**Document:** Officer Planning Report Recommendations **Application:** 10/01128/B — Extensions to dwelling and creation of additional off road parking **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2010-10-19 **Parish:** Lezayre **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/36659-lezayre-71-greenlands-dwelling/documents/1356484 --- # Officer Planning Report Recommendations ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report #### The Site The application site represents the curtilage of an existing semi-detached dormer bungalow, 71 Greenlands Avenue, located in a residential area in west Ramsey. #### The Proposal This application seeks approval for the erection of extensions and the creation of additional off road parking. The proposed extensions include a dormer bungalow style addition to the side (west) elevation) and a single storey sun room extension to the rear (north elevation). The additional off road parking would be created to the front (south) of the dwelling on the existing garden area. Externally, the proposed dormer bungalow style side extension would measure 2.1 metres wide and 7.25 metres long. It would be set back from the front of the main house by approximately 650mm and the ridge of the roof would therefore be 300mm lower than that of the main house. The extension would have a garage on the ground floor and an ensuite bedroom above. The dormer windows would be a similar scale to the existing. On the front elevation the proposed dormer window would be set back from the existing, as it elevation is also set back, but on the rear elevation the extension would be flush with the main house and therefore the existing dormer would be extended across the new extension. The proposed rear sun room extension would measure 3.9 metres long and 3.6 metres wide. It would be accessed off the dining room and would be 300 mm from the boundary with the adjacent property. The sun room would have double doors and side lights on the north elevation and windows to the west elevation. The roof of the sun room would be flat and it would have a glazed roof lantern. The external finishes of the extensions, including the walls, dormers, roof tiles, boarding and windows would match those of the main house. There would be 2 parking spaces created on hardstanding to the front of the dwelling. This parking area would include part of the existing drive and some of the garden area next to it, but approximately of the existing front lawn would be retained. Drawing number 12 states that there would be no alterations to the public highway. A previous planning application (10/00606/B) was recently refused for a similar scheme. The previous application was refused due to the size and positions of the proposed extensions and the amount of the front garden which was proposed to be used for hardstanding. This current application has been submitted following discussions between the agent and the Planning Authority and it aims to overcome the issues with the previous application. ## Planning History The following previous planning application for the application site is considered to be relevant in the assessment and determination of this application; 10/00606/B - Refused 24.06.10 Erection of extensions to dwelling house and creation of additional off road parking. Reasons for refusal; 1. The proposed side extension, given its height, length and position in relation to the gable end kitchen window of the neighbouring property No 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. 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 semidetached dormer bungalows appearing as one row of terrace properties and therefore having an adverse visual impact upon the street scene. 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. 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 The following previous planning application for the adjacent dwelling is considered to be relevant in the assessment and determination of this application; 69 Greenlands Avenue 02/01354/B - Permitted 19.11.02 Conversion of garage to provide additional living accommodation. The following previous planning applications for extensions to similar dwellings in Greenlands Avenue are considered to be relevant in the assessment and determination of this application; 42 Greenlands Avenue 06/01434/B - Permitted 26.10.06 Erection of a two storey extension to side elevation. 54 Greenlands Avenue 99/01281/B - Permitted 15.11.99 Alterations and extension to dwelling including integral garage. 66 Greenlands Avenue 92/00392/B - Permitted 01.01.94 Alterations and extensions. ## Development Plan Policies The application site is located within an area designated as "Predominantly Residential Use" in the Ramsey Local Plan (No. 2) Order 1998, Map No. 2 (South). The site is not within a Conservation Area. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains a policy and paragraph which are considered material to the assessment of this planning application; 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; (1) 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." 8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use 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. ### Representations The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not object to this application, subject to the condition that the applicant shall contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Infrastructure on 686665, prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs. The Authority has received no privately written representations objecting to the application. ## Assessment Previous planning application 10/00606/B was recently refused for a similar scheme. The differences between the former and current applications are that the proposed side elevation is now set back 650 mm from the front of the main house, the rear extension has been reduced in size and slightly repositioned and the proposed hardstanding in front of the dwelling has been altered, retaining part of the existing lawn. This proposal should be assessed with regard to General Policy 2 parts (b), (c), (g) and (h) and paragraph 8.12 .1 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The main issues are the impact on neighbouring properties, the impact on the street scene and highways. Side elevation; The two issues to address with the proposed side elevation are the impact upon the residential amenities of the adjacent property ( 69 Greenlands Avenue) and the visual impact upon the street scene. No. 69 has two gable end windows which face towards the application site. One of these windows is to the kitchen at ground floor level and the other is to the landing at first floor level. The kitchen is considered to be a primary habitable room, but the landing window is not afforded this status, so any impact on the first floor window would not be regarded as a significant loss of amenity. With regard to the ground floor kitchen window, the proposed side extension would be located approximately 2.5 metres from here. One of the reasons for refusal for the previous proposal was that the side extension would result in an unacceptable loss of light and have an overbearing impact upon the outlook from this window. The proposal in this current application has the side extension set back 650 mm from the front of the main house, thereby reducing the impact on the kitchen window of the neighbouring property. Plans submitted with a previous planning application for no. 69 Greenlands Avenue show that there is a utility room attached to the kitchen and this has a door to the rear garden, which could perhaps be considered as a secondary source of light to this room. The adjacent dwelling is located to the west of the application site and as the proposed extension would be set back from the front of the main house, it is judged that although sunlight to the kitchen window of the adjacent property is likely to be affected, it would be to a lesser extent than it would have been with the previous application. It is also felt that sunlight would only be reduced for a short period of time. At present, the kitchen windows of the application site and the adjacent dwelling look directly into each other and if a fence was to be erected in order to offer privacy, there would then be some loss of light. The proposed extension would have no windows on the side elevation, so therefore the current issue of overlooking would be reduced. The external finishes of the extension would be the same as those of the main house, which is a light colour and which would reflect light into the window. Therefore, on balance it is considered that the current proposed side elevation is acceptable in terms of its impact on the adjacent property. Another of the reasons for refusal of the previous proposal was that the side extension would result in a continuous façade of the front elevation which could create a terracing effect in the future, if nearby properties are extended in a similar manner. Side extensions to semi-detached properties which share a similar building line (such as this application site), do have the potential to cause a terracing effect. However, the proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation of the main house by 650 mm , reducing the future terracing effect and the impact of the extension on the street scene. The extension would therefore appear to be subordinate to the main house. From a site visit, it was noticed that there are other semi-detached dormer bungalows in Greenlands Avenue which have similar side extensions, including no. 42 (PA 06/01434/B), no. 54 (99/01281/B) and no. 66 (92/00392/B). ## Rear extension; The adjacent property which would be closest to the rear extension is 73 Greenlands Avenue, the adjoining semi-detached dormer bungalow located to the east. One of the reasons for refusal of the previous application was that the length, height and position of the rear extension close to the boundary would have resulted in an overbearing impact upon the outlook of the adjacent dwelling. There is a 1 metre high hedgerow which forms the boundary between the two properties. This current application proposes to move the rear extension slightly away from the boundary to a distance of 300 mm . The application also reduces the length of the proposed extension from 5.1 metres to 3.9 metres and increases the width from 3.35 metres to 3.6 metres. The overall size of the extension has therefore reduced from 17 to 14 square metres. The extension would be to the rear or north of the main dwelling and any loss of light to the adjacent property would be during late evening periods, which would not be a sufficient enough reason for refusal. There would be no windows on the side elevation facing towards 73 Greenlands Avenue, so there would be no overlooking issues between the properties. Overall, it is considered that the current proposal to reduce and re-position the rear extension has decreased the impact on the adjacent property to an acceptable level. Parking Area; The property has an existing driveway which runs down the side elevation of the house. The need to enlarge the hardstanding area has come about because the proposed side extension would be constructed on part of the existing driveway and as the proposed garage would not be large enough to accommodate a car, the number of off street parking spaces would be reduced. A hardstanding area would be created in front of the dwelling to the east of the current driveway and an area of the existing lawn would be retained. One of the reasons for refusal of the previous application was that the whole of the front garden would become hardstanding and this would provide a poor outlook for the occupants of the site and detract from the character of the area. As this current proposal would retain approximately of the existing lawn, it is considered that it would be an improvement on the previous application and would create an acceptable level of hardstanding to the front of this property. ### Recommendation For the above reasons this proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval. ### Party Status It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should be afforded Interested Party Status; The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should not be afforded Interested Party Status; The Department of Transport Highways 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:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 10.09.2010 **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** **C 1.** The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. **C 2.** This approval relates to extensions and creation of additional off road parking, as shown in drawings 01 A, 02, 03, 04 A, 05 A and 12, all date stamped 23rd July 2010. **C 3.** The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Senior Planning Officer. **Decision Made :** Permitted **Date :** ............................................................................................................................................................................... **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/36659-lezayre-71-greenlands-dwelling/documents/1356484*