56144

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      21/00597/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 21/00597/B Applicant : Mr Paul Wiseman Proposal : Erection of an extension to rear elevation Site Address : 32 Hillcroft Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 7DR

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

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.08.2021 __

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.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents as having been received on 25th May 2021, and drawing no. 21/07/01 Rev A as having been received on 23rd July 2021. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 32 Hillcroft, Douglas, a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located on the northwest corner of the T-junction of Hillcroft. The

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      21/00597/B                                     Page  2  of  4

house has a pitched roof. There is an existing single-storey pitched-roof extension on the north (side) elevation of the main dwelling.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposed work is the erection of a single-storey flat-roof rear extension with a parapet wall and two lantern roof lights. The extension is on the south boundary. It is approx. 3.2m wide and projects 3.9m from the rear elevation of the main dwelling. On the north elevation, there is a French door with a fixed-panel window on each side. There is a casement window on the east elevation.

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 4.2 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

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      21/00597/B                                     Page  3  of  4

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 has no objection on this application (08/06/2021).

5.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (14/06/2021).

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main considerations for this application are its impact on the character and street scene of the area and the amenities of the neighbours.

6.2 The extension is at the rear of the property. It is designed in a similar style as the main dwelling except the flat roof. Although against the Residential Design Guide, the parapet has minimised its impact. Therefore, the design is considered acceptable.

6.3 The projection for the extension is approx. 3.9m while the RDG states rear extensions for terraced and semi-detached dwelling should not exceed 3m to avoid the tunnelling effect, meaning overbearing and reducing outlook are likely for the neighbouring property. However, there is an existing fence approx. 2m high and the extension is approx. 2.7m high. It is considered that the impact on the outlook of the neighbouring property is acceptable. As the extension is only single story, it is considered that there is no overbearing effect on the neighbouring properties. Therefore, there is no tunnelling effect created by the proposed extension and the projection is considered acceptable.

6.4 The extension is single storey. There are no door or window on the south elevations. The east elevation has windows and is approx. 10m to the nearest property. There is a boundary wall approx. 2m high between the two properties. The north elevation has a French door and windows. Although the distance from the proposed extension is within 20m to the closest property, the vantage points already exist (albeit being in the garden) and there are existing structures blocking the view to these properties. Therefore, it is not considered that this is an unacceptable level of 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 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;

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      21/00597/B                                     Page  4  of  4

(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: 03.08.2021

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.