Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01364/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01364/B Applicant : Ms Deidre Hughes & Ms Karen Duffy Proposal : Alterations, erection of extension to provide ancillary accommodation and alteration to access and parking arrangement Site Address : Kingston 23 Ballanard Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5HA
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.03.2021 __
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.
C 2. Prior to the installation of the air source heath pump hereby approved, full specifications and a noise assessment is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department and these details shall be fully adhered too.
Reason: In the interest of protecting neighbouring amenities.
C 3. Prior to the hardening of front garden hereby approved, design of the front boundary treatment is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department and these details shall be fully adhered to and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the street scene.
C 4. Prior to the hardening of front garden hereby approved, design of the drainage solution is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department and these details shall be fully adhered too.
Reason: In the interest of adequate drainage provision.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01364/B Page 2 of 8
C 5. Prior to the erection of the shed hereby approved, design of the front bin/air source heat pump enclosure/fencing is required to be submitted to and approved by the Department and these details shall be fully adhered too and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the street scene.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is not considered the proposals would significantly adversely affect the street scene or the individual property, nor significantly affect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and therefore the proposals are acceptable. The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide Section 4, 5 and 7.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings no. 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 date-stamped as having been received on 18th November 2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Owner and occupier of 25 Ballanard Road as they refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Interested Person Operational Policy 2019 and as they have explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Kingston, 23 Ballanard Road, Douglas, a single-storey detached dwelling located on the southwest of Ballanard Road. The house mainly consists of a hipped-roof main dwelling, a flat roof conservatory on the rear elevation and a low-pitched lean-to garage on the northwest corner of the main dwelling. The garage is also on the northwest boundary of the site. There is also a lean-to extension on the northwest elevation in front of the garage.
1.2 The site has low a stone wall on the front boundary. There is also a front garden, currently a grassed area. There is an existing driveway on the northwest boundary of the site, leading to the existing garage.
1.3 The site is next to 25 Ballanard Road. No. 25 is northwest of the property and it is at a level approx. 0.7m lower than the application site. The siting and the front elevation of the two dwellings are roughly aligned northwest-southeast.
1.4 No. 25 have a top-hung casement window and a bay window on the southeast elevation of the property, facing the northwest elevation of No.23. The two windows are close to the rear of the property and are aligning with the garage of No.23. The top-hung casement window serves a dining room and the bay windows services a living room.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01364/B Page 3 of 8
2.1 The proposed work is the demolition of the conservatory and the lean-to extension, and the erection of a single-storey flat-roof extension in replacement of the lean-to extension. The extension will have two rooflights. The work also involves the installation of parapets on the front and rear elevation of the roof of the garage and the front and side elevation of the new extension and amending windows and doors on the front and rear elevations.
2.2 Parapet will be installed on the roof of the existing garage. This would raise the front and rear elevation of the garage from approx. 2.9m to 3.45m. The front elevation of the garage will be connected with the proposed extension. There is no opening on the northwest elevation.
2.3 The proposed flat-roof side extension is slightly set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling. It is approx. 2.7m wide and projecting approx. 1.1m from the northwest elevation of the main dwelling. This leaves a gap approx. 1m with the northwest boundary of the site. There is no opening on the northwest elevation.
2.4 The work also involves widening access by removing a small section of the stone wall and remove the front garden to create two off-street parking spaces. The work also involves the erection of a timber shed at the front garden for bin storage and the installation of an air source heat pump.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Construction of replacement garage was APPROVED under PA 92/00613/B.
3.2 Construction of conservatory was APPROVED under PA 90/00402/B.
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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01364/B Page 4 of 8
4.7 RDG 4.4 Extension to Side Elevations sets out key considerations for side elevation extension. These include the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties. These impacts can be regulated by designing with the right location, size, and architecture style. The section also specifically mentioned that detached/semi- detached dwellings should avoid a terraced appearance due to two extensions being placed too close to each other.
4.8 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.
4.9 RDG 6 "The Wider Site" sets out some key considerations regarding boundary treatment, trees, the driveway, and the front garden.
4.10 RDG 6.3 "Driveways and Front Gardens" states that front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. While increased car ownership resulting in increased demand for car parking space, the creation of an off-street parking space normally requires the provision of new access, which can result in the loss of at least one on- street parking space. Proposals, which do not result in a net benefit, are unlikely to be supported.
