the Plan, approval should usually not be granted.

4.4 Subsections (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 as well as Environment Policy 42 set out design requirements for development, of which they should respect the character of the site itself and its immediate and no-so-immediate surroundings.

4.5 Subsections (g) and (h) of General Policy 2 set out that amenities enjoyed by the site and the site around it should be protected or preserved.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  3  of  12

4.6 Subsections (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 also set out that proposals should satisfy the safety, efficiency and accessibility requirements, including parking provision, of all highway users whether possible.

PPS and NPD 4.7 There is no planning policy statement or national policy directive considered materially relevant to this application.

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide July 2021 (RDG) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 4.6 Rear Extensions o Section 4.8 Side Extensions o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Section 6.3 Front Gardens and Driveways o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

5.2 The Residential Design Guide was issued by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) in July 2021 and was agreed with the Minster of DEFA. It provides clear guidance on acceptable forms of residential extensions and alterations.

5.3 Manual for Manx Roads provides best practices and technical details of how to ensure highways are accessible, safe, inclusive and serviceable. These details include minimum spatial requirements for parking spaces.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to this application (10.11.2023).

6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (27.10.2023). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. The comment recommend that the access and layout should be conditioned before occupation of the extension.

6.3 Three neighbouring properties were notified by letter. No response has been received.

7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessment

7.1 The key considerations of this application are its impact on: o character of the building itself o character and streetscene of the area o amenities of the neighbouring properties o parking provision (only driveway)

Character of the Building Itself, the Streetscene and the Area - Extensions

7.2 Policies set out within IOMSP set a requirement on development to respect and not harm the design of the site and the area it's located in. In particular, Environment Policy 42 requires design to take into account the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. 7.3 The proposed side and rear extensions are smaller than the previous approval and there are no other significant changes in the character of the extension. The reduced ridge height of the rear extension make it more subordinate to the main dwelling than the previous approval. The extension to the front extension does not negatively impact the character of the house. For these reasons, it is considered that the impact of the development on the host

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  4  of  12

building and its surrounding built environment in visual character terms would be acceptable and comply with General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and Environmental Policy 42 of the IOMSP.

Neighbouring Amenities - Extensions 7.4 Three main amenities are being assessed for typical proposals, daylight reception, outlook and privacy. It is worth noting that these are general amenities in planning terms and not the same as rights or entitlements in civil matters.

7.5 The extensions are smaller than or the same size as ones in the previous approval. Therefore, it is considered that there is no changes to the impact on neighbouring amenities compare to the previous approval. For this reasons, it is considered that the impact of the development on the neighbouring amenities is considered acceptable and would comply with General Policy (g) of the Strategic Plan.

Principle of the Development - Driveway 7.6 Policies set out within IOMSP set a requirement on development to respect all highway users and not harm traffic flows.

7.7 A new driveway aims to address private parking demands by replacing the front garden with parking spaces. In the meantime, it often opens up new access to the road and reduces the length of existing curb available for on-street parking on a particular road, since it's illegal to park a vehicle where it can block access. This is also mentioned in section 6.3.8 of the RDG.

7.8 In other words, the proposal is to replace some public parking spaces with some private parking spaces on a road. This means there could be three scenarios after such a proposal: the overall number of parking spaces available on a particular road increases, stays the same or even decreases.

7.9 The overall number of parking spaces is the sum of parking spaces created off-street combined with public parking spaces remaining after losses from the new access created. In other words: o if private parking spaces created are more than the public parking spaces lost, there is a net gain in overall parking spaces but a net loss of public parking spaces; o if private parking spaces created equal to the number of parking spaces lost, there is no change to overall parking spaces but still a net loss of public parking spaces; o if private parking spaces created is less than the number of parking spaces lost, there is a net loss of parking spaces as well as a net loss of public parking spaces.

7.10 For such proposal to be considered to have no harm to the amenity of an area, there first needs to be proof that, the proposal would result in a net increase in the overall parking spaces on a road. Otherwise, it would raise concerns about a proposal's compatibility with local parking needs and is unlikely to be recommended for approval due to failure to comply with General Policy (g) (h) of the Strategic Plan.

7.11 Alexander Drive is available for parking. The proposal does not remove additional space available for parallel parking. The proposal will create two additional parking spaces. The proposed parking space, along with the driveway, satisfies the recommendation in the Manual for Manx Roads. Therefore, it is considered that there is a net increase in total number of parking spaces available on Alexander Drive. For these reasons, it is considered that the additional parking space is principally acceptable.

The character of the Streetscene and the Area - Driveway 7.12 Same as the extension, policies set out within IOMSP set a requirement on development to respect and not harm the design of the site and the area it's located in. In particular, Environment Policy 42 requires design to take into account the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  5  of  12

7.13 A basic test from paragraph 6.3.9 is whether over 50% of the existing garden/lawn will be lost. Existing paved areas are not considered in this calculation. After this proposal, there will be more than 50% of lawn remaining. The proposal therefore pass the test.

7.14 The partial demolition of the front boundary wall only counts for a small portion of the wall and therefore does not mount to enough change to the character of the front boundary. For these reasons, it is considered that the impact of the development on the site and its surrounding built environment in visual character terms would be acceptable and comply with General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and Environmental Policy 42 of the IOMSP.

Highway Safety 7.15 As Highway Services does not oppose this application, it is considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways. Therefore, its impact is considered acceptable.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed extensions and driveway expansion would not detract from the character of the area. The proposed extension does not have an increased impact on neighbouring properties compared to the previous approval. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval. A

9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision-maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

1.2 No.14 and its adjacent property, No.12, form a pair of semi-detached houses. Besides the typical symmetrical appearances for a pair of semi-detached houses, both houses share many other symmetrical features with respect to the shared boundary.

1.3 On the front elevation, they share a symmetrical arrangement of the front garden space and the walkway from the road to the house. There is also a symmetry of the front boundary wall as well as the location of their opening for pedestrian access. On the rear elevation, both feature single-storey extensions. These extensions, each about half the width of their respective main dwelling, align with the side elevation of their respective houses and are about the same distance (approx. 2.8m) away from the shared boundary line.

1.4 Currently, No.14 includes a front garden covering approx. half the width of the site, which is in front of the bay window on the ground floor and next to the shared boundary, with the other half paved with bricks. The front boundary of the side is delineated by a short

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  6  of  12

boundary wall separating it from the road. At the rear, there are two existing single-storey extensions in tandem, one mono-pitched and the other flat-roofed, measuring approx. 3.1m in width. The height of the mono-pitched roof is approx. 3.5m, with the eave and top of the flat roof reaching about 2.5m. These extensions project approx. 5m in overall from the rear elevation of the main dwelling.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposed is the demolition of the existing rear extensions and the erection of a replacement single-storey flat-roof extension.

2.2 The proposed rear extension would measure approx. 5.4m in width, extending beyond the side elevation of the main house and towards the boundary line with No. 12. It is proposed to have a height of approx. 3.2m, higher than the existing flat roof extension but lower than the ridge of the existing mono-pitched-roof extension. It projects approx. 5m from the rear elevation of the main dwelling, about the same as the existing extensions. A key design feature of the extension is the parapet wall on the roof.

2.3 Additionally, the proposal involves the demolition of the front boundary wall to create a driveway in place of the entire existing front garden, meaning the existing lawn will be paved for the driveway.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.

3.2 There are other applications with driveway proposals on the same road, such as PA 12/00504/B for No.20 and PA 19/00702/B for No.34, as mentioned within the design statement. There are also PA 00/01365/B, PA 12/00504/B, PA 11/00734/B and PA 11/01559/B.

3.3 Within these applications, PA 19/00702/B is the only application assessed after the first edition of the Residential Design Guide was issued in March 2019 and there has been no major policy adjustment from the decision date of this application.

