**Document:** DEC Officer Report **Application:** 21/00094/B — Alterations, replacement of garage door with a window, erection of a first floor extension and side single extension to provide replacement garage and utility **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2021-06-17 **Parish:** Patrick **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/7136-patrick-2-sprucewood-replacement-extension/documents/928496 --- # DEC Officer Report **Application No.:** 21/00094/B **Applicant:** Mr Steven & Mrs Mary Craven **Proposal:** Alterations, replacement of garage door with a window, erection of a first floor extension and side single extension to provide replacement garage and utility **Site Address:** 2 Sprucewood View Foxdale Isle Of Man IM4 3HA **Photo Taken:** 21.04.2021 **Site Visit:** 21.04.2021 **Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 05.05.2021 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions - C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - C 2. Obscure glazing (Pilkington level 5 or equivalent) shall be installed in the following windows and shall be maintained as such thereafter; North East Elevation - first floor Ensuite and dressing rooms Reason: In the interests of neighbouring residential amenities. This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 and 06 all received on 9th February 2021. _______________________________________________________________ ### Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in a subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): 9 Kionslieu Terrace, Foxdale 8 Kionslieu Terrace, Foxdale 7 Kionslieu Terrace, Foxdale Holly Cottage , Kionslieu Hill, Foxdale as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020). ### Officer’s Report THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE LEVEL OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND WHO ARE RECOMMENDED FOR INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 2 Sprucewood View, Foxdale which is a two storey detached dwelling with an attached single storey garage. The proposal is located to the north eastern side of Sprucewood View within the Village of Foxdale. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the alterations, replacement of garage door with a window, erection of a first floor extension and side single extension to provide for a replacement garage and utility room. ## - 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. - 4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the Foxdale Local Plan Order 1999. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 4.2 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; - l) 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. 4.3 Residential Design Guide (July 2019). ## - 5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Patrick Commissioners raise no objection (12.03.2021). 5.2 Highway Services (DOI) make the following comments (23.02.2021): "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking with two open parking spaces retained to meet the Strategic Plan requirements for two car parking spaces. The garage space is smaller than recommended, but suitable for storage of bicycles and other spaces." - 5.3 The Flood Management Division (DOI) comment there is "No Flood Risk Management interest" (22.02.2021). - 5.4 The owner/occupier of 8 Kionslieu Terrace, Foxdale have objected to the application on the following grounds (13.02.2021 & 15.02.2021): "Unfortunately this property is directly in front of ours. We note that any first floor erection would completely block our view and in turn would likely result in a devaluation of our property. Whilst we appreciate any ground floor alterations would be in keeping with the houses surrounding, with all due respect, we strongly oppose a first floor erection." Further they have concerns of loss of light to their property; loss of existing views impacting their residential amenities, overshadowing to their garden; loss of privacy due to additional windows; and the proposal would be the largest in the area and would result in the property being out of scale in comparison to the existing properties in the vicinity. 5.5 The owner/occupier of 9 Kionslieu Terrace, Foxdale have objected to the application on the following grounds (13.02.2021): "I live in the house directly behind. I appreciate that the ground floor alterations will be in keeping with the other surroundings. However, I deeply oppose the first floor erection, it will completely block my view which is one of the main reasons I bought my house - as I love the view to the plantation that I have. It will block natural light into my property. This will erection will add value to their house but in turn will devalue my house. This will also be another section of their house overlooking into my garden which in turn takes away my privacy." 5.6 The owner/occupier of 7 Kionslieu Terrace, Foxdale have objected to the application on the following grounds (17.02.2021): "We live behind the property in question and strongly object to the proposed planning development. We feel that the plans submitted are not in keeping with the surrounding area it would have a visual impairment on the view leaving both estates to oncoming traffic in both directions and for pedestrians. Privacy to our home and surrounding homes would be affected as would the views and natural light which currently flood the back of the properties in the Kionsliue area. Unfortunately we feel that this application is not befitting and would impact on many residents within the area and feel that they may gain in adding to an already large property but others would greatly suffer in many different ways." 5.7 The owner/occupier of Holly Cottage , Kionslieu Hill, Foxdale have objected to the application on the following grounds (03.03.2021): "We strongly recommend this application is rejected for the following reasons which we consider to be material consideration. The proposed first ground and first floor extension will result in our property being overlooked and provide a clear, direct and unobstructed line of sight to our living areas, bedrooms and garden, which will in turn significantly impact and compromise our privacy. We already have landscaping in place to improve our privacy, but the granting of this application would fully expose our living areas, bedrooms and garden, resulting in a complete lack of