DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/01150/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Steven Wilkinson Proposal: 1Construction of two storey extension at side of property to create integral garage with living accommodation at first floor level, together with construction of single storey kitchen/dining extension at rear Site Address: Eburacum 57 Selborne Drive Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3NJ Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 28.11.2019 Site Visit: 28.11.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.01.2020 _________________________________________________________________

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the side elevation on the boundary with 55 Selborne Drive shall maintain a minimum distance of 1m along its entire length; away from this abutting rear garden.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the neighbouring property and in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the Location Plan and drawing numbers 2019/37/02 and 2019/37/03 date stamped and received 15 October 2019, and 2019/37/04 Rev A, 2019/37/05 Rev C and letter date stamped and received 10 December 2019.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):

No. 55 Selborne Drive as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):

No. 59 Selborne Drive as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that Manx Utilities 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 any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4) as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of No. 57 Selborne Drive, an existing two storey Victorian semi-detached dwelling located on the north-western corner of Selborne Drive in Douglas. The existing dwelling has a prominent blank end gable elevation facing over road. - 1.2 The lies directly south east of River Glass and is situated close to the intersection between Eleanora Drive and Selborne Drive. The Bramble Brae lodging is situated 102m northwest of the proposal site. - 1.3 The property still has its Victorian characteristics such as its spar dash render with coloured brick work used on the facade, high pitched roof, front door to the side of the approach elevation, bay windows to sit in, slate-like roof, although the property has been modified through the installation of replacement windows and front door which was approved in 2013. - 1.4 The detached garage has an area of 3.2m by 5.5m and in front of this is a straight driveway which has an area of 3m by 10.7m - sufficient to accommodate a single vehicle without space for the turning of a vehicle which will have to enter or exit the property in a forward gear. This garage sits on the boundary between Eburacum and its neighbour at No. 55 Selborne Drive, situated on the south-east elevation of the property. - 1.5 The immediate area is characterised by large semi-detached and detached Victorian and Edwardian dwellings interspaced with well-trimmed low walled gardens lined with properly formed hedges which occupy the spaces between the various site boundaries along the street (on the front boundaries). The dominant materials tend to be smooth or rough cast render and slate roofs with prominent projecting gables over squared bays.

PROPOSAL

2.1 The application seeks approval for the construction of two storey extension at the side of the property to create integral garage and living accommodation at first floor level, together with construction of single storey kitchen/dinning extension at rear. - 2.2 The first works will involve the removal of the detached garage and link and their replacement with a two-storey extension which will house a garage, shower and bedroom (with provision to allow for conversion to bedroom and study) on the lower floor, as well as an ensuite and dresser on the upper floor. The lower floor will be longer than the upper floor by 8m stretching towards the rear of the property.

• 2.2.1 The rear section of this side extension housing the shower and bedroom/study would be 3.5m high (600mm lower than the previously submitted plan which was 4.1m high). This change has been reflected in the amended drawings which were submitted by the applicant on 10.12.2019 in response to a request by the owners of 55 Selborne drive in a meeting between the applicant and these neighbours held 29 November 2019.

2.3 The other work will be a rear extension which will project from the existing breakfast area by 4.6m and have a width of 4.37m, creating a new dining and kitchen area for the dwelling. The existing kitchen would be converted into breakfast and utility areas for the dwelling. Additionally, four roof lights will be created on the west-facing low pitched roof to increase lighting for the kitchen and dining. Redland Cambrian roofing tiles will be used as roofing material for the extension which will also have four white UPVC double glazed fold aside doors on the south-east elevation, in addition to a 2.6m by 1.2m white UPVC double glazed windows on the north-west elevation. This extension will be finished in spar dash render to match the existing building. - 2.4 Additionally, the 1.5m gate post on the right of the driveway would be removed to allow for the expansion of the driveway from 3m to 5.6m; narrowing at the access to 3.9m (to avoid impact with the existing street light on that section of the access). There would be no changes to the drop kerb leading into this site and the gate post on the left of the access will remain unaltered.

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 and within the designated Selborne Drive Conservation Area, as such it is fundamental to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

3.2 Environment Policy 35: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." Other policies relevant to the application are:

3.3 General Policy 2 (Development in accordance with the land-use zoning);

"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:

• (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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality."

