54153

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      21/00401/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 21/00401/B Applicant : Mr Colin Piercy Proposal : Erection of rear extension and rear semi-subterranean garage with patio above Site Address : Wendover St Ninians Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4BB

Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.07.2021 __

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. Notwithstanding the submitted drawing no. NB21/402.A, prior to the commencement of any works a detailed plan shall be submitted in writing to the Department which shows obscured screens along the north and south elevations of the proposed terrace which shall be installed within one month of the completion of terrace and retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing nos. NB21/401.A, NB21/402A, NB21/405 as having been received on 13th April 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:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      21/00401/B                                     Page  2  of  4

DoI Flood Risk Management Division __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Wendover, St Ninians Road, Douglas, a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located northeast corner of St Ninians Road. The west (rear) boundary is on Laurestone Grove. There is an existing conservatory on the south corner of the main dwelling.

1.2 The site level is gradually dropping from St Ninians Road (front) to Laurestone Grove (rear). The neighbouring properties on the north boundary have gradually higher level compare to the site while the neighbour on the south elevation shares similar level changes.

1.3 The south boundary has tall hedges. The north boundary has low mesh fence and then with the dropping level, brick with timber fence on top. There is no hard or soft treatment on the west boundary.

1.4 There are two young mature trees close the dwelling and two ancient mature tree at the west boundary of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposed work is the demolition of the existing conservatory and the erection of a bigger replacement extension on the rear elevation of the main dwelling. The proposal also includes the erection of a decking with glass balustrade which forms part of a new sub-basement garage approx. 13.4m by 8m.

2.2 The proposed garage will have a part that is approx. 1.5m above ground level. However, the top of the garage (the proposed terrace) will be about the same elevation as the ground floor of the main dwelling.

2.3 The work also includes the excavation of soil to make room for the subterranean garage. The applicants stated in a site visit (08/07/2021) that the excavated soil will be used to levelling the other parts of the rear garden.

2.4 The proposal would remove two trees close to the existing property. The applicant stated in a site visit (08/07/2021) that one trees has branches fallen onto the roof before while the other is very close to the existing drainage pipe for the dwelling. Both of them are either within or very close the proposed subterranean garage.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no pervious 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:

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      21/00401/B                                     Page  3  of  4

(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 4.2 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".

4.8 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 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 does not oppose this application (05/05/2021).

5.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (10/05/2021). The comment states there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking.

5.3 DoI Flood Risk Management Divisoin does not oppose this application (08/06/2021).

5.4 DEFA FALD has no objection on the removal of two tress when discussing the application in a meeting (12/07/2021).

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main consideration for this application are its impact on the character and street scene of the area, on the amenities of the neighbours and on highway safety. The assessment will be two parts, first on the extension, then on the garage and terrace.

6.2 The extension is on the rear of the property. It is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling, except for the mass use of glass pane. As, it is at the rear of the property and the design does not stand out from the main building, the design is considered acceptable.

6.3 As the proposed extension is in the middle of the site and only single-storey, it is considered that there is no concern for overbearing or overshadowing.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      21/00401/B                                     Page  4  of  4

6.4 There is no windows or doors on the north and south elevation of the proposed extension. Therefore, it is considered that there is no overlooking concerns.

6.5 As the garage is not higher than the level of the existing ground floor, it is considered that there is overshadowing or overbearing concern.

6.6 The terrace created harden surface as well as raised level compare to existing. As there is no existing privacy screen between the site and its northern neighbour, it is considered that the proposal would worsen the existing overlooking situation. However, it is also considered that a condition can be attached for privacy screens on the north and south elevation of the terrace to minimise the overlooking impact.

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 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: 16.07.2021

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.