4.11 RDG 6.3.4 states: "Proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will not normally be supported, to ensure the character of the streetscape is retained and avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area, detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and the outlook of residents. It is important that the design of a driveway maintains a balance between hard and soft landscaping and contributes positively to the street scene. Proposals are unlikely to be supported where they do not meet the following guidelines: O the area intended for the driveway should be the minimum space necessary (see the Manual for Manx Roads); O where possible, the impact of the driveway is lessened by retaining mature trees and shrubs and/or creating areas of new planting (for example, a planted strip or hedge between the vehicular and pedestrian access can help to break-up the appearance of the hardstanding whilst planting around the fringes of the driveway can also be used to good effect and may be used to help screen the vehicle); O if an opening is made in an existing wall, fence or other boundary feature, the ends should be made good with matching or sympathetic materials (i.e. pillars); O where possible, separate pedestrian access should be retained/provided (existing gates should normally be retained and any new gates should not open out over the highway); O any new gates, walls, fences or other boundary features should reflect the traditional style of the local area; O consideration should be given to a strip of grass or gravel placed in the centre of the hardstanding can hide leaked oil and maintain the look of a front garden; and O parking spaces should be avoided directly in front of any Primary Window as the resulting outlook can be undermined by the presence of parked cars."
4.12 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.
4.13 RDG 7.3 sets out the "25-dgree check" regarding overshadowing.
5.0 REPRESENTATION
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01364/B Page 5 of 8
5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to this application (11/12/2020).
5.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (11/12/2020). The comment states there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and/or parking. The comment notes that the widening of the access does not involve changes to the dropped curb. It also noticed that a large portion of the front garden will be removed. It also encourages the installation of a separate, covered and secure bicycle parking storage facility.
5.3 The owner/occupiers of 25 Ballanard Road wrote in concerning the impact on their amenities (15/12/2020). The comment states that the existing garage has already been overshadowing their property and created an overbearing effect. The increased height of the garage roof, although small, will severely increase the exiting negative impact. They have been informed by the applicant that the roof of the garage will not be raised but there will be parapets on the front and rear elevation of the garage. 25 expressed their preference of not having the parapet and the extension will overshadow their main entrance, hallway and dining area.
5.4 The agent wrote in responding to No.25's comment (19/01/2021). The comment states that the alteration to the garage roof is modest and the increase in height is to comply with building control regulations and is only 0.175m. The shadow study accompanied the application illustrates that "there will be no effect over and above existing shadows on the neighbouring property at winter and summer solstice with a marginal increase at autumn and spring equinox."
5.5 The owner/occupiers of 25 Ballanard Road wrote in responding to the agents' comment (04/02/2021). The comment questions that building control regulations can only be complied with by increasing the height of the garage roof. The comment also notes that the existing garage is already contradicting the "25-degree check". The comment also wants to confirm that no parapet will be installed on the side of the new extension.
5.6 The agent wrote in responding to the second comment from No.25 (18/02/2021). The comment states that the modest alteration is the best practise in meeting building control regulations while other methods could result in future maintenance issues. The comment stresses that the increase is minimum and it will only have a marginal impact on the neighbouring property. The comment then confirms that there will not be any parapet on the boundary elevation of the garage but there will be a parapet on the side elevation of the garage. The comment also states that the new extension is carefully designed to minimise the impact of overshadowing on the neighbouring property. It is set back 1m from the boundary and only facing the sidewall and the entrance which are non-habitable area.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are three main proposals in the application: the erection of a side extension and the raising of the garage roof; the widening of the vehicular access and the hardening of the entire front garden as a driveway, and the erection of a shed for bin storage and the installation of an air source heat pump. The main considerations for the developments are four folds: its impact on the appearance of the property itself, on the character and landscape of the area, on parking provision and the amenities of the neighbours. Although the proposals have a combination of effects on these considerations. This assessment will consider the impact of each proposal separately and then assess their impacts on each consideration as an entity.
Side Extension and All Parapets 6.2 The single-storey extension is on the northwest of the property, slightly set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling. It is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling except for the roof and the parapets. Although not desirable, the flat roof is an acceptable option for creating a side extension and the main dwelling is single-storey so an extension of
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01364/B Page 6 of 8
the roof might not achieve an ideal visual appearance. The roof is slightly lower than the existing roof. This design makes sure the extension looks subordinate to the existing dwelling and is considered an acceptable size for a side extension.
6.3 The extension blocks the existing garage space and therefore there is a reduction of one off-street parking space within the site.
6.4 There are already existing vantage point on the front and rare elevation and there are no windows on the northwest elevations so there is no concern for overlooking.
Overshadowing, Overbearing and Loss of Outlook for No.25 6.5 One of the focus of this application is its amenity impact to No.25. No. 25 is approx. 0.7m lower than the site and is at its northwest position so it is more vulnerable to overshadowing. The existing garage is already considered to be overshadowing and overbearing to No.25 as it is only approx. 2.4m away from and is directly facing a primary room of No.25. However, the development was 21 years ago and was long before the RDG was published so its existing impact is not considered within the application. However, any modification proposed to it and the relevant impact is a material consideration to this application.
