Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00045/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00045/B Applicant : Mr Liam Jones Proposal : Erection of detached garages to rear of dwellings Site Address : 12 & 14 St Catherines Close Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4HY
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 16.02.2021 Site Visit : 16.02.2021 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.06.2021 __
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, photos, drawing no.01 and Topography Survey dated as having been received on 20th January 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
DoI Flood Risk Management Division __
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00045/B Page 2 of 5
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilages of 12 and 14 St Catherines Close, Douglas. Both are two-storey semi-detached dwellings located on the northeast of St Catherines Close. The houses are separated by their driveways. There are two pitched-roof sheds at the end of the driveways.
1.2 The rear gardens are sitting on a bank, the rear boundary is approx. 3.4m higher than the ground level of the dwelling, so do all other dwellings located on the northeast of St Catherines Close. There is also timber fencing running along the rear boundary. To the rear of the properties is the grounds of Ballakermeen High school with an internal access road sharing the boundary.
1.3 Several properties on the northeast of St Catherines Close have a terrace or decking at the top of the bank. No. 14 and No. 16 have timber deckings that extend over the bank. No. 12 has a near-flat grassed area at the top of the bank.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposed is the erection of two flat-roof single-storey detached garages on the boundary of No.12 and No.14 at the rear of the driveways. The work also includes the excavation of part of the bank.
2.2 The two garages will have balustrades on the top. The railing will be on the side and front elevation and the access is at the rear, at the same level as the existing terrace or grassed area.
2.3 The proposed garages are 2.6m in height. The ground level of No. 14 is approx. 0.25m higher than that of No. 12. The balustrade railing will be approx. 1.1m tall above the roof. On the boundary between No.12 and No.14, there will be a boundary wall approx. 1.1m tall separating the balustrades.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Erection of garage at 12 St Catherines Close was REFUSED under PA 96/00700/B. The proposed was a flat roof garage on the side elevation.
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 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;
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00045/B Page 3 of 5
(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".
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 4.7 Roof Terraces, Balconies, Decking and Patios sets out some key considerations. It states that for terraced and semi-detached properties, it is unlikely to be acceptable; and for detached properties, it has to be carefully designed to avoid unreasonable overlooking of neighbouring properties (including gardens). Large separation distance and strategically placed screens may help avoid overlooking but may also cause loss of light or being overbearing to the neighbours. It may also have a visual impact on the street scene and the individual dwelling.
4.7 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.
5.0 REPRESENTATION
5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to this application (12/02/2021).
5.2 DoI Highway Services do not oppose this application (16/02/2021). The comment states there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and/or parking.
5.3 DoI Flood Risk Management Division states there is no flood risk management interest in this application (12/03/2021).
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main concerns for this application are its impact on the character and street scene of the area, on highway safety and the amenities of the neighbours.
6.2 The erection of a garage is listed as permitted development in the Town and Country (Permitted Development Order) 2012. However, the proposed garages have a length of approx. 7.2m (the requirement is no more than 6m). Therefore, the proposal does require a planning approval.
6.3 The garages are visible to the public. They are designed in a similar style as the main dwelling, except for the flat roof and the balustrade railing. However, the development is set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling, which makes them less prominent in the street scene. In addition, the existing terraces and balustrades with railings along the road at the rear of other properties make the design less intrusive so the design is considered acceptable.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00045/B Page 4 of 5
6.4 As Highway Services has no objection, it is considered that there is no impact on highway safety.
6.5 There is no concern regarding the loss of light and overbearing impact upon the outlook of neighbouring properties as the top of the existing bank and fences on the rear boundary are much higher than the proposed garage.
6.6 There is an existing level of overlooking as both properties have a terrace on the top of the bank. The proposed balustrade is at the same level so there is no increase in the level of overlooking. Although the balustrade would create additional vantage points, which are much closer to the rear elevation of both dwelling, the outlook from each balustrade is beyond the 45-degree lines projecting from the first floor's windows of their respective neighbours so it is unlikely that the overlooking would create additional intrusion into the neighbouring privacy. Therefore, it is considered that there is no concern for overlooking.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.
8.0 INTEREST 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: 18.06.2021
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00045/B Page 5 of 5
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