Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01133/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/01133/B Applicant : Mr Hanro & Mrs Kelly Hennig Proposal : Erection of a rear extension Site Address : 1 Manor Woods Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2PE
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.02.2022 __
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. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the protection measures detailed in the drawing 2B, submitted in support of the application shall be fully installed and implemented and retained for the duration of the construction process, unless stated otherwise.
Reason: to ensure that the retained tree is adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval is related to the documents and drawing no. 01, 03, 04, 05 as having been received on 22nd September 2021 and drawing no. 2C as having been received on 20th January 2022.
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01133/B Page 2 of 6
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 1 Manor Woods, Farmhill, Douglas, a two-storey detached dwelling located on the southeast corner of Manor Woods.
1.2 The house consists of a two-storey pitched roof main dwelling, a two-storey pitched roof front extension with mock Tudor front elevation and a hipped roof side extension with a pitched roof dormer.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the erection of a single-storey flat-roof rear extension. It will have two lantern rooflights and two bi-fold doors. It will also have a retractable canopy. The proposal also includes the installation of two flues for a bio-flue burner and a barbeque.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Alterations and erection of an extension was APPROVED under 16/00668/B. This approval has lapsed. The current proposal is of a similar design but larger.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
4.2 No planning constraints overlap with the site.
Strategic Policy 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
Principles of Developments 4.4 General Policy 2, which provides an overall requirement for all development, states: "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; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.5 Paragraph 8.12.1 states: "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 existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
Design 4.6 Strategic Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42 all focused on the visual design of developments, they state that the design should take account of the local materials, character
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01133/B Page 3 of 6
and identity of its immediate locality, in terms of buildings and landscape features. Focused on landscaping.
4.7 Paragraph 4.3.11 states: "a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development"
4.8 Strategic Policy 5 states: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island."
Other 4.9 Community Policy 7, 10 and 11 state that the design of new development must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regards to existing best practise such as to prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour and outbreak and spread of fire. In addition, development should also provide proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes."
4.10 Infrastructure Policy 5 states that "Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources."
PPS and NPD 4.11 No Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive is applicable to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation 5.1 No legislation affects the assessment of this application.
Strategy and Guidance 5.2 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) provides guidance 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.
5.3 RDG 4.6 Rear Extensions set 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". It also points out that single-storey extensions are unlikely to be supported where they project more than 3 metres from the back of the house.
5.4 RDG 4.7 Flat Roof Extension sets out some key considerations regarding the acceptability and details of having a flat roof for extensions. It states that a parapet should be used along with architecture detailing. Furthermore, contemporary design can be acceptable in certain circumstances.
5.5 RDG Chapter 5 sets out key considerations regarding architectural details. These include window details and external finishing. The general idea is that development should fit in with the street scene and the building itself.
5.6 RDG Chapter 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.
Other Material Considerations 5.7 No other government documents are considered materially relevant to this application.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01133/B Page 4 of 6
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council raise no objection (08/10/2021).
6.2 Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application. (06/10/2021 and 28/01/22).
6.3 DEFA ALD does not object to the application (11/10/2021) after an amended plan was submitted regarding tree protection details. The comment also recommends a condition is attached in case of approval to require that the tree protection measures be implemented before the construction.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations in the determination of this application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and street scene of the area, on the amenities of the neighbours and on trees.
Design of the House Itself 7.2 The rear extension is designed in a more contemporary style compared to the main dwelling. The parapet on the flat roof connects the extension and the main dwelling seamlessly. Therefore, it is considered that the flat roof choice is acceptable.
7.3 The new flues are considered to have a neutral impact on the design of the house.
Character and Street Scene 7.3 The proposal does not have a negative impact on the character or streetscene of the area. Therefore, the design is considered acceptable.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.4 The extension passes the "45 Degree Approach". The depth and positon of the extension will not impinge on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Therefore, it is considered that there is no concern for overshadowing or overbearing.
7.5 The proposal pushes existing vantage point further towards the rear boundary. Therefore, there is no concern for overlooking. As a sunroom, the room is not frequently used as a bedroom or a study but will be used longer than being an outdoor garden area. The view angle towards 2 Manor Woods is and will still be less than 20m. However, the viewing angle will be further off side and towards the end of the garden. Therefore, it is considered that there is no additional overlooking created.
7.6 There has been a previous application that was approved initially but refused on appeal following an adverse recommendation from the inspector. This application, 18/01125/B at Close Cowley was refused for reasons relating to the appearance of the flue and the effect of its use in terms of smell and smoke nuisance, to the immediate neighbour. The inspector accepted that that flue would only be seen by those living around the site but still considered that an adverse visual impact experienced by them would breach GP2 and the RDG. He was also concerned about the emissions from the flue, regardless of the fact that it appeared to have been installed by a registered installer and that Environmental Health had visited the site and had not experienced any smoke or smell. This flue was installed almost on the boundary of both properties and approximately 1m from the rear elevation, extending around 1m higher than the eaves of the main part of the two-storey house.
7.7 Although what is proposed here is similar in height, it is further away from the nearest neighbour. The flue is over 9m away from the closest neighbouring property.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01133/B Page 5 of 6
7.8 Discussions with the Head of Building Control and Standards within the Department indicate that in his view, the issue at Close Cowley was not with the location and installation of the flue, which would appear to accord with the guidelines in the Building Regulations, but was with the operation and possibly the use of unsuitable fuel. There are procedures for this, which would normally involve the installer returning to check the installation. Whilst in the Close Cowley case, the EHI visited the site. It is clear that on their visit there was no smoke or smell nuisance. It would appear from the discussions with Building Control that both standards for flues and measures can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection which can address issues should they arise.
7.9 In addition, the prevailing wind direction for most of the island is southwest, the adjacent dwellings are southwest located. Therefore, there is little impact on its neighbouring properties.
7.10 As such, in the absence of any evidence that this currently proposed flue will result in harm to the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, the application is considered acceptable.
Tree Protection 7.11 Given the comment from DEFA ALD, it is considered that a condition should be attached to protect the trees on site.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS
9.1 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.
9.2 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.
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01133/B Page 6 of 6
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management 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 : 07.02.2022
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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