3.4 Alterations and erection of a two storey extension and widening of vehicle access was APPROVED under PA 19/00702/B. This application proposed to convert approx. 6m wide of the front of the site to two bay parking spaces, this counts for approx. 60% of the front boundary. However, the conversion only replaced approx. 2.4m of the existing 6m wide garden/lawn, which counts for less than 50% of the existing garden area, as recommended in the Residential Design Guide.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  7  of  12

4.5 Subsections (g) and (h) of General Policy 2 set out that amenities enjoyed by the site and the site around it should be protected or preserved.

PPS and NPD 4.7 There is no planning policy statement or national policy directive considered materially relevant to this application.

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide July 2021 (RDG) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 4.6 Rear Extensions o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Section 6.3 Front Gardens and Driveways o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

5.4 The minimum dimension of a parking space parallel and adjacent to a footway is 6.0 m long and 2.0 m wide. The minimum dimension of a driveway parking space is 5.5m long and 2.6m wide.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Onchan District Commissioners has no objection to this application (08.01.2024).

6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (15.12.2023). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the existing access visibility is acceptable for the proposals. The

6.3 Two neighbouring properties were notified by letter. No response has been received.

7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessment 7.1 The key considerations of this application are its impact on: o character of the building itself o character and streetscene of the area o amenities of the neighbouring properties o parking provision (only driveway) o amenities of the occupiers of the site (only driveway) This section will first assess the rear extension and then the front driveway.

Character of the Building Itself, the Streetscene and the Area - Rear Extension

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  8  of  12

7.3 The proposed is a replacement rear extension. The rear extension would extrude beyond the side of the main dwelling, making it more visible to the public than the existing extensions. It features a flat roof. While a flat roof is an existing design element, it does not match the hipped roof of the main dwelling.

7.4 As half of a typical pair of semi-detached houses, the proposed extension disrupts the symmetry with respect to the shared boundary. However, as a rear extension, it is set back from the front elevation and the potential negative impact from its scale and form is mitigated with the parapet wall of the flat roof, which ensures a cohesive connection with the main house, minimizing the adverse visual impact from the flat roof.

7.5 For these reasons, it is considered that the impact of the development on the host building and its surrounding built environment in visual character terms would be acceptable and comply with General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and Environmental Policy 42 of the IOMSP.

Neighbouring Amenities - Rear Extension 7.6 Three main amenities are being assessed for typical proposals, daylight reception, outlook and privacy. It is worth noting that these are general amenities in planning terms and not the same as rights or entitlements in civil matters.

7.7 For the amenities of No.12, the main elements that could be affected by the proposal are the glazed double door on the rear elevation of the ground floor of the main house and the southeast elevation of the rear extension. The glazed double door serves a dining room. Since a dining room is a primary habitable room, the glazed double door is considered a primary window according to section 7.2.3 of the RDG. The windows on the southeast elevation of the rear extension serve a kitchen, which makes them secondary windows according to the same section of the RDG.

7.8 The proposed rear extension of No.14 is southwest of the windows and elevations mentioned in section 7.8, an analysis of the proposed extension's proximity to the shared boundary with No.12 reveals a reduction in distance from approx. 2.8m to 1.1m. The height of the roof is also higher than the average height of that of the existing extensions. When considering the position of No.12, the new extension is both closer to the windows mentioned in section 7.7 and higher than the current extensions, hence a natural concern for overshadowing and overbearing.

7.9 The proposed extension passes the 25 Degree Check in section 7.3 of the RDG in respect of the rear extension of No.12. Therefore, it is considered to have an acceptable impact in terms of overshadowing.

7.10 The proposed extension fails the 45 Degree Rule in section 4.7 of the RDG, meaning it is likely to have an overbearing impact on No.12. I have also noticed that there is also the potential of creating a tunnelling effect for the primary window mentioned in section 7.7.

7.11 The current extensions also fail the 45 Degree Rule. However, the intersection point of the current extension and the 45-degree line is further away from the primary window of No.12.

7.12 The proposed extension reduces a fully glazed elevation to a walled elevation with an obscured window and a door towards No.12 compared to the current extensions. Therefore, it is considered to have a less overlooking impact compared to the existing conservatory.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  9  of  12

7.13 For the amenities of No.16, the proposed extension is northeast of the rear extension of No.16 and passes the 45 Degree Rule against the conservatory of No.16. Therefore, it is not considered to harm the amenities of No.16.

