Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00402/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00402/B Applicant : Mrs Michelle Bell Proposal : Erection of a single storey extension to the rear elevation Site Address : 43 Ashberry Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1PY
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 04.08.2022 Site Visit : 04.08.2022 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. By reason of the proposed single storey extensions rear depth, height and proximity to the neighbouring boundary and proximity habitable windows, it is considered the proposal would result in a significant adverse impacts upon neighbouring amenities of No. 44 Ashberry Avenue through loss of light and having an overbearing impacts upon the neighbouring properties outlook all contrary to General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide July 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Owners/Occupiers of 43 Ashberry Avenue
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00402/B Page 2 of 5
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 43 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas, a two-storey semi- detached property located on the northwest of the end of Ashberry Avenue.
1.2 The house consists of a two-storey pitched-roof main dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the erection of a single-storey flat-roof rear extension with a parapet. It sits on the border with No.44. The roof will also have a lantern rooflight. There will be a bi-fold door on the southwest elevation and a casement window on the northwest 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 Proposed 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:
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 4.3.11 states: "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."
4.6 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 4.7 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.
4.8 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."
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00402/B Page 3 of 5
Other 4.9 Community Policy 7 and 10 state that the design of new development must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to existing best practise such as to prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour and outbreak and spread of fire.
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 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.
5.2 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 the "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.
5.3 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.
5.4 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.
5.5 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 has no objection to this application (22.04.2022).
6.2 Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application. (15.04.2022).
6.3 Owners/Occupiers of 44 Ashberry Avenue wrote in objection to this application (17.04.2022 and 03.05.2022). The comment states that the proposal would not enhance the appearance of the property and will be overshadowing and overbearing to them.
7.0 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 on the amenities of the neighbours.
Design of the House Itself 7.2 The rear extension is designed in a more contemporary style compared to the main dwelling and the existing rear extension. The parapet of the new extension would connect the
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00402/B Page 4 of 5
extension with the main dwelling well. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not negative impact the appearance of the house.
Character and Street Scene 7.3 The extension is not visible to the public. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.4 The extension fails the "45-degree Approach". A site visit has confirmed that the boundary would be imposing to the neighbouring garden and dining room double door, which is considered to be windows to a primary habitable room when assessing overshadowing impact. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would be both overshadowing and overbearing to No.44.
7.5 There are boundary fences around the northeast and northwest elevations. Therefore, it is considered that there is no concern for additional overlooking.
Planning Balance Assessment 7.7 The proposal would not negatively impact the appearance of the dwelling itself or the area. However, it does create a negative impact on neighbouring amenities. The impact is considered too great to be overlooked.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal fails the "45 Degree Approach" and it would be overshadowing and overbearing to the neighbouring property. It is considered failing to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide July 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00402/B Page 5 of 5
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 : 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