privacy." ## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the potential impacts upon the character and appearance of the street scene, the potential impacts upon the neighbouring properties, and parking provision. Potential impacts upon the character and appearance of the street scene 6.2 The proposed extensions in terms of its proportion, form, scale and design are in keeping with the property. Accordingly it is considered to be an acceptable form of development in this respect. While it may become one of the largest properties in the estate, this is not necessary a reason to refuse. Every application is judged on its own merits and what is acceptable on one site may not be acceptable in another. In this case the dwellings is also within one of the largest plots, therefore it is not unreasonable to expect it to also be one of the largest dwellings. As mentioned in terms of the scale proportion, form, scale and design the proposals are considered to fit well with the existing property and also the street scene. Therefore comply with general Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide. Potential impacts upon the neighbouring properties - 6.3 Arguably this is the main issue with the application. Firstly it should be noted that loss of a view or the de-valuation of a property, while understandable concerns are not material planning considerations which can be taken into account. The issues that can be taken into account is the overbearing impact upon the outlooks of a property, loss of light and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. All these issues are outlined in more detail in the Residential Design Guide. - 6.4 The properties most likely to be affected by the development are Nrs 8 & 9 Kionslieu Terrace which are located to the north-east of the proposed extensions. It is considered the ground floor garage extension raise no concerns - its size, height and distance from the neighbouring properties would not result in and significant impacts to warrant a refusal. - 6.5 The main impact relates to the proposed first floor extension above the existing garage which is to be converted into additional living accommodation. The works will have an impact (any development would); however, the test is whether the works have such a significant adverse impact to warrant a refusal. - 6.6 In relation to the distance the first floor extension would be to neighbouring properties, the closest would be Nr 8 which would be approximately 20+ metres away. Nr 9 would be located approximately 21.5m away. - 6.7 In terms of overlooking, there would be an increased level of overlooking introduced given the two first floor windows. However, these serve an en-suite and what appears to be a small dressing room. A condition to obscure glaze both these windows could be attached which would prevent any overlooking (applicants happy with such condition). It is important to note also that the windows would be more than 20m from any neighbouring window and that views would not be directly facing, but rather angled views. Finally, the windows do not serve primary habitable rooms (i.e. living rooms) but rather non-habitable rooms. Accordingly, for these reason it is not considered the introduction of these two windows would give raise to a significant impact through overlooking. It is also acknowledged that there is already a level of mutual overlooking towards all the properties in the surrounding area which back onto each other. - 6.8 In terms of loss of light, it is noted the ground level of Nr 8 & 9 is above that of the application site given the topography of the area (area is on a hillside). Further, the distance the first floor extension would be from the neighbouring properties and the size of the extension is such - that it is not considered there would be any significant loss of direct sunlight (suns orientation east to west). - 6.9 Again for similar reasons stated above (par 6.9), in terms of the overbearing impact upon outlooks upon these neighbouring properties and others which are further away, it is considered the distance of the extension from the neighbouring properties and the size of the first floor extension would not have an adverse impact to warrant a refusal. ## - 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with aforementioned General Policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Residential Design Guide 2019 having no significant impacts upon public or private amenities and is recommended for approval. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority. Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 14.06.2021 Signed : S BUTLER Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below ## 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. ### Planning Committee Decision 14.06.2021 Application No. : 21/00094/B Applicant : Mr Steven & Mrs Mary Craven Proposal : Alterations, replacement of garage door with a window, erection of a first floor extension and side single extension to provide replacement garage and utility Site Address : 2 Sprucewood View Foxdale Isle Of Man IM4 3HA Principal Planner Mr Chris Balmer Reporting Officer Mr Steve Butler Addendum to the Officer’s Report The presenting officer amended recommended condition 2 to clarify that the obscure glazing must be installed prior to occupation and also require details of opening (to prevent being left fully open) however the committee overturned the officer recommendation and refused the application in light of concerns around overlooking and privacy (but not parking or loss of light) in relation to the three properties to the rear but in particular No. 9. DOI Flooding were afforded IPS. ### Reason for Refusal R 1. It is considered that due to its size and position the proposal, and in particular the first floor element above the existing garage, would have an unacceptable impact in terms of overbearing and loss of privacy (in part due to perceived overlooking from the window which is is considered could not be resolved by obscure glazing) on nos 7, 8 and (in particular) 9 Kionslieu Terrace, which would be contrary to General Policy 2(g and b) of the Strategic Plan (2016). This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 and 06 all received on 9th February 2021. --- *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/7136-patrick-2-sprucewood-replacement-extension/documents/928496*