Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00191/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00191/B Applicant : Mr Shaun Nesbitt Proposal : Extension to existing vestibule and installation of a stainless steel flue Site Address : 32 Ashberry Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1PX
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.04.2022 __
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. This application is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide July 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the documents, and drawing no. 21-030-01, 21-030-02A as having been received on 4th March 2022. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00191/B Page 2 of 5
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 32 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas, a two-storey detached dwelling located northeast of Ashberry Avenue.
1.2 The house consists of a pitched-roof main dwelling and a mono-pitched-roof vestibule on the front. There is also a dormer gable on the front elevation.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the extension of the existing vestibule and the installation of a flue on the south corner of roof on the front elevation.
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 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
4.2 No planning constraint overlaps 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:
Principle of Development 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."
Other 4.8 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.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00191/B Page 3 of 5
4.9 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 4.10 There is no Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive relate to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 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.
5.2 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 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.
5.3 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.
5.4 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 (24.03.2022).
6.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (24.03.2022).
7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessment 7.1 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 7.2 The extension is of the same design as the existing. The flue does not stand out from its surroundings. It is considered that there is no impact on the design of the house itself.
Character and Streetscene of the Area 7.3 As mentioned in 7.2, the extension and the flue would not stand out from the house and its surroundings and therefore has a neutral impact on the character and streetscene of the Area.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.4 The extension does not create additional overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking.
Flue
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00191/B Page 4 of 5
7.5 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.
7.6 Although what is proposed here is similar in height, it is further away from the nearest neighbour. The flue is over 1.5m away from the closest neighbouring property.
7.7 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.
7.8 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.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide July 2021. 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. __
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00191/B Page 5 of 5
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control 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 : 20.04.2022
Determining officer Signed : J CHANCE
Jennifer Chance
Director of Planning and Building Control
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