Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01541/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 21/01541/B Applicant : Ms Lisa Armstrong Proposal : Demolition of existing garage & erection of single storey rear extension Site Address : 8 Primrose Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4EB
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.08.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The form and size of the single storey rear extension, including a flat roof, high lantern rooflight and dark colour boarding would not be in keeping with the site and surroundings in terms form, design and finish and would affect adversely the character of the area all contrary to General Policy b & c of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021, while also failing to preserve or enhance the character and quality of the Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 35 and Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999).
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 8 Primrose Avenue, Douglas, a two-storey mid- terrace dwelling located northeast of Primrose Avenue.
1.2 The house consists of a pitched-roof main dwelling, a two-storey pitched-roof rear extension and a single-storey flat-roof extension on the rear of the two-storey extension. There is also a detached single-storey pitched-roof garage at the rear of the site.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01541/B Page 2 of 6
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the demolition of the garage and the erection of a single-storey flat-roof extension with a lantern rooflight on the rear of the two-storey extension. The proposal also includes the installation of a flue and the demolition and rebuild of the rear boundary wall.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
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 The site is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area.
Strategic Policy 4.3 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 4.4 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 both focus on the visual design of developments, they state that the design should take account of the local materials, character and identity of its immediate locality, in terms of buildings and landscape features. Focused on landscaping.
4.7 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."
4.8 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." This is also reiterated in CA/2 of PPS 1/01.
4.9 Paragraph 4.3.11 states:
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01541/B Page 3 of 6
"Merely arguing that 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."
Other 4.10 Community Policy 7 and 10 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.
4.11 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 4.12 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man is the only adopted PPS at the moment. It provides supplementary policy on developments within any conservation area.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation 5.1 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act". This sets out the approach to be taken in determining planning applications, which includes giving great weight to the asset's conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the asset. Given that the site is within a Conservation Area, the above requirements apply and appropriate consideration will be given in section 7.
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 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 architectural 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.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council does not object to this application (14.01.2022).
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01541/B Page 4 of 6
6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (13.01.2022). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking.
7.0 ASSESSMENT Conservation Areas Statutory Test 7.1 Before assessing elements of the proposal, as it is within a Conservation Area, a test should be applied to this proposal as mentioned in 5.1. This is whether the proposal would preserve or protect the character of the Conservation Area.
7.2 The rear extension is designed in a more contemporary style compared to the main dwelling. The flat roof, parapet and the lantern rooflight would not fit in with the existing roofscape of the terrace. Combined with the dark colour boarding, it would stand out even given its surroundings. The contrast would not preserve or protect the character of the area.
7.3 The rear boundary wall and the flue is considered to have a neutral impact on the character of the Conservation Area.
7.4 On balance, it is considered that the proposed fails the test. Generally, this application would be recommended for a refusal unless there are immense public benefit overweigh the negative impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area which there is not.
Elements of Assessment 7.5 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and street scene of the area and the amenities of the neighbours.
Design of the House Itself 7.6 As mentioned in 7.2, it is considered that the design would not fit in with the main dwelling in its roofscape and finishing contrary to General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide.
Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area 7.7 The proposal is not readily visible to the public except for residents who use the rear lane and the carpark behind the church. As mentioned in 7.2, it is considered that the proposal would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area neither preserving nor enhancing the area which is a requirement of Environmental Policy 35 and the Statutory Test of Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999).
Neighbouring Amenities 7.8 The extension fails the "45-degree Approach". However, there is no change to the impact on No.10 compared to the existing single-storey extension and the garage. Therefore, it is considered that there is no additional impact on overshadowing or overbearing.
7.9 There is a boundary wall shielding the bi-fold door from overlooking No.6. The proposed roof light would only have a limited view of the rear elevation of the terrace. Therefore, it is considered that there is no overlooking concern.
7.10 Although the loss of the garage could be considered as the loss of a parking space, a site visit has confirmed that the rear lane is difficult for manoeuvres and there are cars directly parked in the rear lane, indicating the garage is underused for car parking use. Therefore, it is considered that there is no loss of parking space due to the proposal.
Flue 7.11 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01541/B Page 5 of 6
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.
7.12 Although what is proposed here is similar in height, it is further away from the nearest neighbour. The flue is over 2.7m away from the closest neighbouring property.
7.13 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 there are both standards for flues and measures which can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection which can address issues should they arise.
7.14 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.
Planning Balance Assessment 7.15 Although there is only minimum impact on neighbouring amenities, it is considered that there are not enough benefit to overweigh the negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The flat roof rear extension including a high lantern rooflight and dark colour boarding would not fit in with the existing roofscape/form of the existing property and terrace nor would the finishes fit with the property / terrace.
8.2 The proposal is considered failing to comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan and 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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01541/B Page 6 of 6
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 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 : Refused Date : 26.08.2022
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