3.4 It is also important to consider guidance and policy regarding development in Conservation Areas: Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) - Policy CA/2, (Conservation Areas):

"When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application."

3.6 Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 4.4 of the Residential Design Guide 2019.

• 3.6.1 Section 3.2: Potential Visual Impact of an Extension upon the Existing House

• 3.2.1 The first aspect which the Department considers when determining the suitability of an extension to a house is whether the design of the extension fits with the existing property. Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house.
• 3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach - as set out above.

• 3.6.2 Section 3.3: Potential Visual Impact upon the Street Scene/Landscape

• 3.3.1 Extensions should generally be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street in which they are seen. Taking note of the spaces between existing dwellings and adhering to the front building line are important aspects when considering the appropriateness of an extension in the street scene. In the case of dwellings which form part of a group of properties and which have a prominent appearance within the street scene; it will be especially important to ensure any extension does not adversely affect either the overall group of dwellings or the individual dwelling.

3.6.3 Section 4.4: Extension to Side Elevation

• 4.4.1 This type of extension is a common extension throughout the Island as many properties are built with an attached garage which can physically accommodate being built above. Generally, the main issues relate to the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring property (see Chapter 7).

• 4.4.2 It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.

• 4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single-storey and two-storey elements.

• 4.4.4 Generally, where the property stands in a line of detached/semi-detached dwellings and the extension would fill in the gap, there is a risk that the extension will create a terraced appearance. This is not always in the interests of maintaining the character of the street, individual house, and in the interests of visual amenity, should be avoided.

• 4.4.5 One way of maintaining a visual break would be to set back the extension behind the front of the dwelling by a metre to create a clear break. In some circumstances only the first floor would be required to be set back by 1 metre, although this will be determined on a case by case basis. However, it is still advisable that the ground floor should be set back behind the front elevation, even if only by 0.3m to create a "shadow" which avoids the unsightly joining of old with new finishes, whilst also providing a distinction, albeit modest, of the extension from the main house.
• 4.4.6 A second way of maintaining a visual break would be by leaving a gap of at least 1 metre between the side of the extension and the boundary of the property. However, a slight setback should still be retained, potentially at first floor level at least. Again, this design helps avoiding the "terracing effect". In any case, where space permits the Department would encourage applicants to retain a pedestrian passageway, between the side extension and common boundary. This will also enable access for maintenance purposes, filling of oil tanks, allow transportation of refuse and garden waste, without passing through Habitable Rooms and give the dwelling a setting within its own plot.

3.7 Section 6.3 of the Residential Design Guide 2019 will also be vital in the assessment of the application as it would provide guidance with regard to the proposed changes to the driveway. PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 This application site has been the subject of three previous planning applications, two of which are considered to be materially relevant to the current application.

4.2 PA 19/00388/CON for Registered building consent for the Demolition of existing garage and conservatory at the rear of the property. This was approved in June 2019 and forms the basis for the current application for alterations to the dwelling.

4.2 The other application related to the application (PA 19/00387/B) was for the demolition of existing garage and construction of two storey extension at side of property to create integral garage with living accommodation at first floor level, together with removal of existing conservatory and construction of single storey kitchen/dining extension at rear (in association with RB application 19/00388/CON). This application was refused as the proposal was considered to have adverse impacts on the neighbouring property and would not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area which would conflict with the RDG 2019 (Section 4.4), Environment Policy 35 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy CA/1.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they have no objections subject to a Section 109A application for the widening of the existing drive in a letter dated 20 November 2019.

5.2 Manx National Heritage has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.

5.3 Manx Utilities Authority which had previously written in to state that they had no objection subject to a condition being imposed have written in to advice that the planning condition was no longer necessary in a letter dated 26 November 2019.

• 5.3.1 The previous comment stated thus: Please be aware that there is an existing iron water main within the vicinity of the proposed extension, which has been insitu for a period of 80 years. It is essential that no building or structure is permitted to be constructed over the existing water main. The applicant must contact Karl Kalghin Tel. 695958) in the Water Networks Section of Manx Utilities to make arrangements for the diversion of the water main (20 November 2019).