7.14 For these reasons, mainly because there is a potential overbearing impact on 12 Auburn Road, it is considered that the impact of the development on the amenity of No.12 is not considered acceptable and would fail to comply with General Policy (g) of the Strategic Plan.

Principle of the Development - Driveway 7.15 Policies set out within IOMSP set a requirement on development to respect all highway users and not harm traffic flows.

7.16 A new driveway aims to address private parking demands by replacing the front garden with parking spaces. In the meantime, it often opens up new access to the road and reduces the length of existing curb available for on-street parking on a particular road, since it's illegal to park a vehicle where it can block access. This is also mentioned in section 6.3.8 of the RDG.

7.17 In other words, the proposal is to replace some public parking spaces with some private parking spaces on a road. This means there could be three scenarios after such a proposal: the overall number of parking spaces available on a particular road increases, stays the same or even decreases.

7.18 The overall number of parking spaces is the sum of parking spaces created off-street combined with public parking spaces remaining after losses from the new access created. In other words: o if private parking spaces created are more than the public parking spaces lost, there is a net gain in overall parking spaces but a net loss of public parking spaces; o if private parking spaces created equal to the number of parking spaces lost, there is no change to overall parking spaces but still a net loss of public parking spaces; o if private parking spaces created is less than the number of parking spaces lost, there is a net loss of parking spaces as well as a net loss of public parking spaces.

7.19 A net reduction of overall parking spaces in a built-up area, regardless of the volume, is likely to worsen the existing traffic situation of the area and may even reduce the amenities of neighbouring areas, especially if there is already an existing shortage of parking spaces within the area. A net loss in public parking spaces without a net gain in overall parking spaces would result in a similar situation. Therefore, for such a proposal to be possible, meaning for such proposal to be considered to have no harm to the amenity of an area, there first needs to be proof that, the proposal would result in a net increase in the overall parking spaces on a road. Otherwise, it would raise concerns about a proposal's compatibility with local parking needs and is unlikely to be recommended for approval due to failure to comply with General Policy (g) (h) of the Strategic Plan.

7.20 Auburn Road is available for parking. The proposal is to remove approx. 7.8m section of space available for parallel parking. Based on the minimum requirement in section 5.4, this means the removal of two parallel on-street parking spaces. The proposal will create two additional parking spaces. The proposed parking space, along with the driveway, satisfies the recommendation in the Manual for Manx Roads. Therefore, it is considered that there is no increase in total number of parking spaces available on Auburn Road.

7.21 For these reasons, and based on paragraph 7.18, it is considered that the loss of public parking provision is not considered to be acceptable. No further assessment of the proposed driveway is necessary at this stage.

7.22 Despite failing the principal test, there are sufficient materials to assess the other impacts of the driveway.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  10  of  12

The character of the Streetscene and the Area - Driveway 7.23 Same as the extension, policies set out within IOMSP set a requirement on development to respect and not harm the design of the site and the area it's located in. In particular, Environment Policy 42 requires design to take into account the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality.

7.24 A basic test from paragraph 6.3.9 is whether over 50% of the existing garden/lawn will be lost. Existing paved areas are not considered in this calculation. After this proposal, there will be no lawn remaining. The proposal therefore fails the test, meaning it's likely to change the character of the site. The loss of green space, regardless of its size, is generally considered to be harmful to existing characters, as inferred from paragraph 6.3.2 of the RDG.

7.25 At this point, the assessment is how much negative impact this change of ground surface and appearance of the front boundary would have on the character of the streetscene and the area. Paragraph 6.3.1 of the RDG explains front gardens impact the character of an area by "providing an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm". For this application, this transition is clear alone the Auburn Road: road - raised pavement - short boundary wall - garden/lawn - house. This transition will change to road - raised pavement - paved driveway - house, which would easily give an impression that the boundary of the public realm shifts from the boundary wall to the front elevation of the house.