6.6 The proposal would raise the roof of the garage for approx. 0.175m. However, in terms of light assessment, the increase is considered to have an unneglectable impact and is therefore considered acceptable.
6.7 A shadow impact study conducted on shadowcalculator.com has shown that the installation of parapets on the front and rear elevation of the garage will not increase the impact on the primary window of No.25 on winter solitude day so it is considered to not harm No.25 and is therefore acceptable.
6.8 A shadow impact report conducted by the applicant states that the new extension, including the parapets, will overshadow the entrance of No.25. However, as the room is non- habitable so the impact is considered acceptable. A shadow impact study conducted on shadowcalculator.com has confirmed the report that the new extension, including the parapets, will not increase the existing impact on the primary windows.
6.9. The main outlook from the two primary windows is the existing garage of the site. When looking east, the outlook is being partially blocked by the main dwelling of the site. The erection of the side extension, when looking from the primary windows, will still majorly being a part of the existing block and will not dramatically decrease the outlook of the primary window from No.25 and therefore is considered acceptable.
Driveway Widening and Front Garden Conversion 6.10 As the garage is being converted to living accommodation, it will lead to the site only has one off-street parking space available (also mentioned in 6.3). Even though the conversion of use of the garage itself is not a development, and there is existing permitted development for enclosing the garage door, this proposed failed its condition regarding maintaining two off- street parking spaces and therefore requires an application. In remedy of the garage conversion, the front garden is proposed to be hardened to make up for the loss of off-street parking space.
6.11 As the widening of the driveway is only minimum and there is no increase in the length of the dropped curb, the impact on highway safety is considered acceptable.
6.12 Ballanard Road currently has on-street parking. However, there is no on-street parking allowed near the site as there is a zebra crossing right next to the site. Any development that would result in a potential increase in the chance of on-street parking is therefore
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01364/B Page 7 of 8
unacceptable. Therefore, off-street parking must be guaranteed for this site. The proposal will create two parking spaces. This will maintain two off-street parking spaces standard within the site, therefore it is principally necessary and is therefore acceptable. Further the proposal offer more turning facilities within the site which does not currently exists, which again is a benifit to highway safety.
6.13 The main test is whether over 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will be lost. It is noted that the front yards of many of the properties on this street are already fully hardened as driveways. Most of the landscape is created by hedges instead of lawn or flowerbed. Although the conversion is necessary to maintain the parking standards, more than 50% loss of the landscaped front garden space and is still considered unacceptable as it is an important landscape feature of the site.
6.14 RDG states that for the replacement of the front garden with parking space, there is a need to weight the benefit created to the applicant against the impact of the changed surface on the property and its surroundings. Such replacement should only be allowed when there is little negative impact, or the benefits overwhelm the negative impacts created as "front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm".
6.15 For this site, maintaining parking standard is a key part of traffic safety around the site. Highway safety on this site is considered a higher priority compares to visual amenities. Therefore, the proposal is considered the principle is acceptable.
6.16 Although the principle is acceptable, the impact on visual amenities should still be lowered to a minimum as one character of the road is the combination of hard and soft boundary treatment for most properties. The most important consideration for such a proposal is whether it will shift the boundary of the public realm and negatively impact the street scene. For Ballanard Road, this boundary transition is gradual: road - pavement - boundary wall - paved garden - dwelling. The low brick wall, a distinguishable feature in both material used and direction of projecting against all the pavements, is what defines this transition from the public realm to private property. The proposal will not remove the boundary wall and therefore maintain the most distinguishable feature separating the public realm and the private property. However, as this will make the transition more abrupt, a condition should be attached in case of approval that soft boundary treatment, such as hedges, should be arranged to soften the boundary and minimise the loss of the front garden.
6.17 There is no negative impact created on the neighbouring property so it is considered acceptable.
6.18 The proposed car parking space will block the outlook of a primary room. However, as it is not the only window of the primary room and the outlook to the rear is more pleasant. This impact is considered acceptable.
6.19 As the proposal would increase the amount of impermeable surface within the site, according to section 6.3.5 of the RDG, it is considered that a condition should be attached that require the drainage solution should be approved by the Department before the commencement of the work.
6.20 In summary, the proposal would maintain two parking spaces but would harm the outlook of the property itself and have some harm to the street scene and the character of the area. However, as other properties on the same street already have proposed similar development, it is considered that the impact is acceptable as highway safety takes priority and measure will be taken to ensure the impact on the street scene is minimized.
7.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01364/B Page 8 of 8
7.1 Overall, it is not considered the proposals would adversely affect the street scene or the individual property, nor significantly affect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and therefore the proposals are acceptable. The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide Section 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 a Principal Planner 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: 05.03.2021
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal