**Document:** Planning Officer Report **Application:** 10/00606/B — Erection of extensions to dwelling house and creation of additional off road parking **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2010-06-24 **Parish:** Lezayre **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/36162-lezayre-71-greenlands-avenue-dwelling-extension/documents/1351065 --- # Planning Officer Report **Application No.:** 10/00606/B **Applicant:** Mr William Paul \& Mrs Nichola Holland **Proposal:** Erection of extensions to dwelling house and creation of additional off road parking **Site Address:** Greenlands Avenue Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2PQ ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer **Expected Decision Level:** Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose subject to the imposition of the following condition: Consultee : Clerk To The Commissioners Notes : ### Officer's Report ### The Site The application site represents the residential curtilage of 71 Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey, which is part of a pair of semi-detached dormer bungalows, located to the northern side of Greenlands Avenue and north of Greenlands Park. ### Planning Status The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'predominately residential use", under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within Ramsey Conservation Area, nor a Registered Building. The following policies are therefore considered relevant in the consideration of this application: - Ramsey local Plan 1998 - Planning Circular 2/99; and - The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) - General Policy 2 Due to the zoning of the site the following policy is relevant for consideration:- "General Policy 2: 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: - (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; - (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; - (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; - (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; - (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; - (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; - (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; - (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; - (j) can be provided with all necessary services; - (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; - (I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; - (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." ## Planning History There are no previous applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. ### The Proposal This application seeks approval for the erection of extensions to dwelling house and creation of additional off road parking. The application has three parts; the first is the side extension which proposed to be a continuation of the main dwelling house, which includes the extension of the ridgeline and the flat roofed dormer window. The proposal would have a width of 2 metres, a depth of 7.7 metres and a ridge height of 6.7 metres. The second part of the extension relates to the rear extension. The proposal would be sited 0.1 metre from the eastern boundary of the site which is also shared with Nr 73 Greenlands Avenue. The extension would have a rear projection of 5.1 metres, a width of 3.4 metres and a height of 2.7 metres (excluding roof lantern). The third aspect of the application is the hardstanding of the front garden to provide additional vehicular parking. ### Representations Highways Division do not oppose subject to the imposition of the following condition:- "The applicant shall contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Transport prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs. Tel 686665. Note: Minimum of metre hard standing is required for off road parking." The Authority has received no privately written representations objecting to the application. ## Assessment Dealing with the side extension first, there are two potential concerns with the proposal, these relate to the impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property Nr 69 Greenlands Avenue, and the visual impact the proposal might have upon the street scene. In term of the neighbouring property, there are two gable end windows which could be affected by the proposal. The first is set at ground floor level which is the primary source of light and outlook for the kitchen. The proposed extension would be approximately 2.5 metres from this window. Overall, it is considered given this distance, the length and height, the proposal would adversely result in a loss of light and have an overbearing impact upon the outlook from this kitchen window, to the detriment of residential amenities of the neighbouring property Nr 71. Regarding the first floor gable end window, this is a landing window for the staircase and consequently is not a primary habitable room (kitchen/lounge). Therefore the loss of light and the impact upon the outlook is not regarded as significant as the loss of these amenities from the kitchen window, which is a primary habitable room. The proposal also raises concern of the potential impact upon the street scene. With any side extension for a detached or semi-detached property, within housing development, it is important to consider that any such development should not result in a 'terracing affect'. In some circumstances this does not occur due to the positions of the dwelling in relation to each other and/or distances between each dwelling. In this case, it is a prime example where there is the potential for such terracing affect, when you have closely grouped semi-detached properties which share a similar building line (Nr 67 to 77 Greenlands Avenue). Generally, when such case arise any side extension should be set back, so that there is a clear definition between neighbouring properties, which in turn prevents the collection of semi-detached properties appearing as a row of terraces. In this submission the applicants propose a side extension which would be flush with the front and rear elevations and would project very closely to the western boundary of the site. It is considered such development has the potentially to create a terracing affect resulting in the collection of semidetached dormer bungalows appearing as one row of terrace and therefore having an adverse visual impact upon the street scene. An argument could be used that the neighbour hasn't benefited from a side extension and therefore the terracing affected wouldn't occur even with the proposal as indicated. However, approval of this application would make it difficult in the future to refuse similar schemes to any of the neighbouring properties and therefore this application could be the foundation for future similar inappropriate development in this area. Turning to the rear single storey extension. Currently the boundary treatment along the eastern boundary of the rear garden comprises of a 1 metre high hedgerow, which runs along the entire boundary. The proposed extension would be sited 0.1 metres away from this boundary and project 5.1 metres from the rear elevation. This would likely result in the existing hedgerow being removed, to provide the space for the extension but also the foundations. The neighbouring property has two ground floor windows (kitchen \& living room). There is concern that proposed extension of this length, height and position very close to the shared boundary, would give raise to an overbearing impact upon the outlook from these rear windows, but also when viewed from the rear garden area. Consequently it is considered a refusal reason can be made on this basis. Consideration was also given to the potential loss of light, however, it was judged that any light would only be lost during late evening periods and would not be a sufficient reason for a refusal. The third aspect of the proposal, relates to the proposed hardstand of the front garden area to provide the required two off road parking spaces. Currently parking is provided by the existing driveway which continues along the western elevation of the dwelling house. This would be lost due to the proposed side extension. The Planning Authorities general guideline for such development is that 50% of the garden should be retained, to ensure the frontage does not result in appearing as a car park, causing a poor outlook for residents of the dwelling, but also detract from the visual amenity and character of the area. Whilst the proposal can provide two off road parking spaces (although spaces indicated are too small, should be 2.4m x 4.8 m), as proposed this would result in the majority of front garden area being removed to create further hardstanding, this would be contrary to the guidelines of the Planning Authority for the reasons indicated above. **RECOMMENDATION** Overall, the proposal would contravene with relevant policy as stated within the General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan for the reasons given and therefore it is recommended that the application be refused. ## **PARTY STATUS** It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: - Ramsey Commissioners The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. **Recommendation** **Recommended Decision:** Refused **Date of Recommendation:** 09.06.2010 **Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal** **C : Conditions for approval** **N : Notes attached to conditions** **R : Reasons for refusal** **O : Notes attached to refusals** R 1. The proposed side extension, given its height, length and position in relation to the gable end kitchen window of the neighbouring property Nr 69 Greenlands Avenue, would result in an unacceptable loss of light and have an overbearing impact upon the outlook from this window, to the detriment of residential amenities. R 2. The proposed side extension would result in a continuous façade of the front elevation. As such the development has the potential to create a terracing effect resulting in the collection of semi-detached dormer bungalows appearing as one row of terrace properties and therefore having an adverse visual impact upon the street scene. R 3. The proposed rear extension, given its length, height and position within close proximity to the eastern boundary, would give rise to an overbearing impact upon the outlook of occupants of No 73 Greenlands Avenue, detrimental to their residential amenities and therefore would be an unneighbourly development. R 4. The removal of the front garden area to create additional parking of private motor vehicles, fronting the dwelling will create a poor outlook for occupants of the application dwelling and would detract from the visual amenity and character of the area I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date : .....June 2010 Signed : Senior Planning Officer R 2. The proposed side extension would result in a continuous façade of the front elevation. As such the development has the potential to create a terracing effect resulting in the collection of semi-detached dormer bungalows appearing as one row of terrace properties and therefore having an adverse visual impact upon the street scene. R 3. The proposed rear extension, given its length, height and within close proximity to the eastern boundary, would give rise to an overbearing impact upon the outlook of occupants of Nr 73 Greenlands Avenue, detrimental to their residential amenities and therefore would be an unneighbourly development. R 4. The removal of the front garden area to create additional parking of private motor vehicles, fronting the dwelling will create a poor outlook for occupants of the application dwelling and would detract from the visual amenity and character of the area. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date : ....17. June 2010 Signed : Senior Planning Officer --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/36162-lezayre-71-greenlands-avenue-dwelling-extension/documents/1351065*