**Document:** Officer Planning Report Recommendation **Application:** 09/00463/B — Construction of extension to replace existing rear elevation conservatory and extension to driveway **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2009-05-27 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/62612-braddan-39-cherry-replacement-extension/documents/1373470 --- # Officer Planning Report Recommendation **Application No.:** 09/00463/B **Applicant:** Robert \& Rachel Holden **Proposal:** Construction of extension to replace existing rear elevation conservatory and extension to driveway **Site Address:** Cherry Walk Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5NW ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Gary Barr **Expected Decision Level:** Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations 33 Ballaquark Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EY Objects to the proposal ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee : Douglas Corporation Notes: No objection Consultee : Drainage Services Manager Notes: no objection in principle subject to:- ### Officer's Report ### The Site The application site represents the curtilage of an existing two storey detached dwelling located within the cul-de-sac of Cherry Walk (Number 39) at the southern end of Johnny Watterson's Lane. This south facing property is bordered by 37 and 41 Cherry Walk to the east and west. There is an area of open space with thick vegetation to the north and a small area of public open space to the south. ### The Proposal The planning application seeks approval for the replacement of the existing conservatory with a single storey extension to provide a sun room and study. The extension would measure 3600 mm at a height of 2800 mm . On the rear elevation there would be two large (four door) folding doors; two rooflights; render to match that of the existing property and there would also be an additional windows installed in the kitchen and stairway. The driveway to the front elevation would be extended to accommodate two cars from a width of 3500 mm to 6500 mm . ## Planning Status The application site is within an area of "Predominately Residential Use" under the Douglas North Local Plan, which was adopted by Tynwald in 1998. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains a policy which is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application General Policy 2 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: - (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." Paragraph 8.12.1 - Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use, is also considered relevant to this application; "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". ### Planning History The following previous planning applications should be considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: PA 95/01540/B - Erection of a white uPVC conservatory - Permitted PA 04/01817/B - Enclosure of existing open porch - Permitted ### Representations The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the development. The Douglas Corporation has no objection with the proposal. The Drainage Services has no objection in principle subject that there must be no discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s), as it is an offence under Manx legislation to permit the discharge of polluting or harmful matter to any public sewers of watercourses. Mr Clark who is writing on behalf of the owners and / or occupiers of 41 Cherry Walk has objected to the proposed development. - The extension would be an over-development of the site compared to the conservatory with the estate spacious and a medium density - The introduction of the windows would result in overlooking and loss of privacy onto their property (if approved there must be a condition that obscured glass must be fitted and sited as not to overlook neighbouring properties) - Proposed widening of the driveway - the estate to the front is open plan and it's within the deeds restricting changes to the drives, trees, plants and boundary definers (hedges). This shows that front gardens are an integral part of the design of the estate and prevents Mr Coleman of 41 Cherry Walk providing any barrier between his property and No 39. The existing driveway at No. 39 is often used for ball games and a full size portable basketball hoop and the noise and vibration from this is highly disruptive and can be heard and felt within 41 Cherry Walk. This existing nuisance will be further exacerbated if the hard surface (play area) was extended. If cars are parked up to the western edge of the hard surface there is a likelihood of damage and trespass and that the present separation is to avoid ingress on to, or over, the property by car doors and persons entering or leaving vehicles. This might be addressed by legal action and should not be facilitated by an unnecessary alteration as there is no parking problem in the area. This should be refused as it would be detrimental to the existing amenity of neighbours. ## Assessment Given the nature of the proposed extension it is therefore appropriate to assess the impact of the proposal upon the existing property, the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area in general. In terms of the existing dwelling, the proposed extension would be relatively modest in design and scale, as not to have an adverse impact upon the existing property as viewed from the public thoroughfare. The proposed extension would be in-keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and with the large folding doors, matching render and windows would ensure that the new built form would blend with the existing. In terms of neighbouring properties, 37 Cherry Walk and 41 Cherry Walk would be the properties most likely to be affected by the proposed extension, due to their proximity. In terms of amenity, it is considered that as it is sited to the north and as there is sufficient separation between the proposal and the neighbouring properties, this would prevent loss of light or any unacceptable impacts upon existing residential amenity. It is judged that there would be no unacceptable overlooking arising from the proposed dwelling given the existing degree of overlooking from the western elevation of the existing conservatory. The 1800 mm high fence would be sufficient to limit the impact further. The majority of the windows are to the northern elevation of the extension and would overlook the applicants' backyard and not the neighbouring properties. The proposed window at first floor level would be conditioned to address the concern of overlooking on to the neighbouring backyard. The extension would be sited at the rear of the property and relatively well screened, as such; the proposed development would not be a dominant feature within the street scene and would have no adverse impacts upon the surrounding area in general. Other concerns raised It is regarded that the proposed extension would not be an over-development of the site compared to the conservatory, as the proposal would fit quite comfortably within the rear elevation of the property. The distance to the boundary of 37 is 1500mm; with the proposal stepping closer to the neighbouring property to 750mm, which is regarded as relatively close. However the height of the extension is 2800mm and the existing boundary treatment is approximately 1800mm high (although a 2000mm high fence could be erected under Permitted Development). Given this it is not considered that the impact would be so sufficient as to warrant a refusal. The proposal would be 1800mm from the neighbouring property of 41 Cherry Walk which is considered sufficient and as the applicant has a rather long backyard the 900mm extension in depth (compared with the existing conservatory) is judged as very minimal and not considered as an over development of the site. Regarding the issues of balls games, trespassing and the increased nuisance due to the extension to the driveway, these are not material planning considerations and can not be determined in this assessment. The proposed extension to the driveway to accommodate two off street car parking spaces would be acceptable as there would be a significant area of garden remaining. The lack of opposition from the Department of Transport Highways Division is taken as evidence that the proposal would be appropriate in terms of highway safety. RECOMMENDATION For these reasons the proposal is considered acceptable and it is recommended that the planning application be permitted. ## 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: - The Department of Transport Highways Division - Douglas Corporation - The Drainage Services - The owners and / or occupiers of 41 Cherry Walk Recommendation - Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.05.2009 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 22 May 2009 09/00463/B 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 the submitted drawings 4243/L1, 4243/S1 and 4243/P1 all received on 18th March, 2009. C 3. This approval relates to the installation of obscure glazing to the first floor level stairway window and shall be kept and maintained thereafter. The window to be formed in the 4th floor level stairway shall only be glazed or re-glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Levels or equivalent. 27.5.09 I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 10/09, Delegation of Functions (Development Procedure), GC No 11/09 (Advertisements) and GC No 12/09 (Registered Buildings) all to the Senior Planning Officer Decision Made : Permitted Date : 27.11.09 2009 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/62612-braddan-39-cherry-replacement-extension/documents/1373470*