Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00675/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00675/B Applicant : Mr Paul Wright Proposal : Creation of decked area with associated doorway access from an existing window Site Address : 12 Mount View Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4BU
Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.08.2021 __
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. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that no unacceptable visual, residential amenity or other impacts were identified.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following plans and drawings received 01.06.21: W/6614/2 - Location Plan, Site Plan W/6614/1 - Proposed Plans and Elevations __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of a detached one and half storey bungalow om the south side of Mount View Road in Onchan. The dwelling bounds similar buildings at no.14 to
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00675/B Page 2 of 4
the east and no.10 to the west. The semi-detached properties at Seaview Road lie to the south, which falls away from the application site following the topography of the area. The southern and eastern boundaries feature dense tall hedging.
1.3 The site is not within any Conservation Area and does not relate to a Registered Building.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of a rear bay window with patio doors, and the erection of timber decking adjoining. The decking would project from the doors by 4.5 metres with a 4.5 metre width. The decking area would sit between 0.4 and 0.8 metres above ground level - reflecting the topography and the sloping nature of the rear garden from north to south.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East 2020. As such, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is the key policy in the consideration of this application.
3.2 GP2 states that 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; and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
3.3 DEFA's Residential Design Guidance (2019) is a material consideration. Section 4.7 of the guidance relates to decking and balconies.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No recent or relevant planning history for this site has been identified.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DOI Highways state that they have no highways interest in this application (28.06.21).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are the visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider street scene, and impact on residential amenity.
6.2 Visual Impact 6.2.1 As referenced earlier in this report, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan requires that development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them and does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. The Residential Design Guidance notes that it is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling.
6.2.2 The decking and patio doors would be to the rear of the dwelling and not readily visible from public view. The proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. The decking would not be of a scale as to become a dominant or incongruous feature within the site. It is concluded therefore that the proposed would be in accordance with GP2 of the IOMSP in this regard.
6.3 Residential Amenity
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00675/B Page 3 of 4
6.3.1 General Policy 2 further requires that new development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents. Further details of how residential amenity can be impacted are set out in the Residential Design Guide. The key aspects are overlooking (loss of privacy), overbearing (loss of outlook) and overshadowing (loss of sunlight). Section 4.7 of the design guidance relates specifically to decking and states that raised decking, terraces or patios that are higher than 0.3 metres require a specific planning approval. It is a requirement to ensure that neighbours' privacy is maintained by installing screening (fence, hedge etc.) that reaches the height of 1.8m above ground level. Screening will only be appropriate if it does not cause loss of light and/or be overbearing to an adjoining property
6.3.2 No.12 already features dense hedging to the rear (south) and eastern side boundary which is in excess of 1.8 metres high. The decking proposed would be a maximum of 0.82 metres above garden level at its very southern point, although the majority of the decked area would be below this. Given the existing screening and the height and position of the decking away from the boundary, no overlooking into or onto the Seaview properties to the south is considered likely. There are open views through a gap in the hedging to the first floor rear window of one of the Seaview properties. These views are considered to be mutual and would not be intensified.
6.3.3 Similarly, there would be no increased overlooking onto or into no.14 to the east. With regard to no.10, the shared boundary is marked by low timber fencing and some hedging. No.10 has a conservatory which sits slightly above ground level and has a line of sight into the rear garden of no.12. There is a degree of mutual overlooking as existing between the respective gardens. It is not considered that the decking, due to its modest height above ground level and the presence of some hedging in the centre of the shared boundary, would result in an unacceptable increase in overlooking.
6.3.4 In summary, it is not considered that any overlooking impact or any other impact would be severe insomuch as to warrant a reason for refusal. For this reason, the proposal would accord with part (g) of GP2.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposal is considered to accord with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP, the guidance set out in the Residential Design Guidance, and the land use designation set out in the Area Plan for the East 2020. No adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the appearance of the site and surrounding area, or the amenity of the neighbours.
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 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
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00675/B Page 4 of 4
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: 04.08.2021
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal