Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01354/B Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01354/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs David & Patricia Swanson Proposal : Erection of conservatory to front elevation Site Address : 11 Poplar Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4AS
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.02.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal does not fit in with the exising roofscape or feature arrangements and is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide July 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 11 Poplar Road, Douglas, a hipped-roof detached house located to the west corner of Victoria Road and Poplar Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the erection of a single-storey flat roof conservatory on the southeast elevation (front).
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Erection of an extension to dwelling was APPROVED under PA 20/00879/B.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01354/B Page 2 of 3
4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Strategic Policy 3, 5 o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) (m) (n) o Paragraph 8.12.1 o Environment Policy 42 o Community Policy 7 10
PPS and NPD 4.3 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) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o RDG 4.5 Front Extensions o RDG 4.6 Rear Extensions o RDG 4.7 Flat-roof Extensions o RDG Chapter 5 o RDG Chapter 7
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council has no commented at the time of the report (01.02. 2023).
6.2 Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (11.11.2022).
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and streetscene of the area and on the amenities of the neighbours.
Design of the House Itself 7.2 The proposal can be seen as a front or rear extension as it is facing the road but may not be used as a main entrance. However, the design of the southeast elevation is more prominent than the northwest elevation. Therefore, when assessing its visual impact, it will be considered as a front extension.
7.3 The conservatory has a flat roof that does not fit in with the existing roofscape. The protrusion beyond the existing bay windows also disrupts the existing design where the bay windows and the pitched roof above are highlighted as a feature of the elevation. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would negatively impact the character of the area.
Character and Street Scene 7.4 The proposal is visible to the public from Victoria Road. Therefore, the extension is considered to have a negative impact on the character and streetscene of the area.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.5 The conservatory passes the "45-degree Approach". Therefore, it is considered that there is no concern for overbearing or overshadowing.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01354/B Page 3 of 3
7.6 There are boundary walls around the site. Therefore, it is considered that there is no overlooking concern from this elevation.
Planning Balance Assessment 7.7 While there are no negative impact on neighbouring amenities, the proposal would have a negative impact on the design of the house and the character and streetscene of the area. As there is no public benefit to outweigh this impact, it is recommended for a refusal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal does not fit in with the existing roofscape or feature arrangements and is considered to fail 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 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: 03.02.2023
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