5.4 Douglas Borough Council has stated that they have no objections to the application in a letter dated 17 October 2019:

5.5 The Owner of No. 59 Selborne Drive, the neighbouring semi-detached property on the northern boundary of the dwelling have stated that they have no objections and are in full support of the application in a letter dated 27 September 2019.

Their comments further stated that the proposed extension would improve the look of the house from the street and add symmetry to the semi-detached properties.

5.6 The Owner of No. 55 Selborne Drive, the neighbouring detached property on the southeast elevation of the dwelling who had previously objected to the application in a letter dated 20 November 2019, have written in to withdraw their objection (2 January 2020) with the following comments:

Further to our objection to planning application 19/01150/B on November 21st November 2019, our neighbours, Mr and Mrs Wilkinson of No.57 Selborne Drive, visited us to discuss the application.

They have considered our proposed compromise and agreed that they could reduce the roof height of the rear bedroom extension, to address our concerns regarding the visual impact and massing of their extension.

We discussed our ongoing concern about the proximity of the proposed extension to our boundary line and they guaranteed that the building would maintain a minimum 1meter distance from our boundary line along its entire length.

We also reiterate that the lack of clarity of said boundary on their plans needed to be resolved to both parties satisfaction before building works commenced as it remained inaccurate on their planning drawings.

On the basis that these criteria are met, we withdraw our objection.

5.7 The applicants sent in the following comments with the amended plans on 8 December 2019:

Following on from our meeting on 28 November to discuss the above planning application, we took your advice and met with Mr & Mrs Evans of 55 Selborne Drive on 29 November to see if we could work out a way forward that would be agreeable to both them and us.

We advised Mr & Mrs Evans we had read their objection letter and if it would make the plans more acceptable to them, we were prepared to reduce the roof height of the rear bedroom extension. They indicated that they were happy with this proposal and they would be willing to withdraw their objection subject to seeing the amended application and plans online.

Our architect drew up the plans last week and we passed a copy into Mr and Mrs Evans on 5 December.

Please, therefore find attached amended drawings for the proposed planning application with the reduced roof height as per the above.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The issues in this case are whether the works would have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the main dwelling, whether the proposal will result in any adverse impact on neighbouring properties, in addition to resulting in any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Also, highway safety impacts will be assessed, considering there would be changes to the vehicle entrance.

6.2 Selborne Drive Conservation Area contains a high quality mix of properties which are predominantly residential and are principally of the Edwardian style of architecture, although there are a significant number of Victorian residences which creates some form of diversity to the mix. The properties maintain a uniform set back giving a sense of Edwardian elegance to the area. Moreover, the setback from the side boundaries is significantly high for most of the properties on Selborne Drive, when compared with other streets in Selborne Drive conservation area.

6.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling

• 6.3.1 The proposal is large but reflects the proportion, design and finishing of the existing dwelling and the abutting dwelling 59 Selborne Drive. It has been designed to avoid extensive alterations to the front elevation of the main dwelling i.e. the addition or removal of fenestrations/apertures. Also, the proposed alterations and external finishing enables it to seamlessly integrate into the structure of the dwelling and create symmetry with the adjoining semi-detached property as the design has been made to mirror the appearance of the adjoining building; although with minor differences.

• 6.3.2 The proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the character of its adjoining semi-detached property. In this respect, the proposal complies with GP2.

6.4 Impact on neighbours

• 6.4.1 With regard to impact on the neighbouring dwellings, the dwelling most likely to be affected is No 55 Selborne Drive. However, it is noted that the proposed development would be an improvement on the previous application in terms of its impact on the abutting dwelling on the south eastern boundary as the proposed development would be pushed back further from this dwelling. As well, the fact that the first floor of the side extension would be a loft, with the pitched roof leaning away from this dwelling would ensure that any overbearing impact is diminished (the new design would create sufficient room between these buildings, avoiding the terraced feel that was evident in the previous application.

