79691

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/01220/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/01220/B Applicant : Mr Cameron Millar Proposal : Erection of single storey extension to the rear of the garage and erection of dormer extension to the rear Site Address : 60 Wybourn Drive Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4AT

Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.12.2022 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. By reason of the size, scale, mass and design of the proposed flat roof rear dormer the proposal result in an unacceptable adverse visual impact and overbearing impact on the rear roof slope contrary to parts b, c, g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and contrary to the principles set out in 4.10 of the Residential Design Guide 2021.

R 2. By reason of its size, scale and flat roof design the proposed rear extension is considered to have an overbearing and adverse visual impact on the overall appearance of the rear of the dwelling and from neighbouring properties and failing parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the principles set out in 4.6 of 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 60 Wybourn Drive, Onchan, a single-storey detached dwelling with additional living space in the roof and an attached flat roof garage to one side. The dwelling is located on the northern side of the road and backs on to the rear of a number of terraced properties sitting at a higher level along Bemahague Avenue.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/01220/B                                     Page  2  of  4

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a large flat roof extension and large flat roof dormer at the rear.

2.2 The proposed extension is to project 5.7m back from the rear of the garage and approx. 7.1m wide. The extension steps another meter into the garden behind the main part of the house. The extension is to be finished with a flat roof and bi-folding doors facing into the patio area.

2.3 The proposed dormer is to be 8.6m wide covering almost the full width of the rear roof slope and measuring approx. 2.4m tall. There are three windows proposed on the rear, two serving bedrooms and a third serving a bathroom.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The have been two similar applications at neighbouring dwelling No. 56 Wybourn Drive, a similar sized and styled dwelling as the application property. Both proposed rear dormer and rear extension, the first one was amended to reduce the size of the dormer from being full width to being half the width of the roof slope, and throughout both the rear extension was smaller than that proposed now. These applications were approved under 21/00900/B and 21/01053/B.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East. In terms of strategic plan policy, there's a general presumption in favour of residential development in this location provided that the works comply with the general development standards set out in General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The Residential Design Guidance 2021 (RDG) also provides advice on the design of rear extensions and dormer extensions to existing dwellings (section 4.0) and also sets out the way in which the impact of development on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings may be measured (Section 7.0).

4.2 Sections '4.6 Rear Extensions' covers rear projection and ensuring no amenity impact on neighbours by assessing the 45 degree rule and tunnelling effect. Section 4.10 'Dormer Extensions' outlines their impact on character and appearance, with them generally being appropriate in areas already characterised with dormers but can look clumsy if overly long and running flush with eaves or ridge heights, and should ultimately be secondary to the size of the roof slope. Section '7.5 Overlooking resulting in loss of privacy' covers intensity of overlooking, the 20m rule of thumb where distances over 20m there's likely to be less concern but changes to topography such as sitting at a higher level can intensify this overlooking aspect.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Onchan Commissioners - objection - due to the design of the rear extension (03/11/2022).

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No highways interest (27/10/2022).

5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site lies within an area designated for residential development where 8.12.1 indicates a general presumption in favour of residential development so long as it does not adversely impact adjacent neighbours or the surrounding area. In assessing such impact regard shall be given to the general standards towards acceptable development set out in

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/01220/B                                     Page  3  of  4

General Policy 2, with the design guidance contained within the RDG being a material consideration in ways to assess such impact.

6.2 The key matters for consideration in this case are the visual and amenity impacts of the proposed rear dormer and proposed rear extension.

Front Dormers - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.3 The principle of a flat roof dormer design would be acceptable here given the surrounding estate is already characterised by such flat roof dormers. It is visually evident that these dormers are set back from the eaves, stepped down from the ridge, and their widths stepped in from the verge which creates an overall secondary appearance to the roof slopes. There are some slightly taller peaked dormers in the area but these are finished in tiles to match the main roof and are of small widths ensuring a secondary appearance.

6.4 In this instance the proposal is for a large full width rear dormer that is approx. 2.5m tall running almost flush with the eaves. The overall size, scale, width and massing of the dormer results in a proposal that is not secondary to the appearance of the roof slope and one which has an overbearing impact on the overall appearance of the rear of the property and from views from rear neighbouring properties contrary to the principles of the RDG 2021 and fails GP 2 (b, c and g).

6.5 The unacceptable visual impact of the rear extension is further exacerbated by the inconsistent and poor positioning and design of the dormer windows. Turning to overlooking and privacy, the properties to the rear are just over 20m rule of thumb but sit at a higher level than the application dwelling, and so naturally they already overlook the application dwelling. While the proposal will introduce new windows at a first floor level which would face towards the rear terrace dwellings this is not considered to significantly change or adversely alter the already established levels of overlooking to an unacceptable degree.

Rear Extension - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.6 The proposed extension covers over the garage and over half of the rear elevation. The extension projects approx. 5m into the rear and is shown to be finished in GRP matching the height of the existing garage and eaves level. The RDG 2021 outlines a number of good and poor designs in respect of extensions and while there is not 'a one size fits all' approach there are certain design and finishes which may not be appropriate.

6.7 In this case the existing dwelling, like the majority of its neighbours, already has an existing flat roof garage and these flat roofs garages characterise the area and help to re- inforce the low eaves lines of the main house, and keep the general height and massing of the garages at a low level and ensure they appear subordinate. It would be reasonable to state that the existing dwelling is capable of accommodating some kind of flat roof extension but such an extension should remain subordinate. In this case the footprint and projection of the extension and its chosen roof design results in an unacceptably large flat roof design and one which has an overbearing impact on the main dwelling. Whilst the extension may not be visible from the main estate road, it would have an adverse visual impact from those dwellings sitting higher at the rear. The rear extension is considered to fail General Policy 2 (b, c and g) and the principles of the RDG 2021.

CONCLUSION 7.1 The dormer extension and rear extension are individually considered unacceptable, and when viewed as a whole the two unacceptable elements combine to intensify the overall inappropriate and unacceptable nature of the works and their adverse visual impact on the dwelling. The application is considered to fail General Policy 2 (b, c and g) and to fail the principles of the RDG 2021.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/01220/B                                     Page  4  of  4

8.1 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 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.

8.2 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: 16.12.2022

Determining officer

Signed : J SINGLETON

Jason Singleton

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.