Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00537/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00537/B Applicant : Mr Lee & Mrs Victoria McGoldrick Proposal : Erection of front porch and rear extension to replace existing, rendering works to front elevation and extension of existing vehicular access and driveway Site Address : 34 Port E Chee Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5ER
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.09.2021 __
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. The application is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the submitted documents, location plan, site plan and drawing no. 1578.1, 1578.2, 1578.3 as having been received on 14th May 2021 and drawing no. 1578.2 Rev 1 and drawing 1578.3 Rev 1 as having been received on 13 September 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00537/B Page 2 of 6
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 34 Port e Chee Avenue, a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located on the east of Port e Chee Avenue, near its junction with Douglas Avenue. The house has a hipped roof.
1.2 There are several extensions on the main dwelling. There is a two-storey flat roof extension on the front elevation and a mono-pitched-roof porch on the side of the front extension. There is a two-storey pitched-roof extension on the side elevation. There are also two single-storey flat-roof extensions on the rear elevation of the property.
1.3 The rear garden is elevated compare to the level of the ground floor. There is a small patio area between the dwelling and the elevated rear garden.
1.4 There is an existing driveway on the south boundary of the site. The front boundary has a short white wall and a white pillar on the southwest corner of the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposed work is the demolition of the front porch and two rear extensions, the erection of a replacement front porch and a replacement single-story extension. The proposal also includes the widening of driveway.
2.2 The proposed front porch will maintain the size and shape of the existing porch but it will be enclosed. It will has a rendered finishing as the existing main dwelling. The initial proposal was for a front porch bigger in size and surround part of the bay window but the size has been reduce to remove impact on the street scene.
2.3 The rear extension will have a pitched roof. It will have two roof lights. There is on opening on the north or south elevation and there is a bi-fold door on the east elevation.
2.4 The patio area will be extend on the southeast corner to allow footway around the new extension.
2.5 The approx. 2.4m of the existing garden will be harden as additional driveway. The existing boundary wall will be partially removed and the pillar will be made up at the end as existing. New bushes will be planted on the remaining garden.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Alterations and new pitched roof was APPROVED under PA 17/00796/B. The proposal was a mono-pitched rear extension in replacement of the two flat-roof extension.
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:
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00537/B Page 3 of 6
"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 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.
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 6 "The Wider Site" sets out some key considerations regarding boundary treatment, trees, the driveway, and front garden.
4.11 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.
4.12 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
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00537/B Page 4 of 6
appearance of the street scene and to 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."
4.13 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.
4.14 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 (01/06/2021).
5.2 DoI Highway Services does not object to this application (07/06/2021). The comment states that although the set back of 2m is shorter than minimum of 2.4m and the extended driveway is just shy of the minimum requirement for three cars, there is no significant road safety issues created.
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.
Front Porch 6.2 The front porch is designed in the same size and shape as the existing. The initial proposal was for a larger-sized porch but this has been considered to be unable to fit in with its counterpart on the other side of the semi-detached dwelling. Therefore, it is considered that the current design of the front porch would fit in with its surroundings and the street scene and is therefore acceptable.
6.3 There is no additional vantage point created by the front porch. Therefore, there is no concern about overlooking for the front porch.
Rear Extension 6.4 The single-storey rear extension is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling except for the bi-fold door and the pitched roof. It is considered that the bi-fold door would not
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00537/B Page 5 of 6
cause negative impact on the character of the area and the pitched roof is an improvement compare to the exiting flat-roof rear extension. Therefore, the design is considered acceptable.
6.5 The rear extension is single-storey and has a pitched roof. The highest point of the extension moved towards the south comparing to the existing. This reduces the overshadowing and overbearing impact on No. 36 is reduced. Therefore, the impact on overshadowing and overbearing is considered acceptable.
6.6 The rear extension is single storey and the site is at the same level and is aligning roughly east-west with the neighbouring properties. There is no windows on the north or south elevation of the extension so there is no additional overlooking created by the extension. The neighbouring property is approx. 20m away from the extension. Therefore, it is considered there is no overlooking issues.
6.7 The creation of additional patio area would not have any negative impact on the character of the area or neighbouring amenities and is therefore considered acceptable.
Front Garden and Driveway 6.8 Hardening the front garden as additional driveway and the widening of the access is not desirable, as it reduced the size of the front garden and further blurred the boundary of private and public space. However, given its benefit in reducing on-street parking strain and improve highway efficiency and safety, additional landscaping can minimise the negative impact of the lost of front garden space on the character and street scene of the area. It is considered that the additional bushes on the remaining front garden would strengthen the soft boundary and reduce the negative impact to an acceptable level.
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. __
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00537/B Page 6 of 6
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: 21.09.2021
Determining officer Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
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