64705

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      21/01270/B                                     Page  1  of  5

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 21/01270/B Applicant : Mr Alasdair Birnie Proposal : Erection of decking to front the elevation (retrospective) Site Address : 40 Ballaquark Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2ET

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

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.01.2022 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The timber decking to the front elevation of the dwelling in terms of design and finish does not respects the existing dwelling and surroundings in terms of the siting and finish and fails to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __ _

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 40 Ballaquark, Douglas, a single story semi- detached dwelling located on the west corner of the staggered junction of Ballaquark, close to Stevenson Way.

1.2 The dwelling has a cross pitched roof. The front elevation has a three-step concrete staircase leading to the front door. The elevation has a masonry finishing.

1.3 There is a 2m-high hedge around boundary of the site with the highway.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks retrospective approval for the erection of a timber decking on the front elevation.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      21/01270/B                                     Page  2  of  5

2.2 The decking is approx. 0.87m above ground level. It is approx. 3.6m wide and projects approx. 1.2m from the existing staircase. The decking also extends to the front elevation and covers the existing stairs. It also has stairs leading to the front entrance and a timber rack that act as a roof.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Internal alterations and extension to form dining room and lounge was APPROVED under PA 86/00668/B. The extension forms parts of the existing front elevation.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.

4.2 There is no written policy in local policy that is specific to this site.

4.3 There is no known planning constrains overlapping with the site.

Strategic Policy 4.4 In terms of strategic 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:

Principles of Developments 4.5 General Policy 1 states: "The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations."

4.6 Strategic Policy 1 states that development should make the best use of resources, including sites themselves as well as existing and planned infrastructures. This is seconded by Infrastructure Policy 1 by stressing that all development, unless of too small a scale, shall only take place in area which will ultimately be connected to the IRIS systems.

4.7 Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 echoes each other, stating that new development should be located primarily within existing defined settlements or sustainable urban extensions.

4.8 General Policy 2, which provides 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; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (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."

Visual Design 4.7 Strategic Policy 3, Environment Policy 42 and Housing Policy 6 all focused on the visual design of developments, they states that the design should take account of the local

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      21/01270/B                                     Page  3  of  5

materials, character and identity of its immediate locality, in terms of buildings and landscape features. Focused on landscaping.

4.8 Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan 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."

Environment 4.9 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."

Safety and Security 4.10 Community Policy 7 state that 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.

PPS and NPD 4.13 There is no relevant Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive applies to this application.

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation 5.1 There is no relevant legislation that directly applies to 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. Therefore, it is considered that the Guide is materially relevant to this application.

5.3 RDG 1.1.9 states: "The document is not a Planning Policy Statement (as per Section 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999) but is capable of being an 'other material consideration' (as per Section 10(4)(d) of the Act). Furthermore, where proposals adopt the approaches set out within this document, they are more likely to be considered to comply with the detailed Development Plan policies that relate to design. For example, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016)."

5.4 RDG 1.2.1 states: "When considering any proposals for any new residential development (either a new dwelling or an extension), the following issues are normally relevant (see General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan): o Potential visual impact upon the streetscene; o Potential impacts upon neighbouring properties, i.e.

Reduction of day light and increase of overshadowing,

Overbearing impact upon outlook, and/or

Overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy; o Potential impacts upon highway safety, i.e.

Loss of off-street parking due to proposed works / visibility splays, and

Adequate parking provision; and o Any site-specific issues/opportunities/constraints (e.g. the presence of trees)."

5.5 RDG 4.5 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

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      21/01270/B                                     Page  4  of  5

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.

5.6 RDG 4.11 Roof Terraces, Balconies, Decking and Patios sets out key considerations for decking. "These can add a welcome amenity to a dwelling, as long as the scale, design, and materials complement the character of the property, whether it is traditional or modern."

5.7 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.

5.8 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 5.9 There is no other material considerations considered relevant to this application.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council has not commented at the time of the report. (16/01/2021).

6.2 Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application. (10/11/2021).

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key consideration in the determination of the application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and street scene of the area and on the amenities of the neighbours.

7.2 Erection of a decking can be a permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012. However, the proposed decking is over 0.3 metres above ground level and is closer to the highway than the dwelling, meaning it would require a planning approval.

Design of the House Itself 7.3 The decking is on the front elevation of the house. The house is also loacted next to a junction. It is considered that the design of this front elevation has a key influence on the appearance of the house as well as the character of the area and the streetscene.

7.4 The decking is made of timber, contrasting with the existing masonry finishing. The timber pergola element has a gradient smilar than that of the existing pitched roof. These two design elements makes the decking stand out and unable to be recognised as an intergreal part of the existing dwelling. These additional characters also does not positively contribute to the character of the existing single storey bungalow either. Therefore, it is considered that the decking is not in keep with the design of the house itself.

Character and Street Scene 7.5 The character is predominantly defined by the single-story masonry-finished bungalow. As mentioned in 7.3 and 7.4, the timber material and the pergola does not fit in with the single-storey or masonry finishing, which are key elements which define the character of the area. Although the decking is currently shielded from the public by the hedges, relying solely on landscaping to make any development acceptable is not advisable or good planning as any landscaping can be removed, reduced in height or die/diseased. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal negatively impacts the character and street scene of the area. Neighbouring Amenities 7.6 The decking is lower than the main dwelling. It is also separated from the adjacent neighbour with the front extension. Therefore, it is considered that there is no concern for overlooking or overbearing.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      21/01270/B                                     Page  5  of  5

7.7 The decking does not create new vantage point. In addition, there is a degree of mutual overlooking to the front elevation of nearby properties. Therefore, it is considered that there is no concern for overlooking. Summary 7.8 Even though the decking does not harm the neighbouring amenities, it is considered that the negative visual impact on the dwelling itself and the character and street scene of the area is not minuscule enough to ignore.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is considered to failing comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021. Therefore, it is recommended for a refusal.

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. __

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 : Refused Date: 25.01.2022

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.