• 6.4.2 Granting the side extension would be considerably long, with possibility to result in overshadowing; the application dwelling is set about 1m below the site level of the abutting dwelling (this rises to about 1.4m as you move towards the western boundary of both sites). Additionally, the boundary treatment between both dwellings; the hedge which is between

• 1.6m - 2.5m along this boundary will ensure that the proposed extension is subordinate when viewed from the rear garden of the abutting dwelling. Considering the rear of the side extension is 3.5m high, it would only be 2.5m high on the side of the abutting dwelling (55 Selborne Drive), 700mm higher than a standard hedge or boundary wall which is 1.8m high; as a result of the drop in site level between both properties. On the balance, it is considered that the size, form of the proposed, site orientation, and the nature of the boundary treatment

eliminates any overshadowing or overbearing impacts that could result, thus making the proposal comply with GP2 (b) and (g).

• 6.4.3 In view of the comments by these neighbours (55 Selborne Drive) regarding issues that needed to be resolved with the proposed works, it is noted that the applicants have resubmitted the application drawings to address the concerns raised. Whilst the recent comments by the owners of 55 Selborne (2 January 2020) retracting their earlier objection appears to suggest that the amended plans have not addressed the issues it discussed, it is my understanding that the issues regarding height and distance from the boundary have been addressed in the amended plans which were submitted after a meeting between the neighbour and applicant on 29 November 2019. Their comments that relate to rights over land or details contained within Deeds are civil legal disputes that lie outside the scope of the planning application as land ownership is a civil matter and would hold no weight in the assessment of a planning application. Any determination under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 can neither create nor detract from land ownerships, any right of way, or other civil legal rights and obligations as may exist between the parties.
• 6.4.4 The extensions to the rear would increase the length of the rear extension of the dwelling, which would give it a much greater visual impact when viewed from the side. However, this impact is considered acceptable due to the nature of the site which provides a large land area at the rear of the property; the site is narrow but has a significantly long rear garden when compared to most sites in the Conservation Area. Besides, the owners of the abutting dwelling No.59 Selborne Drive, more likely to be affected have stated that they have no objections to the application. Moreover, the use of spar dashed rendering throughout, in addition to the use of Redland Cambrian roofing on this rear extension would enable the extension's to tie in with the main dwelling.
• 6.5 Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

• 6.5.1 In respect of the impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and the Conservation Area as a whole, the proposed two-storey side extension will be in keeping with the street scene and the conservation area. As noted in section 6.2 of the report, Selborne Drive Conservation Area is characterised by a mix of dwelling styles, with the application dwelling of a distinct style which would be reinforced by the proposal as the proposed changes would create design symmetry with 59 Selborne Drive. This change would ensure that the character of the semi-detached property to which it belongs is preserved, with considerable benefits derived for the Conservation Area as a whole. Additionally, the works would ensure that there would be a visual break between the dwelling and 55 Selborne Drive, and in so doing comply with Section 4.4 of the Residential Design Guide 2019.
• 6.5.2 In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development would comply with the provisions of Environment Policy 35 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy CA/1, as it would adequately protect the amenities of the adjacent property Number 55 Selborne Drive. Specifically, it is considered that the separation distance of approximately 2 metres between the side elevation of Number 55 Selborne and the proposed extension, would ensure that the proposed development fits within the street scene. The current proposal in its form, scale, designs and finishing will preserve the structure of the street scene, and in turn preserve the special character of the Conservation Area which is unique in its current form.

6.6 Impact on highway safety

6.1 The proposed alteration to the vehicular access is also relatively minor and should not unduly affect either the surrounding street scene or the character of the area. The removal of the 1.5m high gate post on the right of the access will increase the width of the access, and as such represents an improvement to highway safety, since vehicular access to and from the site will be facilitated by the enhanced access; with better views to the highway when vehicles exit

• the site. It is also noted that the drop kerb would not be widened and as such, the crossing distanced for pedestrian using the adjacent walkway would remain unchanged.
• 6.2 The widening of the existing driveway by 2.6m will have a negligible impact on the front garden as the expanded driveway will take up less than 25 percent of the existing front garden, complying with paragraph 6.3.4 of the RDG 2019; which stipulates that "proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will not normally be supported, to ensure the character of the street scape is retained and avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area, detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and to the outlook of residents".

CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed side and rear extension to the dwelling is considered to be an acceptable development, as it would preserve the character of the conservation area, ensure that the character and appearance of the application property is preserved, and have acceptable impacts on the neighbouring property. As such, it complies with Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy CA/1 and is therefore recommended for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) 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.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 17.01.2020 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

Customer note

Thiscopy 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.