46263

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/01249/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/01249/B Applicant : Mr Glen Husada Proposal : Erection of sunroom extension to rear elevation and front porch extension Site Address : 11 Pinehurst Glen Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1PP

Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 01.12.2020 Site Visit : 01.12.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.01.2021 __

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.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. This application is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing no. 401-01 date stamped as having been received on 23rd October 2020.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/01249/B                                     Page  2  of  4

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 11 Pinehurst Glen, Saddlestone, a two- storey detached dwelling located on the south of Pinehurst Glen. The house has a pitched roof with two gables on the front and one gable on the rear. There is a pitched roof double garage on the front of the main dwelling and a conservatory on the southwest of the main dwelling.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposed work is the erection of a front porch and a rear extension in replacement of the existing conservatory.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

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

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

4.3 General Policy 2: "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: (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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality".

4.4 "8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built-up areas or sites designated for residential use: 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 an existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."

4.5 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.

4.6 RDG 3.2 Potential Visual Impact of an Extension upon the Existing House states a pitched roof is preferred to a flat roof, especially when it's publicly visible. However, an exception can possibly be made when the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design.

4.7 RDG 4.1 Front Extension sets out key considerations for front elevation extension. It considers an extension to the front of a property can have the greatest impact upon the individual dwelling and/or the street scene. There may be limited circumstances when a front extension is appropriate, for example where the street has an irregular building line or pattern. It also states that any extension should normally appear as if it were designed with the original building and not look out of place in the street. A porch extension is perhaps the most common form of an extension to the front elevation of a dwelling. Whilst porches are relatively small in size, careful consideration still needs to be given.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/01249/B                                     Page  3  of  4

4.8 RDG 4.2 Single Storey Rear Extension sets out some key considerations. These include the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties such as loss of light and/or overbearing. These impacts can be regulated by designing with the right depth (projection) and location. The section also specifically mentioned that terraced/semi-detached dwellings have the potential for the greatest concern due to the potential of "tunnel effect".

4.9 RDG 5 sets out key considerations regarding architectural details. These include window details and external finishing. The general idea is that the extension should have a similar style with the main dwelling for a coherent appearance unless the clash between modern and traditional design can be handled with elegance.

4.10 RDG 7 sets out key considerations regarding the impact on neighbouring properties. These include the potential loss of light/overshadowing, overbearing impact upon outlook and overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.

4.11 RDG 7 also sets out the "20-metre guide" when considering overlooking.

5.0 REPRESENTATION

5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection on this application (17/11/2020).

5.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (20/11/2020).

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main concerns for this application are its impact on the appearance of the house itself, on the character and street scene of the area and on the amenities of the neighbours.

6.2 The front porch is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling and therefore considered acceptable. The single-storey extension is on the southwest of the property. It is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling except for the windows, doors and the tilt of the roof. It is unlikely to be visible from public view. Therefore, the design is considered acceptable.

6.3 The front porch is looking into a field at the moment. However, even if there were to be dwellings building up in the future,. The look of a front door to a door across facing a road is very common. Therefore, there is no concern about overlooking for the front porch.

6.3 The rear extension is single storey and the site is at the same level and is aligning roughly east-west with the neighbouring properties. The elevation that will face No. 13 has windows. No 13 has a single storey extension with a window which would face the windows of the new extension, and be within 20 metres (approximately 2.4 metres). However, as these are similar extensions, that there is an existing fence along the boundary (approximately 2 metres high) between the two extensions. While and that thea vantage point already exists, (although it would be from in the garden) (rather than in the extension), the presence of the existing fence would act as a screen between the two, on this basis it is not considered that this the extension would result in is aan unacceptable level of overlooking.

6.4 The elevation that faces No. 9 has windows/doors. No 9 does not have a single storey but still would be within 20 metres (approximately 13 metres). However, as there is an existing fence (approximately 2 metres) between the two and that the vantage point already exists (from the rear gable and the garden), it is not considered that the proposed extension would result inis is an unacceptable level of overlooking.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/01249/B                                     Page  4  of  4

6.5 With regards to the flat roof it is not considered that the design of the extension has an adverse effect on the main dwelling such that would warrant refusal of the application, particularly given it is set to rear and not readily visible from public vantage points and would only really be visible to the neighbours.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide Section 3, 4, 5 and 7. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 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.

8.2 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. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the 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 : 05.01.2021

Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

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.