7.26 In the meantime, as mentioned in section 1.1 of this report, a character of the area is the rhythm formed by the continuous front boundary wall of most semi-detached houses as well as their respective front garden/lawn. The removal of the boundary wall would disrupt this existing rhythm and make the property stand out in the road.

7.27 For these reasons, it is considered that the impact of the development on the site and its surrounding built environment in visual character terms would not be acceptable and fails to comply with General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and Environmental Policy 42 of the IOMSP.

Residential Amenities - Driveway 7.28 While the driveway itself is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of any residents, the parked vehicle also might impact the outlook of residents. It is worth noting that this is still just a general amenity in planning terms and not the same as rights or entitlements in civil matters.

7.29 For the amenities of No.14 (the application site), the main element that could be affected by the proposal is the bay window on the ground floor of the front elevation. This bay window serves a living room. Since a living room is a primary habitable room, the bay window is considered a primary window according to section 7.2.3 of the RDG.

7.30 Given one of the new parking spaces is directly in front of the bay window, it is a natural concern that a parked vehicle here could reduce the outlook of this primary window, especially if the vehicle is taller than a typical saloon.

7.31 For the amenities of No.12, it's also the bay window on the front elevation that will be affected. A parked vehicle has a similar impact on its outlook as that of No.14. Changing the outlook from the road to a parked vehicle is considered to harm the living amenities of residents.

7.32 For these reasons and mostly because there is harm to the outlook on both 12 Auburn Road and 14 Auburn Road (the applicant site), it is considered that the impact of the development on the amenity of No.12 is not considered acceptable and would fail to comply General Policy (g) of the Strategic Plan.

Highway Safety

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  11  of  12

7.33 As Highway Services does not oppose this application, it is considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways. Therefore, its impact is considered acceptable.

Planning Balance Assessment - Extension and Driveway 7.34 On the one hand, the proposal as a whole can be summarised, based on the assessment above, as: o negatively impact on the streetscene, o reduce the outlook of No.12, o does not improve parking provision in the area, and o reduce the outlook of the application building itself.

7.35 On the other hand, the agent has brought up some arguments in the design statement and email discussions: o off-road parking spaces are an element of the existing streetscene; o single-storey extension has limited impact on reducing outlook; o off-road parking spaces do help move some cars off the road; o the applicant and neighbouring properties have some discretion in weighing outlook against parking availability. o elevation facing No.12 reduces the exiting overlooking situation. o permitted development allows an extension to be up to 1m to the neighbouring boundary and 4m in height, which would put the neighbour

7.36 Further examine the argument in paragraph 7.35 o some existing off-road parking spaces may be unlawful; of those who are lawful, those sites are wider than the application site and those parking spaces are generally not directly in front of the house; o the outlooks of both of the primary windows of No.12 are reduced and harm the amenities of the residents; o reduction in public parking provision generally leads to worsening local traffic conditions because fewer drivers can access them; o outlook is a general amenity to be protected by planning and should not be given away by the current applicant on behave of any future occupiers. o an improvement of less overlooking does not outweigh overbearing issues since they are amenities of equal importance. o the proposed extension is about 25 sqm, more than the 15 sqm requirement in the PD. The PD does not apply to the extension.

7.37 Further examine the findings in paragraph 7.34-7.36 shows that: o The continuous front boundary wall and front garden/lawn are positive elements of the current streetscene while the existing off-street parking spaces are not. o While outlook reduction for both primary windows may not be drastic, the combined impact leads to a noticeable reduction of amenities for No.12.

7.38 For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal would harm the streetscene and the outlook of 12 Auburn Road, and may harm the local traffic and the outlook of No.14. These impacts are not considered acceptable and they fail General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. The application should be recommended for a refusal.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed extension increases the existing "tunnelling effect" and further reduces the outlook of the primary window on the rear elevation of 12 Auburn Drive. The proposed front driveway detracts from the character and streetscene of the area, namely the majorly enclosed front boundary wall and front garden with vegetation. The driveway would also reduce the outlook of the primary window of both No.12 and No.14. Therefore, it is recommended for a refusal.

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      23/01225/B                                     Page  12  of  12

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 16.05.2024

Determining officer Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan

Acting Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.